how much on-guard cards can be revealed at 1 site?

[dirhaval]

This is quite fascinating.

I remember that the purpose of on-guard was a mechanism to help with card draw. That then is my starting point
of on-guard.

First, I hold that on-guard is only playable on the company's new site and the rule in the book is vague at best but
should say one card per new site per phase not four cards on a single site if four companies are in play
unless all move to that same site. If that is wrong, and allowing multiple cards on-guard per phase
then is a hyper desire of MECCG to draw cards that went beyond me like a fell beast faster than the wind.

About multiple movement/hazards phases of a company using resource such as Master of Esgaroth.
I think that the phases after the first redials the movement/hazard phase including the hazard limit.
The company size though is fixed at the end of the Organization phase.

For example, one company with size four. Starts m/h phase. Moves to a new site.
HL is four. One on-guard can be played on the new site. A character is removed from the company.
Resource player plays a move helper (e.g. Master of Esgaroth).
New site becomes old site; company size is four. HL is still four.
Opponent is allowed to play one card on-guard on this second new site.

And during the site phase all on-guard cards can be revealed.

[Bandobras Took]

This is quite fascinating.

I remember that the purpose of on-guard was a mechanism to help with card draw. That then is my starting point
of on-guard.

That was not its purpose. It was a mechanism to use the hazard limit to create an unknown threat at a site, whether it be a bluff or not.

Skilled players realized they could use this mechanism for extra card draw, just as they realized that they could use Long Winter et al. for card draw with their own companies they wished to remain at their current site (this (ab)use is why ICE errataed bouncing to happen instantly and prevent the site phase for the company in question, making bouncing far stronger than it should have been against companies validly trying to move).

The rule in the book is not vague. The number of on-guard cards you may play during your opponent's movement/hazard phase is equal to the number of his companies.

I agree that a number of on-guards equal to the number of companies per company's movement/hazard phase is ridiculous and would be broken, and am therefore very glad that the rules do not say this. We are left, however, with what they do say, and that has nothing to do with "per new site."

If the game would be better if the rules did say that, it will be necessary for the CoE to issue an erratum.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

The rule in the book is not vague.

It might have been hastily (sloppily) written though (even more than the other rulebooks )

that's a constant one observes when reading the rules (and cards) of the later sets, which undermines somewhat the principle of last addition takes precedence.

If the on-guard rule in both metw/mele was not formulated that way, what is the rationale for changing it in MEBA? An underpaid intern in the bankrupt ICE organization incorrectly copy/pasted it?...

[Bandobras Took]

That is nevertheless the reason why we are not allowed to influence an avatar's follower or ally.

It is also why we can reveal on-guard cards at tapped sites.

Also, the rule I was referring to as not vague (that on-guards are per opponent's m/h phase rather than per company's) has appeared this way in METW Rules, MELE Rules, and the MEBA turn summary.

The thing that the MEBA rules might overturn is when the hazard limit is set; METD/MELE places it during the m/h phase, while the Balrog rules place it at the end of the organization phase (this seems deliberate, as the hazard limit is discussed during the "organization phase" portion of those rules, but this point is indeed arguable).

[Logain]

This is quite fascinating.

I remember that the purpose of on-guard was a mechanism to help with card draw. That then is my starting point of on-guard.

What you remember is quite fascinating ^^.

Yes, the real reason of that rule is to create a threat or bluff, and it looks like designers didn't anticipate players would use it to optimize card draw.
Most inexperienced players don't play on guard cards...

Rules are quite clear you can play one on-guard card on each company, so several are possible.

Designers didn't anticipate Master of Esgaroth either for HL calculation or on what to do with the on guard card on site of origin that was first destination.

Ice's 2d edition project simply discarded the on guard rule and made you choose destination and calculate HL at start of a company's move phase...

[bosquet]

That is nevertheless the reason why we are not allowed to influence an avatar's follower or ally.

Sorry,... aren't we?

[Theo]

Responding in the other resurrected thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2583

[CDavis7M]

What a funny thread. ICE already ruled on all these points.

You can place an On Guard card for each M/H phase, meaning several on guard cards per company if the company moves several times using effects.

You can reveal multiple on guard cards if multiple companies move to the same site.

You can only play hazards on the company that is currently taking their M/H phase.

You can also reveal on-guard cards at a tapped site. "The card will remain on that site until one of the following occurs: The company plays a card that potentially taps the site." It is the potential of the card to tap the site, not the potential of the site to be tapped. Meaning, that if War-wolf is played at a tapped site, an on-guard card could be revealed in response. This is because War-wolf has the potential to tap the site (whether or not the site is already tapped). An on-guard card could not be revealed in response to the play of High Helm because High Helm has no potential to tap the site. It is clear that this is how revealing on-guard cards works under the "New" on-guard rules because ICE stated that the new on-guard rules are LESS RESTRICTIVE than the old on guard rules. It's clear from the old on-guard rules did revealing an on-guard card could happen at a tapped site.

[Bandobras Took]

That is nevertheless the reason why we are not allowed to influence an avatar's follower or ally.

Sorry,... aren't we?

The Balrog Rules Summary, a copy of which can be found here.