Are there any Ruins&Lairs in Forochel?

[Bandobras Took]

So far as I know, no.

[Konrad Klar]

Then I do not know, how the situation could be created (according to your answer):

Consider (pre-MEAS) a minion character taken prisoner at Dancing Spire. There was no Minion Dancing Spire until MEAS.

Character in hero company moving from Barad-Dur to Cirith Gorgor cannot be imprisoned at Dead Marches.
Because for hero player Udun and Dagorlad are not adjacent.
Dead Marches exists for him, but not in the same region as/region adjacent to Udun, or Gorgoroth.

Before MEAS, for minion player Dancing Spire did not exist at all so, no surprise, it also did not exist for him in the same region as/region adjacent to regions through which his company was moving.

[Bandobras Took]

I found a rule that indicates I'm wrong.

If you are a Ringwraith, your agents may move as if Dagorlad and Udûn are adjacent.

This suggests that it is the reverse of what I'm suggesting -- the hazard player's definition is used for hazards.

[Konrad Klar]

The following is also valid:

A region is adjacent to another region if and only if each region lists the other region on its card. The only exception to this is that Udun is adjacent to Dagorlad for Ringwraith players.

How about hero company moving (using starter movement) from Lorien to Ovir Hollow in game against single minion player and before MEAS?
Could a character in the company be imprisoned at a site in Grey Mountain Narrows? And if so, why?

[Bandobras Took]

Probably because the Wind Throne was part of MELE.

[Konrad Klar]

If the hazard host is played on a character moving with starter movement, the
rescue site must be located in the region containing the site of origin or the new
site.

This suggests that it is the reverse of what I'm suggesting -- the hazard player's definition is used for hazards.

If from the hazard player's (minion player before MEAS) perspective Ovir Hollow does not exist, how he can determine that it is located in Grey Mountain Narrows, the same region where The Wind Throne is located?
If I understand you, before MEAS a companies of minion player was not affected by No Escape from My Magic played on Elves of Lindon, because Lindon did not contain Grey Havens for minion player.

[Bandobras Took]

The region containing the new site is listed on the new site. Whether the site exists for the hazard player isn't quite relevant, as it's always been the resource player's site, as much as possible, that is used to determine such things, and the resource player cannot, under normal circumstances, move to a site that does not exist for them.

The question of No Escape/Elves of Lindon is the reason I very much favor using the resource player's perspective despite the CRF entry for hazard agent movement. If there is no site where the faction is playable, there can't be a region containing that site. For hero alignment, there is a site where the faction is playable. For minion alignment, there is not.

This makes no consistent thematic sense, obviously, but that's never stopped this game before.

An alternative method for determining such things is on a card-by-card basis, by determining whether a card asks whether something is allowed or disallowed.

For No Escape/Trouble, it asks whether there is at least one instance where play of a faction is allowed at a site in the region. If so, effect.

For a card such as Here, There, or Yonder, it looks for an instance where something is not allowed. If so, no action.

I'm not sure if that causes more or less confusion when determining how the cards affect the game, though.

[Konrad Klar]

So, according to you:
1. For playing a rescue site in the same region as region containing a new site, it is not obstacle that for hazard player the new site does not exist. He can acquire information about region that contains the new site from resource player's copy.
2. If Grey Havens is not in version that a player could use, the Grey Havens does not exist for him, and in consequence Lindon does not contain Grey Havens for him, and in consequence Lindon does not contain for him a site where Elves of Lindon is playable.
In result No Escape from My Magic on Elves of Lindon does not affect this player.
Whether other player's copy of Grey Havens is in play, or not does not matter.

Right?

[Bandobras Took]

That's what I've been arguing, but the conversation has convinced me that any decision on how to play it is going to have complications and difficulties.

[Konrad Klar]

A site may be type of Wizardhaven only for FW player. And except The White Towers and Isengard, only for particular FW player; the same for any protected Wizardhaven.
So if a region contains, or does not contain a site of given type, depending on who is currently taking its turn, then live with perspective of Girdle of Radagast that changes to a region containing the protected Wizardhaven with Girdle of Radagast and adjacent regions, only for FW Radagast player.

Radagast specific. Playable on one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] if you are Radagast and have at least 12 stage points and 6 allies and/or unique factions in play (the factions must be playable at sites in the Wizardhaven's [W] region or adjacent regions). The Wizardhaven's region and all adjacent regions become Wilderness [w]. Cannot be duplicated.

[the JabberwocK]

On Monday, March 27, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:

There's an excellent point.

However, I do think there is a difference when discussing where a resource may be played at vs. whether a resource has an effect. I cannot play War-Wolf at Wizardhaven White Towers simply because my opponent's White Towers is a Ruins & Lairs with a wolf auto-attack.

Trouble looks for "a site where the faction is playable." That now seems to me to suggest that any player's site will do if the faction is playable there.

No Escape looks for "the site" where the faction is playable. That suggest to me that unless a player's site matches the site where the faction was played precisely, they are not affected.

This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

[the JabberwocK]

On Monday, March 27, user Konrad Klar wrote:

However, I do think there is a difference when discussing where a resource may be played at vs. whether a resource has an effect. I cannot play War-Wolf at Wizardhaven White Towers simply because my opponent's White Towers is a Ruins & Lairs with a wolf auto-attack.

Of course, but if you have in play FW version of The White Towers and your opponent has other version of The White Towers in play, then (according to me) Arthedain contains Wizardhaven, , a site with Wolves AA, Bree, a site where Rangers of the North is playable (whether something checks or does not check for any of them).

Trouble looks for "a site where the faction is playable." That now seems to me to suggest that any player's site will do if the faction is playable there.

Trouble on All Borders looks for "company moving through region containing a site where the faction is playable, or through any region adjacent to his one.", No Escape from My Magic looks for "region that contains the site where this faction is playable and all adjacent regions".
Seems like you do not take into account my proposed answer (from the first post of this thread); I'm still supporting it, without modifications.

No Escape looks for "the site" where the faction is playable. That suggest to me that unless a player's site matches the site where the faction was played precisely, they are not affected.

"Where the faction was played" is not the same as "where the faction is playable". What/who are "they"?
Sites? I do not think that they are affected by Magic or Trouble.
If by "they" you mean player's companies, then it looks like straight implication of your answer (but not my proposed answer).

This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

[the JabberwocK]

On Monday, March 27, user Konrad Klar wrote:

However, I do think there is a difference when discussing where a resource may be played at vs. whether a resource has an effect. I cannot play War-Wolf at Wizardhaven White Towers simply because my opponent's White Towers is a Ruins & Lairs with a wolf auto-attack.

Of course, but if you have in play FW version of The White Towers and your opponent has other version of The White Towers in play, then (according to me) Arthedain contains Wizardhaven, , a site with Wolves AA, Bree, a site where Rangers of the North is playable (whether something checks or does not check for any of them).

And even if only copy of Weathertop currently in play is for instance (accidentally Weathertop is normally and has normally Wolves AA, just like minion and hero versions of The White Towers).

This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

[the JabberwocK]

On Monday, March 27, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:

I just don't know if the region contains all those things for a given player.

This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.

[the JabberwocK]

On Monday, March 27, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:

I just don't know if the region contains all those things for a given player.

Nobody knows. It is up to interpretation. Depending on interpretation (proposed answer) more or less strange things may happen in game.

That is strange at start, that a company of one player may be at Ettenmoors that is , a company of other player may be at Ettenmoors that is , and a company of another player may be at Ettenmoors that is , and all at the same time.

You may make it more strange by stating that at given time Rhudaur contains only: Ettenmoors that is , or Ettenmoors that is , or Ettenmoors that is . Despite the fact that each of the companies are still in play, each at Ettenmoors of different type of site.

For what benefits?
Which unclear situations in game will become more clear thanks to such interpretation? As far I see only victims of this interpretation: e.g. that Girdle of Radagast is changing type of regions only in turn of its owner (unless it is expected that the card will work in such way; this is also up to interpretation).

This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.