Ancient Deep-Hold

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mordakai
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 am

Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Mordakai » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:50 pm

This is probably a not-very-useful question, but I was wondering... let's say both players have Balrog decks. One of them plays Ancient Deep-Hold from The Pûkel Deeps and moves his company there. Now the other player plays his own copy of Ancient Deep Hold from The Rusted Deeps and moves his company there.
a) Are both companies at the same place?
b) Or would you consider that each copy, due to it's special under-deeps-placement are different places?
c) Even more, if they are the same place [a) is correct], would one player's company be allowed to move to the annex location from where the other one played his own copy of the Ancient Deep Hold?

Thanks
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:32 pm

There are no special rules regarding Ancient Deep-Hold.
And I think that literal approach does not cause problems here.

"Adjacent Sites: no surface site, one Under-deeps Ruins & Lairs [-me_rl-] chosen by you when playing this card (8)"

So each copy of Ancient Deep-Hold will have a one adjacent site, no matter how many other copies is already in play.
A sites in play do not share their features with other copies. A site type, or AA of site may change without affecting other copies.
I do not see a reasons for which it would be different for adjacent sites.
Does it seem more strange than different site types of two copies of the same site and of the same alignment?

Are a multiple copies of Ancient Deep-Hold representing the same location?
Again, this is a standard behaviour* of copies of site card with the same name. And no rules special rules regarding Ancient Deep-Hold.
Ancient Deep-Hold wrote:Adjacent Sites: no surface site, one Under-deeps Ruins & Lairs [R] chosen by you when playing this card (8) Playable: Information, Items (minor, major, greater, gold ring) Automatic-attacks (3): Undead (1st attack)-4 strikes with 7 prowess; Undead (2nd attack)-3 strikes with 8 prowess; Undead (3rd attack)-2 strikes with 10 prowess; Each character wounded must make a corruption check modified by -2. Special: Any Undead and Spider creatures may be keyed to this site. This site is never discarded or returned to its location deck.
*) In fact it is not even stated anywhere that two copies of Deep Mines (under different Wizardhavens) represent a different locations. Maybe such statement does not exist, just because it was obvious for authors. But the game is full of abstract concepts, like Starter Movement for instance.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Mordakai
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Mordakai » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:09 pm

So I understand that:

Both companies ARE at the same place.
Each company can only move back using HIS adjacent site

Correct?

In that case, the example you give with Deep Mines causes some unrest in me too, as they are the same place even if one is under Isengard and the other one under Rhosgobel, isn't it?
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:15 pm

Both companies ARE at the same place.
Yes.
Each company can only move back using HIS adjacent site
To be clear: using site's adjacent site. Adjacent sites are associated to the copy of Ancient Deep-Hold, not to a player (makes a difference if Ancient Deep-Hold is a rescue site).
In that case, the example you give with Deep Mines causes some unrest in me too, as they are the same place even if one is under Isengard and the other one under Rhosgobel, isn't it?
This is true for all other copies of site cards* with the same name. And ICE did not make an exception for Deep Mines (by oversight, or intentionally).
BTW: from thematical point of view it is not nonsensical . Who said that passage to Deep Mines is vertical and not diagonal?

*) however according to Universal Rules Document:
Copies of resource cards that are played as sites are not considered the same site. (CoE 19)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Mordakai
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Mordakai » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:37 pm

All clear, thanks a lot.
C'mon, not the Elves of Lindon AGAIN...

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:36 pm

One more thought.

I dare to make a reconstruction attempt.
ICE did not state that multiple copies of Deep Mines represent different locations but if they would represent the same location then I do not see a sense of:
CRF, Errata (Cards), Deep Mines wrote:Card Erratum: Add "Cannot be duplicated on a given Wizardhaven." [Effective 4/20/98]
After all: at the end of M/H phases (or at start of site phase) companies at the same non-haven site must join. So above restriction would refer to situation which could not happen anyway.

EDIT:

"could not happen" -> "could not happen anyway"
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:31 am

2 Scenarios:

A) I have a company at an untapped version of The Under-Vaults. I announce movement to Ancient Deep-Hold and my company successfully moves to the Ancient Deep-Hold (leaving nobody behind). The Under-Vaults now returns to my location deck since it was untapped. For the rest of the game, if I want to leave Ancient Deep-Hold, I must play The Under-Vaults again from my location deck, correct? In other words, once Ancient Deep Hold is declared as adjacent to the Under-Vaults, that now becomes a permanent condition for the remainder of the game? Furthermore, let's say I exhaust my play deck and reshuffle all used sites back into my location deck. May I now declare movement from, say, The Rusted Deeps to Ancient Deep Hold? Or is the Ancient Deep Hold still considered to only be adjacent to The Under-Vaults which I previously declared?

B) I have a company at a tapped version of The Under-Vaults. I announce movement to Ancient Deep-Hold and my company successfully moves to Ancient Deep-Hold (leaving nobody behind). The Under-Vaults is now sent to my discard pile. Is my company now stuck at Ancient Deep-Hold and unable to move anywhere until I exhaust my play deck and am able to again play a copy of The Under-Vaults?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:23 pm

A) Ancient Deep-hold is adjacent to one site "chosen by you when playing this card." Each time you play the card, you may choose one site that it is adjacent to. That is the only site it is adjacent to while in play.

B) I believe you have the right of it, there, so it may be a good idea to not tap the adjacent site before starting off. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

dirhaval
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by dirhaval » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:48 pm

I made the error years ago about "each time played" for Ancient Deep-hold. The site stays in play.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Ancient Deep-Hold

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:20 pm

:oops: Good point.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”