Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
Darksatin
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Chalon sur Saône, France

Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Darksatin » Thu May 03, 2018 8:53 am

Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent :
Playable on a stored item. Return item to opponent's hand (discard all attached cards). Place this card in opponent's marshalling point pile.

From the [NetRep] Rulings Digest #110 :
(19) The following questions have arisen: What kind of MPs do Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent, Returned Beyond All Hope, and Will Shaken give?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither So Ancient nor so Potent gives Kill MPs (I know, it's weird, but that's the way the rules work).
Returned Beyond All Hope gives Kill MPs.
Will Shaken gives (negative) Misc. MPs.

I do not think that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent should give Kill MPs.
So, I propose the following erratum :
Neither So Ancient nor so Potent gives Item MPs.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu May 03, 2018 9:28 am

You posted this in the Rules & Errata main forum (for discussion).

I am moving this to the Annual Rules Vote Submission forum, since I am guessing you wanted it submitted for consideration with the upcoming vote? :)

Please let me know if I'm mistaken.

Darksatin
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Chalon sur Saône, France

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Darksatin » Thu May 03, 2018 10:43 am

Sorry,
Effectively, I wanted that this proposal be submitted in the upcoming vote...

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Theo » Fri May 04, 2018 5:59 am

Can you explain why you think this?

I guess kill MP has a basis in that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is a hazard?

But I would have thought it gave Misc. MP, since kill MP are described as "(from defeating creatures)"... anyone know why this netrep thought otherwise?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Darksatin
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Chalon sur Saône, France

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Darksatin » Fri May 04, 2018 12:32 pm

Theo wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:59 am
Can you explain why you think this?
I guess kill MP has a basis in that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is a hazard?
But I would have thought it gave Misc. MP, since kill MP are described as "(from defeating creatures)"... anyone know why this netrep thought otherwise?
There is nothing on the top left of the card (no "square" for items MPs, no "diamond" for Misc MPs), so the Netrep said it was like Kill MPs (no symbol).
The card is about Items, so I think it will be more logical if it gives Items MPs...

User avatar
kober
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by kober » Fri May 04, 2018 1:21 pm

Darksatin wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 12:32 pm
The card is about Items, so I think it will be more logical if it gives Items MPs...
I'd say that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent giving non-Item MPs is the whole point of the card... Nothing's sweeter than doubling your own Item MPs by discarding your opponents last (and stored) item.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri May 04, 2018 4:39 pm

Kill points? Seriously?

I don't care about symbols, I think this is wrong.

IMO it should give Misc points.

If not Misc points, then perhaps Item points. However, I don't really like this either since it's not an item. It's more like a consolation prize for losing your item.

Certainly not Kill points.

Where has the common sense gone? ICE was a long way away from getting every symbol or piece of language correct. That doesn't mean that we should allow ourselves to descend into madness. :?

I am in favor of an erratum being issued, but perhaps it should be given 3 options for the vote, and let the community decide: Kill Points (per the Net Rep), Item Points, or Misc Points.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri May 04, 2018 4:46 pm

kober wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 1:21 pm
Darksatin wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 12:32 pm
The card is about Items, so I think it will be more logical if it gives Items MPs...
I'd say that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent giving non-Item MPs is the whole point of the card... Nothing's sweeter than doubling your own Item MPs by discarding your opponents last (and stored) item.
Thinking about it purely from the thematic perspective, the card is meant to represent that an item isn't as good as the one it was modeled on.

It remains, nevertheless, an item.

As far as gameplay goes, I feel Neither so Ancient is not sufficiently counterable to justify completely removing somebody's item MPs. The point loss off the items you want stored is sufficiently strong for the nature of the hazard.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri May 04, 2018 5:28 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:46 pm
Thinking about it purely from the thematic perspective, the card is meant to represent that an item isn't as good as the one it was modeled on.

It remains, nevertheless, an item.

As far as gameplay goes, I feel Neither so Ancient is not sufficiently counterable to justify completely removing somebody's item MPs. The point loss off the items you want stored is sufficiently strong for the nature of the hazard.
Very nice points you make. This makes me revise my opinion somewhat in elevating the point category towards Items.

I'm still struggling though.... if the item is returned to your hand. You no longer have an item. So how do you have item points?

OR... is this what is happening:

- I play the Palantir of Osgiliath at Moria.
- I travel to Lorien and store it..
- My opponent plays Neither So Ancient Nor So Potent on my stored Palantir of Osgiliath, returning it to my hand. This represents that my characters mistakenly judged the palantir they found in Moria to be the Palantir of Osgiliath, when in fact it was a lesser palantir. Apparently, my sages who evaluated the palantir in Moria did not graduate at the top of their class.

Thematically, if this is what is happening, it would make perfect sense that Neither So Ancient Nor So Potent gives Item points, since the idea is that you still have an item, just a lesser one than originally thought.

User avatar
kober
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by kober » Sat May 05, 2018 1:19 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:46 pm
Thinking about it purely from the thematic perspective, the card is meant to represent that an item isn't as good as the one it was modeled on.
That makes perfect sense :) ... I better stop making a fool of myself and start thinking before posting :oops:

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat May 05, 2018 3:06 am

In this case, the card quote is referring to exactly such an instance; I'll look it up if I remember and get the time.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Theo » Sat May 05, 2018 6:32 pm

Darksatin wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 12:32 pm
Theo wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:59 am
Can you explain why you think this?
I guess kill MP has a basis in that Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent is a hazard?
But I would have thought it gave Misc. MP, since kill MP are described as "(from defeating creatures)"... anyone know why this netrep thought otherwise?
There is nothing on the top left of the card (no "square" for items MPs, no "diamond" for Misc MPs), so the Netrep said it was like Kill MPs (no symbol).
The card is about Items, so I think it will be more logical if it gives Items MPs...
Ha! If I ever realized their type symbols actually referred to something on the card, I forgot it in the intervening decades! :shock:

I pulled the card out, and it does indeed have a circle = kill points.

The quote is "Though it had been made in Imladris for Valandil, it was neither so ancient nor so potent as the one lost with King Isildur at the Gladden Fields." --- Kuduk Lore.

Perhaps the right mental framework is that realizing that an item is lower quality is similar kind of prestige to defeating an enemy? The enemy of counterfeiting? :|
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

dirhaval
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by dirhaval » Tue May 08, 2018 7:31 pm

I can live with the hazard giving item points if the community agrees to it. However,

the item that was made to replace the lost or stolen item likely was not acquired through trials such as visiting Moria
and thus deserving item points.

Andurial givens item points, but it is an event. I made an error some time ago that Anduril could be treated like an item; that is wrong though.

The meta-game of using NSANSP is to force a player to play the item again, which you have a clue where so you can press you hazards harder
on that player or make a visit for CvCC. A player can have a heavy corruption strategy tempting the storage of items and thus use NSANSP to remove item points. The logic of only sending the item to hand to me is not worth the slot for the hazard. Now, if the hazard was 1 MP okay , maybe make it an item point. Anyone else see that this hazard from MEDM was made to unwind an Under-deeps deck that stores MP rich items, such that few hazards could harm the bold and brave while plundering the deep, dark places of the world? Gems of Arda is used for its effect only if stored during the organization phase and for that same organization phase. The hazard is a threat to a player only wishing to play one or two items and to hide them in storage.

Overall, I rather keep the hazard as-is.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2653
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed May 09, 2018 12:40 am

dirhaval wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 7:31 pm
The meta-game of using NSANSP is to force a player to play the item again, which you have a clue where so you can press you hazards harder on that player or make a visit for CvCC. A player can have a heavy corruption strategy tempting the storage of items and thus use NSANSP to remove item points. The logic of only sending the item to hand to me is not worth the slot for the hazard. Now, if the hazard was 1 MP okay , maybe make it an item point. Anyone else see that this hazard from MEDM was made to unwind an Under-deeps deck that stores MP rich items, such that few hazards could harm the bold and brave while plundering the deep, dark places of the world? Gems of Arda is used for its effect only if stored during the organization phase and for that same organization phase. The hazard is a threat to a player only wishing to play one or two items and to hide them in storage.
Point by point:
1) That's not any metagame I'm aware of. Speaking in terms of tournament play, Neither So Ancient is a sideboard card you bring in if your opponent is storing items, to be played after the council has been called to get rid of opponent's MPs without much chance of their doing something about it. Brian Min lost to Josh Grace in such a manner, so far as I know.

2) Being able to send a 5 MP Palantir back to somebody's hand at isn't worth the hand slot?

3) I'm not aware of any tournament decks that visit the Under-deeps and actually manage to store items gained therein or rely on it for functionality.

4) The hazard can get rid of 3 MPs just before the council, which is big. Even getting rid of 2 can be crucial. Getting rid of somebody's stored unique item so you can play your own is a huge swing. Getting rid of *all* of somebody's item points is too strong for something that has, for all intents and purposes, no counterplay.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

dirhaval
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Erratum Proposal : Neither so Ancient Nor so Potent

Post by dirhaval » Wed May 09, 2018 10:31 pm

All good points Bandobras Took. My lack of tournament play shows in my comments. Please let me reply to your points.

1. My lack of skill in winning in fewer than six turns forces me to seek play of complex meta-games where losing is fun for me. Playing an
unstored item takes too long to restore. However, cards like Safe From the Shadow or Tokens to Show are counters to NSANSP to
store the item after the last movement/hazard phase against the storing player. Sorry to hear about Brian Min. If the player does not want to take
the chance to lose 5 points on this hazard, then how is dunking a popular strategy? I like the risk in the game and the dice use.

2. My point was attached to the idea of the hazard giving item points. Why then have the hazard to remove at most 5 MPs (Narsil+Anduril, Aligned Palantir + a greater palantir = 7 vs. 2) or 3 (greater palantir or Book or Mazarbul) late in the game when the storer nullifies your hazard sideboard with Safe From the Shadow? Five points is a lot, but that is one hazard to counter two specific arrangements (Anduril, Aligned Palantir). Why not make the hazard give 3 item points instead? I feel the hazard needs two punches: unstore a permanent-event on the item and remove item points OR unstore Sapling of the White Tree, which is not meant to gain item MPs.

3. Okay you got me there. Knowing how to win in four turns is still a whirlwind idea for me to grasp. I know how to lose in four turns.

4. My reply is to use Safe From the Shadow/Tokens to Show or take the risk of carrying the item and thus entice more player interaction through CvCC or influence attempts, which I prefer. The hazard is strong, but a resource permanent-event is the counter card. News of Doom can remove all factions if you destroy opponent's free general influence. Reluctant Final Parting can whip out all ally MPs (Chance of Being Lost or Winds of Wrath, yes need conditions to play). A player can have his Aragorn II deck put into a Mordor stew if his Aragorn II is bounced during the draft. That is a big risk. The Mouth character's 3 MP can be wiped away from a very frequently played Mouth of Sauron. Minions have the issue of Fealty Under Trial that forces the storing of items. To me that is brutal. If unstoring items were allowed, then I may change my mind more towards your argument.

Overall, I like the hazard as it is. It is painful to have maybe a 10+ point swing on the play of a single card for specific decks. There are similar hazards that doe almost as much damage to MP totals. You store the item, you take the risk even in a tournament where I want the best to win.

This discussion shows that the hazard has a higher value than I had it.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”