Council of Elrond

My opponent has 2 moving companies. Doors of Night is not in play. The first company is moving to a Shadow Hold. There are no wounded characters in the first company.

I place Morgul Rats on guard at the Shadow Hold.

During the second company's M/H phase, I play Doors of Night.

When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?

What if Doors of Night is in play when Morgul Rats are placed on guard at the Shadow Hold, but then Doors of Night is later removed (ie. Twilight) prior to the site phase. Now they were legal to be played during M/H phase, but no longer legal to be revealed on guard?

Thanks

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?

Correct.

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am What if Doors of Night is in play when Morgul Rats are placed on guard at the Shadow Hold, but then Doors of Night is later removed (ie. Twilight) prior to the site phase. Now they were legal to be played during M/H phase, but no longer legal to be revealed on guard?

No longer legal to be revealed on guard.

I'll again grumble about the open-endedness of what could have been played means. If it were possible that Doors of Night could have also been played in the movement-hazard phase prior to playing Morgul-Rats, then I would argue that revealing Morgul-Rats on-guard is valid under the current wording (as long as Doors of Night is also in play when the revealing actually occurs).

Theo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:22 am If it were possible that Doors of Night could have also been played in the movement-hazard phase prior to playing Morgul-Rats, then I would argue that revealing Morgul-Rats on-guard is valid under the current wording (as long as Doors of Night is also in play when the revealing actually occurs).

Even if Doors of Night was not in play during first company's M/H phase?

the Jabberwock wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?

I'm sorry. My previous answer was not quite correct. Morgul Rats cannot be revealed, because it could not be played in company's M/H phase. Not because it was not playable when Morgul Rats card has been placed as On Guard.
In other words it does not matter whether in company's M/H phase a playability conditions existed before placing On Guard. It is sufficient that they existed in the M/H phase at all and also existed in site phase (eventual target, by its nature, must be the same target, not other object that would fulfill the card's conditions).

I rescind my previous post. I found another CRF rule that clears up what the earlier "could" means:

CRF wrote:Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the validity of revealing an on-guard card.

However, with the earlier referenced rule:

CRF wrote:An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase.

this combination means that no cards can be revealed on-guard, because no card "could" have been played if we are only allowed to consider what actually was played. If an on-guard card was already played, it can't be on-guard! This needs fixing.

Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the validity of revealing an on-guard card.

It is taken out of the context.

Whole paragraph is:

CRF wrote:Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the
validity of revealing an on-guard card. Potential effects that have not been triggered
cannot be considered.

I see the second sentence as a redundant clarification for sub-situations. The first sentence is about cards and effects. The second is only about effects. What is the additional context you see?

Theo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:08 am I see the second sentence as a redundant clarification for sub-situations.

I see the first sentence as a complacement for second sentence. Second sentence makes the context.

Greed On Guard cannot be revealed in response to playing a faction.
If the attempt will be successful, a character in company may play minor item, which would trigger action from Greed.
But at the point of playing a faction it is only potential effect.

Independently:
Existence of playability conditions in past (in M/H phase) is neither a card, nor an effect.
Similarly any other restrictions (rules) on revealing On Guards are neither a cards, nor an effects.

If said Morgul-rats was placed on-guard when DoN is in play, what exactly is the timing when the Rats could be revealed (assuming DoN is still in play)? I'm aware that AA would need to be faced first, followed by potential agent attacks, so could the card be revealed right after the auto- and agent-attacks are resolved?

@ kober -

The creature is revealed before the automatic-attack is resolved and then the creature attacks after the automatic-attack resolves.

Keep in mind the site must have an automatic-attack in order for a creature to be revealed on-guard.

Only trace I have found in rules:

CRF, Turn Sequence, Site Phase, General wrote:Play of an ally, item, faction, or resource card which will normally tap the site must be
after the company resolves all automatic, agent and on-guard creature attacks.

suggests the order:

1. automatic-attacks
2. agent attacks
3. on-guard creature attacks

As the Jabberwock said, an on-guard creature card must be revealed before an automatic-attacks are faced. However player may take a decision that agent at the site will attack or no (and be revealed or no, if face-down) after resolution of automatic-attacks.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:03 aman on-guard creature card must be revealed before an automatic-attacks are faced

That's exactly how I have been playing, but I'm just unable to find the specific rule for the timing

kober wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:08 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:03 aman on-guard creature card must be revealed before an automatic-attacks are faced

That's exactly how I have been playing, but I'm just unable to find the specific rule for the timing

Page 61 of The Wizards Rulesbook

An interesting twist, if I haven't missed any evidence:

You can't play Morgul-Rats (normally) on a moving company because a moving company is not at any site until the end of the movement/hazard phase.

MELE - HAZARD CARDS, NON-EVENT - Creature Cards wrote:You may use a creature card to directly attack one of your opponent's companies. Such an attack can occur only if one of the following criterion is met:

• The company is at a specific site at which the creature's card text says it can be played.
• The company's site of origin or new site is in a region where the creature's card text says it can be played.
• One of the site symbols on the creature's card matches the site that the company moved to (i.e., the new site) or stayed at (i.e., if the company did not move).
• At least one of the region symbols on the creature's card matches one of the region types the company moved through this turn (see below). ...

Bullets 2 and 4 are based on regions, so not relevant here. Bullet 3 is based on matching the site symbols on the creature's card, which are located at the top part of the left side of the card, of which Morgul-Rats has none. Bullet 1 is how Morgul-rats can normally be played, but is only when a company is at a specific site, and a moving company is not at a specific site until the end of the movement-hazard phase (or beginning of the site phase if you're one of those backward people ).

This has rather large implications for, e.g., named dragons as well, as I had always assumed that they could be played on a company moving to their site.

Surely there must be some correction for this?

The Balrog Summary p. 15 has the following:

If the company is moving, you may key creatures to their new site, by name or type.

In this case, I'm inclined to regard this as their intent rather than the sloppy writing so prevalent through most other portions of the Balrog turn summary.

Without accepting the Balrog Summary, it looks like you're correct, though: by rule, it looks like creatures can only be keyed by name to the site if the company is not moving.