I made an unexpected but welcome discovery. It seems some entries from early (no longer available) ICE digests were edited into the METW Unlimited Edition Rules presented on the Dutch Council's website. Most of those entries are now of course in the CRF, but some had been shortened for that purpose. Of particular interest for this thread was the rules erratum which we intend to remove.
Unknown ICE Digest wrote:The spirit of the on-guard card is to represent a hazard threat that existed during a company's movement/hazard phase, but of which the company was not aware. The actual rule that portrays this spirit is: an on-guard may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase--this is a slight modification from the rule printed on page page 61 of the METW Unlimited Rulesbook. Practically, this means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed.
I still think we should get rid of the CRF entry altogether because of the unforeseen issues it is now presenting. But, the quote above clearly states the on-guard is intended for the company it was placed for, not just any company that happens to wander to the same site. Therefore, at the risk of repeating myself:
miguel wrote:I think the on-guard placed for a company, next to a site card (or on it, doesn't really matter much) is always related to both. The on-guard can only be revealed for that company at that site.
And on-guards placed for companies that join affect the new company, this has been covered in a CoE Digest.