Page 1 of 1
Chambers in the Royal Court
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:24 pm
by Konrad Klar
Chambers in the Royal Court wrote:Gandalf specific. Playable on one of your hero Free-hold
![[-me_fh-]](./images/smilies/me_fh.png "Free Hold")
sites in play. This site becomes a Wizardhaven [W] for your companies, loses all automatic-attacks against your companies, and is one of Gandalf's home sites. Nothing is considered playable as written on the site card. If one of your companies is at this site, all attacks against it are canceled. Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven [W]. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck. It cannot be discarded otherwise. Cannot be duplicated on a given player.
CRF, Rulings by Term, Site" wrote:A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on,
unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions
of affected sites.
Underline mine.
So "Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven [W]." does not prevent other Fallen-wizards from using their versions of the site as a Wizardhaven [W].
I propose the following erratum:
Chambers in the Royal Court wrote:Gandalf specific. Playable on one of your hero Free-hold
sites in play. This site becomes a Wizardhaven [W] for your companies, loses all automatic-attacks against your companies, and is one of Gandalf's home sites. Nothing is considered playable as written on the site card. If one of your companies is at this site, all attacks against it are canceled. Other Fallen-wizards may not use other versions of this site as a Wizardhaven [W]. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck. It cannot be discarded otherwise. Cannot be duplicated on a given player.
Re: Chambers in the Royal Court
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:55 am
by CDavis7M
The proposal misunderstands how the CRF works. I disagree with the premise as discussed with respect to Hidden Haven. I don't think this is a contested issue.
The CRF ruling that is supposed in conflict is a Ruling by Term. The CRF specifically states "The Turn Sequence and Rulings by Term sections are specifically considered clarifications to the rules, and are therefore overridden by card text that specifically does so."
Chambers in the Royal Court specifically overrides the CRF ruling on "sites."