Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Ancient Deep-Hold (nor any other site) does not target anything.
One my use Ancient Deep-Hold as a rescue site, along with imprisoning hazard against a company at/moving to Deep Mines.
Some other application of establishing such connection may be to provoke FW player to play imprisoning hazard along with Deep Mines as a rescue site.
One my use Ancient Deep-Hold as a rescue site, along with imprisoning hazard against a company at/moving to Deep Mines.
Some other application of establishing such connection may be to provoke FW player to play imprisoning hazard along with Deep Mines as a rescue site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what an adjacent site is. And also what a rescue site is.
The adjacent sites of a site are the sites that can be moved to from that site. Ancient Deep-hold and Deep Mines cannot be adjacent sites of one another because a company cannot move between Ancient Deep-hold and Deep Mines.
Second, you can't used Ancient Deep-hold as a rescue site for a company moving to Deep Mines since the Ancient Deep-hold site is also not available to be used as a rescue site for a Fallen Wizard player's company. Also, Ancient Deep-hold cannot be adjacent to the Deep Mines. This is clear from the MEDM Rules p. 2 and 3.
The adjacent sites of a site are the sites that can be moved to from that site. Ancient Deep-hold and Deep Mines cannot be adjacent sites of one another because a company cannot move between Ancient Deep-hold and Deep Mines.
First, you can't play a prisoner taking hazard on a company AT the Deep Mines.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 5:34 am One my use Ancient Deep-Hold as a rescue site, along with imprisoning hazard against a company at/moving to Deep Mines.
Second, you can't used Ancient Deep-hold as a rescue site for a company moving to Deep Mines since the Ancient Deep-hold site is also not available to be used as a rescue site for a Fallen Wizard player's company. Also, Ancient Deep-hold cannot be adjacent to the Deep Mines. This is clear from the MEDM Rules p. 2 and 3.
I do not believe that adjacency is defined in this way, but rather can be used this way. Adjacency is just an attribute keyword. Feel free to refer us to a specific rule though!
---
This is not relevant.
Or did you mean, if the site is in play it cannot be used as a rescue site? But I would have thought you'd agree with this (probably not CoE endorsed):MEDM wrote:Note: If he has one available, a player must use a site from his own location deck to rescue imprisoned characters. If he does not have the site or if the site is in his discard pile, the copy with the hazard host can be used to show the rescuing company’s movement (if the rescue attempt is successful, the site would remain in play until the company leaves the site).
---ICE Rules Digest 548 wrote:>3) Say the Balrog player is trying to move a company from The Gem
>Deeps to the Ancient Deep-hold, but fails to make the necessary
>roll. Since *Ancient Deep-hold* was played/revealed does this
>mean (follwing the text on the site card) that Ancient Deep-hold's
>location has been fixed for the rest of the game to be below the
>Gem Deeps eventhough the company failed to find/discover it?
Yes. You know where it is now, you just have to get to it.
Can you refer us to a specific rule? According to MEDM, Deep Mines and Ancient Deep-hold cannot actually be Under-deeps sites because they don't list their adjacent surface site, so maybe there are bigger problems here.
Last edited by Theo on Fri May 08, 2020 3:16 am, edited 1 time 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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
Oh I see. So that's why you're making it up?
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
There's no rule allowing a player to have a non-playable site be an adjacent site. Only a Fallen Wizard player may have Deep mines in their location deck for movement. A Fallen Wizard player may not move to Ancient Deep-hold. So it can't be an adjacent site or a rescue site since both of those necessarily require movement.
The player has to be able to move to the site required by the hazard. This is clear from the tournament rulings.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
There is no rule allowing a player to have Arwen in sideboard.
There is no rule that forbids it.
Rules do not care about Arwen specifically and they do not care about some peculiarities of rescue site.
Why?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Yes there is. Arwen is a hero character. Wizard players may include hero characters in their deck and sideboard. So the rules allow Arwen to be in the sideboard.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 4:10 am There is no rule allowing a player to have Arwen in sideboard.
The rules on TAKING PRISONERS allow the player to move to the Rescue Site to rescue the character. A Fallen Wizard player may not move to Ancient Deep-hold. It is not possible to use Ancient Deep-hold as a Rescue Site. Therefore, Ancient Deep-hold is not a valid Rescue Site.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 4:10 am Rules do not care about Arwen specifically and they do not care about some peculiarities of rescue site.
Because it's in the rules on TAKING PRISONERS, point (6). MEDM, p. 3.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
There is no such rule. Rules state what you can include in sideboard - characters, hazards, resources. They do not specify any peculiarities of cards that can be included in sideboard. There are no exclusion for elf character, for character with Rivendell as his/her home site etc.
If company moves to/is at site adjacent to under-deeps site a rescue site may be a site adjacent to a company's new site, with restrictions imposed by hazard host. Whether the rescue site may be included in defenders location deck does not mater. It was allowed before Against The Shadow to play The Gem-Deeps as rescue site against minion company moving to Glittering Caves. The fact that minion player at the times was not capable to include The Gem-Deeps in his/her Location Deck does not matter.
You are just blind.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 7:29 am The rules on TAKING PRISONERS allow the player to move to the Rescue Site to rescue the character. A Fallen Wizard player may not move to Ancient Deep-hold. It is not possible to use Ancient Deep-hold as a Rescue Site. Therefore, Ancient Deep-hold is not a valid Rescue Site.
Dark Minions wrote:Note: If he has one available, a player must use a site from his own location deck to
rescue imprisoned characters. If he does not have the site or if the site is in his
discard pile, the copy with the hazard host can be used to show the rescuing
company’s movement (if the rescue attempt is successful, the site would
remain in play until the company leaves the site). In this case the site is not
available for the rescuing player to use for any purpose (other than to rescue
prisoners and play one minor item) until the company leaves the site and his
play deck is exhausted.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
That rule is about players not owning certain cards in this collectible card game... What are you thinking? MEDM was released before different alignment sites were an option. Clearly this statement isn't suggesting that a Fallen Wizard player could move to a Balrog site that they are not allowed to move to.
MEDM states "the copy with the hazard host can be used to show the rescuing company’s movement". However, MEBA states "a non-Balrog player cannot use Balrog sites." A Balrog site cannot be used as a Rescue Site.
----------
Not capable is not the same as restricted by the rules. MEAS was developed along with MELE. It was known that the Minion players would have their copy of The Gem-Deeps.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 8:21 am It was allowed before Against The Shadow to play The Gem-Deeps as rescue site against minion company moving to Glittering Caves. The fact that minion player at the times was not capable to include The Gem-Deeps in his/her Location Deck does not matter.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Sorry, you are not blind. You are simply a liar.
MEBA wrote:A non-Balrog player cannot use Balrog sites. However, for the purposes of playing
certain hazards, a non-Balrog player’s location deck may include one copy each of:
Ancient Deep-hold, The Wind-deeps, The Drowning Deeps, The Rusted-deeps, and
Remains of Thangorodrim (i.e., the Balrog sites for which there is no corresponding
hero or minion site).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Gee Konrad, take it easy. I'm not that one that's been spreading misinformation for sixteen years.
Spreading misinformation back in 2006:
Still spreading the same misinformation in 2020:
----------
This MEBA rule copied above is how a Fallen Wizard player can play capturing-hazards on a Balrog player. The Fallen Wizard player can place a Balrog site with the hazard host, thereby allowing the Balrog player to move to site that they are capable of moving to. Nothing in this rule allows a Fallen Wizard player to move to a Balrog site. If anything it indicates that your interpretation is wrong because the entire point of this rule is to provide the rescuing player with a site that they can legally move to.
Again:
Spreading misinformation back in 2006:
Konrad Klar wrote:Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:13 pm
CRF-Turn Sequence-Site Phase-On-Guard CardsThis means that characters cannot tap in support to cc caused by revealed Weariness of The Heart and such cc cannot be modified by any effect, which could be normally declared in response to Weariness of The Heart.Rules Erratum: An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed. A revealed on-guard card retroactively takes effect as though it were both declared and resolved immediately prior to the chain of effects during which it was revealed.
I daresay.Zarathustra wrote:It's not complicated. You're just confusing yourself -- and, I daresay, probably a good couple of fellow readers as well.
Still spreading the same misinformation in 2020:
Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:26 pm Under current rules a revealed on-guard card that causes a corruption check is extremely powerful. It does not matter how many means a resource player has at his disposal. He cannot use any of them.
----------
This MEBA rule copied above is how a Fallen Wizard player can play capturing-hazards on a Balrog player. The Fallen Wizard player can place a Balrog site with the hazard host, thereby allowing the Balrog player to move to site that they are capable of moving to. Nothing in this rule allows a Fallen Wizard player to move to a Balrog site. If anything it indicates that your interpretation is wrong because the entire point of this rule is to provide the rescuing player with a site that they can legally move to.
Again:
Zarathustra wrote:It's not complicated. You're just confusing yourself -- and, I daresay, probably a good couple of fellow readers as well.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Nothing in rules allow companies to move using an opponent's site card.
Except:
P.S.Dark Minions wrote:Note: If he has one available, a player must use a site from his own location deck to
rescue imprisoned characters. If he does not have the site or if the site is in his
discard pile, the copy with the hazard host can be used to show the rescuing
company’s movement (if the rescue attempt is successful, the site would
remain in play until the company leaves the site). In this case the site is not
available for the rescuing player to use for any purpose (other than to rescue
prisoners and play one minor item) until the company leaves the site and his
play deck is exhausted.
Well informed players should consider whether they are consistent, if they allow for Marvels Told on revealed on-guard permanent-event (because the event is already resolved at time of declaration of Marvels Told) AND if they allow for targeting cc from revealed on-guard Weariness of The Heart (despite the fact that Weariness of The Heart is already resolved at time when someone whats to target the cc the card causes).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Well, at least we now know what the reasoning is on either side. It only took an extra score of mostly-unnecessary posts to get there.
Recap:
1) (As far as we've seen,) There is nothing written in the rules that places restrictions upon which sites can be adjacent.
2) MEDM allows players to travel to any rescue site that is not in their deck (but not to use such sites for any other purpose than rescue).
2i) (As far as we've seen,) There are no other written restrictions on players traveling to opponent's copy of a rescue site.
One difference between us, perhaps, is that I don't think rules interpretations based on subjective view of suggestions give a consistent environment with which players can proceed in agreement. Rather, logical deduction from what is literally written is the only equitable path I see to mitigate recurring in-game debates. Another (non-equitable) way is to character-attack those that are employing logical deduction to promote their silence and reinforce a self-proclaimed theocracy, which hopefully all of those involved in this discussion would rather avoid.CDavis7M wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 4:30 pm That rule is about players not owning certain cards in this collectible card game... What are you thinking? MEDM was released before different alignment sites were an option. Clearly this statement isn't suggesting that a Fallen Wizard player could move to a Balrog site that they are not allowed to move to.
Recap:
1) (As far as we've seen,) There is nothing written in the rules that places restrictions upon which sites can be adjacent.
2) MEDM allows players to travel to any rescue site that is not in their deck (but not to use such sites for any other purpose than rescue).
2i) (As far as we've seen,) There are no other written restrictions on players traveling to opponent's copy of a rescue site.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/