Deck building - Avatar Limitations

The place to ask and debate all rules issues related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 9, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:Minion deck - I am allowed to put 3 Ringwraiths in my play deck as my avatar, either 3 of the same one or 2 of one and 1 of a differnt one. I am not allowed to place 3 different Ringwraith avatars in my play deck (same as Wizards in a hero deck).

Additionally, I am allowed to place any number of Ringwraith "followers" in my sideboard, so long as they do not duplicate any of my Ringwraith Avatars already in my play deck.

So the maximum total number of Ringwraith's in my play deck and sideboard combined is 11 (3 x Avatar + 8 others in sideboard).

Once play begins, and players start to access their sideboard, how do you know which Ringwraith cards are avatars and which are followers? What is to prevent someone from sideboarding in his Ringwraith followers and then playing the first Ringwraith he draws as his Avatar? Is there a mechanism used to prevent this? Or is this just played via the Honor System?

Hero decks do not suffer from this problem. While the maximum number of Avatars in a Hero deck (play deck and sideboard combined) is 7 (3 x one wizard in play deck, plus one of each of the other 4 in sideboard), there is no such thing as a Wizard "follower" so the first Wizard revealed is legally one's Avatar for that game. So if I'm understanding this correctly, a Hero deck could legally have 7 copies of an Avatar in play deck and sideboard combined, whereas a Minion deck could only legally have 3 Avatars. Is this right?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 9, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Is there an instance where it matters?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Sunday, April 9, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Is there an instance where it matters?
I'm a little confused.

Are you suggesting that there is no advantage in having your Avatar in play as early as possible?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Monday, April 10, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:You have to sideboard in the cards. If you're blowing sideboard opportunities on a card worth no MPs, you might get your avatar sooner, but by adding that randomness, you're unable to bank on a specific strategy (e.g. Hoarmurath Unleashed, etc.). If you don't have your avatar out, you're limited to using Weigh All Things To A Nicety. I haven't run the numbers for the whole process, but you've got an equal chance of actually drawing your avatar anyway as drawing Weigh. Assuming you draw Weigh and not your RW, you've now got four RWs in your deck vs two Weighs, but the odds haven't increased that much over drawing one of the three already in there anyway.

In a best-case scenario, you draw all three Weighs on the first turn, stuff your deck with three different RWs, play one early, and proceed to have five cards of dead weight in your deck instead of two as normal, while blowing your ability to pull resources out of the discard if needed. It seems to me a fair exchange.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Also, the sheer amount of size taken up in the sideboard can also hurt a deck's potential.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:You make good points my friend. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

My only objection would be that you don't necessarily have 5 cards of dead weight in your deck after pulling 3 RWs from the sideboard due to the ability to play RW followers.

So it seems that the "advantage" of all the extra RW avatars in one's sideboard is largely offset due to the other concessions which you mention, and thus for practical purposes, this isn't a big deal.

That said, to be clear, it would still be unethical to announce a sideboarded-in RW as your Avatar because the sideboard RWs are only supposed to be followers, per the rules, correct?
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, user Vastor Peredhil wrote:
Vastor Peredhil wrote:Unless using DC or VC environment, active RW Decks other than Akhorahil are pretty far from competitive, so your concerns are pretty mood

Yours Nicolai
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, user Bandobras Took wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Since RW players do not have to declare at all, no.

The term "avatar" does not exist within the rules. It is a term of convenience only. The original rules allow for two RWs in a deck, and allow you to violate normal deck composition rules by having two of the same Ringwraith.

Playing whatever Ringwraith you happen to draw first is the default setting of the game. There is no need (as opposed to Fallen Wizards, who by rule must declare) to declare which Ringwraith you intend to play.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:
Vastor Peredhil wrote:Unless using DC or VC environment, active RW Decks other than Akhorahil are pretty far from competitive, so your concerns are pretty mood

Yours Nicolai
Nicolai -

Thanks for the information. That is good to know. I have not previously been a competitive tournament player. Even so, I still do my best to follow the rules even in casual play and I play competitively (casually) if that makes sense. =)

So I still like to be clear on what the rules and expectation are for any game I play. I also enjoy building a large variety of decks, even if some of them aren't as powerful as the top tier decks out there.

Warm Regards,

Gavin
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
User avatar
the JabberwocK
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1156
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, user the Jabberwock wrote:
the Jabberwock wrote:
Bandobras Took wrote:Since RW players do not have to declare at all, no.

The term "avatar" does not exist within the rules. It is a term of convenience only. The original rules allow for two RWs in a deck, and allow you to violate normal deck composition rules by having two of the same Ringwraith.

Playing whatever Ringwraith you happen to draw first is the default setting of the game. There is no need (as opposed to Fallen Wizards, who by rule must declare) to declare which Ringwraith you intend to play.
Indeed.

I thought that I recently read in the rules that you could place any number of Ringwraith "followers" in your sideboard. I went back through the document and could not find that, so perhaps I imagined it. =/

If I somehow find the reference I was thinking of, I will post it.

Thanks as always for your help and insight.
This post has been re-created due to lost data and was originally posted by the author quoted above.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions & Debate (unofficial)”