Council of Elrond

I had to submit at least one AVR request.

This request is very simple.

Items for Fallen-wizards, such as:

Palantír of Orthanc
Palantír of Elostirion

Should be scored normally, i.e. as according to the Fallen Wizard rule book.

1 MP each until a stage card or other can alter the MP amount.

This is an egregious oversight by the older rules commitee.

I want the discussion to continue about this as needed henceforth, but to me, I just don't see Saruman camping/squatting, or whatever your gameplay argument is, at Isengard some kind/type of BAD play, or BORING play, even for Pallando. They are who they are and the game should be the game.

I beilieve the old ruling was 99% biased, and should be annulled.

NetRep Ruling #21 wrote:What is the reason that the Palantíri of Orthanc and Elostirion don't give MP's to Fallen-wizards?
*** This was created to try to make squatting Fallen Wizards less powerful.

Standard scoring please...

-PM-ME-IF

Given that any FW can play a Wizard's Ring at a Haven and get two item MPs (as well as enough DI for a 2 MP character), I don't think this needs to be in force any more, either.

I'd be more interested in nerfing other strategies to create more opportunities with lesser used cards than removing nerfs.

http://www.fallen-gandalf.net/results/worlds.html

Seems like Balrog, FW, and One Ring decks do best. So I'm not sure that FW need a couple more easy MP. But I also agree that palantir nerf was poorly implemented. It just seems dumb.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:33 pm Given that any FW can play a Wizard's Ring at a Haven and get two item MPs (as well as enough DI for a 2 MP character), I don't think this needs to be in force any more, either.

Wizard's Ring carries more requirements and a significant risk with it. Jabberwock once hit me with a clever Balance of Things and even my 5 supporting party members couldn't save my Ringed FW. O_O This proposal would enable dropping 6 more MP by any 1-mind nobody (no offense, Barliman!) with essentially zero risk (1 storage or Reckoning corruption check each, at 1/12 chance without aid). If this were changed, there would be nearly no reason for every Fallen Wizard deck to not include Elostirion if not both of these Palantir. The card abilities themselves aren't nerfed, just their unparalleled easy MP.

@ Theo:

That just falls into the realm of play and counterplay; there are plenty of ways to wipe out the 1-mind squatter. And as things stand now, it doesn't even axe Gandalf's Palantir of MT.

@ CDavis7M:

If you want to nerf other strategies, then Legacy of Smiths needs to operate on the same lines as Gatherer of Loyalties: your unique items are worth 2 MPs, if you are Saruman, your unique weapon/armor/shield/helmet items normally worth 3 or more MPs are worth 3 MPs. As it stands, getting 2 MPs off of a Palantir at Towers/Isengard seems rather paltry compared to the 9 MPs available from taking a trip to the deep mines.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 5:16 pm @ Theo:

That just falls into the realm of play and counterplay; there are plenty of ways to wipe out the 1-mind squatter. And as things stand now, it doesn't even axe Gandalf's Palantir of MT.

Wiping out a 1-mind squatter at a special site such that the player loses a Hidden Haven (or something) is totally worth it. Wiping out a 1-mind squatter at a normal haven? Probably a hazard waste, as it is easily replaceable.

And it's 3 MP per minion Palantir.

Fallen Gandalf at Minas Tirith comes with more restrictions. It requires another card to make it a Haven to be able to protect the Palantir from stealing/character loss, and it uses up a tapping of a site that will require another card to untap, and character play there is more restrictive.

I asked this question a number of months back as well and agree with this 100%.

I don't see reversing this old ruling as being to OP, just adding more gameplay possibilities back into FW's.

I may be biased though, as I've been playing a lot of FW decks recently.

Also, never underestimate the power a 1-mind nobody. Ask Gavin how he feels about Luitiprand.

Theo wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 5:39 pmWiping out a 1-mind squatter at a special site such that the player loses a Hidden Haven (or something) is totally worth it. Wiping out a 1-mind squatter at a normal haven? Probably a hazard waste, as it is easily replaceable.

And thereby wiping out the Palantir, as well.

And it's 3 MP per minion Palantir.

And 3 CP, making it even easier to get rid of.

Fallen Gandalf at Minas Tirith comes with more restrictions. It requires another card to make it a Haven to be able to protect the Palantir from stealing/character loss, and it uses up a tapping of a site that will require another card to untap, and character play there is more restrictive.

In practice, the Palantir of MT requires you to play Gandalf and Chambers during the Org Phase and then sit there doing wizard stuff, which he was likely going to do anyway.

Again, it's a question of play/counterplay. The palantiri at the default havens don't bring anything that FWs don't essentially already have. With the ready availability of allies/factions at havens, I'm not sure why a couple of items need specifically to be singled out.

My one argument, if I need to start one was, in General, corruption exist in this game, or am I missing something?

If a FW got one corruption card played on him while "resting" at his haven, that's a game within the game, that he's going to have to deal with. So in major play/tourney play, corruption is there, I couldn't really see the problem.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 6:01 pm And thereby wiping out the Palantir, as well.
...
And 3 CP, making it even easier to get rid of.

Fallen Gandalf at Minas Tirith comes with more restrictions. It requires another card to make it a Haven to be able to protect the Palantir from stealing/character loss, and it uses up a tapping of a site that will require another card to untap, and character play there is more restrictive.

In practice, the Palantir of MT requires you to play Gandalf and Chambers during the Org Phase and then sit there doing wizard stuff, which he was likely going to do anyway.

Again, it's a question of play/counterplay. The palantiri at the default havens don't bring anything that FWs don't essentially already have. With the ready availability of allies/factions at havens, I'm not sure why a couple of items need specifically to be singled out.

Summary response: Because you're at a Haven, a Palantir at risk can be stored immediately. There is no hazard turn in between. Sure, you can on-guard one Lure of Expedience. Or Neither so Ancient for -1 point. That's about it.

Please explain anything anyone "already" has that you see on par with this.

Bane of the Ithil-Stone causes a storage check for a Minion Palantir to be made at 6. Even the 4 for a hero palantir is pretty drastic. And that's assuming you aren't playing any corruption on the 1-minder you see hanging around the haven. It gets even worse with Balance of Things.

(Marvels Told, Tapping Out Sages, Untappers)

Play and counterplay.

I am all in favor of it, but I could also go on route with the DC rules for play at haven, all MPs card only playable at a haven for that alignment are worth 1 MP (so Wizard's Ring for all wizards, Orcs of Moria for Balrog, and there are some more)

just saying we need not have to have 2 different rules set, when we already came up with good solution

yours Nicolai

Many refused the summons, preferring varied hindsight and the retraces of Middle-earth to the rumour of DCs.

Vastor Peredhil wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 2:55 pm just saying we need not have to have 2 different rules set, when we already came up with good solution

Alternatively, since rezwits already plays DC, I'm not sure what his motivation is for making this proposal. Impose the DC notion of "balance" on the normal rules set? Why not just keep it in DC?

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 2:41 pm Play and counterplay.

I'm not saying there is no way to attempt to counter. This does not change that this proposal would still allow the most MP for about the absolute minimal difficulty and risk, I would say especially if one attempts to generally consider the threat of "counterplays". <-- This does not seem to be true for DC, so why not take it there?

Alternatively, there must be some card play that is the most MP for minimal difficulty and risk. Who am I to say it shouldn't belong to FW? But, indisputably, somewhere in the murky past the game designers didn't think this should be it.