Council of Elrond

Bandobras Took wrote:Regarding changes not happening: in May, I proposed that standard tournament become 3-deck. Has anybody tried this yet?

No way, else we dont have time for boardgames at LURE!

there is

1 Deck cheeze (at least they are fast and easier to digest)
Balrog Cheeze
Fallen Radagast Cheeze
2 Decks Cheeze

Is there 3 Decks Cheeze?

Against cheeze, I would do alignment wars

Hero Decks play only against Minion Decks. No Fallen Wizards.

Each player has 2 decks of the same alignment.

Engagment rules are:
First turn is a random assignment. And each player choose one of his deck.
Once the first turn has ended,
-score is tallied.
-players from the same alignment get together and may share Deck info about the ennemy. Winners deck info is especially important
-Losing Alignment choose the next engagment/assignment set up.
-Loser/Tie player can choose between their decks
-Winner player must continue playing his winning deck.

You could say that One and only One minion player may play a Balrog deck during a Turn. So not to have just Balrog decks.

If a player plays cheeze and win, next turn, it is the responsability of the other team to match up a deck with the right anti cheeze strat.

I don't know how to insert Fallen Wizards, since I never played them.

I think Deck cheeze is just not having the right deck to play against. If the guy is doing DoN Environnement. A GoM Twilight /Cock Crows/MT based deck wins the game.

Except MT doesn't hit Environments.

Altering structure so alignment determines who you plays against will simply calcify an already rigid tournament scene. You'll know even more what cards your opponent will be playing.

Bandobras Took wrote:Except MT doesn't hit Environments.

Altering structure so alignment determines who you plays against will simply calcify an already rigid tournament scene. You'll know even more what cards your opponent will be playing.

MT is there in case of Will of Sauron and Perils Returned.

Well knowing that opponents will know the cards, it will force players to make hybrid strategies. I know that you know and you know that I know that you know.

If you read me correctly, it is a team effort. I don't think it would calcify, it would liquify. Because cheeze winning strategies would be revealed and losing team can send a player who has a deck to eat the cheeze. While if you make a wierd deck, they wouldn't know what to send against you.

Ok, we'll call this the light side/dark side tourney format, in analogy with the way SWccg is played (though they alternate each round automatically). It is interesting, in dc tourneys we always try to play cross alignment, but
a) it is not always possible,
b) same alignment games also have interesting mechanics (influencing/character-resource competition etc.) which would never be used anymore.
And c) as you say FW is hard to fit into this.
Either way, it is more a tournament format idea than a game-change.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed with the response to the idea of the original post: limit the amount of character mp's at the council. There is no analisis whatsoever by those who oppose it. I feel this idea could work as
-it's simple
-can have a profound effect on the meta-game
-makes thematic sense
-brings the game closer to its original intend, which is to go around rallying support or prove your worth as a campaigner.

when the game first came out, they did not envision a Sauron/Balrog/Fallen-wizard player just sitting in his Haven dropping characters. While it is true that having influence to collect a bunch of followers has some worth in meccg terms, it would be cooler if that influence were used more diversely.

So an experiment with a character max. would be really useful I think.

I think that almost everybody agrees that a change in meta-game is desirable. Some ideas I like (no or limited character MPs, 3-deck games...) would change meta-game once, and then it will be static again. I'd like a changing meta-game, like I have in other games I play, and I think the best tools to get that are erratas and dreamcards/virtual cards.

BTW, I think I shuoldn't have writing rights in this forum anymore.

I suppose there's truth in that Jose, though e.g. the character reduction rule would open up a score of options for possible decks big enough to make the meta-game unpredictable for a long time (probably). Moreover, if decks would be more active, hazard play would also be more effective.

Hmm, why not let all people drop their ideas at this board section, we value it. People should just not mess up council talk