Comentarios sobre los "Digests" de "El Consejo de Rivendel"

Si habéis tenido algún tipo de problema a la hora de interpretar las reglas en alguna partida, preguntar aqu?
Responder
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

This ruling in CdR Digest #2 has an oversight, at least with respect to the English version of the rules. The mistake is emphasized below:

https://meccg.es/reglas/ruling-digests/#1138
CdR RULINGS DIGEST #2
22-07-2021 NetRep: Marcos Cáceres
By Marcos Cáceres for the Concilio de Rivendel in collaboration with the Council Members and other supporters.

22/07/2021

RULINGS BY TERM 1
Company composition violation
The question has came up about what happens when a minion dwarf at site A moves to site B where an Orc is there, and then the Orc moves to site A but he is sent back to his site of origin by Seized by Terror (or a similar effect).

Normally, when two or more companies moves and end up at a site in a way that they will violate company composition rules, the last one must return to its site of origin, but in this case in which a loop is created to solve this question we took this CRF as a precedent:

CRF – Turn Sequence Ruligns – Playing Characters – If you play a Ringwraith at a non-Darkhaven site where there is one of your non-Ringwraith companies, one of the companies must move that turn. If both companies are still there at the end of the movement/hazard phase, discard the non-Ringwraith company.

We rule that this CRF entry doesn’t only refer to a Ringwraith’s company when it comes to company composition violation, so the CRF entry should be readed like this:

If two companies end up at the sime site at the end of the movement/hazard phase, such as they will violate company composition rules, discard one of those companies.

Therefore the resource player will need to choose for either the Orc or the Dwarf to be discarded. The same applies to any situation in which a violation occurs as a consequence of a company unable to be sent back to its site of origin (because of site shuffling or similar), i.e.: a Ringwraith and a non-Ringwraith, two leaders (with no Orders from Lugbúrz / Orders from the Great Demon), more than 7 characters in the company, orc/trolls at the same site as dwarves/ elves/ dunedains, etc.
The rationale/rule provided in the CdR digest does not correspond to the given situation and the MELE rules already provide a rule on point. The rule for discarding the non-Ringwraith company is a situation where the Ringwraith has not moved and the other company attempted to move away but got returned. In this case one company was returned to their site of origin and the other company did not move. This situation is not the same as the Dwarf/Orc situation where both companies are moving and one is returned to their site of origin.

Imagen

The mistake is: "Normally, when two or more companies moves and end up at a site in a way that they will violate company composition rules, the last one must return to its site of origin". This statement misconstrues the rule. Instead, the rule on p. 57 of MELE is "If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly. an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill)." (emphasis added)

There is no requirement that the company being returned to origin by this rule be "the last" company that moved. The rules do say "just moved" but it is talking about "one of the [two] companies" that just moved. In the given situation, the Dwarf has already moved to the Orc's old site (the Dwarf's site of origin leaves play). Now the Orc is moving but is being returned to their site of origin (the Dwarf's current site) by a card effect. This case is already covered by the above rule: we have two companies that end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition. Given that the Orc has already returned to its site of origin, it is the Dwarf that must return to their site of origin.

I understand that the Dwarf's old "site of origin" has already been discarded or returned to the location deck, and that they have a "current site" and not a "new site card" as they are no longer moving. But the LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION rule does not require the company to be moving, or the last one moving. It only requires that the companies "end up" at the site.

It seems harsh to demand that a player discard their company because of a single return-to-origin hazard effect instead of merely replacing one of the company's site cards.

----------

By the way, an effect that returns a company to their site of origin is an action which moves a site card from play to either the discard pile or the location deck, skipping the M/H phase ahead from Step 3 to Step 4. Such an effect does not change company compositions (which characters are in which companies) itself. That is, the effect of returning to origin does not cause a company composition violation, it is the action of joining the two companies at a non-haven site which would violate company composition. So the rule "an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled" does not apply here.
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
Avatar de Usuario
Annatar
Compañero
Mensajes: 193
Registrado: 21 Jul 2008 22:11
Ubicación: al-Qüy (Alicante)

Me temo que no has entendido la explicación del CdR. Su decisión aborda el caso de una compañía que es obligada a regresar a su sitio de origen y que viola las reglas de composición de compañías cuando lo hace.
En el ejemplo propuesto, ambas empresas (Enano y Orco) intercambian lugares. El Orco se ve obligado a regresar a su lugar de origen (debido a Seized by Terror), pero no puede hacerlo ya que eso violaría las reglas (ahora su lugar de origen está ocupado por el Enano). Dado que el Orco no regresa voluntariamente (sería injusto cancelar el efecto de Seized by Terror), el CdR decidió que lo correcto sería descartar una de las dos compañías.

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

First, Apologies for my English.
I am afraid that you do not understood the explanation of the CdR. The CdR decision addresses the case of a company that it was forced to return to its site of origin and violates the company composition rules in that site.
In the proposed example, both companies (Dwarf and Orc) exchange sites. The Orc i forced to return to its site of origin (due to Seized by Terror), but he can't do it since this would violate the rules (now his site of origin is occupied by the Dwarf). Since the Orc does not come back voluntarily (it would be unfair cancel the Seized by Terror effect), the CdR issued a decision to discard one of the companies.
Avatar de Usuario
Temujin
Miembro del Concilio de Rivendel
Mensajes: 2584
Registrado: 23 May 2005 21:18
Ubicación: Fuenlabrada

Para un mejor entendimiento de la comunidad, agradeceria que hablasemos todos en español. Gracias
Avatar de Usuario
Siraynad
Compañero
Mensajes: 130
Registrado: 12 Ene 2021 08:13

CDavis7M escribió: 02 Dic 2022 03:12 This ruling in CdR Digest #2 has an oversight, at least with respect to the English version of the rules. The mistake is emphasized below:

https://meccg.es/reglas/ruling-digests/#1138
CdR RULINGS DIGEST #2
22-07-2021 NetRep: Marcos Cáceres
By Marcos Cáceres for the Concilio de Rivendel in collaboration with the Council Members and other supporters.

22/07/2021

RULINGS BY TERM 1
Company composition violation
The question has came up about what happens when a minion dwarf at site A moves to site B where an Orc is there, and then the Orc moves to site A but he is sent back to his site of origin by Seized by Terror (or a similar effect).

Normally, when two or more companies moves and end up at a site in a way that they will violate company composition rules, the last one must return to its site of origin, but in this case in which a loop is created to solve this question we took this CRF as a precedent:

CRF – Turn Sequence Ruligns – Playing Characters – If you play a Ringwraith at a non-Darkhaven site where there is one of your non-Ringwraith companies, one of the companies must move that turn. If both companies are still there at the end of the movement/hazard phase, discard the non-Ringwraith company.

We rule that this CRF entry doesn’t only refer to a Ringwraith’s company when it comes to company composition violation, so the CRF entry should be readed like this:

If two companies end up at the sime site at the end of the movement/hazard phase, such as they will violate company composition rules, discard one of those companies.

Therefore the resource player will need to choose for either the Orc or the Dwarf to be discarded. The same applies to any situation in which a violation occurs as a consequence of a company unable to be sent back to its site of origin (because of site shuffling or similar), i.e.: a Ringwraith and a non-Ringwraith, two leaders (with no Orders from Lugbúrz / Orders from the Great Demon), more than 7 characters in the company, orc/trolls at the same site as dwarves/ elves/ dunedains, etc.
The rationale/rule provided in the CdR digest does not correspond to the given situation and the MELE rules already provide a rule on point. The rule for discarding the non-Ringwraith company is a situation where the Ringwraith has not moved and the other company attempted to move away but got returned. In this case one company was returned to their site of origin and the other company did not move. This situation is not the same as the Dwarf/Orc situation where both companies are moving and one is returned to their site of origin.

Imagen

The mistake is: "Normally, when two or more companies moves and end up at a site in a way that they will violate company composition rules, the last one must return to its site of origin". This statement misconstrues the rule. Instead, the rule on p. 57 of MELE is "If two companies end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition, one of the companies that just moved must return to its site of origin. Similarly. an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled (e.g., We Have Come to Kill)." (emphasis added)

There is no requirement that the company being returned to origin by this rule be "the last" company that moved. The rules do say "just moved" but it is talking about "one of the [two] companies" that just moved. In the given situation, the Dwarf has already moved to the Orc's old site (the Dwarf's site of origin leaves play). Now the Orc is moving but is being returned to their site of origin (the Dwarf's current site) by a card effect. This case is already covered by the above rule: we have two companies that end up at a non-Darkhaven site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition. Given that the Orc has already returned to its site of origin, it is the Dwarf that must return to their site of origin.

I understand that the Dwarf's old "site of origin" has already been discarded or returned to the location deck, and that they have a "current site" and not a "new site card" as they are no longer moving. But the LIMITATIONS ON COMPANY COMPOSITION rule does not require the company to be moving, or the last one moving. It only requires that the companies "end up" at the site.

It seems harsh to demand that a player discard their company because of a single return-to-origin hazard effect instead of merely replacing one of the company's site cards.

----------

By the way, an effect that returns a company to their site of origin is an action which moves a site card from play to either the discard pile or the location deck, skipping the M/H phase ahead from Step 3 to Step 4. Such an effect does not change company compositions (which characters are in which companies) itself. That is, the effect of returning to origin does not cause a company composition violation, it is the action of joining the two companies at a non-haven site which would violate company composition. So the rule "an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled" does not apply here.
O sea que estás diciendo que si el lugar del enano se descarto igualmente lo devuelves desde el descarte para regresar la compañía del enano? básicamente estás pasando por alto una regla básica que los lugares del descarte NO pueden volver al juego hasta que se agota el mazo. Ya Minion tiene bastantes cosas buenas como para más encima ayudarles con eso que es una de las pocas cosas como se puede tocar a un Mordor Shuffle que es prácticamente intocable, me parece mucho.

Por cierto favor escribir en español, se puede usar traductor de google ;D
One ring to the dark lord's hand
Sitting on his throne
In a land so dark
Where I have to go
I'll keep the Ring
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

Temujin escribió: 04 Dic 2022 23:02 Para un mejor entendimiento de la comunidad, agradeceria que hablasemos todos en español. Gracias
Estoy de acuerdo. Y por eso me preguntaba por qué las sentencias publicadas se dan en Inglés a pesar de que fui a la versión en español del sitio (y desactivar cualquier traducción automática).

Código: Seleccionar todo

I agree. And so I was wondering why the rulings posted were given in English even though I went to the Spanish version of the site (and disabled any automatic translation).
Imagen
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
Avatar de Usuario
Temujin
Miembro del Concilio de Rivendel
Mensajes: 2584
Registrado: 23 May 2005 21:18
Ubicación: Fuenlabrada

Para que mantengan la misma estructura que los previos oficiales y con el buscador puedas realizar busquedas simultaneas en todos.
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

Siraynad escribió: 05 Dic 2022 02:31 O sea que estás diciendo que si el lugar del enano se descarto igualmente lo devuelves desde el descarte para regresar la compañía del enano? básicamente estás pasando por alto una regla básica que los lugares del descarte NO pueden volver al juego hasta que se agota el mazo. Ya Minion tiene bastantes cosas buenas como para más encima ayudarles con eso que es una de las pocas cosas como se puede tocar a un Mordor Shuffle que es prácticamente intocable, me parece mucho.
Has dicho "básicamente estás pasando por alto una regla básica que los lugares del descarte NO pueden volver al juego hasta que se agota el mazo". Sin embargo, no existe tal regla. No hay ninguna regla que prohíba específicamente a los jugadores recuperar una carta de lugar de su mazo de lugares. De cara, así es como funcionan "Gran Camino" (Great-road) y "Antiguas Escaleras" (Ancient stair). Y hay una regla "CRF" sobre "Antiguas Escaleras": "No se puede jugar Morannon en Las Galerías Subterráneas. Sin embargo, puedes jugar "Antiguas Escaleras" desde Morannon, mover a "Las Galerías Subterráneas" y volver a Morannon al final del turno." ("You cannot play Morannon at The Under-galleries. However, you can play Ancient Stair from Morannon, move to The Under-galleries, and zip back to Morannon at the end of the turn.")

Incluso si la carta de sitio es un evento y no una carta de sitio real, puede ser recuperada. No hay ninguna regla que lo impida.

Además, la regla "MELE" que publiqué está confirmada en el "CRF" bajo "movimiento/peligro": "Si las compañías se unieran al final de la fase de movimiento/peligro de tal forma que se violaran las reglas de composición de compañías, una compañía a elección del jugador de peligro debe volver a su sitio de origen." ("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.")

Lo único que importa es si las compañías "acaban" allí, no "cómo" llegaron.

Código: Seleccionar todo

You said "básicamente estás pasando por alto una regla básica que los lugares del descarte NO pueden volver al juego hasta que se agota el mazo." However, there is no such rule. There is no rule specifically prohibiting the players from retrieving a site card from their location deck. In face, this is how "Gran Camino" and "Antiguas Escaleras" work. And there is a "CRF" ruling on "Antiguas Escaleras": "You cannot play Morannon at The Under-galleries. However, you can play Ancient Stair from Morannon, move to The Under-galleries, and zip back to Morannon at the end of the turn."

Even if the site card is an event and not a real site card it can be retrieved.

Furthermore, the "MELE" rule I posted is confirmed in the "CRF" under "movement/hazard": "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."
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

Temujin escribió: 05 Dic 2022 19:18 Para que mantengan la misma estructura que los previos oficiales y con el buscador puedas realizar busquedas simultaneas en todos.
Para una mejor comprensión de la comunidad, agradecería que las reglas de "CdR" estén en español.
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
Avatar de Usuario
marcos
Miembro del Concilio de Rivendel
Mensajes: 968
Registrado: 30 Jun 2005 02:35
Ubicación: Córdoba, Argentina

CDavis7M escribió: 05 Dic 2022 18:39
Temujin escribió: 04 Dic 2022 23:02 Para un mejor entendimiento de la comunidad, agradeceria que hablasemos todos en español. Gracias
Estoy de acuerdo. Y por eso me preguntaba por qué las sentencias publicadas se dan en Inglés a pesar de que fui a la versión en español del sitio (y desactivar cualquier traducción automática).

Código: Seleccionar todo

I agree. And so I was wondering why the rulings posted were given in English even though I went to the Spanish version of the site (and disabled any automatic translation).
Imagen
Están en ingles porque la web, a diferencia del foro, esta pensado para un publico mas amplio y no solamente para la comunidad hispanohablante. Aunque damos la bienvenida a cualquier "extranjero" a participar, mientras q dicha participación sea fructífera. Orgullosamente contamos con miembros q no son de habla hispana en nuestras filas.

La intención del Concilio de Rivendell fue aportar un grano de arena, algo q se pudiese interpretar a nivel internacional, y fuese de utilidad para todo el mundo a pesar de q estas dudas fuesen originadas en nuestros canales de comunicación, dado q existe la posibilidad de q estas mismas dudas aparezcan/existan en otros países/comunidades. Además, considerando q las reglas del juego están escritas en ingles creímos apropiado mantener la cohesión.
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

Annatar escribió: 02 Dic 2022 15:46 Me temo que no has entendido la explicación del CdR. Su decisión aborda el caso de una compañía que es obligada a regresar a su sitio de origen y que viola las reglas de composición de compañías cuando lo hace.
En el ejemplo propuesto, ambas empresas (Enano y Orco) intercambian lugares. El Orco se ve obligado a regresar a su lugar de origen (debido a Seized by Terror), pero no puede hacerlo ya que eso violaría las reglas (ahora su lugar de origen está ocupado por el Enano). Dado que el Orco no regresa voluntariamente (sería injusto cancelar el efecto de Seized by Terror), el CdR decidió que lo correcto sería descartar una de las dos compañías.
Como mencioné en mi post anterior, no importa cómo las compañías terminen en el sitio, una debe regresar (a elección del jugador peligroso) y el sitio se recupera sin importar de dónde tenga que venir.
(CRF: "Si las compañías se unieran al final de la fase de movimiento/peligro de tal forma que se violaran las reglas de composición de compañías, una compañía a elección del jugador de peligro debe volver a su sitio de origen").

Además, no quería entrar en el movimiento del Enano y el Orco porque sé cómo le gusta a la gente jugar al MECCG, pero en realidad no hay ninguna regla que permita siquiera que el Enano y el Orco se muevan de esta manera. El movimiento es ilegal. Y probablemente porque causa problemas como este.

Imagen
La compañía puede declarar el movimiento a un nuevo sitio o bien (1) jugar un nuevo sitio boca abajo o pueden usar la regla titulada "mover compañías al MISMO sitio no-darkhaven" también llamada "Unir dos compañías en un sitio no-darkhaven" (en "METW") (2) mover para UNIR una compañía en un sitio boca arriba, o (3) mover al mismo sitio boca abajo que otra compañía. No hay ninguna opción en las reglas para declarar el movimiento a un sitio boca arriba si no se mueve para unirse a una compañía. La regla sobre el movimiento a un sitio boca arriba funciona así: "las dos compañías deben enfrentarse a peligros por separado y luego se combinan al final de la fase de movimiento/peligro".

De hecho, las reglas de "MELE" prohíben específicamente que un personaje "Ringwraith" declare siquiera el movimiento a un lugar boca arriba que no sea Darkhaven.

Mi punto principal es que ya existe una norma MELE al respecto y esta norma se describe incluso más detalladamente en el CRF. Basta con utilizar esa norma. No es necesaria una nueva norma.

Dejando a un lado las reglas de movimiento, mi punto principal es que si hay movimiento como se da en la situación hipotética, ya hay una regla MELE en el punto y esta regla está incluso más descrita en el CRF. Basta con utilizar esa norma. No es necesaria una nueva norma.

Código: Seleccionar todo

As mentioned in my post above, it doesn't matter how the companies end up at the site, one must return (hazard player's choice) and the site is retrieved no matter where it needs to come from.
(CRF: "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.")

Also, I didn't want to get into the Dwarf and Orc's movement because I know how people like to play MECCG, but actually there is no rule that even allows for the Dwarf and the Orc to move in this fashion. The movement is illegal. And probably because it causes issues just like this one. 

https://i.imgur.com/UKRz23m.png

The company may declare movement to a new site either (1) play a new site face down or they can use the rule titled "moving companies to the SAME non-darkhaven site" also called "Joining Two Companies at a Non-Haven Site" (in "METW") (2) move to JOIN a company at  face-up site, or (3) move to the same face-down site as another company. There is no option in the rules to declare movement to a faceup site if not moving to join a company. The rule on moving to a face-up site functions as such: "the two companies must face hazards separately and are then combined at the end of the movement/hazard phase."

In fact, the "MELE" rules specifically prohibit a "Ringwraith" character from even declaring movement to a faceup non-Darkhaven site at all. 
Última edición por CDavis7M el 05 Dic 2022 19:47, editado 1 vez en total.
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
CDavis7M
Usuario
Mensajes: 27
Registrado: 16 Jun 2021 20:41

marcos escribió: 05 Dic 2022 19:27 Están en ingles porque la web, a diferencia del foro, esta pensado para un publico mas amplio y no solamente para la comunidad hispanohablante. Aunque damos la bienvenida a cualquier "extranjero" a participar, mientras q dicha participación sea fructífera. Orgullosamente contamos con miembros q no son de habla hispana en nuestras filas.

La intención del Concilio de Rivendell fue aportar un grano de arena, algo q se pudiese interpretar a nivel internacional, y fuese de utilidad para todo el mundo a pesar de q estas dudas fuesen originadas en nuestros canales de comunicación, dado q existe la posibilidad de q estas mismas dudas aparezcan/existan en otros países/comunidades. Además, considerando q las reglas del juego están escritas en ingles creímos apropiado mantener la cohesión.
Vale, eso tiene sentido. Pero debido a esto pensé en responder en inglés primero.

Pero por cierto, soy de alta-california, que es español, aunque yo no lo sea.
(Estoy utilizando DeepL para traducir del inglés al escrito)
Avatar de Usuario
marcos
Miembro del Concilio de Rivendel
Mensajes: 968
Registrado: 30 Jun 2005 02:35
Ubicación: Córdoba, Argentina

CDavis7M escribió: 05 Dic 2022 19:43 Pero por cierto, soy de alta-california, que es español, aunque yo no lo sea.
Me parece bien. Yo me refería principalmente a compañeros italianos y alemanes, que son de quienes tengo conocimiento. Seguramente habrá algunos mas.
Responder