[MISTAKE] Curiosity: Killed by Abductor

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The Wizards: Abductor
Rarity: Common, Precise: CA1

Hazard: Creature

Men. One strike. Each non-Wizard defending character wounded by the Abductor is discarded. "Suddenly he seized them. The strength in his long arms and shoulders was terrifying. He tucked them one under each armpit, and crushed them fiercely to his sides; a great stifling hand was clapped over each of their mouths."-LotRIII

The Wizards: Balrog of Moria
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R

Hazard: Permanent-event

Unique. The Balrog appears in Moria. The Moria site gains a second automatic-attack of 1 strike with 18 prowess and no body (i.e., 18/-). If this 2nd automatic-attack is defeated, this permanent-event is removed from play (i.e., the Balrog is defeated). If your opponent defeats this 2nd automatic-attack, he receives the Marshaling points. In addition, unless Galadriel is at Lórien, or she is not in play, Lórien is considered a [-me_fh-] (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards). +2 prowess to all at sites in Hollin, Redhorn Gate, and Wold & Foothills.
The Wizards: Elf-song
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R

Resource: Long-event

When Elf-song comes into play, each character at a [-me_ha-] may immediately remove one corruption card. While Elf-song is in play, no character at a Haven may be discarded or returned to its owner's hand for any reason. "...she sang. Sad and sweet was the sound of her voice in the cool clear air..."-LotRII
I will not quote New Moon.
CRF wrote:Annotation 19: Following each successful strike or failed strike, a body check must
be rolled (unless the failed strike has no body). However, if the strike calls for any
special actions to follow it (e.g., a character wounded by "William" may be required
to discard his items), these special actions are resolved before the body check.
The
body check is the first declared action in a nested chain of effects that immediately
follows the strike dice-roll and special actions resulting from the strike. Other actions
may be declared in response to a body check, in the same chain of effects, but these
are limited to those actions that directly affect the body check dice- roll. E.g., Tookish
Blood could not be declared in response to the body check caused by Giant Spiders
wounding a Hobbit. No action may be declared in response to a special action
resulting from a strike unless the special action is a dice-rolling action, i.e., a special
action is generally considered synonymous with the strike dice-roll. If the special
action is a dice-rolling action, an action may be declared in response to it if the action
directly affects the dice-roll.
Underline mine.

If Balrog of Moria is in play, Galadriel is in play but not at Lórien, then New Moon may cause treating the Lórien as [-me_bh-]. Lórien is still Haven for purposes other than healing and playing hazards. Elf-song affects characters at Lórien.
If character is wounded by Abductor then the special action "discard the character" is called. The action has no effect so body check is performed and potentially may cause elimination of the character.

EDIT: Changed thread's title.
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Sun Dec 11, 2022 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:39 pm If Balrog of Moria is in play, Galadriel is in play but not at Lórien, then New Moon may cause treating the Lórien as [-me_bh-].
I don't think so.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:24 pm I don't think so.
What if additionally Doors of Night is in play?
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: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:19 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:24 pm I don't think so.
What if additionally Doors of Night is in play?
I've been told:
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 it 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.

I haven't looked into it anymore more than this. But some hazards are "playable on a free-hold" and other hazards affect free-holds.

When Balrog of Moria states "Lórien is considered a Free-hold (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards)" then, as for hazard, this means that Lorien counts as a Free-hold for purposes of playing hazards but not for other purposes, even hazard purposes. The hazard card Siege is "Playable on a Border-hold or a Free-hold site." Lorien would be considered a Free-hold for purposes of playing a card "playable on a Free-hold." The rules on Playing Hazard Creatures (METWUL p. 42) describe how creatures can be played if one of the site symbols on the creature's card matches the site that the company moved to or stayed at. So Lorien would be considered a Free-hold for purposes of playing a creature card with a Free-hold [-me_fh-] symbol.

But New Moon does not have conditions for being played. Sure it has an effect that can target/affect a Free-hold, and cards cannot be played for no effect. But even saying "played for no effect" indicates that the play and the effect are different.

Maybe New Moon would have been worded differently if it were released in a later set. And maybe this card suffers from having alternative effects which were a bit confusing early on. But as it is, New Moon does not need Lorien to be considered a Free-hold for "playing" it, just for having an "effect" on that site. I cannot see playing New Moon and targeting/affecting Lorien as Lorien is not considered a Free-hold for purposes of hazard effects.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Thanks. I was expecting from you something more than babble.
In short: "Lórien is considered a [-me_fh-] (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards)" does not allow for 2nd effect of New Moon on Lórien (if Doors of Night is in play).
Right? This is your opinion?
If so, I disagree.
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

There is a difference between an effect of a card and play of that card. Lorien can be a Free-hold for playing Incite Defenders (playable on a BH or FH"). But while the long-event Awaken Defenders affects Free-holds, its play does not consider whether a site is a free-hold.

Lorien is considered to be a free-hold for the purpose for playing hazard.
The play of New Moon does not depend on a free-hold.
The effect of New Moon affects a free-hold.
But Lorien is not considered to be a free-hold for the effects of hazards.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:40 pm But New Moon does not have conditions for being played.
Beorn's House as new/current site is not condition for 2nd effect of New Moon?
New Moon targets nothing and then Beorn's House type is treated as [-me_bh-] until end of turn?
Or is played for 1st effect, targets nothing and then one Elf character is tapped?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I am stupid. Once Lórien is treated as [-me_bh-] in result of New Moon or in result of anything else, it is treated as [-me_bh-] for any purposes. Elf-song does not affect characters at the copy of Lórien. :oops:
My consolation is that CDavis7M is wrong on New Moon. :wink:
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: Sun Dec 11, 2022 10:14 am I am stupid. Once Lórien is treated as [-me_bh-] in result of New Moon or in result of anything else, it is treated as [-me_bh-] for any purposes. Elf-song does not affect characters at the copy of Lórien. :oops:
My consolation is that CDavis7M is wrong on New Moon. :wink:
A Haven that is "considered as a Free-hold for playing hazards" is not a free-hold and also cannot be "treated as a border-hold" by a hazard effect.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

OK. If you believe that Siege can be played on [-me_fh-] but New Moon cannot, then... OK.
Maybe someone will be interested how New Moon may cause treating some [-me_fh-] as [-me_bh-] without being played on the [-me_fh-].
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 Dec 12, 2022 6:42 pm OK. If you believe that Siege can be played on [-me_fh-] but New Moon cannot, then... OK.
Maybe someone will be interested how New Moon may cause treating some [-me_fh-] as [-me_bh-] without being played on the [-me_fh-].
There is a difference between playing a card and the effects of the card. Balrog of Moria changes how some hazard cards can be played, but it doesn't change the effects of hazards.

If New Moon were played on a site, and the effect worked on the site it was played on, then I would agree. But it doesn't. So I don't.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

And what about Whole Villages Roused?
Can the card be played on hero Lórien if the site is considered a [-me_fh-] (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards)?
If it can be played, does it create additional AAs at Lórien, or has no effect on the site?
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 Dec 12, 2022 6:51 pm And what about Whole Villages Roused?
Can the card be played on hero Lórien if the site is considered a [-me_fh-] (for the purposes of healing and playing hazards)?
If it can be played, does it create additional AAs at Lórien, or has no effect on the site?
Whole Villages Roused is played on a Free-hold. In the "Balrog situation", Lorien is a free-hold for the purposes of playing Whole Villages Roused. The effect of whole villages roused works on "the site", not on "a free-hold."

New Moon could have been worded different but it isn't. I don't know if it would have been changed if it were in MELE. But there is a difference between hazard-play and the effects of hazards and other METW cards have wording that depends on the "effects," rather than the "play."
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4352
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Why New Moon can cause treating Beorn's House as [-me_bh-] but may not cause treating Lórien as [-me_bh-]?
Both Beorn's House and Lórien are referred as "one free-hold", not as "the site". May New Moon played on Beorn's House cause other [-me_fh-] to be treated as [-me_bh-]?

I can imagine some card that may be played on [-me_fh-] but causes some effect on all [-me_fh-]. King under the Mountain is played on character but causes some effect on site(s).
Minion Ovir Hollow with Double Dealing will not be affected by King under the Mountain. King under the Mountain is not "played there".

What about minion [-me_sh-] with Double Dealing if Quiet Lands is played on it? Will the site not be treated [-me_rl-] because Quiet Lands does not say "this site" but "one [-me_sh-]"?

(try to be consistent)
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 Dec 12, 2022 7:38 pm Why New Moon can cause treating Beorn's House as [-me_bh-] but may not cause treating Lórien as [-me_bh-]?
Both Beorn's House and Lórien are referred as "one free-hold", not as "the site". May New Moon played on Beorn's House cause other [-me_fh-] to be treated as [-me_bh-]?

I can imagine some card that may be played on [-me_fh-] but causes some effect on all [-me_fh-]. King under the Mountain is played on character but causes some effect on site(s).
Minion Ovir Hollow with Double Dealing will not be affected by King under the Mountain. King under the Mountain is not "played there".

What about minion [-me_sh-] with Double Dealing if Quiet Lands is played on it? Will the site not be treated [-me_rl-] because Quiet Lands does not say "this site" but "one [-me_sh-]"?

(try to be consistent)
There is a difference between "playing" a hazard and the "effect" of a hazard.

I wasn't even looking into this anymore but I stumbled upon this ruling. I don't know what s
play vs effect.PNG
play vs effect.PNG (52.69 KiB) Viewed 1173 times
Just like White Tree, Balrog of Moria changes how cards are played, but it doesn't change the effects of cards.

If the conditions for playing a card require a Free-hold, Balrog of Moria let's that card be played on/at Lorien.

If the conditions for playing a card don't require a Free-hold but the effects of the card operate on a Free-hold, Balrog of Moria does NOT let that effect affect Lorien.

A quick look there is also this:
>Regarding the Balrog's effects on Lorien and The White Tree's effects on
>Minas Tirith, how are these sites considered to be (or not be) Havens?

Each of these cards affects only the Healing / Playing of Hazards
properties of Havens. Storing Items, playing resource cards that require a
Haven, and other effects function as if the modifying card was not in play.
From: ich...@cstone.net (Ichabod)
Subject: Re: METW : White Tree and Lures
Date: 1996/09/30
Message-ID: <ichabod-3009961304040001@dialin33.cstone.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186258057
references: <1996Sep26.153529.6583@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <ichabod-2609962154300001@dialin29.cstone.net> <52om7l$4i9@nyx.cs.du.edu>
organization: The Game Cave
newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc

In article <52om7l$4...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, tst...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Trevor Stone)
wrote:

>In article <ichabod-2609...@dialin29.cstone.net>,
>Ichabod <ich...@cstone.net> wrote:

>>The short of it is that the character does not have to make a corruption
>>check. The White Tree doesn't make Minas Tirith a haven for the
>>purposes of passive conditions. What it does is change which creatures
>>can be keyed to Minas Tirith.
>>
>I would call that the play of hazards. Would it not take affect with Lure of
>Creation? If you think Tolkien-wise, Lure of the Senses would happen at
>Minas Tirith, and passive conditions may not be played from the hand, but we
>are playing the effects of the cards.

The "playing of hazards" refers only to the actually playing of the card
from your hand, not in the effect of hazards after they are played.
I think the simulation of this is unclear, and the sense of playing you
are using for passive conditions is not the one used on the White Tree.
Different words are different and they have different meanings.

Even with Balrog of Moria's Free-hold effect, Lorien is a Haven for the purposes of the Free-hold effect of New Moon -- it doesn't work.

You can look this up just as I can.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”