Nazgul are Abroad and Half an Eye Open

Where the Virtual Boyz plan their latest capers
Locked
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:19 am

Good to hear!
I like these versions.
Only thing I'm iffy about, is unlimited freebies for dragons, you say they didn't do much, but somehow I feel that the dragon hazards can potentially be very strong. If I get an attack through, I could potentially enchant the whole company with Memories Stolen. It seems too much really. I like the phrase 'once per m/h phase a hazard targetting a unique dragon doesn't count.' That way you can play your keyability hazard for free, but the additional stuff does count. It just seems too easy for me to get everything for free (also Summons). On a comp. of 3 you can play two stupid Watcher in Water, and then unleash hell...

As far as TnAA goes, somehow I think it's a pitty we lost the 'can't tap/discard' restriction, even if it has no rationale for play any longer, it thematically appealed to me somehow. just a thought.

I would leave out Scimitars altogether. Someone wants to play it, just include it in deck. With TNaA you would already include 9 nazgul, so what's the difference, there really is no need to boost Scimitars via this card, it might see more play just by the mere use of the other V's itself. I don't like to see it more recycled.

thanks for mentioning the revealing rule Frodo, I should read up on the rules, my knowlegde is getting really rusty.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:07 am

So, regarding HaEO, I'm fine with the "Hazards that target Unique Dragon manifestations do not count against the hazard limit" phrase. If you can get one Dragon played, let's see the cool combos come out in force, and not just those that aid keyability (which is what will happen if it only becomes one per turn). One question - what was the specific reason behind including cards that have "Dragon" in the title? This will allow Dragon-sickness to be included, right?

Regarding all hazards that target <foo> being free, why can't we do something similar for TNaA??

For example:
New TNaA wrote:When this card is played, take up to four hazards from your discard pile or sideboard and place them face down with this card. If there is a Nazgûl in play, you may play non-unique hazards placed with this card that have the word “Nazgûl” in their game text (except Long Dark Reach, Morgul Horse) as if they were in your hand. You must discard an additional Nazgul to play a Scimitars of Steel placed with this card. Hazards targeting Nazgul creatures do not count against the hazard limit. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.
The freebies would then include Pale Sword, Fell Beast, Morgul Knife, In Great Wrath, Turning Hope to Despair, Words of Power and Terror (original), and allow them to be free from the hand too. Fury of the Iron Crown and Morgul Horse, if played on a Nazgul creature, would also be free from the hand! Cool, no? :)

Those counting against the hazard limit would now include Scimitars and Helms, Words of Power and Terror (virtual), Black Breath, Two or Three Tribes Present. Also, these would remain counting when played from the hand. With the increased discard clause for Scimitars being played from underneath TNaA, might this be acceptable now?

I'm not sure if this text would enable Out of the Black Sky to be free or not, as the wording on this card says: "Playable if Doors of Night is in play on a Nazgûl permanent-event that could immediately attack as if it were in your hand as a creature." Nice if it did, but probably doesn't matter if it doesn't. :)

So, how does this sound?

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:47 am

agreed on the free cost for the hazards targetting creature, if it works like that (lost all confidence making such judgments onfortunately), it's nice imho.

But still don't understand why you so desperately want to include Scimitars? I have to discard two nazguls for it? I would be mad to do that, or it would be a rare occasion. It would be easier to just include it in the deck and recycle with Outpost/Mouth. To play 3x Scimitars would involve playing/discarding 7 nazguls. Better hope my opponent doesn't play any. How does it work anyway, if I have to have a perm in play to play Scimitars from under TNaA, and simultaneously I have to discard two to match the cost, does that mean I need 2 or 3 nazguls in play (in total) ? Even so, it's not thematic, and it just creates discussion, so why the hell bother? :?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:16 am

Are the Nazgul not abroad when they're leading large armies of well-armed orcs, men and trolls to attack Minas Tirith? I have no problem with the thematic side. Plus, Scimitars and Helms target Nazgul perms normally, so neither did ICE. ;)

The purpose of it costing two Nazgul perms to play from underneath TNaA, is just to slow the machine up a little, and make other options possibly more attactive. You gain quicker access and flexibility under TNaA, but the cost to play is now more. Seems like a fair trade.

Plus there's now maybe the temptation to go for a Helms instead, since that doesn't cost you two Nazgul perms. Like Frodo, I liked the fact that Scimitars, and sometimes Helms, were actually seeing some play! The problem was more that it was too easy to get Scimitars out and they were destroying your opponent's companies too easily. Scimitars isn't overpowered if it's made slightly trickier to get into play and more importantly, it's costing against the hazard limit (as it should)! It's when you can get 2 or 3 out extremely quickly and free from the hazard limit, that the game quickly becomes imbalanced. IMHO of course.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:35 pm

the fact that the nazgul has to be discarded means he's not abroad, he's at home blacksmithying. :D
Anyway, you haven't answered about the issue of having to discard a (two) perms and have it in play at the same time.
I agree with your analysis of the problem and how this might alleviate, it's obvious, but I say: with all this boost to nazguls in the V set, they might see more play anyway, and you can just as well play 3 Scimitars in the deck, so why the fuss? You never see them? I once won a tourney at Lure using Scimitars (agreed it was a scenario tournament), they're great for Sieges, they're fast, and Orcs are the best hazard strat anyway, as Marcos must have shown you quite convincingly...when you don't play dump 'n run speed deck, orcs rock. All we need to do is find a way around A Short Rest :wink:

Velocity of Haste V: permanent-event. Cancels the effects of Short Rest, Washed and Refreshed and Crept along Carefully. :wink:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:45 pm

Ah, yes, I never fully understood what you were meaning till now.

What you're saying is that because a Nazgul is required to be in play to utilise this card and playing Scimitars discards a Nazgul upon declaration, then if there's only one Nazgul in play, Scimitars couldn't be played. Right?

Well, if that's the case, then maybe that clause of having to have a Nazgul perm in play solves the problem without the need to double up the Nazgul perms? If this is the case, we might want to make it your Nazgul Perm has to be in play rather than just a Nazgul perm, which currently means that it can be one of the your opponent's.

Frodo?

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:35 pm

The clause "If there is a Nazgul in play (or, if YOU have a Nazgul in play)..." would mean that there simply must be a Nazgul on table when you announce the play of Scimitars. Scimitars can still discard that Nazgul, even if it is the only Nazgul on table, even if we had kept the phrase ("you may not discard... when played..." ). I know, it's weird, but it's true.

This is why we need the double up the Nazgul perms. Presently, there needs to be at least one in play to announce Scimitars from TnAA first clause, but you need more than that because of TNAA's second clause on Scimitars (two in play), so once you do play/announce Scimitars two Nazguls of yours are discarded. These discarded Nazguls may be the last two on table.

I can see Thorsten's argument that people can just put the cards straight up in their deck. But I can also see that it's nice to give this card a chance with TNaA. Unfortunately, there is no way people will get the playability rule without having to check the clarifications.

It's true that a Dragon could potentially play 3 (the max) Memories Stolen on a company for free, but the high-prow unique dragons that can do that would also likely wound them UNLESS you play Memories Stolen (which lowers prow).

I'm caught on the fence about allowing unlimited hazards targetting Nazguls. My thinking on this originally was that it's actually easier to boost a Nazgul attack and have it do different things to one character than a Dragon's--playability, corruption, corruption (remember, Black Breath can be DUPLICATED per character! That's a free NINE CC on one guy). Dragon's don't have that kind of interplay available to them, interestingly enough. So as strange as it seems, balance-wise (unless I'm missing something), I think Nazguls can't allow infinite hazards.

By the way Jamie, Out of Black Sky does target Nazguls, and so do the corruption ones. We could just say once per turn a haz that targets a nazgul is free.

Frodo

Frodo

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:45 pm

Frodo wrote:(remember, Black Breath can be DUPLICATED per character! That's a free NINE CC on one guy)
Not on the same turn; Black Breath is a corruption card.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:28 pm

Is Black Breath considered to target a Nazgul "creature"? I thought it targeted a character. Either way, Ben's point about the corruption is sound.

Out of the Black Sky I wasn't sure about. If it is free, I think that's quite cool.

I don't really see any issue with hazards that target Nazgul "creatures" being free.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:15 pm

One other point - if we make it non-uniques only for TNaA to cut out Fury of the Iron Crown, we also cut out Pale Sword sadly :/

Has anyone tried these with Long Dark Reach in deck?

Frodo
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: Infinite hazards on TNAA
Oops! Nice point about Black Breath. Okay, I looked over the Nazgul cards and the worse that it can get if we allow infinite hazards is a total of four hazards: one keyability hazard (Fell Beast/In Great Wrath/Out of Black Sky), one prowess/corruption hazard that modifies the attack (Morgul Knife/Pale Sword/Black Breath), one corruption hazard that modifies a wounded character (Black Breath), and one cool effect hazard (Turning Hope to Despair).

That’s not quite true. It can also allow Words of Power and Terror since this targets a Nazgul creature in hand. Also, you can potentially play “Turning Hope” multiple times, if you had more than one. Still, you’d need 2 TNAAs on table to play more than 4.

One argument would be: this still seems like quite a lot; players might feel overwhelmed merely by the number of free hazards going off; shouldn’t there be SOME limitation based on HL? We could, for instance, say “Hazards targeting Nazgul creatures do not count against the hazard limit (maximum three per turn).” But this leads to wording issues; is this cumulative per TNAA?

Another argument would be: the hazard player is unlikely to have more than 2 TNAAs on table, and a well-prepared resource player who thinks he can get hit by Nazgul should simply pack a Marvels Told to knock out one of these. Thoughts?

Re: Pale Sword
Oh god, that cuts out Pale Sword too? Ugh, that's really bad. This is really the ONLY case when this card will see the light of play. I don’t like this at all. I really, really want Pale Sword to stay.

I can only think of two solutions.

SOLUTION 1
The first solution is to remove the non-unique clause from TNAA and just add a line to saying “If Fury of the Iron Crown is played, remove it from the game.” This allows the play of Fury still (yay!) without Fury being too strong. It also allows Pale Sword, which was never too strong.

SOLUTION 2
The second solution would actually eliminate the need for ANY prohibited cards. We could simply revise our “discard 2 Nazguls” line so that it now reads:

“You must discard two Nazgul events from play in order to play Long Dark Reach, Morgul Horse, Fury of the Iron Crow, and Scimitars of Steel.”

!! Interesting, isn’t it? If you want to play one of the more powerful hazards from The Nazgul Are Abroad, the card now requires two roaming “abroad” Nazgul in play to get that power!

Frodo

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:27 am

Solution 2.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:28 am

Solution 2 over 1 (but I still see no need to include certain cards :wink: )
It is becoming somewhat of a LotR ccg mechanism though, you spend more time searching and shuffling the deck than playing it. Because to get the required perms on table, you'll need to play a regular Nazgul Abroad as well.
And, I forsee a big up in the play of River Horses and Praise to Elbereth because the stuff might get too strong, which is cool because they are cool cards (I already play Praise alot), but which will destroy the strategy for you. Ironically then, the nazguls might be more effective vs. minions, especially the fury/scimitars...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:37 am

Frodo wrote:Re: Infinite hazards on TNAA
One argument would be: this still seems like quite a lot; players might feel overwhelmed merely by the number of free hazards going off; shouldn’t there be SOME limitation based on HL? We could, for instance, say “Hazards targeting Nazgul creatures do not count against the hazard limit (maximum three per turn).” But this leads to wording issues; is this cumulative per TNAA?
If we left it as Each turn one hazard that targets a Nazgul creature does not count against the limit, and this stacked with other TNaA you have on the table, then this would allow up to three free with all three TNaA in play. This could be scaled to 2, 4, 6 instead? The more the Nazgul are abroad the more dangerous it becomes so to speak. The same could be applied for HaEO.
Frodo wrote:Re: Pale Sword
Oh god, that cuts out Pale Sword too? Ugh, that's really bad. This is really the ONLY case when this card will see the light of play. I don’t like this at all. I really, really want Pale Sword to stay.
Agreed, Pale Sword has to be allowed.

If uniques were allowed and someone played Fury (or any other hazard for that matter) on a non-Nazgul creature, then based on the wording of hazards only being free if they target a Nazgul creature, wouldn't Fury count against the HL?

Important point below:

The way I've been interpreting the hazard limit sentence is that the card has to be played targeting a Nazgul creature to be free, not just that the card has the inherent ability to target a Nazgul creature. Likewise for HaEO, for the cards to be free they have to be played targeting a Unique Dragon, not just have the text enabling that possibility. Is this not correct? (This interpretation makes a major difference to how both cards operate!)

Moreover, cards like Long Dark Reach couldn't be free, since when played they target the play deck and therefore when they resolve they count against the hazard limit. If it subsequently goes on to target a Nazgul creature in the revealed cards, can the hazard limit be retropsectively modified to make its initial play free? I wouldn't have thought so, but we need to clarify this point.
Frodo wrote:I can only think of two solutions.

SOLUTION 1
The first solution is to remove the non-unique clause from TNAA and just add a line to saying “If Fury of the Iron Crown is played, remove it from the game.” This allows the play of Fury still (yay!) without Fury being too strong. It also allows Pale Sword, which was never too strong.

SOLUTION 2
The second solution would actually eliminate the need for ANY prohibited cards. We could simply revise our “discard 2 Nazguls” line so that it now reads:

“You must discard two Nazgul events from play in order to play Long Dark Reach, Morgul Horse, Fury of the Iron Crow, and Scimitars of Steel.”

!! Interesting, isn’t it? If you want to play one of the more powerful hazards from The Nazgul Are Abroad, the card now requires two roaming “abroad” Nazgul in play to get that power!
Solution 2 is interesting but would need more clarification as to how it works with Scimitars. For instance, how many Nazgul would Scimitars end up discarding? 2 or 3. If it's 3, that's a lot! And it would seem this isn't just being restricted to those underneath TNaA, but would also include those in your hand.
Last edited by Jambo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:56 am

Agreed on the targetting and 1 per stacker card clauses. Don't count too much on that happening though, I doubt rarely you'll have all 3 in play. In my eyes it's justified not to let it rain additional hazards, a single Knife or Pale Sword can be good enough.
Make it each turn, or each m/h phase? Otherwise you really have to consider on which comp. you want to use your hazard for that turn...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Locked

Return to “Development”