The last character in a company has been eliminated
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Playing a character under GI does not require an existing company at all.
So yes.
(However I cannot guarantee that there is no conflicting rulings).
So yes.
(However I cannot guarantee that there is no conflicting rulings).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Hmm, this seems to be a little bit tricky. One had to find out when exactly the site gets discareded or goes to location deck as target site for sure would be needed.
[url=http://gccg.sourceforge.net/]Come to GCCG or die a lonely death.[/url]
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I think that in this case it only matters for sites that otherwise would be discraded. If character is played outside company (under GI) it may be played everywhere.CRF, Rulings by Term, Company wrote:If all characters in a company leave play, the site goes to the location deck or discard
pile, depending on its tapped status. If this happens during the movement/hazard
phase, the site card stays in play until the end of all movement/hazard phases. In this
case, on-guard cards may still be played on the site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
hmmm that would mean one can use We have Come To Kill anytime to create a new company at a character's home site or haven.Konrad Klar wrote:I think that in this case it only matters for sites that otherwise would be discraded. If character is played outside company (under GI) it may be played everywhere.CRF, Rulings by Term, Company wrote:If all characters in a company leave play, the site goes to the location deck or discard
pile, depending on its tapped status. If this happens during the movement/hazard
phase, the site card stays in play until the end of all movement/hazard phases. In this
case, on-guard cards may still be played on the site.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
That would mean that one can use We Have Come to Kill to create a new company at , , .
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
If you have no company at a site, you are not at a site. Therefore Chance Meeting, and, concordantly, We Have Come to Kill, may not be played.Van Norton, 585 wrote:No, you can't use A Chance Meeting to bring in Wizards. You can only play A Chance Meeting when you are at a site, normally, the Untap, Organization, Site and End of Turn phases.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
No wonder.
It is difficult to play a character at site under DI (as it is in case of ACM) without company at the same site. WHCtK additionaly allows to play a character under GI.
P.S.
Technically you are player. Your companies are (or are not) at site.
It is difficult to play a character at site under DI (as it is in case of ACM) without company at the same site. WHCtK additionaly allows to play a character under GI.
P.S.
Technically you are player. Your companies are (or are not) at site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Van Norton, 585, Next Question Down wrote:3.) We have come to kill
May I use this card to bring my ringwraith in play ? And what will be the amount of his mind ? May I use ACM at any time during my turn (during movement hazard phase to assign the new character a strike; will this increase the number of hazards) ? May I play a character (during organisaton phase) at any shadow-, borderhold and ruin & lairs also if the site is not in play ?
No, We have Come to Kill can't be used to bring in a Ringwraith. The same restriction applies that you must be at the site.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:Technically you are player. Your companies are (or are not) at site.
Your opponent will probably be call before you make it out of the Tournament Venue, let alone to Southern Mirkwood.MELE Rulebook wrote:If you move The One Ring to Barad-dûr - Sauron is reunited with the One Ring and you win.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Another reason for not taking some records as strict rules but only as brief description.
(Otherwise all test of gold ring at Barad-dûr would be at -6: -3 per site's special ability, -3 per Lidless Eye rules).
(Otherwise all test of gold ring at Barad-dûr would be at -6: -3 per site's special ability, -3 per Lidless Eye rules).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
1.
I do not know who exactly Van Norton was/is and how official his words are. I guess that he was affiliate of ICE.
2.
"The same restriction applies that you must be at the site."
Does not make a sense if read literally.
3.
If it means: "a company must be at site" it makes a sense. In this case character cannot be brought in play at site without player's company.
4.
Even if (3) is true, it is an arbitrary statement (no because no). Not something that would be concluded from exiting text of card and/or from rules. De facto errata.
I do not know who exactly Van Norton was/is and how official his words are. I guess that he was affiliate of ICE.
2.
"The same restriction applies that you must be at the site."
Does not make a sense if read literally.
3.
If it means: "a company must be at site" it makes a sense. In this case character cannot be brought in play at site without player's company.
4.
Even if (3) is true, it is an arbitrary statement (no because no). Not something that would be concluded from exiting text of card and/or from rules. De facto errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.