Cheeze Discussion
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Webs of Fear and Treachery?
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
Most of this "cheeze" would be adapt very easy. Change the card-text/rules:
elves of lindon - 1 Mp because playable at a
orcs of moria and stinker - 1 Mp for a balrog player because playable at a
rolled down the sea - playable once per turn (than not unique)
carambor - (specific function) ... once per turn
return of the king and white tree - playable at the site phase
All this modifications would not change the balance of the game because for each of them there were an example in the past and "cheeze" is gone.
I´m sure there are a few "cheeze" more that was discussed here.
The problem is nobody has the guts to do something
Create a poll - get more than 2/3 positive votes - change it or not - let he disussion die.
No Company would be worried about this because there are none - we are the children and supporters of the game.
elves of lindon - 1 Mp because playable at a
orcs of moria and stinker - 1 Mp for a balrog player because playable at a
rolled down the sea - playable once per turn (than not unique)
carambor - (specific function) ... once per turn
return of the king and white tree - playable at the site phase
All this modifications would not change the balance of the game because for each of them there were an example in the past and "cheeze" is gone.
I´m sure there are a few "cheeze" more that was discussed here.
The problem is nobody has the guts to do something
Create a poll - get more than 2/3 positive votes - change it or not - let he disussion die.
No Company would be worried about this because there are none - we are the children and supporters of the game.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
I wouldn't object nearly so much to Rolled if they hadn't stopped Rings-For-Points in their effort to stop dunk. Still, I name it cheeze because it's uncounterable.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
what's the problem with Rolled?Bandobras Took wrote:I wouldn't object nearly so much to Rolled if they hadn't stopped Rings-For-Points in their effort to stop dunk. Still, I name it cheeze because it's uncounterable.
It is usually in the sideboard right? Or is everyone putting it in its deck in a tourney?
Can't you use Leaf Brooch to counter Rolled ? Two leaf Brooches against a Mouthed Rolled.
Or keep another Precious Gold ring somewhere in your hand or in a company.
Can you use Many Sorrows Befall on guard on Mt Doom to cancel Fate of Gollum? If you can, it forces the dunking player to have yet another resource card to remove on-guard cards.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Straight up. You can always play it to view your opponent's hand.Mordan wrote:what's the problem with Rolled?Bandobras Took wrote:I wouldn't object nearly so much to Rolled if they hadn't stopped Rings-For-Points in their effort to stop dunk. Still, I name it cheeze because it's uncounterable.
It is usually in the sideboard right? Or is everyone putting it in its deck in a tourney?
Those same Leaf Brooches could be tested as Rings, so you're still losing Ring items effectively when Rolled is played.Can't you use Leaf Brooch to counter Rolled ? Two leaf Brooches against a Mouthed Rolled.
Which means you're still losing a Ring Item. When a card does exactly what it's supposed to do (force you to discard a Ring Item), then you haven't countered it at all. That's like saying "I countered Lure of Nature by having my character fail the first corruption check. The other two fizzled!"Or keep another Precious Gold ring somewhere in your hand or in a company.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Thorsten the Traveller
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Tilburg, Netherlands
No hazard can be cheeze, because it can always be countered by reducing the hazard limit to 0
See how useless this definition is?
See how useless this definition is?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
why can't you play Many Sorrows on guard? Is it arbitrary or is there a rule reason? I think it is lame. It should be like Searching Eye. Why can you play Lure of Expedience and not Many Sorrows? EDIT: I read the rules and it says the target must exist in the M/H phase.
I see that Rolled is powerful. If you only have the One Ring in a company and no Gold Rings in your hand and no leaf brooch, Rolled is played. Is the One Ring special item deemed a gold ring for the purpose of Rolled?
I see that Rolled is powerful. If you only have the One Ring in a company and no Gold Rings in your hand and no leaf brooch, Rolled is played. Is the One Ring special item deemed a gold ring for the purpose of Rolled?
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Searching Eye specifically allows itself to be played on-guard because of its card text.
To play a card on-guard, it must have been legally playable during the movement/hazard phase. However, the card that Many Sorrows cancels was not declared during the movement/hazard phase, so Many Sorrows could not have been played in response.
Note also: Rolled discards any Ring, not just Gold Ring items.
To play a card on-guard, it must have been legally playable during the movement/hazard phase. However, the card that Many Sorrows cancels was not declared during the movement/hazard phase, so Many Sorrows could not have been played in response.
Note also: Rolled discards any Ring, not just Gold Ring items.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
There are hazards that don't count against the hazard limit.Thorsten the Traveller wrote:No hazard can be cheeze, because it can always be countered by reducing the hazard limit to 0
See how useless this definition is?
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Thorsten the Traveller
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Tilburg, Netherlands
well, that at least narrows the discussion down to, what, 5 hazards?There are hazards that don't count against the hazard limit.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Not to mention hazards whose effect does not depend on the hazard limit of the current company, such as most Long-Events, quite a few Permanent-Events, etc.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
- Thorsten the Traveller
- Ex Council Chairman
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Tilburg, Netherlands
So? At one point they must have been played, so at that point you could have fizzled them, so they are counterable, if only hypothetically (which is exactly the point of this exercise).
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
- Bandobras Took
- Rules Wizard
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
I still can't accept the conclusion that no hazard can be cheese, because hazards can be played in response to the reduction of the hazard limit before it actually occurs.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.