Hidden Haven vs. Fortress of the Towers

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

Moderators: Jambo, Moderators

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

Hidden Haven vs. Fortress of the Towers

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:27 pm

Not that this is likely to ever happen, but . . .

Hidden Haven says:
This site becomes one of your Wizardhavens and loses all automatic-attacks. Nothing is considered playable as written on the site card. If one of your companies is at this site, all attacks against it are canceled. Other Fallen-wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven. Discard this card when the site is discarded or returned to its location deck. It cannot be discarded otherwise.
Fortress of the Towers says:
Playable on The White Towers. The White Towers is protected. Other Fallen-wizards may not use the Wizardhaven card for The White Towers.

If I start with a Hidden Haven at the White Towers, what happens if my opponent then moves there and plays Fortress of the Towers?  Fortress says Wizardhaven card, so would I still be able to use a Hidden White Towers as a Wizardhaven?

User avatar
Strider
Moderator
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Post by Strider » Wed Sep 07, 2005 6:53 pm

I don't think so. If the card text said "may not play the Wizardhaven card" instead of "may not use the Wizardhaven card" then I think that it would be alright due to the fact that it was in play already.
"You can't stop the signal."

Wacho
Moderator
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:56 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by Wacho » Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:43 pm

Sounds like it would work to me.  You're not using the Wizardhaven card.  In fact your opponent might have done you a favor...now you have a protected Wizardhaven.

In addition it seems that you could use Hidden Haven after Fortress was already played to steal your opponents Wizardhaven out from under him.

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:02 pm

Yuck.  So it's counterproductive to use the Wizardhaven cards for White Towers/Isengard.

Makes me wonder why ICE bothered with them in the first place.

User avatar
Lord Leuber
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:35 pm
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Lord Leuber » Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:02 pm

Well, it does save you a starting stage card.

Interestingly, if you start with a Hidden Haven on White Towers and your FW opponent was planning to start at the wizardhaven version of the site, I guess he'd have to start using the :R: immediatly (or start at Weathertop or Ettenmoors)

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:01 pm

Again, though, all you have to do is include a Hidden Haven in your sideboard vs. Fallen Wizards, and no matter where Saruman decides to set up shop (since he has to do either White Towers or Isengard for Saruman's Machinery), you can force him to move.  So you almost have to use Hidden Haven just to play defensively.

Oh, well, maybe I'll just try a UEP that makes Hidden Haven unplayable on Isengard or White Towers.  It won't make that big a difference, but it would save me some headaches with future Fallen Saruman decks. :)

Wacho
Moderator
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:56 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by Wacho » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:41 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Oh, well, maybe I'll just try a UEP that makes Hidden Haven unplayable on Isengard or White Towers.  It won't make that big a difference, but it would save me some headaches with future Fallen Saruman decks. :)
I don't think that Hidden Haven is really the problem.  The problem seems to me to be that the Fortress cards say that your opponent can't use the corresponding Wizardhaven card.  If it they said that opponent couldn't use the site as a Wizardhaven, the problem would be resolved.

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:20 pm

Not quite.  If my opponent plays hidden haven on one of them, I'd be unable to use the Wizardhaven site card, so I'd have to play Fortress on a non-haven version.  I'd have to either wait for a Hidden Haven of my own (with its extra Stage Point) or move away and move back to get to a Wizardhaven -- neither option is particularly appealing.

I do think the intent was more towards Hidden Haven not being playable on Isengard or the White Towers (there's no real sense in having specific (not to mention unique and 3 Stage-Point 0 MP) protection cards for them otherwise).  But I also agree that Fortress of the Isen and Fortress of the Towers need to say other wizards may not use this site as a Wizardhaven.

Post Reply