Council of Elrond

Are multiple copies of the same site card truly the same site or each card should be treated individually as a different site?

Was this problem straightened out or do the old digests still stand?

Rulings Digest #64, February 23, 2004
Say I have Hall of Fire (or Fortress of the Towers, or whatever) on a tapped haven site. Now, I want to move another company to an untapped copy of that site, then combine the companies at the untapped version. I know I can do that much. However, if I do this, will I lose the Hall of Fire and cards like it?

*** Yes. Playing a card on a copy of a haven is not the same as playing the card on all copies of the haven.

Rulings Digest #67, March 29, 2004
*** A fallen-wizard player gets the stage point for each copy of Rhosgobel and/or Deep Mines he has in play.

Rulings Digest #82, September 06, 2004
If I play a new character at a haven, can I split it into a different haven site (even if there are already characters at these haven)? Or is there a rule that you must join the other fellowship during site phase etc?! My intension is to have multiple copies of Rhosgobel out, that I can get every single stage point from each haven. Is that right?

*** You can only bring a new copy of a haven into play if a new company is moved to or played at that haven. You can, therefore, bring a new character into play at a new copy of the haven, and leave him there as a separate company. You can use this to get a lot of Rhosgobel stage points.

Rulings Digest #84, September 20, 2004
I´m pretty sure that there is a ruling, that you can´t move from a protected 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.

???
All of these rulings and various discussions on the forums (Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity, or more recent Ancient Deep-Hold to name just a couple), as well as the well known haven-untapping-trick or the fact that River's effect "sticks" to a copy of a site card and not all copies of it, consistently lead me to an interpretation that for all purposes multiple copies of the same site card (played by the same player) count as separate, different sites actually. Is it really so, or did it got changed sometime in the past?

Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a rules guru to answer your question. Instead, I'll add one of my own. In regards to the untapping a haven trick, does this trick only work if your avatar is not in play?

If your avatar is in play, either your avatar must be at the site where the character comes
into play or the character must be played as a follower. (METW, 54)

To me "the site where the character comes into play" is not the same as saying "a copy of the site where the character comes into play." If that is accurate you wouldn't be able to untap the haven by playing a new character, though you could still move another company to the haven to untap it.

Is this such a lousy/hard question or are all the experts on vacation?

I don't dare to venture into this morass. It's one to forward to the spaghetti experts.

Bandobras Took wrote:I don't dare to venture into this morass. It's one to forward to the spaghetti experts.

And what might be the procedure for that? Shall I dial 555-ERU-HELP-ME or something?
Or does our heroic NetRep team relentlessly scour the Rules Question forums far and wide in search of unsolvable dilemmas to solve?

Ok, I am brave (or foolish) enough to venture into this morass.

|Highwayman| wrote:Was this problem straightened out or do the old digests still stand?

As far as I know the old digests still stand.

|Highwayman| wrote:Are multiple copies of the same site card truly the same site or each card should be treated individually as a different site?

My answer is: it depends...

Rulings Digest #64, February 23, 2004 Playing a card on a copy of a haven is not the same as playing the card on all copies of the haven.

This is a case where different copies of the same site do not count as one site (card).

Wizard`s Trove wrote: You may play The White Tree at one of your Wizardhavens [W] if Sapling of the White Tree is stored there. Place Wizard's Trove with The White Tree-which is worth full marshalling points. Your Wizardhaven [W] becomes protected. Ignore the text of The White Tree. Alternatively, you may store one miscellaneous marshalling point card at one of your Wizardhavens [W]. Any reference to the site where the card can normally be stored are transferred instead to the Wizardhaven [W]. Place Wizard's Trove with the stored card-which is worth full marshalling points.

This is another case where all copies of the same site (card) are treated as the same site, IMO. Wizard`s Trove is not played on a site (i.e. a specific site card). Therefore it`s effect "Your Wizardhaven [W] becomes protected" affects all copies of that Wizardhaven.

Does that make sense?

Generally site cards of the same name represent the same location. I.e. companies of the same player that use site cards of the same name may transfer items between companies, companies may initaite CvCC, or influence attempts against company of other player that use site card of the same name, if they are otherwise allowed to take such activities.
There are two exempts.
One - explicit, made by NetRep Team.
Other - implicit, made by ICE.

That one made by NetRep Team in Rulings Digest #19 p.18:

18. Do the resource cards that turn into sites count as the same site? If two companies use Wondrous Maps in the same region, do they combine? I think that they wouldn't, they are following different Maps, but IF you had two companies moving to Morannon they should combine because there is only one Morannon.
*** These sites are all separate. There would be no combining because none of these resource sites are unique. As for Morannon, it's a big gate. You could be on opposite ends or sides of the gate.

is probably purely arbitral. At least I cannot find justification for it.
Probably it tries to legalize author's playing style. Besides it introduces inconsistency in interpretation of rules.

That made by ICE is Deep Mines.
ICE never excplicitly said that multiple copies of Deep Mines represent different locations.
Reason for inference that multiple copies of Deep Mines represent different locations is existence of phrase:

CRF, Errata (Cards), Deep Mines wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." [Effective 4/20/
98]

Because companies at the same non-haven site must join at the end of M/H phase (or at start of site phase) duplication could not happen anyway, with or without the errata, if multiple copies of Deep Mines would represent the same site.

If it comes to examples quoted by |Highwayman|:

Rulings Digest #64, February 23, 2004
Say I have Hall of Fire (or Fortress of the Towers, or whatever) on a tapped haven site. Now, I want to move another company to an untapped copy of that site, then combine the companies at the untapped version. I know I can do that much. However, if I do this, will I lose the Hall of Fire and cards like it?

*** Yes. Playing a card on a copy of a haven is not the same as playing the card on all copies of the haven.

Actually has nothing to do with question: "Are multiple copies of the same site card truly the same site or each card should be treated individually as a different site?".
Any card played on site is physically played on site card and affects only that site card, unless stated otherwise in text of card in question.
A card not played on site affects all site cards that represent that site, unless stated otherwise in text of card in question. With exception of News of Shire, minion event does not affect hero vesions of site, and vice-versa.

Rulings Digest #67, March 29, 2004
*** A fallen-wizard player gets the stage point for each copy of Rhosgobel and/or Deep Mines he has in play.

Rhosgobel's nad Deep Mine's effects that add Stage Points are effects of texts of that cards. So above is almost* correct. If there would external effect (from general rules, or from other card) that would check whether player has "any of his companies" at Rhosgobel/Deep Mines, then it would check for presence any player's companies at Rhosgobel/Deep Mines site, not for presence at particular copy of at Rhosgobel/Deep Mines.
*) almost, because player may have a site card in play and no company at the site card (companies may move to/from the site).

Rulings Digest #82, September 06, 2004
If I play a new character at a haven, can I split it into a different haven site (even if there are already characters at these haven)? Or is there a rule that you must join the other fellowship during site phase etc?! My intension is to have multiple copies of Rhosgobel out, that I can get every single stage point from each haven. Is that right?

*** You can only bring a new copy of a haven into play if a new company is moved to or played at that haven. You can, therefore, bring a new character into play at a new copy of the haven, and leave him there as a separate company. You can use this to get a lot of Rhosgobel stage points.

Just wrong.

Lidless Eye 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.

Rulings Digest #84, September 20, 2004
I´m pretty sure that there is a ruling, that you can´t move from a protected 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.

I'm sure that it is wrong.
If there is allowance for multiple copies of given card in deck, there is no way to determine wheter a copy that comes in play is the copy that previously leaved play.
(for example: there is no way to determine whether newly played Orc Captain is the same Orc Captain discarded previously by body check. Newly played Orc Captain does not inherit history of the previously discarded copy).
So if particular copy of Deep Mines would be connected only to particular copy of Rhosgobel (would be under particualar copy of Rhosgobel), then company at Deep Mines under particular copy of Rhosgobel would not have a way to return if the particular copy would be returned to location deck.

Rulings Digest #82, September 06, 2004
If I play a new character at a haven, can I split it into a different haven site (even if there are already characters at these haven)? Or is there a rule that you must join the other fellowship during site phase etc?! My intension is to have multiple copies of Rhosgobel out, that I can get every single stage point from each haven. Is that right?

*** You can only bring a new copy of a haven into play if a new company is moved to or played at that haven. You can, therefore, bring a new character into play at a new copy of the haven, and leave him there as a separate company. You can use this to get a lot of Rhosgobel stage points.

Lidless Eye 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.

Is the answer above given in Rulings Digest #82 completely accurate? He leaves out the possibility of splitting a company at a haven and using multiple copies of the haven for the separate companies (as quoted above in the Lidless Eye clarification).

If you have a company of 3 characters at Rhosgobel and you split them into 3 separate companies (each using his own site card), all but one of the companies must attempt to move that turn. However, you would have 3 stage points for Rhosgobel during the remainder of that Organization Phase before two of the companies move, as far as I'm aware. This doesn't strictly follow the answer given in Digest #82, however, as he says "moved to" or "played". Thoughts?

1.

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:23 am Is the answer above given in Rulings Digest #82 completely accurate? He leaves out the possibility of splitting a company at a haven and using multiple copies of the haven for the separate companies (as quoted above in the Lidless Eye clarification).

No. For reasons given by you.

2.
With White Hand edition it become clear that a company being at/moving from/moving to a Haven site is not necessarily the same as company using a Haven site card.
Such possibility existed also before (Balrog of Moria, Galadriel in play but not at Lorien, New Moon played on Lorien).
Since White Hand a Haven sites that are not Haven site cards become common (this was possible earlier only hypothetically).

I think that original purpose of the Lidless Eye rule was an allowance for players who have a poor collection of cards.
Removing the allowance would mean that whole set of rules regarding joining/splitting at Haven/non-Haven site should be rewritten.

Only tangentially related, but can two companies at different sites move to the same new site on the same turn? I've been playing some solo scenarios and doing that, combining the companies once they arrive, but I'm not sure if it's actually allowed, since I only have one copy of the destination site in my site deck (and wouldn't be allowed to have more anyway).

Yes. They can.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:21 pm Yes. They can.

What's the process for that, then? My understanding is that you play new site cards face-down in the organization phase and reveal them company-by-company in the site phase. But if two companies are going to the same site, what do you do? Do you just declare that the company is moving but not play a card to indicate that?

CRF, Organization Phase, Choosing a New Site wrote:Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table. That site will
remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase.

Nowhere is said that the site must be revealed.

Unrevealed site card chosen as new site in organization phase is revealed at beginning of M/H phase of company that moves to the site.

CCG Collector wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:39 pm Do you just declare that the company is moving but not play a card to indicate that?

You are specifying the same (unrevealed) site card that has been played for other company.

If a site card is already revealed in organization phase, the procedure is even more simple. You are specifying the site for each company that declares attempt to move to the site.

CCG Collector wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:10 pm Only tangentially related, but can two companies at different sites move to the same new site on the same turn? I've been playing some solo scenarios and doing that, combining the companies once they arrive, but I'm not sure if it's actually allowed, since I only have one copy of the destination site in my site deck (and wouldn't be allowed to have more anyway).

This was up for debate regarding hero companies using region movement (unless one of the companies moving used starter movement) until this recent clarification was issued:

https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... 103&t=3455