Sink or swim with The Dark Power

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Second sentence of CRF entry for Palantír of Orthanc is errata, not clarification.
Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:47 pm The first post does not look like clarification. It's more of a statment thing to me.
First post was not meant to be a clarification. It ends with the question: "Correct?".
Sometimes a first step before making a clarification proposal, or errata proposal, is an asking other players whether a text of a card, or a rule may be read "as is". An interpretation of the text may be invalid, because reader does not take into account some existing rules. Sometimes it turns out that there is not known rule that prevents a card to be used in unexpected way, or that a result of the card is undefined under some conditions in play.
In second case it makes a sense to make a second step - errata proposal, or clarification proposal.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Yegor
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:39 am
Location: Dnipro, Ukraine

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pm If a question was not: "And how do you imagine this? Taking other player's cards?", then right.
The question was how you imagined shuffling your opponent's card into your play deck.
I can understand looking at opponent's cards.
I can understand discarding his hazards.
I can even understand discarding his hard-earned resources (though I am absolutely against it).
But shuffling his card into your play deck is outright silly.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pmI do not know.
Also I do not know any other than Parsimony of Seclusion and From the Pits of Angband hazards that allow to search for faction (and return it to hand).
I do not know any other card than Long Grievous Siege that takes a site card "off to the side".
You're changing subject.
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pmWithout the clarification someone could take into hand a site card. For any reason (to provoke an opponent to play Aware of their Ways, or to provoke him to play The Riddle Game).
Live and learn. Please, point me to the section in the rules, where it is allowed to add sites to your hand. I must be a very unattentive reader :roll:
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pmSay the same to your opponent during game, when he will try to perform some unusual action, and you will not be able to find a rule that would forbid a performing the action.
I will tell him to prove that this is legal in the first place. In this case I'm against presumption of innocence. If he can't, he will either not be able to perform it, or will have to finish the game on his own.

The problem here is the wording of the first post. To me it seems that you're not asking if the situation is legal or correct, but are actually in favour of it and supporting it. Since you're a "Rules Wizard", most of the Sauron players out there will be expoliting your "miesleading suggestion". No offense, of course.

You've replied to my reply to Bandobras, while I was replying to you. So, I think, the better wording for the whole thing would have been something like this: "Can The Dark Power target opponent's faction?" And then your example.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:24 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pmWithout the clarification someone could take into hand a site card. For any reason (to provoke an opponent to play Aware of their Ways, or to provoke him to play The Riddle Game).
Live and learn. Please, point me to the section in the rules, where it is allowed to add sites to your hand. I must be a very unattentive reader :roll:
Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:11 pmSay the same to your opponent during game, when he will try to perform some unusual action, and you will not be able to find a rule that would forbid a performing the action.
I will tell him to prove that this is legal in the first place. In this case I'm against presumption of innocence. If he can't, he will either not be able to perform it, or will have to finish the game on his own.
The rulebooks specifically say that the cards modify the base rules. If a card says to do something like take a card into your hand, and the rules don't otherwise restrict it (no rule says that you can't take an opponent's card into hand), then it is legal to take an opponent's card into hand. The allowance is created by the rulebook stating that the card makes new rules, and the card stating an action to perform.

---

I think the crux of this discussion comes down to how strictly one wants to interpret this line:
MELE p10 wrote:Play Deck --- This deck consists of your resource cards, hazards [sic] cards, and character cards.
A strict interpretation -- "this deck CAN ONLY consist" -- would automatically prevent The Dark Power from shuffling in another player's cards (and Palantir of Orthanc from shuffling in site cards).

The presentation of the Palantir of Orthanc addenda ("Errata and Rulings" on the Dutch council site) does seem to indicate that only the second addenda is an erratum; the "Cannot be used on site cards" is only a clarification. I know of no other way that this could be only a clarification other than by interpreting the above rule strictly.

So I'm also of the opinion that The Dark Power does NOT currently allow one to shuffle an opponent's faction into your play deck. But I think a clarification of this would be useful.
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

Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:24 pm The question was how you imagined shuffling your opponent's card into your play deck.
I can understand looking at opponent's cards.
I can understand discarding his hazards.
I can even understand discarding his hard-earned resources (though I am absolutely against it).
But shuffling his card into your play deck is outright silly.
If you can imagine at all a shuffling a card into play deck, then there is a chance that you can imagine a shuffling a "foo" card into play deck (where "foo" may be "site", "opponent's", or any other type of card you do not want to be shuffled into play deck).
Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:24 pm Live and learn. Please, point me to the section in the rules, where it is allowed to add sites to your hand. I must be a very unattentive reader :roll:
Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:24 pm I will tell him to prove that this is legal in the first place. In this case I'm against presumption of innocence. If he can't, he will either not be able to perform it, or will have to finish the game on his own.
So live and learn, as you says.
Other approach is "what is not forbidden is allowed".
Can you play a character card in organization phase? If so, do you need an additional permission for Wacho, or Vygavril?
I cannot imagine a shuffling a faction into play deck, as I cannot imagine a placing a site in discard pile.
I can imagine a shuffling, or a placing in discard pile a card that represent the faction, or site (respectively) in question.
Ready to His Will, and Memories of Old Torture allow to use an opponent's (or your own, if hypothetical effect allows for facing them) creatures as your allies. There are no rules that allow for that. Text of the card is sufficient.
If there is a rule that restrict in some way an object on which some action is performed, the restriction must be obeyed, or explicitly overridden.
There is no rule that forbids a placing an opponent's card in play deck or in hand. If it is a problem. then propose a rule that forbids it.
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

Yegor wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:47 pm
Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:48 pm The funniest part was that you just issued a clarification: sites are not shuffled into the play deck.
That's not clarification, but the common sense I've been referring to.
You're acting like the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Yegor
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:39 am
Location: Dnipro, Ukraine

"You're hopeless. Go to sleep!" (Sam Gamgee to Smeagol) :wink:
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”