Liquid Fire

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2019 ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Liquid Fire

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:29 pm

Card text reads
... Discard to cause all strikes from all attacks of a non-Dragon, non-Nazgûl, non-Balrog creature keyed to a site to fail (resulting body-checks for the creature are modified by -2).
I suggest the following erratum:
... (resulting body-checks for the creature are modified by +2)

Reasoning: Blasting Fire is a similar card that modifies the body-check by +2, instead. I propose Blasting Fire and Liquid Fire should be equal in terms of the modification. Thematically, a modification by a negative factor doesn't make sense to me, either.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2709
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Liquid Fire

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:36 pm

Blasting Fire modifies an influence attempts against a factions at the site this turn by +2.

Maybe an intention was to make the Liquid Fire not so powerful (who knows?).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Council Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Liquid Fire

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:09 pm

ugh, right, thank you for the correction!

I'd maintain the proposal, nevertheless.

dirhaval
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: Liquid Fire

Post by dirhaval » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:57 am

I like the consideration for the over-power of having +2 to body checks with all strikes failing. The item can be played at Shadow-holds or Dark-holds and for one MP. I would say that the logic is the target decides to forgo attacking, fail all strikes, to parry or shield from the liquid fire and thus add more protection from death. Deadly Dart is no MP, 2 CP, and in a way "defeats" one strike, but with limits, along with -1 to body. Yes, it is a table card, but not like Liquid fire. Blasting Fire cancels all automatic-attacks, yes no MP but you can later gain many MPs during the site phase.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2955
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Liquid Fire

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:44 pm

I agree with Dirhaval; one of the strengths of the Maia creatures is their number of strikes as compensation for their lower prowess -- it's easier to defeat a Maia strike, but harder to defeat the bcs. Liquid Fire does not have enough of Sacrifice of Form's drawbacks to merit a similar level of bc altering. I believe the card is balanced the way it is.
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
CDavis7M
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Liquid Fire

Post by CDavis7M » Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:31 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:44 pm
I agree with Dirhaval; one of the strengths of the Maia creatures is their number of strikes as compensation for their lower prowess -- it's easier to defeat a Maia strike, but harder to defeat the bcs. Liquid Fire does not have enough of Sacrifice of Form's drawbacks to merit a similar level of bc altering. I believe the card is balanced the way it is.
I agree with both. I am opposed to the proposal.

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”