Bold AA at Barad-dûr - secret weapon of Balrog?

[Konrad Klar]

• Chance of Being Lost and Winds of Wrath: You may play these cards against any
opponent who is using the same type of location deck (hero sites or minion sites)
as yourself.

Playable: Items (minor, major, greater) Automatic-attacks (3): Orcs-4 strikes with 7 prowess; Trolls-3 strikes with 9 prowess; Maia (cannot be canceled)-1 strike with 24 prowess. Any creature wounded by the Maia's attack is automatically eliminated. Special: Creatures keyed to this site attack normally, not as detainment.

Balrog, Ringwraith, Sauron players use minion sites, Fallen Wizard player uses both hero and minion sites.
What stops Balrog player from playing Chance of Being Lost against Ringwraith, or Sauron player's company and redirect it to Barad-dûr (Balrog version)? And then from playing Tidings of Bold Spies?
Is not Barad-dûr (Balrog version) a minion site card? Cards in Balrog player's location deck and Ringwraith/Sauron player's location deck are different, but the same may be said about cards in Ringwraith/Sauron/Wizard player's location deck and Fallen Wizard player's location deck. Does it prevent a Ringwraight, Sauron, or Wizard player form playing Chance of Being Lost against Fallen Wizard player's company?

Bonus question: for target company - does it matter which alignment's sites company may use? The rule quoted above only checks for "type of location deck (hero sites or minion sites)" of both players.

[Mordakai]

• Chance of Being Lost and Winds of Wrath: You may play these cards against any
opponent who is using the same type of location deck (hero sites or minion sites)
as yourself.

Is the same thing type of location deck and sites in the location deck? I see your point here, but I think the rulings look for the same type of sites deck, not the same type os sites in the deck (so, a balrog player could redirect another balrog player to his Balrog version of Barad-dûr and then enjoy the show of News of Bold Spies), but then FW comes to my mind and screws the whole thing, as you should be FW to have another FW get lost... nonsense for me.

The solution may lie in the balrog version of the sites. Are they minion sites? or just Balrog sites? Because balrog uses minion sites but changes some of them by his own version. If I'm not mistaken (copy-paste from Dutch Council):

Your location deck may include one copy of each of the minion site cards with the following exceptions:

Instead of the normal minion site cards use the Balrog-specific site cards for:
¤ Moria, Carn Dûm, Dol Guldur, Minas Morgul
¤ All Under-deeps site cards
¤ All Dark-holds (Barad-dûr, Cirith Ungol, Cirith Gorgor)

So it makes me think they are not minion cards but balrog cards (even though it is a minion site deck).

Long story short: I think you can have your opponent lost if the copy of the site of your deck is "compatible" with his alignment (no hero sites for minions, no minion sites for heroes, no FW sites for non-FW, no balrog sites for non-balrog players). My 2 cents.

[Konrad Klar]

Instead of the normal minion site cards use the Balrog-specific site cards for:
[..]

Pure logic only:
"Is not normal minion site card" does not mean "is non-minion site card".
Although both statements are not contradicting.

Practical impilcation:
If Balrog-specific site cards would not be minion site cards then Whole Villages Roused could not be played on them.

Playable on a hero Border-hold or Free-hold [F]. The site has the automatic-attacks indicated on the corresponding minion site card (detainment against hero companies) but with +2 prowess. Alternatively, playable on a minion Shadow-hold [S] or Dark-hold [D]. The site has the automatic-attacks indicated on the corresponding hero site card (detainment against overt companies) but with +2 prowess.

Is it acceptable state of things?
Or Balrog-specific site cards are non-minion site cards that represent minion sites?

Thanks for cents, some dollars please...

[Bandobras Took]

Was that CRF entry made before the Balrog set was published? Before White Hand? The wording may simply reflect the time at which it was made.

In my opinion, the intent of the rule is to prevent just such a scenario (for example, sending a hero company to minion version of Rivendell so they cannot heal/store items, creating brutal AAs at sites that should be safe for an alignment.) Granted that what it actually says is what has been spelled out, this might be a good one for the NetRep.

[Konrad Klar]

I agree if it comes to an intent and a wording ["(hero sites or minion sites)" instead "(hero site cards or minion site cards)" formally does not make sense - like Rivendell in Rhudaur and in location deck(s)].

But some uses of cards and rules, even if not planned by authors, are not against an intent and a wording. For example (of card) using Parsimony of Seclusion to fetch a dragon faction. Or (both card and rule) using Elf-Song to prevent returning to hand a newly played character if there is no enough influence to control it* (OK, not sure for intent in this case).

*) credits to |Highwayman|.

[Mordakai]

Thanks for cents, some dollars please...

LOL, you are a true rules lawyer, mate. Probably Babdobras Took is right, the moment of the ruling is very important to state the intention of the wording. You are also correct, no interpretation should be made if a RAW option is available.

Pure logic only:
"Is not normal minion site card" does not mean "is non-minion site card".
Although both statements are not contradicting.

Would be correct to you this?: Instead of the normal minion site cards use the Balrog-specific [minion] site cards for: ([minion] added by my). If that is the case, then the Barad-dûr/New of Bold Spies would be perfectly ok (even it does not make a lot of sense to me that Sauron punches to death averybody that knocks his door, even if he is his own employees... Who knows, he is probably not very friendly anyway).

BTW, I love your posts, you always surprise me with new things

[Konrad Klar]

@Mordakai
OK. Understood [now (I hope)].

@Bandobras Took
If that CRF entry was made before White Hand, it was purposeless at time of publication.

Maybe this is a one of the things like permission for Sauron card in Fallen-wizard deck.

[Bandobras Took]

@Bandobras Took
If that CRF entry was made before White Hand, it was purposeless at time of publication.

No.

>From ME: The Wizards
Bane of the Ithil-stone
Foul Fumes
Mûmak
The Nazgûl are Abroad

>From ME: The Dragons
Winds of Wrath
Worn and Famished

>From ME: Dark Minions
all events that require an agent
The Black Enemy's Wrath
Chance of Being Lost
Great Secrets Buried There
In the Heart of His Realm
Mordor in Arms

The CRF entry would have permitted the use of these two cards in RW vs RW decks.