I would prefer:
" ... The company may move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech ... "
All other "special movement" cards I know say "company may move".
In my opinion (expressed in 2nd post of this thread) they do not give an option to not to move or moving using other methods.
Rather they restrict a possible new sites to listed (to only Vale of Erech in case of Paths of the Dead).
It is better to use uniform wording for all "special movement" cards and to interpret the wording uniformly that to state "company must move" in one case, which may suggest that in all cases except this one "may move" is an option.
Of course you may not share the opinion expressed in 2nd post of this thread. For this reason I have asked whether "If it does" is intentional.
Paths of the Dead
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Khamul the Easterling
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
I am happy with this, too!Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 8:47 pm I would prefer:
" ... The company may move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech ... "
In my opinion, the word "may" allows an option.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 8:47 pm In my opinion (expressed in 2nd post of this thread) they do not give an option to not to move or moving using other methods.
Some humorous outcomes if may is mandatory:
CRF wrote:Wizard specific Stage Resources may(must) be played with the starting company.
CRF wrote:If an attack can not be cancelled, strikes from the attack may(must) still be cancelled.
And pain to those that can't fulfill this!CRF wrote:Two or more skill cards may(must) be played by a single character outside of the strike sequence."
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
In my opinion, the word "may" allows for something. And it precedes a list of possibilities.
A Lie in Your Eyes does not give not lucrative proposals that may be all rejected by opponent.
If something allows for moving to one of listed sites, the something does not necessarily allows for not moving.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- the JabberwocK
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am
I have to agree with Theo on this. The common use of the word "may" in the English language suggests that something is optional but not mandatory.Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:05 amIn my opinion, the word "may" allows for something. And it precedes a list of possibilities.
A Lie in Your Eyes does not give not lucrative proposals that may be all rejected by opponent.
If something allows for moving to one of listed sites, the something does not necessarily allows for not moving.
Definition by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
I think using the word "must" is a much better option if we want the movement to be mandatory. I also don't think other poorly worded MECCG cards are a good excuse to not use optimal wording on an erratum.A - have the ability to
B - have permission to (used interchangeably with can)
C - used to indicate possibility or probability; sometimes used where might would be expected
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
That is simple:
If a decision is already taken that a company will move, then "may move here or there"
does not give the company the option "it may move", it gives a choice where to move.
"May" does not become "must", but range of possibilities is narrowed due the earlier decision.
If a decision is already taken that a company will move, then "may move here or there"
does not give the company the option "it may move", it gives a choice where to move.
"May" does not become "must", but range of possibilities is narrowed due the earlier decision.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
I don't see an earlier decision though. Are you getting that from "For its movement"? I see this as modifying the movement option, without mandating movement. Another English example:
The statement: "For your graduation, you may have any sandwich on the menu for free." doesn't guarantee/force you to graduate.
The statement: "For your graduation, you may have any sandwich on the menu for free." doesn't guarantee/force you to graduate.
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/
All players are welcome at Meduseld! https://theo-donly.github.io/MECCG/
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I assume that playing any "special movement" card is synonymous with taking decision that a company will move.
No. I was and I am for removing the phrase.
I too.
Especially if you are already graduate.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
I like turning down the possibility of playing Paths of the Dead only to play later Army of Dead (without moving company with Aragorn II from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech).
To avoid such possibility and at the same time to give the company a chance to move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech in next M/H phase, the card need to be reconstructed. It should be alternatively played at the end of M/H phase on company with Aragorn II that moved to Dunharrow.
To avoid such possibility and at the same time to give the company a chance to move from Dunharrow to Vale of Erech in next M/H phase, the card need to be reconstructed. It should be alternatively played at the end of M/H phase on company with Aragorn II that moved to Dunharrow.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
Interestingly, the card did not receive errata. Presumably too much other errata that actually affected mechanics.From: sfr...@comet.net (Scott Frazer)
Subject: Re: [METW] - Paths of the Dead question
Date: 1995/12/28
> The block text of the Paths of the Dead reads: "Playable only at the
>end of the organization phase"; and then the text reads "For its movement,
>a company that starts at the Dunharrow site and contains Aragorn II may
>move to the Vale of Erech site..." ^^^
> The block text doesn't read "Playable only at the end of the
>organization phase on a company at Dunharrow", and the word "may" in the
>text indicates that you might just be able to play out the Paths and let
>them sit there and not use them, but still have them in play. The cards
>that can only be played at certain places are pretty clear about it by
>putting their restriction in the block text at the beginning of the card.
>I think this one is a bit ambiguous.
Talked to Coleman last night... the card will be errata'd to be more in
line with the designer's orignial intent. While the exact wording has yet
to be determined, it will look something like this:
Change the word "may" to "must." Indicate that the card can only be played
on a company at Dunharrow.
- Konrad Klar
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.