That all makes sense, and I agree.
If we don't question the intent the card designer meant to have the cards do, and interpret them strictly "as written", then yes, this is correct.
In later sets, there were some cases where intent vs rules were not matched up and had to be address via clarification/CRD. (e.g.
Nurn).
That's why, for me,
Harrowdale just feels like it was a wording oddball. As worded, does the card designer really intend for this site to have a persistent triggering effect after the fellowship moves from it? That would be brand new territory. I just don't know. All other cards that cause a minion to be unable to gain fierce until the regroup phase, refer to "until the regroup phase" as how long the minion cannot gain fierce. By putting, "Until the regroup phase,..." on
Harrowdale, did the designer intentionally mean that the persistent effect of causing a minion to lose fierce and being unable to gain fierce until the regroup phase should also persist? This would be the only time a site does something like that. But maybe it actually was intentional, and that is precisely why it was worded that way.
My view on this is based on whether we think the card was worded exactly according to the intent.
1) Yes, the designer worded it "Until the regroup phase, each minion skirmishing a
![Rohan [Rohan]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/rohan.png)
companion loses fierce and cannot gain fierce." because he or she explicitly wanted both the effect and the inability to gain fierce to persist until the regroup phase.
2) No, the designer actually meant "Each minion skirmishing a
![Rohan [Rohan]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/rohan.png)
companion loses fierce and cannot gain fierce until the regroup phase." and the existing wording was written up and proofed without realizing the difference. Oversights happen.
I personally think that #2 is more likely and fits with how all the other previously created sites worked. However, we don't have the evidence, only speculation, so if we want to go with #1 in the absence of that evidence, that is fine. That's one of those things a PC could decide on, and provide its reasons for doing so.