Chance of being lost

Ask any question regarding the game's (official) rules

Moderators: Jambo, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:05 pm
Location: Marburg, Germany
Contact:

Chance of being lost

Post by Shapeshifter » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:11 pm

Is there any rule forbidding me to send a company with COBL to a non-haven site (from my site deck) that is already in play by another of opponent´s companies resulting in the situation that there are two copies of the same unique site in play at the same time by one player?
Chance of being lost wrote:Playable on a moving company using region movement. Make a roll (or draw a #) modified by -2 for each ranger in the company. If the result is greater than 6, you must replace company's new site card with a different site from your location deck that is located in the same region or an adjacent region as the company's new site.

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:34 pm

Sites are not unique.  They lack the keyword.  You are prevented by rule from having more than one non-haven site in your deck, but it seems perfectly reasonable, if a card allows you to go to an opponent's site, to have two copies in play for the movement/hazard phase.  The real rule with which we should concern ourselves is:
Two or more companies moving to the site must state that the same site face down is their new site card.
In both cases, the two companies must face hazards separately and are then combined at the end of the movement/hazard phase. If two companies end up at a site and combining those companies would violate the limitations on company composition (see page 57), one of these companies must return to its site of origin. Similarly, an effect that causes such a violation is cancelled.
The two companies would join at the end of the m/h phase.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:05 pm
Location: Marburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Shapeshifter » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:39 pm

Your reasoning makes perfect sense. Thanks!

Post Reply