Caverns Unchoked

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

The Balrog: Caverns Unchoked
Rarity: Uncommon, Precise: U2

Resource: Permanent-event

Balrog specific. Playable on an Under-deeps site during the organization phase. This site is never discarded or returned to its location deck. Each other site (of yours) in the same region as its surface site is considered adjacent to this Under-deeps site. This only applies if the other site is normally a [-me_sh-] , [-me_rl-] , or [-me_bh-] . "Or released it from prison..."-LotR
I propose the following erratum:

"Balrog specific. Playable on an Under-deeps site during the organization phase. This site is never discarded or returned to its location deck. Each other site (of yours) in the same region as its surface site is considered adjacent to this Under-deeps site and is its additional surface site. The movement number required to move between the sites and target site is (0). This only applies if the other site is normally a [-me_sh-] , [-me_rl-] , or [-me_bh-] . "Or released it from prison..."-LotR"

Changes in bold.

Rationale:

1.
Dark Minions wrote:Unlike other sites, each Under-deeps site is not considered to be in a region—instead
it is located below another site, called the Under-deeps site’s surface site.
This is not even a definition of surface site. Someone may rightly argue that even if that or another non-Under-Deeps site is adjacent to other Under-Deeps site, the latter is not necessarily located "below" former.

2.
Even if the movement number required to move between some sites is "0", a roll required to beat the number should be performed. After all the roll may be modified. Characters perform a corruption checks even if they have zero of corruption points.
Besides there must be a time for effects like The Reach of Ulmo.

Related threads:
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =16&t=1201
https://councilofelrond.org/forum/viewt ... =16&t=4037

EDIT:
The movement number required to move between the sites is (0).
to
The movement number required to move between the sites and target site is (0).
Last edited by Konrad Klar on Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

Did you catch The Mouth or Rumours yet?
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:11 pm Did you catch The Mouth or Rumours yet?
Idiom?

What is the sense of creating not passable connection between e.g. The Iron-deeps and Zarak Dûm?
Or how to move company between The Iron-deeps and Zarak Dûm if latter is not surface site of former and there is no movement number required to roll to move between the sites?
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:41 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:11 pm Did you catch The Mouth or Rumours yet?
Idiom?

What is the sense of creating not passable connection between e.g. The Iron-deeps and Zarak Dûm?
Or how to move company between The Iron-deeps and Zarak Dûm if latter is not surface site of former and there is no movement number required to roll to move between the sites?
No, I mean, those 2 cards suffer from a similar deficiency as here -- the effect doesn't strictly work according to the rules. But given that the effect should be able to do what it says, it must inherently solve any issues with the rules.

----------

By the way, the number to roll against is missing from the effect. That does not imply that the roll is (0). 0 seems natural, but this would be adding something to the card that cannot be known. We do not know whether the Designer intended for movement to be successful if the roll is greater than 0, or 1, or 2, or whatever. And it certainly doesn't suggest that the adjacent site becomes a surface site. Instead the lack of any description of how to deal with the roll indicates that the roll does not matter -- no roll is needed. Of course, Reach of Ulmo doesn't apply to this situation. Though DC cards might apply.

The default idea shouldn't be to guess what the Designers might have done and add additional features (becomes a surface site also) and additional restrictions (the number to roll against is 0). Instead, a card effect that would never work under the rules should be interpreted to work according to it's purpose and no more. The purpose of making a site "adjacent" is to allow movement. Since adjacent sites require a roll against a number but no number is given, then no roll must be needed.
Caverns Uncohked wrote:Each other site (of yours) in the same region as its surface site is considered adjacent to this Under-deeps site (no roll is needed).
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:00 pm No, I mean, those 2 cards suffer from a similar deficiency as here -- the effect doesn't strictly work according to the rules. But given that the effect should be able to do what it says, it must inherently solve any issues with the rules.
Not sure what issues you are seeing in The Mouth or Rumours.

Do you mean that instead creating errata for Caverns Unchoked, I (or someone else) should redefine the term Surface Site, and/or whether the movement roll should be performed even if the movement is between Surface Site and Under-Deeps site?

I do not know the ideas of Designers. I may try to guess them, reconstruct them, and propose a solution that gives an answer how to proceed game in some situation, if it was unclear before and existing card texts/rules do not give such answer.
(Hopefully without breaking the things that already are working and compatible with potential future additions)
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:28 am Not sure what issues you are seeing in The Mouth or Rumours.
Mouth of Sauron cannot be played. Rumours doesn't say "each" organization phase or provide any mechanism for adding a second card.
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:28 am Do you mean that instead creating errata for Caverns Unchoked, I (or someone else) should redefine the term Surface Site, and/or whether the movement roll should be performed even if the movement is between Surface Site and Under-Deeps site?
Nope.
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:28 am I do not know the ideas of Designers. I may try to guess them, reconstruct them, and propose a solution that gives an answer how to proceed game in some situation, if it was unclear before and existing card texts/rules do not give such answer.
(Hopefully without breaking the things that already are working and compatible with potential future additions)
This is exactly my point. We do not know the various ideas of the Designers so we should not try to guess at whether they intended for "adjacent site" to be "surface site" or whether they intended for the roll to be against 0, or 1, or 2, or whatever.

The only thing we know is that there is a card effect that can only be used if there is a number to roll against and that the Designer did not include the number. Regardless of what the Designer might have chosen, it's clear that the roll doesn't matter. If the roll mattered, the Designer would have included it, they would not have forgotten about it.

So I would not propose to change how a card works to suggest things the Designer didn't say. I just accept that the card effect must work and that any requirements of the rules preventing the effect from doing what it says doesn't actually matter.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:24 pm The only thing we know is that there is a card effect that can only be used if there is a number to roll against and that the Designer did not include the number. Regardless of what the Designer might have chosen, it's clear that the roll doesn't matter. If the roll mattered, the Designer would have included it, they would not have forgotten about it.
I think that Designers have created a framework but Caverns Unchoked (some elements of it) does not fit the frames if read literally.
Other historical examples are some character/ally cards from White Hand without specified mind value, leaving only placeholder.
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:24 pm Mouth of Sauron cannot be played. Rumours doesn't say "each" organization phase or provide any mechanism for adding a second card.
At least Mouth of Sauron is worth starting separate tread.
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

Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:38 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:24 pm The only thing we know is that there is a card effect that can only be used if there is a number to roll against and that the Designer did not include the number. Regardless of what the Designer might have chosen, it's clear that the roll doesn't matter. If the roll mattered, the Designer would have included it, they would not have forgotten about it.
I think that Designers have created a framework but Caverns Unchoked (some elements of it) does not fit the frames if read literally.
Other historical examples are some character/ally cards from White Hand without specified mind value, leaving only placeholder.
The missing mind in White Hand was a print error (all of the missing minds were the same value), not a historical example where the "Designers have created a framework but ______ does not fit the frames if read literally."
ICE wrote:>Hi there. Just a quick White Hand question.
>On my copies of Radagast's Black Bird, Squint-Eyed Southerner and
>Ill-favoured felow
>no # is given for the character's/ally's mind attribute. I had assumed
>this to be 0 but on the spoiler list a # is given for the mind
>attribute. What's the story?

There was a problem with the font at the printers, and all of the 2
minds came out as black heads.
--------
Konrad Klar wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 7:38 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:24 pm Mouth of Sauron cannot be played. Rumours doesn't say "each" organization phase or provide any mechanism for adding a second card.
At least Mouth of Sauron is worth starting separate tread.
It's not. The effect does what it says.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:08 am The missing mind in White Hand was a print error (all of the missing minds were the same value), not a historical example where the "Designers have created a framework but ______ does not fit the frames if read literally."
By my knowledge. Materials are sent to print factory. Printing press is agnostic to senses other than matrices, paper, ink.

For some reasons, all Under-Deeps site cards released before MEBA specify movement roll for first adjacent site (Deep Mines too) and have set its value to "0".
CDavis7M wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:08 am It's not. The effect does what it says.
Then I am glad, that I did not catch The Mouth or Rumours yet.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”