Playing Creatures at an Agent’s Site

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

Theo wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:02 am The agent site card (because there could be none) affects nothing other than tracking which site-by-name the agent moved through.
In the case when agent does not use site card (is at his home site) there may still be mismatch of types.
It is known that hero or minion version of Isengard is normally [-me_rl-] , so face down agent that is at Isengard is at [-me_rl-] , while a company may be at Wizardhaven Isengard, or at [-me_bh-] Isengard.
Theo wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:02 am Agent can may creatures playable if its current site matches company's current site, but only the properties of the site card of the company matters.
Indeed. The errata is only needed in case:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same
Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
but not in case:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the agent’s
home site".
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:56 pm The site type of the company has no bearing on the agent's action to make creatures playable. Only the site name of the company's site and the site name of the agent's site need to be the same. There is no requirement that the site type be the same. The agent's site type matters for whether/which creatures are playable by the agent action. The company's site type does not matter for the agent action to make creatures playable.
Just ignore:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same
Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
and things will return to normal.
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

One interpretation is simple and follows the rules while the other creates inconsistencies in the rules (see this post and the linked posts)

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:06 am
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:56 pm The site type of the company has no bearing on the agent's action to make creatures playable. Only the site name of the company's site and the site name of the agent's site need to be the same. There is no requirement that the site type be the same. The agent's site type matters for whether/which creatures are playable by the agent action. The company's site type does not matter for the agent action to make creatures playable.
Just ignore:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same
Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
and things will return to normal.
The phrase "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold" can only be interpreted to require that the company's site-type be the same as the agent's site-type if you ignore the preceding statement: "An agent may tap to make certain creatures playable at its current site (see below)."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:52 pm The phrase "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold" can only be interpreted to require that the company's site-type be the same as the agent's site-type if you ignore the preceding statement: "An agent may tap to make certain creatures playable at its current site (see below)."
No.

Some statement may be proved or disproved on the ground of logic.
But how to prove or disprove a logic itself - I do not have idea.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:06 am In the case when agent does not use site card (is at his home site) there may still be mismatch of types.
It is known that hero or minion version of Isengard is normally [-me_rl-] , so face down agent that is at Isengard is at [-me_rl-] , while a company may be at Wizardhaven Isengard, or at [-me_bh-] Isengard.
Underlined portion must be challenged. Face down agent can only be considered to be at Isengard, The whole point is that there is no site card. The site type can only be determined through other means, e.g. what types both players have in their site decks and what types are in play (by either player) for other reasons.

Reasonable options I see:
1) Types of a site are the union of types of site cards in play (as possibly modified by other effects) and on site cards in either player's deck (again, possibly modified by effects, although I know you don't believe they should be).
2) Types of a site are the union of site cards in play, or if none are in play are the union of types on site cards in either player's deck.
3) Types of a site are the union of, per player, sites in play or if none are in play by that player the site cards in that player's deck.

I thought you believed (2) was how things should work, which in your example would mean that the agent is at (a minimum) Wizardhaven Isengard.

As I've said, I think (3) is more appropriate.
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

Theo wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:32 pm Underlined portion must be challenged.
I'm convinced by you here.
Theo wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:32 pm The whole point is that there is no site card. The site type can only be determined through other means, e.g. what types both players have in their site decks and what types are in play (by either player) for other reasons.
If we will compare mind of Gandalf and mind of Ori then Ori will win.
Seriously: it is not comparable.
Dark Minions, Agents, Revealing an Agent wrote:If one of your agents is revealed before it has moved, you must immediately choose
which home site it is at—place the appropriate site card with the agent. If you do not
have such a site card in your location deck, discard the agent at the end of the current
turn.
If to save a literal sense of:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same
Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"

then there are two approaches:
- for face down agents that did not move: result of check is always positive as long a company uses Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold. It may become negative when the agent is revealed,
- in other cases: normal type of minion or hero version of the site is taken into account, depending of agent's controlling player. Result of the check may also become negative when the agent is revealed.
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: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:32 am If to save a literal sense of:
"If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same
Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"

then there are two approaches:
- for face down agents that did not move: result of check is always positive as long a company uses Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold. It may become negative when the agent is revealed,
- in other cases: normal type of minion or hero version of the site is taken into account, depending of agent's controlling player. Result of the check may also become negative when the agent is revealed.
This interpretation is not saving the literal sense of "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:32 am - for face down agents that did not move: result of check is always positive as long a company uses Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold. It may become negative when the agent is revealed,
We know that the agent is at company's site (unless agent's controlling player is cheating).
We know that the site in play used by company is Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold.
If it is not enough to say that agent is at Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold, then it is impossible to tap an face down agent to make a creatures playable at an Agent’s Site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

In either case, if a creature is played in this manner, the agent is revealed (if it was not
already revealed).
The part of the rule did not receive a much of attention.

What if agent is at other site, than he was at moment of tapping to make creatures playable?
After all, after tapping to make creatures playable, he can move to other site (if he can make more than one agent action in turn).
Moreover the agent may be in meantime removed from active play.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

This is not progressive, just a textual corroboration of earlier leanings.
ICE Netrep 1996-11-14 wrote:there is an ommision to the agent rules stating that if an agent's home site is a Haven (for purposes of playing hazards), they may not tap to allow creatures to be played there.
If we take this as truth, we can wonder what is the point of this statement. The only cards that make a site a Haven (or not a Haven) only for the purposes of playing hazards (The White Tree and Balrog of Moria) already affect all version of the site. The statement could perhaps have been intended for cards not yet released. Or, I think most likely, this is meant to handle different site types between the agent player and their opponent. In particular, if the site type for the purpose of playing hazards (the company's site) was already a restriction on the Agent tap ability, there would be no need for this "omission".

This would definitively rule out the potential B and C parsings from:
Theo wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:41 pm A) "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same [site and the site is a] Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
B) "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same [site and each of their site cards are either] Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
C) "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same [site and both of their site cards are the same of either] Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
For completeness, CDavis7M's parsing (or my sense thereof) also passes this filter:
D) "If one of your agents and one of your opponent’s companies are both at the same [site and the agent's site card is a] Ruins & Lairs, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold"
Last edited by Theo on Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:37 pm, edited 3 times 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

I think its easy enough to just read the two parts parts of the rules (the introduction to the mechanic and the specifics of the mechanic) and put them together.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

If by:
"Haven (for purposes of playing hazards)"

authors mean:
"Haven or a site that is Haven for purposes of playing hazards"
(using parenthesis indicates so)

this would indicate that (in current set of cards and rules) only a type of company's site is checked.
In current set of cards and rules it may happen that company's site is Darkhaven/Wizardhaven/Barlog version of Moria and the site is also agent's home site.
Currently there are no agents that have hero Haven as home site.
There are agents that have Darkhaven as home site.
But alternative interpretation, such that the statement applies to agent's minion site card is thematically senseless.
This would hinder operations of agents at sites where (thematically) they are maximally safe, against companies at sites where (thematically) they are maximally unsafe.
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

Theo wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:53 am
ICE Netrep 1996-11-14 wrote:there is an ommision to the agent rules stating that if an agent's home site is a Haven (for purposes of playing hazards), they may not tap to allow creatures to be played there.
By the way, good find, but I'm not sure this ruling mattered back then -- I think the outcome is the same without this ruling.

Also, there are other rulings from the Designers like this that are not official. Things like supposed errata to Paths of the Dead. Meaning, they were never enforced as far as I could see, never made it into any CRF, and never made it into any of Ichabod's "here are changes from the Designers" posts.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:52 am If by:
"Haven (for purposes of playing hazards)"

authors mean:
"Haven or a site that is Haven for purposes of playing hazards"
(using parenthesis indicates so)

this would indicate that (in current set of cards and rules) only a type of company's site is checked.
White Tree affects the opponent's agent's copy of Minas Tirith also.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:08 am
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:52 am If by:
"Haven (for purposes of playing hazards)"

authors mean:
"Haven or a site that is Haven for purposes of playing hazards"
(using parenthesis indicates so)

this would indicate that (in current set of cards and rules) only a type of company's site is checked.
White Tree affects the opponent's agent's copy of Minas Tirith also.
Yes.
I was not talking about sites that are Haven for limited purposes.
I was talking about sites that are Haven/Darkhaven/Wizardhaven.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:52 am Currently there are no agents that have hero Haven as home site.
Ah right. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Probably missed the Haven specification before because of the other agent tap to play a creature ability.
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)”