Mistress Lobelia and Here, There, or Yonder

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Bandobras wrote:

[lawyer mode]The question is not whether she is allowed to move there, it is whether she is restricted from moving there. [/lawyer mode]

Why would that be the question, as she is obviously not moving at all and HToY refers to being allowed to move through the region containing such site, it does not mention any restriction on moving to the site?
And I think Wacho's distinction between regions with restricted and unrestricted movement ability is rather artificial, but moreover besides the point as Leaflock is not stopping at a site in such region it is a whole different case altogether. If the poor formulation on Leaflock means he may move through Hollin, well good for him, because of the poor formulation on HToY he may then be played at Ost-in-Edhil even...

...so notwithstanding far reaching consequences of this poor formulation on HToY, which should probably mention "is allowed to move to such ruins", I'd still argue minimalistically, that since Lobelia is not explicitly forbidden to move trough Cardolan, obviously as per Old Forest, whether restricted/conditioned or not is besides the point, she is not disallowed by HToY to be brought into play at Ruins in this region.

Unless there are very good reasons for it, gamewise, it seems to me a wrong practise to invent rules to fix holes that spring from inadequate card texts. I'd sooner see an erratum then, though I can understand CoE/NetRep does not want either, "clarifying" the rules in this way is like the Pope "clarifying" the bible...but I'm not a rules wizard, so please tell me if such distinction as Wacho makes is already in the rules somewhere that I don't remember.

btw. lawyer mode is always on in this forum section it seems
I for one only put on this mode if I think it's thematically correct also...

[Bandobras Took]

Bandobras wrote:

[lawyer mode]The question is not whether she is allowed to move there, it is whether she is restricted from moving there. [/lawyer mode]

Why would that be the question, as she is obviously not moving at all and HToY refers to being allowed to move through the region containing such site, it does not mention any restriction on moving to the site?

An ally may be played and placed under the character's control 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.

Because that is the condition the card is checking for. It is not checking for an instance where the ally is allowed to move in the region (otherwise the existence of Fallen Radagast makes all allies playable anywhere with this card whether you are Fallen Radagast or not). It is checking for an instance where an ally is restricted from moving in the region. If such an instance exists, then the bolded condition above is not fulfilled, and the ally may not be played with Here, There, or Yonder.

[Konrad Klar]

Here, There, or Yonder does not say:
a) "...and the ally is not restricted from moving through this site's region".
nor
b) "...and the ally is not restricted from moving to this site's region".

Here, There, or Yonder says:
"...and the ally is not restricted from moving in this site's region".

So it may mean (a), or (b) or something else. If (a) a then it refers to non-existing restrictions, because Leaflock's, Lobelia's, Tom's text does not check through which regions ally's company is moving.
So it may be (b) or something else. (b) if "moving to the site in region X" counts as "moving in region X".

Answer for question "If Lobelia can move to Old Forest, why she is considered to be restricted from moving in the Old Forest's region?"
is as for that:
"If Ringwraih can use Helm of Fear why he is considered as restricted from using items?"

Because exceptional ability is (by definition) exception from general inability.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

@Bandobras; why would it check for any instances involving other cards? HToY must only concern itself with Lobelia, any other abilities of Radagast or whatnot (suppose there are no other sites in Cardolan than Old Forest) are irrelevant.
Of course HToY checks whether something on Lobelia says it's restricted. But, upon not finding such on Lobelia, the normal meccg guidelines fail. As is the point here and as you will understand I maintain, my point is exactly that it then should check whether there is an instance when it is allowed. Can you point me a rule why this should be otherwise? This is normal minimalist legal thinking, imho.

@Konrad: "exceptional ability is (by definition) exception from general inability". Well the difference is that the RW is not allowed BY RULE, to use an item, not by the RW himself. Otherwise you'd have a point. One cannot argue that, since Lobelia says she may only move to Old Forest, that means she is disallowed to move in/through Cardolan "because it is not mentioned on Lobelia," that's nonsense. Btw I consider the disctinction between moving "through" and "in" is mere semantics and a byproduct of Ice's flawed or hasty formulations.

I guess where I disagree with both is, that you say Lobelia does never check the region through which the company moves. That might strictly speaking be true, but of course it is nonsense, because if you check for the site's region, you automatically check for the region moving in/through, even when flying to the site, unless explicitly mentioned such region is of no relevance: mentioning exception is confirmation of the rule

[Konrad Klar]

[lawyer mode]
(company with Lobelia moves from Bag End to Barrow-Downs)
Hazard player (HP): you must discard Lobelia.
Resource Player (RP): why?
HP: She is restricted from moving to sites in region other than The Shire.
RP: But she can move to Old Forest?
HP: Yes.
RP: So because she can move to Old Forest it is the evidence of fact that she is not restricted from moving to sites in Cardolan, thus your statement is not valid.
[/lawyer mode]

Well the difference is that the RW is not allowed BY RULE, to use an item, not by the RW himself.

One may except from card text convention like "is restricted from moving to sites in all regions other than ABC, except of sites X, Y, Z" to acknowledge that card is generally restricted from moving to sites in regions other than ABC.
Other may except from card text convention like "cannot move to the sites X, Y, Z" to acknowledge that card is generally allowed to move in regions where X, Y, Z are located.
I'm in the second group, that consider minority of cases as exceptions , and consider majority of cases as general regularity*.

*) To do not say a word "RULE".

[Bandobras Took]

Thorsten: You do find such on Mistress Lobelia. She is discarded if she moves to a site that is not in the Shire. That is the region restriction Here, There or Yonder looks at. Likewise, Tom is discarded if he moves to a site not in Arthedain, etc. Additional named sites that Mistress Lobelia can move to are completely irrelevant to Here, There, or Yonder's limitation because Here, There, or Yonder doesn't ask whether they are allowed to move to a given site in a region; it asks whether they are restricted from moving in the region.

Taking another approach, Mistress Lobelia faces restrictions on moving in any region except the Shire. Even if she can move in Cardolan to a specific site, her movement in the region is restricted -- she cannot move to any site in the region. Since a restriction exists, Here, There, or Yonder's limitation applies.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Lobelia wrote:

Discard this card if her company moves to any site other than Bree, Old Forest, The White Towers, or a site in The Shire.

Bandobras wrote:

You do find such on Mistress Lobelia. She is discarded if she moves to a site that is not in the Shire. That is the region restriction...

Interesting. I simply see a list of sites Lobelia can move to, no mentioning of a positive allowance to move through The Shire, or a negative allowance to move through any other region. You, and Konrad in his example, infer this positive formulation from the fact that she can move to all sites in The Shire, and infer the negative formulation of moving through other regions along, introducing the same (and in my view unnecessary) distinction Wacho makes between resticted/conditioned movement through a certain region. I simply see a list of sites, of which "any site in X" is an abbreviation, as the list would be too long.

One could argue that the place in this list of sites, namely at the end, means that "any site" is meant as just a bunch of sites. The formulation could have been: Discard if her company moves outside of The Shire and not to Bree, Old Forest or The White Towers. In this case there is clear positive mentioning of movement restrictions to 1 region (and a bunch of sites). My guess is however simply that Ice wrote it like this because it reads better. In any case, no reference is made to moving through any region.

[Bandobras Took]

Leaflock wrote:

Discard Leaflock if his company moves to a site that is not in: Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold & Foothills, Enedhwaith, Old Pukel-land, Brown Lands, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gap.

Bandobras wrote:

You do find such on Leaflock. He is discarded if he moves to a site that is not in Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold & Foothills, Enedhwaith, Old Pukel-land, Brown Lands, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gap. That is the region restriction...

Interesting. I simply see a list of sites Leaflock can move to, no mentioning of a positive allowance to move through Fangorn, Rohan, Gap of Isen, Wold & Foothills, Enedhwaith, Old Pukel-land, Brown Lands, Anduin Vales, or Redhorn Gap, or a negative allowance to move through any other region.

By your logic, the conditional phrase on Here, There, Or Yonder is absolutely meaningless, since no ally has a region movement restriction.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Well such is the conundrum with which we are faced because of the incongruency between the types mentiond on HToY and the allies, but we had established that already, only you reason one way around it and I the other. For me Leaflock cannot move through Hollin, because he cannot move to any site in Hollin. It's way easier this way, because you only have to check to which sites the ally can move to know through which regions he can move, without the use of any other concepts. Enter Ockham's razor, and I think it was meant thusly by Ice, though admittedly that argument has no value whatsoever

btw I don't see how you could prove to anyone that Leaflock could move through Withered Heath (without the use of other cards, as explained above, other cards play no part in this matter), so no, these allies could not be played at just any Ruins with HToY and the clause does make some sense, because even though its direct referent (the region movement restriction) is formally moot, it is not technically moot in my line of reasoning because the ally is restricted from moving in the regions that have no site mentioned on his card.

[Bandobras Took]

What is the fundamental difference between Leaflock's region list, which is indisputably that to which Here, There, or Yonder refers, and Mistress Lobelia's region list?

For me Leaflock cannot move through Hollin, because he cannot move to any site in Hollin. It's way easier this way (. . .) the ally is restricted from moving in the regions that have no site mentioned on his card.

You're still focusing on whether an ally can at any point move through a region. As I mentioned before, this is irrelevant. Here, There, or Yonder looks for whether an ally can't freely move through a region. If an ally is in any way restricted from moving in the region, Here, There, or Yonder may not be played. It can only be played if the ally is not restricted from moving in the region.

I hate to be pedantic here, but:

restrict [rɪˈstrɪkt]
vb
to confine or keep within certain often specified limits or selected bounds

To not be restricted from moving in a region, the ally must be able to move to any and all sites in that region. Otherwise, they are under a movement restriction in that region, i.e. their movement is kept within specified limits and selected bounds. Mistress Lobelia is, as far as I recall, the only ally with a set of less than absolute restrictions in some regions -- but this does not mean that they are not restrictions.

[Konrad Klar]

[collateral]

If an ally is in any way restricted from moving in the region, Here, There, or Yonder may not be played. It can only be played if the ally is not restricted from moving in the region.

Strictly speaking Here, There, or Yonder can be played during site phase as long as its player has company (able o take activity) with at least one untapped hero character at . Whether ally can be played with this card or not is quite different thing.
[/collateral]

[Thorsten the Traveller]

I might not be a native English speaker, but are you 100% sure that "restricted from", with the preposition added, here means conditioned rather than forbidden? If so then HToY would indeed be written with Lobelia especially in mind (as the only ally up till then with such conditioned region movement), which seems weird and not very believable....but there it is then, and it would indeed give some evidence, in the card, for a distinction between free movement/conditioned movement in a region, odd and ineffective as it might be (to base the whole line of reasoning on 1 anomaly).

Still it seems to me that 'confined' as in 'not left in' is the relevant meaning here.

btw. does anyone else also hate this new forum layout?

[Konrad Klar]

Thorsten. It may not be exactly answer for your question, but think about Ringwraith and (minion) Lorien or Grey Havens. Ringwraith may not move to these particular sites.
Does it mean that he is generally restricted from moving to sites in Wolld&Foothills or Lindon?
If removing the particular sites from list allowed sites does not mean general inability of moving in Wolld&Foothills or Lindon,
why
adding particular sites to the list allowed sites would mean general ability?

btw. does anyone else also hate this new forum layout?

Me. It was explained here. In fact layout did not change. Only default theme was changed. I hope that old theme will be available (as soon as it will be fully localized).

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Konrad wrote:

If removing the particular sites from list allowed sites does not mean general inability of moving in Wolld&Foothills or Lindon,
why adding particular sites to the list allowed sites would mean general ability?

While I do not follow this logic, and have never implied that Lobelia is granted general ability, I simply didn't recognize general ability, as I make no distinction between restricted and free movement, you may either move to a site or not, and that's it, and if you can move to a site, you are apparently not restricted from moving in the corresponding region. So I just maintained that Lobelia was not completely restricted, i.e. disallowed from moving in Cardolan/Arthedain.....so if anything, your RW point should prove that it is perfectly possible for Lobelia to be allowed to move through Cardolan while not being able to move to certain sites, thanks . Not that it matters because Bandobras maintains only "restricted" in the narrow sense of the word is important, so in that sense RW's are restricted in Rhudaur, but still allowed to move in/through there...

nb. I did have some issues though with postreplies not coming through, apparently they were drafts or something, never had that before....

[Konrad Klar]

So I just maintained that Lobelia was not completely restricted, i.e. disallowed from moving in Cardolan/Arthedain.....so if anything, your RW point should prove that it is perfectly possible for Lobelia to be allowed to move through Cardolan while not being able to move to certain sites, thanks

Or proves your reluctance against concept of regularites and exceptions.