So You've Come Back (who is "you" ?)

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The Lidless Eye: So You've Come Back
Rarity: Uncommon, Precise: U

Hazard: Permanent-event

Playable on a character of 5 mind or less. The mind of each other non-follower, non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character in his company increases by one. Discard this card during the organization phase if target character is in a company accompanied by himself at a Darkhaven [-me_dha-] . Cannot be duplicated on a given company.
Lidless Eye wrote:Note: Sometimes two or more companies combine and the resulting company has two or more of the same cards that
say: "cannot be duplicated on a given company." When this happens, immediately discard all but one of those cards
(your choice).
CRF, [...], So You've Come Back wrote:If two companies join, and both companies have a So You've Come Back played on
them, the hazard player chooses which one to discard. A character in a company with
just allies is by himself for the purposes of this card.
1.
I have doubts whether So You've Come Back is actually "on a company". I think that it is rather "in a company" (on character in a company).

2.
Regardless of (1). Who is a player behind "(your choice)"?
Is it a player whose companies are joining or is it a player who played a card?
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

"You" is the person who came back.
Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:09 pm Regardless of (1). Who is a player behind "(your choice)"?
Is it a player whose companies are joining or is it a player who played a card?
There, "your choice" refers to the player organizing their characters. The section is talking about the things done by the player currently taking their turn.


You.PNG
You.PNG (136.89 KiB) Viewed 864 times
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Thanks.
I think that opposite solution would lead to conflict in multiplayer game if two or more copies of the same "cannot be duplicated on a given company" cards of different opponents are on resulting company.

So You've Come Back is not "on". It is "in"/"on character in" company. Regardless its text.

Either the note from MELE is not applicable for the card and similar, or the CRF entry is against the note.
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 Mar 03, 2023 11:01 pm Either the note from MELE is not applicable for the card and similar, or the CRF entry is against the note.
I looked before and again but I can not figure out if this was something Ichabod made up or if it came from the Designers (leaning this way).

Then I thought more about it. So You've Come Back is only affecting non-followers. When the 2 copies were played, the hazard player had their choice of which character was not going to have their mind increased (if not a follower). The resource player getting to discard a hazard by joining companies is more fair than duplicating an effect which cannot be duplicated, but they should not get their choice of which of these 2 characters does not have their mind increased.

For both these reasons I think it was intentionally against the note.
Gamling the Old
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:03 am

Not understanding "The resource player getting to discard a hazard by joining companies is more fair than duplicating an effect which cannot be duplicated, but they should not get their choice of which of these 2 characters does not have their mind increased."

You seem to refer to the two characters bearing the So You've Come Back.

But the Card says " Playable on a character of 5 mind or less. The mind of each other non-follower, non-Ringwraith, non-Wizard character in his company increases by one. ". I read the "each" in there as every character (with the exceptions excluded) getting +1 mind.

and as to the "You" in the card Errata (on meccg.es so perhaps not the official one?) I find:

So You’ve Come Back

If two companies join, and both companies have a So You’ve Come Back played on them, the hazard player chooses which one to discard.

A character in a company with just allies is by himself for the purposes of this card.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Gamling the Old wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:48 pm and as to the "You" in the card Errata (on meccg.es so perhaps not the official one?) I find:
...
If two companies join, and both companies have a So You’ve Come Back played on them, the hazard player chooses which one to discard.
It's not labeled as errata. But it is a clarification which changes how the card is played like how an erratum would change the text. The fact that this clarification is not supported by the rules was being discussed. Some clarifications that go against the rules are incorrect. Either because they are outdated and never removed (common), or because Ichabod snuck a change into the CRF under the Designers noses (rare), or they say something which technically works but doesn't actually achieve the results being suggested (also rare). But some changes were intentional. I believe this one was intentional.
Gamling the Old wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:48 pm Not understanding "The resource player getting to discard a hazard by joining companies is more fair than duplicating an effect which cannot be duplicated, but they should not get their choice of which of these 2 characters does not have their mind increased."
In the case of So You've Come Back, the clarification lets the hazard player decide which copy to discard, which goes against the normal rules (which let the resource player decide which to discard). This is a change.

I think that the reason for this change is because it's not fair to the hazard player to let the resource player decide which hazard to discard since the resource player is already bypassing the normal method for discarding So You've Come back as stated in its text. There are many possible alternatives to the normal rules (like preventing the 2 companies from join, or duplicating the effects despite not being duplicated, or not duplicating the effect even if the card is duplicated, etc etc), but simply letting the hazard player choose which is discarded seems the most fair. I was just mentioning an alternative change that was possible.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”