On-Guard Foolish Words

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

miguel wrote:Chain-o'-effects

(1) Haradrim is declared (character taps)
(2) Roving Eye is revealed, considered declared and resolved prior to this chain --> immediate corruption check that actually already happened..? are you able to even support the CC since it's been resolved? WTF?
Yes. I'm aware of this weirdness (In fact the topic "On-guards: no chance for response?" had begin a war on meccg.net years ago :) ).
miguel wrote:To get back on topic, I'm thinking a ruling/errata along the lines of "the target must continuously exist from the time of placing the on-guard until revealing it, but doesn't need to be valid until revealing the on-guard" could be the way to go, it would make the amount tracking needed more manageable. Anyone find downsides to it?
Sorry for repeating, but... ...using other words or examples sometimes makes a sense.
In my scenarios Frodo exist continously, but target of The Roving Eye (bearer of items of some type) disappears and reappears. Whole difference between this situation and situation with The Mouth exiting game and entering it again is:

- target that is just "character" is uni-part target.
- target that is "bearer of xyz" is bi-part target. It becomes target only if there is character + xyz. Character alone, or xyz alone is not target.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Yeah I guess what I'd consider a 'target' would be the character, but a 'valid target' would be character+xyz. For example Dain II would be a 'target' for on-guard Lure of Nature, but not a 'valid target' because he's a dwarf. I'm still unclear exactly which way (how strict interpretations / ruling / errata) to go would be best, need to think it over some more.

Btw I have no recollection of the "on-guard wars" :lol: could you give me a link? I did a quick search on meccg.net but didn't find it.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Alright, after sleeping on it I think I know what should be done. It seems we pretty much have 3 options.
  • (1) Strict Interpretation: The target of the on-guard needs to have existed and been valid continuously from the moment of placing the on-guard up until the on-guard is revealed.
    + can be done with a ruling and adheres to the CRF entry, building upon it
    - vast amount of tracking required, leading to arguments when players remember situations differently

    (2) Middle ground (earth? ;)): The target of the on-guard needs to have existed continuously from the moment of placing the on-guard up until the on-guard is revealed. When revealing the on-guard the target must be valid.
    + dilutes the CRF entry a little, maybe a ruling is enough
    - still requires some tracking, arguments possible
    - I'm not sure how to handle joining companies (should a character joining from another company be an acceptable target, it certainly would not if it came into play after placing the on-guard)

    (3) Liberal view: The target of the on-guard doesn't matter until the on-guard is revealed, at which point the target just needs to be valid.
    - removes the CRF entry, requires a CoE rules errata
    + makes gameplay flow well without trying to recall things you didn't know needed recalling, no arguments (what you see is what you get)
    + I think this is how the game was actually played when ICE was in charge, possibly how most people play it today
I'm in favor of (3) through a CoE rules errata proposal. I don't think it takes anything away from the game, just streamlines the whole on-guard process a bit. It does make hazards work better than the other options, but I can't think of anything that would be too dangerous. I'll try to further clarify each option via an example.

Example: Two companies are moving to the same site (Mt. Gram), company A has Beorn and company B has Glorfindel II and both start from different [-me_rl-] sites. Beorn has Lure of Nature on him. Beorn moves first, I play another Lure of Nature on-guard and am done with hazards. Opponent plays Marvels Told (taps Glorfindel II) and gets rid of the Lure on Beorn. Then opponent plays A Chance Meeting, bringing Haldir into play under Glorfindel II's DI. Then company B moves, I play no hazards, and the companies join. Company enters, fights the orcs and Haldir taps to play Glamdring. What target options does the on-guard Lure of Nature have?
  • (1): You can't play it on anyone. Beorn wasn't a valid target at the time of placing the on-guard (he already had that Lure), nor were characters from another company (you could not have played Lure on either of them during Beorn's move/haz phase).

    (2): You could play it on Beorn because he was present when the on-guard was played and is now a valid target (no longer has the other Lure). You might be able to play it on Glorfindel II since he was in play when the on-guard was placed, although I'm not sure if that's enough to make him an acceptable target. You certainly cannot play it on Haldir, he was nowhere to be seen when the on-guard was placed.

    (3): You can play it on any of the characters since they are all in the company the on-guard is currently on, and they are all valid targets (non-dwarfs, nobody has Lure of Nature etc.).
Thoughts, comments? :)
Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Thanks Miiko for taking time and brains for figuring something like this bitch out :)

I go with option 3 as well, as it decreases and number of problems that could arise from other cards . . .

also such a rule is easiest explained to new players ;) and people returning ;)

yours Nicolai aka Vastor
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

you wouldnt be able to play the lure on beorn, you cant play 2 corruption cards on a character during 1 turn :lol:
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

marcos wrote:you wouldnt be able to play the lure on beorn, you cant play 2 corruption cards on a character during 1 turn :lol:
He started the turn with it! I mention he has it before he moves, see? Bah, humbug! :P :wink: :lol:
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

oh good point :D
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

I say option 1 or 2 :)
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

1.
I'm not going to say "where does this leave us" but instead "where it was started".
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
"All targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase" is no the same as "the card must have a target existed during the movement/hazard phase". First checks whether it was playable on the same target in both phases, second only whether it was playable at all in both phases.

It is not mentioned "in which M/H phase" (as though only one was possible). In that M/H phase where on-guard was placed? In last M/H phase (when the site was moved to [only relevant for companies that moved])? In all/any M/H phase(s)? Not sure (at least at this point - see part 3) .

One sure thing is: if something appeared in site phase then it did not exist in (any) M/H phase.
At best in M/H phase something identical could exist .

How to handle situation when "something" is unique card like The Mouth?
Suppose that The Mouth leaves active play and then is played again yet in the same M/H phase. Previously he was under effect of Orc-Draught, a corruption card was played on him in that turn and he was wounded by Undead.
If now returned to play The Mouth is not under effect of Orc-Draught, a corruption card may be played on him, but Endless Whispers may not, then it is considered as new character. He has old identity but new history.
In other words: for rules that refer to "that character" The Mouth removed from active play and The Mouth returned to play are not the same character.

2.
Targets.
If some texts refer to target I assume that it says about "valid target" (unless specifically mentioned otherwise). I'm wrong in this assumption?
Whether if some text says that card targets X, then it says about both valid and invalid X?

3.
I'm deliberately avoiding a phrase "playing on-guard cards". They are not played, at least not in M/H phase; only placed.
Please note that on-guard card as indicated by its avers may be even character, or resource - something that cannot be played at all in M/H phase.
And what is sometimes called as "playing on-guard" is not handled by rules like playing a card.
CRF, Errata (Cards), Deeper Shadow wrote:Card Erratum: This is a short-event, not a long-event. Deeper Shadow can cancel
hazards by reducing the hazard limit to the point where the hazard resolving is no
longer playable. If this is done to an on-guard card, the card is returned to the player's
hand
. The character must be moving to the site to change the site type. This works
even though the site is not technically part of the site path.
The character must also be moving to lower the hazard limit.
*

Underline mine.

If declared card cannot resolve for any reason it is discarded. It does not happen in case of on-guards. Because what is declared is a placing a card and if this action cannot be resolved the placing cannot be done. (Similar but reverse situation: if there is not enough HL at resolution, declared returning to hand Spider of Morlat cannot be done, Spider remains on table).

Why I'm writing about that here: because "placing vs. playing" translates on my interpretation of situation.

In M/H phase an on-guard card is not played but placed on site card.
I cannot find indication in rules that on-guards placed on the same site card are distinguished on any basis (I do not preclude such possibility, I just says that there is no indication known to me).
If actually there is no such distinction a question "how was a state of things in M/H phase when card was placed" is irrelevant. Only identifiable M/H phase that has anything in common with site card where on-guard was placed and with company at the site is the last company's M/H phase.

*) Why to the heck it is not stated in CRF, Turn Sequence?

EDIT:
Changed:
"Only identifiable M/H phase that has anything in common with site card where on-guard was placed is the last company's M/H phase."
to
"Only identifiable M/H phase that has anything in common with site card where on-guard was placed and with company at the site is the last company's M/H phase."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Yeah on-guards are placed, not played. Good catch, I will fix that typo going forward.
Konrad Klar wrote:In M/H phase an on-guard card is not played but placed on site card.
I cannot find indication in rules that on-guards placed on the same site card are distinguished on any basis (I do not preclude such possibility, I just says that there is no indication known to me).
On-guards are placed on/for companies, they just happen to be placed next to the new/current site card (MELE quote below, also underlined a funny ;)). And it's necessary to keep track of which company the on-guard was placed for according to the CRF quote below (also underlined a funny :P). Admittedly one could argue that the companies at the same Haven really have different site cards, but meh...

MELE Rules: "During the movement/hazard phase of your opponent's turn, you may place one card on-guard for each of your opponent's companies. This card is played face down next to the company's new site or next to its current site if it did not move."

CRF: "If two companies are at a Haven, on-guard cards played on one company can only be revealed against that company, and can only affect that company (unless the hazard states it affects all versions of the site)."

Based on this, if company A moves to Bree, then company B moves to Bree and you place an on-guard for them, but then B moves away, I believe the on-guard placed for company B cannot be revealed for company A since A and B never combined.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Konrad Klar wrote:Targets.
If some texts refer to target I assume that it says about "valid target" (unless specifically mentioned otherwise). I'm wrong in this assumption?
Whether if some text says that card targets X, then it says about both valid and invalid X?
Forgot to reply to this part... Yeah generally in game terms they are the same thing (if the target isn't valid, then it can't be targeted, therefore it's not really a target), here the difference was my construct that tried to clarify / make sense of the on-guard mechanics.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

"Placed", or "played" It is not used used in game consistently. See texts of Foolish Words and Searching Eye for example.
Therefore part 3 of my previous post is attempt of reconstruction.

Because companies that decide to not to join on the same Haven must use separate cards, there are two or more haven cards - each with its own on-guard cards (if any was placed).

Maybe it is not clearly visible: about which situations that rule does not say.
It does not say about situations when companies are joining (at haven, or non-haven). In such situations only one site card is used.
So what in such situations:
- either question "which on-guards was placed against which company" is irrelevant (nothing relies on that),
- question is relevant but rules are silent about that.

Add to this landscape fact (mentioned earlier) that:
If all characters in a company leave play, the site goes to the location deck or discard
pile, depending on its tapped status. If this happens during the movement/hazard
phase, the site card stays in play until the end of all movement/hazard phases. In this
case, on-guard cards may still be played on the site.
For what they are placed if "can only be revealed against that [eliminated] company"? Just to release space on hand?
(creatures on-guard and on-guards affecting AA do count as revealed against company? Right?)

I see other possibility: "on-guard cards played on one company" mentioned in rule quoted by you are on-guards placed on site card the company is using.

Of course all above is still attempt of reconstruction*.

*) I cannot afford attempts of craeation nowadays. :wink:
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

No need to convince me re: "placed" vs. "played", as I said it was a typo on my part. We are in agreement regarding these terms. It was just funny to me how both of my quotes happened to use "played". :lol:

The rules say the on-guards are placed for the company. As you said, ICE wasn't very consistent with their terminology, I wouldn't read too much into a single(?) CRF entry (that isn't even under the on-guards section) where the on-guard is placed on the site. Personally I think it's just about getting cards out of your hand, a clarification saying that because you can still play some hazards you can also place an on-guard*, and should have perhaps been written as "an on-guard card may still be placed next to the site". I find it unlikely that this would be a special case where the on-guard is actually for the site and not the company, and even more unlikely that this entry would debunk the actual rules. It isn't an erratum, just a (bad?) clarification. However, I completely understand where you're coming from with this. It can be misleading because the on-guard is placed next to the site card. I believe it's very common practice to play on-guards on the site (I do it too, but maybe not after this :wink: ), so much that there's even a ruling supporting the idea!
CoE Digest #17 wrote:A Balrog player uses Gangways Over the Fire for a second M/H phase, moving away from a site on which I have played an on-guard card. The card will go back to my hand (correct?), but at what point? At the end of the new M/H phase? At the end of ALL M/H phases? (How long does that stopover site with my on-guard card stay on the table?) And do I draw up to hand size before the card goes to my hand or after?

*** If I recall correctly, an on-guard card will hold a site in play until the end of the site phase when all unrevealed on-guard cards return to their owner's hand.

For multiple site movement of a single company, reconcile hand size after each of that company's movement/hazard phases.
On-guard cards keeping site cards in play certainly implies they are in fact placed on the site cards. But, turns out the person replying did not recall correctly. :roll:
ICE Digest 588 wrote:When a company takes consecutive movement/hazard phases in a single turn (to visit multiple sites), exactly how does the timing work concerning on-guard cards (if a card is played on guard at a site that is discarded before the site phase begins, when do you draw your card back into your hand)?

-I believe this is how it goes. Assume that it is the beginning of the second m/h phase and there is an on guard card on site #1. At the end of m/h phase #2,site #1 is removed and the on guard card on it is returned to your hand. At this point, you would go back to hand size.

Brian has it correctly.
Even the ICE digest (or rather the non-ICE person giving the first answer) writes about on-guards on site cards, but the implications are different. When the company has moved away, the site of origin goes away as does the on-guard next to it. This happens because they were both in play for the company that left, not for each other.

I know this is far from definite proof (none may exist), and your hypothesis probably is how people play the game. I'm just not convinced (yet?) that it's the correct way.


*note that hazards targetting the now non-existent company are not allowed, but an on-guard does not actually target the company so it's ok
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

In other words, I think the on-guard placed for a company, next to a site card (or on it, doesn't really matter much) is always related to both. The on-guard can only be revealed for that company at that site.

This would also explain my previous example (if company A moves to Bree, then company B moves to Bree and you place an on-guard for them, but then B moves away, I believe the on-guard placed for company B cannot be revealed for company A since A and B never combined). In fact I'm not sure if the on-guard would even stick around, perhaps it would go back to hand when company B has moved away.


Edit: The on-guard would not go back to hand, it can exist without the company there as long as the site card is there (because you can place an on-guard even when the whole company is dead). But that doesn't mean the on-guard can be revealed. It would stay on the table until returned at the end of the site phase, provided the company it was placed for didn't return there.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Uff, one more before going to bed. An on-guard has no target. Therefore it's not really placed on a site or on a company. Maybe trying to work out what the on-guard targets (is placed on) prevents from seeing how it really works. An on-guard is an anomaly in the MeCCG world. It's not targetting anything, not placed on anything, but it is related to the company it was placed for and that company's new/current site. Where that leaves us I'm not sure anymore, need to get some sleep... :lol:
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”