I usually have one in deck and one in sideboard, that's true.
Not broken for drakes/undead maybe, but for men/orcs?
First game played with the new 7 cards!!!
-
Thorsten the Traveller
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Tilburg, Netherlands
Beer from tap is always better than from bottle.
I usually have one in deck and one in sideboard, that's true.
Not broken for drakes/undead maybe, but for men/orcs?
I usually have one in deck and one in sideboard, that's true.
Not broken for drakes/undead maybe, but for men/orcs?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
might need to test as i said, but in a case like you posted before (1 big guy + 2 hobbits), they usually play stealth, so there's nothing to worry about, and still, when they don't, they pack 2 or 3 cancellers + untappers + torque of hues + etc, etc, etc...
i think it needs more playtesting, think that the greatest weak point of a man hazard start is wilderness, and most of the decks uses to travel through wilderness a lot, and orcs have the same problem with border and free domains...
A deck like these will almost never be able to hit all sites and/or regions effectively...
i think it needs more playtesting, think that the greatest weak point of a man hazard start is wilderness, and most of the decks uses to travel through wilderness a lot, and orcs have the same problem with border and free domains...
A deck like these will almost never be able to hit all sites and/or regions effectively...
I’m really glad to hear about the results of the test game. I hope others will continue to report on their playtests and game experiences!
Re: WORDS OF POWER AND TERROR
It’s been a while now, but I’m pretty sure that I remembered Scimitars and Helms could be used with this card. I don’t really see a problem with this because, personally, I see Helms as being a really weak card.
However, I THINK I had totally forgotten about Two or Three Tribes Present. It’s true a player can use this card to create a deck that has NOTHING to do with the original intent of the card—to bolster Nazgul attack strategies (or at least Nazgul THEMED strategies). However, do we think that: A) this is such a terrible misuse of theme that we must correct our error and B) this is too strong of a combo, so we must correct our error? I’m not so sure it’s a strong combo for one big reason: normally, TTTP cannot be cancelled. However, a player need only play Marvels Told on the TNAA in response to TTTP being played, and now TTTP fizzles. This really hurts the viability of TTTP.
That being said, I did not consider Helms and the orc strategy when I made that choice, but I still don’t think that this non-attacking way of using Nazguls would make the TNAA card overpowered.
Re: Fury of the Iron Crown
Is that card really that powerful that we are worried about it being used from under TNAA? I like Jamie’s idea of forcing one to draw up a unique card in general, but isn’t Fury a bit under-played? Comments welcome.
I would have gladly used the phrase “cards that target a Nazgul” instead of “Nazgul in the game text” for TNAA, however, the meaning of “target” seems so elusive for most players (even the rules judges!) to grasp. For example, does Two or Three Tribes target Nazguls? Does Helms? A lot of players simply look for targets in the playability line. “Game text” is at least crystal clear, rules-wise.
Frodo
Re: WORDS OF POWER AND TERROR
It’s been a while now, but I’m pretty sure that I remembered Scimitars and Helms could be used with this card. I don’t really see a problem with this because, personally, I see Helms as being a really weak card.
However, I THINK I had totally forgotten about Two or Three Tribes Present. It’s true a player can use this card to create a deck that has NOTHING to do with the original intent of the card—to bolster Nazgul attack strategies (or at least Nazgul THEMED strategies). However, do we think that: A) this is such a terrible misuse of theme that we must correct our error and B) this is too strong of a combo, so we must correct our error? I’m not so sure it’s a strong combo for one big reason: normally, TTTP cannot be cancelled. However, a player need only play Marvels Told on the TNAA in response to TTTP being played, and now TTTP fizzles. This really hurts the viability of TTTP.
This is because, after a lot of playtesting, I decided that TNaA was simply not strong enough. First of all, it takes a good amount of time to even SB in the needed cards to the discard pile (one Nazgul, 2 HL; make sure he doesn't pop your Nazgul in the interim), then you need another Nazgul in hand for the attack, which means you must be packing a lot of Nazgul in your deck (for draw and to avoid duplication with opponent), and such decks with so many Nazgul are already better suited to a more efficient “drop and draw” strategy. Second, Nazgul attacks are SO rare, and to make them more playable you need a card like Fell-Beast stacked, then perhaps a thematic enhancer or two, but most of these won’t be playable because they are too situation-specific (Black Breath, for instance). Plus, the opponent can Marvels Told your TNaA in response to the Fell-Beast, effectively cancelling the Nazgul attack! I found that allowing only 3 cards meant you really just wanted cards that were more “efficient”, rather than potentially fun, such as a Fell-beast, a Morgul knife, and maybe another TNaA. But allowing 4 cards gives a player more creative options for the Nazgul. Let me repeat this: it does NOT make the Nazgul more playable. It simply allows for more creative options. Finally, the Dragon hazard helper card is simply much, much more powerful. This makes the Nazgul card a little more on par.>One that note - I wanted to check the reason for the difference in wording between Half and Eye Open and TNaA? The former takes 3 from discard. The latter 4 from discard or sideboard which is infinitely more powerful.
That being said, I did not consider Helms and the orc strategy when I made that choice, but I still don’t think that this non-attacking way of using Nazguls would make the TNAA card overpowered.
That’s an interesting idea, Jambo. I like the theme and playability of it. But I guess it means an FW would not have a chance at the Fate roll until he got out the card that granted full MPS for his palantirs though, right? Hmm…>>The Fate of the Ithil Stone seemed better balanced with a cc@6 for my Wizard followed by a roll of 5 to succeed. I was thinking maybe the roll to succeed should have been modified by the MPs of Palantir you have in play rather than an arbitrary 3 for each. Then the Greater Item Palantiri with 3 CPs would be better than the 2 MP Palantir or Orthanc or Minas Tirith which only impart 2 CPs. Minion players, particularly those playing as Sauron or The Lidless Eye might be well advised to pack a Palantir or two. Smile
I don’t mind adding this restriction clause. Btw, I meant that the card should read “that nazgul cannot be played as an event this movement/hazard phase.”>>Regards Words of Power and Terror, I think the restriction on having to have Nazgul in hand and also not being able to play it same m/h phase is excellent. It's potentially a very powerful card when used with TNaA.
Re: Fury of the Iron Crown
Is that card really that powerful that we are worried about it being used from under TNAA? I like Jamie’s idea of forcing one to draw up a unique card in general, but isn’t Fury a bit under-played? Comments welcome.
I would have gladly used the phrase “cards that target a Nazgul” instead of “Nazgul in the game text” for TNAA, however, the meaning of “target” seems so elusive for most players (even the rules judges!) to grasp. For example, does Two or Three Tribes target Nazguls? Does Helms? A lot of players simply look for targets in the playability line. “Game text” is at least crystal clear, rules-wise.
Frodo
Hi Frodo,
Re FW and FotIS
For FW and Fate of the Ithil-stone, could one just add the word "normal" beside MPs? Doesn't normal mean the MP value as stated on the card text rather than the actual MP value of the Palantir (which would be 1 for FW). For instance:
Fate of the Ithil-stone V:
Playable on a character. You may tap this card if he bears and can use a Palantír (or if he is Aragorn II bearing a Palantír and Narsil). He makes a corruption check and subtracts the total corruption points of all Palantíri in play. If he is still in play, make a roll, adding his mind (10 if a Wizard) and the normal MP value of each Palantír you have in play. If result is >17, invert this card and opponent must reveal hand. If inverted, Bane of the Ithil Stone cannot be played and is discarded, this card gives 1 MP, and a minion opponent receives -1 hand size (-2 if Sauron, -3 if The Lidless Eye) and +1 hazard limit against his companies. Cannot be duplicated.
Re TNaA
You raised a major point Frodo as to whether cards played from underneath TNaA can be fizzled by MT removing TNaA in response. Is this really true? I would have thought that once played, the card is then on the table and completely dissociated from TNaA. If indeed, this is possible then perhaps everything is fine as it stands with the card. Certainly, one can play cards from underneath TNaA in response to a MT targeting TNaA.
One way to check regarding whether this is possible or not, is by what happens when a creature is played from under Summons from Long Sleep, and a MT is played on the SflS in response to the creature?
I have no issues with Scimitars of Steel and Helms of Iron being playable from underneath TNaA. In fact I see this as quite cool, since they can backfire if an opponent is also using Men, Orcs or Trolls say. A dedicated Nazgul strat is possibly too restricted on its own (unless one goes the Morgul Night route) and I kind of like the way TNaA helps other things too. It would be a shame however, if it was never being used to help Nazguls... but with 4 cards underneath and from the sideboard it's hard to imagine a fell beast and a pale sword wouldn't make it underneath one of them.
Re Words of Power and Terror
Frodo, that restriction I mentioned is already part of the card, and all I was saying was that I believe it's essential that it already works this way.
Re FW and FotIS
For FW and Fate of the Ithil-stone, could one just add the word "normal" beside MPs? Doesn't normal mean the MP value as stated on the card text rather than the actual MP value of the Palantir (which would be 1 for FW). For instance:
Fate of the Ithil-stone V:
Playable on a character. You may tap this card if he bears and can use a Palantír (or if he is Aragorn II bearing a Palantír and Narsil). He makes a corruption check and subtracts the total corruption points of all Palantíri in play. If he is still in play, make a roll, adding his mind (10 if a Wizard) and the normal MP value of each Palantír you have in play. If result is >17, invert this card and opponent must reveal hand. If inverted, Bane of the Ithil Stone cannot be played and is discarded, this card gives 1 MP, and a minion opponent receives -1 hand size (-2 if Sauron, -3 if The Lidless Eye) and +1 hazard limit against his companies. Cannot be duplicated.
Re TNaA
You raised a major point Frodo as to whether cards played from underneath TNaA can be fizzled by MT removing TNaA in response. Is this really true? I would have thought that once played, the card is then on the table and completely dissociated from TNaA. If indeed, this is possible then perhaps everything is fine as it stands with the card. Certainly, one can play cards from underneath TNaA in response to a MT targeting TNaA.
One way to check regarding whether this is possible or not, is by what happens when a creature is played from under Summons from Long Sleep, and a MT is played on the SflS in response to the creature?
I have no issues with Scimitars of Steel and Helms of Iron being playable from underneath TNaA. In fact I see this as quite cool, since they can backfire if an opponent is also using Men, Orcs or Trolls say. A dedicated Nazgul strat is possibly too restricted on its own (unless one goes the Morgul Night route) and I kind of like the way TNaA helps other things too. It would be a shame however, if it was never being used to help Nazguls... but with 4 cards underneath and from the sideboard it's hard to imagine a fell beast and a pale sword wouldn't make it underneath one of them.
Re Words of Power and Terror
Frodo, that restriction I mentioned is already part of the card, and all I was saying was that I believe it's essential that it already works this way.
Well, here what the digest (#45) which last ruled on Summons from long Sleep said:Jambo wrote:One way to check regarding whether this is possible or not, is by what happens when a creature is played from under Summons from Long Sleep, and a MT is played on the SflS in response to the creature?
So I presume the same applies (although the part about a creature not being able to be played in response is not applicable). Therefore, there will be no 'fizzling' of cards played from underneath TNaA.I don't seem to have the initial question that was posted to the list, but we are reversing Brian Wong's ruling that playing Marvels Told in response to playing a creature off of Summons from Long Sleep will discard the creature and Summons. In particular:
1) You can play Marvels Told on a Summons from Long Sleep in response to a creature being played from it (before the creature has resolved), to discard the Summons. The creature still attacks, but without the +2 bonus.
2) You can play Marvels Told on a Summons from Long Sleep (with or without a creature on it) and it will be removed from play. This assumes that the Marvels Told starts the chain of effects. Note that a creature played on Summons from Long Sleep cannot be played in response because creatures have to start a chain of effects.
Virtual Lost in dark domains can cancel it lolFrodo wrote:I’m not so sure it’s a strong combo for one big reason: normally, TTTP cannot be cancelled. However, a player need only play Marvels Told on the TNAA in response to TTTP being played, and now TTTP fizzles. This really hurts the viability of TTTP.
anyway, so marveling TNaA will make the card under it to count against the hazard limit...
I think that using nazguls for some other purposes than just sb and attack is just awesome, is like a new type of "nazgul-strategy". After all, Nazguls were more than just wraiths looking for the one ring, they were captains at great battles (WK at fields of pelennor and Khamul at the black gate), and great kings of men until Sauron corrupted them, so, why won't they guide their black armies to the victory?
Don't you guys think so?
So i don't agree in restricting it more, i think it's ok as it is. Better wait after the tourney to make conclusions, we will see if it is overpowered or not after several plays...
my 2 cents...
Marcos
Btw, brian said something about that he is going to take down the files server, so everyone who hasn't updated yet, you better do that quickly
i think we missed a detail on Indur unleashed, it should state somewhere:
"If Indur is your Ringwraith"
the way it is made right now, i could make a khamul deck, then play indur as follower, and go to underdeeps in fell rider mode for the balrog as ally... I guess we need to modify this unless we want to encourage indur being played as a follower...
best!
"If Indur is your Ringwraith"
the way it is made right now, i could make a khamul deck, then play indur as follower, and go to underdeeps in fell rider mode for the balrog as ally... I guess we need to modify this unless we want to encourage indur being played as a follower...
best!
Brian's planning to take down the files server - what does that mean?
Anyhow, thematically speaking Marcos, there's nothing wrong with the way TNaA works at present. The question will be more one of balance, which hopefully we should get more of an idea about post-tourney.
Yes, Marvels Tolding TNaA will at least make the card count against the hazard limit if it's being played as the freebie.
Indur should have that wording, yes. Damn. I wonder if someone will come up with a Indur follower deck that utilises this loophole...
Anyhow, thematically speaking Marcos, there's nothing wrong with the way TNaA works at present. The question will be more one of balance, which hopefully we should get more of an idea about post-tourney.
Yes, Marvels Tolding TNaA will at least make the card count against the hazard limit if it's being played as the freebie.
Indur should have that wording, yes. Damn. I wonder if someone will come up with a Indur follower deck that utilises this loophole...
-
Ringbearer
- Ex Council Member
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:39 pm
I played a game with marcos, trying to use WK Unleashed, and we should defintely adjust the card a bit. It takes simply too long to get the WK to carn Dum to use the second text functionally. If he could start there its debatable, but that is not the case.
"I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemies eyes."
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.
Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.
Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower
I agree Ringbearer.
I'd like to see the Witch-king Unleashed really make the Witch-king into something special. Right now the card encourages a squatting Witch-King, either at Carn-Dum sending out boosted characters (meh) or squatting at some non-haven site (rather uneventful). The Witch-king is the biggest and most fearsome bad guy and not only that has 12 body! Let's make him so.
There's also two very cool cards we could make us of here: Fiery Blade and Morgul Blade...
I'd like to see the Witch-king Unleashed really make the Witch-king into something special. Right now the card encourages a squatting Witch-King, either at Carn-Dum sending out boosted characters (meh) or squatting at some non-haven site (rather uneventful). The Witch-king is the biggest and most fearsome bad guy and not only that has 12 body! Let's make him so.
There's also two very cool cards we could make us of here: Fiery Blade and Morgul Blade...
Last edited by Jambo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
it means: no more updates...Jambo wrote:Brian's planning to take down the files server - what does that mean?
i was planning to make oneJambo wrote:Indur should have that wording, yes. Damn. I wonder if someone will come up with a Indur follower deck that utilises this loophole...
i think that the idea is not bad at all but obviously, that wasn't the purpose of the card...
