Open to the Summons

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Mordakai wrote:
Mordakai wrote:Image

Can Open to the Summons be played as Fallen Wizard player in your starting company?
If yes, can it be used to play from the pool characters with mind 6?

Thanks
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
CRF, Errata (Cards), Open to the Summons wrote:Card Erratum: Replace "minion company" with "company." Does not allow you to
start with a character that says he cannot be in the starting company.
Because it does not require a minion company, it may be played on company of Fallen Wizard player.
It can be used to play character with any mind, or with no mind, and of any race, if a player is not restricted otherwise from playing that character, and if the character is an agent.
General restrictions that the card overcomes are:
- inability of having an agent character in starting company,
- inability of bringing into play an agent character outside its home site.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Fallen Wizards cannot use this card to bring in a character with a six mind. Unlike Thrall of the Voice, this card does not alter what kind of character a Fallen Wizard is allowed to play. The -1 to mind only applies once the character is in play.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:With Thrall of the Voice they can use Open to the Summons to bring in a character with a six mind.
Unless the abilities of the two cards cannot be combined. Why not?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Thrall of the Voice allows six mind. Open to the Summons does not. You can combine the two cards, but only Thrall allows a six-minder.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 16, 2017, user Mordakai wrote:
Mordakai wrote:Thanks, guys
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Open to the Summons wrote:Playable on a minion company. One agent minion may be played with target company at a Darkhaven [V]-place this card with the agent. -1 to his mind to a minimum of 1. This card may be played with a starting company in lieu of a minor item. When played as such, reveal it when starting companies are determined as if it were a character. Cannot be duplicated on a given character.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Open to the Summons wrote:Card Erratum: Replace "minion company" with "company." Does not allow you to
start with a character that says he cannot be in the starting company.
Konrad Klar wrote:General restrictions that the card overcomes are:
- inability of having an agent character in starting company,
- inability of bringing into play an agent character outside its home site.
I'm sorry. I have made an error. I must withdraw "- inability of having an agent character in starting company,".
I think that the card has been planned to allowing an agent character in starting company (and it is often so played), but it failed achieving this goal.
Mere fact that a card may came into play as early as in draft, does not mean that the card must give any benefits at this point.
Possibility of playing an agent character at Darkhaven instead at its home site does not remove an obstacle that is inability of having an agent character in starting company.
After all a company starting at Dol Guldur is at The Grimburgoth's home site, a company starting at Minas Morgul is at Golodhros home site.
But starting at site where the agent character may be bring into play is not enough to having it in starting company.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:@ Konrad

Perhaps this is just a semantics issue which needs a clarification.

It is clear that this card intends to let a player allow an agent to be a part of his starting company.

The card says that it may be played with a starting company in lieu of a minor item. It also states to place this card with the agent. If it did not allow the agent to be a part of the starting company, then where would you place this card?

Furthermore, the CRF, Errata states "Does not allow you to start with a character that says he cannot be in the starting company."

This clearly infers that if the agent character does NOT state that he cannot be in the starting company, then he can indeed be a part of the starting company with the use of this card.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user Konrad Klar wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote: If it did not allow the agent to be a part of the starting company, then where would you place this card?
With agent character, which I would play later.
I can also start with Rumours of Rings (in lieu of playing a minor item), without hope for benefits of the card at this point.
the Jabberwock wrote:It is clear that this card intends to let a player allow an agent to be a part of his starting company.
It is not only case, where text of a card does not match a supposed intention of authors. Other (in)famous examples are A Malady Without Healing, Spies Feared, Freeze the Flesh.
I would not blame these analysts who prove how hardly useful, or not playable at all are the cards.
It is better to make an errata for the cards, than to allow them to work in some particular way, despite a reasons for which other cards cannot work in the particular way.
the Jabberwock wrote:Furthermore, the CRF, Errata states "Does not allow you to start with a character that says he cannot be in the starting company."

This clearly infers that if the agent character does NOT state that he cannot be in the starting company, then he can indeed be a part of the starting company with the use of this card.
If it does not allow to start with character disallowed for any reasons, why it would allow to start with character disallowed for this particular reason?
Of course such statements support an inverse illusions: that if some particular X is forbidden then other Xes are allowed, or that if X counts as Y for some purposes the X does not count as Y otherwise (e.g. covertness of FW's hero company).
BTW, text of which agent character says that "he cannot be in the starting company" or something similar?
(hypothesis: someone of ICE has mistaken Open to the Summons with Thrall of the Voice)
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:I'm afraid Konrad is correct; the text of the card doesn't actually allow you to start with an Agent. That was indeed the plan, but they failed to word the card correctly (though they probably thought they had). A good candidate for CoE erratum, IMO.

The rules clearly state that starting characters are "placed," not "played," which is a distinction used elsewhere. Open to the Summons speaks strictly of playing characters.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:
Konrad Klar wrote: It is not only case, where text of a card does not match a supposed intention of authors. Other (in)famous examples are A Malady Without Healing, Spies Feared, Freeze the Flesh.
I would not blame these analysts who prove how hardly useful, or not playable at all are the cards.
It is better to make an errata for the cards, than to allow them to work in some particular way, despite a reasons for which other cards cannot work in the particular way.
Good points. I agree.
Konrad Klar wrote: Of course such statements support an inverse illusions: that if some particular X is forbidden then other Xes are allowed
Indeed. I suppose you are correct. The CRF is just worthless language however if you don't come to this conclusion. In any case, I think we can all agree with what their intent was, even if it wasn't written correctly.
Bandobras Took wrote: A good candidate for CoE erratum, IMO.
I have added it to the list. Thanks
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, user Mordakai wrote:
Mordakai wrote:Sorry for opening the thunders' box, guys... :roll:
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”