How do hazard creatures which create persistent effects work?

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

How about a merge?
Is the company C resulting with merging of A and B considered not facing this turn what A and B faced?
Is not the company C a new entity?
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

Theo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:16 am A "group of characters" as its own entity has not faced an Ahunt attack if it is a new group. Turning Hope to Despair causes groups to "form", so any such group (as its own entity) is new, even if the characters in it are IDENTICAL to the original (say, only one character was in the original company).
I don't interpret the group of characters/company as being a different entity than the characters forming the group for the purposes of what has happened to that group of characters (e.g., have they faced an attack). A subset of a group is not necessarily a new entity.

I don't see anything in the rules to support the interpretation the a split company is not considered to have faced the attack.
Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:46 pm How about a merge?
Is the company C resulting with merging of A and B considered not facing this turn what A and B faced?
Is not the company C a new entity?
I think company C containing the characters of Company A and the characters of Company B has the same history as company A and B combined.

If both Company A and Company B faced an Orc attack, the Orc-lieutenant faced on-guard will receive +4 prowess. If Company A faced an orc attack and company B did not, then some characters in company C have not faced an orc attack, and so the company as a whole has not faced an orc attack.

But in the case of Alatar, Orc-lieutenant (and Uruk and warband) state "if played on a company that has already faced an Orc attack this turn, Orc-lieutenant receives +4 prowess." And so the company that the creature is played on would not contain Alatar when played (since the creature would need to resolve before Alatar could use his special ability).
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:16 am A "group of characters" to describe the characters themselves that are assembled together (within a singular entity-group) would require the corresponding verb to be plural (there are, in general, multiple characters). In order to conclude the entity had already been faced in the Turning Hope to Despair situation, one would need to check the histories of the characters rather than the history of the new group (as its own entity), but the Ahunt cards do not use a plural verb for "group of characters" to support such a use of "group of characters".
It would not, and probably should not be written as you suggest. The Ahunt correctly uses "faces" because "company" is singular and it is the subject, even though the company/group consists of one or more characters. This is totally fine and normal English. There is no inconsistency. In fact, what you are suggesting seems like very abnormal use of language.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:26 pm It would not, and probably should not be written as you suggest. The Ahunt correctly uses "faces" because "company" is singular and it is the subject, even though the company/group consists of one or more characters. This is totally fine and normal English. There is no inconsistency. In fact, what you are suggesting seems like very abnormal use of language.
The inconsistency comes from your desire to track the individual histories of the members of the collective noun to establish whether the company has already faced the attack. It is both normal and reasonable that doing so would require a plural verb (even if you've never done this correctly before :roll:).

I give you a silly sports analogy, though I'm a bit doubtful it will help if you're as stuck as you seem to be:

Sports team TC consists of player PA and player PB. Player PA used to play for team TA, and player PB used to play for team TB. While player PA was on team TA, team TA won its league. Likewise, while player PB was on team TB, team TB won its league. No game (let alone league) has ever been won by team TC.

It is not correct English to say, "Team TC was a league winner."

On the other hand, it is fine (if a bit British) to say, "Team TC were league winners."
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:46 pm How about a merge?
Is the company C resulting with merging of A and B considered not facing this turn what A and B faced?
Is not the company C a new entity?
My impression is that corporate language uses merge in cases where one of the companies survives. But combining needn't be merging. The shift in language to "join" suggests to me that both companies histories are inherited by the combined company. As far as I know, the rules are otherwise ambiguous on this. [edit: ICE Netrep ruling otherwise viewtopic.php?p=37170#p37170]

Perhaps the precedent of card effects corroborates? But it seems a little unrelated.
CRF wrote:If two companies join at a site, cards affecting one of the companies now affect them both.
Last edited by Theo on Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:27 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/
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:42 am The inconsistency comes from your desire to track the individual histories of the members of the collective noun to establish whether the company has already faced the attack. It is both normal and reasonable that doing so would require a plural verb (even if you've never done this correctly before :roll:).

I give you a silly sports analogy, though I'm a bit doubtful it will help if you're as stuck as you seem to be:
You have had several opportunities to identify which rules supporting your interpretation and you have not done so. I know that the rules do not support your interpretation because I have read them all and quoted them above.

In MECCG, the rules state "you may organize your characters into groups called companies." Therefore, according to the Rules, it is the individual characters of the group that matter. This is also clear from MECCG gameplay. Your sports analogy doesn't apply to MECCG because in sports, the Team is actually a completely separate and distinct entity from the players in it. In sports, only a Team can win a league and the Team can still be considered to have won the league even after losing all of its players, and even after the Team dissolves.

In MECCG, the "company" is not a separate and distinct entity. The company cannot exist without the characters. If all characters are eliminated by an attack, then there is no company, especially not one that is considered to have faced the attack.

Consider how your interpretation of the "company" being a separate entity causes inconsistency with Orc attacks: If a character facing Orc Warband is split into a separate company by Left Being then, by your interpretation, that "new" company is not considered to have faced an orc attack for when Orc Lieutenant is played in that character's separate M/H phase. This is not how it works. Instead, the character was in the group of characters that faced Orc Warband and even after splitting that one character is considered to have faced the orc warband attack.

Your misinterpretation also causes inconsistencies with King Under the Mountain. If Balin and Thorin defeat an At Home Dragon and then split into separate companies, with Balin's company being designated as the original company for purposes of resource effects, then by your interpretation Thorin's "new" company does not work to play King Under the Mountain later. But that is not the case. What matters is whether Balin and Thorin were in the group of characters that defeated the At Home Dragon.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Theo wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:50 am
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:46 pm How about a merge?
Is the company C resulting with merging of A and B considered not facing this turn what A and B faced?
Is not the company C a new entity?
My impression is that corporate language uses merge in cases where one of the companies survives. But combining needn't be merging. The shift in language to "join" suggests to me that both companies histories are inherited by the combined company. As far as I know, the rules are otherwise ambiguous on this.

Perhaps the precedent of card effects corroborates? But it seems a little unrelated.
CRF wrote:If two companies join at a site, cards affecting one of the companies now affect them both.
Again, there is a difference between an effect that targets a company and the "history" of the company in having faced certain attacks.

An effect can only target one company and so it can't apply to a split company. But an effect that targets one company can still target a new company. This CRF is expressly an extension of the MEDM rules on permanent events. This is why if 2 companies join then the cards target/affect them both.

However, the "history" of the company does not target the company. The two companies resulting from a split are both considered to have done the things that they did before splitting because all of those characters have done the thing. But a joined company is not considered to have done the thing unless all characters in the joined company have done the thing. If Gandalf and Balin defeat an At Home Dragon and then Thorin joins that company after the attack with A Chance Meeting, you cannot play King Under the Mountain on Thorin. But you can play it on Balin.
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm You have had several opportunities to identify which rules supporting your interpretation and you have not done so. I know that the rules do not support your interpretation because I have read them all and quoted them above.
Fact check: I did. And as I have explained, the same rules you've already quoted support my interpretation when using correct English. A company would need plural verbs to not be its own entity but instead refer only to its comprising characters.

Maybe this is more explicit, if you don't confirmation-bias yourself.
“target company” - literally written on 28 cards
CRF wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
-----
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm In MECCG, the "company" is not a separate and distinct entity. The company cannot exist without the characters. If all characters are eliminated by an attack, then there is no company, especially not one that is considered to have faced the attack.
CoE thinks otherwise:
CoE #17 wrote:5. If everyone in a company is killed, can your opponent still play hazards to finish using the hazard limit?

*** Yes.
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
Theo
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Regarding "inconsistency" with Orc attacks and King Under the Mountain: I'm not sure what you are calling an inconsistency. Do you mean, "These mechanics are not realistic with the story theme?" I'm not sure what Orc Lieutenant's ability has to do with story theme in the first place, so can't comment there.

Since I know you like Netrep rulings:
ICE Netrep (Ichabod) 97/9/11 wrote: >Ichabod wrote:
>>
>> That would be a no, and let me clarify. King Under the Mountain says
>> "if his company defeated the Dragon..." That means the dwarf's current
>> company must be the same company that defeated the Dragon.
>
>This touches upon something that's been asked before, but I can't
>remember if there was an answer.
>
>How do you judge if a company is still the same company as before? Does
>it have to contain exactly the same characters? Is it OK of someone
>joins, but not if someone leaves? What if someone leaves and then comes
>back? Is it enough that just one of the original characters is in the
>company? If the company splits, is just one of them the original
>company, or both, or none? What if they split and then rejoin? What's
>the meaning of life? :)

When a company splits, you have to decide which part of the company
is the original company. The decision is up to the person who is
splitting the company. When two companies join you have to decide
which of the two companies the new company is, although effects on
either company now effect the whole company. When you play a character
with a company, that company remains the same company.


So you have company A, with characters X, Y, and Z. Z splits into
his own company. You get to decide whether X and Y are company A,
or whether Z is company A. Let's say you make Z company A, and now
X and Y are company B. Next turn, you play W with X and Y. This is
still company B. Then company A moves to the same site, and has a
River played on it. You decide to make the combined company of W,
X, Y, and Z into company B, but they still have to deal with the
River.

Clear so far?

So Thorin is in the Dragon-defeating company, and is the only character
in the company. The Opponent company comes along and influences him
away. This means Thorin is played with the Opponent company, and
becomes part of the Opponent company. The Dragon-defeating company
is gone, and your opponent cannot play King Under the Mountain.

BTW, 42 and we'll be by to pick up your liver tommorow.
If we accept this, then Konrad's question about a merge seems to be answered by "You have to pick one history".

Good example. /thumbsup
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

I am for straight inheritance interpretation.

If the company A has defeated a Dragon at Home joins with company B that has faced Chill Douser, then resulting company C should be considered both company that has defeated a Dragon at Home and company that has faced a Chill Douser.

If a company that faced a Chill Douser has been split off into multiple companies in result of Turning Hope to Despair, then all resulting companies should be considered facing a Chill Douser. If they will join, the resulting company should be also considered facing Chill Douser.
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

Chill Douser's (and all other cards') effect is always inherited during a join even if only one company's history is inherited. I can't think of a reason a player would NOT choose to have the company inherit having defeated an at-home Dragon manifestation attack for the purpose of King Under the Mountain. I don't think there are any other cards for which the join history would matter (that aren't established effects on the company).

Turning Hope to Despair explicitly says characters split FROM the original company and FORM (new) companies. This seems to be one the cards referenced by the CRF entry: "When a company splits up, its player chooses which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company, unless otherwise directed by a card." Why ignore that?
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

This is not how it works. You should know...

Let me clarify. You're overlooking the original context and the background rulings.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:52 pm Turning Hope to Despair explicitly says characters split FROM the original company and FORM (new) companies. This seems to be one the cards referenced by the CRF entry: "When a company splits up, its player chooses which characters are the original company and which characters are a new company, unless otherwise directed by a card." Why ignore that?
Do not ignore that.
It must be known on which company some permanent event stays.
Turning Hope to Despair sometimes let to discard Enchanted Stream effortlessly.

EDIT: "Not ignore that." > "Do not ignore that."
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

Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:52 am
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:22 pm You have had several opportunities to identify which rules supporting your interpretation and you have not done so. I know that the rules do not support your interpretation because I have read them all and quoted them above.
Fact check: I did. And as I have explained, the same rules you've already quoted support my interpretation when using correct English. A company would need plural verbs to not be its own entity but instead refer only to its comprising characters.
Fact check: you just said that I quoted them, not you.

Furthermore, I have NEVER said that I think that the term "company" is plurality itself. I have only ever say that a company is "a group of characters", which can be one singular character.
Theo wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:52 am Maybe this is more explicit, if you don't confirmation-bias yourself.
“target company” - literally written on 28 cards
CRF wrote:A target is an entity that an action is played out through.
You're not reading what I said: "I don't interpret the group of characters/company as being a different entity than the characters forming the group for the purposes of what has happened to that group of characters."

What is this? The 3rd time I've written this: "Again, there is a difference between an effect that targets a company and the "history" of the company in having faced certain attacks."
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”