Declaring movement to a site in play

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:17 am

Which is why it's currently allowed to play River on the site of a non-moving company.

As for the "site face down," it's because we're discussing this in the context of moving to a site already on the table, in which case the site is face up. I wasn't sure whether you were suggesting moving to a site on the table or to a totally new site.

Both Gwaihir and Eagle-Mounts are initiated (or whatever word you want to use) in the organization phase, but the destination is not revealed (or in the case of a site on the table, selected) until that company begins their portion of the movement/hazard phase (or, again in the case of the site on the table, when it would otherwise be discarded/returned to deck). The legality of the destination is checked at that time.

Paths of the Dead may be declared during the Org phase with movement to the Vale of Erech from Dunharrow. If during another company's m/h phase, a corruption check (from Ren) eliminates Aragorn II, the movement has become illegal. By contrast, Paths of the Dead may be played even though there is no company with Aragorn II, and a company at Dunharrow may choose to play Vale of Erech as its new site, so long as by the time they attempt to move, Aragorn II is in the company (Strider/A Chance Meeting).
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: 2626
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:48 am

Bandobras Took wrote:Both Gwaihir and Eagle-Mounts are initiated (or whatever word you want to use) in the organization phase, but the destination is not revealed (or in the case of a site on the table, selected) until that company begins their portion of the movement/hazard phase (or, again in the case of the site on the table, when it would otherwise be discarded/returned to deck). The legality of the destination is checked at that time.
So a company that uses Gwaihir's ability, and does not want to move to a site already in play, must play a site card face down. And the site may be at the moment located in [-me_sl-], or in [-me_dd-]?
Right?

A consistency would require to not require for Paths of the Dead even a company at Dunharrow.
Although if there is no company at Dunharrow that contains Aragorn II, "this company", or "the company" points to nothing.

I threat "may move" in texts of Gwaihir, Eagle-Mounts, Paths of the Dead in the same way.
It does not mean that a target company may, but does must move. The company must move.
It is used to specifiy a range of possible sites to which the company may move.
Similarly "may move" in texts of Bridge, or Forced March is not an option.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:22 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:So a company that uses Gwaihir's ability, and does not want to move to a site already in play, must play a site card face down. And the site may be at the moment located in [-me_sl-], or in [-me_dd-]?
Right?
Correct.
A consistency would require to not require for Paths of the Dead even a company at Dunharrow.
Although if there is no company at Dunharrow that contains Aragorn II, "this company", or "the company" points to nothing.
That is also correct, if I understand your phrasing. Paths of the Dead may be played according to the logic of river on the site of a non-moving company.
I threat "may move" in texts of Gwaihir, Eagle-Mounts, Paths of the Dead in the same way.
It does not mean that a target company may, but does must move. The company must move.
It is used to specifiy a range of possible sites to which the company may move.
Similarly "may move" in texts of Bridge, or Forced March is not an option.
Gwaihir doesn't have the phrase "may move." The phrase is "discard Gwaihir during the organization phase to allow his company to move."

I believe that in order to initiate Gwaihir/Eagle-mounts, a company must commit to moving during the organization phase. Both cards only have an effect if the company commits to moving, by broadening the possible sites and changing the movement method to get there.

As you're probably aware, the word "may" in English can be a rat's nest of conflicting interpretations. :)
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
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:08 am

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017, user Jose-San wrote:
Jose-san wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote: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.
This is more restrictive than how people (including me) are currently playing.

Rereading this:
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.
I don't understand where the notion that the site doesn't need to be declared during the organization comes from. Which would be even more restrictive.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:19 am

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:During the organization phase, I say, "I declare as this company's new site a site already on the table."

I have fulfilled what the CRF says I must do. The site I have chosen will stay on the table. No other site will stay on the table. Your opponent has no particular right to know which site you have chosen until it is necessary to know, any more than your opponent gets to know which site you've played face down if you're moving to a new site, but this does not mean that you get to keep all your sites on the table.

A site of origin by default either returns to the location deck or is discarded at the end of a company's movement/hazard phase. It takes a specific exception to interrupt that. A company having declared they are moving to a site on the table and having chosen that site is one. No Strangers At This Time is an example of a resource that prevents a site from being discarded. You cannot keep a site of origin on the table at the end of a company's movement/hazard phase unless there is something specific allowing you to do so. If a company is moving there, that qualifies, but that company has by definition not stated that they are moving to any other site once they show they are moving to the one in question. Use of a movement enhancer such as Forced March will allow a company to "reset" their decision, as it were, by declaring their new site to be any site still on the table.

(Obviously, I'm speaking of scenarios in which all companies are moving. Stationary companies, of course, keep their sites in play.)

(Edit: P.S. There are many cases where how something is traditionally played is not how the rules say a thing should be played. See the link in my sig about rules we assumed applied to FWs that actually 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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:19 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tower Raided wrote:Playable during the site phase on an untapped Shadow-hold [S] if your company there: bears an item worth at least 2 marshalling points, contains an untapped scout, and discard for no effect a Stolen Knowledge card it controls. Tap the site and discard the item. Company faces an attack: Orcs-4 strikes with 8 prowess. By the end of the site phase, tap a scout in the company or discard this card. If this card is not discarded, all versions of this site are now Ruins & Lairs [R], and no factions are playable there. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to your location deck.
Underlines mine.
"an item worth at least 2 marshalling points" solely does not indicate that such item must be specified. But conjunction with subsequent "the item" indicates that "an item worth at least 2 marshalling points" referred later by "the item" must be specified. Player does not have an option to decide between declaration and resolution of the card whether "the item" is Wormsbane, or Lesser Ring, or Narsil, whichever the company bears.

You have not chosen any site if you have a reserved a right to specify later which of eligible sites you have chosen.
That site will remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase.
would not work at the moment, because "That site" would not be specified.
You are supposing an existence of rule:
"At least one of eligible sites must remain in play until player whose company has decided to move to a site already in play will specify its new site".

"Your opponent has no particular right to know which site you have chosen until it is necessary to know" , and I do not have a particular right to postpone a choice of new site. A company that decided to move using new (face down) site card does not postpone a choice of new site. Its new site has been chosen, but it will be disclosed later. It is not the same as choosing a new site later.

I could achieve comparable concealment of chosen new site if I could note elsewhere which new site (already in play) I have chosen and disclose it when it is needed.
But is there a general rule that gives me a right to not disclosing identity of new site in organization phase, and rest must be conformable with the rule?
Bandobras Took wrote: You cannot keep a site of origin on the table at the end of a company's movement/hazard phase unless there is something specific allowing you to do so. If a company is moving there, that qualifies, but that company has by definition not stated that they are moving to any other site once they show they are moving to the one in question.
If you would replace "by definition" by "in my opinion" then I could not deny.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:20 am

On Wednesday, March 29, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:People can always cheat if they're so inclined; not much can be done to stop it.

You do, of course, have to decide which site you're going to send the company to. Your opponent doesn't get to know during the organization phase. I'm detailing the points at which your opponent does finally get to know.

If a player decides to abuse that, it's up to them. A player can play any card face down and claim that it's an agent. If a person is suspected of cheating, calling a judge over and utilizing a method such as the one you mentioned is the solution.

Tower Raided is a good example, actually. Your opponent gets to know which item you have chosen when you discard it. Not when the playability requirements of the card are being checked. Similarly, your opponent gets to know what site you're moving to when you move there/do not remove it from the table. Not when you announce that your company is moving to a site on the table.
If you would replace "by definition" by "in my opinion" then I could not deny.
I am unaware of any method in this game for one company to move to, let alone be at, two different sites simultaneously. Thus if you are keeping a site on the table by having a company move to that site, you have not stated that you are moving to any other site.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:21 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:A cheating was not my concern. But if you are speaking about it: it is not a cheating if I'm allowed to specify something later, and I'm specifing the thing later.
This is a no more/no less specifying of something later. No inspection and no control (other than mind control) can verify whether I've not changed my decision in meantime.

Maybe you are consistent (case of card other than Tower Raided may verify it) if you see Tower Raided as support of your statement.
Seems like the phrase "the item" would also be "an item worth at least 2 marshalling points of your choice", and it would no cause functional change of the card.
Bandobras Took wrote:I am unaware of any method in this game for one company to move to, let alone be at, two different sites simultaneously. Thus if you are keeping a site on the table by having a company move to that site, you have not stated that you are moving to any other site.
Right.
However it has nothing to do with question: "when the site, that must be kept on table, has to be specified?".
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:22 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:I believe that a site does not need to be specified until a game mechanic/effect requires that specification. The site must be chosen during the organization phase. Nothing more.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:22 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:Seems like you see a difference between a specifying and a choosing.
I see too. A choosing is not the same as specifying. A choosing includes a specifying.c
There is no choice among multiple instances of Aragorn II, when Return of the King has to be played. However Aragorn II must be specified as target of the card.
However it is not possible to choose something without specifying it.
Even if generally I'm not required to reveal what I have chosen, it is my responsibility that I've decided to choose among already revealed cards, it is not problem of my opponent.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:23 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Shapeshifter wrote:
Shapeshifter wrote:Here is an attempt to sum up the discussion so far:

1. At any time during it's organization phase a company
- commits to moving / declares movement or
- declares that it will stay at it's current site.

2. Declaration of movement is done by
- placing a new site card face down or
- stating that a company attempts to move to a site already in play; that company's new site has to be chosen now; once a site is chosen during the organization phase you may not change your mind.

From now on there are two differing opinions about whether a chosen new site already in play has to be
- named/specified immediately or
- not until
a) the company actually moves there during it's m/h-phase
b) the site card would otherwise be discarded or returned to the location deck (e.g. because another company moved away from that site in it's preceding m/h-phase). (edit: 2017-03-30)
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:24 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:(
Konrad Klar wrote:A choosing includes a specifying.c.
I had in mind "A choosing is included in a specifying"
I'm sorry. I think that it make a sense to rewrite whole post.)


Seems like you see a difference between a specifying and a choosing.
I see too. A choosing is not the same as specifying. A choosing is included in a specifying.
There is no choice among multiple instances of Aragorn II, when Return of the King has to be played. However Aragorn II must be specified as target of the card.
However it is not possible to choose something without specifying it.
Even if generally I'm not required to reveal what I have chosen, it is my responsibility that I've decided to choose among already revealed cards, it is not problem of my opponent.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:25 am

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:@Shapeshifter:

That last "b" should have "discarded or returned to the location deck" for completeness. ;)
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:26 am

On Thursday, March 30, 2017, user Shapeshifter wrote:
Shapeshifter wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:@Shapeshifter:

That last "b" should have "discarded or returned to the location deck" for completeness. ;)
Thx, post updated.
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: 1132
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Declaring movement to a site in play

Post by the Jabberwock » Wed May 31, 2017 3:27 am

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017, user Thorsten the Traveller 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.
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”