Declaring movement to a site in play

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Jose-san
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Jose-san »

I've always played (and I've always seen it played the same way) that when you declare movement to a site already in play, you don't have to specify which of the sites already in play you're going to move to, until that company's movement/hazard phase.
MELE Rulebook
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.

CRF Turn Sequence Rulings
Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table. That site will remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase.
Underline is mine. I understand that to know which site must remain in play, you have to declare which site are you moving to. And that only one site may remain in play for that reason.

Any thoughts?

EDIT (30/04/2018): I'm adding another quote for reference:
MELE Rulebook
At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players return to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise, return it to your location deck) and the new site card becomes the company's current site card.
Last edited by Jose-san on Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

I agree.

Otherwise it would be not known which site should be kept on table (in case where multiple sites in play would be reachable by a company that declared moving to a site already in play, and the company would not be first to take its M/H phase in current turn).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Shapeshifter »

Hmm, this does not cover the similar case (2 companies) when company 1 wants to move from site A to site B, and company 2 from site C to site A. It is usually played the way that company 2 then has to state that it moves to a site already in play. I cant find anything about it in the rules, though. I bet I overlook something...

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

I would say you don't have to declare which site until:

1) The company attempts to move there; or
2) The site would otherwise be removed.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Shapeshifter »

Ok. Forget about my post above. I didn't read the initial post carefully.

The question is:
May a company state that it moves to a site already in play / on the table without telling which site before actually moving with that company. I myself play it often the way that I don't decide to which of the sites in play a company will move until I know - after all other companies m/h-phases - where it is needed most. That way I can move to a site where another of my companies was tapped out just before to do the influence check against my only faction during the last turn ( so that opponent won't double MPs).

If I follow Bandobras then this should be possible.

Jose-san
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Jose-san »

Bandobras Took wrote:I would say you don't have to declare which site until:

1) The company attempts to move there; or
2) The site would otherwise be removed.
According to that interpretation, if you keep a site in play that would be discarted/returned to the site deck, it must me a site you go with other company. Right? You can't keep all sites in play just in case.

It gets complicated if several companies move to "a site in play". You should declare which companies go to a site that stay in play instead of discard it/return it to the deck?
Shapeshifter wrote:I myself play it often the way that I don't decide to which of the sites in play a company will move until I know - after all other companies m/h-phases - where it is needed most.
Yeah, I always played that way too. But now I'm not sure about that.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:I would say you don't have to declare which site until:

1) The company attempts to move there; or
2) The site would otherwise be removed.
A card is, or is not, protected from something (e.g. from discarding), independently from fact whether that something just has to happen, or not.
It is protected simply because an effect that protects it is in force, whether it is convenient for any player, or not.

The moment when a site already in play becomes protected from removing from table, is when it is chosen as a new site.
During organization phase a company may decide that it will move to a site already in play.
Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table. That site will
remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase
Underlines mine.

If "a" and subsequent "that" have any meaning:
The company may decide to move to any of ("a") reachable sites already in play, but ("that") chosen site is protected from being removed from table.
There is no time between decision about moving to a site already in play and start of its protection.
Also a decision about moving to a site already in play cannot be postponed to a beginning of M/H phase, otherwise any company that has decided to move elsewhere would change its mind.

@Shapeshifter
MELE rule is quite different from CRF rule.
I do not think that CRF rule is addition to MELE rule. I think that CRF rule replaces MELE rule.

Not only because that it specifies different period of protection; that one only could be considered as a correction.
MELE rule restricts a site already in play to be "the current site card for the non-moving company". However it does not make any restriction to company that declares moving to the site ("other [than non-moving]" is hardly any restriction).

CRF rule says "Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table". This statement does not address any previously existing restriction.
If it is not convincing argument, then consider a sense of phrases "this site is never discarded (or returned to location deck)" in text of some permanent-events.
If some company is at, or moving to/from, a site the site card is not discarded/returned too, with or without mercy of such events.
But if no company would be at/moving to or from, a site with such event, what would be a purpose of keeping such inaccessible site in play?
Maybe the only purpose would be a hosting of such events.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

If you want to keep a site in play when it would otherwise be removed, one of your companies must attempt to move to that site, and you must have stated that the company in question was moving to a site on the table during the organization phase.

What you cannot do is keep many sites on the table that would otherwise be discarded and send your one company to whichever site is best. You can only keep a maximum of one site on the table for each company stated to be moving to a site on the table, and you must attempt to move at least one company to each of the sites you have kept on the table.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

A things do no need to be consistent, but usually a consistency is considered to be virtue.

I do not know how Gwaihir, or Eagle Mounts fit in Bandobras interpretation.
For a company that uses Gwaihir, or Eagle Mounts, a site that is valid new site at moment of decision about moving to it, may become invalid a moment later; a site type, or a region type may change even in the same organization phase.

What happens then?
According to me: only a state of game at moment when a company chooses where to move should be taken into account.
If, as Bandobras is suggesting, a company that decided to move to site already in play may postpone a decision to which exactly of reachable sites it is moving, then I see some problem.

The company A at Eagles Eyrie uses Gwaihir and declares movement to a site already in play (it does not choose concrete site at this point). The company B is at Moria (will move to Lorien). The company C is at Bree (will stay).
The company B moves first (to Lorien) and is not returned, nor redirected. At this point a player still does not specify a new site for company A.
Then the company C stays. During its M/H phase Morgul Night comes in play; Arthedain becomes [-me_sl-]. A moment earlier Bree was reachable by company A, and even earlier Moria was reachable too.
But now Bree (still in play) is not reachable, and Moria is not in play.
The company A must move somewhere but there is no site already in play not in ( [-me_sl-] or [-me_dd-]) . Except Eagles Eyrie, of course.
Bree - when it was eligible site already in play - was not endangered by removing from play, so none of the following conditions was fulfilled:
Bandobras Took wrote:I would say you don't have to declare which site until:

1) The company attempts to move there; or
2) The site would otherwise be removed.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

If, at the time you attempt to move to a site, that movement has become impossible, I thought the movement didn't happen.

If you declare a company is moving to a site on the table, and when the time comes, there is no possible legal site on the table, the company does not move.

A similar situation would occur if a character with Await the Advent declares movement away from Lorien and the Balrog hazard comes into play while Galadriel is at a site other than Lorien in another company's m/h phase. The character will not be able to move even though the declared movement was legal in the organization phase.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

So it does not matter whether a company declared moving to site already in play (not specifying which exactly a the moment) or declared movement using a new site card? If it was using Gwaihir's ability and a new site is in (or no site is not in) ( [-me_sl-] or [-me_dd-]) at beginning of its M/H phase, it cannot move?

(detail: regardless of how Await the Advent of Allies actually works, Balrog of Moria does not make Lorien a [-me_fh-] for purposes of interpreting a resources).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

Oops. You're right about the Balrog. :oops:

So far as I know, it doesn't matter. You can't move illegally.

If a non-elf agent shows that their movement has crossed through a site that is currently a Wizardhaven, the movement will have become illegal even if it was legal when it was actually done.

In the larger picture, not showing which site on a table a company moves to until circumstances force it is entirely in keeping with moving to a new site anyway.

You play site cards face down. Your opponent doesn't know until the new site is revealed which site it is. Something similar happens with moving to a site already on the table, except there are possibilities to know which site it is simply for lack of options.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

Bandobras Took wrote:If a non-elf agent shows that their movement has crossed through a site that is currently a Wizardhaven, the movement will have become illegal even if it was legal when it was actually done.
This analogy is doubtful. A player is allowed to deliberately play for a face-down agent a site card that is not in the same/adjacent to region as a region containing a site at which the agent is currently located. This is called illegal travel, but it is not breaking a rules.
Can a player, according to you, play as new site of company using Gwaihir's ability a site card that at the moment is in [-me_sl-], or in [-me_dd-]? In hope that in meantime a region type will change to some else, or just for bluff?

Going further toward "the larger picture": a site type of a new site/region type in which the site is located may change also during M/H phase of the company that uses Eagle-Mounts/Gwaihir's ability.

What then?
According to me: nothing that would make the movement illegal. Because "may move" in texts of the cards refers to the act of choosing a new site. Only.
What is meaning of the phrase according to your interpretation?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2994
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

If his company's size is two or less, you may discard Gwaihir during the organization phase to allow his company to move to any site that is not in a Shadow-land [s] or Dark-domain [d]; only hazard creatures keyed to the site may be played on a company that moves in this fashion.
Playable only at the end of the organization phase on a company with a diplomat that begins the turn at Eagles' Eyrie. Company may move to any site that is not a Shadow-hold [S] or a Dark-hold [D].
Both of these cards simply give a nonstandard movement ability.

If you assume that the movement must still take place in the movement/hazard phase, all other requirements for normal movement are in play (normally, one plays a site face down). In the case of moving to a site already on the table, the rules specifically allow for you to play a card if there is a potential for it to later affect play, so it's perfectly valid to use Gwaihir/Eagle-Mounts if you have a chance of changing the site/region type before the company's movement occurs.

In neither case must the site be indicated or revealed at the declaration of the ability. It is to be used during the movement/hazard phase, and it is then that the site is revealed/indicated.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

I do not understand.
Bandobras Took wrote:Both of these cards simply give a nonstandard movement ability.

If you assume that the movement must still take place in the movement/hazard phase, all other requirements for normal movement are in play (normally, one plays a site face down).
Underline mine.
Bandobras Took wrote: In neither case must the site be indicated or revealed at the declaration of the ability. It is to be used during the movement/hazard phase, and it is then that the site is revealed/indicated.
Either you have changed a context, or the statements are contradicting.
To recall. I did ask:
Konrad Klar wrote:Can a player, according to you, play as new site of company using Gwaihir's ability a site card that at the moment is in [-me_sl-], or in [-me_dd-]? In hope that in meantime a region type will change to some else, or just for bluff?
Yes/No/I do not know?
Bandobras Took wrote:[...]so it's perfectly valid to use Gwaihir/Eagle-Mounts if you have a chance of changing the site/region type before the company's movement occurs.[...]
I know that it is naughty practice to quote a middle of sentence, but I fear that as long there is a time for declaration of something, there is also a chance for anything.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”