Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar »

(Presumably in case of failed roll a new site card does not stay on table).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

I already said:
CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 2:48 pm
Bottom line: there is an ICE ruling on this exact question and a reasonable rationale in the rules.

Underdeeps movement has its own rules and CRF rulings. It is similar but defined to be different.
ICE has already ruled on this exact topic and there is a legitimate and consistent rationale in the rules. What more is there to ask?
ICE wrote:Character with Alone and Unadvised is sent back to site of Origin. How many corruption checks would that character make, if any at all?

None. They are made at the end of the movement/hazard phase, and at the end of the movement/hazard phase, any company that has been returned to its site of origin has no site path. Therefore he has not traveled through any regions, and makes no checks. And yes, this would apply to Lure of Nature also.
MEDM wrote:When an adjacent site is revealed by one of your companies whose site of origin is an Under-deeps site, you must make a roll (2D6). If the result is greater than or equal to the number in parentheses following the adjacent site as listed on its site of origin, the movement/hazard phase proceeds normally. Otherwise, the company returns to its site of origin and the movement/hazard phase proceeds as if the company had not moved.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:07 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:46 pm
I know that you are treating A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded and end of M/H phase as the same. I do not.
That's OK because the differences between my interpretation and yours don't matter to gameplay. Still, the rules give me no reason to differentiate between the "conclusion" and the "end" of the M/H phase.
How about:
CRF, Errata (Cards), Bridge wrote:Reset to hand size before moving to the second site.
?
Bridge wrote:Playable at the end of the movement/hazard phase on a company that moved to a [-me_ha-] . That company may move to an additional site on the same turn. Another site card may be played and a movement/hazard phase immediately follows for that company.
Should a player reset to hand size when company's movement/hazard phase is concluded and once again before moving to the second site?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

The statement on Bridge is not errata that changes the card text. It's a ruling letting you know that you do actually resolve hand size. This ruling was made in response to a question about whether you reset your hand to 8 when using Bridge. The ruling is consistent with the annotations on the Movement/Hazard phase.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:52 am
The end of the movement phase still happens, it just happens at resolution of the return to origin effect because that effect removes the new site, which is similar to removing the old site, which ends the phase. Thereby removing the hazard limit, fizzling all other declared hazards.
Just for reference, can you tell me where that part about removing the hazard limit is from? What if there's a hazard left in the chain of effects not counting against HL? Or I play Gates of Morning during a movement/hazard phase and opponent responds to it (just because he can) by discarding Baduila and my company is forced to return to its site of origin, immediately ending the movement/hazard phase... Would Gates of Morning then resolve between phases?

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 3:32 pm
CDavis7M wrote:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:52 am
The end of the movement phase still happens, it just happens at resolution of the return to origin effect because that effect removes the new site, which is similar to removing the old site, which ends the phase. Thereby removing the hazard limit, fizzling all other declared hazards.
Just for reference, can you tell me where that part about removing the hazard limit is from? What if there's a hazard left in the chain of effects not counting against HL? Or I play Gates of Morning during a movement/hazard phase and opponent responds to it (just because he can) by discarding Baduila and my company is forced to return to its site of origin, immediately ending the movement/hazard phase... Would Gates of Morning then resolve between phases?
You may play hazard cards only during a movement/hazard phase. The hazard limit is the maximum number of hazards that may be played on a
company during a given movement/hazard phase and it is checked at resolution of the effect. Hazards are played at Step (3) of the M/H Phase. Resolution of Baduila's effect is Step (4) of the M/H phase (past Step (3)) and the M/H phase is over (Step 4+6) because the company is no longer moving. If there were hazards declared before Baduila's effect, those hazards could not resolve since they would not happen during the M/H phase (regardless of whether those hazard effects use the hazard limit or not).

There is no problem with Gates of Morning resolving after the M/H phase has ended because there are no rule restrictions on when resources can be played except for long-events and Annotation 25a.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

Annotation 25a specifically prohibits the play of resources and hazards (and the activation of resource effects) at the time in question. However, playing a card (the process of bringing it from your hand into play) is not the same as resolving. I'm not saying the unresolved hazards should necessarily get resolved, just wondering if there is actually anything in the rules about it?

And if we'd consider resolving a card as a part of playing it, then per Annotation 25a Gates of Morning would fizzle.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

I agree that playing a card is not just resolving. It's placing the card on the table thereby declaring the cards effects in a chain of effects and then resolving those effects (resulting in the card itself being discarded or staying in play).
MELE p. 88 wrote:Declaring an Action: Stating that an action is being played. though the actual effects of the action are not implemented until both players have had the chance to respond with the declaration of other actions. Each time you play a card, you are declaring an action.
MELE p. 90 wrote:Resolving an Action: Carrying out the actual effect on the game of an action. Multiple actions are resolved in a chain of effects in the opposite order they are declared.
However, the rules are already clear that hazards cannot be resolved on a company after their M/H phase is over without Annotation 25. And Annotation 25a has the completely different purpose of requiring resources played "at the site" to be played during the site phase. It has nothing to do with a scenario where effects are declared before a return-to-origin effect is declared. I can see how the wording of Annotation 25a might cause confusion when conflating these 2 different rules, but the rules are clear with understanding of their purpose.

The same word can have different meanings is different contexts. ICE does this all the time.

----------

Playing Hazards:
  • You may only play hazard cards during your opponent's movement/hazard phase.
  • (4) If the company has been required to return to its site of origin... No additional hazards may be played on that company once this action is resolved.
  • An action in a chain of effects is negated if the conditions required to perform it are negated by another action that is resolved before it in the chain of effects.
The earlier declared hazards are negated by the return-to-origin effect being resolved before them. Furthermore, the hazard player dictated when the M/H phase ended. They could have decided to let their earlier played hazards resolve.

----------

Annotation 25a:
In the original rules the company was technically "at" the site in Step (6) of the M/H phase after the site of origin was removed at Step (5). The long standing ICE ruling was that you could play resources requiring you to be at a site in Step (6), like Return of the King. This was ruled over and over again. Then it was decided that A Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill, Rebuild the Town, and other cards were abusive and so the rules were changed to prevent these cards from being played at Step (6). This went on and one with the players resisting the change, necessitating further CRF rulings. But anyway, Annotation 25a is not designed to prevent Gates of Morning from resolving.

Arguing that Annotation 25a prevents Gates of Morning from resolving is like arguing that Annotation 9a prevents Traitor's triggered attack from resolving. These arguments are based on knowledge of words in the rules without an understanding of their purpose or the game's design. It's clear how the game should be played when the context of the rules is known. The CRF lacks the context of the rulings and so it's often misinterpreted.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

Yes, I'm trying to put things in exact game terms because ICE failed to do so. From what I can tell, an ongoing movement/hazard phase should be considered an active condition for playing hazards / activating hazard effects. This would get checked at both declaration and resolution, resulting in all unresolved hazards left in the chain of effects fizzling after the company has returned to its site of origin.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 12:31 am
Annotation 25a has the completely different purpose of requiring resources played "at the site" to be played during the site phase.
Well, that's half of it.
Annotation 25a wrote: A company's movement/hazard phase is concluded when a moving company removes its site of origin and both players agree to reconcile (discard down to/draw up to) their hand sizes. No resources (and obviously no hazards) can be played, and no resource effects can be activated, until the site phase or until both players have drawn cards for the movement of a following company.
The emphasized part has nothing to do with the site phase or resources played "at the site". Instead, it allows the hazard player to be able to respond to what the resource player does during his companies' movement/hazard phases.

Example: Opponent has two companies ready to move, A and B, and A goes first. You play Adunaphel as a permanent-event, and would prefer to tap a character in company B, but at the same time don't want to let the opponent just Marvels Told it during company A's movement/hazard phase. So you say you're done playing hazards with one left available against the hazard limit... Opponent actually does have Marvels Told in hand, but decides to not use it since you could tap Adunaphel in response. So you end company A's movement/hazard phase, reconciling both players' hand sizes. If Annotation 25a didn't exist, opponent would now be able to play Marvels Told and get rid of Adunaphel before cards are drawn for company B's movement/hazard phase, and you'd have no chance to respond!

Circling back to the Gates of Morning example, I agree that it would resolve as normal, because it does not have the same active condition that hazards do mentioned at the top of this post, and Annotation 25a restricts only the declaration, not resolution of resources (IMO, and this would mean resolving is not part of playing).

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

I suppose actions declared from hazards triggered by passive conditions could theoretically still resolve within the same chain after sending the company back, between movement/hazard phases as long as otherwise legal, and even trigger during the chain that returns the company to its site of origin to create a new chain of effects that would need to be resolved before the next movement/hazard phase. Can't say right now if there actually are any hazards that would work like this or if they all simply have another reason to fizzle (target no longer legal, etc.).

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 9:26 am
I suppose actions declared from hazards triggered by passive conditions could theoretically still resolve within the same chain after sending the company back, between movement/hazard phases as long as otherwise legal, and even trigger during the chain that returns the company to its site of origin to create a new chain of effects that would need to be resolved before the next movement/hazard phase. Can't say right now if there actually are any hazards that would work like this or if they all simply have another reason to fizzle (target no longer legal, etc.).
Traitor could be triggered by CCs whenever they happen. Reluctant Final Parting and Long Winter also trigger whenever. Sometimes companies move outside of the Movement/Hazard phase (Great-road, Farmer Maggot, etc.) and may trigger these effect. Returning to Origin wouldn't trigger these as the effect of Long Winter would have already triggered and the effect of RFP would trigger at the site phase.

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 8:22 am
Yes, I'm trying to put things in exact game terms because ICE failed to do so. From what I can tell, an ongoing movement/hazard phase should be considered an active condition for playing hazards / activating hazard effects. This would get checked at both declaration and resolution, resulting in all unresolved hazards left in the chain of effects fizzling after the company has returned to its site of origin.
The rules already say that the hazard limit is checked at resolution and that hazards are only playable during the M/H phase. I don't see further definition as being particularly helpful when the "problem situation" is the hazard player fizzling their own hazards.

It seems to me that most of these supposed problems are based on the fact that a player can just respond to their own actions. Why would the Hazard player be playing a return to origin effect in response to their own hazards? The resource player is likely going to let the declared hazards resolve or cancel them. There is really nothing else they are going to do "in response." So there are very few, if any, game play situations where letting the hazard player respond to their own actions even makes senses or has a difference on gameplay.

Similar problems arise from letting the resource player respond to their own actions.

----------
miguel wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 8:22 am
Example: Opponent has two companies ready to move, A and B, and A goes first. You play Adunaphel as a permanent-event, and would prefer to tap a character in company B, but at the same time don't want to let the opponent just Marvels Told it during company A's movement/hazard phase. So you say you're done playing hazards with one left available against the hazard limit... Opponent actually does have Marvels Told in hand, but decides to not use it since you could tap Adunaphel in response. So you end company A's movement/hazard phase, reconciling both players' hand sizes. If Annotation 25a didn't exist, opponent would now be able to play Marvels Told and get rid of Adunaphel before cards are drawn for company B's movement/hazard phase, and you'd have no chance to respond!of resources (IMO, and this would mean resolving is not part of playing).
Marvels Told existed for years before Annotation 25a. Still, I believe that there was some predecessor ruling to Annotation 25a where even if Step (3) of the M/H phase had ended, the hazard player could still respond to resources being played, within the hazard limit.

----------
miguel wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 8:22 am
Circling back to the Gates of Morning example, I agree that it would resolve as normal, because it does not have the same active condition that hazards do mentioned at the top of this post, and Annotation 25a restricts only the declaration, not resolution of resources (IMO, and this would mean resolving is not part of playing).
"Playing" includes resolving. This is because "playing" in card games means putting the card on the table for its effect. This happens immediately. However, MECCG introduced timing rules to allow players to respond with other cards such that later cards take effect first. This does not mean that playing doesn't include resolving, it just means that "playing" can be interrupted and resumed later.

Technically, Annotation 25a would prevent Gates of Morning from resolving. The issue is that Annotation 25a was not intended to do that and there is no reason why it should. If ICE were asked they would say as much. The rule could be better written but the intention is clear. ICE rewrote many rules. Just because they are not around to ask about Annotation 25a doesn't mean that we should play not play the game as intended.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

Underline is mine.
CDavis7M wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 7:24 pm
Technically, Annotation 25a would prevent Gates of Morning from resolving. The issue is that Annotation 25a was not intended to do that and there is no reason why it should. If ICE were asked they would say as much. The rule could be better written but the intention is clear. ICE rewrote many rules. Just because they are not around to ask about Annotation 25a doesn't mean that we should play not play the game as intended.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct. You either follow the rules or you don't. If the rules need to be clarified/amended, we have a process for that.

And what exactly makes you the authority on what ICE would say? Because if you asked ICE whether allies give CVCC kill MP's or not, they'd say yes (IMO)! :P

User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by CDavis7M »

miguel wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 10:15 am
Technically correct is the best kind of correct. You either follow the rules or you don't. If the rules need to be clarified/amended, we have a process for that.
I am following the rules. Annotation 25a technically doesn't apply to situations where a company returns to it's site of origin. The existing rules on Step (4) of the M/H phase used when a company returns to their site of origin already prevent resolution of hazards like Alone and Unadvised without preventing resolution of resources. Steps (5) and (6) described by Annotation 25a are different steps.
miguel wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 10:15 am
And what exactly makes you the authority on what ICE would say?
I've read over 4,000 pages of ICE rulings. From doing that I understand the rulings and the logic behind them, how they have been applied, how they changed over time, and how they would be applied, including Annotation 25a. It's not a special ability, it's reading comprehension. You could do it too.

User avatar
miguel
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Alone and Unadvised AND Returning to a site of origin

Post by miguel »

CDavis7M wrote: I've read over 4,000 pages of ICE rulings. From doing that I understand the rulings and the logic behind them, how they have been applied, how they changed over time, and how they would be applied, including Annotation 25a. It's not a special ability, it's reading comprehension. You could do it too.
I'll take your word for reading them, but it is your subjective view that you understand the rulings etc. What if you're actually wrong about that? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect? Your confidence is certainly through the roof! :o

Image
CDavis7M wrote: Arguing that Annotation 25a prevents Gates of Morning from resolving is like arguing that...
CDavis7M wrote: Technically, Annotation 25a would prevent Gates of Morning from resolving.
CDavis7M wrote: Annotation 25a technically doesn't apply to situations where a company returns to it's site of origin.
Well, at least you're consistently inconsistent. :roll:
CDavis7M wrote: If not returned to origin, the character with Alone and Unadvised would make their corruption checks after reconciling hand size as these actions are synonymous with ending the M/H phase (Annotation 25a). Also, the synonymous actions "at the end of his movement/hazard phase" are the passive condition triggering the " corruption check ... for each region he moved through" of Alone and Unadvised. Meaning you could use a corruption-helper card that you drew.
WHAT? Are you for real? The rolls absolutely happen before reconciling hand size. I'll explain in detail a bit further down this post.

And btw, it's common courtesy to clearly state where you are quoting from. It's not sufficient to say "from ICE" simply because you've read 4000+ pages of rulings and think you're the bee's knees. See below how it's done.
ICE Digests (Ichabod) wrote:Character with Alone and Unadvised is sent back to site of Orgin. How many corruption checks would that character make, if any at all?
***** None. They are made at the end of the movement/hazard phase, and at the end of the movement/hazard phase, any company that has been returned to its site of origin has no site path. Therefore he has not travelled through any regions, and makes no checks. And yes, this would apply to Lure of Nature also.
Getting back on the actual topic, I'm going to agree with Ichabod (and disagree with CoE Rulings Digest #63 quoted by Theo earlier in this thread) that there should be an end of the movement/hazard phase even when the company got returned to its site of origin. Well what would that mean, exactly?

Normally during a movement/hazard phase the end of the movement/hazard phase is eventually reached and it can trigger cards like Alone and Unadvised. The first declared actions in the end of the movement/hazard phase chain of effects are reconciling hand sizes and removing the company's site of origin if applicable (they are simultaneous actions, not different steps :roll: ). Then you add stuff from passive conditions just triggered from reaching the end of the movement/hazard phase. Then you can play end of the movement/hazard phase cards etc. Finally you resolve that chain, done.

When the company gets sent back to its site of origin, we have a problem. According to Ichabod there should still be an end of the movement hazard phase, which I think means there should be and end of the movement/hazard phase chain of effects. Clearly we can't have it after the chain where the company gets sent back, since the movement/hazard phase ends immediately. I think it could actually be a nested chain, or a sub-chain if you will, similar to what happens with cards like Smoke on the Wind (you have multiple chains of effects while resolving a single card).

Using the hypothesis above, this is how sending a company back to its site of origin would resolve:
You resolve the chain of effects normally, until you get to the effect sending the company back. Now the first thing you do, is remove the company's new site AND the company is no longer considered a moving company AND it no longer has a site path. Next a nested end of the movement/hazard phase chain of effects is created, with reconciling hand sizes being the first thing declared. Alone and Unadvised doesn't trigger because the company doesn't have a site path anymore. Something else might trigger though and you'd be allowed to play end of the movement/hazard phase cards etc. The nested chain gets resolved and the movement/hazard phase has ended. Now if there's still something unresolved waiting in the main chain, you need to deal with that.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”