Reluctant final parting question

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
panotxa
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Hi,
What happens to a company that is not in an Underdeeps site (for example, Cirith Gorgor) and this company has some cave trolls in it (which are playable at the Underdeeps) and they face Reluctant final parting? The case when being in an Underdeeps site is straight and simple, but if they are at the surface... nothing happens because there's no "nearest haven site" for any underdeeps site? Or precisely because of this they'll get discarded too?
Thanks
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Discard any ally if its current site is an Under-deeps site or if its current site's nearest Haven is not the same as the nearest Haven for the site at which the ally can be played.
Under-deeps sites have no nearest haven. A non-existent value cannot be used for comparison. (Likewise, Seized By Terror has no effect vs Ringwraiths, since they lack a mind attribute.) However, the fact that ICE forbade its use against the Balrog is an indication that they *thought* it would be effective against allies with a playable site that has no nearest haven, so there's room for doubt. As usual.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Kodi
Council Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:22 pm

And how is possible that Reluctant affects to an ally that is playable in an Under-deeps site? Is there any errata or rule that prevents a Cave Troll to be discarded at his playable site?

Thanxs!
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

kodi wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:41 pm And how is possible that Reluctant affects to an ally that is playable in an Under-deeps site? Is there any errata or rule that prevents a Cave Troll to be discarded at his playable site?
Thanxs!
As long as a company doesn't stop moving it is immune to Reluctant Final Parting. But a Cave Troll (controlled by a non-Balrog player) that sits at an Underdeeps site can be affected.
Bandobras Took wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:45 pm Under-deeps sites have no nearest haven. A non-existent value cannot be used for comparison. (Likewise, Seized By Terror has no effect vs Ringwraiths, since they lack a mind attribute.)
Rather, a non-existent value always fails to be equal to an existent value. (Non-existent values also always fail to satisfy ordinal comparisons (greater, less than), which is the Seized By Terror on a Ringwraith case.)

So a Cave Troll that sits anywhere can be hit by Reluctant Final Parting. They get bored easily.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
panotxa
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

If not done already, an official ruling is needed then to decide if an ally with home site Under-deeps would get discarded no matter where it was, or will only get discarded in case he is at an Under-deeps site. Is there a NetRep nowadays? How can we get an "official" answer to this question?
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Theo wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:19 pmRather, a non-existent value always fails to be equal to an existent value.
I'm not certain that's the case for game purposes, at least. Reluctant Final Parting looks for the nearest haven of the ally's current site. If it can't find a value for that, then it can't compare at all to determine equality. Non-existent values are not the same thing as a value of 0.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Ex Council Member
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

panotxa wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:11 am If not done already, an official ruling is needed then to decide if an ally with home site Under-deeps would get discarded no matter where it was, or will only get discarded in case he is at an Under-deeps site. Is there a NetRep nowadays? How can we get an "official" answer to this question?
As I see it the only ally that is only playable at an Under-deeps site and that might be affected by Reluctant Final Parting (RFP) is Cave Troll.
The ally card The Balrog may not be affected as per CRF:
CRF wrote:Reluctant Final Parting has no effect on The Balrog.
Moreover RFP may not be played against a Balrog player per The Balrog rules. Thus RFP doesn't affect Nasty Slimy Thing, Great Troll and Evil Things Lingering.
Making your opponent discard 1 MP for a Cave Troll is not that good to make it worth including RFP in your deck or sideboard. Unless of course Cave Troll is the only one ally played in order to double ally MPs.

On a side note: What is the nearest haven of a haven card like Dol Guldur?
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

I have moved this topic from the Rules & Errata forum to the Rules Questions forum since the primary purpose appears to be a question needing to be answered.
panotxa wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:11 am If not done already, an official ruling is needed then to decide if an ally with home site Under-deeps would get discarded no matter where it was, or will only get discarded in case he is at an Under-deeps site. Is there a NetRep nowadays? How can we get an "official" answer to this question?
There is currently no NetRep. There is currently no way to get an "official answer." The best you can hope for to be used immediately is the educated opinions of those on this forum. For an official clarification/erratum to be issued for long term use, you are welcome to submit a recommendation for next year's Annual Rules Vote. The submission forum can be found here: viewforum.php?f=145
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Shapeshifter wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:08 pm On a side note: What is the nearest haven of a haven card like Dol Guldur?
From the CRF: Darkhavens count as their own nearest Darkhaven. Havens count as their own nearest Haven.
Bandobras Took wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:23 pm
Theo wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:19 pmRather, a non-existent value always fails to be equal to an existent value.
I'm not certain that's the case for game purposes, at least. Reluctant Final Parting looks for the nearest haven of the ally's current site. If it can't find a value for that, then it can't compare at all to determine equality. Non-existent values are not the same thing as a value of 0.
Is something that exists the same as something that doesn't exist?
No, as can be deduced using a proof by contradiction: if they were the same, they would (at the very least) need to both exist or both not exist. Given that they definitely don't have existence/its lack in common, they cannot be the same.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

I'm arguing game logic. I'm saying for the purposes of the game, something that doesn't exist can't be used for comparison.

Obviously, there are logical arguments to be made, but those hold short weight a lot of times in this game. :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Would you agree that the card can be played on Bill the Pony, say, at an Underdeeps site? To me, that certainly seems like one of the two allowances of the card.

Now consider the abstract structure of the card: "do W if (X or (Y equals Z))".

If Z not existing makes the check for equality impossible---(Y equals ??) evaluates to ??---then it should be similarly impossible to evaluate (X or ??).

But we very naturally have no problem evaluating (X or ??). Even though Bill the Pony at an Underdeeps site does not have a defined nearest Haven to his current site, we can still reason through the "or" logic and determine that the clause as a whole is satisfied.

Similarly the logic I gave above allows us to evaluate "equals" without needing both operands defined.

---

Aside, regarding a similar discussion when instructed to "Subtract from the attempt the number of regions between Pallando's site and the site where the influence attempt would normally be made." at an Underdeeps site (underline mine):
Bandobras Took wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:13 am If the number may not be calculated, there is no modification.
In this situation you did not declare the comparison required by the influence check to be impossible to evaluate (which falls on the opposite side of my opinion as this Reluctant Final Parting discussion). I'm not sure how this fits with your "game logic", and from my perspective it seems inconsistent.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If an ally is forced to make an corruption check, he cannot make it. So he does not fail the cc.
So if Token of Goodwill is played on diplomat ally, the ally will always pass the test for not failed cc.
If the card would ask for successful cc, then an ally would newer pass the test.

Reluctant Final Parting asks whether some (X) nearest Haven is the same as other (Y) nearest Haven.
This is a test for identity, performed also in result of successful riddling roll. Fact that a player does not have any card in hand at some moment, does not mean that the test cannot be performed. In such situation the test will end with negative result.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

My words may have been imprecise. If the number used for the modification cannot be calculated, then there cannot be a modification, because the modification requires a number.

An "or" merely requires that one of its conditions actually be able to be checked. I think (again, for the purposes of the game) that all values have to be known and defined to check for equality.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:15 am This is a test for identity, performed also in result of successful riddling roll. Fact that a player does not have any card in hand at some moment, does not mean that the test cannot be performed. In such situation the test will end with negative result.
This is a much better example than any I tried to make up.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”