Gwaihir

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
Jose-san
Ex Council Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

I need confirmation on this:
Gwaihir wrote:Unique. Playable at Eagles' Eyrie. If his company's size is two or less, you
may discard Gwaihir during the organization phase to allow his company to
move to any site that is not in a Shadow-land [s] or Dark-domain [d]; only
hazard creatures keyed to the site may be played on a company that moves in
this fashion.
If you discard Gwaihir for his effect, can non-creature hazards be played on the company?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Only hazard creatures keyed to the site (which site?) are on a whitelist.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

THE HAZARD LIMIT
During your opponent's movement/hazard phase, the number of hazard cards that you may play on one of your opponent's companies is that company's hazard limit.
Ugh. Guess what? According to the rules, only hazards that you play on the company come under the definition of hazard limit (e.g. creatures, Chance of Being Lost, etc.). Hazards that you play on characters, sites, or nothing at all seem to be immune. :)

However, we've always interpreted that as "the number of hazards you may play during the movement/hazard phase of a company," which is most emphatically *not* what that rule actually says.

If we apply that same interpretation to Gwaihir, you are indeed immune to everything except hazard creatures keyed to the site.

@Konrad Klar:

"Keyed to the site" is a phrase describing what manner of keying is being used. They would have done better to use "keyed to a site", though.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Careless reading is not a cure for sloppy wording.

If to comes to hazards played during M/H phase (some may be played outside M/H phase):
all of them are being played against company; only some of them are being played on company.
(tand ext of Gwaihir is not restricted to hazards)

Term "played on company" is often used to refer to the cards that has been/are being played on entity associated with company.
Text of Stormcrow makes remark to indicate that in case of the card the "played on company" is used in literal meaning.
Stormcrow wrote:The direct influence of each Wizard is reduced by 2 (by 4 if Doors of Night is in play). Discard all resource permanent-events that have been played on each company with a Wizard (i.e., on the company as a whole, not individual characters, e.g., Fellowship). No such cards may be played on each Wizard's company. Discard this card when any play deck is exhausted. Cannot be duplicated.
If it comes to hazard limit:
CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, Playing Hazards wrote:You check the hazard limit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be
less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no
more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
According to that, if HL is zero a player still may declare untapping of Power Built by Waiting, or agent actions. These actions are not hazards.
(the rule also says nothing about what to do in situation, when at resolution there are more hazards than HL [this may happen if some action resolved in current chain reduces HL]; there was debate in past about it and consensus was that first to resolve exceed hazards do not resolve [fizzle]).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:Careless reading is not a cure for sloppy wording.

If to comes to hazards played during M/H phase (some may be played outside M/H phase):
all of them are being played against company; only some of them are being played on company.
(tand ext of Gwaihir is not restricted to hazards)
That was my point; the rules refer to hazards played *on* the company, not *against.*
Term "played on company" is often used to refer to the cards that has been/are being played on entity associated with company.
Text of Stormcrow makes remark to indicate that in case of the card the "played on company" is used in literal meaning.
Stormcrow wrote:The direct influence of each Wizard is reduced by 2 (by 4 if Doors of Night is in play). Discard all resource permanent-events that have been played on each company with a Wizard (i.e., on the company as a whole, not individual characters, e.g., Fellowship). No such cards may be played on each Wizard's company. Discard this card when any play deck is exhausted. Cannot be duplicated.
I'd prefer an example that:
1) Is a hazard, since this rule is dealing with hazards;
2) Is played on an entity associated with the company; and
3) Nevertheless says it is played on a company.
If it comes to hazard limit:
CRF, Turn Sequence, Movement/Hazard Phase, Playing Hazards wrote:You check the hazard limit at declaration and resolution. At declaration there must be
less hazards already declared than the hazard limit. At resolution there must be no
more hazards declared than the hazard limit.
According to that, if HL is zero a player still may declare untapping of Power Built by Waiting, or agent actions. These actions are not hazards.
(the rule also says nothing about what to do in situation, when at resolution there are more hazards than HL [this may happen if some action resolved in current chain reduces HL]; there was debate in past about it and consensus was that first to resolve exceed hazards do not resolve [fizzle]).
Nothing in that definition contradicts the rule, which says that the hazard limit applies to hazards played on the company.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Bandobras Took wrote:I'd prefer an example that:
1) Is a hazard, since this rule is dealing with hazards;
2) Is played on an entity associated with the company; and
3) Nevertheless says it is played on a company.
I do not know such example.
I know examples of resources that refer to a hazard that targets company:
Tom Bombadil, Leaflock, Great Ship.

Text of Tom Bombadil has been changed by errata.
CRF, Errrata (Cards), Tom Bombadil wrote:Card Erratum: Change "that targets a company" to "that targets a company, or an
entity associated with a company."
Texts of Great Ship has been changed too.
CRF, Errrata (Cards), Great Ship wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Tap a character in target company during the organization phase
to play Great Ship on that company." Replace "...contains a coastal sea region..." with
"...contains a coastal sea region and no consecutive non-coastal sea regions..." Allows
the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that targets
the company in question or an entity associated with that company.
Text of Leaflock has not been changed, but CRF says:
CRF, Errrata (Cards), Leaflock wrote:Allows the canceling of one creature or the canceling and discarding of an event that
targets the company in question or an entity associated with that company.

May tap to give +1 prowess to another character facing an automatic- attack, or
hazard keyed to his site.
(please note the remarks for Great Ship and Leflock, that are not errata)
Bandobras Took wrote:Nothing in that definition contradicts the rule, which says that the hazard limit applies to hazards played on the company.
Right.
Seems like that all other actions (including playing a hazards not played on company) that count against hazard limit just reduce number of hazards that may be played on company (and number of other actions that count against hazard limit). So both definitions are formally correct.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Jose-san
Ex Council Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Does Eagle-Mounts work the same way?
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

It would seem so.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:20 pm Only hazard creatures keyed to the site (which site?) are on a whitelist.
English isn't this specific. I have read the card one way and then the other way myself. Both interpretations are valid. Secret Passage has similar language but has been ruled to not restrict non-creatures hazards from being played. This ICE ruling is understood to be correct by ICE-age veterans in my playgroup.
Gwaihir wrote:...only hazard creatures keyed to the site may be played on a company that moves in this fashion.
Secret Passage wrote:...may only play hazard creatures that are keyed to the company's site
ICE wrote:. . .

> Secret Passage: May the opponent play non-creature hazards?

Yes.

. . .

Trevor, you should send that to ICE and ask for a job as a playtester...

Those are all excellent questions...

>Trevor Stone tst...@bvsd.k12.co.us tst...@nyx.nyx.net
>Check Out My Homepage At http://bvsd.k12.co.us/~tstone for:
>Contests, M:tG, Middle Earth interactive labyrinth game, and much more!!!
>"I hitched the length and breadth of cyberspace and I know where my towel is!"
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| "There were thousands of them, and they squeaked all around, |
| neek-breek, breek-neek, unceasingly all the night, until the |
| Hobbits were nearly frantic." - LotR (c)1995 T.E. |
| Scott Frazer (Quote for Neeker-breekers) |
| Middle Earth: The Wizards NetRep (but I don't work for them) |
| My Email: sfr...@comet.net ICE Email: MET...@aol.com |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”