Council of Elrond

CRF, Turn Sequence, Influence Attempts wrote:For a Fallen-wizard, the resource revealed must match the alignment of the site at
which the attempt is taking place.

Without the rule a companies of Fallen-wizard player would have a possibility of playing a factions at sites where they otherwise could not play them without Double-dealing. Something not possible for players of other alignment (for other reason: they do not have a factions of other alignment than a sites they use).
However the rule restricts a Fallen-wizard player much more than other players.

I propose the following change:

For a Fallen-wizard player, the faction revealed must match the alignment of the site at
which the attempt is taking place.

I don't see the need for this. A FW is restricted to match sites when playing resources in the first place; this is just an extension of that.

A FW player is restricted to match sites when playing resources at site in the first place.

I do not think that an item/ally played in result of successful influence attempt is the item/ally played at site.

As I said, it just extends the idea. I don't see any inherent issue with requiring site matching in order to play a resource as a result of an influence attempt.

I have a counter-idea: unlike influencing an opponent's factions, influencing an ally or an item does not require for influencing company to be at site where the ally/item is playable.
Inference: an ally/item played in result of successful influence attempt is not played at site.

So? The question is whether ICE wanted FWs to have to jump through an extra hoop or two when influencing opponents' resources. The CRF entry clearly indicates this.

A Hero/Minion (non-fallen-wizard) revealing a faction or ally during an influence attempt does require matching site alignment because a Hero/Minion player can only use hero/minion resources other than items and only use hero/minion sites (ok... weird exception with Underdeeps aside).

Items are the one exception, and Hero/Minion players are already penalized by getting half MP and ignoring all bonuses and special abilities.

In contrast, Fallen Wizards never half item MP, and their non-orc/troll characters don't ignore bonuses and special abilities regardless of alignment.

I'd be on board if you wanted to take the stance that a Fallen Wizard is allowed to reveal an item at a opposite-aligned site if they then halve the MP and ignore bonuses and special abilities if they succeed and play the item. But the CRF restriction is simpler if we're going to disallow it for non-item influence attempts anyway.

Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:48 am

CRF, Turn Sequence, Influence Attempts wrote:For a Fallen-wizard, the resource revealed must match the alignment of the site at
which the attempt is taking place.

However the rule restricts a Fallen-wizard player much more than other players.

This proposal changes a clear rule to a different rule for purposes of balancing the Fallen Wizard alignment. ICE already issued a wide array of errata to balance Fallen Wizards. I don't see the need to re-balance them again.

There are some spots where FWs could use further balance tweaks. I just don't feel this is one of them.