Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

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

Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII
Ancient Deep-hold wrote:Adjacent Sites: no surface site, one Under-deeps Ruins & Lairs [R] chosen by you when playing this card (8) Playable: Information, Items (minor, major, greater, gold ring) Automatic-attacks (3): Undead (1st attack)-4 strikes with 7 prowess; Undead (2nd attack)-3 strikes with 8 prowess; Undead (3rd attack)-2 strikes with 10 prowess; Each character wounded must make a corruption check modified by -2. Special: Any Undead and Spider creatures may be keyed to this site. This site is never discarded or returned to its location deck.
I have in play a multiple site cards of the same Wizardhaven and multiple Deep Mines cards - each for copy of that Wizardhaven card.
If Ancient Deep-hold is played as adjecent to the one of that Deep Mines, is it automatically adjecent to the other copies under the same Wizardhaven?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

My guess would be yes.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Related questions:
CRF, Errata (Cards), Deep Mines wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." [Effective 4/20/98]
Official Rulings Digest #84 wrote:I´m pretty sure that there is a ruling, that you can´t move from aprotected wizard haven to several Deep Mines. Am I wrong?
*** You are not wrong, but if you have more than one copy of Rhosgobel in play, each of them can have an associated Deep Mines site.
[...]
If I have multiple copies of Deep Mines uder multiple copies of Rhosgobel, is each copy of Deep Mines adjecent to all copies of Rhosgobel (and vice versa)?
I think that any answer should be consistent with answer to the previous question - about Ancient Deep-hold to Deep Mines connectivity.
"Yes" means that multiple Deep Mines represent actualy the same site. Much as multiple copies of the same Haven.
"No" means that each Deep Mines is actually different site.

However "yes" causes other problems:
CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, General wrote:Companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site must join at the end of all
movement/hazard phases, before the site phase starts. Companies at the same Haven/Darkhaven site may join at this time.
Deep Mines is not Haven site. So beside M/H phase only one copy of Deep Mines per named Wizardhaven would be possible.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

So Official Rulings Digest #84 is wrong at this point and all issues of having multiple Deep Mines under the same Wizardhaven do not exist?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote:Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
Use of multiple Haven cards for multiple companies at the Haven is for clarity during organisation phase.
It does not mean that beside organisation phase a separate Haven card for each company at the Haven is not mandatory.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

It wouldn't be the first time I disagree with an official ruling. :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I agree with you.
However I see another possibility that would rescue Official Rulings Digest #84. That does not appeal to me, but to feel fair I must mention about it.

Multiple Deep Mines under multiple copies of the same Wizardhaven are each different site, but each is adjecent to each copy of the Wizardhaven.

Contrintuitive, but hey, is not starter movement contrintuitive too (a company moving from Lorien to Dol Guldur does not move through Anduin Vales, but does move through [-me_bh-])?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Well this is an interesting debate/conversation that I stumbled upon! :o

I have a related question about Deep Mines. I feel it has been asked before but I can't seem to find it:

If I move a company to a Deep Mines site, and I do not leave a character behind at the Protected Wizard Haven they moved from, then the protected wizard haven site card will be discarded. Is my company now permanently stuck at the Deep Mines site for the rest of the game? (Assume I do not have access to Gnarled Ways).

Or similarly, if I leave a character at the Protected Wizard Haven, but say they are forced to make a corruption check and fail, thus the haven is discarded with no character present.

OR... is the name of the site (protected wizardhaven) forever considered to be adjacent to this copy of the Deep Mines site? Meaning, I could simply take the site card again from my location deck and play it, and then move my company back from the Deep Mines site to the surface site. If this is the case, the site would no longer be a protected wizard haven and it might not even be a haven at all. So does this matter?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII
If text would say that a company may move from protected Wizardhaven and that that site is the surface site for Deep Mines, then I would understand that once Deep Mines is played that site is the surface site for Deep Mines regardless of potential later changes of its type and features.
However a phrase "protected Wizardhaven(s)" is repeated. So if "that site" will cease to be protected Wizardhaven it also will cease to be the surface site for Deep Mines.

Similarly:
When I Know Anything wrote:Light enchantment. Playable on a sage during the site phase at a site where Information is playable. Tap sage and site. Tap sage to modify one corruption check by a character in his company by +3. Sage makes a corruption check. 'You are an interfering old busybody,' laughed Bilbo, 'but I expect you know best, as usual.' 'I do-when I know anything...' -LotRI
If target character will cease to be a sage, then he will not be able to tap to modify one corruption check.

I know that such interpretation makes an use of Deep Mines cumbersome. I do not know (and I'm unable to reconstruct) what was intentions of creators.
I'm only trying to find similarities to other cards an their wording and interpret a cards with similar wording consistently.

All underlines mine.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:08 pmI know that such interpretation makes an use of Deep Mines cumbersome. I do not know (and I'm unable to reconstruct) what was intentions of creators.
Many things in the game end up cumbersome for precisely that reason. :)
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:06 pm
Bandobras Took wrote:Hmm . . .
MELE wrote:Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
I'm going to revise my opinion. Use of multiple Haven cards is for clarity only, so I would say that it's impossible to have multiple deep mines from one haven even if you have multiple haven cards in play.
Use of multiple Haven cards for multiple companies at the Haven is for clarity during organisation phase.
It does not mean that beside organisation phase a separate Haven card for each company at the Haven is not mandatory.
To resurrect a different angle, I disagree that multiple Haven cards are for clarity only. In total, the original text is: (underline mine)
MELE p16-17 wrote:One company can split into two or more companies only at a Darkhaven (use two Darkhaven cards). ... Clarification: During the organization phase, one Darkhaven card may be used to represent the location of two or more companies, so long as the distinction between companies is clearly presented spatially. However, we suggest the use of multiple Darkhaven cards for clarity.
MELE p22-23 wrote:Except for a moving company during its movement/hazard phase, each company always has a current site card associated with it---the company is located at that site. ... At the end of a moving company's movement/hazard phase (before players returned to their hand sizes), its site of origin is removed (discard if tapped; otherwise return it to your location deck)...
The use of one site card for multiple companies at a Haven is only for notational convenience, and each company should still be understood to actually have its own site card. Otherwise the first company to move would discard the old company's site card (p23), violating the requirement that each company always has a site card (p22).

Not saying it changes the Deep Mines question of whether it targets all versions of a site or just one site card; my opinion is all site cards for that site (and that digest 84 is mistaken; the Deep Mines errata as written would refer to all versions of a site, not a site card). Otherwise the line from Hidden Haven, Mischief in a Mean Way, and Chambers in the Royal Court is purposeless: "Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven." Further, if the site becomes unprotected but then re-protected, I'd want to allow the Deep Mines characters to escape because it is the same site (though not site card) that the Deep Mines originally targeted (but guessing Konrad would think otherwise based on our on-guard disagreements?).
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Theo wrote: Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:05 am Otherwise the line from Hidden Haven, Mischief in a Mean Way, and Chambers in the Royal Court is purposeless: "Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven."
Of course, the real problem could be with those cards implying a break from the CRF rule:
CRF wrote:A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

  • You can only have 1 Deep Mines to/from Isengard even if you have 4 copies of Isengard in play. You don't get to have 4 Deep Mines.
  • If you move to Deep Mines from your own DIY Wizardhaven and you don't leave a company back up there, and the "protection" effect leaves play, you are stuck.
  • If you move to a 1st Deep Mines from your DIY Haven, then back up to the DIY Haven, then back down to a 2nd Deep Mines from the DIY Haven, both Deep Mines are considered to be the "same" site.
----------
Theo wrote: Fri May 04, 2018 5:40 am Of course, the real problem could be with those cards implying a break from the CRF rule:
That statement is from the Rulings by term. However:
CRF Introduction wrote:The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

ICE Digest 58 wrote:Question: A character is at a protected WizardHaven (other than Rhosgobel) and decides to move to the Deep Mines site (the player has SP>6). Normally, the site of origin is returned to the location-deck (or discarded) at the end of the movement/hazard-phase. (I like to keep it with the Deep Mines-card so as to make visible which protected WizardHaven is the surface-site.) If returned to the location-deck (or discarded) the card(s) that made the site a protected WizardHaven are discarded. The Deep Mines site now has no surface-site. Now you are stuck there.

Answer: Yup. You're stuck there.
ICE Digest 60 and 61 wrote:Question 1: [re: getting stuck in the Deep Mines]
Firstly, I think the assumption that the surface site doesn't exist anymore is wrong. Which site is the surface site is set upon declaration of the move to the Deep Mines. If at that moment Ettenmoors is your protected Wizardhaven, Ettenmoors becomes the
surface site.

Answer 1: Except the surface site is *not* referenced to as 'the site you moved from,' it is references to as 'the protected Wizardhaven.' By my reading, that means you must return to a protected Wizardhaven. Also, if it is not the protected Wizardhaven, you have no way to reference which site is the surface site. Admittedly, even with a protected Wizardhaven you can have a couple possibilities to remember between, but if the site is no longer a Wizardhaven you have no marker at all.

Question 2: Returning to the Deep Mines thing, this means that you are always able to return to the Mines' surface site.

Answer 2: If it has one. By my reading, it no longer does.
ICE Digest 62 wrote:Deep Mines, card erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizarhaven."
[Effective 4/20/98]
ICE Digest 69 wrote:Question 1: Okay, here's the scenario. I send a company down to the Deep Mines. During the next organization phase, I play To The Uttermost Foundations, which taps the site. I send the company back up to the Wizardhaven, and then slap down a Bridge so they can move again, down to another Deep Mines. Does this count as the "different Under-Deeps site" required by TTUF(oS)? Or do I have to go somewhere else.

Answer 1: Since Deep Mines cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven, it would not count as the different Under-deeps site. Deep Mines, card erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." [Effective 4/20/98]

Question 2: Does this mean that you can't have two Deep Mines with the same Wizardhaven surface site in play
a) at the same time, or
b) during the whole game?

Answer 2: At the same time.

Question 3: How do these two rulings work together? According to the second one you can enter Deep Mines from a WH, leave, and go back down again, but according to the first one, you haven't been to two different sites. What does this mean? Are those two sites the same site? Are they the same site only for interpreting TtUF? In short, what gives? :)

Answer 3: ??? It means what it means. The second Deep Mines can be played (once the first one is gone), but it is not considered a different Under-deeps site.
ICE Digest 69 wrote:Question: Deep Mines @ Card erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." Effective [4/20/98]. I guess this means that you cannot go to two deep-mines on the same turn (from the same haven). But does this also mean that you can go only once to a deep-mines under say Isengard when you tap the deep-mines? I know you may have more than one copy in your location deck.

Answer: Do you mean, can you go to one, tap it, leave it and discard it, and then
go to another? If so, the answer is yes.
ICE Digest 94 wrote:Question: I read an previous ruling which said it is illegal for a company to move from a Deep Mines site to the surface Wizardhaven, and using Bridge to move down to another Deep Mines site. The reason given was that you are not allowed to have more than one Deep Mines associated with the same Wizardhaven. But it seems to me that the original Deep Mines would get discarded before the new one is played (presuming no characters are left there) thus avoiding the prohibition of duplicating the site.

Answer: If the first Deep Mines is discarded, you could move to another one.
If the first Deep Mines is still in play, you could not.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”