Are there any Ruins&Lairs in Forochel?

[Konrad Klar]

Ice-Orcs with Trouble on All Borders are in play. There are a two players.

Sub-scenarios:
1. One player has Lossadan Cairn with Hold Rebuild and Repaired, other player does not have Lossadan Cairn in play.
2. One player has Lossadan Cairn with Hold Rebuild and Repaired, other player has Lossadan Cairn with Rebuild the Town.
3. One player has Lossadan Cairn with Hold Rebuild and Repaired, other player has Lossadan Cairn not under effect that changes its type.
4. One player has Lossadan Cairn with Hold Rebuild and Repaired, other player has Lossadan Camp with Nature's Revenge.

Question is: when Forochel is considered containing a site type of ?
Depending on answer, Forochel and its adjacent regions are, or are not affected by Trouble on All Borders, or No Escape from My magic played on Ice-Orcs.

Proposed answer:

A region is considered containing a site of given type if:
- there is a site located in the region, that is normally of the given type, and that players may use, and no player has its copy of the site in play,
or
- at least one copy of the site of given type located in the region is already in play.

According to this answer Trouble on All Borders, or No Escape from My magic played on Ice-Orcs affects Forochel and its adjacent regions in sub-scenarios (3) and (4).

Comment to "there is a site located in the region, that is normally of the given type, and that players may use, and no player has its copy of the site in play,":
although it is not applicable to Ice-Orcs, I have decided to include the phrase "and that players may use" to make the answer generic, not applicble to Ice-Orcs only.
Hypothetical effect may, for example, check for existence of Dark-Haven or Wizard-Haven in region. The answer will depend on which version of sites a players may use. If there is no minion player, then Angmar does not contain Dark-Haven in any case. If there is no Fallen-wizard then Arthedain does not contain Wizard-Haven in any case. If there is no Fallen Radagast, Southern Mirkwood contains Wizard-Haven only if a site in Southern Mirkwood is converted to Wizard-Haven.

[Bandobras Took]

My response would be that a hazard would use the resource player's version of the site; if the resource player's version of the site is not in play, the the default for the alignment of the resource player is used.

Thus the scenarios above would be dependent on whose turn it is, and might only affect one player rather than all players.

[Konrad Klar]

Because this is a question not answered currently by rules, almost any answer (accepted by players) would be better than no answer.

But I have some doubts about your proposal.

Ice-Orcs with Trouble on All Borders are in play. There are a two players.
FW player is taking its turn and his copy of Lossadan Cairn is in play and it is his Wizardhaven. He has no Lossadan Camp in play, but his opponents has Lossadan Camp with Nature's Revange (that makes all versions of the site ).

Does it mean that in turn of FW player Ice-Orcs are not considered playable at site in Forochel, but in turn of his opponent they are again considered playable?

[Bandobras Took]

That is how I would treat it, yes. The hazard checks whether a given company is moving, then checks to see whether there is a valid site within the parameters. It makes sense to me that the hazard would use the sites the potentially affected company would use.

[Konrad Klar]

Thanks. I will mention about some consequence of this answer.
In the same scenario as previously, FW player's company starts moving to Lossadan Camp. Nature's Revenge takes effect and now Ice-Orcs are considered playable at site in Forochel (for FW player; whether anything checks for it, or not, Ice-Orcs are all time playable for other player). Next the company is redirected to Bree by Chance of Being Lost. Now Ice-Orcs becomes not playable for FW player.

Fact that some answer sounds strange is not a sign that the answer is wrong. The game is full of abstract concepts.
My notion on the problem:
A sites (and their types) are per player who uses them. So, for example Wild Hounds is not playable at FW version of The White Towers and FW company at this version of the site cannot play/influence it; at the same time Wild Hounds is playable at other versions of The White Towers.
But regions are not per player. Old-Pukel Land did contain Geann A-Lisch since MELE edition, and before MEAS answer on question:
"is there Geann A-Lisch in Old-Pukel Land?" did not depend on "who asks? minion or hero player?" *.
This notion is basis of my proposal.

*) now imagine a some unique faction playable at Geann A-Lisch with No Escape from My Magic; Trouble on All Borders exists since MEAS, so that would not be a problem anymore.

[Konrad Klar]

...or just consider Elves of Lindon with No Escape from My Magic (at times before MEAS and in minion player vs hero player game).

[Bandobras Took]

Strictly speaking, for a minion player, Lindon did not contain the Grey Havens before such a site existed for minions.

The idea that regions behave differently for different alignments is not without precedent; No Escape/Trouble On All Borders played on Orcs of Udun would not affect a hero company moving in Dagorlad, but would affect minion companies, because for heroes, Dagorlad and Udun are not adjacent.

[Konrad Klar]

Strictly speaking, for a minion player, Lindon did not contain the Grey Havens before such a site existed for minions.

Strictly speaking, that is the notion that differ us.

Pallando specific. Playable if you are Pallando and have at least 12 stage points and 5 factions in play. Pallando need not be at the appropriate site when making an influence attempt on an opponent's resource or character. Such an influence check is modified by half (rounded up) of Pallando's unused general influence (to a maximum of 10) instead of his unused direct influence. Subtract from the attempt the number of regions between Pallando's site and the site where the influence attempt would normally be made. Discard if you have fewer than 5 factions in play. Cannot be duplicated.

FW player may use Refuge etc. However a two Refuges in the same region are not considered the same site.
Should it mean that for Fallen Pallando the region, where opponent's Refuge is located, does not contain the Refuge, where there would be a resources, characters, that could be otherwise influenced thanks to Prophet of Doom?

The idea that regions behave differently for different alignments is not without precedent; No Escape/Trouble On All Borders played on Orcs of Udun would not affect a hero company moving in Dagorlad, but would affect minion companies, because for heroes, Dagorlad and Udun are not adjacent.

Right, but that is separate from question whether Udun is considered containing Morannon for any other player than the player who uses Morannon (and whether No Escape from My Magic on Orcs of Udun would affect hero companies before MEAS).

[Bandobras Took]

The influence attempt would not normally be made at a site in that case because it's impossible to be at your opponent's copy of Refuge. That portion of Prophet of Doom is therefore invalid when Pallando makes his influence attempt (which can still be made because Pallando need not be at an appropriate site at all).

Re: Dagorlad/Udun

I agree it is a separate question. I only brought it up to demonstrate that regions don't necessarily have to behave the same way from player to player. One player's region may be said to contain a site that another player's does not.

Consider (pre-MEAS) a minion character taken prisoner at Dancing Spire. There was no Minion Dancing Spire until MEAS. The following from MEDM seems to apply:

If he does not have the site or if the site is in his discard pile, the copy with the hazard host can be used to show the rescuing company's movement (if the rescue attempt is successful, the site would remain in play until the company leaves the site). In this case the site is not available for the rescuing player to use for any purpose (other than to rescue prisoners and play one minor item) until the company leaves the site and his play deck is exhausted.

In this case, Dancing Spire would not be available to use for any purpose, including interpretation of No Escape on Ice-Orcs.

Granted, it's arguable, but the most sensible approach, in my mind, is still to interpret such things according to who the resource player is at the time.

[Konrad Klar]

In this case, Dancing Spire would not be available to use for any purpose, including interpretation of No Escape on Ice-Orcs.

In this case the site is not available for the rescuing player to use for any purpose (other than to rescue prisoners and play one minor item) until the company leaves the site and his play deck is exhausted.

Try to apply it consistently.
Does a leaving a site count as "rescue prisoners" (or "play minor item")?
Does a determining where a site is located, or what is playable at a site count as using the site?

I agree it is a separate question. I only brought it up to demonstrate that regions don't necessarily have to behave the same way from player to player. One player's region may be said to contain a site that another player's does not.

That Dagorlad and Udun are not adjacent for hero player, but are adjacent for minion players, demonstrates that "regions don't necessarily have to behave the same way from player to player". It does not demonstrate that "One player's region may be said to contain a site that another player's does not.".

Granted, it's arguable, but the most sensible approach, in my mind, is still to interpret such things according to who the resource player is at the time.

There are no known rules from which the answer could be implied.
So nothing what could prove or disprove that or another proposal.
The proposals may be only reviewed.
It may be tested what can happen in game if they will be applied consistently.

[Bandobras Took]

Does a leaving a site count as "rescue prisoners" (or "play minor item")?
Does a determining where a site is located, or what is playable at a site count as using the site?

It cannot be used for the purpose of implementing No Escape/Trouble.

Oh, drat. The CoE disagrees with me: http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... f=16&t=286.

Global effects do affect sites reserved for a purpose.

I'm still in favor of determining the effect of the hazard on a per-player basis, based entirely on my hunch that it will lead to fewer arguments during a given game.

[Konrad Klar]

1.
For me this is obvious that even if I cannot make anything with a X, it does not mean that the X does not exist for me.
Once played the Escape/Trouble may create actions, whether anybody wants it or not. At the point there is owner of the cards, but there is no user of the cards.
2.
What is your opinion about choosing a rescue site? Whose view on regions, hazard player's or resource player's, is taken into account when a rescue site is being chosen along with playing Spells of the Barrow-Wights?
Hero company is moving from Barad-Dur to Cirith Gorgor. For resource player Udun and Dagorlad are not adjacent, they are adjacent for hazard player. Can Dead Marches be chosen as rescue site?

[Konrad Klar]

I forget to say: in last scenario a hazard player is a minion player.

[Bandobras Took]

In the case of 2, at least, I would definitely go by the resource player's perspective. To do otherwise may inordinately strengthen the prisoner-taking hazard by requiring more movement than was intended.

For 1, our approaches are definitely incompatible. I feel if a player has no capacity for X, X should not affect them.

[Konrad Klar]

In the case of 2, at least, I would definitely go by the resource player's perspective. To do otherwise may inordinately strengthen the prisoner-taking hazard by requiring more movement than was intended.

Thanks.
Is it compatible with:

Consider (pre-MEAS) a minion character taken prisoner at Dancing Spire. There was no Minion Dancing Spire until MEAS.

?
Until MEAS, was Dancing Spire located anywhere from resource (minion) player's perspective?