Long Grievous Siege and WizHaven Bree

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Long Grievous Siege and WizHaven Bree

Post by miguel » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:30 am

Marcos has asked me: What if bree is mischiefed and guarded, some half orcs/ greater half orcs are played there, and then opponent plays Long grievous siege on his bree? Since now such factions are playable at bree, are they bounced by LGS?
Long Grievous Siege wrote:Playable on a unique non-Dragon faction. Place a Border-hold from your location deck "off to the side" with this card. The Border-hold must be in the same region or adjacent thereto as a site where the target faction is playable. Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand. -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold. All versions of the Border-hold gain an additional automatic-attack: same type as your target faction 5 strikes with 9 prowess (detainment against your companies). Cannot be duplicated on your faction.
CoE Digest #120 regarding Long Grievous Siege wrote:13) Additional: When I use a Borderhold then also the following faction are discarded because these faction are playable at a Borderhold:

A Panoply pf Wings (when the Borderhold is in a Wilderness)
Beasts of the Wood (when the Borderhold is in Woodland Realm, Western Mirkwood, Heart of Mirkwood, Southern Mirkwood, Fangorn, or Cardolan)
WILD HORSES (when the Borderhold is in Rohan, Southern Rhovanion, Khand, Dorwinion, Horse Plains, or Harondor)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s correct
CoE Digest #107 wrote:My minion opponent plays Long Grievous Siege on his border-hold, Bree. LGS reads "-5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the border-hold." I move to my hero version of Bree, play Mischief in a Mean Way to turn it into a haven and a Fallen-wizard site, and attempt to play the Rangers. 2a) Does LGS still give me a -5 to playing the Rangers? Or no, because it is no longer a border-hold?

*** There is no text on LGS that nullifies the effects of the card if the site type changes. It was played successfully on a border-hold, so its effects stay in play.
I'm inclined to say the orc factions will bounce. Thoughts?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:55 pm

"Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand. -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold. All versions of the Border-hold gain an additional automatic-attack: same type as your target faction 5 strikes with 9 prowess (detainment against your companies)."

In example provided by Marcos a different factions are playable at copy of Bree used by FW player and at copy used by player that plays LGS. Only factions playable by name at Bree (i.e. Rangers of The North) are playable at both versions.

(Rhetorical) question: if opponent of LGS player has no its copy of Bree in play is "Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand." not effective?
If think it is still effective, because resources are playable or not playable at given site, even if the site is not in play (Trouble at All Borders rely on that).

Because text of LGS is not "Return any faction playable at any versions of the Border-hold to its owner's hand." the card used with LGS is base of reference. If at resolution of LGS Arthedain is (as normal) wilderness then Rangers of The North and A Panoply of Wings should be returned to its players hand. If at resolution of LGS Arthedain is not wilderness then only Rangers of The North should be returned.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:44 pm

Ok, so in the same scenario would Marcos get a -5 modification to his rolls vs. orc factions after LGS is already in play?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:00 pm

Yes.
"-5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold."
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:32 pm

Addendum:

Even without "at any version" in "-5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold." Marcos would get a -5 modification to his rolls vs. orc factions after LGS is already in play. Because:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Site wrote:A permanent-event not played on a site affects all versions
of affected sites.
LGS is not played on site.
However without "at any version" only minion versions of Border-Hold would be affected (there is no FW version of BH).
CRF, Rulings by Term, Site wrote:Hero events cannot target or affect minion sites, and vice versa. News of the Shire is an exception.


Both rules are not applicable to the:
"Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand."
This action does not affect the site at all. It does not change a playability of factions on that site. It only affects the factions playable at site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:10 pm

The thing with terms like "at the Border-hold", "at any version of the Border-hold" and "all versions of the Border-hold" is that they're not clearly defined.

According to the quote from CoE Digest #107 it doesn't matter that LGS mentions "Border-hold" instead of "site", it still affects any site with the same name. So let's assume that "Border-hold" could just as well be read as "site". Some examples of the terms:
Spies Feared wrote:Scout or Ranger only. Playable on a Shadow-hold if one of your scouts is there or on a Ruins & Lairs if one of your rangers is there. An automatic-attack is created at the site against minion companies: Orcs - 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment). Additionally, automatic-attacks at the site are duplicated (including the new one) against all companies. Discard when site is discarded or returned to your location deck.
Here "at the site" refers to all sites with the same name.
Vile Fumes wrote:Technology. Playable at a tapped or untapped Shadow-hold, Dark-hold, or a site with a Dwarf automatic-attack. Discard during the site phase at a Border- hold or Shadow-hold to make all versions of the site Ruins & Lairs. Its normal automatic-attacks are replaced with: Gas - each character faces 1 strike with 7 prowess (cannot be canceled). Keep Vile Fumes with the site until the site is discarded or returned to its location deck.
Here "all versions of the site" also refers to all sites with the same name.
Guarded Haven wrote:Playable on one of your Wizardhavens other than Isengard, The White Towers, or Rhosgobel. The site is protected. Cards that give marshalling points are not playable at the site by your opponent in all cases. A company moving to or from this site is not considered to be moving through the region containing the site (including one less of its region type in their site path). Cannot be duplicated on a given site.
And here "at the site" again refers to all the sites with the same name.

The difference in terms seems very vague, if it even exists.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:25 pm

Both Spies Feared and Guarded Haven was discussed in appropriate threads at forum but as (supposedly) examples of bad wording. Especially Spies Feared would be totally useless according to the CRF rules quoted above.

If it comes to the Guarded Haven: use of of phrase "are not playable at the site by your opponent" is doubtful. If it actually would mean "not playable" and not "cannot be played" then opponent's company of Guarded Haven's player (played on Old Forest) would not be attacked by Tom Bombadil (associated with Come At Need). For opponent Tom Bombadil would not be playable at Old Forest.
It is also doubtful whether characters may be considered as playable at given site (where e.g. Aragorn II is normally playable?).
However:
CRF, Rulings by Term, Wizardhaven wrote:If you are influencing against your opponent, and he is at a Wizardhaven where you
can not play cards that give MPs, you can reveal the card you are influencing against to reduce the number you roll against to 0, but you may not play that card afterwards
(if it gives MPs).
That would suggest that "cannot be played" instead "not playable" should be used here.
Characters and resources generally may be played by opponent's company at the same site (as your site). It is not imprecise phrase.

Are you suggesting that LGS is another example of imprecise wording and should be extended to "Return any faction playable at any versions of the Border-hold to its owner's hand." Why?

---
References to the discussions:
Guarded Haven:
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=542
Spies Feared:
http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... php?t=1077
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:38 pm

If we go with the narrow interpretation, then wouldn't LGS bounce only the factions actually playable at the minion site?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:03 pm

What means "actually playable"?
Playable and can be played?
Rules does not know distinction between "playable" and "actually playable".
That is strict (narrow) interpretation of playability.
Hero ally with Come At Need attacking company that moves to minion site is example.

Actually nothing may be played (or nothing is "actually playable") at copy of Border-Hold associated with LGS.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:33 pm

Once again: what is wrong with such interpretation that need
"Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand."
to be extended to
"Return any faction playable at any versions of the Border-hold to its owner's hand."?

Are that thematical reasons? I'm afraidt hat even "extended" version of LGS would not be "thematically correct".
Is A Panoply of Wings playable at one of versions of Bree?
Yes.
Does it mean that it must be a copy actually played at Bree (that thematically is under siege) and not somewhere else?

If one of versions of Bree is protected Wizardhaven does it mean that Half-Orcs returned to hand must be the Half-Orcs played at Bree too?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:59 am

I was not suggesting "actually playable" is a game term. I was referring to the factions normally playable at the minion border-hold associated with LGS. To be clear, that would not include Panoply of Wings because it needs a hero site.
  • (a) Return any faction playable at the Border-hold to its owner's hand.
    A narrow interpretation would include only minion factions (and hero factions playable as minion resources) normally playable at the minion border-hold in question. A wide interpretation would include factions playable at any version of the border-hold in question. According to Digest #120 we are to use the wide interpretation.

    (b) -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold.
    This to me seems synonymous with the wide interpretation mentioned above. According to Digest #107 this includes not only all versions of the border-hold, but all versions with the same name that exist (regardless of their site type).
I don't see why (a) and (b) should be treated differently. And if they are in fact treated the same, then both apply to the orc factions given in Marcos' example.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:32 am

To be clear, that would not include Panoply of Wings because it needs a hero site.
I strongly disagree here. I don't mind to refer to the Come At Need once again. Trouble On All Borders does not need the site in play at all to determine of playability of the faction in given regions (Moria does not need be in play at all, if ToAB is played on Orcs of Moria any company moving through Redhorn Gate or adjecent regions is attacked).

Difference between (a) and (b):
(a) does not affect a site. Facions playable at Border Hold are returned to hand. For this action site where factions are playable even does not need be in play.
(b) gives site ability -5 malus to influence attempt against a faction played at that site (please note "played", not "playable"). To be played at the site faction obviously need the site.
And if they are in fact treated the same, then both apply to the orc factions given in Marcos' example.
Are not treated in the same way in may opinion. It is just the point that I'm trying to make. Fact that something happens to the resources playable at site does not mean that it affects the site. (b) however happens as result of new ability of site that LGS add to the site (this ability is equivalent of "Special: -5 to any attempt to play a faction at any version of the Border-hold" in site card text. It is similar to the ability that Tower Rided adds to the sites [no factions are playable there]).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:36 am

Ok, using Come at Need I think I've come up with a good analogy to support what you're saying.
Come at Need wrote:Playable if you have an ally in your hand. When this card is played, place one ally from your hand "off to the side" with it (the ally gives no marshalling points). The ally must be able to be attacked. If an opponent's company moves to a site where the ally is playable, it faces a single-strike attack (with no type) with the attributes of the ally, except the prowess is increased by 7. The attack is detainment if the ally and the company are both minion or both hero; and this card is discarded afterwards. If defeated, discard this card and place the ally in your opponent's marshalling point pile - he receives the ally's marshalling points as kill points. You may return the ally to your hand and discard this card during your organization phase.
Let's say I'm hero and my opponent is minion. I play Come at Need and place a Noble Hound (playable at any border-hold) with it.
  • Scenario 1: Opponent moves to minion Bree. Noble hound is considered playable and attacks.

    Scenario 2: My company is at Weathertop which I've turned into a border-hold using Rebuild the Town. Opponent moves to his Weathertop. Noble Hound doesn't attack because Come at Need refers to only the site my opponent is using and not all versions of it.
Similarly the faction-bouncing of Long Grievous Siege refers to only the exact site card placed with it and not any other versions with the same name that may be in play.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:24 pm

I agree. :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”