Council of Elrond

Can someone fill me on what the reasoning behind the CRF (zero MP) was added for these two Palantirs or whether it is still necessary?

I've been playing my way through decks of each Fallen Wizard at my local monthly gatherings, unaware of this CRF until recently, and still can't figure out why this was added.

From a 10,000 foot view, I can see how an opponent would consider it overpowered. Once you actually play through some of these FW decks though...


Here's the discrepancies I see from my experience:

- Corruption hazards and Bane of the Ithil Stone are both so prevalent and useful in most decks that it makes the actual play and/or use of Palantirs considerably dangerous

- The amount of time it takes to play/sideboard in the stage resources in a FW deck (other than Fallen Radagast) ends up being 2-3 turns behind in MP generation than Hero or Minion decks that are able to run their strategy directly out of the gate. These Palantirs help bridge that gap in the early/middle stages of the game. If you can delay or impede your opponents MP strategy long enough to get all your Stage Resources in play, you *might* have a shot at winning.

- Without playing yet another Stage Resource, Legacy of Smiths, these Palantirs are already only worth 1MP.

- There are plenty of ez-pz Faction/Item freebies for Minion decks camping at their Darkhavens or 1 region away, all while only facing containment hazards.

- Same as above for Balrog decks -> Orcs of Moria, Stinker. Easy 5MP while sitting at a haven...

ABSOLUTELTY.

I for one am going to be wanting to reverse this ruling/reasoning.

That I found in CoE Rulings:

NetRep #21
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.

My points are absolutely unbiased, but they favor the original concept of MECCG & the LotR.

---==---
That quote is clearly what I call, "Old Player Boredom"

For some reason more experienced players seem to have a problem playing against decks that "Squat" or what I call "Camp".

The get annoyed by the fact they can't play creatures against a deck just squatting, and this in turn is boring.
I recently had a coversation with a European player who despises when I play a deck with any camping at all.
My thing is I usually play 2-3 company decks with 1 company that camps, mainly Minion or FW.

The major beef I have is WHO CARES. If some player wants 1 company that engages and goes out, and one that sits FINE.
Are they having fun? Getting to enjoy the cards? and really not even winning?
One of my big issues is most guides even state, that using a palantir are 2-deck game items, and most people play 1-deck games!
The opponents get a free On-guard card discard ability at the least.
---==---
My #1 issue is, because THEY played Saurman back in the 1995-2005 days, and had "their fun", they decide to ban it? or restrict it?

BAH!!

If somebody likes Saruman (FW) and wants to be all cozy at Isengard with Saruman's Palantír of Orthanc, then COOL!! That's totally cannon and REAL!!
If somebody likes Pallando (FW) and wants to be all cozy at The White Towers with The Palantír of Elostirion, then COOL!! This is the way he is built!!

But to be ok with Radagast (FW) running around doing whatever he wants, Alatar (FW) doing the Hunt all-day, and Gandalf (FW) getting high all-day SB-ing every turn, I honestly DON'T see why the other two have to be gimped or nerfed.

This is totally the way they were meant to be played and in fact, Saruman, has three other cards built to HELP HIM, if he faces Corruption Hazards while Squatting at Isengard, (which I hear people play corruption quite a bit). So what? Those 3 cards are just a waste too?
---==---
My other argument in favor of a reversal is, when I do solo games or even games against a human opponent, 2-3 pts can be a huge difference just to make the score TIED, and I have seen this with my decks that I am trying to make with FW Palando and FW Saruman. But like Moriquendi said, they STILL have to play Legacy of the Smiths!!
---==---
But in rebuke of the original reason, to MAKE a certain type of deck less powerful? That honestly, is not even close to as powerful as other CURRENT FW decks, this is kind of a joke and out of place, not to mention absolutely appalling that this was even mentioned as a reason, that is ridiculous and I feel even irresponsible for "Judges" to even speak such things. almost discredits other rulings...

2¢

p.s. And I remember the errata of the Fortresses having to go thru the REGION (excerpt):

A company moving to or from The White Towers is not considered to be moving through Arthedain (including one less Wilderness [w] in their site path)

So they made a rule they are in STILL counting for when you move from them or to them. Which I was like that sucks, combos ruined. BUT I could SEE 100% yeah that THEY WERE BROKEN. This ruling of NO MPs? but still CPs and such? Bah crazyness...

The blunt answer is that ICE was still in the middle of learning to competently design a CCG when they lost the license.

A subset of this answer is that they often used the next expansion to fix problems that they noticed in a previous expansion. This model, obviously, doesn't work if you're no longer allowed to release expansions.