do you guys think that if the witchking is used as the nazgul attack it is affected by the prowess reduction help that all the rohirrim stuff provides? Or does he keep his original prowess?horns horns horns wrote:Playable on a company moving from a site in Rohan to Minas Tirith if any character in that company has a home site of Edoras. Your Riders of Rohan (and any character with Edoras as a home site, Noble Steed, Great Shield of Rohan, or Red Arrow in this company) add half their MP value to the MP value of this card when it is played (round down). Company faces 3 attacks (may not be cancelled): Orcs 5@12; Animals 3@14; Nazgûl 1@20. The prowess of these attacks is decreased by the MP value of this card. If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used as the Nazgûl attack. Cannot be duplicated.
wording on horns horns horns
underlines mine:
-
Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Further: Do you use the WK as the 1 at 20 attack, or is the 1 at 20 attack replaced by the WK's 17/12, so that he has a shot at surviving? Do you get MPs for killing the WK as part of the attack, or does this card function like the Under-deeps auto-attacks?
No answers. Just more questions.
No answers. Just more questions.
Deep further: What happens if the Witch-king was "revealed to you by a mechanism of the game" and it was defeated? (unlikely, but still possible if a female character faced it).
I suggest to make it simple and delete this text from the card. I mean the following text: If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used as the Nazgûl attack.
Thoughts?
I suggest to make it simple and delete this text from the card. I mean the following text: If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used as the Nazgûl attack.
Thoughts?
__
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Also, what happens if your opponent is hero and Bane is out, i.e. preventing him from searching his play deck or discard pile for The Witch-king. 
I think the idea was that one could receive MPs for actually killing the WK. But I agree, it could do with some tidying up.
I think the idea was that one could receive MPs for actually killing the WK. But I agree, it could do with some tidying up.
Nah... too much reward. This card normally gives around 4 MPs, 5 points more would be broken. As you know I'm playing this deck in our tourney and it's not very hard to play Horns in a big company and keep Eowyn untapped to face nazgul's attack (or even playing Helm of her Secrecy).marcos wrote:we could make the attack 1 at 20/12 and if the attack is defeated you receive 5 MPs and remove any nazgul in play from the game... though it will be very easy for eowyn with some sword or booster...
__
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
I don't really see the conflict here.
A) The opponent who predicts a Horns, Horns, Horns strategy will NOT play his Witch-King of Angmar and will make sure it ends up in his discard pile.
B) The resource player will play his Witch-King, of course. But the resource player cannot receive MP for killing his own hazard event because of the rules. Therefore, his only chance to benefit from killing the Nazgul is to SB in multiple copies of Mount Slain.
Yes, if you kill your opponent's hazard, of course you would get the MPs. But this is not as likely as it seems. Therefore, the MP bonus is not too great or too easy at all. We also have to remember that Nazguls are now often enhanced.
As far as rules questions go, Bane prevents all searching of the deck, so of course Bane would prevent HHH's ability.
I agree that the substitution clause is slightly ambiguous. However, I think we simply need to use the established game term "in lieu of." So the card would now read:
"If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used in lieu of the Nazgûl attack."
It would get any negative prowess modifiers and it uses the prow/body on its card.
In the Worlds Virtual tournaments, Jon faced the Witch-King in at least 3 different games using Horns, Horns, Horns. It was very dramatic! especially when the WK proved enhanced by TNAA in one game with his Pale Sword. Removing this clause interrupts one of the thematic joys of the card's mission.
I think I covered everything above, but if I missed a point somewhere, I hope someone lets me know.
Frodo
A) The opponent who predicts a Horns, Horns, Horns strategy will NOT play his Witch-King of Angmar and will make sure it ends up in his discard pile.
B) The resource player will play his Witch-King, of course. But the resource player cannot receive MP for killing his own hazard event because of the rules. Therefore, his only chance to benefit from killing the Nazgul is to SB in multiple copies of Mount Slain.
Yes, if you kill your opponent's hazard, of course you would get the MPs. But this is not as likely as it seems. Therefore, the MP bonus is not too great or too easy at all. We also have to remember that Nazguls are now often enhanced.
As far as rules questions go, Bane prevents all searching of the deck, so of course Bane would prevent HHH's ability.
I agree that the substitution clause is slightly ambiguous. However, I think we simply need to use the established game term "in lieu of." So the card would now read:
"If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used in lieu of the Nazgûl attack."
It would get any negative prowess modifiers and it uses the prow/body on its card.
In the Worlds Virtual tournaments, Jon faced the Witch-King in at least 3 different games using Horns, Horns, Horns. It was very dramatic! especially when the WK proved enhanced by TNAA in one game with his Pale Sword. Removing this clause interrupts one of the thematic joys of the card's mission.
I think I covered everything above, but if I missed a point somewhere, I hope someone lets me know.
Frodo
I agree.Frodo wrote:So the card would now read:
"If Witch-king of Angmar is in play, or if your opponent revealed it to you by a mechanism of the game, it must be used in lieu of the Nazgûl attack."
__
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!
Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws breath!