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: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:41 pm
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!
... Some effects choose which characters the effect applies to regardless of the player's choice: "the scout's company"
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:13 pm And there are rulings that both split companies are considered to have faced the attacks that they faced before the split.
Some rulings are incorrect. But it is hard to discuss when you don't actually reference the rulings.
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 6:16 pm 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.
You have not established this, only claimed it.
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 9:46 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:13 pm And there are rulings that both split companies are considered to have faced the attacks that they faced before the split.
Some rulings are incorrect. But it is hard to discuss when you don't actually reference the rulings.
It's the ruling on Ahunts from ICE Digest 113 that was quoted above and that we've been discussing.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:44 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:41 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:47 pm
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!
... Some effects choose which characters the effect applies to regardless of the player's choice: "the scout's company"
One should deduce that which characters the effect applies to has nothing to do with the statement: "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." You are jumping ahead to the sentence that follows, which isn't what this sentence is about.
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 9:50 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:46 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:13 pm And there are rulings that both split companies are considered to have faced the attacks that they faced before the split.
Some rulings are incorrect. But it is hard to discuss when you don't actually reference the rulings.
It's the ruling on Ahunts from ICE Digest 113 that was quoted above and that we've been discussing.
Ohhh, I thought you said plural rulings. My mistake.

Unfortunately, some rulings did make errors. That has been the premise of my contribution to this discussion.
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 9:48 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:16 pm 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.
You have not established this, only claimed it.
The current CRF entry is listed under "Turn Sequence Rulings > Organization Phase > Organizing Companies"

It is specifically describing this portion of the game:
organization phase.PNG
organization phase.PNG (94.75 KiB) Viewed 3915 times

This current CRF entry is an update to the earlier CRF entry:
CRF 4 wrote:If a company splits up, their player chooses which characters are the
original company and which characters are a new company (unless otherwise
directed by a card). All resource permanent-events played on the original
company stay with the original company. This rule will mostly come into
play with the release of Middle-earth: Dark Minions.
Dark Minions wrote:Permanent-events (Clarification)
If one of your companies splits into two or more companies, you
may place any resource permanent-events that were on the original company
(as a whole) with any of the resulting companies. Some events of
this type must be discarded (as specified) when a company splits (e.g.,
Fellowship).
None of these rules apply to defeating a Dragon or facing attacks.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:51 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:44 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:41 pm

An interesting idea. What resource effects split a company during the organization phase? A quick search says... none!
... Some effects choose which characters the effect applies to regardless of the player's choice: "the scout's company"
One should deduce that which characters the effect applies to has nothing to do with the statement: "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." You are jumping ahead to the sentence that follows, which isn't what this sentence is about.
This is a paragraph in a section of the rules on organizing companies during the organization phase. That is the context.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:26 pm
Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:52 am
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm You have had several opportunities to identify which rules supporting your interpretation and you have not done so. I know that the rules do not support your interpretation because I have read them all and quoted them above.
Fact check: I did. And as I have explained, the same rules you've already quoted support my interpretation when using correct English. A company would need plural verbs to not be its own entity but instead refer only to its comprising characters.
Fact check: you just said that I quoted them, not you.
Deduction check: I can both cite my own rules and explain that the rules you quoted support my interpretation.

-----
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:26 pm What is this? The 3rd time I've written this: "Again, there is a difference between an effect that targets a company and the "history" of the company in having faced certain attacks."
Then it sounds like we then both agree that a company is, in fact, a separate and distinct entity. Excuse my confusion on your beliefs, but I was working from:
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm In MECCG, the "company" is not a separate and distinct entity.
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 10:00 pm Then it sounds like we then both agree that a company is, in fact, a separate and distinct entity. Excuse my confusion on your beliefs, but I was working from:
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm In MECCG, the "company" is not a separate and distinct entity.
Again, you are missing the context, which leads to misinterpretations. In the previous post on the same page I stated:
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:07 pm
Theo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:16 am A "group of characters" as its own entity has not faced an Ahunt attack if it is a new group. Turning Hope to Despair causes groups to "form", so any such group (as its own entity) is new, even if the characters in it are IDENTICAL to the original (say, only one character was in the original company).
I don't interpret the group of characters/company as being a different entity than the characters forming the group for the purposes of what has happened to that group of characters (e.g., have they faced an attack). A subset of a group is not necessarily a new entity.

I don't see anything in the rules to support the interpretation the a split company is not considered to have faced the attack.
You can play a resource effect on a company, clearly. But that does not define what the company is for purposes of having faced or defeated an attack. Instead the rules state that the company is just a group of characters. It is the specific characters in the group that matters for the purposes of having faced an attack or defeated an attack.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:56 pm None of these rules apply to defeating a Dragon or facing attacks.
Establishing whether a company (as an entity!) has defeated a Dragon is rather intrinsically tied to how one considers the company to evolve through splitting and joining. Your belief that the company isn't an entity with its own history is the only aspect that make the joining and splitting of the company irrelevant.
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 9:57 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:51 pm One should deduce that which characters the effect applies to has nothing to do with the statement: "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." You are jumping ahead to the sentence that follows, which isn't what this sentence is about.
This is a paragraph in a section of the rules on organizing companies during the organization phase. That is the context.
So if a company splits or joins outside of the organization phase, you would have us throw our hands up and say that the game does not specify what to do?
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 10:07 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:57 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:51 pm One should deduce that which characters the effect applies to has nothing to do with the statement: "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." You are jumping ahead to the sentence that follows, which isn't what this sentence is about.
This is a paragraph in a section of the rules on organizing companies during the organization phase. That is the context.
So if a company splits or joins outside of the organization phase, you would have us throw our hands up and say that the game does not specify what to do?
Look at the rules! Read them. The CRF ruling specifically describes allocating resource effects during the organization phase. There are other rules that describe allocating resources when splitting companies regardless of the phase.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:03 pm You can play a resource effect on a company, clearly. But that does not define what the company is for purposes of having faced or defeated an attack. Instead the rules state that the company is just a group of characters. It is the specific characters in the group that matters for the purposes of having faced an attack or defeated an attack.
You have just established again that a group is an entity (for at least some situations). The rules are consistent with interpreting it as an entity in all situations (that don't use a plural verb). Your notion that the rules intended the group to be an entity in some situations but not in others is (1) unnecessary, (2) more convoluted (poor construction), and (3) against norms of English.
Last edited by Theo on Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 10:06 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:56 pm None of these rules apply to defeating a Dragon or facing attacks.
Establishing whether a company (as an entity!) has defeated a Dragon is rather intrinsically tied to how one considers the company to evolve through splitting and joining. Your belief that the company isn't an entity with its own history is the only aspect that make the joining and splitting of the company irrelevant.
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:15 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:03 pm You can play a resource effect on a company, clearly. But that does not define what the company is for purposes of having faced or defeated an attack. Instead the rules state that the company is just a group of characters. It is the specific characters in the group that matters for the purposes of having faced an attack or defeated an attack.
You have just established again that a group is an entity (for at least some situations). The rules are consistent with interpreting it as an entity in all situations (that don't use a plural verb). Your notion that the rules intended the group to be an entity in some situations but not in others is (1) unnecessary, (2) more convoluted, and (3) against norms of English.
The rules specifically state: "you may organize your characters into groups called companies." The "company" is just a specific group of characters. The history of the company is just the history of the characters in that group.

Just because a "company" (a group of characters) can be the target of a resource effect does not mean that the "company" (a group of characters) has a history separate from the characters that make up the group which is called a company.

The only basis for your interpretation is a misunderstanding of the rules on allocating resource effects. However:

The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there. If a card says a site counts as a Haven for purposes of healing, that does not mean the site counts as a Haven for any other purposes. If a card says it can be played as a resource, that does not mean it counts as a resource at any time except when it is being played. Remember: If it isn't there, it isn't there.

A rule on defining companies for purposes of resource effects does not count for purposes of defining companies as facing or defeating attacks.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”