Nature's Revenge on Wizardhaven when many of them is in play

[Konrad Klar]

The White Hand: Nature's Revenge
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R3

Hazard: Permanent-event

Playable on a site in a site in that normally is a or a , or a non-protected Wizardhaven [W] in a Wilderness . All versions of the site become and gain an additional automatic-attack: animals - each character faces 1 strike with 7 prowess. Discard when the site is returned to its location deck.

There is no problem when at target there site is a company with Orc and Elf. Such action would cause a violation of company's composition rules and as such is canceled (or fizzled).
If there are two Wizardhaven copies of target site in play, both of the same player, one occupied by Orc, other by Elf, such playing would not cause immediately a violation of company's composition rules. But the violation will happen at the end of companies M/H phase. Companies of the same player at the same non-Haven site must join at the moment.

[Bandobras Took]

That's fine; the note in MELE (p. 57) says:

Similarly, an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled

As soon as the lack of Wizardhaven status would cause such a violation, the effect is cancelled.

[Konrad Klar]

As soon as the lack of Wizardhaven status would cause such a violation, the effect is cancelled.

I.e. Nature's Revenge is discarded?

[Bandobras Took]

No. The effect is merely cancelled. Nature's Revenge remains in play until it would otherwise be discarded. As well, only the changing of site type effect is cancelled. The addition of the automatic attack is not cancelled, as that does not cause a company composition violation.

[Konrad Klar]

What about situation when Fortress of the Towers is played and opponent has company with Orc and Elf at White Towers?
Fortress of the Towers as whole is canceled or only the part "Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven [W] card for The White Towers"?
If latter, permanently canceled or as long as long problematic company is at White Towers?

[Bandobras Took]

It is only canceled so long as the problematic company is at a Wizardhaven version of White Towers, and only the portion which prevents other WIzardhavens is canceled.

That seems the most consistent way to read "an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled." Once the effect no longer causes such a violation, it is no longer cancelled, so long as it is a continuing effect.

[Konrad Klar]

So for now all affected players have protected Wizardhaven White Towers.

[Bandobras Took]

A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.

[Konrad Klar]

A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified.

Effects of the Fortress of the Towers on The White Towers belong to the latter category.
The White Towers is protected.
Otherwise other copies of Fortress of the Towers, even copies of the same player, would not be protected.
Unlike effects of Guarded Haven.
The site is protected.

[Bandobras Took]

The White Towers is protected -- The White Towers on which Fortress was played. Other The White Towers are not protected. Compare with No Strangers At This Time, which specifies it affects *all* versions, or People Diminished, which specifies *any* version.

I believe that the Fortress cards are the only permanent events playable *on* a site to specify the site by name, but that is not to be read as affecting all copies of the site, given that there are permanent events out their with wording that more clearly indicates that intent.

Even the text preventing play of MPs by the opponent, which doesn't actually affect the site, has a more clear indication universal application.

[Konrad Klar]

I believe that the Fortress cards are the only permanent events playable *on* a site to specify the site by name, but that is not to be read as affecting all copies of the site, given that there are permanent events out their with wording that more clearly indicates that intent.

... and no comparative material. Unless to include in picture the cards not played at site and referring the site by name.
Would be the effects the Fortress of the Towers different if the card would be played not on The White Towers?
If Playable on The Wite Towers, would be other copies of The White Towers of the same player protected if The site is protected and not The White Towers is protected?

Even the text preventing play of MPs by the opponent, which doesn't actually affect the site, has a more clear indication universal application.

Even if companies use different site cards of the same site, they all are at the same site. Reference to "that/the/this site" is sufficient to affect companies using other site card for the site.

P.S.

A permanent-event played on a site affects only the copy of the site it is played on, unless otherwise specified. A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.

Is problematic. That gives a power of affecting the sites of opposite alignment, that Long Grievous Siege has and should have, but The White Tree should not have (subjectively).
Long Grievous Siege has nothing to overcome in:

Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is
an exception.

[Bandobras Took]

Would be the effects the Fortress of the Towers different if the card would be played not on The White Towers?

Obviously. You yourself quoted the rule stating that a permanent-event *not* played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.

If Playable on The White Towers, would be other copies of The White Towers of the same player protected if The site is protected and not The White Towers is protected?

No. By rule, without specific wording, Fortress only affects the site it's played on.

Even if companies use different site cards of the same site, they all are at the same site. Reference to "that/the/this site" is sufficient to affect companies using other site card for the site.

Yes. The point is that Fortress went out of its way to specify "Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven card for The White Towers." and "Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases." The text specifies how an opponent is affected in these cases. No similar specification is listed for the protected status, so the default is the rule: a card played on the site only affects the card it is played on.

Is problematic. That gives a power of affecting the sites of opposite alignment, that Long Grievous Siege has and should have, but The White Tree should not have (subjectively).
Long Grievous Siege has nothing to overcome in:

Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is
an exception.

Except for the phrase "All versions of the Border-hold," which explicitly overrides the rule by stating that the effect applies to all versions of the site. Such a phrase is lacking in Fortress concerning the protected status.

[Konrad Klar]

Except for the phrase "All versions of the Border-hold," which explicitly overrides the rule by stating that the effect applies to all versions of the site. Such a phrase is lacking in Fortress concerning the protected status.

Text of Long Grievous Siege has power to overcome:

Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is
an exception.

but there is nothing to overcome, because:

A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.

"All versions of the Border-hold," has the same power as "A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions of affected sites.".

[Bandobras Took]

True. The fact that it's redundant is yet another indication that the lack of such phrasing on Fortress means there's no intention to have it apply to any site other than the one it was played on.

[Konrad Klar]

Indication of opposite:

- where referring to "the site" or The White Towers/Isengard would not make a difference, "the site" is used in original version.

Cards that give Marshaling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases. - original
Cards that give Marshaling points cannot be played at Isengard/The White Towers by your opponent in all cases. - after errata*

Because there are no other permanent-events playable on site of given name that refer to the site by name, there is no comparative material.

*) yes; my fault as author of the erratas; changing what does not require any change.