roadblock cards

[Theo]

The cards: snow storm and long winter are redundant, except for losing the site card. One is a short action and the other long, but has lasting environmental effects.

They are both long events.

It comes down to a first in, first out AND card relevance/timing as neither card text says it takes precedence over the other....

Multiple chains of effect are first in first out. Each individual chain resolves last in first out. Hazards that are not creatures or corruption can be played wither within a chain of effects or starting a new chain of effect. Creatures and corruption can only start a new chain of effects. Players can only actively start a new chain of effects if there are no current chains of effect (but some card effects can "queue up" additional chains of effect).

Snowstorm ALWAYS goes off first as to meet the requirements for the card you only need 1 wilderness.

Long Winter requires 2 wilderness in the site path.... you can argue that the 2 wilderness are established in the route determination to the site,

The game mechanics are such that the party, IF using region movement for hazard sake, would play one region at a time and the Hazard player would play based upon the region cards player....

[etc...]

The resource player plays one region at a time face down during their organization phase. Actually, I can't find any explicit rules about revealing those region cards, but I presume that they must be revealed when the new site is revealed during the company's M/H phase in order to verify movement and establish the company's site path.

The beginning of a company's movement-hazard phase unfolds thus:
(A) Revealing the site: Simultaneously determine the company's site path and the base hazard limit. This happens immediately, and cannot be responded to.
* Opponent halving the hazard limit in order to sideboard affects the base hazard limit.
* There are special rules concerning Under-deeps movement. (CRF: Rulings by Term: Under-deeps)

(B) Resolution of the site: Simultaneously draw cards, resolve other effects of the site card, and apply any other relevant effects in play. This happens immediately, and cannot be responded to.
* Annotation 26 applies here, except for hazard limit modifying effects which were in play prior to the start of the movement/hazard phase.

(C) First chain of effects: Effects that were played during the organization phase and depend on the site or site path of a moving company, create an effect which is now declared along with actions from passive conditions.
* After all of these effects/actions have been declared, players are free to add to this chain of effects by playing cards and/or declaring more actions.

This means that all regions would need to be revealed before any passive or active effects resolve that depend on those regions. Mechanistically, there is no sense of the company moving through one region at a time in order, even if that is appealing for story reasons.

[Theo]

So what you are saying is:

A)
The ruling is perfectly fine because it was based on democratic decision of players. Which reminds me of the fantastic quote from a wise person: "Democracy is when 9 janitors rule against the 1 Nobel Price winner scientist". Fits the bill perfectly here.

If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to read the CoE Mission Statement and Charter. The direct democratic voting makes me uneasy, but the CoE process does have some checks against Tyranny of the Majority.

B)
If I went around for 300 posts of patting each and every one of you on the back, how gracious and brilliant you lot are my points would instantly gain a lot more validity and credit. Please feel free to jump back to my conclusion on Point A. Fits this bill too.

Speaking only for myself, your "points" about the rules stand on their own, separate from your "points" about how cocksure you are and your low opinion of others here. Simply put, a Rules Questions forum is not the place for those second set of points because they detract from the rules focus.

[Hombarus]

So whereas with River I can tap the ranger whenever I find it suitable to be able to do anything at the site, even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately in your interpretation it simply does. Correct?

[Hombarus]

Theo "tyranny of majority" is a paradox. Tyranny is executed by a minority against the will of majority.

And I have not been slamming people here. I have no low opinion of others on this forum as I do not know any one of you. I have a low opinion of the ruling on 2 instances - Twilight played as a hazard in your own turn (absolute joke) and this Snowstorm/bounce nonsense.

Finally, by detracting from the rules do you mean debate? There is no place for debate? Were you the one talking about tyranny?

[Konrad Klar]

So whereas with River I can tap the ranger whenever I find it suitable to be able to do anything at the site, even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately in your interpretation it simply does. Correct?

First sentence is not correct.
Part "even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately in your interpretation it simply does."
does not make a sense, either alone, or in conjunction with rest of sentence.

Language experts are welcome to correct me, if I'm wrong, and to translate the sentence to a phrase in English of equivalent meaning.

[Hombarus]

Not correct in terms of grammar, or not correct in terms of the game?

[Konrad Klar]

I terms of grammar.

I do not know whether you mean:
"So whereas with River I can tap the ranger whenever I find it suitable to be able to do anything at the site, even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately, in your interpretation it simply does."
or rather:
"So whereas with River I can tap the ranger whenever I find it suitable to be able to do anything at the site, even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately in your interpretation, it simply does."

or something else.

And maybe by "affect" you mean "effect". Only you knows.

[the JabberwocK]

So what you are saying is:
A)
The ruling is perfectly fine because it was based on democratic decision of players. Which reminds me of the fantastic quote from a wise person: "Democracy is when 9 janitors rule against the 1 Nobel Price winner scientist". Fits the bill perfectly here.

Which ruling exactly are you referring to?
As for the process currently used, please read our Charter linked on the home page. We are always open to suggestions if you have an idea for how things can be done better.

B)
If I went around for 300 posts of patting each and every one of you on the back, how gracious and brilliant you lot are my points would instantly gain a lot more validity and credit. Please feel free to jump back to my conclusion on Point A. Fits this bill too.

This is not true at all. Nobody has said your points have no merit. What has been criticized is your approach and the way you interact with others... the way in which you choose to express yourself. There is no need to pat everyone on the back and shower them with compliments. There IS a need to treat others with respect and civility. You may think a particular rule is completely ridiculous (nothing wrong with that), but you have treated others who have attempted to answer your questions or explain the rules mechanism we operate under as if they have wronged you personally.

And the very fact that not one of you bothered to even raise any kind of points against my proposal here just shows that yet again the current status quo is not based on merit but on what I have already stated: the support of a specific macro management of one particular game style. (And by game style I do not mean the style of this game but the play style of a certain group of people)

What exactly is your proposal? This is a Rules Questions forum to have rules questions answered. This sub-forum is not meant to receive or entertain proposals.

[Hombarus]

So Konrad,

In all fairness, I went around random topics and read random comments of yours. You make major grammatical errors in every second sentence. I strongly suggest you learn this language to a much higher extent before you articulate any kind of criticism to anyone around here about their use of English.

[Konrad Klar]

It does not change a fact that:

Part "even though there is no indication that Snowstorm takes affect immediately in your interpretation it simply does."
does not make a sense, either alone, or in conjunction with rest of sentence.

[Konrad Klar]

P.S.
Comma is your friend.

[Hombarus]

I did not make proposal for change of rules, more like I gave an alternative to the current breakdown of the M/H phase.

The current treats M/H (in mathematical terms) as a dot. No depth, length or width. Whereas I believe it should be treated as a vector, linear and directed.
So the movement between regions should be taken into account when we determine the play and what effects take place when.

For example Moving from Framsburg - Anduin Vales to Caves of Ulund - Withered heath.

In this example lets say Doors of night, Snowstorm and Smaug ahunt are all in play. Konrad asked the question how to determine which card would take affect first. Well it is simple in my opinion. You take the movement region by region. That is what I meant treating the movement as a mathematical vector. Anduin Vales - no effect for either of those. Grey Mountain Narrows, Smaug ahunt kicks in. Withered heath, Snowstorm kicks in. You can still play creatures to each and every one of those regions because in order to face the effects of Snowstorm, you must have reached so it is .

And I did so, because when asked for any backing of the Snowstorm in general I got a lot of incoherent mumbo-jumbo. So Konrad asked me how would I determine the sequence of the effects.

[Hombarus]

Konrad:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... m&hl=en_US

[Konrad Klar]

n this example lets say Doors of night, Snowstorm and Smaug ahunt are all in play. Konrad asked the question how to determine which card would be determined first. Well it is simple in my opinion. You take the movement region by region. That is what I meant treating the movement as a mathematical vector. Anduin Vales - no effect for either of those. Grey Mountain Narrows, Smaug ahunt kicks in. Withered heath, Snowstorm kicks in. You can still play creatures to each and every one of those regions because in order to face the effects of Snowstorm, you must have reached so it is .

I got it.
Still I do not know, how you deal with situation when a company moves from The Wind Throne to Gondmaeglom and there are multiple Dragon Ahounts affecting Graet Mountain Narrows; there is Foul Fumes; Doors of Night; no ranger in company.

[Hombarus]

Still is simple. All ahunts will attack (apart from Earcaraxe). To decide the sequence, the controlling player of the dragons will assign it. Then Foul Fumes kicks in as in Grey Mountain Narrows every single one of those cards have effect.

Let me guess, your way is that they return and no ahunts will attack.