roadblock cards

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Hombarus wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:28 pm And I am not confused. There is literally no indication that the return effect, labeled as "bounce" takes affect immediately.
You are right. It is merely declared when an appropriate passive condition is met (sometimes in next chain of effects). It need to resolve to be executed.
There are chances that it will not resolve (ranger may appear in company, Long Winter/Foul Fumes/Snowstorm may be discarded, region symbols in company's path may change... what applicable... before resolution of the returning effect).
All depends on actions declared in response.
Which actions may never be declared in response is other story (well known :wink: ).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I think if the return was not supposed to happen immediately it would need to specify a scope of time in which it should occur. Similar to River, for example, such a hypothetical Snowstorm might look like:
"Each moving company with a Wilderness [ [-me_wi-] ] in its site path must return to its site of origin by the end of its movement/hazard phase."
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Poniatowski
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:17 pm
Location: Western PA USA

Wow, lots of catching up....
Ok, I guess I am looking at what I feel is the intent of the game after working so closely with so many others over the years as a US tourney rep... I absolutely admit, that does NOT make me right.... It just always made sense when you look at the verbiage and intent of the card.

Like I said, in the US, folks were always arguing these things and it became necessary to come to rulings as judges.

When they introduced region movement over site path movement.... well then, crap got real....

I was just told the "intent was".... if the card is already in clay.. the effects are "in play"... through doors of night, etc.... a good hazard player would lay the hazards as the party "moved along the site path"..... so, in reality... they would play hazards until the one or two wilderness became relevant...... UNLESS that is all you had to play..... then you would just play it when necessary.... but you could always play other hazards first...... then play the snowstorm, etc.....

The only difference here is this.... IF those cards are in play or being kept in play through another mechanism, then the party never leaves the base site or region.... unless, of course, their route doesn't got through the affected regions.
Poniatowski
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:17 pm
Location: Western PA USA

OK, just saw this.....

Clarification: Two wilderness symbols are required in a site path to play a deep wilderness creature. However, the two symbols need not be adjacent in the site path. For example, a deep wilderness creature may be played keyed to the site path: . If a company travels with two wilderness on its site path, the chance of encountering very dangerous wilderness monsters has doubled, even if the two wildernesses are not adjacent.

Wow.. how I missed this..... I am not sure, but my 2 cents..... it USED TO BE that to play a deep wilderness card, you had to have 2 wilderness regions in a ROW in your site path..... not just in the travel path.....

This is NOT how deep wilderness encounters were supposed to happen o my knowledge.... (as clarified above).... otherwise, they are just 2 wildernesses, not a deep wilderness.... all this does is make deep wilderness creatures, cards more playable..... yes, but NOT the intent of the encounters you would only find in a DEEP wilderness.... it isn't about traveling through a wilderness area twice so it doubles your chances.... it was about spending more time in a "stretch" of wilderness that meant you would run into a bigger wilderness mob.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

A little off topic, but I agree with your reasoning, but consider the abuse this opens up. Say you are in Arthedain [W] and traveling to Cardolan [W]. To avoid two wilderness together [WW] you simply add The Shire [FD] to your site path between them. Sure, you need an extra region to move and you now open yourself to FD creatures, but deep wilderness is much worse. And realistically, heros of Middle Earth would still encounter those deep wilderness creatures whether they detoured in the Shire or not. Woodland Realm, Anduin Vales, and Gap of Isen would also allow for loopholes. So, I think it is better that the W icons do not need to be together.
User avatar
Moriquendi
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:46 pm
Location: Denver

There's no such thing as "Deep Wilderness" in any of the rules, updates or erratum. From a lore perspective, I get it, but I've never heard of or played with others who interpreted hazards "requiring two wilderness in site path", 3x Wilderness, 2x Shadowland, etc. ever requiring those regions to be contiguous.

Another way to think of it is that the creature spotted you in the wilderness and tracked you from a distance, perhaps even on the edges of a bordering region, until you were far enough into the wilds again to strike.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”