Movement to a site in play

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
Jose-san
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Movement to a site in play

Post by Jose-san »

I propose a clarification added to CRF, Turn Sequence Rulings, Movement/Hazard Phase, Movement, General. I'm not sure about the wording but Bandobras described it here perfectly:
Bandobras wrote:You can only keep a maximum of one site on the table for each company stated to be moving to a site on the table, and you must attempt to move at least one company to each of the sites you have kept on the table.
The topic was discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2938

Keeping all sites in play until the end of all m/h phases is currently a common error.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

Jose-san wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:52 pm
Keeping all sites in play until the end of all m/h phases is currently a common error.
The problem exists only in conjunction with theory that if a company declares attempt to move to the/a site already on table, player does not disclose (and does not register anywhere) until start of M/H phase of the company, where the company will move.
I suggest to propose the clarification along with the theory in one package.

(And frankly: I will vote against it, whether it will be in package or standalone)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:05 pm
(And frankly: I will vote against it, whether it will be in package or standalone)
Why will you vote against it? How do you think this unclear situation should be handled? Are you in favor of declaring the name of the site being moved to during the organization phase for each company so that the named site(s) are protected from removal?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

the Jabberwock wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:43 pm
Are you in favor of declaring the name of the site being moved to during the organization phase for each company so that the named site(s) are protected from removal?
Yes. For each company that declared moving to the site already in play (already revealed), to be precise. Then only sites that are kept on table until all M/H phases of the turn are that specified in organization phase (if they was already on table).
I do not want to discuss a validity of Bandobras theory, but only want to put attention on fact that proposed clarification makes a sense only with conjunction with the theory.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the JabberwocK
Council Chairman
Posts: 1152
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by the JabberwocK »

I agree with Konrad's opinion on this matter.

I think the best solution is a clarification that states:
If a player declares that one or more of his companies will move to a site already in play, he must verbally declare which site each of those companies will attempt movement to. Alternatively, he may write down on a piece of paper which site each company will attempt movement to, and thereafter show this written declaration to opponent at the beginning of said company's Movement Hazard phase.
The above clarification would prevent any retroactive mind changing based on what has occurred in the game between the initial declaration of sites and the time a given company's M/H phase begins. This would also prevent any chance of an unfair situation where one player sticks with his "mental" declarations while the other player does not.

If, however, the above clarification is not deemed a popular choice, I would still prefer the proposal by Jose-san and Bandobras rather than making no clarification at all, and thus leaving the situation and how to approach it unclear.

Jose-san
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Jose-san »

I found this rereading the MEBA rules:
MEBA Rules (Playing a neew site card) wrote:If you wish to move a company to a site that is face down on the table (for another company), tell your opponent which site the company is moving to. If you wish to move a company to a site that is face up on the table (because another company is also moving there), tell your opponent the company is moving to a face up site.
The difference in wording (bolded is mine) is significant.

Although the underlined part makes no sense at all. It should say "because another company is already there".

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Shapeshifter »

the Jabberwock wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 3:15 am
This would also prevent any chance of an unfair situation where one player sticks with his "mental" declarations while the other player does not.
Sorry, but I don't see where this would be unfair in any way. Both players have the same chance to change their mind. If someone does so or not just shows if he is an experienced player or not, imho. This does not mean that I am not for a change, though. Jose-san's quote from the Balrog rules is quite interesting in this case, I never noticed it so far. There are, however, different opinions as to whether the Rules Summary in the MEBA rules book is considered to be official (from what I know there are also some mistakes in it).

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Bandobras Took »

Telling your opponent which face-down site card your company is moving to is essentially pointing and saying "This one right here."

I believe having to tell your opponent the specific site you are moving to before the company is moving there is a fundamental alteration of game mechanics.

If there's only one face-up site, it makes no difference either way. But I don't see the need to let the hazard player know in advance what hazards to save when there is no mechanical advantage for the resource player in moving to a face-up site.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3269
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Movement to a site in play

Post by Konrad Klar »

Shapeshifter wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:34 pm
There are, however, different opinions as to whether the Rules Summary in the MEBA rules book is considered to be official (from what I know there are also some mistakes in it).
And there is also an opinion that Rules Booklets have lower priority than CRF.
CRF, Turn Sequence, Organization Phase, Choosing a New Site wrote:Any company may declare as its new site a site already on the table. That site will
remain on the table at least until the end of that company's movement/hazard phase.
Without knowing at declaration of a new site, which of sites already on the table will be the company's new site, it is not known which site must remain on table. And each of site's already on table is vulnerable to discarding/returning to Location Deck, even in organization phase (if all companies at it will cease to exist and no other effect keeps the site in play).
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:59 pm
I believe having to tell your opponent the specific site you are moving to before the company is moving there is a fundamental alteration of game mechanics.
I believe that specifying a card (revealed or not) and not telling which card has been specified is a fundamental break of the game mechanics.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”