Council of Elrond

Original rule:

If your opponent has no marshalling points in a category (besides kill and miscellaneous), you may double your points in that category. No more than half of your positive MPs may come from one category.

Suggested rule:

If you have more marshalling points than your opponent in a category (besides kill and miscellaneous), you may double the excess points in that category. No more than half of your positive MPs may come from one category.

The idea behind this system is that it punishes decks that rely heavily on very few MP categories (Wolfiegast) or that play large amounts of misc points (Red Hills, Map-Hog, Faithless Stewards). A more traditional deck playing against these would get compensated by doubling most of their item/faction points, thus leveling the playing field. Once the cheezy decks no longer have a clear advantage over the more normal ones, we should see their decline in the tournament scene.

I do believe this system could work, but it can impact the games in other ways as well. First of all, it can bring a different dynamic to the last turns, as it becomes clear that some MP cards might be worth double points while others would not. It also makes it more difficult to assess the actual end game MP totals during the last turns due to extras awarded for several categories at Council. Because of this the last turns may become more chaotic, dramatic and exciting at the same time. I'm not sure if this really is a bad thing, but I would perhaps not recommend using this point counting system with a beginning player.

Another clear change is that misc MP cards go down in value. This is necessary to slightly nerf Red Hills and such, but it can also effectively kill more fun decks like Pass the Doors of Dol Guldur. The more thematic decks don't usually make an impact on the tournament scene anyway, but perhaps it would be wise to keep the old points system for more casual games, reserving the new one for (high level) tournament play.

I would like to start gathering some data on how the new system would affect game results. When you play a game, please take a moment to record the MP totals by category and post them here (you can also count them using the new system, or I can do that later), along with a quick description of the decks used and any other relevant things (dead avatar, uniques revealed at Council etc.). I'm especially interested in decks involving the more cheezy ones vs. regulars, but of course need to find out about other match-ups too. And if you have any other comments or questions, don't hesitate to post below.

To be honest all you're really doing is cutting certain decks out of the tournament scene by the point modification. Hero faction, allies, items, etc tend to be worth more points than the minion versions. So you'll end up seeing more of those played.

You'll eliminate decks and deck archetypes that can't compete under the new system, and just be replacing them with decks that can compete and they will become the new archetype. I'm guessing that 2 company decks that gather big points will be the norm, and it'll eliminate squatting decks, under deeps (Indiana Jones style), etc.

You've basically restricted deck construction to the point where everyone must put 3-4 allies, factions, items into every deck, less be doubled upon in a category.

You would also be changing a fundamental rule of meccg.

Just my 2 cents.

I would also point out that this turns Fallen Saruman down even more, as he's never, on average:

Going to have more ally points.
Going to have more character points.
Going to have more item points.
Going to have more faction points.

It does punish decks that focus only on 1 type and/or on character/misc points (like squat or FW), but is that bad? As my earlier proposal showed, I consider decks that get near half their MP from dropping characters an utter-bore and menace to the game.

But I can't really foresee how it would work out either. I was enthusiastic when you proposed it Mikko, but on my drive home realised that it could easily increase the mp differences a lot, having a kind of multiplier effect. A winning deck would typically score more MP in at least 2 of the 3 categories after all. As characters are usually a substantial part of mp's and don't get doubled, and as big mp scores don't really care about reaching a max 50% of 1 category, rather than a balancing mechanism it would award the winner even more. But it's worth some testing.

And yes there are many cool misc. point missions that would bite the dust (more so in DC games).

There will always be archtype decks in a competitive environment if they are stronger than most others. I would rather have hero archtype decks over what we have now. Personally I don't think Wolfiegast etc. would become unplayable, they will still be strong decks, but in order to win they need to work more actively with their hazards.

You don't really need to put tons of allies in every deck, if while the opponent plays those you play some other stuff (factions, items) and get extra points from those at Council. It balances out.

I'm not proposing to make this a general system (casual, DC), rather only for tournaments where you expect cheeze to rule. I do not want to abolish cool misc point decks from the game, but honestly they are (nearly) non-existent in the current tournament scene. The kind of FW Saruman deck that Ben refers to doesn't get played in that environment much either (another kind, Rivendell / Bag End squat might).

It's true that the multipliers will sometimes make a 4-2 win into 5-1, or a 5-1 into 6-0 etc. but when the rules are the same for everyone, I don't see that as a big issue. Personally I'm most worried about the unpredictability/volatility of the last turns, and how that will affect people's gaming experience.

it is worth a play test. Nation's cup games should do it on the side, non binding.

EDIT: To nerf squatting even more, don't apply the new rule for characters. only for factions/items and allies. Characters MPs are always cheap.

I'm afraid the proposal makes the game more complicated (unpredictable). In a 2-player deck, it can make the better player additionally better. Let's assume for example, for only 3 categories, points are
CH 8 : 6
IT 6 : 5
FA 3 : 1
This makes 4:2 (17:12) in the standard game. Applying the new proposal yields 5:1 (22:12). So the rule has the potential to increase differences between players. I would be somewhat sceptical about such a rule.

I don't understand how some games turning from 4-2 into 5-1 would be a big problem? Rules would be the same for everyone. During a tournament the TP differences between certain players will get big regardless of which system you use. And if during a game one player shows dominance in all categories, maybe he should be rewarded for that.

I like the standard ruling better. The question of how much should a player be rewarded for dominance in the game is a personal view, so probably, there is no conclusive answer.

Sry dude, but this is bullshit, no seclusive answer ...

I mean squatting decks as the are the bore and death of the game or Balrog with Great Shadow, just play max 1-2 items and either tons of allies or just again a few,. . . this new way of counting points which is not much worse then the current rules (which trust me not all players get, as I realized playing with bunch of noob french players), will totally address the decks which in my view (and Mikko) seems to agree make for an undesirable playing experiance to play against!

yours Nicolai

Vastor Peredhil wrote:Sry dude, but this is bullshit, no seclusive answer ...

I mean squatting decks as the are the bore and death of the game or Balrog with Great Shadow, just play max 1-2 items and either tons of allies or just again a few,. . . this new way of counting points which is not much worse then the current rules (which trust me not all players get, as I realized playing with bunch of noob french players), will totally address the decks which in my view (and Mikko) seems to agree make for an undesirable playing experiance to play against!

yours Nicolai

I wish people would stop making generalizations like "squatting decks as the are the bore and death of the game or Balrog with Great Shadow . . ." You may find them boring, you may find them the death of the game, but not everyone agrees. You need to state your opinion and/or facts and not speak for everyone. You are not the entire community. I personally find them fun/challenging to fight against or fun/challenging to play.

There is quite a list of anoying stuff to play against.
But my personal most frustrating number one on the list is a certain elf that won't allow me to play my turns, or even try to play my factions, allies or items

Maybe Vastors number one are those squatting decks.

That elf does suck. However with this MP system I'm trying to deal with some other stuff, IMO Carambor would be best dealt via an erratum.

And for the record, my system would not make Wolfiegast, Red Hills etc. unplayable. It just makes it harder to win with them, which probably means fewer people playing them. If Brian (or anyone else) enjoys squatting with a proper challenge, he is still welcome to play those decks.

zirilan wrote:There is quite a list of anoying stuff to play against.
But my personal most frustrating number one on the list is a certain elf that won't allow me to play my turns, or even try to play my factions, allies or items

Maybe Vastors number one are those squatting decks.

This particular rule actually helps Carambor lol. But as mikko stated this is probably better with an errata like

"Can only be used once per turn"

I agree with the idea to make Wolfiegast (etc...) decks more difficult to play. My point is that I don't like the MP proposal because of its side effects.