Faction mechanics, the metagame, and the second set

[Bandobras Took]

I've played a few Virtual games now, and while I'm a big fan of the active faction cards, the metagame implications are a bit much.

Which isn't to say I want them changed any more, but that it seems to me that helpers for active factions would be necessary in future sets. The reasons are as follows:

1) Currently, Alliance/Grond implement new rules -- but it's impossible to really write completely fair and balanced rules in the space of one card;
2) The side who wins the first battle is going to keep on winning, no matter what happens to the faction;
3) Whoever gets a faction into play first can have that faction waiting in the opponent's region, making it difficult for the opposing player to get a whole faction ready for defense;
4) The doubling of faction MP values for combat drastically reduces the value of 1 MP factions, but these are sometimes the only viable source of faction MPs in a deck, and to make such crushable in two turns hampers gameplay by essentially eliminating such factions as viable options in a deck; meaning:

Decks focused on Grond/Alliance are going to be fairly strong in the first set of Virtual Cards to the point of forcing others to build their decks around the same concept.

They're already wordy enough as it stands, though, which is why I think "helper" cards should be reserved for another expansion -- here are a few types that I feel are needed:

"Defensive" helper cards -- something that gives a faction a bonus on defense for staying in its own region.

"Safe/Healing" helper cards -- Snaga-Hai may be weak, but Snaga-Hai holed up in Gorgoroth should be seriously untouchable and have an easier time finding recruits.

"Leader" helper cards for synergy -- if a specific character is at a site in the same region as the faction, the faction gets a bonus in army combat.

Examples of each might be:

Defensive Helper -- Fortress of the Isen

Stage Resource Permanent Event

Isengard is protected, yadda, yadda, yadda -- any of your factions located in the Gap of Isen receive a +2 bonus to effective MPs when defending against an opponents' attacking factions.

Safe/Healing Card -- A Few Recruits

Minion Resource Short Event
Playable on a character at a site in the same region as a wounded Orc or Troll Faction. Character makes an influence check against the faction as though it were played from your hand. If the influence check is successful, the faction is healed.

Leader -- Theoden

Add to his text: If Theoden is at the same site as the region containing Riders of Rohan or Wild Horses, these factions gain a +1 bonus to effective MPs when fighting other factions.

As I said, I like the idea of faction combat, but I think making it balanced, believable, and strategic is beyond the scope of the effect of any one Virtual card.

So, am I off my rocker?

Discuss.

[Jambo]

I absolutely agree. VC set 1 is trying to introduce two major new concepts - one, magic dueling, and two, faction fighting. I think it would be wiser to stick with introducing just one for VC set 1 and instead making sure there are enough good supporting cards to prevent major imbalances.

Currently, if one of the players decides to go heavily into magic dueling or faction fighting as part of their deck and the other player hasn't, this can lead to a rather lopsided and imbalanced game. The only way to counter a faction heavy faction fighting deck is to have, well, factions. Likewise a deck designed around magic dueling can only be countered by a deck with spells, magic cards or demon fana. Ringwraiths have it easier since a haven squatting RW can't be touched by magic duels.

As Ben says, for faction fighting there should be a card to heal a faction, possibly a card to allow a faction or factions to retreat before resolving a battle, and possibly a card that gives a boost to the defensive roll, particulary since at the moment only the player of Grond or Alliance can actually initiate a faction battle.

Note: I actually think it would be nice if the play of Grond or Alliance by a player immediately allowed to the other player to place the corresponding card into their playdeck from their sb.

For dueling we need a card that can cancel a duel, e.g. tap to cancel a magic duel, a card that can affect the defensive dice roll, e.g. like Power Against the Shadow, and possibly less game-deciding results of a magic duel and/or more stringent rules for initiating duels against Fallen-wizards.

Regards

[Bandobras Took]

There's one more type I forgot to mention -- hazards.

For example:

No Way Forward

Hazard Permanent Event

Playable if Grond or Alliance of the Free Peoples is in play.
If Gates of Morning is in play, all Minion factions may move one less region than normally allowed to a minimum of two. If Doors of Night is in play, all Hero factions may move one less region than normally allowed to a minimum of two. Stage Resource Factions are unaffected.

Tribal Totem

Hazard Short-Event
May be played at any time during your opponent's turn (not counting against the hazard limit) to give a +3 bonus to a Unique Orc or Troll Faction for the purposes of a Faction battle.

[Jambo]

Are there any thoughts regarding the major metagame changing cards - faction battling and magic dueling/Sacrifice of Form?

From my own perspective, here are mine:

1. With them in, I think we'll lose interest from many players. Making new and interesting cards is one thing. Introducing completely new game mechanics is another.

2. Cross playing VC decks with normal decks will be difficult since all VC decks require scope to cover for these new game mechanics (spells for duels for instance). This inevitable segregation from standard players will probably mean VCs won't become as popular or played as they could be.

3. They don't have (enough) supporting cards to make them fully functional and fair.

What would I do?

1. Remove them from VC1. There are quite a few good suggestions for replacements.

2. Consider just perfecting the ideas as an optional rule or scenario?

3. If they're to remain, at the very least leave them for another set when proper supporting cards can be thought out and introduced.

4. Tone down the effects of the magic duel. One could make it more that you get an advantage from a successful duel (e.g. MPs, card to hand) rather than your opponent getting so spliced and diced?

Segregation is my main concern. I wouldn't feel right suggesting a game with a player using a normal deck and then going and pounding them with a magic duel, massacring all their facitons, or sacrificing my Wizard to dump his Balrog or LE/Sauron.

Regards

[Frodo]

Wow, Bandobras and Jambo, there are some really strong ideas here (and Bandobras, those are eally NEAT card helper suggestions! I was actually thinking of something quite similar!)

What you're both suggesting, of course, is far beyond the scope of what Mark and I originally conceived for faction battling. We wanted one card... just ONE card... that would add some flavor and pizzaz without needing a new game strategy.

I'm still not convinced that the One-card approach can't work. However, I really, really like the more elaborate faction-mechanic you are both suggesting--when I read Theoden's new text, it made me understand better just how the thematic interplay between characters and factions could occur. (There should probably be a general "leader" resource playable on any warrior character--imagine Bergil being forced to take command of the Rangers of Ithilien?--with a bonus depending on how high their mind reaches. Also, Jambo's suggestion of self-sideboarding faction resources is really really important, and makes faction-battling more balanced: one at least must have the right PLAN for what to do if caught in a faction battle, but one need not fear that the card which that plan depends on will not come up).

I do agree that the new faction-mechanics cards should NOT be introduced into V-Set #1. This is not so much because it would take time to create them (you have all already suggested several) but because, as Jambo pointed out, it would be nice to have the whole concept of the set "accepted" and for the COE to build up clout and respect for the set before we start radically redefining things.

So what do we do, then? As your time and interest allows, suggest stuff for this new faction-mechanic idea. But please put your energies into the rest of V-set#1 too, which is most important, and where my own will be. Once V-set 1 is published, we'll open up a new slow batch of "playtesting" cards for v-set 2, and the faction-cards will be in there.

And I might pull out Grond/Alliance from V-set #1 if it proves too unpopular/unstable, but I'd still like more playtesting. For instance, I played a game with the newest versions of these versus Mark. I played my 2 MP faction on my last turn and didn't have time to run away. He came over with his big 5 point baddie (ice orcs with tribute garnered) and creamed me in a fight. My faction was inverted, and was now worth 1 MP. The game ended. I still had a faction point so his didn't double. Effectively, he netted a well-deserved 1 MP out of Alliance. This certainly wasn't broken, but I realize this is only one example.

It was commented that "The side who wins the first battle is going to keep on winning, no matter what happens to the faction." I don't think this is always true, but it is certainly often the case. For instance, you could bring reinforcements. In the above example, if I had succeeded in playing my second 2 MP faction on the same turn as the first, and now I had another turn before the game was called, what would I have done? I would have been faced with a hard choice: 1) sacrifice the inverted 1 MP faction to him (since it was impossible to run far enough away at this point) and rest content knowing he couldn't also battle my second 2 MP faction 2) move my second 2 MP faction over to where my inverted and wounded 1 MP faction was and entrench myself for a batttle! I'd be adding 6, he'd be adding 10; yes he's +4 on me, but I still have fighting CHANCE to hurt him good (lose two points). If I blew it though, I'd lose 2 MORE MP, total. Tough call.

Some Suggestions:

1) lowering the region movement of factions would put more pressure on the offensive player to correctly guess where the opponent might play his faction, so that he can more easily "strike" at it before it has a chance to move. Maybe 3 regions is better?

2) we could make it such that factions are never "destroyed", they simply keep losing MPs (rounded up, so 1 MP factions are immune)--but then we lose theme here! Hmm.

As far as spell-dueling, I'm not against changing the effects of these cards. But so far i've seen zero playtesting comments from people actually using these in decks. I wish someone would comment on their effects first. I know I've had games where my FW corrupted, and I lost my wiz-specific resources, but the real negative was losing the FW, not the resources, and in dueling you can always be prepared with smokes or weighs in the deck and get the key ones back into play.

Still, that was a strong point about dueling also being a new "mechanic."

--Frodo

[Bandobras Took]

There has been a general negative reaction to the faction-battling cards as they stand (though I'm not sure I trust all of the reasons put forth, public opinion is a good thing to pay attention to).

I think it would be a good idea to pull them and introduce them with a VC expansion along with the helper cards because:

1) The complainers would feel like their input was worthwhile, which will mollify them and make them much more likely to accept future expansions; and

2) Nothing really prohibits us from continuing to playtest them.

As to the general effect, I find I don't dare put 1 MP factions into my Virtual deck, because they'll be annihilated. For a FW Saruman fan, having hard-won factions annihilated is disastrous.

Even 2 MP factions is pushing it -- I don't dare play an early faction because of the possibility my opponent will crush it.

Also, there are more than a few hazards and resources that make no sense with mobile factions -- I would be right in naming Trouble On All Borders, No Escape From My Magic, and Long Grievous Siege, among others. Given that rulings would have to be made on them, why not virtualize them as part of an expansion?

Also, what does one do with those factions played under a Leader? Are they allowed to move but the Leader is not?

Incidentally, here some more ideas:

Siege
Hazard Permanent Event

Playable on a Faction (even your own) if Grond or Alliance of the Free Peoples is in play. Target Faction may not move. At the start of the site phase, any company at a site in target faction's region faces an attack of the same type as target faction -- 3 strikes at 7 prowess. This attack is detainment if the faction and the company belong to the same player. At the end of the organization phase, a company at an affected site makes a roll modified by -1 for every non-scout character it contains. If this result is less than 5, the company may not move this turn.

Boromir II
Hero Character

Unique. -1 to his corruption checks. Any of your factions receive a bonus to their combat total equal to Boromir II's direct influence against factions if Boromir II is at a site contained in that faction's current region.

The Witch-King
Ringwraith

Unique. Leader. Manifestation of The Witch-king of Angmar. Can use spirit-magic and shadow-magic. +3 direct influence in Heralded Lord mode. +1 prowess in Fell Rider mode. As your Ringwraith, up to two Ringwraith followers in his company may be controlled with no influence. You may bring these followers into play during separate organization phases. Any of your factions in a region containing the Witch-King's current site are considered unwounded for the purposes of determining their combat value. Home Sites: Carn Dum, Minas Morgul

(The last one may be a bit strong -- on the other hand, shouldn't he be frightening? )

[Jambo]

I think the reason there might not have been much on the magic duels is because many perceive them as being a little over-powered. I know I wouldn't feel right designing an Akhorahil Malady/Magic Duel deck... Presumably, you'd visit the site of the Wizard, Malady some, CvCC the Wizard, then if the Wiz is still alive, Roots of the Earth him.

I've not played against anyone using FW in a virtual game. Now this may be pure chance, but it could alo be due to the inherent vulnerability they have from a roaming Wizard looking to duel them near the end of the game when the cost of losing your FW could be massive. Along these lines miguel raised the most poignant points, particularly about games being being possibly decided by a random throw of the dice instead of through skill alone.

Maybe the first set should be more modest - to entice people into the idea of VC expansions? Certainly, the faction battling and magic duels are ambitious and whilst the concepts are cool, I think they're just a little bit raw at the moment. Just as some might love the ideas, others will no doubt be put off by them to the extent of never playing VCs. Lack of players will equal dead expansion.

[Ringbearer]

I agree to Jambo, and we discussed it a bit. I think its better to "sweeten up" the audience a bit by introducing just vanilla cards, not a heavy theme but merely some cards that are nice to play, but dont have a huge impact on the game. Cards like Plotting Ruin (v) are certainly cards that arent broken, but add a fun theme.

Magic battles and faction battles are certainly a big thing, and they should be pushed back for 2 reasons:

1.) They are a big thing, and let people first get used to virtuals, before we also alter game mechanics in a big way.

2.) They need extensive playtesting, and I think we should release a final result for set 1 anytime soon. Just add the cards we know are ok and present it.

Also, there should be a small structure in the virtual sets. I suggest using one major theme in it (like faction battle) so you have enough space to add some cards to support the theme. If you do that with 2 major themes they will start clogging up space in the set or simply making it too big.

[Frodo]

Well, that's at least 3 of us that have weighed in now on holding off on the faction battling and wizard dueling. That's good enough for me; so as of now, Grond/Alliance, Vanishment/Roots of the Earth, and Shameful Deeds are out of Virtual Set #1. After more recommendations are made on them and a new trial text is created, they will be recommended for players to playtest again (for a distant V-Set #2).

Like before, I encourage you all to start putting your brains together for different ways the faction-battling thing might work, although there's certainly no longer a rush on that. One thing to consider is the whole concept of "running away"--it was unusual in the books for a faction to ever really try to run away from a battle it was in (except maybe the Uruk-Hai from the Riders of Rohan, who ran right into Fangorn), so perhaps this could be juiced up more (for instance, a card that specifically allowed running away, though minion factions could not run away into free- or border-regions; then the opponent might have a faction-hazard that turns Fangorn into a deathtrap for factions if a faction tries to move through it!) I love the suggestion on Siege, by the way--wow! Another thing I'd like to see is certain areas of the map becoming key "battlegrounds." Perhaps if two rival factions enter a battleground they cannot run away from each other. Helm's Deep, of course, would be one suggestion for this.

Magic duel-wise, I'm a little sad; I was at least hopeful that Roots would stay in as another useful RW card. Shameful Deeds also did not seem so bad, considering that the only FW stage resources discarded when an FW is taken prisoner are any stage resources that happen to be on the FW himself. However, they are all probably best introduced as a set.

There will be other cards that will inevitably not be added to the set if not enough feedback is gathered on them. The card that comes most to mind is Morannon--having another way to win the game is a big deal, and although I like what the card is trying to do (allow a One Ring win without being stopped by the most popular One Ring-stopping strategy of all--Rivers), it must be carefully playtested.

Frodo

[Jambo]

Ok, I think that's a wise decision for VC set 1. If you're needing replacements for the withdrawn cards, there are quite a few other interesting and appealing suggestions already.

Regarding Roots of the Earth, RWs can still deal blows to squatting Wizards through Terror Heralds Doom. This allows RWs to move to hero havens and initiate CvCC. Presumably Malady is also possible too, so there's plenty of options still for active RWs. In that respect I'm still rather pensive over an active Akhorahill deck and what it might be able to achieve in the right hands...

I have to admit, I really liked Morannon. It offers a different way to win (or lose) with the One Ring, and in doing so, also opens up using some of the other anti-One Ring hazards that never see play because a ring is always tested at Mount Doom just before dunking. For instance, Will of the Ring, The Precious, The Ring Will Have But One Master (possibly). As to whether it's balanced or not in its current form, I'm not sure yet. I guess we'd need to see people accomplish the task and ask them what they thought. Bandobras came quite close in his attempt. He was using 3 x Fellowship and Star of High Hope to boost prowess to pretty high levels and until Faramir bolted through Turning Hope to Despair and taking the Fellowships with him, Boromir's prowess was around the 15-17 mark and taking most of the Nazgul Perm-events untapped.

Still, there seems to be plenty of options for the hazard player to deal with Morannon. Saving Twilights for the turn Morannon is played to remove Gates and/or any environment events, using the aforementioned anti-One Ring hazards, like Will of the Ring and My Precious, or using traditional company splitting hazards like Seized by Terror and Turning Hope to Despair to disrupt any Fellowships.

Just a question on this. Morannon mentions facing the attack as if a 1-character company. Would this facet of Morannon affect Fellowships played on the company?

[Tythis]

Okay... In an attempt to make the card more balanced without adding a ton of support cards, how about this:

Here's my proposal (explaination directly following). Read carefully, because it's quite different:

Each player places their factions with a region on the map (or with a region card) containing the site where they were played (unless that faction has already moved). Factions may move up to four regions during their controller’s organization phase (6 for dragon or eagle factions). During either player's end-of-turn phase, once per region, the resource player may initiate a battle between all factions of an opposing alignment in the same region (FW are always counted as opposing for this card). You and opponent roll and add the total faction MPs in that region to the roll (side with Army of the Dead automatically wins). Winner causes a faction of their choice in that region to be worth -1 MP to a minimum of 1. This card is worth 1 MP for each such battle won by the controller of this card. Factions worth 1 MP or reduced to 1 MP may not initiate battle, but may still participate otherwise. This card may be discarded during the organization phase.

And now here's the justification and thought process for the changes:

First, the ability to have double faction points seem to be an unintended broken effect of this card, so I removed that possibility. However, with a faction starting with or reduced to 1MP, the controller of the card may still gain 1MP per turn by continuing to demoralize it.

Second, it seems to be too easy to defeat a faction if you have one with high faction points against a 1 point faction, so I toned that down. I changed it to add just the MP instead of double MP. If someone wants to really cream their opponent with virtually no risk, they should bring multiple factions.

Third, the player of the card is in complete control as the only one able to initiate the battles... so let's balance it a bit more by allowing the opponent to also initiate battles with his factions. But, I'm also adding that the controller of the card may discard it during the org just in case the opponent plays some big factions and starts screwing them with their own card.

Fourth, as I was writing it, I realized that with the damage reduced to just 1 MP loss and 1 MP gain per turn, the effects aren't quite as devastating as before. Therefore, I don't think the body check is necessary and I removed it. The winner gets to chose one faction in the region to be -1MP and they also gain 1 MP if they are the owner of the card. If the opponent has only 1MP factions or it's been reduced to 1MP, they can still gain 1MP for each success, but they also risk a loss to their own if the roll is bad and the 1MP faction happens to win. lastly, I restricted 1 MP factions to being unable to initiate battles since they can't go any lower than 1 and therefor risk nothing.

Fifth, with the current wording "Each player places their factions with a region on the map (or with a region card) containing the site where they were played", a second one of these cards being played would reset all factions back to their home sites. I added "(unless that faction has already moved)" to clarify.

Lastly, I was going to lower movement from 4 to 3 regions, but after all the other changes it seemed unnecessary, so I left it as is. I threw in the 6 regions for dragon and eagle factions for flavor, but that's not a big deal to keep or toss.

What do you guys think?

[Nerdmeetsyou]

I like it much more better... if we ever include faction battleing we should do it more the way you showed...


but there is one thing I would change!
I would place the factions at a site in the region.
WHY?
because there are a lot of cards that affect factions at certain sites...
and if we don't connect the factions to sites..
this cards either become quiet unlogic... (how can a faction affect the site where it's played if it is at the other end of ME...???)
Or we would have to errate each of them... which I think is always a problem which is not necessary...

and you could influence the faction at the site it currently is!!!



And I would reduce the movement... not only for playing reason...
also for the logic reason...
WHY can a faction move as fast as a smal group of characters can...
this seams quiet unlogic if you have ever thought about that..
armies need a lot of preparations and organisations to march...
in real life they are a lot of slower...

I would suggest 2 regions only for movement and 4 regions only for dragon and eagal factions. (maybe 3 for animal factions.)

[Bandobras Took]

No, I don't think it's as difficult as you make it out to be to keep them with regions -- a lot of the faction cards have to do with "the region containing the site where the faction is playable and all adjacent regions."

And for those few that do (Like Long Grievous Siege), all you have to do is add the phrase "Faction may not move."