[Virtual Suggestion] A Lie In Your Eyes

[GuardianOfTheFlame]

Yes, I also prefer Leon's version, but you'd have to add "Cannot be Duplicated."

Dho! We forgot it!

So the ultimate version is

[V] A Lie in Your Eyes
Permanent event
Any non unique detainment attack against non ringwraith company attacks normally with -1 prowess. Discard this card if such an attack is defeated. Cannot be duplicated.

What do you think about it, Bandobras?

Initially I had thought Guardian of the Flame might have something to do with the "super-hero" avatar you have!

[OT]: the avatar is the Green Latern Hal Jordan. It fits well with the name cause is one of the keeper of the green flame of OA . on the meccg.net forum I use instead the Invictus cover (another album of VS). I like the Perseus statue (after killing Medusa) in the image and also the concept of the story!

[Nerdmeetsyou]

I would make it a long event...

[Bandobras Took]

I still prefer -1 strike at full prowess to -1 prowess to the full attack. There are two reasons for this:

1) -1 prowess makes people more likely to risk staying untapped; and
2) having the number of strikes affected gives a small boost to those creatures which say, "each character faces a strike."

Also, with the boost active RW strategies are being given, I see no reason to make RW companies immune any more than I see the need to make Wizard companies immune.

I don't understand... maia are 2@13/9 so they become 1@13/9.

-3 prowess against hero companies.

I would find Shelob for example too overpowered if used against minions.

If she attacks from her permanent event state, is she keyed to anything?

With the proposed version, how would the chain of effects (vs. Marvels Told) work on, say, a chilled Elf-Lord attack (which, incidentally, is another reason to go with -1 strike instead of -1 prowess)? I ask because I'm no expert on passive conditions and this sure sounds like one. One ought to be able to use Marvels Told and return the attack to its original status; can a rules expert tell us whether that would be possible with the permanent event version?

I would modify such a permanent event to say,

A Lie In Your Eyes

Hazard Permanent Event
Any non unique detainment attack becomes a normal attack with -1 strike. Discard this card if such an affected attack is defeated. If this card is discarded, its effects are immediately removed from all attacks it has been affecting.

[GuardianOfTheFlame]

I still prefer -1 strike at full prowess to -1 prowess to the full attack

about this there are 2 point to consider:
1) attack with only 1 strike. I think you must add "-1 strike (to a minimum of one)" that's one of the few guideline in MECCG texts. So creatures like Orc or Uruk Lieutenant don't have drawback
2) creatures that said "each character faces a strike" don't have drawback cause -1 strike doesn't apply (is this that you mean?)
I prefer -1 prowess but also -1 strike could be good.

Also, with the boost active RW strategies are being given, I see no reason to make RW companies immune any more than I see the need to make Wizard companies immune.

In terms of gameplay I agree, but in term of roleplay I think that no orcs, men, spiders or other would attack a spectre of the ring. They're too dangerous.
I also think that indisciplinated soldiers could fight themselves, but not their generals... especially when they fear them.
The same for heroes, the people of Middle Earth has great respect of Maia and they know they have great powers, so I don't think anyone could be so stupid to attack them.

-3 prowess against hero companies.

Dho! I forgot it... I never use Maia vs hero

I would make it a long event...

I prefer Permanent as Rank Upon Rank and similar: you can also discard it defeating an attack (also automatick!) while in case of long-event only with marvel's told.For a long-event the phrase "Discard this card if such an affected attack is defeated" must be eliminated.

If she attacks from her permanent event state, is she keyed to anything?

I think she is keyed to the regions written on the card by name (but as written in LE rules they're Shadow-land and Drak-domain so she is detainment).

...about chain of effect I don't know, but I think that Elf-lord is too strong and that this card cannot be applied on him.
Detainment vs heroes are strong (not only for prowess but also for playability), maybe it's better specifies "only vs minion" again?

[Nerdmeetsyou]

I think that it would be best not to affect maia and ringwraith hazards...
just for balancing function...

but I would like it if it would work... maybe you can include an extra clause for maia attacks and ringwraith attacks.... like an extra mali...



but affection all other hazards is okay i think... because without, it becomes not worth playing...

[Bandobras Took]

I still prefer -1 strike at full prowess to -1 prowess to the full attack

about this there are 2 point to consider:
1) attack with only 1 strike. I think you must add "-1 strike (to a minimum of one)" that's one of the few guideline in MECCG texts. So creatures like Orc or Uruk Lieutenant don't have drawback

Oops, right. That was in my original version, but forgot to re-include it.

2) creatures that said "each character faces a strike" don't have drawback cause -1 strike doesn't apply (is this that you mean?)

Precisely.

Also, with the boost active RW strategies are being given, I see no reason to make RW companies immune any more than I see the need to make Wizard companies immune.

In terms of gameplay I agree, but in term of roleplay I think that no orcs, men, spiders or other would attack a spectre of the ring. They're too dangerous.

However, in terms of roleplay, I can easily picture RWs going out of their way to kill things that irritate them.

I also think that indisciplinated soldiers could fight themselves, but not their generals... especially when they fear them. The same for heroes, the people of Middle Earth has great respect of Maia and they know they have great powers, so I don't think anyone could be so stupid to attack them.

Not necessarily -- people like Barliman only knew Gandalf as a nice old fellow with a fiery temper. Especially since the Istari were forbidden to match power with power.

...about chain of effect I don't know, but I think that Elf-lord is too strong and that this card cannot be applied on him.
Detainment vs heroes are strong (not only for prowess but also for playability), maybe it's better specifies "only vs minion" again?

Elf-Lord's really going to be no stronger against heroes than a well-run orc deck vs minions with this card I believe.

I think that it would be best not to affect maia and ringwraith hazards...

The current version under discussion specifies non-unique attacks, which will rule out things like Maia and Nazgul.

[GuardianOfTheFlame]

However, in terms of roleplay, I can easily picture RWs going out of their way to kill things that irritate them.

Ok, but an orc attack (or whatever you want) vs a RW represents an orc that attack the RW and not viceversa. What you have described (that I agree) would be a Nazgul attack vs a minion company, a case that the unique clause avoid (in this case for gameplay purposes: as you suggest this could fit in terms of roleplay).

Elf-Lord's really going to be no stronger against heroes than a well-run orc deck vs minions with this card I believe.

I think there are several points to consider:
1) an orc attack could become very strong if you include support cards, while an elf-lord is already strong alone and lethal with only 1 support card (chill them with fear).
2) minions have a great advantage: ALL attacks in shadow/dark are detainment while for hero, Border and Free are already dangerous (in some case VERY dangerous!).
In terms of gameplay, I think that hero have already great problem to move around the Middle-Earth while Minions are too safe in their territories (and normally they've also stronger characters).
A minion deck that move in wilderness or Free/Border already considers to face dangerous creatures, so A Lie In Your Eyes is useful against safe decks in shadow/dark. But this is not broken, cause the card could be discard vs auto-attack or with Voice Of Malice (3 Lie, 3 Voice: the battle is balanced).
Heroes don't have really safe place, and they don't manage only 3 copies of A Lie In Your Eyes!

[Leon]

It could be in line with my earlier statements to exclude Elf-Lords as well as any unique. In another discussion the argument of keeping Elf-Lord non unique was that it can represent Glorfindel II, Thranduil or Celeborn. Most of the unique creatures represent similar strong characters, who know there place in the game and would have smaller or no chance make a mistake as attacking their own side. Which is part of the reason why they are excluded from play for fallen-wizards.

I can follow the argument for -1 strike instead of -1 prowess, since the creatures with one strike per character see less gameplay than those with a stated number of strikes.

At the moment minions have specific cancel cards for the attacks we propose to make non-detainment, though a Mordor deck does not need them now. Heroes do not have these and elf, dwarf and dunadan are quite hard to cancel. This could be an argument for excluding the Elf Lords as well, since they are far more dangerous than any other creature that is affected for heroes.

I would go along with the argument that Ringwraiths are excluded from the attacks, since they clearly belong to one side. Wizards on the other hand are not that clearly on one side, with fallen wizards and such and are less openly dangerous. This is not a gameplay thing but more a thematic argument.

I want to limit the card to non-automatic attacks, since there is already a card that has this effect for automatic attacks. I do not want to have virtual cards exclude other cards from play by having the same but stronger effects. The effect that Fear Fire Foes! only counts for minions is not very important, since heroes hardly have sites with detainment automatic attacks.

FEAR! FIRE! FOES! C3 Short-event
Playable on a Free-hold or Border-hold. An additional automatic-attack is created at the site this turn: 5 strikes with 8 prowess (detainment, no attack type). Alternatively, playable on a detainment automatic-attack a minion company is facing. The attack becomes normal (not detainment) and has -1 prowess.

[Bandobras Took]

Oh, I don't know -- I can picture Celeborn attacking Aragorn:

"Date my granddaughter, will you?!"

I will only say that many people feel Elf-Lord to be overpowered vs. Minion decks, anyway. Hero decks and Minion decks have almost completely different styles of play. An Elf-Lord will have a hard time hitting a Gondor deck or a Coastal deck -- there aren't enough Wildernesses to go around.

I'd rather be inclusive in an initial design of a card and then pare it down as necessary for balance, rather than make a card weaker and then decide it ought to be stronger.

[Leon]

You give a good argument for including the Elf-Lord at least until after some playtesting, though I expect it to be excuded afterwards. If I go into deep wilderness I use cards to cancel or face dragons and such, but I do not like the idea of facing an Elf-Lord, both for reasons of gameplay and thematically.

Still I think that the card should exclude automatic-attacks because Fear Fire Foes! already exists for that purpose and this is a decent card. I have one question though, would cards affected by this card give KP? I would think not

[Ringbearer]

I would say its maybe better to reduce it to automatic attacks, cause I fear there will be too much exceptions to the rule.


Otherwise this may be a good wording of the card, covering all possibilties and filtering out problems

A Lie In Your Eyes

Hazard Permanent Event

Against a wizard all detainment attacts except elf and maia attack as normal with -1 to prowess.
Against a minion, non-Balrog player all detainment attacks, except Nazgul and Mouth of Sauron attack as normal with -1 prowess.
Against the Balrog all detainment attacks attack as normal with -1 prowess.

[Bandobras Took]

I would say its maybe better to reduce it to automatic attacks, cause I fear there will be too much exceptions to the rule.

Then it does nothing, really, that Fear Fire Foes doesn't do.

I'd like it to be creature attacks -- to see those Riders of Rohan cut off Gimli's head no matter how high it stands above the ground.

[GuardianOfTheFlame]

I would say its maybe better to reduce it to automatic attacks, cause I fear there will be too much exceptions to the rule.

There are other cards about auto-attacks that are actually used, so I agree to create a virtualization about hazard creatures.

About exceptions, the "non unique" clause is enough to get out Nazgul, Maia, Mouth & others.
The only problem not covered by this specification is the Elf-Lord and a single exception could be eventually included ("Any non unique detainment attack other than Elf-Lord...").
Exceptions like this are often used in this game, for example in Rumours of Wealth that specify "other than Earcaraxe".
This is orrible but it's not our fault that ICE doesn't set standard guidelines and sufficient keywords like other CCG game does (i.e. Vampire and Magic).

Heroes do not have these and elf, dwarf and dunadan are quite hard to cancel. This could be an argument for excluding the Elf Lords as well, since they are far more dangerous than any other creature that is affected for heroes.

I'd rather be inclusive in an initial design of a card and then pare it down as necessary for balance, rather than make a card weaker and then decide it ought to be stronger.

I agree with Leon so I prefer to exclude Elf Lords, but if you think it's better try first, I understand.

I also prefer to specify NON auto-attacks because there are other cards for this and I think that a virtual version must not make other cards obsolete.
So, this is the version I prefer:
[V] A Lie in Your Eyes
Permanent event
Non-unique, non-automatick detainment attacks (other than Elf-Lord) against non ringwraith company attacks normally with -1 prowess. Discard this card if such an attack is defeated. Cannot be duplicated.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

the original card represents something completely different in theme and in mechanism (if I recall, it's Gandalf checking out Pippin to see if he's lying about the palantir? could be so wrong though, I never use the card, little question if it's a virtual candidate , So why choose attack modification here, how does it fit? Also, why is it needed? just to create possible big attacks easily?
So the Elf-lord either sees through you and knows you're a traitor, or he's gone mad and thinks you're a traitor. Either way, that means if you kill him, you get the MP's?
It's a weird world, Middle Earth.

[Bandobras Took]

the original card represents something completely different in theme and in mechanism (if I recall, it's Gandalf checking out Pippin to see if he's lying about the palantir?)

That's the point -- there was no lie in Pippin's eyes -- what would Gandalf have done if he believed Pippin to be dominated by Sauron?

So why choose attack modification here, how does it fit? Also, why is it needed? just to create possible big attacks easily?

No, to create a different kind of hazard strategy, but one that's still easily knocked out by Voices/Marvels, and can be just as dangerous for you. Therefore it's a long event (your opponent can also take advantage of it), and therefore the modification to strikes instead of prowess -- the biggest beneficiaries would be things like Gondorian Rangers, Thranduil's Folk, etc. At the same time, though, Minions squatting at Shadow-Holds might have a little more to worry about, since any hazard creature attack against them there is detainment.