Orcs and Elves at the same Ruins&Lairs

[Konrad Klar]

In FW vs FW game it may happen that one of players will reveal Hidden Haven as starting Stage Card and will decide that it will be on The White Towers.

Playable on a non-Dragon's lair in a , or ; the site must normally be a Ruins & Lairs . The site becomes one of your Wizardhavens [W] and loses all automatic attacks. Nothing is considered playable as written on the site card. If one of you companies is at this site, all attacks against it are canceled. Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven [W]. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck. It cannot be discarded otherwise.

It may end with situation where his opponent that did not include Hidden Haven but started with Bad Company, will have Orcs and Elves at the same . Situation that violates a company composition restrictions.

The situation will not happen if following rules will be observed:

• Starting site is decided in first step, before any card will be revealed.

• Draft is used.

If one of players has already revealed (and not set aside) characters that cannot be at the same non-Wizardhaven site and decided that starting site of his company is The White Towers, it will prevent his opponent from revealing Hidden Haven on The White Towers.

If one of players decided that starting site of his company is it will prevent him from revealing a combination of characters that cannot be legally at the same non-Wizardhaven site, unless and until he revealed Hidden Haven on the site (and Hidden Haven will not be set aside).

[CDavis7M]

It may end with situation where his opponent that did not include Hidden Haven but started with Bad Company, will have Orcs and Elves at the same . Situation that violates a company composition restrictions.

I think there's confusion. The company with Orcs and Elves can not start at a Ruins & Lairs. They must start at a haven. The rules work because the starting company is decided first and then the starting site is placed with them. So if you reveal Orcs and Elves and you originally wanted to start with Hidden Haven at a Ruins & Lairs, but you cannot because your opponent revealed their Hidden Haven and that same site first, then you just start your orcs and elves at The White Towers instead.

No big deal. No changes needed.

[Konrad Klar]

then you just start your orcs and elves at The White Towers instead.

...for that you could not use FW site card.

[CDavis7M]

I read the issue again and I think I see the concern but let's walk through an example.

1. Alice declares that she is playing Fallen-wizard Alatar and Bob declares that he is playing Fallen-wizard Pallando.
2. They begin the character draft
3. Alice reveals Bad Company and Bob reveals Bifur
4. Alice reveals Orc Brawler and Bob reveals Bofur
5. Alice reveals Gildor and Bob reveals Hidden Haven and brings out the hero Ruins & Lairs version of The White Towers
6. Alice and Bob each reveal some stage card as required
7. Alice and Bob both decide to not reveal any further characters. At this point, the starting cards have been determined by the character draft process.
8. Now that the starting company is determined, Alice and Bob organize their starting characters into followers and companies and Alice places her company at the Fallen-wizard version of The White Towers and Bob places his company at the hero version of The White Towers with Hidden Haven on it.
9. Alice and Bob assign minor items to their characters
10. Alice and Bob draw hands of cards.
11. Alice and Bob roll dice; Alice wins the roll and will start first. At this point, the players have gotten ready to play.
12. Alice and Bob start playing the game with Alice taking the first turn. Alice can start the game with Orc Brawler because she has also started the game with Bad Company. Bob can start the game with Hidden Haven on hero White Towers because the conditions for playing it exist (ruins and non-dragon lairs in a wilderness, etc). At this point, the game (gameplay) has started.
13. Alice's company cannot use the wizardhaven version of White Towers because Bob's Hidden Haven says "other FW may not use this site as a Wizardhaven." The MEWH rules state "The play of certain cards can change the type of sites that your companies may use (e.g., Plotting Ruin, Heart Grown Cold, etc.). When this happens, immediately exchange any affected site cards already in play with the corresponding site cards of the proper type." The MEWH rules also state "Unless at a Wizardhaven, an Orc or Troll cannot be in the same company as an Elf, Dwarf, Dunadan, or Hobbit." This is a rule about whether characters can be in a company. It is not a rule about exchanging sites. The rule on exchanging sites covers exchanging sites and the rule on company composition covers company composition.
14. Alice exchanges her FW version of The White Towers with the hero version of The White Towers because the rules tell her to take this action. The rules also say that Orc Brawler and Gildor cannot be in the same company at a wizard haven but this rule is about company composition and it says nothing about the action of exchanging site types. The rules on exchanging sites say to exchange sites and the rules on company composition do not tell Alice that she cannot exchange sites. The characters were already in a company and the rules on company composition do not provide any action for the player to take if this situation arises, nor to they prevent the site exchange action. A player must take actions when the rules tell them to and they cannot take actions within the game unless some rule or card effect tells them to. So Alice takes the action of exchanging her site and takes no actions regarding company composition at this point.
15. The rules say that the organization phase is the time for taking company composition actions. So during her organization phase Alice splits the Orc Brawler and Gildor into separate companies since "unless at a Wizardhaven, an Orc or Troll cannot be in the same company as an Elf, Dwarf, Dunadan, or Hobbit."

The rules on exchanging sites govern the exchange of sites. The rules on company composition do not govern the exchange of sites without specifics.

[Konrad Klar]

LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION
[...]
Note: If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven sit and combining those companies would violate the limitations on
company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly, an effect that
causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill).

So if there is a company with Orcs and Elves at some Wizardhaven, Nature's Revenge on the Wizardhaven is "an effect that causes such a violation".
The same for Hidden Haven.

[Konrad Klar]

And the same for Fortress of the Towers, The Fortress of Isen (played by opponent).

[CDavis7M]

LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION
[...]
Note: If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven sit and combining those companies would violate the limitations on
company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly, an effect that
causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill).

So if there is a company with Orcs and Elves at some Wizardhaven, Nature's Revenge on the Wizardhaven is "an effect that causes such a violation".
The same for Hidden Haven.

And the same for Fortress of the Towers, The Fortress of Isen (played by opponent).

Yes, I know the MELE rule on company composition and I read it before writing a post on company composition. I'm interested to know what definition of the word "cause" you are using and why you think that it leads to this conclusion in the context of these game mechanics. Because I don't see how it works.

For me, neither Hidden Haven nor Nature's Revenge have "an effect that causes such a violation" (a company composition violation). They say nothing about characters or the composition of a company. They have an effect that changes the type of a site. It's that simple.

The type of the site not part of the composition of a company (one or more characters). An effect that changes the type of a site in a situation where the type of the site was a condition for an exception to a company composition violation cannot be said to cause the violation itself. We Have Come To Kill is the given example of "such an effect" -- it is an effect that changes company composition. If the rule on company composition violations cared about changing the type of the site, it would have said so.

[Konrad Klar]

For me, neither Hidden Haven nor Nature's Revenge have "an effect that causes such a violation" (a company composition violation).

For you.
If a company is ending its M/H phase at some site, it is not something that itself causes a company composition violation, but it may in some cases inevitably lead to such violation.

I'm interested to know what definition of the word "cause" you are using and why you think that it leads to this conclusion in the context of these game mechanics.

Inevitably leads to something.

[CDavis7M]

For me, neither Hidden Haven nor Nature's Revenge have "an effect that causes such a violation" (a company composition violation).

For you.
If a company is ending its M/H phase at some site, it is not something that itself causes a company composition violation, but it may in some cases inevitably lead to such violation.

Exactly, It is not "ending its M/H phase" that is what causes the company composition violation. Removing the site of origin and drawing/discarding cards (end of M/H phase) do not effect company composition because they do not change the composition of the company.

This is why the rule actually state "If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition..." It is the combining of the companies that changes company composition.

I'm interested to know what definition of the word "cause" you are using and why you think that it leads to this conclusion in the context of these game mechanics.

Inevitably leads to something.

Ok. Which dictionary did you use? I looked in a few dictionaries (OED, MW, Collins, Macmillian) and I don't see any definition indicating that the word "cause" suggests the meaning: "inevitably leading to something"

Concise OED:

cause.jpg (44.07 KiB) Viewed 2039 times

Inevitable means "certain to happen; unavoidable" in my dictionary while "cause" simply means "a thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition." "Cause" does not mean "a thing that inevitably gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition through one or more intermediary actions, phenomena, or conditions."

The rules would say "an effect that inevitably causes such a violation is cancelled" if they meant for the game to work that way.

[Konrad Klar]

Ok. Which dictionary did you use?

None. I am using translators sometimes.
I do not know a dictionary that recognizes "context of these game mechanics".
And I realize that e.g. "you" generally is not synonymous of "player".
"things that gives rise to..." is not generally "[thing that] Inevitably leads to something"

And pardon. "Inevitably leads to something" is rather synonymous of "causes", not "cause" (in context of the game).

Exactly, It is not "ending its M/H phase" that is what causes the company composition violation. Removing the site of origin and drawing/discarding cards (end of M/H phase) do not effect company composition because they do not change the composition of the company.

Right. My error.

A joining of some companies is something that inevitably leads to company composition violation in some cases.
Some effects like a result of Ren the Unclean invoked in M/H phase of company B may remove characters that would cause violation from company A after completion of last M/H phase of company A.

There is no time between resolution and execution (main effect) of Nature's Revenge etc. So if such card would turn some Wizardhaven to site of other type, then it is "an effect that causes such a violation" (in some cases).

If draft is not used as mandatory AND if staring site is not chosen in first step* then the situation described in 1st post resembles the operation Night&Fog.
No one is responsible for resulting state which is a company with Orcs and Elves at . Everything that was leading to such state was legal.

*) and if the cards revealed during draft are not considered as being in play (if not set aside). Assumption in the 1st post was that a card revealed during draft (and not set aside) is in play.

[CDavis7M]

If the rule meant "inevitably causes" then it would have said "inevitably causes" instead of just "causes."

The CRF tells the players how to interpret the rules:

The main thing to remember, when making rulings based on the rules and the cards, is that if it isn't there, then it isn't there.

The term "causes" is there in the rule and "inevitably causes" is not there in the rule. I'm not reading the meaning of "inevitably" into "causes" because it is not part of any definition that I've seen nor would it be required by the game mechanics.

I think it's simple: a card effect that "causes" a company composition violation will have some text on it mentioning company composition or bringing characters into a company. A card effect not mentioning anything about companies or characters only "indirectly" causes it to happen and "indirectly causes" is not the same as "causes."

If it isn't there, it isn't there.

----------

One interpretation of the rule has the simplicity of looking for the word "company" or "character" in a card's effect and allows the game to start without issue in the situation presented above.

Another interpretation of the rule leads to a confusing situation where the player's starting company can somehow no longer be played at their starting site.

[Konrad Klar]

The term "causes" is there in the rule and "inevitably causes" is not there in the rule. I'm not reading the meaning of "inevitably" into "causes" because it is not part of any definition that I've seen nor would it be required by the game mechanics.

Do not prevaricate.
I did not say "inevitably causes". I did say that "causes" means "inevitably leads to".

Snowstorm does not cause returning a company moving through .
Declaration of returning a company moving through does not cause a returning of the company.
Declaration of Cave-drake does not cause a facing of attack of the Cave-drake.

[Konrad Klar]

I think it's simple: a card effect that "causes" a company composition violation will have some text on it mentioning company composition or bringing characters into a company. A card effect not mentioning anything about companies or characters only "indirectly" causes it to happen and "indirectly causes" is not the same as "causes."

If it isn't there, it isn't there.

----------

One interpretation of the rule has the simplicity of looking for the word "company" or "character" in a card's effect and allows the game to start without issue in the situation presented above.

Another interpretation of the rule leads to a confusing situation where the player's starting company can somehow no longer be played at their starting site.

"unless at a Wizardhaven, an Orc or Troll cannot be in the same company as an Elf, Dwarf, Dunadan, or Hobbit."

Maybe I am selective or blind, but the rule says something about a race of characters in a company and also says something about a type of site at which the company is located.

[CDavis7M]

The FW rule on using sites tells the player to take the action of exchanging sites.

(Putting aside the faction that this clarification we are discussing is an MELE rule, which I don't think matters in this case)
The clarification on company composition rule does not tell the player to take any action regarding the site. Instead, it prevents the player from taking company composition actions and provides an exception to such violations based on the type of the site. This rule prevents actions with respect to character cards. It does not prevent actions with respect to the site.

I said as much

An effect that changes the type of a site in a situation where the type of the site was a condition for an exception to a company composition violation cannot be said to cause the violation itself. We Have Come To Kill is the given example of "such an effect" -- it is an effect that changes company composition. If the rule on company composition violations cared about changing the type of the site, it would have said so.

Apparently some people don't like endless discussions though. But if pressed I will repeat myself.

[Konrad Klar]

Apparently some people don't like endless discussions though. But if pressed I will repeat myself.

I am not accusing you for taking endless discussions.
If you think that "We Have Come To Kill"* is exhaustive list, and/or if you feel comfortable with Nature's Revenge (successfully played) on Wizardhaven at which a company with Orcs and Elves is present, then repeat yourself.

If not LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION fragment of Lidless Eye, then there is nothing coming from ICE that would be applicable to effects that cause such a violation in result of changing a site type.

*) depending on character that will be played in result of the card.