Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:12 am

Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII
Ancient Deep-hold wrote:Adjacent Sites: no surface site, one Under-deeps Ruins & Lairs [R] chosen by you when playing this card (8) Playable: Information, Items (minor, major, greater, gold ring) Automatic-attacks (3): Undead (1st attack)-4 strikes with 7 prowess; Undead (2nd attack)-3 strikes with 8 prowess; Undead (3rd attack)-2 strikes with 10 prowess; Each character wounded must make a corruption check modified by -2. Special: Any Undead and Spider creatures may be keyed to this site. This site is never discarded or returned to its location deck.
I have in play a multiple site cards of the same Wizardhaven and multiple Deep Mines cards - each for copy of that Wizardhaven card.
If Ancient Deep-hold is played as adjecent to the one of that Deep Mines, is it automatically adjecent to the other copies under the same Wizardhaven?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:49 am

My guess would be yes.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:47 pm

Related questions:
CRF, Errata (Cards), Deep Mines wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." [Effective 4/20/98]
Official Rulings Digest #84 wrote:I´m pretty sure that there is a ruling, that you can´t move from aprotected wizard haven to several Deep Mines. Am I wrong?
*** You are not wrong, but if you have more than one copy of Rhosgobel in play, each of them can have an associated Deep Mines site.
[...]
If I have multiple copies of Deep Mines uder multiple copies of Rhosgobel, is each copy of Deep Mines adjecent to all copies of Rhosgobel (and vice versa)?
I think that any answer should be consistent with answer to the previous question - about Ancient Deep-hold to Deep Mines connectivity.
"Yes" means that multiple Deep Mines represent actualy the same site. Much as multiple copies of the same Haven.
"No" means that each Deep Mines is actually different site.

However "yes" causes other problems:
CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, General wrote:Companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site must join at the end of all
movement/hazard phases, before the site phase starts. Companies at the same Haven/Darkhaven site may join at this time.
Deep Mines is not Haven site. So beside M/H phase only one copy of Deep Mines per named Wizardhaven would be possible.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:09 pm

Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:19 pm

So Official Rulings Digest #84 is wrong at this point and all issues of having multiple Deep Mines under the same Wizardhaven do not exist?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:06 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
Use of multiple Haven cards for multiple companies at the Haven is for clarity during organisation phase.
It does not mean that beside organisation phase a separate Haven card for each company at the Haven is not mandatory.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:00 pm

It wouldn't be the first time I disagree with an official ruling. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:50 am

I agree with you.
However I see another possibility that would rescue Official Rulings Digest #84. That does not appeal to me, but to feel fair I must mention about it.

Multiple Deep Mines under multiple copies of the same Wizardhaven are each different site, but each is adjecent to each copy of the Wizardhaven.

Contrintuitive, but hey, is not starter movement contrintuitive too (a company moving from Lorien to Dol Guldur does not move through Anduin Vales, but does move through [-me_bh-])?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:41 pm

Well this is an interesting debate/conversation that I stumbled upon! :o

I have a related question about Deep Mines. I feel it has been asked before but I can't seem to find it:

If I move a company to a Deep Mines site, and I do not leave a character behind at the Protected Wizard Haven they moved from, then the protected wizard haven site card will be discarded. Is my company now permanently stuck at the Deep Mines site for the rest of the game? (Assume I do not have access to Gnarled Ways).

Or similarly, if I leave a character at the Protected Wizard Haven, but say they are forced to make a corruption check and fail, thus the haven is discarded with no character present.

OR... is the name of the site (protected wizardhaven) forever considered to be adjacent to this copy of the Deep Mines site? Meaning, I could simply take the site card again from my location deck and play it, and then move my company back from the Deep Mines site to the surface site. If this is the case, the site would no longer be a protected wizard haven and it might not even be a haven at all. So does this matter?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:08 pm

Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII
If text would say that a company may move from protected Wizardhaven and that that site is the surface site for Deep Mines, then I would understand that once Deep Mines is played that site is the surface site for Deep Mines regardless of potential later changes of its type and features.
However a phrase "protected Wizardhaven(s)" is repeated. So if "that site" will cease to be protected Wizardhaven it also will cease to be the surface site for Deep Mines.

Similarly:
When I Know Anything wrote:Light enchantment. Playable on a sage during the site phase at a site where Information is playable. Tap sage and site. Tap sage to modify one corruption check by a character in his company by +3. Sage makes a corruption check. 'You are an interfering old busybody,' laughed Bilbo, 'but I expect you know best, as usual.' 'I do-when I know anything...' -LotRI
If target character will cease to be a sage, then he will not be able to tap to modify one corruption check.

I know that such interpretation makes an use of Deep Mines cumbersome. I do not know (and I'm unable to reconstruct) what was intentions of creators.
I'm only trying to find similarities to other cards an their wording and interpret a cards with similar wording consistently.

All underlines mine.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:07 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:08 pm
I know that such interpretation makes an use of Deep Mines cumbersome. I do not know (and I'm unable to reconstruct) what was intentions of creators.
Many things in the game end up cumbersome for precisely that reason. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Theo » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:05 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:06 pm
Bandobras Took wrote:Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
Use of multiple Haven cards for multiple companies at the Haven is for clarity during organisation phase.
It does not mean that beside organisation phase a separate Haven card for each company at the Haven is not mandatory.
To resurrect a different angle, I disagree that multiple Haven cards are for clarity only. In total, the original text is: (underline mine)
MELE p16-17 wrote:One company can split into two or more companies only at a Darkhaven (use two Darkhaven cards). ... Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
MELE p22-23 wrote:Except for a moving company during its movement/hazard phase, each company always has a current site card associated with it---the company is located at that site. ... At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players returned to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise return it to your location deck)...
The use of one site card for multiple companies at a Haven is only for notational convenience, and each company should still be understood to actually have its own site card. Otherwise the first company to move would discard the old company's site card (p23), violating the requirement that each company always has a site card (p22).

Not saying it changes the Deep Mines question of whether it targets all versions of a site or just one site card; my opinion is all site cards for that site (and that digest 84 is mistaken; the Deep Mines errata as written would refer to all versions of a site, not a site card). Otherwise the line from Hidden Haven, Mischief in a Mean Way, and Chambers in the Royal Court is purposeless: "Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven." Further, if the site becomes unprotected but then re-protected, I'd want to allow the Deep Mines characters to escape because it is the same site (though not site card) that the Deep Mines originally targeted (but guessing Konrad would think otherwise based on our on-guard disagreements?).
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

Post by Theo » Fri May 04, 2018 5:40 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:05 am
Otherwise the line from Hidden Haven, Mischief in a Mean Way, and Chambers in the Royal Court is purposeless: "Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven."
Of course, the real problem could be with those cards implying a break from the CRF rule:
CRF wrote:A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”