Monstrosity of Diverse Shape - memory of cards
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Why wouldn't it? Regiment specifically cancels an attack, so if it was used on Fell Turtle, Fell Turtle attacked the company that turn.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
From where would you know that Fell Turtle in discard pile is (physically) the same Fell Turtle that has been returned to hand and then discarded but not its copy? From where would you know that Fell Turtle that has been returned to hand has been discarded?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
You don't, unless all three copies are in the discard pile, but if your opponent is *that* determined to cheat, the rules won't matter anyway.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
It looks like that sometimes "This card must have already attacked the company this turn" must be physically the same card, sometimes copy of the card is sufficient.
If "This card" is at play surface then it must be physically the same card (condition impossible to fulfill), otherwise no.
Additionally if a "This card" leaved a play surface, did not reach discard pile, copy of the card from discard pile is not sufficient.
Right?
I am for treating terms and phrases uniformly.
If "This card" is at play surface then it must be physically the same card (condition impossible to fulfill), otherwise no.
Additionally if a "This card" leaved a play surface, did not reach discard pile, copy of the card from discard pile is not sufficient.
Right?
I am for treating terms and phrases uniformly.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
-
Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
As I am for treating terms and phrases uniformly, I am also for expressing some ideas directly.
If some idea is e.g.:
"This card that is placed in discard pile must be the same card that was attacking a company and only if it is impossible to determine whether it is the same card or its copy, then a copy is sufficient". (Artificial rule in my opinion).
then the idea may be expressed just as above.
Even if it looks awkwardly it at least does not create a space for double standards.
Example of card where (probably) some idea has not been expressed directly is The Dragons: Here, There, or Yonder.
If idea was to prevent a playing of an ally that would be discarded if his company would move to a given![[-me_rl-]](./images/smilies/me_rl.png "Ruins & Lairs")
site, then the idea has not been expressed directly.
Instead it has been said "and the ally is not restricted from moving in this site's region" that does not prevent a playing of Tom Bombadil under control of character at under-deeps. (Not disaster in my opinion).
If some idea is e.g.:
"This card that is placed in discard pile must be the same card that was attacking a company and only if it is impossible to determine whether it is the same card or its copy, then a copy is sufficient". (Artificial rule in my opinion).
then the idea may be expressed just as above.
Even if it looks awkwardly it at least does not create a space for double standards.
Example of card where (probably) some idea has not been expressed directly is The Dragons: Here, There, or Yonder.
If idea was to prevent a playing of an ally that would be discarded if his company would move to a given
site, then the idea has not been expressed directly.Instead it has been said "and the ally is not restricted from moving in this site's region" that does not prevent a playing of Tom Bombadil under control of character at under-deeps
. (Not disaster in my opinion).We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.