pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by marcos » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:04 am

[NetRep] Rulings Digest #54 wrote:Can Tom or Leaflock cancel "Pilfer Anything Unwatched"?

*** No.
[NetRep] Rulings Digest #91 wrote:Can Tom cancel an agent's pilfer roll?

*** Pilfer targets a character, so Tom can cancel it if the character
that is being targetted is in the same company as Tom, along with the
other restrictions.
so can they cancel pilfer or not?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:10 am

Always go with the latest digest. I believe that the current ruling is Pilfer targets the character involved.

Leaflock and Tom can cancel any effects that target an entity associated with the respective company. As a side note, that probably means they can tap to cancel rivers, since a company's new site is an entity associated with the company. :)

Balin
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Madrid
Contact:

Post by Balin » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:06 am

By the way, remember that Tom cancels effects that target ANY company moving to a site in Cardolan, Rhudaur, Arthedain and The Shire.

Of course we all know Tom can't cancel Rivers, but what about Baduila's special ability? I'm not sure about that one.
__

Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!

Alter Tuk
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Alter Tuk » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:34 pm

Or what about Snowstorm. I was told Tom cant cancel it but I never understood why.
[url=http://gccg.sourceforge.net/]Come to GCCG or die a lonely death.[/url]

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:20 pm

Snowstorm doesn't target anything.

Why can't Tom cancel a River? River targets an entity associated with the company (the company's new site).
CRF, Tom Bombadil wrote:Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an entity associated with a company."

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:22 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Snowstorm doesn't target anything.

Why can't Tom cancel a River? River targets an entity associated with the company (the company's new site).
CRF, Tom Bombadil wrote:Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an entity associated with a company."
Because a site isn't considered an entity associated with the company. When the company moves it doesn't pickup the site and take it along with it.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:16 pm

And when a company stores an item, it doesn't move along with the company, but that doesn't mean the item is never associated with the company.
CRF, Movement/Hazard Phase, emphasis added wrote:A company is considered to be at the site given by its site card at all times except from the moment their new site card is revealed during their movement/hazard phase until their old site card is discarded during the same movement/hazard phase.
MELE Movement Rules, emphasis added wrote:At the beginning of its movement/hazard phase, a moving company's current site card becomes its site of origin - the company is considered to be en route to its new site card (i.e., the company is moving).
At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players return to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise, return it to your location deck) and the new site card becomes the company's current site card.
All of these indicate that the site card is directly associated with the company. Whether another mechanism can disassociate them is irrelevant.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:44 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:And when a company stores an item, it doesn't move along with the company, but that doesn't mean the item is never associated with the company.
Bad analogy. Once the item is stored it's no longer associated with the company.

IE you couldn't use Tom to stop a neither so ancient or so potent on a stored orcrist.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:48 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:All of these indicate that the site card is directly associated with the company. Whether another mechanism can disassociate them is irrelevant.
CRF hits you for 100 damage, you die to wall of text!

CRF
Rulings By Term
Subsection C
Subsubsection Company
Bullet 4
Entities associated with a company include the characters, allies, and items in the company, and any events played on the company or on another entity in the company. The new site and site of origin are not entities associated with the company.

Emphasis mine.

I win :)

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:56 pm

Bravo! :)

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:57 pm

Sauron wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:And when a company stores an item, it doesn't move along with the company, but that doesn't mean the item is never associated with the company.
Bad analogy. Once the item is stored it's no longer associated with the company.

IE you couldn't use Tom to stop a neither so ancient or so potent on a stored orcrist.
Yes, my point was that just because something isn't currently associated with the company doesn't mean it's never at any point associated with the company. Fortunately, there's a CRF entry about entities associated with a company. ;)

Balin
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:01 pm
Location: Madrid
Contact:

Post by Balin » Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:39 am

Interesting discussion, but... I'm still worried about this:
Unique. Agent. Agent only: If Baduila is discarded at target company's new site, company must return to its site of origin.
Could Tom cancel it? Baduila targets the site, the company... or what?

Thanks in advance.
__

Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:09 pm

Baduila's effect is a hazard effect that targets the company, so I'd say yes, Tom can cancel it.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Post by Sauron » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:04 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Baduila's effect is a hazard effect that targets the company, so I'd say yes, Tom can cancel it.
I'd have to read up on agents and what exactly Tom's card says, but I'm pretty sure Mr Took is right.

User avatar
bosquet
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 8:12 pm

Re: pilfer vs leaflock/tom bomb

Post by bosquet » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:01 pm

Is that right?

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”