Declaring movement to a site in play

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:To be fair I must mention the other things that are not fair.

Using of map is not fair in comparison to using a region cards.
Depending on a change of situation in game a player who uses map may decide that his company moves from Framsburg to Dale through Anduin Vales, Grey Mountain Narrows, Northern Rhovanion (if in meantime Spider of the Môrlat has been played as permanent-event), or that the company rather moves through Anduin Vales, Woodland Realm, Northern Rhovanion (if in meantime Foul Fumes has been played [and the company does not have a ranger]).
A player who uses a region cards must decide in organization phase.

However until start of the company's M/H phase nothing relies on knowledge about regions through which the company will move.
By its nature (i.e. not being represented by cards) a regions on map cannot be removed from play, so for instance a question "which region cards should be kept on table" does not exist.
A sites already in play are represented by cards and a question "which site cards should be kept on table" may appear even in organization phase.

In this situation: is it fair to demand a possibility to specify later a company's new site already in play, as excuse using the argument that otherwise an opponent would know more than he knows when company moves to site not already in play (using face down site card)? And at the same time taking advantage of using map rather that a region cards?

Both regions chosen in organization phase and site already in play chosen as new site could be noted elsewhere and the note could be revealed when needed.
This could reconcile a need of not revealing and need of preventing a manipulation. At obvious cost of inconvenience.
But this is easier to achieve than to reconcile "choosing now" and "specyfing later".
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Mordakai wrote:
Mordakai wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:To be fair I must mention the other things that are not fair.

Using of map is not fair in comparison to using a region cards.
Also region cards were considered the same way as sites IIRC (only one copy in each deck), so for example:
- Only one Rhudaur in deck
- Only one company at a time leaving/moving to Rivendell
- No chance to reach Cameth Brin if already moving with other people to Rivendell
I think you get the point... That would lead to extreme change in the metagame, forget about Eriador Express and any other deck relying on several companies running nearby. Say hello to big companies with 3xFellowship again and super slow games :lol:
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I do not know a rules that says that a player may include only one copy of each region card in location deck.
As far I know this would not be defined.
If such rule would exist, it would be implicitly negated by:
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.
Implicitly, because it is not possible to achieve with only one copy of particular region card.
Unless the region card is shared by companies. It also is not defined whether a region card may be shared by companies (as most of strange concepts).
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:That's nice, but the site path cannot be determined nor indicated until the company's m/h phase, whereas determining the site card itself can.
Are you saying that not solving 1 wrong is a valid reason to not solve another? Or just that 'fair' is not a valid concept at all in meccg.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Just my 2 cents, I never played it like one merely says "move to site on table", but indicating which site card specifically.
simple reason: I think it's unfair if one changes a company's movement should an Ahunt Dragon all of a sudden appear (or whatever else can befall other companies). Call me old-fashioned.
The capacity of players to cheat has no bearing on the rules. You simply beat the tar out of the cheater and go find an opponent with actual integrity.

I already mentioned the situation of playing whatever card you want as an agent. People who cheat are going to find a way to cheat.

You have to choose which site you're going to move them to in the organization phase. You don't have to indicate which site you have chosen until the company actually attempts to move/the site would otherwise be removed. Choosing to abuse the gameplay by changing your chosen site in reaction to hazards played makes a person a dishonest jerk. It doesn't make the rules say something they don't.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I'm saying two things.

1. Fairness is not good criterion for the game. Consistency is better.
Without consistency there is place for things that work despite of some reason and for other things that do not work for the same reason.

2. If someone agree to use map instead of a region cards, he agree to take advantage that map gives him and his opponent over using a region cards.
"Is the advantage fair?" is not problem for him.
Now that someone may notice that disclosed choice of new site that is a site already in play gives an opponent advantage over specifying new site that is face-down site card (not already in play).
An opponent knows a new site earlier.
This time this is a problem that must be solved. Registering the chosen site somewhere else and disclosing the note later is not solution to be considered.
Instead: the new site must be specified when needed, but not later than at start of company's M/H phase, and not later than when otherwise the site would be removed from play.

This not only removes "An opponent knows a new site earlier" problem (that one could be removed by registering/revealing note) but also gives a player a time to change a decision which of reachable sites already in play will be specified as company's new site.

However there is a solution for the new problem. "I swear" solution. A player must choose a concrete site in organization phase, he does not disclose the choice, and does not register anywhere the choice. He is obliqued by honor to not specifying other reachable site than that which he chose.

OK, OK, but... I see some technical problems, even bigger than that caused by registering a choice somewhere else (that are just inconvenience). If a choice of new site is not registered anywhere, even a computer program that would be able to verify a validity of playing could not be able to verify whether a site already in play specified as a new site is the same as site chosen in organization phase.

But it is not necessarily an inconsistent approach. Consistently a target of tapping of Magical Harp could be specified in the same way - choose, not disclose a choice until needed.
Why a choosing/specifying among revealed cards would be governed by different rules by particular case basis?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Mordakai wrote:
Mordakai wrote:And from my limited point of view... does anyone thought that the REAL intention of the game developers was exactly that? That you can "delay" the choice of site to move at until you have no other choice than moving that company, and depending on what you draw with the other companies you are moving before that?
After all, how many sites will you have in play? 5 or 6 among origin and new sites? maybe 8? And how many of them are reachable for "that" company? Come on, a more or less smart oponent could guess that next site, or at least choose from very limited options. Hey, even most of the times you can guess where is the opponent moving with a face down site, just "reading" how the game is developing, specially at the end of the game and because of the not so rich metagame we can see nowadays...
I'm not defending cheating, don't misunderstand me, just saying that it doesn't have to be cheating, it could be just game mechanics...
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I want to be fair: if I understand, Bandobras does not say about "delayed" choice. Rather about non-disclosed choosing, and stating later which of sites has been chosen (albeit without any technical chance for detecting a change of decision).

Now speaking only for myself: I think that disadvantage of disclosed specifying a site already in play as a new site is counted by other advantages.
A player does not need to wait for leaving the site by other company (and for exhausting deck if the site is tapped and not Haven/hero Buhr Widu). He preserves all permanent events on the site (to be fair again: unwanted too).
This is a reason for which I think that "fair" is not good criterion for the game. This is subjective.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I want to be fair: if I understand, Bandobras does not say about "delayed" choice. Rather about non-disclosed choosing, and stating later which of sites has been chosen (albeit without any technical chance for detecting a change of decision).
Exactly. You must choose during the organization phase. That is not when you have to reveal to your opponent what you have chosen. If you decide to cheat by changing which site you have chosen because your opponent can't check up on you, then you're a jerk.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Friday, April 7, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
I already mentioned the situation of playing whatever card you want as an agent. People who cheat are going to find a way to cheat.
I suppose so. In this case though, the 'agent' can be revealed with Here Is a Snake, which means auto-disqualification I suppose :wink:
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Friday, April 21, 2017, user Logain wrote:
Logain wrote:To my opinion RAI > Consistency > Fairness > RAW
(RAI - rules as intended <> RAW - rules as written)

Maybe sometimes LoRE beta rules (that never were published) can be read to see the RAI.

That second version that ICE prepared mentions that you choose if your company moves or not during the move phase.
Meaning you can move company one, then when selecting company 2 choose were to go or even to stay.
No need to plan ahead, possibility to adapt to what happens, game becomes more fluid and fun.
Ok it's not that realistic, but is playing hazards in any order your want despite site path realistic ?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Friday, April 21, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I did not notice that a realism was concern of anyone participating in this discussion.
If I understand a concern was: at which moment a site already in play must be specified as a new site of company that declares movement to a/the site already in play, and why.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Friday, April 21, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I did not notice that a realism was concern of anyone participating in this discussion.
Indeed, I'm not sure it applies to *any* rules discussion. :)
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Saturday, April 22, 2017, user dirhaval wrote:
dirhaval wrote:This has been a good argument to read.

I have played with the idea to move to a site on the table, but not tell the opponent until
the company moved to the site; Some of my opponents have done it, so I followed.
I will no longer do that. Sometimes it is obvious to the site in question that I selected.
However, one can on GCCG pull-out another copy of the site, set it face-down to prove no change was made.

Otherwise abuse can be there such as hoping to draw a card to later untap a tapped site
or draw cards you can use for that turn. Abuse can be anywhere.

My interpretation in the rules about using a site on table is that the name of the site must be mentioned during the organization phase.
"That site" is for a specific site else "The site" would had been used. Besides, which "table" are you referring to?
Laughing once a day helps.

Now, I am open to play with the beta rules if someone wants to do that of selecting the site just before moving.
That mechanic opens up more use of peeking at the hand such as Riddling Talk and palantir. Now I find a use for "Use Palantir"

I did not know that Region cards were unique. If that were told me during a game, then I would stare through
my opponent, point to my stack of region cards including 23 copies of Udun telling that opponent to get off my planet.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, user Logain wrote:
Logain wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:I did not notice that a realism was concern of anyone participating in this discussion.
Just saying it in case.
Konrad Klar wrote: If I understand a concern was: at which moment a site already in play must be specified as a new site of company that declares movement to a/the site already in play, and why.
Chosing companies and their destination one at a time during movement phase is a possibility to resolve this, even if it's a major change in habits, as you discard a site of origin when a company reaches its destination. As a side note it prevents A going to B and B to A if both sites are tapped.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”