Council of Elrond

Hello:

I had two companies at two different non-haven sites. I wanted to move these two companies to the same non-haven site and then join them there.

Searching in the METW rules (edited and clarified by MAlfano) I found:

Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site
During the organization phase, two companies may move to the same site, but one of the following cases must apply:
• One and only one company may already be at the site. In this case the other company must state that its new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company).
• One company moves to the site using the site path on that site card (i.e., the company starts at the site's nearest Haven), and the other company moves to the site using region cards for its site path. In this case, both companies must state that the same face down site card is their new site card.

With that (the last point) I thought, oh, oh, I can't do this movement, because one company should move with starter movement (haven to non-haven) but my two companies start at a non-haven now.
Then I searched in the MELE rules:

MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE
During the organization phase, two or more companies may move to the same non-Darkhaven site, but one of the following cases must apply:
• One company may already be at the site. In this case the other company moving to the site must state that its new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company). This site card remains in play until at least the end of the turn.
• Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.

With the last point I see that my movement should be allowed, though, becasue it is not mentioned the kind of movement the companies should do.

1) Is the MELE rule just for minion companies or applies for minion and hero companies?
2) In the METW rule is said that the joining can be done for two companies, but in the MELE rule is said that two or more can join. So I repeat question 1) here too.
3) A related question, too, if the answer of 1) is "the rule applies to minion AND hero": should be avoided that the route of each company uses a region that is already used by one of the companies or even another player's company that will not join? I am thinking that the route is planed by looking at a map, but that was originally meant with region cards, though they are nor used.

Regards

(1)

Lidless Eye, Using MELE with METW wrote:When one player is a Ringwraith and his opponent is a Wizard play proceeds normally for each player within the limitations outlined in this section.

Note: Unless stated otherwise, the Wizard player uses the METW rules and the Ringwraith player uses the MELE rules. Most elements of METW and MELE are identical both of these series are part of the Middle-earth Collectible Card Game? (MECCG?). Should a discrepancy arise between an aspect of the MELE rules and the METW rules, the MELE rules take precedence as they were written with refinements in language and organization. Do not to confuse an element of MELE that is particular to playing a Ringwraith with a Wizard's perspective on things - passages containing Ringwraith only rules are marked with a changebar in the margin.

Italics original. Underline mine.

(2)

As above. "two or more companies may move to the same non-Darkhaven site" includes "two companies may move to the same [non-Darkhaven/non-Haven] site".

(3)

This one of forgotten problems (because using of region cards is now depreciated), but ICE even did not stated whether player may include multiple, or only one copy of given region card in Location Deck.
Even if region cards would be used, the whole game is not compatible with concept "only one copy of given region card in each player's Location Deck".

Thank you, Konrad.

That passage is not really self explanatory for me, because I would have supposed that this applies with METW against MELE and not necessarily METW against METW. Moreover, the line who says "passages containing Ringwraith only rules are marked with a changebar in the margin" appears in the rule edited by MAlfano almost the same, but with "bullet bars". So the passage that I cited about MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE appears with bullet bars from the line

• Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.

So I thought that this was meant for MELE only. It is not totally clear for me, due to what I explained.

And about

(3)

This one of forgotten problems (because using of region cards is now depreciated), but ICE even did not stated whether player may include multiple, or only one copy of given region card in Location Deck.
Even if region cards would be used, the whole game is not compatible with concept "only one copy of given region card in each player's Location Deck".

But, to be sure: is the answer "yes, two or more companies moving with standard rules can use one or more common regions"?
I remember I read threads somewhere where people were saying this is forbidden. If not, good is that.

Maethmaenor wrote:That passage is not really self explanatory for me, because I would have supposed that this applies with METW against MELE and not necessarily METW against METW.

Right.
It does not explicitly says "it is applicable also to games where all players are hero players".
But it also does not say anything about games where one player is minion and his three opponents are hero or about similar configurations.

If hero players agree to include a minion items in their decks, they also should apply a rules of chapter that allow for that, regardless of alignment of its opponent (in most of tournaments a player does not know, which alignment his opponent[s] will have).

Otherwise this chapter would apply only to games where an alignments of opponents are known before preparation of decks (and are known to be opposite).
In other games a minion players could not use agents (as that deck construction rules for agents are included in this chapter) and hero company using under-deeps movement could not move to the same site, where other companies are moving (because "Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site", that actually says about moving, not about joining, does not allow for that).


All sarcasm to ICE, for which it was hard to say "if some rule of MELE contradicts with METW rule, our new draft replaces our old draft".

Maethmaenor wrote:But, to be sure: is the answer "yes, two or more companies moving with standard rules can use one or more common regions"?

CRF, Errata (Rules) wrote:When a company splits, any of the resulting companies can move with region
movement. Region movement is not limited to one company of a split.

This is one of incompatibilities with concept "only one copy of given region card in each player's Location Deck".
If such limitation would exist, there would not be a need for this errata.

And there would not be a need for this restriction:

CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, General wrote:The same region (as in region card) may not occur twice in a single site path.

*

Maethmaeno wrote:Moreover, the line who says "passages containing Ringwraith only rules are marked with a changebar in the margin" appears in the rule edited by MAlfano almost the same, but with "bullet bars". So the passage that I cited about MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE appears with bullet bars from the line

Unfortunately I do not have a printed copy of MELE rulebook at this time, so I cannot verify/answer that.

*) Not quite sure whether it is legal, but with help of Waybread and/or Cram last (or first) region may occur thrice and other once in single site path.

Konrad Klar wrote:

CRF, Errata (Rules) wrote:When a company splits, any of the resulting companies can move with region
movement. Region movement is not limited to one company of a split.

This is one of incompatibilities with concept "only one copy of given region card in each player's Location Deck".
If such limitation would exist, there would not be a need for this errata.

And there would not be a need for this restriction:

CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, General wrote:The same region (as in region card) may not occur twice in a single site path.

Mmhh. Good point, I had overlooked that, but it is perfectly right. If three companies start from the same region with standard movement, I need three copies of that region. Right, the last restriction wouldn't be necessary, too.

Konrad Klar wrote:

Maethmaeno wrote:Moreover, the line who says "passages containing Ringwraith only rules are marked with a changebar in the margin" appears in the rule edited by MAlfano almost the same, but with "bullet bars". So the passage that I cited about MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE appears with bullet bars from the line

Unfortunately I do not have a printed copy of MELE rulebook at this time, so I cannot verify/answer that.

It is that, with the bullets bar at left:

The bullets do appear in the paper rules. However the bullets mark rule differences between METW and MELE, not just Ringwraith-specific rules.

If so, then this means that ICE did not follow its own guidelines since beginning.

Do not to confuse an element of MELE that is particular to playing a Ringwraith with a Wizard's perspective on things - passages containing Ringwraith only rules are marked with a changebar in the margin.

Yes. The problem is that both are right, I think:

the text cited by Konrad is on page 44 of MELE under "using MELE with METW". On the other hand, on page 2 of MELE one can read:

MELE wrote: Note: The rules for MELE are very similar to the rules for Middle-earth: The Wizards. Passages with major rules differences are marked with a line of bullets as a sidebar (just as this paragraph is marked). Experienced players of METW can examine these passages and proceed with playing.

and that is what Wacho commented.

In this case of doubt, I think I should join hero companies according to the MELE rules (two or more are allowed and all of them may move with region movement, if I want, that is, it is not necessary that one moves with starter movement). Or has someone a different opinion?

Regards.