Determining a presence of a site (of given type) in game

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

If Doors of Night is not in play, it is definitively not the case that Smaug is playable at a region other than a Coastal Sea, as required by Long Dark Reach.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Not definitively.
"playable in region" has never been defined.
CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, Playing Hazards wrote:A creature "played at" a site is the same as being "keyed to" the site.
A creature "played at a site in" a region is the same as being "keyed to" the site by
name.
What means "playable in region" I do not know. Smaug may be played keyed to some regions (and at sites in the regions) if Doors of Nights is in play. Otherwise it may played at Lonely Mountain.

If "playable in region" would rule out "playable at site in region" then a bunch of creatures that can be keyed only to site would be ruled out.

P.S.
Out of Topic.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:56 pm Not definitively.
"playable in region" has never been defined.
I agree. Use with Long Dark Reach is a contested topic. If Smaug is playable at The Lonely Mountain, he is arguably still playable in the Northern Rhovanion region. (off topic)

On topic... I'm not sure what to do with this proposal. I believe clarifying this issue is worthwhile. However, there seems to be a disagreement between the only two people contributing. We could have a vote to pick which option is preferred between the two, but I would like someone to offer some concise language for this, something which would be reasonably palatable by the voting community.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

I discussed this same issue with a long time player and we decided that dragons are not playable via Long Dark Reach without Doors of Night being in play.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

There was similar discussion elsewhere, and I just want to add my 2 cents here. This is regarding whether out of play cards can be affected by played cards (I think previous discussion was regarding Master of Wood Water and Hill and out of play regions, meaning, regions not in the site path).

I think out of play cards are not affected by in play cards, but if there is a need to check a card, it would be affected.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

My summary at this point:
The issue is that for a given site we know how to determine which region contains it: it has a "region in which site is found" field. I see multiple options for how one should/could derive which sites a region contains, which I will place into several questions. For conciseness, perhaps this year should stick to just questions 2 and 4, since we've heard no qualms about 1 and 3?

"1) How does one determine which sites a region contains?
1A) Only sites currently in play. (baseline... would anyone argue this?)
1B) Consider site cards that are not currently in play."

"2) When considering site cards that are not currently in play, which site cards might be considered?
2A) Only site cards that have a different name than sites currently in play.
2B) All possible site cards."

"3) When considering site cards that are not currently in play, whose site cards might be considered?
3A) Only sites that the affecting player could access. (Trouble On All Borders = rotates through the hazard players)
3B) Only sites that either player could access.
3C) All sites that have been printed for the game. (This would break from norms beyond region inclusion, but I include it here for completeness.)"

"4) When considering site cards that are not currently in play, what properties should these sites be considered to have?"
4A) Affected by effects that effect "all" qualifying sites; as they would if they were in play.
4B) As written on the standalone site card."

So, I think Konrad is espousing [1B, 2A, 3B, 4B] (confirm?), and I am espousing [1B, 2B, 3B but open to further discussion 3A, 4A].

Konrad's support of 2A seemed to be that it would be more strategically interesting for players. My argument against is that it breaks world consistency and the strategic plays would disrespect the hazard/resource duality in a way that seems un-thematic to me. My evidence: property modifications that do NOT modify all versions of a site suggest that it is still reasonable to consider an unmodified version as existing in the world; the unmodified version indisputably (in play) exists if another player had a company there, of which there is constant potential. I don't consider mere presence of a company as grounds for changing site properties, and 2B consistently respects that both versions exist in the world simultaneously, not based on the presence of a company. 2A disrespects this, and strategically a hazard player could change their resource strategy to play/leave an unmodified version of the site to gain hazard benefits, which makes no thematic sense to me.

Meanwhile under 2B, question 4 is again about preserving world consistency. The notion of "all" sites being affected means that the world cannot have multiple sites that differ in that property in any usable (in play) way. On the other hand, I'm not sure if 4A vs 4B would matter in practice under 2A for determining properties of sites a region contains, because all of the effects I can think of that modify all versions of a site come from cards that must be played on a copy of the site (in play). However, it still might set a precedent for the purposes of, for example, hazard host site selection. Is it reasonable to select a site as a hazard host based on its standalone properties when as soon as it is in play the properties would be changed?

Perhaps this last example would be moot if the rescue site requirements were continual, not simply required during rescue site play. Then, for example, Rebuild the Town could be used to rescue prisoners. This would make thematic sense to me, but is outside the scope of this thread/proposal.

[edited for 3A, due to Inner Cunning CRF]
Last edited by Theo on Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make...
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

3A seems reasonable to me.

But regardless, I don't think "determining presence of a site (of a given type) in game" is a rule that should be ruled on. There is no basis for determining the presence of a site in the original rules. This is also cumbersome, clearly.

Instead, Ice-Orcs should be errata'd to clarify since it is the only offending unique faction for Trouble on All Borders, as far as I know. Other cards suffering from similar deficiencies should be considered individually.

Ice-Orcs proposed errata wrote: Playable on a unique faction in play. Any company moving through the region containing a site where the faction is normally playable, or through any region adjacent to this one, faces an attack. The attack is the same type as the faction and has 4 strikes with 8 prowess. The attack is detainment if the company and the faction are both minion or both hero. Cannot be duplicated on a given faction. Discard when any play deck is exhausted.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:29 pm So, I think Konrad is espousing [1B, 2A, 3B, 4B] (confirm?), [...]
Confirmed.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Looking at it again, there is no issue with "determining a presence of a site of a given type" with Trouble on All Borders
Trouble on All Borders wrote:Playable on a unique faction in play. Any company moving through the region containing a site where the faction is playable...
Ice-Orcs wrote:Playable at any Ruins & Lairs in Forochel or Withered Heath...
Trouble on All Borders is played on the Faction. It depends on the playability listed on the faction, not whether or not the faction may actually be played or not. Trouble on All Borders played on Ice-Orcs will affect Forochel and Withered Health, regardless of the site type of Lossadan Cairn, whether it is in your discard pile, or whether it was never included in your site deck.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

There is no problem with with Trouble on All Borders and Ice-Orcs just because you have the solution:
"there are always some [-me_rl-] in Forochel and in Withered Health, regardless of anything".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Then why is it still mentioned in the original post?

And when else would this supposed issue arise?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:20 pm Then why is it still mentioned in the original post?
Because I have a solution too. Different from your.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:20 pm And when else would this supposed issue arise?
As far I know only in cases mentioned in first post.
Potentially this may happen in unofficial/future card sets. If new cards will appear, playable on faction AND affecting region where a faction is playable and/or adjacent regions. And/or if new (unique*) factions will appear, playable at sites of given type.

*) Not necessarily unique, if some of the mentioned "new cards playable on faction" will not require an unique faction.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:20 pm And when else would this supposed issue arise?
Great Army of the North as permanent-event.
Great Army of the North wrote:As a permanent-event, +1 to your influence attempts against Orc and Troll factions. If you have at least 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a Darkhold [-me_dh-] - you receive this card's marshalling points. Cannot be duplicated as a permanent-event. Alternatively, as a short-event, you may choose any Orc and Troll factions you're your discard pile and shuffle them into your play deck.
If some of sites that are normally [-me_sh-] are in play and their current type is [-me_dh-], then you may not have at least 4 unique Orc and/or Troll factions-none playable at a Darkhold [-me_dh-], that you would have normally.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

But with Great Army of the North there is no effect on the game regardless of "determining a presence of a site of a given type." Any effect changing the site type to a dark hold (eg triggered action of Witch King Long Event) would no longer be in effect when determining MPs for calling the council/audience or at the council/audience.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:38 pm Any effect changing the site type to a dark hold (eg triggered action of Witch King Long Event) would no longer be in effect when determining MPs for calling the council/audience or at the council/audience.
CRF, Turn Sequence, End of Game wrote:Long- and permanent-events still in play will still have an effect.
@NAY-MAN;CDavis7M
I do not know from where the idea that effects like effect of Witch King long-event or alternative effect of Awaken the Earth's Fire do not count when determining MPs for calling the council/audience.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”