well-traveled issue

[Gil-Estel]

The King and I played a game this morning, well actually we continued one. He was at site 2, I at site 3. I had played Well-traveled, so site 3 and 4 were mine. He also played well-traveled, and replaced mine, but is that legal? I mean, other cards read specifically 'replace the opponent's sites if necessary'. And since the fellowship's next sites are there already and he is replacing mine, I guess it is illegal. What say you?

[King89]

i really want to know this as well!

[HawkeyeSPF]

I can't find anything in terms of a text ruling, but I seem to remember that it plays the next two sites, replacing as necessary.

[Gil-Estel]

yeah, I thought there was a clarification of some sort, but can't find it anywhere

[Elessar's Socks]

I think it's covered in the rulebook by: "Some cards allow a player to play the next site on the adventure path at times when the fellowship is not moving. These may be used even when the next site is already there."

So I'd look at Well-traveled as a case of clarifying text being omitted, instead of it being specially restricted.

[jdizzy001]

I think "replacing opponents' if necessary" became a redundant phrase they began to omit once the tcg grew in popularity.  Otherwise the phrase would read, "replacing opponents' as necessary." Either that or "you cannot replace opponents site" as with mount doom