Council of Elrond

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.

well Ben, you have to dig deeper,

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

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.

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

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

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 !

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 )

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
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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Thanks Konrad, could not have said it any better (clearer) myself!