In the Frequently Used Terms on page 15 of the Rulebook you can read :

Controlled Area : A player controls an area if he has at least one plastic unit (including routed units) of his color and/or one of his strongholds in the area.
Having only a hero or neutral units in an area does not make an area controlled. Players always control areas in their home realm unless enemy units are present.

The current definition of Controlled Area implies that you control an area if you have a friendly unit in it, meaning, when you attack an opponent, the area which you attack becomes " controlled" by both players because you both have at least one unit in it.

This seems highly illogical and unintuitive to me as I would rather think the area becomes "uncontrolled" as soon as two armies occupy it.

What's more, when you start a battle that area is at the same time a

1- controlled area ( you have a unit in it )

2- enemy area ( enemy has a unit in it - thus controls it )

3- friendly area ( you have a unit in it - thus you control it )

4- contested area ( there's a battle or duel going on here )

IMO only 4 should apply to a battle area and none of 1, 2 or 3.

So, I think the definition of Controlled Area is currently incomplete and should read like this :

A player controls an area if he has at least one plastic unit (including routed units) of his color and/or one of his strongholds in the area and there are no enemy units or uncontrolled neutral units in that area.

The fact that there is something wrong with the current official rule is also illustrated by the last sentence : "Players always control areas in their home realm unless enemy units are present."

So, ... you always control the areas in your home realm

but ... if there are enemy units present in them, you no longer control that area, ... even if you have units in that area.

And yet ... the rule says ( about area control in general ) that you control an area when you have at least one unit in it.

Complete contradiction.

IMO, what the designer meant is

Friendly Area : you have at least one friendly unit and / or Stronghold in the area and there are no enemy units in the area.

Contested Area : you and an opposing player ( both ) have at least one friendly unit and / or Stronghold in the area.

Enemy Area : an opponent has at least one unit and / or Stronghold in the area and there are no other player's units in the area.

Controlled Area = Friendly Area

I totally agree, there is a lack of clarity around the definations of these terms. I brought up a problem that this resulted in when I read the rules a second time in my post about allied units attacking. I think that these definations need to be worded more carefully and explicitly.

I think we all kind of know what they were probably trying to say, but letter of the law is much better than my guess as to it's spirit. Hopefully these will be FAQ/Erratta-batted soon.

This is a kind of rules lawyering that I would never have guessed possible. None of the situations seem relevant at best, at worst it seems you re looking for blemishes where there are none. Firstly because battles are taken care of immediately, so really you never have to worry about who owns it, second you may play cards during battle, so this leads me to guess that it wont matter about owning a tile when you play something out of your hand since they'll probably say "attacker" or "defender" rather than, "if you control this hex, ...xyz"

The rules seem clear enough to me, if you have troops there, you control it, it is friendly, battle happens as a single event, afterwards you check who has troops in the hex. How is this unclear to anyone?

Taki said: The rules seem clear enough to me,

Even when they contradict each other ?

Taki said: This is a kind of rules lawyering that I would never have guessed possible.

Don't take this wrong but If you think this is rules lawyering, prepare to be shocked when you bump into some real ruleslawyering.

I'm merely highlighting some unclear and contradicting rules.

Maybe playing Magic for years has made me expect clear and precise rules from everyone and let's be honest, FFG has never been a leader when it comes to writing rulebooks. It's always been some kind of an achilles heel. Sure they've gotten better over the years but they still spend very little coin on critical proofreading before printing, I reckon.

It's usually left to the community to point out the errors or ambiguaties (sp?)

Please forgive me for preferring precise rules over contradicting and incomplete rules

DarkElf said:

Ok here s the thing, when you contest a tile, no figures are actually on it. A battle marker is place on the tile and you array your forces next to your playsheet. Very technically, nothing is in the tile. The battle is a singular instantaneous event. The winner puts his units in the hex and the loser retreats (if he has anything left to retreat with). They cannot contradict as they are not there.

See the thing is that I've played a ton of card games too, L5R Magic LotR and I've even been a playtester for some of them; and you re right that wording can lead to things being annoying and ambiguous and lead to people arguing over the wording of a card instead of having fun and playing the game. I'll even conceed that FFG has an annoying habit of putting rules in odd places and making them easy to skip over, but by and large (excepting typos) FFG has done a great job explaining their rules, with full color examples of how play is supposed to function as well as having clear plain english for explaining the dynamics of how things should and do work. Are they up to Card Tourney quality specific rules and defined terms, probably not, but I'm sorry, this one is pretty clear to me.

Also, just to put it out there and having reread my post, I'm sorry if I came off "bashing" that wasn't my intent, I find the majority of your posts to be inciteful and well thought out.

DarkElf said:

Correct, it should be worded like this.

Keep in mind that this wording leads to a small issue with Allied Neutral units (they do not desert you when in a contested area).

YourBestFriend said:

Thanks a lot for the reply. I also appreciate the answer to the allied neutral unit question I posed. I was getting hammered by people saying there was no wording problem, and now I feel validated! Thanks again for clearing up two confusions with one post.

I can't wait to play, even if I have to duel box trhe first couple games while waiting for my regulars to come over! Now if I can only get the modivation (and convince my wife to help) to get th2 ~200 minis painted!

YourBestFriend said:

Thanks for the confirmation CC.

I think the small issue with Allied units you mention seizes to exist if you reword the following rule ( p19 Allied Units )

from

"If these allied units are ever in an area not controlled by the player, then the units stop being allied to him."

to

" If these allied units are not in a FRIENDLY area at the end of any player's turn, then the units stop being allied to the allied player.

By checking for the Allied Condition at the end of every turn, instead of "all the time" as indicated by the use of the word " ever" in the current rule, you sidestep a lot op potential issues and you get the desired result.

Another rule which creates issues and which I would suggest to reword is

"Note that allied neutral units may move without being accompanied by player controlled units, as long as the neutral units end their movement in a friendly area."

Problem here is that neutral units which help attack an enemy area do not end their movement in a friendly area but in a contested area.

Solve this problem by rewording to :

"Note that allied neutral units may move without being accompanied by player controlled units, as long as the neutral units end their movement in an area which contains at least one Friendly Unit and / or Stronghold."

Great suggestions, they would get around the allied neutral unit issues! Let's hope that they implement these corrections quickly!