How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:11 pm 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.
Could you clarify what you're thinking of here? Otherwise I will reiterate that the cards that split companies give their rules on the card, and we should aim to be consistent to those rules.
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 10:19 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:11 pm 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.
Could you clarify what you're thinking of here? Otherwise I will reiterate that the cards that split companies give their rules on the card, and we should aim to be consistent to those rules.
Read MEDM and MELE.

Also, I said "resource effects." There are no resource effects that force companies to split in their card text. And there is no such thing as "rules on the cards." Rules are found in the rulesbooks, not on the cards.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:15 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:15 pm 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.
A rule on defining companies for purposes of resource effects does not count for purposes of defining companies as facing or defeating attacks.
You haven't spoken to my numbered list. If there is an argument to be made for "if it isn't there", it should be with regards to interpreting a difference from a lack of specificity, in my opinion. A difference isn't there.
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 10:20 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:19 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:11 pm 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.
Could you clarify what you're thinking of here? Otherwise I will reiterate that the cards that split companies give their rules on the card, and we should aim to be consistent to those rules.
Read MEDM and MELE.
Oh, this reference?
MELE wrote:One company can split into two or more companies only at a Darkhaven (use two Darkhaven cards).
Does this explain some of the "context" for why a rule on splitting companies might only appear under the Organization Phase?
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 10:21 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:15 pm
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:15 pm 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.
A rule on defining companies for purposes of resource effects does not count for purposes of defining companies as facing or defeating attacks.
You haven't spoken to my numbered list. If there is an argument to be made for "if it isn't there", it should be with regards to interpreting a difference from a lack of specificity, in my opinion. A difference isn't there.
My interpretation follows the rules: a group of characters is called a company. The term "company" refers to the group of characters.

My interpretation does not go against English norms. The term company is singular even if it refers to one or more characters.

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.

------------

The rules are 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.
  • What matters for "history" of a company is the individual characters in the group.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

I get the sense that you aren't actually trying to understand anything. Good luck in your future!
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 10:28 pm I get the sense that you aren't actually trying to understand anything. Good luck in your future!
I hope you can read the title of section headers in the future!
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Your response exemplifies your failure at deduction.
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 10:30 pm Your response exemplifies your failure at deduction.
Your "deduction" goes far beyond the bounds reading comprehension, and beyond the rulings of this game.

The rules on resource effects don't apply to companies having faced attacks. If it isn't there, it isn't there.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

A company is an entity, not "an entity sometimes but not in this situation that the rules don't cover and in a way that contradicts norms of English". "If it isn't there..."
I offered you [perspective] beyond... your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it.
Adieu.
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 10:42 pm A company is an entity, not "an entity sometimes but not in this situation that the rules don't cover and in a way that contradicts norms of English". "If it isn't there..."


It is the actual events that happened in the game that decide which characters have faced/defeated the attack, not the resource player's choice of which company is designated as the new/old company.

The CRF describes allocating resource permanent events, not facing/defeating attacks. The rulings on determining the new and old company describe allocating resource/character effects, not defeating/facing attacks. The rulings on Ahunts states that both of the split companies are considered to have faced the Ahunt.

So while the player can choose which company gets which resource effects, the player does not get to "choose" which company is considered to have faced an attack or defeated the dragon.
--------
Theo wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:42 pm
I offered you [perspective] beyond... your wit. I have offered it again, so that those whom you mislead may clearly see the choice of roads. You give me brag and abuse. So be it.
I understand your flawed perspective. You find one line and take it out of context and run with it. You argue based on what you think makes sense in English and not based on what the rules actually say. You also take my words out of context to argue against snippets of my statements instead of against my position. You make up things that I supposedly said and then argue against that.

We will have peace, when you and all your works have perished.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”