Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:57 am

I recently encountered a rule situation I was not aware of while playing. I have always used region movement (and only region movement) in my games, unless forced to use Starter Movement (ie. moving a Ringwraith company).

I had planned to move 2 separate companies to the same non-Haven site during my M/H phase and then have them join into one company. Neither company began the turn at a Haven. My opponent informed me that I could not do this and quoted the following from The Wizards rule book:
Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site
During the organization phase, two companies may move to the same site, but one of the following cases must apply:
• One and only one company may already be at the site. In this case the other company must state that its new site card is already in play
(the current site card for the non-moving company).
• One company moves to the site using the site path on that site card (i.e., the company starts at the site’s nearest Haven), and the other
company moves to the site using region cards for its site path. In this case, both companies must state that the same face down site card is
their new site card.
Has this rule been changed or updated at any point? Any insight into why this rule exists and 2 companies can't use region movement to travel to the same site?

The CRF states:
Rules Erratum: When a company splits, any of the resulting companies can move with region movement. Region movement is not limited to one company of a split.
and
If both players have access to region movement, then neither player may be stopped from using region movement. Access includes region cards or an appropriate map.
I believe these excerpts from the CRF support allowing 2 companies to move, both using region movement, and join at a non-Haven site.

Thoughts?

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:50 am

In my opinion Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site imposes a limitations (how many companies may be already at the site, how may companies may move to the site using starter movement) not requirements.
Otherwise it would not be possible at all to join companies at a Non-Haven Site without a company already at the site (and would make FW or Balrog players especially unlucky) .
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:39 pm

Use the following (non-bulleted) rules from MELE.
MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE
During the organization phase, two or more companies may move to the same non-Darkhaven site, but one of the following cases must apply:
· One company may already be at the site. In this case the other company moving to the site must state that its new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company). This site card remains in play until at least the end of the turn.
· Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.
MELE Rules, Using MELE with METW wrote:Should a discrepancy arise between an aspect of the MELE and the METW rules, the MELE rules takes precedence as they were written with refinements in language and organization.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:16 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:50 am
In my opinion Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site imposes a limitations (how many companies may be already at the site, how may companies may move to the site using starter movement) not requirements.
Otherwise it would not be possible at all to join companies at a Non-Haven Site without a company already at the site (and would make FW or Balrog players especially unlucky) .
Well I am certainly in agreement with you that 2 companies SHOULD be able to move to the same non-Haven site using region movement. However, I don't think your interpretation of a limitation (and not a requirement) works well with this passage:
One company moves to the site using the site path on that site card (i.e., the company starts at the site’s nearest Haven), and the other
company moves to the site using region cards for its site path. In this case, both companies must state that the same face down site card is
their new site card.
This statement is unambiguous. If ICE intended it to be a limitation as you say, why wouldn't they just state "One and only one company may use Starter movement" similar to how they worded the previous passage? Thankfully, all is cleared up with the Lidless Eye rules that Bandobras quoted.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:50 am
Otherwise it would not be possible at all to join companies at a Non-Haven Site without a company already at the site (and would make FW or Balrog players especially unlucky) .
Why would this not be possible? If you had one company at Barrow Downs and one company at Lorien, what would prevent the company at Lorien from using Starter Movement to move to Moria and the company at Barrow Downs from using Region Movement to move to Moria?

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:16 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:39 pm
Use the following (non-bulleted) rules from MELE.
MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE
During the organization phase, two or more companies may move to the same non-Darkhaven site, but one of the following cases must apply:
· One company may already be at the site. In this case the other company moving to the site must state that its new site card is already in play (the current site card for the non-moving company). This site card remains in play until at least the end of the turn.
· Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.
MELE Rules, Using MELE with METW wrote:Should a discrepancy arise between an aspect of the MELE and the METW rules, the MELE rules takes precedence as they were written with refinements in language and organization.
Thanks Bandobras! Just what I was looking for! :D

dirhaval
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by dirhaval » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:41 am

Great use of logic and mastery of the rules. I think METW had its rules
so that the trouble of using the same face-down site card brought issues of fairness.
There could be three companies moving and one squatting. So only two face-down
cards are used. The player can be sly and change his mind on which site to visit
based on the results of prior movements. But seems over fetched now reading that.

Maybe ICE wanted to keep it simple, which is seen in starter movement-only playing.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:28 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:16 am
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:50 am
In my opinion Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site imposes a limitations (how many companies may be already at the site, how may companies may move to the site using starter movement) not requirements.
Otherwise it would not be possible at all to join companies at a Non-Haven Site without a company already at the site (and would make FW or Balrog players especially unlucky) .
Well I am certainly in agreement with you that 2 companies SHOULD be able to move to the same non-Haven site using region movement. However, I don't think your interpretation of a limitation (and not a requirement) works well with this passage:
One company moves to the site using the site path on that site card (i.e., the company starts at the site’s nearest Haven), and the other
company moves to the site using region cards for its site path. In this case, both companies must state that the same face down site card is
their new site card.
This statement is unambiguous. If ICE intended it to be a limitation as you say, why wouldn't they just state "One and only one company may use Starter movement" similar to how they worded the previous passage? Thankfully, all is cleared up with the Lidless Eye rules that Bandobras quoted.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:50 am
Otherwise it would not be possible at all to join companies at a Non-Haven Site without a company already at the site (and would make FW or Balrog players especially unlucky) .
Why would this not be possible? If you had one company at Barrow Downs and one company at Lorien, what would prevent the company at Lorien from using Starter Movement to move to Moria and the company at Barrow Downs from using Region Movement to move to Moria?
OK. I misread the rule in the way that both cases must apply (then the the rule should sound Joining Three Companies at a Non-Haven Site).
My bad. I'm sorry.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:43 pm

No worries! Thanks Konrad!

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Theo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:39 pm
Use the following (non-bulleted) rules from MELE.
MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE
<snip>
· Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.
This section is bulleted in the CoE MELE pdf, which I would take to mean that it wouldn't supercede the METW rules for at least wizard decks. Perhaps there exists some other reference for allowing region-moving hero companies to join outside of a haven?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:52 pm

Theo wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 am
Bandobras Took wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:39 pm
Use the following (non-bulleted) rules from MELE.
MOVING COMPANIES TO THE SAME NON-DARKHAVEN SITE
<snip>
· Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.
This section is bulleted in the CoE MELE pdf, which I would take to mean that it wouldn't supercede the METW rules for at least wizard decks. Perhaps there exists some other reference for allowing region-moving hero companies to join outside of a haven?
Very well caught (I missed how far those bullets went up on my physical copy :oops: )! However, the Balrog Turn Summary does not distinguish between hero/minion in this regard.
If you wish to move a company to a site that is face down on the table (for another company), tell your opponent with site the company is moving to. If you wish to move a company to a site that is face up on the table (because another company is also moving there), tell you opponent your company is moving to a face up site.
The Balrog turn summary does distinguish between hero and minion mechanics in other instances, so it's safe to say that heroes do not have this restriction. Without that, Hero companies would by rule be limited. I imagine in that case the CoE would issue errata in fairly short order, though. ;)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Theo » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:35 pm

What document were you referencing? The only place I could find it was on something titled "Middle Earth CCG Rules Long."

As a 14 page summary, I wouldn't normally view that doc as setting precedent since I imagine that it wasn't meant to handle something as subtle as this, though I haven't looked at it closely enough to see other gaps. I'm also curious if anyone knows by whom/when it was originally authored, since the doc itself doesn't say.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:08 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:35 pm
What document were you referencing? The only place I could find it was on something titled "Middle Earth CCG Rules Long."

As a 14 page summary, I wouldn't normally view that doc as setting precedent since I imagine that it wasn't meant to handle something as subtle as this, though I haven't looked at it closely enough to see other gaps. I'm also curious if anyone knows by whom/when it was originally authored, since the doc itself doesn't say.
He is quoting from Page 14 of the official ICE rules booklet which was released with The Balrog expansion. It is in the "MECCG Rules Summary" section which is a general summary for all alignments and is found after the Balrog specific rules.

Unfortunately, The Balrog Rules PDF found on the home page only shows a portion of this rules booklet released with The Balrog Expansion (just the Balrog specific rules). So you will need to view the physical book to see the passage.

Kjeld
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Kjeld » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:35 am

Unfortunately, The Balrog Rules PDF found on the home page only shows a portion of this rules booklet released with The Balrog Expansion (just the Balrog specific rules). So you will need to view the physical book to see the passage.
How much trouble would it be to get decent scans of the physical rule booklets to resolve issues such as this? There seem to be a lot of issues with the digital versions, and it might help clear up the rules questions if there was an accessible repository of all of the rules booklets reproduced digitally exactly as they appear in the original print version.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:12 am

Kjeld wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:35 am
How much trouble would it be to get decent scans of the physical rule booklets to resolve issues such as this? There seem to be a lot of issues with the digital versions, and it might help clear up the rules questions if there was an accessible repository of all of the rules booklets reproduced digitally exactly as they appear in the original print version.
Certainly not a bad idea. :D

It would only be as difficult as someone choosing to take the time to do this, and enlarging the font so that they could be properly read. The bigger problem is that the digital copies endeavored to "clean up" the originals due to all of the clutter and confusion surrounding the originals (and rules which were no longer accurate in some rule books). So a posting of the originals might lead to some additional confusion when newer players try to use a rule which no longer applies or has been changed. The Balrog rules book, IMO, is the noteworthy exception to this, since I feel the entire book has value since it was the latest version of the rules released with a set of MECCG cards by ICE.

As a side note, there hopefully won't be a need for this TOO much longer. A new Charter revision has just been posted for review (see link below)...

viewtopic.php?f=118&t=3173

Once a new Charter is voted in, the process will begin for a progressive agenda addressing the rules and ultimately ending with an updated and official single source rules document (URD).

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Region Movement - 2 Companies Travelling to the Same Site

Post by Theo » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:23 am

I'm with Kjeld on having a distributable copy of the rulebooks. There should be user-interface ways to communicate their potential outdatedness or the like.
--------
the Jabberwock wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:08 am
He is quoting from Page 14 of the official ICE rules booklet which was released with The Balrog expansion. It is in the "MECCG Rules Summary" section which is a general summary for all alignments and is found after the Balrog specific rules.
Then I think an errata would need to be issued (although it would seem to me a deliberate disregard of an intent by the original designers). Underlines in the below quotes are mine.

From the NetRep rulings digest 35:
Clarification regarding the Middle-earth: The Balrog rules booklet:

The ME:BA rulesbook clearly defines what it considers new rules and what is considered a rules summary. Since this is delineated in the rulebook, the rules written in the Rules Summary section will not override those rules in the ME:LE rulebook when conflicts arise, though the ME:BA rulebook is a newer printing.
This ruling (and that ME:LE indicates that its rules fall back to ME:TW) does not lead me to believe that it is "safe to say" that an absence of clarification from the Balrog turn summary implies that hero parties no longer have the restrictions as published in ME:TW (and explicitly NOT superceded by ME:LE, due to marginal bullets).
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”