roadblock cards

[Hombarus]

Now. Let's go back to the original issue. Character leaving Ovir Hollow, going to withered heath. Snowstorm is in play from previous M/H phase. I played Itangast keyed to Grey Mountain Narrows. Is it legit, or not?

[Hombarus]

"You cannot be returned. Your company may be returned.
If company returns to its site of origin its M/H phase ends. Nothing may be played in ended M/H phase."


Well what says that the snowstorm throws back the company before the creature could have attacked?


And of course we can ignore all rules. Like you seemingly ignored most when created these erratums and rulings over trivia.

But when asked to back your ruling up you have nada. That's poor.

[Konrad Klar]

Well what says that the snowstorm throws back the company before the creature could have attacked?

Seems like Hombarus is competent to answer the question and I believe that he already received the answer satisfying him.

[Hombarus]

Just for the record too: I accept the ruling despite the fact that I argue it.

[Hombarus]

So just that I understood what you had said:

Character leaving GMN going to WH, Snowstorm is in play, the character "bounces" and no hazards can be played, the M/H phase is immediately over and I just lost the right to play hazards. Is that correct?

[Vastor Peredhil]

finally you got it

[Konrad Klar]

For all for whom this thread is not "write only":

My answer was and is:

At a beginning of company's M/H phase a first declared action is*:
"Return a company to the site of origin" (if Snowstorm is in play and company moves through ).

Effects that potentially create an immediate attack (this includes a creatures), and Corruption cards cannot be declared by players in response.
They can only be declared by players as first action of a chain of effects.

Of course if a company will not be returned to the site of origin for any reason (e.g. Snowstorm will be discarded or all in company's path will be removed before resolution of "Return a company to the site of origin"), then a action than can only be declared as first action of a chain of effects may be declared as first action of new chain of effects.

Accepting the answer requires at least acknowledging of existence of Passive Conditions rules.

Maybe someone will be able (or at least willing) to give other answer, potentially based on something else.

[Hombarus]

Fantastic! Thanks for your time!

[the JabberwocK]

Kjeld, keep it shut mate, you are way out of your depth here.

Hombarus - Welcome to our forums. This post is unnecessarily rude. We are a small community of friends, so let's keep it friendly and extend mutual respect, okay?

Your question was answered early on in this topic, and yet you have refused to accept the answer. Vastor quoted the following for you which directly answers your question:

● If a company returns to its site of origin, its site path immediately disappears, and its movement/
hazard phase immediately ends. (CRF)
● Because the movement/hazard phase immediately ends, there is no opportunity to play any
further cards, even those playable at the end of a movement/hazard phase. (Van, 582)

You responded with:

Also, a snowstorm will end the M/H phase, brought here from an errata file that was written by players is not something I would like to discuss at this point. Let's get back to the actual rules.
What I mean, that all in all, I accept that the current errata written by players who seemingly misunderstand the dynamics of the game is the law. What I need is to pinpoint the rule in the original rules that in any shape or form backs this erratum for ending the M/H phase immediately. I mean where did you get that??

Again, for the purpose of the debate, please ignore the erratum that is seemingly not backed up by the rules, unless you pinpoint the rule you base the erratum upon.

The CRF and Van rules referenced for you above were not "brought here from an errata file that was written by players."
These were rules clarifications made by representatives of ICE who manufactured the game. What more do you want? Was it necessary in your mind for ICE to publish a full new rules book in order for you to consider them valid? I get the impression reading your posts that you believe the original rule books are the only rules references that should be considered. For a game as complex as MECCG there is no way to cover everything necessary in an original rule book. It is inevitable that future rules changes and clarifications will need to be made.

Any player can interpret the rules any way he or she wants, but it doesn't mean anyone else will play with them. The purpose of this forum, rules gurus like Konrad, and the extensively-documented democratic protocol for proposing and passing rules errata and clarifications is to create a common meaning for the rules on which the majority of players agree. It sets a standard so that players can go about actually enjoying the game without excessive quibbling or head-scratching.

You're welcome to a minority opinion, of course, and there are proper channels for proposing a change to the established interpretation of the rules, which will then be voted on. But you shouldn't persist in claiming that the majority ruling should simply be overturned because you haven't taken the time to understand the process and its purpose. It simply wastes everyone's time.

Kjeld tried to help you out with this post which I feel is quite accurate, and yet you blew him off. If you want to play MECCG using the original published rulebook and nothing else, that is certainly your prerogative, but you may have difficulty finding anyone else to play with you. The reality is, years and years of game play using the original rule book have led to questions or problems that arise and those questions and problems demand answers.... which mean additional rules clarifications and sometimes errata being issued.

Since ICE is no longer in business, this Council strives to keep MECCG relevant and alive by supporting the game in a variety of ways. One such way is to support rules questions, complaints and confusion. So yes, we are a community of players and collectors who have a process in place for issuing current day errata and clarifications as is deemed desirable for the greater enjoyment of the game.

You are certainly entitled to disagree with this process, however, to come to our rules forum looking for answers and yet not respect the processes used here is a bit mad. You cannot expect players here to give you an answer that looks only at a particular rule book, because the rules for this game are incredibly complex and have evolved greatly over the years.

Hopefully you can re-evaluate your perspective and find some use from my post. I wish you luck.

[Hombarus]

My perspective needs very little re-evaluation.

A) For the record, until the point Kjeld starting mouthing off, I have not even addressed the guy. And I really think his patronising style is the one needs addressing. I mean, I have slapped people silly for less...

B) My question was to point out a reference that in any shape or form backs up the entire nullification of the M/H phase. And no one could. This ruling, whether made by the creator of the game or not is forged out of thin air, with literally no backing to it. And I stand by this point still. I accept this as the rule of the time. Fine. But it makes very little if any sense.

C) Respect is earnt, not deserved by default. So take it a little easy on the lecturing bit. In all fairness.

[Hombarus]

So now that we have adjusted the arm length and all...

I am making an argument, that the Snowstorm rule is completely wrong. I even proposed a quick and improvised way to handle it. And it makes so much more sense especially, since even stationary companies get to be played hazards against, yet in a game that lasts about 8-10 turns at most I get to lose about 3-8 hazard phases as a punishment for my own hazards (3x Snowstorm). That is plain stupid.

More to the cause: A company moves, they bounce because of the Snowstorm. They do not move, as everything you have brought up so far gives me that exact impression. Because if they've moved I could play creatures. So they do not. So then explain to me why the hazard player cannot play cards keyed to the site where they never left in the first place, whether their intention was to leave or not. Can you see a massive hole in your logic?

And if Kjeld or anyone has anything to say about the rule itself I am open to discussion.

[Hombarus]

Completely off-topic in this scenario however it shows that some of the current rules made by the creators or not make very little sense:

Playing Sacrifice of form makes me discard the characters the wizard controls is something that has literal backing from the rules. Yet it is still complete bonkers...

[the JabberwocK]

My perspective needs very little re-evaluation.

That is one opinion.

A) For the record, until the point Kjeld starting mouthing off, I have not even addressed the guy. And I really think his patronising style is the one needs addressing.

Kjeld is a valued member of this forum and I did not find anything I consider to be offensive in his replies to you. In fact, I agreed with a lot of what he wrote in his initial post.

I mean, I have slapped people silly for less...

I can't help but think you must be joking... but then reading through your other posts I have to consider you in fact might not be joking. If you are serious, you need to tone it down. Veiled threats will not be permitted here.

B) My question was to point out a reference that in any shape or form backs up the entire nullification of the M/H phase. And no one could. This ruling, whether made by the creator of the game or not is forged out of thin air, with literally no backing to it. And I stand by this point still. I accept this as the rule of the time. Fine. But it makes very little if any sense.

There are many rules in the game that particular players may disagree with or think that they make "little sense." It is anything but clear as to why the powers that be back in the day may have made certain rulings. It could be for balance reasons, meta-game, unseen problems that arise elsewhere, etc, etc. It's a waste of time to lament the fact that a ruling was made which you disagree with. If you feel strongly enough about it, feel free to submit a proposal here: https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=145

C) Respect is earnt, not deserved by default. So take it a little easy on the lecturing bit. In all fairness.

Perhaps in some walks of life, but not on this forum. Respect is the baseline that everyone must observe here by default. I do not mean to "lecture" but wanted to provide you with a friendly warning. Your posts throughout this topic have been rather cheeky, and it is not appreciated by most (if anyone). Nobody is telling you not to be yourself, so long as you can express yourself with mutual respect for others. Please, just consider this and take a bit of the hubris and hostility out of your communication and myself and others would love to have you as a part of our community.

[Hombarus]

So what you are saying is:

A)
The ruling is perfectly fine because it was based on democratic decision of players. Which reminds me of the fantastic quote from a wise person: "Democracy is when 9 janitors rule against the 1 Nobel Price winner scientist". Fits the bill perfectly here.

B)
If I went around for 300 posts of patting each and every one of you on the back, how gracious and brilliant you lot are my points would instantly gain a lot more validity and credit. Please feel free to jump back to my conclusion on Point A. Fits this bill too.

[Hombarus]

And the very fact that not one of you bothered to even raise any kind of points against my proposal here just shows that yet again the current status quo is not based on merit but on what I have already stated: the support of a specific macro management of one particular game style. (And by game style I do not mean the style of this game but the play style of a certain group of people)