Here, there or yonder ... exploits?

[Lake Town Geezer]

"Here, There, or Yonder says "Tap a character during his site phase a tapped or untapped ". If it would say "Tap a character at a tapped or untapped ", then someone would say that it "explicitly" requires site phase because it does not say explicitly that this usual requirement of procedure of is omitted.

And Here, There, or Yonder does not say explicitly that an ally does not need be playable at given (target) site. "if the result is greater than 6 plus the ally's mind stat and the ally is not restricted from moving in this site's region" does not preclude this usual requirement of playing ally."

I think though there are no examples in the game of an ally who is restricted from moving at a site he/she/it is playable at? Therefore it follows that the card must allow the playing of an ally at a site where he/she/it is not normally playable? So while as you say it doesnt explicity state the ally does not need to be playable, it is inferred by a process of deduction. For example, if I say to you "I am not a woman" you would infer that I am a man?

[Konrad Klar]

For example, if I say to you "I am not a woman" you would infer that I am a man

Being a man precludes being woman.
Being not restricted from moving in this site's region does not preclude from being playable at this site.

I think that Here, There, or Yonder provides own (custom) procedure of playing an ally and own requirements to the ally.
Assumption that if in such case something has not been explicitly negated/overwritten, it must follow normal procedure, leads to conclusion that the ally is played at a site (because it is not explicitly written otherwise) and, if applied consistently, a moving company may not play Gollum after failed attack of My Precious; nowhere is explicitly written that Gollum is not played at site.

[CDavis7M]

If it is "explicit" that an ally played with Here, There, or Yonder is played at site, e.g. because it is usual procedure of playing ally and it is not explicitly said otherwise, the the same applies to playing Gollum after failed attack of My Precious. No way to play Gollum for moving company.

Here, There, or Yonder says much more about how the ally is played compared to My Precious. For My Precious's effect of playing Gollum, of course requirements must be met or otherwise addressed by the effect. But also, it's important to know when the requirements would apply in the first place.

Phrase "if it isn’t there, then it isn’t there" does not help if someone both checks whether something is explicitly written and checks whether something is not explicitly negated.

The phrase "if it isn't there, it isn't there" does not mean to forget understanding of words and create unreasonable contradictions such that nothing works.

[Konrad Klar]

I thought whether there is a situation where it matters whether ally played in result of Here, There, or Yonder is/is not played at site (beside impact which it has on interpretation of My Precious).
There is.

Unique. May not be a starting stage card. Playable if you are Alatar, Pallando, or Saruman. Playable on the White Towers. The White Towers is protected. Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven [ ] card for The White Towers. Cards that give marshalling points cannot be played at The White Towers by your opponent in all cases. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck.

Before errata the ally could be played with Here, There, or Yonder at/not at versions of The White Towers anyway, because for Here, There, or Yonder it does not matter whether the ally is playable at given .

The same applies to Isengard and Fortress of Isen.

viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3386
viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3385

[CDavis7M]

Before errata the ally could be played with Here, There, or Yonder at/not at versions of The White Towers anyway, because for Here, There, or Yonder it does not matter whether the ally is playable at given .

The same applies to Isengard and Fortress of Isen.

viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3386
viewtopic.php?f=144&t=3385

If one player had played Fortress of Isen then their opponent could not play an ally there using Here, There, or Yonder because Fortress of Isen says "in all cases." Cards that give marshalling points, including allies that give marshalling points, are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases, including the case where the ally is played using the effect of Here, There, or Yonder. Fortress of Isen is not simply modifying playability of the ally itself, and whether or not the ally is playable at a given Ruins & Lairs, but ALL ways that the ally could be played. This is what "in all cases" means.

The CoE errata seems to have misunderstood how Fortress of Isen works.

[Konrad Klar]

That depends on whether a resource is played at a site or merely under control of character on the site.

If someone negates this distinction he can say that Magic Ring that gives MP cannot be played by opponent of the owner Fortress of the Towers after test of gold ring. Then (if he cares about consistency) he can forbid FW player to play hero rings after test in companies at minion site.

Fortress of the Towers before errata does not affect an ally played with help Here, There, or Yonder, whether the ally would be played at a site or merely under control of character at the site, because it says that "Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases."
And if it is possible to play Quickbeam under control of character at (or just at) Barrow Downs, then this means that it does not matter whether the ally is playable at given or not.

Of course (again) someone may negate the difference between "playable at" and "may be played at". Not my responibility.

[CDavis7M]

That depends on whether a resource is played at a site or merely under control of character on the site.

[/quote]
There is a difference but a resource played "merely under control of character on the site" is already played "at the site" since the resource is "played" and it is "at" the site.

[Lake Town Geezer]

What I like the most about 'Here, there or yonder' is it makes an ally-based MP strategy viable in a small area (like Arthedian/Cardolan). It also enhances the utility of information based sites - like Weathertop. You can go there with a company play an information card and then play 'Here, there or yonder' at the same time. Allies have so much going for them: no CP, increase party size for Fellowships (not sure about Alone and Unadvised), and many have cool effects (like Goldberry), plus your allies can tap to add +1 prowess against a strike even if they themselves cannot be attacked (again Goldberry springs to mind). I am liking the udea of using Gimli and/or Dain especially with 'Map to Mithril' (can have 3 in a deck as it isn't a unique) and both are diplomats. Could design a whole deck around just ally gathering with Map to Mithril enhanced weapons and going to Moria.

I mean Gimli on his own (or with a disposable ranger/scout like Anbiorn under his DI) could go gathering three allies in Arthedian/Cardolan (Shadofax, Goldberry and Quickbeam for example), play a couple of Fellowships, a Map to Mithril, then go to Moria, grab a book of Marzarbul, then head home to Iron Hill Dwarf hold all in a few turns and pull in the faction plus enhance his Dagger of Westernesse + Barrow Blade + Map to Mithril into a +5 prowess weapon, before going to the Lomely Mountain to kill Smaug. How much fun is that?

[CDavis7M]

Allies are good for the reasons you mentioned, no doubt. Even better in a 3- or 4-deck game. Lots of other strategies are better in longer games but they haven't seemed to catch on despite the 1-deck game being "played out" just a few months from the game's release. I think at some point in many games you get to a part where the companies are so strong because of weapons (and allies) that hazards stop working so well. In a 2-deck game this would be happening fairly late, and the game might be a turn or two from ending. But in a 3-deck game you'd have a strong incentive to bring influence to bear against the opponent's character's or allies. Seems like a lot more interesting scenarios would arise in longer games because of these strategies.

I've been looking at Map to Mithril recently. I think it's one of the more fun cards from The Dragons race-based cards. Unfortunately the corruption being 2, with a minimum of 3 points total seems a bit risky. Lure of nature or lure of expedience would be tragic. In your scenario it seems like Gimli would be alone and unadvised (but not for long).

I have Here, There, or Yonder in a deck with both Tom and Goldberry and its nice if you play Tom first and only have to roll for Goldberry (I use Frodo to roll). But if you have to roll for Tom, even a diplomat needs an 8. Not terrible but I've failed to do it in several games, even with 2 copies of HToY in the deck.

[Konrad Klar]

Allies have so much going for them: no CP, increase party size for Fellowships (not sure about Alone and Unadvised), and many have cool effects (like Goldberry), plus your allies can tap to add +1 prowess against a strike even if they themselves cannot be attacked (again Goldberry springs to mind).

"party size"
Company's size do not change due to allies in company.
Fellowship checks for number of characters and allies in company combined.
Alone and Unadvised checks for number of characters in company, that is not the same as company's size (company of four hobbits characters has size of 2 and numer of characters in the company is 4).

[Lake Town Geezer]

"I've been looking at Map to Mithril recently. I think it's one of the more fun cards from The Dragons race-based cards. Unfortunately the corruption being 2, with a minimum of 3 points total seems a bit risky. Lure of nature or lure of expedience would be tragic. In your scenario it seems like Gimli would be alone and unadvised (but not for long)."

This is why I think Fellowship is so good - the +1 corruption check as well as the prowess bonus. So if you have say Gimli (5/8), controlling Haldir (4/8), plus Goldberry plus Quickbeam (6/9) or another decent ally (maybe Shadofax or even just a noble hound I guess), then Gimli could have the Map to Mithril with a single Fellowship gained at Rivendell in the first third of the deck for a 2 deck game, and just have 1 CP for a while. Maybe pick another Fellowship up at Lorien after Moria before Lonely Mountain/Iron Hills is attempted in the final third of the deck. Give a dagger of Westernesse to Haldir for the Map to Mithril enhancement later. If you were feeling adventurous you could use Arwen instead of Haldir. Then there is always the threat of switching the focus to a Gondor faction gathering deck and keep the opponent guessing if 'Choice of Luthien' arrives early in the hand (you still get the 2 MP from Map to Mithril I think), Also Arwen is a sage for Marvel's Told in case of Alone and Unadvised?

You could start with this company and still have Elrond sitting at Rivendell playing Vilya's (hopefully not getting corrupted) and maybe picking up another ally (Tom) later as a second company at Old Forest? Maybe Cirdan instead for the easy faction? Put either under the DI of the Wizard when he comes in (I learned the hard way why Fellowships and Wizards are not good bed fellows in MECCG)? Gandalf is my favourite wizard though - being able to come in at Lorien is priceless for me.

[Lake Town Geezer]

"Alone and Unadvised checks for number of characters in company, that is not the same as company's size (company of four hobbits characters has size of 2 and numer of characters in the company is 4)."

Yes, this is what I suspected. I guess with a small company of 1 or 2 characters plus allies you need to have 'Marvels Told's and/or 'Cock Crow's (with GoM) at the ready to get rid of the pesky corruption cards. I have started playing with three copies of both 'Marvel's Told' and 'Cock Crows' in my hero decks to kill off corruption. Another one I like is 'The sun unveiled' (especially coming from the sideboard for late game squatting at Bag End or Minas Tirith while I try and plant the two trees).

[Konrad Klar]

Cave Troll played under control of character at hero (but not at the site) is OK.
What targets/affects (tap he site if it is not already tapped) a site is Here, There, or Yonder, not an act of playing ally at the site.

[Konrad Klar]

One thing that goes down pull behind others. And a consistency requires for me to challenge that:

Greed
Is triggered by a special ring item being played, but not by items being transferred.

If a special ring item played in result of test (is there other special ring item ?) is not considered played at site then above is incorrect.