Deep Mines/Ancient Deep-Hold connectivity

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:07 am P.S.
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).
There is consistency. The first point that you're missing is that the timing rules for on-guard rules are contrived because it represent a hazard threat that existed during a company's movement/hazard phase, but of which the company was not aware. The second point that you're missing is that the statement "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" is a CRF Ruling by Term. It NOT the primary rule for on-guard cards, it is merely a secondary rule. This ruling is not a change to the primary on-guard rules. The primary rules state "the card is handled as if it had been played during the movement-hazard phase (i.e., short-events are discarded, long-events last until your opponent's next long-event phase, etc.)."

When Foolish Words is revealed on guard, it is already resolved resolved and in play according to on-guard timing. This is because a permanent-event played during the M/H phase would have been in play. Since it's in play it can be targeted.

When short-events like Weariness of the Heart are revealed on guard, they are handled just as if it had been played in the M/H phase. Meaning that they can be responded to (playing a corruption modifier or tapping in support).

Your misunderstanding is a result of taking the CRF out of context.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat May 09, 2020 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

ICE wrote:There is no rule that says they can. Therefore they can't.
----------
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am Recap:
1) (As far as we've seen,) There is nothing written in the rules that places restrictions upon which sites can be adjacent.
Except that RULES tell the player what they are allowed to do. Anything that is not allowed by the rules cannot be done. There is nothing ALLOWING a site that is restricted from being in your location deck for movement purposes to be an adjacent site.

As ICE said above, if there is no rule saying they can, they can't. Same applies to a non-Balrog company trying to use a Balrog site as an adjacent site or a rescue site.
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am 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).
This does not allow players to move to a site that they are restricted from moving to. A specific allowance would be required and there is none. This rule simply means that a player who does not own the site or who has the site in their discard pile can still move to the site. Nothing more.
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am 2i) (As far as we've seen,) There are no other written restrictions on players traveling to opponent's copy of a rescue site.
Again, RULES don't have to restrict the player from doing things. There is no restriction from drawing cards at whim, even from your opponents deck. No restrictions are needed. They player cannot do this because the rules do not allow them to.
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am 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.
Unfortunately, logical deduction clearly leads to misinterpretations. This is because the context is important and the context is missing from the CRF. It is obviously best to use subjective rules interpretations when those are from the designers and writers of the rules themselves.

A person that sees rules as needing to provide specific restrictions on all the things that cannot be done is unlikely to have a solid understanding of game design to see how the mechanics actually work.

This all goes back to Hi Ho Cherry-O. There is no rule restricting the children from stealing cherries from other players buckets. But even the children know that's not allowed.

Image
Last edited by CDavis7M on Sat May 09, 2020 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

I something has been declared in chain of effects A, I cannot respond to it in next chain of effects B.
If a card that is declared in chain A is declared and resolves immediately, I am unable to respond to the card.
Accept it, change it, or break it.
Or pretend that the issue does not exist.
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

You're pretending that the timing is not contrived. It is contrived and the rules explain how so. And I've given you specific examples.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Contrived does not mean inconsistent.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:02 am
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am Recap:
1) (As far as we've seen,) There is nothing written in the rules that places restrictions upon which sites can be adjacent.
Except that RULES tell the player what they are allowed to do. Anything that is not allowed by the rules cannot be done. There is nothing ALLOWING a site that is restricted from being in your location deck for movement purposes to be an adjacent site.
The card effect on Ancient Deep Hold says that the player gets to choose one Ruins & Lairs. That is the allowance. There does not seem to be any other restrictions placed upon it, other than your fantasies.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:02 am Same applies to a non-Balrog company trying to use a Balrog site as an adjacent site or a rescue site.
My same response, referencing the allowances given by MEDM rescue site rules "take a site card from his location deck" and the METB rules allowing non-Balrog players to have Balrog sites in their deck.
CDavis7M wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:02 am
Theo wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:45 am 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).
This does not allow players to move to a site that they are restricted from moving to. A specific allowance would be required and there is none. This rule simply means that a player who does not own the site or who has the site in their discard pile can still move to the site. Nothing more.
"If he does not have the site" quite literally does not care why the player does not have 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)" is the specific allowance.

CDavis7M wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:02 am It is obviously best to use subjective rules interpretations when those are from the designers and writers of the rules themselves.
Your subjective rules interpretations are always from you, and you alone.
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

If a Balrog player wants to bring a character into play at the Ancient Deep-hold Balrog site and cause them to be stuck there by choosing the Deep Mines Fallen-wizard site as the adjacent site--sure, whatever.

But a Balrog player may not play Flies and Spiders on a Fallen-wizard player's company moving to Deep Mines and use the Ancient Deep-hold Balrog site as the rescue site. First off, it's obvious to anyone who understands how the game works that a player can't move to a site of a different alignment. Second, this fact is clear from all of the rulings on Chance of Being Lost and Winds of Wrath.
Theo wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 8:00 am Your subjective rules interpretations are always from you, and you alone.
...what a weird claim to make considering your own rules interpretations.

My interpretations are not from me alone because my subjective rules interpretations correspond to ICE's interpretations--they are the basis for my interpretations.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Do you have a rules source for the sentence "a player can't move to a site of a different alignment"?

You seem to not be integrating the explicit allowance made by rescue site rules to move to any rescue site. "How the game works" is not by ignoring rules that don't fit your preconceptions.

Chance of Being Lost and Winds of Wrath have explicit restrictions. Prisoner-taking cards have no such restrictions. They are different situations. Forget about The Balrog sites and imagine a case of the two players being Hero and Minion alignments. The resource player has already used the site that their opponent wishes to take their character captive. Must the resource player wait for their version to be put back in their site deck to rescue? What if the prisoner rescues themselves in the mean time? You can ignore the actual rescue-site rules and make up your own, but each player could do the same and each made up rule could be entirely different.
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

Theo wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 9:19 pm Do you have a rules source for the sentence "a player can't move to a site of a different alignment"?the same and each made up rule could be entirely different.
It's clear from the rules and rulings but not specifically mentioned. The MEDM rules were made before there was ever the issue of alignment specific sites. There are no rulings because no one was special enough to suggest this kind of thing.
Theo wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 9:19 pm You seem to not be integrating the explicit allowance made by rescue site rules to move to any rescue site. "How the game works" is not by ignoring rules that don't fit your preconceptions.
It's clearly not an explicit allowance to move to sites of a different alignment because alignment specific sites didn't exist when those rules were written. The rule is clearly for players that do not have all of the cards in their collection.
Theo wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 9:19 pm Forget about The Balrog sites and imagine a case of the two players being Hero and Minion alignments. The resource player has already used the site that their opponent wishes to take their character captive. Must the resource player wait for their version to be put back in their site deck to rescue? What if the prisoner rescues themselves in the mean time? You can ignore the actual rescue-site rules and make up your own, but each player could do the same and each made up rule could be entirely different.
The MEDM rules already cover the situation where the site is in the discard pile for same alignment games. The MEDM rules don't cover Hero vs Minion games but I don't have to guess how ICE would rule because they already ruled on a similar situation for Great Secrets Buried There. ICE ruled that the hazard player must provide their opponent with a site to use for Great Secrets Buried There is the resource player doesn't have one. However, ICE further ruled that Great Secrets Buried There could not be played on Minion/Ringwraith opponents until after Against the Shadow came out. This is because a player cannot move to a site of the wrong alignment.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

SO THIS! is how Ringwraiths get their (Un)dead Black Horses!! (beat a dead horse REF) :D

My only point is SIMPLE. This is really an OPEN wide debate, that's been discussed, among other topics.

Until we get a commission to finalize arguments and get things fixed, it's the same 15-ish cards and situations over and over.

I can't even stand reading anymore, sometimes.

We need a committee (i.e. ARV) that get these things SOLVED. Such a waste if there is no change...

Laters... good luck guys!
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”