The Last Homely House
Middle-Earth => Archives of Minas Tirith => Topic started by: Cw0rk on December 21, 2009, 08:22:17 PM
-
Can I choose to let my opponent take a site at Crashed Gate even if sites 1 to 4 are already controlled?
The keywords here are 'must', 'choose' and 'may'. I could always 'choose' to make him pick a site, but what is the sense of the word 'may' in the text.
Does it mean he can take one if he wants to? Or does it mean I can only choose to give him a site if he can take one?
-
I think it essentially means, if the FP player does not add 3 threats, they have to let the Shadow player take a site.
This is somewhat unusual, as with the Morgul Brute example in the CRD, both outcomes can always take place. In your example you may find yourself in a situation where you
a) cannot add anymore threats
b) cannot give the opponent a site
What to do in this situation...I'm not 100% sure
I assume you do all you can, then continue on
-
My take on it is you must add 3 threats (not 2, not 1 and definately not none) - if you can't add 3 move to plan B ....
Your opponent may control a site - assuming they want to or that they can (assuming every site in play is already controlled).
If plan B doesn't happen or cannot happen - then your done. Move on to next action ....
The 'choose' keyword is only important for multiplayer games.
So going back to the orignal question - I would say yes you can choose opponent to control a site when it is impossible for them to do so, but only if you cannot add 3 threats.
-
Do everyone agree with chompers?
-
I have to disagree - I see it as "The FP player must do one of the following: Add 3 threats OR choose an opponent who may take control of a site." I think that's the way I remember it being played anyway.
-
As I read it, the FP player needs to either add 3 threats or select an opponent who is capable of controlling a site, and this opponent is then allowed to take control of a site. The FP player must choose an action that can be fully performed.
-
As I read it, the FP player needs to either add 3 threats or select an opponent who is capable of controlling a site, and this opponent is then allowed to take control of a site. The FP player must choose AN action that can be fully performed.
I would agree with you if we made this change.
-
Then it shall be done!
Times like this I wish the Decipher forums were still up, because I could've sworn Crashed Gate made its rounds there.
-
I am confused - and certainly do not see myself as a rules expert - but if you play it any other way than what I originally suggested then the wording on the card should IMO be:
The free peoples player may add three threats or choose an opponent who may take control of a site.
The must keyword seems pretty powerful. I guess I can see the other side of the argument but am having trouble sitting on that side of the fence.
Are there other examples of the use of the 'must' keyword used together with threats? The Morgul Brute example above uses may, and with burdens.
-
OK - i just checked out the must keyword - not in the rulebook - but i searched for similar cards and found Pelennor Flat
It says: At the start of the maneuver phase, the FP player must add a burden or discard 3 cards fron hand.
I read this as the must keyword meaning you must do one or the other (otherwise it is impossible to do part 2, because you can always add a burden otherwise you are corrupt and the game is over).
So ... the must keyword on Crashed Gates means do one OR the other, you choose (it does not mean you must add the 3 threats and if you cannot do part 2 as I suggested above).
-
The question remains whether or not you can have an opponent take control of a site even if sites 1-4 are controlled. Personally, I interpret the card as allowing you to do so.
-wtk
-
As I read it, the FP player needs to either add 3 threats or select an opponent who is capable of controlling a site, and this opponent is then allowed to take control of a site. The FP player must choose an action that can be fully performed.
The question then is whether the action is fully performed when the Free Peoples player chooses an opponent, or only when the Free Peoples player chooses and opponent AND that opponent has had the opportunity to take control of a site.
Note that while it's tempting to say that the opponent the Free Peoples player chooses must be "an opponent who may take control of a site[,]" it is clear from the context that the phrase "who may take control of a site" describes what the chosen opponent may do rather than explicitly limiting the choosable opponents to those "who may take control of a site."
The text itself seems to imply that the Free Peoples player only has to choose an opponent, and his/her work is done. However, the general import of the card seems to require that the the FP player add threats or let an opponent control a site, and the "choose" language is in place solely to address the situation where there are multiple Shadow players, while the "may" language is in place in case the chosen opponent doesn't wish to take control of the site.
Thus, while a literal reading of the text seems to allow the FP player to choose an opponent even if that opponent is unable to control a site, this seems to be a technicality at best. A tournament director could rule either way, although I think the interpretation that the opponent must be able to take control a site is probably the better one.
Ultimately, in friendly games, just get this agreed upon ahead of time (I don't think it matters which way), and in tournaments, you might want to ask the tournament director if you're worried it might come up.
-
it must be a heck of a site-control deck to have every site up to crashed gates controlled...
-
Very good interpretation Sam, but sadly your two last paragraphs don't solve the mystery.
-
Is this a case of making it more complicated than it needs to be:
The FP must choose one of two things - add 3 threats or choose an opponent to control a site
Does it matter whether the action can be completed or not?
You can't say yes, because sometimes neither can be done - therefore it seems fair that the ability to complete the action is irrelevant.
Just my (current) take on it - be it right or wrong
-
Fair points, Sam. I've been arguing both sides in my head, and it's not pretty. :P The problem here is that the FP player is doing some things, and then the Shadow player is doing some things. The rules do say "...that you are fully capable of performing" which to me implies your responsibility ends when choosing any opponent, but... just not sure what the intent was.
So ... the must keyword on Crashed Gates means do one OR the other, you choose (it does not mean you must add the 3 threats and if you cannot do part 2 as I suggested above).
I think the "must" here is to make it a required action. If it had said "may" then, besides changing its timing priority, the FP player could choose not to do either action.
-
Yeah, I guess that's why I couldn't really come down on one side or the other; I started to write an argument for one side, then switched and wrote an argument for the other, then finally decided that this came down to whether you wanted to go strictly by the text (in which case you can choose an opponent who couldn't take control of a site) or go with what Decipher probably intended (in which case you can't). The problem ultimately comes down to to fact that Decipher just messed up a little on this card, and do we want to do what it says or what Decipher meant?
And, Chompers, as Elessar's Socks just said, you do have to choose an action that is capable of being completed; the problem here is that the second option ("choose an opponent who may take control of a site") is probably satisfied as soon as the FP player chooses an opponent, regardless of what that opponent can do.
-
I would argue that choosing an "opponent who may take control of a site" is always something that could be completely fulfilled (as long as the opponent can choose to not take control of a site). In other words, there is always a possible resolution when choosing an "opponent who may take control of a site".
-
A clarification or errata entry into the rulebook would be great provided an agreement on who should represent the rules team can be made.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a rules team that can provide this (of course anyone who chose to ignore the clarification or errata provided by the rules team could do so - there ane plenty of players that currently have no idea about all the errata and clarifications and play the cards incorrectly).
-
I'd go with Elgar, because the Shadow could technically choose not to take control of a site, for whatever reason (maybe a Rohan FP?)
-
I'd go with Elgar, because the Shadow could technically choose not to take control of a site, for whatever reason (maybe a Rohan FP?)
Or maybe Fleet Footed.
-
I agree, the Free peoples has to choose one. HE can choose a shadow player who can control a site even if there are no sites to be controlled, since the shadow players action is a MAY option.
So when you pick the option "may control a site", thats always possible, since the opponent can decline this action (voluntarily or not).