Greed (clarification)

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:50 am
Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:08 pm Little funny thing is the title of chapter: Playing Resources at a Site.
If the title is meaningless then I do not know which site and which resource to be played are talked about.
In other words:
If the rule does not say about a resource to be played at a site and about a site at which a resource has to be played, then I do not see any relation between the mentioned " resource to be played" and "site".
A group of cards at site. If a card is played in this group, then it's played at the site. "Played at a site" is not a term of the game.
AtASite.png
AtASite.png (17.42 KiB) Viewed 2198 times
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 8:07 am My concern is not acknowledging a distinction between item played at site and an item not played at site but by/with character at site.
Or acknowledging the distinction but not treating its consequences consistently.
I don't think the underlined portion exists. If an item would be played by a character at a site, the item would be played at the site. It's not as if the character is standing in a site "boundary" but leaning over the boundary to pluck an item from not-at-the-site.

Parallels the notion of characters facing an attack, e.g., Diversion. Characters don't face an attack in the rules text; their companies do. But the characters in the company apparently inherit the facing.

But anyway, thanks, I think I comprehend you original post now: The FW example was not relevant to Greed but speaks to the same underlying motivation you are trying to propose that would allow special rings to not trigger Greed.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:46 am I don't think the underlined portion exists.
If you want to be consistent, then you need to answer following questions:

If FW uses minion Necklace of Girion, can he play the items of alignment opposite to the alignment of a site at which recipients are staying?
Can he take the items from under the Armory?
Is the hoard status relevant in the situation?
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

Aren't these answers obvious?
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”