Noob: &River, why?

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Noob: &River, why?

Post by rezwits » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:20 am

Hmm, Disappointed.

I had this fond (but not applicable, anymore) fasination with MECCG, in the fact that I thought it was cool, because it required you to make use of the skill class, Ranger.

I thought people would complain about River, but I was like what does it matter? If you have a Ranger you are good. i.e. The need for Aragorn! I thought man this is cool, just like Tolkien wrote...

So, while I have been building decks and playing solo, I have been always telling myself, make sure you have some Rangers, and that the companies have at least 1x Ranger.

So even tho I thouhgt the card was abusive and I didn't like to use it, I decided let's start some solo play with River to get a feel.

I read the URD, and even the old Isles of the Dead that Live Council Errata List.

I had to ask myself, WHY?

Why did this card, which was overly powerful, get errata to make even MORE INSANELY powerful?

This makes no sense.

The METW version of the card says:
Playable on a site. A company without a ranger that has moved to this site this turn must do nothing during its site phase. Discard at the end of the turn.

But the MELE / Errata version of the card says:
Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.

Does anyone know the history at I.C.E. on why this was made even SICKER?

I mean the main problem is, if you have a sole Ranger going on an errand, he can't do anything. He has to keep tapping?!? Especially with a Mouth, Uvatha, Mouth etc, lock.

To me the mere fact that you have to build your decks WITH Rangers was Punishment enough. Instead of just scouting it all over the place.

Why did this CHANGE take place? Depressing...

(this just makes no sense, it's almost ike they wanted to make it weaker, but it turned out stronger, IrDK)
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2776
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Noob: &River, why?

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:26 pm

You think that's bad, it applies even if the company got there by flying. (Using Eagle-Mounts, Gwaihir, or Winged Change-Master.)

I wouldn't object to it so much if any other skill were treated the same way, but no other skill is required to actually act during the site phase.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly. This prompted the backlash erratum that I will link to as soon as I notice it is officially posted. :)

User avatar
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Noob: &River, why?

Post by Theo » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:52 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:26 pm
You think that's bad, it applies even if the company got there by flying.
No problem: there is a concept of an atmospheric river. I'd think that while flying it would be even easier to get turned around in the wrong direction! ;)
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
Have I not earnestly studied this matter?

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”