Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:05 am

Preamble.
CRF wrote:Annotation 25: A company is considered to be at the site given by its site card at all
times except from the moment their new site card is revealed during their movement/
hazard phase until their old site card is discarded during the same movement/hazard
phase. During this period a company is considered to be en-route between sites and
not at any site.
CRF wrote:Removing the site of origin and resetting to hand size are simultaneous actions, and
they are the last actions in any movement/hazard phase. This means a moving
company is not at a site until the site phase. [effective 11/17/97]
CRF lies. Choose first, or choose second.



Whether company that has completed its M/H phases may be returned to its site of origin [SOR] (by discarding of Baduila or by other action), or not, depends in first place on fact that the company actually has, or does on have SOR.

So let look on some consequences of having, or not having a SOR by such company.

Scenario.
Company A (with Orc) is at Bree. Company B (with Elf) is at Framsburg.
Company A moves to Framsburg successfully.
Then company A moves to Minas Tirith and is returned to site of origin - Framsburg - by Snowstorm.
Company B stays.

Set aside problem "when exactly companies must/may join - at the start of site phase, or at the end of all M/H phases?".
CRF wrote:Companies at the same non-Haven/non-Darkhaven site must join at the end of all
movement/hazard phases, before the site phase starts. Companies at the same Haven/
Darkhaven site may join at this time.

If companies would join at the end of the movement/hazard phase such that the
company composition rules are violated, one company of the hazard player's choice
must return to its site of origin.
Company A must be returned to its SOR, but which site is its SOR? It was returned to the SOR by Snowstorm.
It would returned to nowhere (discard pile?), or eventually to Bree.
If returning to Bree would be possible then the SOR mentioned in above rule is SOR that company had, not the SOR that company actually has.

But maybe returning to Bree should not be possible, company A has actual site of origin that is Framsburg and moreover Bree would be occupied by company C (with Dwarf).

So a company that has moved retains its SOR and new site status that are attributes characteristic for moving company.
What about its site path? If it has one and it contains [-me_wi-] what if Snowstorm will come to play in M/H phase of other company?
However maybe such company does not have its former path, but only SOR and new site.
What if such company moves to/from under-deeps and The Way is Shut comes to play in M/H phase of other company?

Because the game is full of abstractional concepts I think that there is solution, that does not require revolution.

"A company that moved in M/H phase is not considered as being at any site and is not considered as a moving company until end of all M/H phases"
or
"A company that moved in M/H phase is not considered as being at any site and is not considered as a moving company until site phase"

Choose first, or choose second.


Unless there are better choices I have question. What is a sense of retaining actual (not historical) status of SOR and new site by not moving company?
Only use that comes to my mind is using Baduila against such company. But it is considered a problem to the such extent that blocking a whole class of otherwise legal actions is considered to avoid it.

At the end some words about "Baduila problem": assuming pesimistically that Baduila may be discarded against companies that had moved, what are a consequences?
Target company has exactly the same possibilities of reaction like moving company. As far I know tapping a ranger with Piercing All Shadows, or with Promptings of Wisdom.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Shapeshifter » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:53 am

I always assumed that the more recent CRF overturns the older one. In your case the second CRF would be the one to use.

I also found this in Rulings Digest #118:
Rulings Digest #118 wrote:(1) Joe Bisz asked "I have a complicated question about getting sent back to one's site of origin: Ex. During my m/h phase, let's say I move a one-character company to a site where I have a 7-character company, although it has been announced that the 7-character company will be leaving the site that turn. A) Is the 1-character company prohibited from completing the move because of company maximum requirements, or not? B) If not, then let's say he gets there, and now I do the m/h phase for the 7-character company, and that company gets hit by Snowstorm or Skin-changers, thus forcing them back to a site that would create an illegal 8-character company. What happens - can a company be effectively judged to be immune to effects that would send it back to its site of origin for the turn? Even if the answer to Question A) is Yes, I'd like to know how to resolve illegal movements that are not in the control of the resource player, but triggered by passive conditions or hazards. C) If the answer to A) is No, what if the seven-character company referred to in B) announces that it's moving to a site that would violate company composition, or that already has a character and thus would violate company size, or simply picks an illegal site in some way-since the company is now prohibited from moving onward and moving backward, what does one do with the company?"

This is actually pretty easy. You don't get sent back to site of origin until the end of all mh-phases, so both companies may try to move. If the big one gets sent back due to snowstorm, then the lone character will also be sent back later. In other words: A) No. B) No, it cannot, at least not in this way. C) If you simply make a mistake and declare movement to an illegal site (e.g., one that is too far away), then your company does not move. It is as if you did not declare a site at all.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:18 pm

Ok, ok... but from where you know which CRF entry is more recent? Is your guess based on position in document (higher offset to the top of document, more recent entry)?

Scenario in Rulings Digest #118 is actually pretty simple (although question is scary). I do not see how it addresses problems discussed in first post of this thread (whether company that moved retains site of origin and new site status, is considered moving, or not moving).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Shapeshifter » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:34 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:Ok, ok... but from where you know which CRF entry is more recent? Is your guess based on position in document (higher offset to the top of document, more recent entry)?

Well, that was a guess because the 2nd CRF was "effective 11/17/97", this lead me to the conclusion that the 1st CRF was effective before that (e.g. is already written in the Wizard's Companion, published in 1996).

Nevertheless, here is what Digest #43 has to say about it:
Rulings Digest #43 wrote:So, according to ancient law (Annotation 25), you're "at" your new site
as soon as you ditch the old site card: "A company is considered to be
at the site given by its site card at all times except from the moment
their new site card is revealed during their movement/hazard phase until
their old site card is discarded during the same movement/hazard phase.
During this period a company is considered to be en route between sites
and not at any site."
But several bullets underneath that (in M/H: General rulings) we have a
contradiction: "Removing the site of origin and resetting to hand size
are simultaneous actions, and they are the last actions in any
movement/hazard phase. This means a moving company is not at a site
until the site phase. [effective 11/17/97]"
*** This isn't a contradiction. The second above quoted ruling is a
clarification of the first. No companies are "at" their sites until the
site phase.

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

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by miguel » Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:03 am

A company is considered a moving company after its intent to move is announced in org phase. However the company's site path is not known (available for Snowstorm etc.) until revealed at the start of that company's move/haz phase. I'd say a moving company's site path is not available outside that company's move/haz phase. They still remain a moving company during other companies' move/haz phases, until the beginning of the site phase.

Baduila needs to target the company, therefore he can only affect the company currently taking its move/haz phase.

The Way is Shut refers to a company moving, which I'd say means a moving company that is currently taking its move/haz phase.

Site of origin / new site status would need to be held until the companies that moved are actually at their new sites (need to check for illegal company joining first), at the beginning of the site phase.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:25 pm

Baduila needs to target the company, therefore he can only affect the company currently taking its move/haz phase.
According to which rule?
A company is considered a moving company after its intent to move is announced in org phase.
The Way is Shut refers to a company moving, which I'd say means a moving company that is currently taking its move/haz phase.
Is company moving refered by The Way is Shut moving in other sense than moving company refered by Snowstorm?
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

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by miguel » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:42 am

Hmm looks like I jumped the gun regarding Baduila, we might need to explore this a bit. The rule I was thinking about doesn't seem affect his ability.
CRF: Turn Sequence Rulings: Movement / Hazard Phase: Playing Hazards wrote:Hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to. Long-events and permanent-events may effect more than one company even though they are only played "on" one company.
I have a suspicion this should be applied to activated hazard effects as well, like Baduila sending someone back, Golodhros influencing char/ally... Are there others?

-------------------------------------------------

Re: Company on the move,

"A moving company" is a game term referring to a company that has announced its intent to move during org phase, up until the time it has arrived to its new site.

"A company moving" is not a game term as such. It describes to a company that is currently taking its move/haz phase and is moving. So there is some overlap with the game term "a moving company" but they are not the same.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:26 pm

So there is some overlap with the game term "a moving company" but they are not the same.
I do not suggest that The Way is Shut affects a companies that annouanced its intent to move in organization phase.
What I say is that both The Way is Shut and Snowstorm affect companies that are in route. Regardless of nomenclature that will be used to distinguish companies that just annouanced its intent to move in organization phase and companies that currently are between site A and site B.
It leads to questions put in first post of this thread: what is state of thing for companies that moved and completed its M/H phase?
a) Are they considered as being on site B, and not in route between A and B?
b) Or not at site B, and still in route between A and B?
c) Or not at site B yet, but also not in route between A nad B?

If (b) then The Way is Shut can affect them. If (b) and they retain its site path also Snowstorm can affect them.
If (c) why they should retain attributes of companies in route? For companies under effect of Great Road it must be remembered at which Haven they started its first M/H phase. And it is enough to know where companies may return at end of turn. The Haven does not need to be accounted in company attributes. Why it would not be enough for companies that moved and completed its M/H phases, to remember which sites was their sites of origin? Must they have actual (current) site of origin (and consequently new site), because otherwise returning them would not be possible? (Even if they are not in route and do not have its site path anymore)?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Strictly speaking, only site of origin (actual, or site of origin that company had) is necessary to know, where company should be returned, if it is required to return it.
I'm not searching for method of disabling a Baduila's returning effect for company that has completed its M/H phase. As I mentioned earlier, I do not consider such effect on such company as something disruptive for game.
Whether it works, or does not work should be side effect of establishment in question of exact status (moving/not-moving, having/not having new site, site of origin, site path) of company that moved.
That establishment should not be tailored to disable, or enable that effect.

P.S.
Thanks to God for this crisis, because otherwise we would not look at some problems closely.
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

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by miguel » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:52 am

Konrad Klar wrote:I do not suggest that The Way is Shut affects a companies that annouanced its intent to move in organization phase.
What I say is that both The Way is Shut and Snowstorm affect companies that are in route. Regardless of nomenclature that will be used to distinguish companies that just annouanced its intent to move in organization phase and companies that currently are between site A and site B.
It leads to questions put in first post of this thread: what is state of thing for companies that moved and completed its M/H phase?
a) Are they considered as being on site B, and not in route between A and B?
b) Or not at site B, and still in route between A and B?
c) Or not at site B yet, but also not in route between A nad B?

If (b) then The Way is Shut can affect them. If (b) and they retain its site path also Snowstorm can affect them.
If (c) why they should retain attributes of companies in route? For companies under effect of Great Road it must be remembered at which Haven they started its first M/H phase. And it is enough to know where companies may return at end of turn. The Haven does not need to be accounted in company attributes. Why it would not be enough for companies that moved and completed its M/H phases, to remember which sites was their sites of origin? Must they have actual (current) site of origin (and consequently new site), because otherwise returning them would not be possible? (Even if they are not in route and do not have its site path anymore)?
My previous entry applies, the answer would be c). This is based on your definition of "a company en route" which is not necessarily the same as the one used in the CRF entry.

For your follow-up questions, I think you might be on to something. I thought actually having a site of origin would be necessary in order to be sent back due to company composition rules violation, but perhaps the game is able to retrieve that information when needed. So a company that has already moved during its own move/haz phase no longer has a site of origin? I think I would still call the site they moved to their new site, since they are not yet at the site, and the term "current site" seems synonymous with actually being at the site..? And I guess they'd still be a moving company (definition in my previous post) since they are not at the site. For comparison, a look at this company in different stages:
  • Org phase: The company is considered a moving company, the company has a current site, the company has a face-down new site, the company has no site of origin.

    Company's move/haz phase: The company is considered a moving company, the company has no current site, the company has a face-up new site, the company has a site of origin.

    After company's move/haz phase, before site phase: The company is considered a moving company, the company has no current site, the company has a face-up new site, the company has no site of origin.

    Site phase: The company is not a moving company, the company has a current site, the company does not have a new site / site of origin.
A company's site path would only exist when the company has both a new site and a site of origin, meaning that company's move/haz phase.

Does that make sense? :|

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:23 pm

Does that make sense? :|
I think that it is understandable.
My question: what is a sense of some definition if there are no consequences of falling under the definition?
In org. phase a company B is considered moving. If company A takes its M/H phase before B, A is still considered moving; in long-event phase too. Right?
Are there cards/effects that that could affect, or not affect B for this reason?

Consider a company B with Leaflock that deaclares its movement from Wellinghall to Goblin-Gate (site already in play). Should Leaflock be discarded as soon as company declares its movement, or should Leaflock be discraded at the start of M/H phase of company B?
Is "moving company" in org. phase equal to "moving company" in M/H phase?
After company's move/haz phase, before site phase: The company is considered a moving company, the company has no current site, the company has a face-up new site, the company has no site of origin.
What are reasons of losing a site of origin, and (at the same time) retaining new site status?
Is that statement constructed only in order to justify another:
A company's site path would only exist when the company has both a new site and a site of origin, meaning that company's move/haz phase.
?
And what about companies ather their M/H phase if The Way is Shut is in play (whether information about former site of origin is retrieved when needed, or site of origin is accounted in actual company status) ?
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

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by miguel » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:09 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:My question: what is a sense of some definition if there are no consequences of falling under the definition?
In org. phase a company B is considered moving. If company A takes its M/H phase before B, A is still considered moving; in long-event phase too. Right?
Are there cards/effects that that could affect, or not affect B for this reason?
Just because there aren't cards affecting every possible situation and the game is out of print, it doesn't mean those situations should not exist for thematic/logical consistency's sake. Of course it doesn't matter at all from the game's technical point of view. For example, if there are no cards to ever affect a moving company during long-event phase, then those companies might as well not be considered moving companies during long-event phase. But if they are considered moving companies right before and right after, you might as well call them moving companies during that long-event phase when it has zero consequences but simply makes sense. There really need not be a ruling about this because it doesn't matter either way, but conceptualizing things like this can help us better understand broader frameworks in the game.
Konrad Klar wrote:Consider a company B with Leaflock that deaclares its movement from Wellinghall to Goblin-Gate (site already in play). Should Leaflock be discarded as soon as company declares its movement, or should Leaflock be discraded at the start of M/H phase of company B?
Is "moving company" in org. phase equal to "moving company" in M/H phase?
You seem to be still missing the point of my previous post regarding "a moving company" vs. "a company moving". Leaflock gets discarded in the case of "a company moving" only. That means a moving company during its own move/haz phase. A company referred to as "a moving company" is not necessarily always moving; it can be preparing to move, moving, or has moved already. (Last one is my definition: because the company is not at their new site yet, they are still a moving company.)
Konrad Klar wrote:What are reasons of losing a site of origin, and (at the same time) retaining new site status?
Is that statement constructed only in order to justify another:
A company's site path would only exist when the company has both a new site and a site of origin, meaning that company's move/haz phase.
?
I already stated that the use of the term "current site" implies the company is at the site, which at that point it is not. What else would you call that site, the formerly-new-not-quite-yet-current-site? Site of origin is lost because it is only present during that company's move haz phase, it (usually) gets discarded or goes in the location deck as the company finishes its travel to the new site. Even if the site of origin stays on the table for some reason, it makes sense the company loses its connection with it once the company has moved.

And no, I didn't create that statement to justify another, the site path was merely an afterthought. For the record, I don't appreciate the implication.
Konrad Klar wrote:And what about companies ather their M/H phase if The Way is Shut is in play (whether information about former site of origin is retrieved when needed, or site of origin is accounted in actual company status) ?
I refer to my answer regarding Leaflock. For this discussion to move forward, you need to accept (or prove me wrong) what I have already said about The Way is Shut, and why it affects only a moving company during that company's move/haz phase.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:56 pm

You seem to be still missing the point of my previous post regarding "a moving company" vs. "a company moving". Leaflock gets discarded in the case of "a company moving" only.
Yes. I have missed a point. Or never got it.
I do not understand why company that moved should not be affected by The Way is Shut (because it is "moving company", but not "company moving", right?) but should discard Palantir of Osgiliath if their number of characters decreased to 3 in M/H phase of other company.

Either we are trying to establish when company is considered as traveling ("en route") between site A and site B, and when is not.
Or we are trying to separate terms "moving company" from "company moving". Where first term has impact on game comparable to impact of Olog-hai. Troll present always in conjunction has real impact. "Company moving" is affected by The Way is Shut, but not "moving company" that however may be forced to discard palantir, and would be returned by Snowstorm, but fortunately new statement comes with succour:
"A company's site path would only exist when the company has both a new site and a site of origin, meaning that company's move/haz phase."

I believe that new version (or additional statement) may protect a "moving company" from discarding palantir and at the same can sustain existence the two terms as non-identical.
Point?
I already stated that the use of the term "current site" implies the company is at the site, which at that point it is not. What else would you call that site, the formerly-new-not-quite-yet-current-site?
Either "new site" (actual), or "former new site"; either company that moved has it actually, or does not have it (had it in its history, like it would had face attack of some type - does not face it currently, but some things still depend on it).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:36 pm

Please note that movement may also happen outside of M/H phase (Ancient Stairs, Bill The Pony, Great-road).
Regardless of choosen nomenclature (moving company, company moving, etc.), rulings, rules, and definitions should be usable in such situations and their consequences should be consistent with consequences during M/H phases.
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

Re: Baduila, Golodhros and returning to site of origin

Post by miguel » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:29 am

Konrad Klar wrote:I do not understand why company that moved should not be affected by The Way is Shut (because it is "moving company", but not "company moving", right?) but should discard Palantir of Osgiliath if their number of characters decreased to 3 in M/H phase of other company.
But based on what I've written so far that is incorrect. The palantir would not get discarded during another company's move/haz phase. I will try to explain my view once more below.

It's unfortunate ICE used such sloppy wordings, and the matter was further confused by the latest CRF entry quoted in the opening post. For clarity's sake, let's assume the following:
  • (i) Forget about the game term "a moving company". A company that has announced its intention to move during org phase is not a moving company. Instead, it's a company that has declared movement, and all cards playable on such companies should refer to them like that (playable on a company that has declared movement).

    (ii) A company that has declared movement during org phase, becomes a moving company at the beginning of its own move/haz phase. Here "a moving company", "a company moving", "a company en route" etc. are all synonyms. Once that company ends its own move/haz phase, it seizes to be a moving company. Such a company may still be returned to its site of origin due to company composition rules violations.

    (iii) When a company moves without a move/haz phase using cards like Great-road, the company is considered a moving company.
And regarding what to call the company's new site after their move/haz phase, but before actually being at the site, I would still just call it that company's new site until the beginning of site phase. After all, the company, while not considered a moving company anymore, hasn't fully arrived to the site quite yet.

Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”