Potential Carambor Fix

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 9:57 pm
MELE wrote:At the beginning of its movement/hazard phase, a moving company’s new site card is revealed and its current site card becomes its site of origin.
A new site card "is revealed" regardless of whether it is already revealed. The earlier quoted player turn summary only says when to "turn it over".
This statement only applies to a face-down site card because it is from the MELE Starter Rules (p. 24), which only allow for companies to move to a face-down site card. The Starter Rules do not allow for the possibility of moving to a face-up site card (which is described in the Standard Rules). Therefore, this statement from MELE does not support the conclusion that a face-up site is "revealed." If the Standard Rules indicated that a face-up site already in play was "revealed" we would not be having this conversation. The context of the quoted statement is important:

Image

----------

"Revealing" a new site card is not a necessary or inherent element of "moving" to that new site card under the Standard Rules for moving companies to a site in play. The company can move without revealing a new site card.

Just because the rules on movement describe the typical situation of moving to a face-down site without mentioning that its also possible to move to a face-up site does not mean that moving to a face-up site is considered to "reveal" that site for purposes of card effects.

Washed and Refreshed states "when the company's new site is revealed." This effect only triggers when a face-down site card is revealed. There is no rule or ruling stating that moving to a face-up site card is considered "revealing" for purposes of card effects.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 10:04 pm
This statement only applies to a face-down site card because it is from the MELE Starter Rules (p. 24), which only allow for companies to move to a face-down site card. The Starter Rules do not allow for the possibility of moving to a face-up site card (which is described in the Standard Rules). Therefore, this statement from MELE does not support the conclusion that a face-up site is "revealed." If the Standard Rules indicated that a face-up site already in play was "revealed" we would not be having this conversation.
MELE S wrote:The Standard Rules consist of additions and extensions to the Starter Rules
That is, rules that aren't changed by the Standard Rules carry over. Or do you, e.g., have no decks other than a location deck of METW region cards when you aren't playing the Starter Rules?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:13 pm
MELE S wrote:The Standard Rules consist of additions and extensions to the Starter Rules
That is, rules that aren't changed by the Standard Rules carry over. Or do you, e.g., have no decks other than a location deck of METW region cards when you aren't playing the Starter Rules?
The Starter Rules don't "carry over" to the Standard Rules, the Standard Rules add and extend the Starter Rules (as your quote says). These are not quite the same thing and it certainly doesn't mean that the Starter Rules can be taken out of context.

Just because the Standard Rules allow for a company to new site card is already in play instead of placing a face-down site does not mean that the Starter Rules consider a face-up site card already in play to have been revealed when starting the M/H phase.

If there is no action of turning over a face-down card, then a card in play has not been "revealed." If a face-up site being moved to was supposed to be considered as "revealed," then the Standard Rules would have said so. But it isn't there. If it isn't there it isn't there.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote: Gee Miguel, I'm just teaching you the rules of this game. No need to get upset. Everyone knows the rules are difficult. No one would fault you for having played them wrong.
When you are wrong, you are not teaching anyone anything. You are only muddying the waters, which is very bad because the rules indeed are difficult. And I do fault you for doing so. Your argumentative fallacies combined with a zealot-like overestimation of your understanding of the rules / card texts make actually discussing anything with you nigh impossible (unless in agreement, of course). Your quota of my good will is depleting fast.
CDavis7M wrote: Accordingly, just because a face-up site can be used as new site for purposes of declaring movement, that does NOT mean that moving to the face-up site count as "revealing" a face-down site, and certainly not for purposes of triggering card effects based on "revealing" sites. Because Washed and Refreshed states "when the company's new site is revealed," this effect only triggers when a face-down site card is revealed, even though a face-up site card can be used instead of a face-down site card for the different purpose of declaring movement to a new site.
Fallen-Radagast's card drawing ability was ICE's effort to write a better version of the text on Hero Radagast, to clarify when the cards are drawn.
Radagast wrote: If his company moves to a new site during the movement/hazard phase, he may draw 1 additional card for each Wilderness region in his company's site path.
Fallen-Radagast wrote: When Radagast's new site is revealed, he may draw one additional card for each Wilderness in his company's site path.
It really is just about timing, "when new site is revealed" means the "declaration and resolution of the new site". And my earlier example of The Reach of Ulmo also confirms this, the card text is merely letting you know that you can play it at a time the rules say hazards may not normally be played. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

And finally CDavis7M, are you going to address your innuendo about misinterpreting the rules so that "I" could win tournament games at the expense of other player's experience, or apologize for it?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:23 am
When you are wrong, you are not teaching anyone anything. You are only muddying the waters, which is very bad because the rules indeed are difficult. And I do fault you for doing so. Your argumentative fallacies combined with a zealot-like overestimation of your understanding of the rules / card texts make actually discussing anything with you nigh impossible (unless in agreement, of course).
It's not my view, it's ICE's view and I'm just explaining their view. ICE's view is clear and it's explicitly laid out in the beginning of the CRF and all of their rulings in the CRF and elsewhere follow this reasoning. Anyone reading the ICE Netrep's rulings would understand this. You can see numerous examples of people being baffled by ICE's rulings because they didn't understand ICE's principle "if it isn't there it isn't there." Ignorance of how ICE ruled doesn't make my statements false or overzealous.

----------
miguel wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:23 am
Fallen-Radagast's card drawing ability was ICE's effort to write a better version of the text on Hero Radagast, to clarify when the cards are drawn.
ICE understood their own game. The action of revealing a face-down site card has never been the same as moving. If anything, the change to FW Radagast to prevent his effect from working when moving to a site in play is intentional given that The White Hand was released with so many powerful effects on face-up sites in play. The ICE Netrep play tested The White Hand and he knew "if it isn't there it isn't there" and that FW Radagast only draws more cards if a new site is revealed. ICE knew what they were doing when they changed FW Radagast to work different from Hero Radagast.

Furthermore, several resource cards in The White Hand specifically trigger when a company is "moving to" a site. "Moving to a new site" is clearly not the same, nor is it "a better version" of, "revealing a new site" in The White Hand.

----------
miguel wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:23 am
It really is just about timing, "when new site is revealed" means the "declaration and resolution of the new site". And my earlier example of The Reach of Ulmo also confirms this, the card text is merely letting you know that you can play it at a time the rules say hazards may not normally be played. Take it or leave it, I don't care.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with ICE rulings and their clarifications, whether you care or not. ICE made several rulings regarding a company's "new site" and how it should be considered. ICE never ruled that "moving to a new site" should be considered as "revealing a new site" because these are different.
CRF Movement/Hazard phase wrote:A non-moving company's current site is considered its new site for card play.
If moving to a new site were considered revealing for other purposes besides declaring movement, such as triggering card effect, ICE would have ruled so. But they didn't rule that way because "moving to a new site" and "revealing a new site" are not the same.

I'm not going to pretend that ICE should have ruled a certain way just so that Washed and Refreshed doesn't work as stated on its card text. That makes no sense.

----------
miguel wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:23 am
And finally CDavis7M, are you going to address your innuendo about misinterpreting the rules so that "I" could win tournament games at the expense of other player's experience, or apologize for it?
I addressed myself. Other players have reported their frustrating experiences with the Carambor Machine on this website and elsewhere. You have made your statement about yourself here and I'm not going to comment on what you say about yourself.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo »

Use this opportunity to back up you claims of ICE views with references.

What doesn't seem to "be there" is any change to the movement rules given by the Starter Rules when a company is moving to a site in play (or a face-down site being moved to by multiple companies) OTHER than how to designate their new site card.

Lots of amusing fallout from making up other modifications to the movement rules, but I don't think it is really relevant to go over examples.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:57 pm
ICE never ruled that "moving to a new site" should be considered as "revealing a new site" because these are different.
Now you seem to be fabricating something to argue against? If so, your fabrication seems to not be accounting for "moving to a new site" occurs over a duration, "revealing a new site" occurs at one point in time during the movement/hazard phase. That doesn't require any ICE digests or player handbooks.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by the JabberwocK »

miguel wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:39 am
CDavis7M wrote:I haven't been misinterpreting the rules so that I could win tournament games at the expense of other player's experience.
Who hurt you? I might as well ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet", but I won't because I'm classy like that. No, but seriously, you keep bringing this up, so let's hear it! What exactly (do you think) happened? Start a new thread for it, if you like. :D
miguel -

Let's keep the fight clean. Yes, you are joking, but such statements aren't considered classy or appreciated by many. Saying "I might as well.." isn't much different than just asking the question. Thank you.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by miguel »

the JabberwocK wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 9:43 pm
miguel -

Let's keep the fight clean. Yes, you are joking, but such statements aren't considered classy or appreciated by many. Saying "I might as well.." isn't much different than just asking the question. Thank you.
Don't worry, I'm done.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by CDavis7M »

The rules for The Dragons explicitly differentiate between when a company "reveals its new site" and when a company "otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/hazard phase." Washed and Refreshed is from The Dragons. And other cards differentiate between a "moving company" and a company that "reveals a new site card." Washed and Refreshed's effect explicitly only happens when the company "reveals its new site," not when it "otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/hazard phase."
  • Spying Out the Land lets the hazard player reveal new/different hazards at the beginning of each movement/hazard phase. It does NOT limit your opponent to only playing those hazards revealed back in the organization phase (per CRF on "Movement" and "Choosing a New Site"). Spying Out the Land only continues to work if the Spirit-magic character is still in the company.
  • Washed and Refreshed only untaps characters in Carabbor's company if they move to a new face-down site that is revealed at the beginning of the M/H phase (i.e., not a face-up site already in play -- not face-up Weathertop with Hidden Haven on it). Washed and Refreshed does not give its effect when a company otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/hazard phase.
  • Elerina can automatically return Carambor to his player's hand using Pilfer Anything Unwatched.
  • Left Behind played with an attack by Durin's Folk or Orc-warband will split Carambor off into his own separate company.
  • Resolving Enchanted Stream would prevent further movement.
  • Cave Drake, Corsairs, Ambusher, Slayer, and Assassin will be likely to his Carambor's company. Or other hazards like Angmar Arises, Scorba Ahunt, Snowstorm, Gandalf, Pallando, and Arthedain Rangers.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:05 pm
The rules for The Dragons explicitly differentiate between when a company "reveals its new site" and when a company "otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/hazard phase."
Non-moving companies do not reveal a new site. I don't think your reference proves what you think it proves.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by CDavis7M »

Theo wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:57 am
CDavis7M wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:05 pm
The rules for The Dragons explicitly differentiate between when a company "reveals its new site" and when a company "otherwise announces it is beginning its movement/hazard phase."
Non-moving companies do not reveal a new site.
Some companies do, some companies don't.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”