Council of Elrond

Hello:

I have read in a lot of places (here too) that ALiYE is not so useful, that nobody uses it, or definitively that it "sucks". I am still not the big connoisseur of many cards and I believe I haven't used it, but, just thinking: I would say the most people that get the card played against them take the last sentence: "choose for you to make a roll. If the result is greater than the character’s mind plus 6, the character is discarded (along with all cards he controls)". And with a character with mind for example of 6, the card has no meaning. On the other hand, a character with mind 2 could be maybe discarded. But, to discard a weak character is not the great deal. But, if the character has mind 4, this character could be more powerful and it is good to discard him, although one should roll 11 or 12 to discard him. It as that a little difficult. Are these the reasons that the cards is considered not useful or is it something else?

A LIE IN YOUR EYES ‐ Short‐event (R)
Playable on an untapped non‐Ringwraith, non‐Wizard character. Your opponent may either; tap the character, tap an ally the
character controls, or choose for you to make a roll. If the result is greater than the character’s mind plus 6, the character is
discarded (along with all cards he controls).

Mainly because of its power in relation to other hazards. Most hazard strategies use cards that are, in all frankness, borderline broken to flat-out broken. Lie In Your Eyes is useful for tapping low-minders, especially ones bearing high-MP items.

Hey Bandobras, thank you. I believe, I have read a couple of your opinions, among others, here and maybe in the old forum, about this card.

And, may I ask (and sorry for the ignorance): I have read in the last days many times the concept "broken" but I stil don't know and understand what that means. I have told that I was 10 or 11 years without playing (newly restarted though), but I don't remember that concept.

"Broken" in this context usually means its power level is beyond the general norm for a given card type, or that it allows you to do things that bypass game mechanics in an unintended way. This is obviously a somewhat subjective term.

A good example would be Unabated in Malice. It creates an attack without counting against the hazard limit. That would be bad enough on its own, but using it with Tidings of Bold Spies means that a company must cancel a total of four enhanced attacks before playing a resource during the site phase -- all for the cost of only one against the hazard limit. Given that the normal method of forcing a person to use four cancelers costs three against the hazard limit (the auto-attack is on the site card, after all), the combination of Unabated+Tidings could be deemed broken.

River is a lesser example. The ability to stop a company from doing anything in the site phase is strong on its own, but:
One problem with the card is that it favors Rangers over all other character types, a situation unparalleled until the release of the (again, broken) Beorning Skin-Changers. People have to throw Rangers in their decks simply because this card exists. That is an effect on the metagame that is out of line with other hazards.
Additionally, since the card is played on a site instead of on a company, you can play it even when the company in question is not moving. Since it is a hazard that punishes moving companies strongly, having it not even run the risk of clogging up your hand if your opponent is playing a squatter deck moves it well beyond the level of many other hazards.

I have checked the card texts and your examples. Thank you for you complete explanation, now is it clear to me.

I use it against fw. And it is very useful