Mistress Lobelia and Here, There, or Yonder

[Wacho]

Thornsten, if one takes your reading of the phrase "restricted from moving in the site's region" to mean "may not move through the site's region" then the phrase in HToY has no meaning because no ally has such a restriction. The only restrictions that exist are certain allies may not move to sites in certain regions. You may move through these regions if you don't stop there. So your reading would mean that any ally could be played at any r/l anywhere which is clearly not the intent of the card. As such the other possible reading of the phrase, which is "does not have restrictions on moving in the site's region" must be the correct interpretation. Mistress Lobelia does have restrictions on her movement in any region but the Shire, so it is only in that region that you may fetch her with HToY.

Your interpretation of the movement restrictions on ally cards to mean that the allies cannot move through those regions is not correct. Either you are adding in something that isn't there (may not move through X, Y, Z regions), or you are changing the phrase "Discard if ally moves to a site outside of region list", with the phrase "Discard if ally moves through region list". The first error would destroy any cohesive ruleset if we could simply read things in that weren't there, and the second would mean that any ally could move to practically anywhere through non-region type movement such as underdeeps movement, Eagle-mounts, etc. Neither of these interpretations is valid.

P.S. I don't like the new layout either, but maybe it will grow on me.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

The first error would destroy any cohesive ruleset if we could simply read things in that weren't there.

This, once again, is only true if you take a literal stance for one card (Leaflock e.g.) and ignore the discrepancy it creates for another (Lobelia). I don't maintain that the site restriction means a region movement restriction, it is simply a consequence of it in terms of explaining HToY. So the second consequence you sketch is of no importance (you still check whether the site is located in the appropriate region, upon flying or using special movement after all). Of course no ally has such restriction nominally/formally/per se or whatever, but this is not "reading things that aren't there", it's explaining a card much like a judge would explain a rule, and in the case of HToY one could bend both ways; towards explaining it in terms of conditioned restricted movement, or towards liberal allowed movement, in both cases you "invent things that are not there" (in your words), and I'd prefer the simpler more elegant solution.

This has the consequence indeed that allies may not move through regions if they can't move to sites in there, not even if they don't stop. But that imo doesn't create any far reaching consequences to the game other than the fact than some allies might not make certain short-cuts, or detours. I think it's rather justified actually. The fact that you'd allow such movement is by mere omission (of the regions) on the ally card (which would be way too complicated and long), inferring thus (judging) that this is how it was intended, but it leaves you with an anomaly for Lobelia and you have to invent some concept there. By your reasoning, Tom Bombadil can move from Cameth Brin to Rivendell via Angmar, Gundabad, Anduin Vales and High Pass (discarding Crams/Cakes). What's the point in that, I wonder?

But, if you think the "move freely vs move restrictedly" construct is clearer, then by all means, let it be so.

@Konrad. I don't mind exceptions at all, if there's need for them. It's much like learning grammar of a foreign language, you'd have to be a masochist actually liking all the exceptions to the rules . Always prefer simple clear rules...

[Konrad Klar]

Or simply:
"Is not restricted to the moving to the sites in this region" - normal form
"Is not restricted to moving in this site's region". - compact form.

Similarly:
"Is playable at ABC site. Is successfully played if the influence check is greater than X." - normal form.
"Is playable at ABC site if the influence check is greater than X." - compact form.

Someone may disagree with second example and postulate possibility that faction is not playable at all until dice-roll is made. But influence attempt (and thus dice-roll) cannot be made for faction that is not playable. A safe is locked and key is in the safe.

[Bandobras Took]

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?

Why, yes -- it's particularly difficult for me to tell if there's been a new post.

Regarding the question in point: I am 100% sure.

1) The literal wording of the card as it stands forbids Mistress Lobelia;
2) If they had intended it to be a permissive card, they would have gone with a phrasing such as "The ally may only be played if they are allowed to move in the region." The went with a negative, forbidding phrasing. Such indicates to me that the intent of Here, There, or Yonder is negative or controlled. Therefore the implied intent in the card agrees with the literal wording; and
3) Thematically speaking, Mistress Lobelia should not be wandering around Here, There, or Yonder like a frightened pony. Her goal for most of her life was to live in to Bag End as the proud proprietress. When she goes to a site that is not in the Shire, she should have to go with specific purpose, not as the result of (thematically speaking) wandering.

When the literal reading, the implied intent, and the personality of a book match up, that makes me 100% certain.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Ok, last post and I'll shut up about it
1. I was referring to the meaning of "restricted from", though...I'm still not convinced it forbids as it stands, literally.
2. Of course the intend was negative, it applies to 90% of all sites for these allies As you have argued yourself, allies have no explicit region-movement restriction or allowance, so "The ally may only be played if they are allowed to move in the region," would never do as there is no way of checking it . The positive formulation which they should have chosen, and which amounts to what you suggest all the same: "if ally is allowed to move to the site". The fact that they didn't is puzzling enough to suspect that they didn't have a clue either what they were doing...probably 2 sets in 1 year was too much for such in depth considerations, I can understand it.
3. Well Tom can call her to his house, but not when actually shouting Here There or Yonder on the Barrow-downs a few yards away? You clearly underestimate Tom...

It is and remains a mess...

[Konrad Klar]

It is and remains a mess...

To be fair I must give credit to the some Thorsten's objections.

Unique. Any company moving in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows immediately faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack)-3 strikes at 13/8. If Doors of Night is in play, this attack also affects: Southern Rhovanion, Dorwinion, Heart of Mirkwood, and Woodland Realm.

Does Agburanar Ahunt refer to the companies moving through or moving to the sites in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows?
Somebody willing to overturn traditional interpretation of Ahunts in order to achieve compliance with interpretation of Here, There, or Yonder?

I think it is one of cases in the game where the same word or the same wording refer to the quite different things.
"Removed from play" and "removed from game" interchangeably referring to the first or to the second second. "Is played" that means "is declared" or "resolves" depending on situation. To be continued in appropriate threads.

[Zangtumb]

Woah! I'd never thought that Lobelia's question would lead to such an extensive discussion...
I think that movement restriction is treated as a keyword in HToY, but it is not a real "core mechanic"; one could only argue some mechanism from a very limited number of cards...

I'm now quite convinced about her unplayability (fortunately, no overpowerful deck has been spoiled by this piece of news), but I'm still quite dubious about this matter. It seems to be a matter of interpretation, as no precise rule is given. Moreover, I can not help but to think that her "a site in the Shire" completes a list of sites, and is spelled differently from Tom's and Ents's text. This may be of no importance or change the interpretation of the card: no matter what, at least a degree of interpretation is involved.

A scenario that would induce me to reject my former interpretation would be a Balrog ally (I know! no fw player may play it! But let's imagine it for the sake of rules, or radagast wet dreams) playable at Isengard or Amon Hen (same region as glittering caves or Dunharrow, which are both UD surface sites). He has no region movement restriction, but I would NEVER say he's allowed to move in Gap of Isen or Rohan (without out he sprang, at least ). This is the only intuitive scenario I could came by, but it seems quite convincing (well, it convinced me, at least).

[Wacho]

Unique. Any company moving in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows immediately faces one Dragon attack (considered a hazard creature attack)-3 strikes at 13/8. If Doors of Night is in play, this attack also affects: Southern Rhovanion, Dorwinion, Heart of Mirkwood, and Woodland Realm.

Does Agburanar Ahunt refer to the companies moving through or moving to the sites in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows?

Neither. It means exactly what it says. A company moving in those regions is attacked. If you move from Lonely Mountain to Dale you aren't moving through Northern Rhovanion, but you are moving in the region so you are attacked. Or if you don't stop at a site in one of those regions, but you pass through you are attacked as well. I'm not sure how this relates to Mistress Lobelia though.

@Thornsten: Your continued reading of region restrictions for the allies' movement is wrong. I understand it makes sense to you, but it simply isn't there. There are many cards that could have added phrases that would make a lot of sense, but it isn't valid to read things into the cards like that. As you say, maybe it is because English isn't your first language. The reading that Ben and I are using is perfectly valid in English and it is the only consistent reading. If ICE had wanted to indicate that they weren't allowed to move in that region at all a better word to use would have been "prevented" rather than "restricted".

@Zangtumb: The Balrog ally is discarded when moving from a non-Underdeeps site to a non-Underdeeps site, as such it has restrictions on its movement everywhere except the Underdeeps, so no HToY at surface sites.

[Zangtumb]

Well, he surface to Moria, Glittering Caves, or any other surface site (Then, he would have to come back to Underdeeps, hoping that the site hasn't been tapped).
That's a case in which he is in redhorn gate, but he's restricted from moving in it, nor has actually moved in it - if I remeber underdeep movement correctly. So he can "be" in a whole bunch of regions, but his movement is restricted from any of them.

[Konrad Klar]

Neither. It means exactly what it says. A company moving in those regions is attacked. If you move from Lonely Mountain to Dale you aren't moving through Northern Rhovanion, but you are moving in the region so you are attacked. Or if you don't stop at a site in one of those regions, but you pass through you are attacked as well. I'm not sure how this relates to Mistress Lobelia though.

It is related to the Here, There, or Yonder and Ahunts.
"Is not restricted to moving in this site's region". - does not check whether ally may move freely through site's region. It checks whether ally's company may move freely to the site in the site's region.
Company with Lobelia may legally move from Bree to Bag End through regions Arthedain, Rhudaur, Cardolan, The Shire. Such company, however, cannot move freely (i.e. not discarding Lobelia) to the sites in Arthedain, Rhudaur, Cardolan.
"Any company moving in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, and/or Grey Mountain Narrows." does not check whether a company move to the site in Withered Heath, Northern Rhovanion, Iron Hills, or Grey Mountain Narrows. It cheks whether company is moving through listed regions. Company moving from Ovir Hollow to Lorien will be attacked.

"Moving in region" does not mean the same in case of Here, There, or Yonder as in case of Ahunts.

[quote="="Wacho"]If you move from Lonely Mountain to Dale you aren't moving through Northern Rhovanion[/quote]
Are you sure? Or maybe you see a difference between "passing through the region" and "moving through the region"? I do not see.

[Bandobras Took]

Konrad:

However, this explanation of Lobelia or Tom being able to move through Forochel (provided you have some Twice-Baked cakes) is yet further evidence that Here, There, or Yonder only looks for possible movement restrictions in a given region, not possible movement in/through a given region.

[Konrad Klar]

Konrad:

However, this explanation of Lobelia or Tom being able to move through Forochel (provided you have some Twice-Baked cakes) is yet further evidence that Here, There, or Yonder only looks for possible movement restrictions in a given region, not possible movement in/through a given region.

I do not say otherwise.
My only point now is that:
"Any company moving in xxx regions" in Ahunt's text does not check where (in which region) company's new site is located. It check for regions in company's site path.
"Is not restricted to moving in this site's region" in Here, There, or Yonder's text does not check which regions may be present in the ally's company's site path. It only checks for region where new site of ally's company may be located.

And it is discrepancy between one "moving in region" and other "moving in region".

[Zakath]

The language is not contradictory because of the effects on which those cards operate; dragon and ally region lists don't do the same thing.

They are similar constructions but they take different logical forms.

On Dragon ahunt, the construction is:

If condition (company moves in xyz region) is met, take an affirmative action (that is, create an attack where there was none before).

Essentially in terms of prepositional logic, if x then do y

On allies, the construction is:

If condition (company moves to a site in region that is not xyz) is met, take a negative action (that is, discard and remove from play the effects of a card already played, the ally).

Again in logic terms, if ~x then do ~y

Here, There or Yonder asks a totally different question; it says:

If condition (negation of ally condition) is met, take a positive action (play ally where it was not in play before).

Like Dragon Ahunt, this is an X -> Y relationship (negation of ~X is just X, it takes the ~X from the ally card). No contradiction at all, because it is not the "moving in region" part that is different - it is the presence of the word "not".

I have no idea if that will make any sense to anyone but me, but that's what it is.

[Konrad Klar]

I have no idea if that will make any sense to anyone but me, but that's what it is.

It surely requires a big L1 cache to be effectively processed.

If condition (negation of ally condition) is met, take a positive action (play ally where it was not in play before).

Bug is here. If (negation of ally condition)==ahunt condition then "positive action" would be taken at R&L in any region*.
Because no ally is restricted from moving through certain regions.

*) Which inspired me to the following idea:
Because under-deeps are not located in regions, no ally is restricted from moving to the underdeep site's region. Ally may be restricted from moving to the sites not in XYZ region(s), but it may not be restricted from moving to sites in region or through region that does not exist.
Such peculiarity may have smaller, or bigger (in case of Fallen Radagast) practical impact on usability of Here, There or Yonder.

[Zakath]

Bug is here. If (negation of ally condition)==ahunt condition then "positive action" would be taken at R&L in any region*.

Sorry, that was unclear on my part. The X on the ahunt is not the SAME X as on HTOY, I was only saying that ultimately they are the same type of logical construction. Which actually might have been irrelevant, but I like prepositional logic.

The conditional preposition on Dragon Ahunt is "if company is moving in this region."

The conditional preposition on HTOY is "if ally is not restricted from moving in this region". Ally says "discard if not moving to a site (in region)." In order to apply that to HTOY we must create a list of regions the ally is "restricted from moving in", then negate it.

Because no ally is restricted from moving through certain regions.

I reject the reading of the Dragon Ahunt that says it means explicitly "moving through". It says "moving in" which I read as "moving through, or to a site in." In other words, Dragon Ahunt cares if that region is part of your site path (when using starter or region movement). If the eagles drop you at Irerock, I would say you are also moving 'in' Withered Heath (Eagles are considered movement, right? Have dragons been ruled to only trigger on land-based movement?).

HTOY asks if the ally is not "restricted from moving in." Is Lobelia 'restricted from moving through, or to a site in' Cardolan? Yes, she is discarded if she moves to the Barrow-downs. That is plainly a restriction on freely 'moving in' Cardolan. The fact that she is not discarded if Cardolan is the second region in her site path and she goes on to the Shire afterwards does not mean that her movement 'in' Cardolan was not subject to a restriction.