Morgul-Rats On Guard

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am

My opponent has 2 moving companies. Doors of Night is not in play. The first company is moving to a Shadow Hold. There are no wounded characters in the first company.

I place Morgul Rats on guard at the Shadow Hold.

During the second company's M/H phase, I play Doors of Night.

When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?

What if Doors of Night is in play when Morgul Rats are placed on guard at the Shadow Hold, but then Doors of Night is later removed (ie. Twilight) prior to the site phase. Now they were legal to be played during M/H phase, but no longer legal to be revealed on guard?

Thanks

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:20 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am
When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?
Correct.
the Jabberwock wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am
What if Doors of Night is in play when Morgul Rats are placed on guard at the Shadow Hold, but then Doors of Night is later removed (ie. Twilight) prior to the site phase. Now they were legal to be played during M/H phase, but no longer legal to be revealed on guard?
No longer legal to be revealed on guard.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Theo » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:22 am

I'll again grumble about the open-endedness of what could have been played means. If it were possible that Doors of Night could have also been played in the movement-hazard phase prior to playing Morgul-Rats, then I would argue that revealing Morgul-Rats on-guard is valid under the current wording (as long as Doors of Night is also in play when the revealing actually occurs).
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Konrad Klar » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:32 am

Theo wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:22 am
If it were possible that Doors of Night could have also been played in the movement-hazard phase prior to playing Morgul-Rats, then I would argue that revealing Morgul-Rats on-guard is valid under the current wording (as long as Doors of Night is also in play when the revealing actually occurs).
Even if Doors of Night was not in play during first company's M/H phase?
the Jabberwock wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:37 am
When the first company enters the site at the Shadow Hold, may I reveal Morgul Rats? They currently meet the requirements to be played, however, since Doors of Night was not in play when they were placed on guard, they were not playable during the first company's M/H phase and thus cannot legally be revealed on guard. Correct?
I'm sorry. My previous answer was not quite correct. Morgul Rats cannot be revealed, because it could not be played in company's M/H phase. Not because it was not playable when Morgul Rats card has been placed as On Guard.
In other words it does not matter whether in company's M/H phase a playability conditions existed before placing On Guard. It is sufficient that they existed in the M/H phase at all and also existed in site phase (eventual target, by its nature, must be the same target, not other object that would fulfill the card's conditions).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Theo » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:42 pm

I rescind my previous post. I found another CRF rule that clears up what the earlier "could" means:
CRF wrote:Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the validity of revealing an on-guard card.
However, with the earlier referenced rule:
CRF wrote:An on-guard card may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase.
this combination means that no cards can be revealed on-guard, because no card "could" have been played if we are only allowed to consider what actually was played. If an on-guard card was already played, it can't be on-guard! :roll: This needs fixing.
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:28 am

Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the validity of revealing an on-guard card.
It is taken out of the context.

Whole paragraph is:
CRF wrote:Only declared or on-going cards and effects can be considered when determining the
validity of revealing an on-guard card. Potential effects that have not been triggered
cannot be considered.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Theo » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:08 am

I see the second sentence as a redundant clarification for sub-situations. The first sentence is about cards and effects. The second is only about effects. What is the additional context you see?
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
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Morgul-Rats On Guard

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:14 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:08 am
I see the second sentence as a redundant clarification for sub-situations.
I see the first sentence as a complacement for second sentence. Second sentence makes the context.

Greed On Guard cannot be revealed in response to playing a faction.
If the attempt will be successful, a character in company may play minor item, which would trigger action from Greed.
But at the point of playing a faction it is only potential effect.

Independently:
Existence of playability conditions in past (in M/H phase) is neither a card, nor an effect.
Similarly any other restrictions (rules) on revealing On Guards are neither a cards, nor an effects.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”