Nazgul are Abroad and Half an Eye Open

Where the Virtual Boyz plan their latest capers
Locked
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

The Nazgul are Abroad
--It was originally suggested that this card be “discarded when a play deck is exhausted” in order to avoid possible abuses of a player thinning out his discard pile with 3 copies of this card and 3 copies of Half an Eye Open (V), then exhausting, then drawing precisely the new cards needed in his hand. The current version utilizes this phrase. Still, I am worried about the card being too weak, especially with this phrase. Consider: a player puts this card down with 3 hazards from the Sideboard. After four turns his opponent hasn’t gone through a Nazgul area yet, but he has hopes the opponent will on his next 2 turns, but now the opponent (or you!) exhausts—and the card, plus the 5 cards underneath it, get shuffled into your play deck! The combo is completely ruined. Thoughts?
--Furthermore, I am thinking that a player should be allowed to play FOUR cards underneath this one. This would encourage more creativity as for what goes under here too, as opposed to just the four most “powerful” or efficient hazards. Should this be allowed for Half and Eye too, or is Half an Eye naturally more powerful?
Reading Mikko's thoughts on this card makes me think the card and its cards underneath should be discarded when any play deck is exhausted. However, what would happen if one were to put another TNaA underneath a played TNaA? If a playdeck is exhausted could one then play the second, as yet unplayed TNaA, in response to the deck exhausting or the discarding process, thereby circumventing in some manner the loss of the combo cards?

Regardless, it's a useful trick for both the Dragon and Nazgul varieties to put one of the same cards underneath.

Does this make any difference to how you think about the cards?
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

In terms of Nazgul creature strategies in general, they still remain rather weak overall since they're so easy to cancel (noble steed for example) or just avoid (i.e. by not visiting dark or shadow places). Have you thought about the [V] Words of Power and Terror card I thought up? Essentially it's very similar to the Prowess of Age card for Dragons, except it's for Nazgul attacks. Maybe something like that is a better alternative to boost Nazgul strategies rather than further increasing the potency of TNaA?
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

ok, we all know that TNaA is by far the most overpowered card in the set but half an eye open is not THAT good. Why that difference? Here's my thoughts:
Half an eye open wrote:Playable on a site that contains a hoard or on a Dragon at home manifestation. When this card is played, take up to 3 cards from your discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play short- or permanent-event hazards (except “at Homes” and Parsimony of Seclusion) placed with this card that mention a named Dragon or the word “Dragon” in their game text or title as if they were in your hand. All hazards targeting unique Dragon creatures do not count against the hazard limit. Prowess of Age can only be played to give a prowess bonus. Discard if there are no cards with it, the card it is played on is removed from play, or when any play deck is exhausted.
the nazgul are abroad wrote:When this card is played, take up to four cards from your sideboard or discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play non-creature hazards placed with this card that have the word “Nazgûl” in their game text (except Long Dark Reach and Morgul Horse) as if they were in your hand. Once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard if there are no cards with it, or when any play deck is exhausted.
1- HaEO needs a "host" and TNaA not, wich leads to:
2- HaEO can be fizzled by marvel/voice the target at home dragon, TNaA can't be fizzled unless hl is reduced
3- The word "nazgul" appears in some cards that helps some other strategies that are already strong like orcs, man (and maybe trolls), while HaEO only lets you play hazards that target a unique dragon "free" of HL and it doesn't help any other strategy, just drakes and not that much.
4- TNaA can take cards from sb AND discard, while HaEO, only from discard

so what to do to make TNaA less powerful? i've thought about:
A- Make it need a "host" too, so it can be fizzled. Add "Playable on a nazgul permanent event in play"
B- Make it take only cards from discard, that causes the scimitars of steel stuff to be a bit slower, since you will need a nazgul to tap for bring cards from sb, 3 nazgul for 3 scimitars and 1 more nazgul for TNaA, so you need 7 nazguls and not only 3 to bring that overpowered +3 that scimitars x3 give, and of course, if you want some Two or three tribes, fury of the iron crown, words of power and terror V, helms of iron, etc... you will need more nazguls.

i think those modificatios can slow down the scimitar trick considerably
thoughts?
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Yes, I agree. THe two helper cards are disjointed. I have a deck that uses HaEO and to be honest I've never found it that great. THe requirement for At Homes really slows it down and dilutes your hazard deck.

But besides that point, I do believe the versatility of TNaA is rather too much. It simply encompasses too many things. At conception, it was supposed to be a Nazgul booster, but that's not really what it's being used for. Is there any wording we can use to make that more the case? If it is to continue in its current form, then yes, it needs to be toned down. On top of what marcos has suggested, one other way would be to remove the 'free' hazard.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

hmm, since the card was intended for making nazgul attack strategy more viable, I wouldn't take the nazgul-perm as host road, or the the discard only road, or the count against the hl road, since these are all much needed for this strategy boost. btw. I don't understand your math Marcos, it takes only 1 nazgul to transfer 3 Scimitars and 2 Tribes to discard :? So to play them even all, even with a perm-host needed, you need 5 nazgul.
Anyway, if you can fizzle TNaA so easily it's worthless (river horses, marvels, praise to elbereth).

For one thing, as I suggested and I thought it was agreed on, that not discarding TNaA ever actually makes it less strong. Of course this doesn't work for Scimitars, but, you can focus your Marvels on Scimitars in stead of on TNaA or on the nazgul perm to the same effect though.
Perhaps easiest would be to exclude Scimitars/...we talked about this before.
I think the mechanism is fine, only it has unwanted side-effects since it ups other strategies and thus doesn't influence meta-game the way we want it. Thus, I'd say remove certain cards from TNaA!

Why is HaEO not so good Jambo?
HaEO also works in combo with spiders/wolves: Worm's Stench. I always liked the card. With this card you can finally play Dragon's Desolation on Smaug, followed by Worm's Stench and Giant Spiders, for only 3 HL and 2 slots in your hand. That way there's still room for Many Sorrows to cancel the marvels...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

hmm, since the card was intended for making nazgul attack strategy more viable, I wouldn't take the nazgul-perm as host road, or the the discard only road, or the count against the hl road, since these are all much needed for this strategy boost. btw. I don't understand your math Marcos, it takes only 1 nazgul to transfer 3 Scimitars and 2 Tribes to discard So to play them even all, even with a perm-host needed, you need 5 nazgul.
yes, my mistake
Jambo wrote:But besides that point, I do believe the versatility of TNaA is rather too much. It simply encompasses too many things. At conception, it was supposed to be a Nazgul booster, but that's not really what it's being used for. Is there any wording we can use to make that more the case? If it is to continue in its current form, then yes, it needs to be toned down. On top of what marcos has suggested, one other way would be to remove the 'free' hazard.
It's not being used as a nazgul hepler because it works better with orcs/man/trolls, but it is REALLY great when used to help nazguls. I have a deck that strikes with nazgul attacks and it works pretty well... Ask Vastor or b_took ;)

I agree that remove free hazard can be done but you still gonna need 3 nazguls instead of 5. Other thing that can be done to prevent the "free" stuff is to make only hazards that targets nazgul attacks to be "free". Something similar to what HaEO does...
For one thing, as I suggested and I thought it was agreed on, that not discarding TNaA ever actually makes it less strong. Of course this doesn't work for Scimitars, but, you can focus your Marvels on Scimitars in stead of on TNaA or on the nazgul perm to the same effect though.
agree with this too...
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

It may be late, but I'm going to weigh in in favor of reducing Nazgul Are Abroad to Half-an-Eyeish levels. The games I've seen with easy access to Scimitars result in over-buffed orcs destroying everybody (not to mention men).

Instead of the phrase "any card with the word 'Nazgul,' etc.," what about "any card which directly affects a Nazgul attack?" Would that encompass all the cards one would want for Nazgul buffing? Would it exclude any important ones?
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

What I'd like to see us do is try enable the Nazgul attack boosters while also retaining the option for other cool cards like Black Breath and Out of the Black Sky to be played. Does Black Breath target a Nazgul attack?

Doing this without also enabling Scimitars and Helms is proving tricky, unless we simply list those two as exceptions...

Something along the lines of :

"When this card is played, take up to four cards from your sideboard or discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play non-creature hazards placed with this card as if they were from your hand, as long as they target a Nazgul in play or immediately to be played (except Morgul Horse, Scimitars of Steel and Helms of Iron). Once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard all cards underneath this card when any play deck is exhausted."


Depends on whether Black Breath targets a Nazgul...
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

don't know why go through this trouble if you can just list the exception cards (which you do already). Also, it would ruin playing hazards resulting a ringwraith attack, something I just proposed at morgul-blade :wink: , but it might ruin other future options as well.
I suppose Helms isn't really a problem though, is it?
I like the changes, once per turn not counting, and discard cards from under it. However, if you discard only cards from under TNaA and itself stays, then you must marvel it yourself to make use of it again! isn't that ironic? (and preferably before exhausting, otherwise it's useless).
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
Nerdmeetsyou
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm

but helms doesn't fit thematicly... so we should exclued it....
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

i'd say we don't have to exclude that cards... just make them less playable... Like take cards from discard instead of sideboard, make them count against the hl, make TNaA be played on a "host", etc...
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

I'm still against Scimitars/Helms. After seeing some of the possible orc massacres easy Scimitars enables, I'm pretty sure those cards are meant to be difficult to play. Using Nazgul are abroad is both unthematic and altogether too easy, even with the restrictions.
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Ok guys, we need versions to look at. It's only when we try to write the cards do we find whether things are possible or workable.

The version I had above is explicitly for Nazgul only, but I'm unsure as to whether it will help Black Breath for instance, and if it doesn't this would be a shame since it's one of the coolest Nazgul cards.

Bandobras, part of the problem is the free hazard being associated with things like Helms and Scimitars. It's just to easy to rank up orcs or men quickly! Remember however that Scimitars is a global event, and it can and sometimes will backfire. Sellswords is a very common hazard.

so, for example:

#1
"When this card is played, take up to four cards from your sideboard or discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play non-creature hazards placed with this card as if they were from your hand, only if they directly target a Nazgul or that state "Nazgul attack" in their game text (except Morgul Horse, Scimitars of Steel and Helms of Iron). Once per turn a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard all cards underneath this card when any play deck is exhausted."

Still allows WoPaT and FotIC.

#2
"When this card is played, take up to four cards from your sideboard or discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play non-creature hazards placed with this card as if they were from your hand, only if they directly target a Nazgul or that state "Nazgul attack" in their game text (except Morgul Horse). Once per turn a card played in this way, that directly targets a Nazgul creature, does not count against the hazard limit. Discard all cards underneath this card when any play deck is exhausted."

Freebies are only those that target Nazgul creatures.

Thoughts, suggestions?
marcos
Council Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

i like number 2, but i'd limit to discard only, after all, if a nazgul taps to bring cards from sb to discard it can still attack with "in great wrath" and it slows down the scimitars/ helms stuff....
Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Ok, so something like this:

"When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile and place them face-down with this card. You may play non-creature hazards placed with this card as if they were from your hand, only if they directly target a Nazgul or that state "Nazgul attack" in their game text (except Morgul Horse). Once per turn a card played in this way, that directly targets a Nazgul creature, does not count against the hazard limit. Discard all cards underneath this card when any play deck is exhausted."

You could also make the penultimate sentence:

"Once per turn, a card that directly targets a Nazgul creature does not count against the hazard limit."

Removing the clause for it to be underneath the card. This would give some worth to the card being on the table even if it doesn't have any cards underneath it. I take it this free hazard doesn't stack with other TNaA?
Locked

Return to “Development”