Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Moderators: Vastor Peredhil, Thorsten the Traveller

Post Reply
KakitaBen
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:14 am

Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by KakitaBen »

in port description it is said that ruins and lairs are never considered a port but Tharabad is on the list. As it's a ruin I don't understand.

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by Vastor Peredhil »

well Ben, you have to dig deeper,

which cards adds "port" status?
which cards rebuilds Tharbad into something different?

KakitaBen
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by KakitaBen »

no card add port statut. Tharbar is in the errata list of port appendix 2 of DC rules.

And Tharbar is a Ruin. So in the same phrase you have a contradiction.

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by Vastor Peredhil »

so rhetorical questions are lost in translation here it seems

so yes Tharbad is a Port, but it cannot have a Portstatus unless you turn it into non-Ruins site,

--> Rebuild the Town ?
--> Hold, Rebuilt and Repaired

Hidden haven and many more

hope that clears stuff up ;)

KakitaBen
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by KakitaBen »

Nicolaï, it was totally clear the first time, maybe my reply suffer a lack of explanation. I'm a fucking Cartesian it's written port:...Tharbar so it's a port :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm a new comer to DC cards and I'm totally lost in the rules; It's not noob friendly at all :)
First you have to juggle with 3 rule books, with one modifying rules of the others... and now riddles on the rules !
Just write it clearly, port:...Tharbar* *offer subject to conditions
Or clearly explain the difference between port and port status if there are any.
You want people to run away admit ! :D :D :D

If you need advises on improving such a rule book I can help, with a virgin vision I think it can be useful.

By the way thanks for the reply and the fabulous job done by the DC team.
(no offense on this post just some sample of humour ;) )

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by Thorsten the Traveller »

you have to juggle with 3 rule books, with one modifying rules of the others...
Firstly, this concerns (currently) only minor issues, but second and more importantly, it is also how ICE approached rules :wink:
Rules for later sets not only trump earlier sets, but were used to correct mistakes/imbalances. So any people experiencing difficulties with the concept of incremental law were weeded out long before they started on playing DC cards :lol:
Just write it clearly, port:...Tharbar* *offer subject to conditions
not sure people would actually find that any clearer. But yes, adding the keyword port to Tharbad means adding the inherent potential to be a port (i.e. not requiring a specific card to be assigned port status). It's similar to the concept of a Hold, Tharbad is potentially a Man-hold (due to its Man auto-attack). Only difference is that Holds are not keywords, but rules-defined, so yes there's that.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

KakitaBen
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by KakitaBen »

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:00 pm
So any people experiencing difficulties with the concept of incremental law were weeded out long before they started on playing DC cards :lol:
At that time I was a student with a lot of free time :) but in reality you had at max 2 rule books per expensions (the core one and the expansion one). In the case of Lords you need : the core, the FW, the DC general and the DC lord… it's too much in my opinion you can fix it by rewritting a DC lord including the FW and Generl DC. I will try to do so if I found some time.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:00 pm
not sure people would actually find that any clearer. But yes, adding the keyword port to Tharbad means adding the inherent potential to be a port (i.e. not requiring a specific card to be assigned port status). It's similar to the concept of a Hold, Tharbad is potentially a Man-hold (due to its Man auto-attack). Only difference is that Holds are not keywords, but rules-defined, so yes there's that.
ok adding a * after Tharbad should be a good idea. Most of the people present at the Grey Havens french event agree with this.

dirhaval
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by dirhaval »

Still wondering why Minas Tirith is not a port as of last year anyway.

It is genius to add new ideas to the game like ports and mountain regions
to give flavor. I like how the hidden cost of Thuringwathost was soften.
Slayer characters though need to finalized; I am at a lost there unless going solo
means something; half mind cost to GI while not being able to play factions/allies?

or being able to convert to agent from character?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by Konrad Klar »

KakitaBen wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:13 pm
in port description it is said that ruins and lairs are never considered a port but Tharabad is on the list. As it's a ruin I don't understand.
Per analogy:
Balrog, The Under-deeps wrote:For the purposes of playing hazards, a Free-hold is never considered to be the
surface site of an Under-deeps site.
So
make Blue Mountain Dwarf-hold non-Free-hold and it will be considered to be the surface site of an Under-deeps site for the purposes of playing hazards*,

make Tharabad non-Ruins&Lairs and it will be considered a Port.

*) With stipulation:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:A Wizardhaven is not considered to be adjacent to an Under-deeps site unless Deep
Mines has been played on it.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Tharbad is a Ruin and a Port ?

Post by Thorsten the Traveller »

Thanks Konrad, could not have said it any better (clearer) myself! :-)
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Post Reply

Return to “News, Issues, Questions”