How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:19 am Regarding "inconsistency" with Orc attacks and King Under the Mountain: I'm not sure what you are calling an inconsistency. Do you mean, "These mechanics are not realistic with the story theme?" I'm not sure what Orc Lieutenant's ability has to do with story theme in the first place, so can't comment there.

Since I know you like Netrep rulings:
ICE Netrep (Ichabod) 97/9/11 wrote: >Ichabod wrote:
>>
>> That would be a no, and let me clarify. King Under the Mountain says
>> "if his company defeated the Dragon..." That means the dwarf's current
>> company must be the same company that defeated the Dragon.
>
>This touches upon something that's been asked before, but I can't
>remember if there was an answer.
>
>How do you judge if a company is still the same company as before? Does
>it have to contain exactly the same characters? Is it OK of someone
>joins, but not if someone leaves? What if someone leaves and then comes
>back? Is it enough that just one of the original characters is in the
>company? If the company splits, is just one of them the original
>company, or both, or none? What if they split and then rejoin? What's
>the meaning of life? :)

When a company splits, you have to decide which part of the company
is the original company. The decision is up to the person who is
splitting the company. When two companies join you have to decide
which of the two companies the new company is, although effects on
either company now effect the whole company. When you play a character
with a company, that company remains the same company.


So you have company A, with characters X, Y, and Z. Z splits into
his own company. You get to decide whether X and Y are company A,
or whether Z is company A. Let's say you make Z company A, and now
X and Y are company B. Next turn, you play W with X and Y. This is
still company B. Then company A moves to the same site, and has a
River played on it. You decide to make the combined company of W,
X, Y, and Z into company B, but they still have to deal with the
River.

Clear so far?

So Thorin is in the Dragon-defeating company, and is the only character
in the company. The Opponent company comes along and influences him
away. This means Thorin is played with the Opponent company, and
becomes part of the Opponent company. The Dragon-defeating company
is gone, and your opponent cannot play King Under the Mountain.

BTW, 42 and we'll be by to pick up your liver tommorow.
If we accept this, then Konrad's question about a merge seems to be answered by "You have to pick one history".

Good example. /thumbsup
Of course I've read this ruling. This is not even the only ruling so keep reading.

You're either having a reading comprehension problem or you have intentionally and deceptively left out the original question and answer. There are 2 different but related concepts being discussed in the ruling, (A) defeating an At Home Dragon for King Under the Mountain (B) Resource effects on a company.

The determination of (A) whether "his company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack" for King Under the Mountain does not follow the same rules as (B) deciding which company is the original company for purposes of RESOURCE EFFECTS on the company.

For (A) Determining whether "his company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack" for King Under the Mountain, Ichabod ruled in that same thread:
>3. Does the Dwarf have to be at the site where the At Home dragon was
>defeated in order to play King Under the Mountain?

No, but he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation.
----------
>> >3. Does the Dwarf have to be at the site where the At Home dragon was
>> >defeated in order to play King Under the Mountain?
>>
>> No, but he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation.

>Question on this---
> If Thorin's company defeats an At Home Dragon and then Thorin is
>influenced away by the opponent can he/she then play King Under the
>Mountain?

That would be a no, and let me clarify. King Under the Mountain says
"if his company defeated the Dragon..." That means the dwarf's current
company must be the same company that defeated the Dragon.
He HAD TO BE in the company that defeated the dragon. It is not sufficient merely "be in the company that defeated the dragon" by joining that company later.
Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:52 pmI can't think of a reason a player would NOT choose to have the company inherit having defeated an at-home Dragon manifestation attack for the purpose of King Under the Mountain.
Read the rule. It only applies to resource effects, not to defeating dragons or facing attacks. The player CANNOT choose to have the company inherit defeat of a dragon. If Thorin defeats an At Home Dragon and then Balin moves to join Thorin on a later turn, at no point did Balin's company defeat an At Home Dragon.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:00 pm If the company A has defeated a Dragon at Home joins with company B that has faced Chill Douser, then resulting company C should be considered both company that has defeated a Dragon at Home and company that has faced a Chill Douser.
The question for King Under the Mountain is whether the character WAS in the company when the dragon was defeated. Did his company defeat an At Home Dragon attack? The question is not -- did he join a company and was the combined company designed as being the other company which defeated a Dragon attack:
Ichabod wrote:he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:52 pm Turning Hope to Despair explicitly says characters split FROM the original company and FORM (new) companies. This seems to be one the cards referenced by the CRF entry: "When a company splits up, its player chooses which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company, unless otherwise directed by a card." Why ignore that?
Reading Comprehension requires reading everything in context. That CRF entry is specifically describing how resource effects are handled. It does not apply to hazard effects. The only thing this CRF statement does is extend the MEDM rule on resource permanent-events. It is clear from the CRF entry but it is especially obvious when reading the ruling. There is another ruling extending this to character effects which have been ruled to work the same as resource effects numerous times.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:00 pm If the company A has defeated a Dragon at Home joins with company B that has faced Chill Douser, then resulting company C should be considered both company that has defeated a Dragon at Home and company that has faced a Chill Douser.
The question for King Under the Mountain is whether the character WAS in the company when the dragon was defeated. Did his company defeat an At Home Dragon attack? The question is not -- did he join a company and was the combined company designed as being the other company which defeated a Dragon attack:
Ichabod wrote:he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation
I am with Ichabod here.
Text of King Under the Mountain does not check whether a target character was in company that defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon BEFORE, AFTER, or WHILE the company has defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Here's how it works, it's really simple:
  • The resource player decides how resource and character effects are handled when changing companies.
  • The hazard player decides how non-resource/character effects are handled when when changing companies.
  • Designating companies as being the old company or a new company for purposes of resource/character effects has no impact on determining whether a company faced or defeated an attack.
This is consistent with the actual rulings.

There are rulings expanding the MEDM rule on resource permanent events to resource short events and character effects. There is no general ruling, but there are specific rulings that the hazard player handles how non-resource/character effects are handled (making a decision for "cannot be duplicated", handling returning to origin, etc.). And there are rulings that both split companies are considered to have faced the attacks that they faced before the split.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:01 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:43 pm
Ichabod wrote:he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation
I am with Ichabod here.
Text of King Under the Mountain does not check whether a target character was in company that defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon BEFORE, AFTER, or WHILE the company has defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon.
Ichabod is saying that the character has to have been in the company WHILE the company was defeating the At Home dragon.

King Under the Mountain says "his company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation."

I don't see any other way to interpret King Under the Mountain: A character's company can not have defeated an at home Dragon manifestation unless the character was in the company when that company defeated the at home Dragon.

The contrivance of choosing "which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company" does not apply to defeating at home dragons. It only applies to distributing resource/character effects.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:16 pm Ichabod is saying that the character has to have been in the company WHILE the company was defeating the At Home dragon.
Facts have some advantage over persons. They do not need to discus with them.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:01 pm Text of King Under the Mountain does not check whether a target character was in company that defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon BEFORE, AFTER, or WHILE the company has defeated At Home manifestation of Dragon.
It does because it says "has defeated."
Playable on Balin, Dáin II, Thorin II, or Thráin II if his company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack other than Eärcaraxë at Home.

Say that Thorin "has defeated" an At Home Dragon alone and then Balin moves to join Thorin on the following turn.

It is not possible to say that Balin's company "has defeated an at home Dragon" because no group of characters including Balin has ever defeated an At Home Dragon. The contrivance of naming the joined company as still being Thorin's company for purposes of does not apply to defeating At Home Dragons.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Current Balin's company could exist before Balin joined the company.
Some company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack other than Eärcaraxë at Home before Balin joined the company.
At the moment when the company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack other than Eärcaraxë at Home it was not Balin's company, but currently it is Balin's company.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:18 pm At the moment when the company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack other than Eärcaraxë at Home it was not Balin's company, but currently it is Balin's company.
Say Thorin's company defeats the At Home Dragon and Balin joins on a later turn. The company that is currently Balin's company has not "defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack." The company consisting of Balin and Thorin not defeated an at Home Dragon. It was Thorin's company without Balin that defeated the dragon. The contrivance for deciding that the joined company is considered the original company only applies to resource and character effects.

Still, Thorin's company has "defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack," just not his current company.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:21 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:16 pm Ichabod is saying that the character has to have been in the company WHILE the company was defeating the At Home dragon.
Facts have some advantage over persons. They do not need to discus with them.
Funny to hear this coming from you.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:36 pm You're either having a reading comprehension problem or you have intentionally and deceptively left out the original question and answer.
The part I underlined is factually a general statement, nowhere conditioned on context.

-----
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:36 pm For (A) Determining whether "his company has defeated an at home Dragon manifestation attack" for King Under the Mountain, Ichabod ruled in that same thread:
>3. Does the Dwarf have to be at the site where the At Home dragon was
>defeated in order to play King Under the Mountain?

No, but he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation.
----------
>> >3. Does the Dwarf have to be at the site where the At Home dragon was
>> >defeated in order to play King Under the Mountain?
>>
>> No, but he had to be in the company that defeated the At Home manifestation.

>Question on this---
> If Thorin's company defeats an At Home Dragon and then Thorin is
>influenced away by the opponent can he/she then play King Under the
>Mountain?

That would be a no, and let me clarify. King Under the Mountain says
"if his company defeated the Dragon..." That means the dwarf's current
company must be the same company that defeated the Dragon.
He HAD TO BE in the company that defeated the dragon. It is not sufficient merely "be in the company that defeated the dragon" by joining that company later.
Let me review the latest ruling you just gave, because you underlined the portion that was subsequently changed in the thread:
let me clarify. King Under the Mountain says
"if his company defeated the Dragon..." That means the dwarf's current
company must be the same company that defeated the Dragon
.
"That means" means that what follows defines the requirements from that sentence fragment. So your following claim is unsupported (or, rather, supported only by a ruling that was corrected):
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:43 pm The question for King Under the Mountain is whether the character WAS in the company when the dragon was defeated.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:39 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:36 pm You're either having a reading comprehension problem or you have intentionally and deceptively left out the original question and answer.
The part I underlined is factually a general statement, nowhere conditioned on context.
READ. It is not a general statement. The statement specifically applies to Organizing Companies during the organization phase and it only applies to allocating resource/character effects.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:47 pm
Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:52 pm Turning Hope to Despair explicitly says characters split FROM the original company and FORM (new) companies. This seems to be one the cards referenced by the CRF entry: "When a company splits up, its player chooses which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company, unless otherwise directed by a card." Why ignore that?
Reading Comprehension requires reading everything in context. That CRF entry is specifically describing how resource effects are handled. It does not apply to hazard effects. The only thing this CRF statement does is extend the MEDM rule on resource permanent-events. It is clear from the CRF entry but it is especially obvious when reading the ruling. There is another ruling extending this to character effects which have been ruled to work the same as resource effects numerous times.
An interesting idea. What resource effects split a company during the organization phase? A quick search says... none!
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:41 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:39 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:36 pm You're either having a reading comprehension problem or you have intentionally and deceptively left out the original question and answer.
The part I underlined is factually a general statement, nowhere conditioned on context.
READ. It is not a general statement. The statement specifically applies to Organizing Companies during the organization phase and it only applies to allocating resource/character effects.
Taking the Gollum approach, that it is your birthday present?
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)”