Nazgul are Abroad and Half an Eye Open

[Frodo]

So you guys like my TNAA suggestion? It's not too awkward--that part about not tapping any Nazguls?

I'm still nervous that Scimitars is too powerful, but maybe we could test it with this new wording. If it IS too powerful, than we could probably cut all all those suggestions I made to TNAA, because the card really doesn't need to be made any weaker than it is (Scimitars aside).

Btw, I assume if you were making a Nazgul attack and wanted to boost it from TNAA, the Nazgul is considered "in play", therefore you could use that Nazgul for playing boosters? Yeah, that makes sense to me. I'm worried about Fell Beast thought... that weird card is supposed to play and resolve [crf] before a Nazgul if being using for attack keyability... oh well, that means FB can't be used unless there's a Nazgul already on table.

Re HaE: I think the new modification is fine for this one, though. As far as whether or not from sideboard, and whether or not it should be 4 cards... hmm, I know that TNAA needs to be 4 cards and from sideboard, but I'm not sure about HaE yet. I have so rarely played anything from this card that it's hard to measure. Maybe allowing 4 cards *would* make it a little better. Okay, perhaps that should be our guiding principle: if the card seems too weak to most of us (though still useful), we should bolster it slightly. Regarding sideboard, I am equally divided. I do know that between Voices of Malice and Bane your HaE strategy shuts down very quickly. If we allowed from sideboard, this would make HaE better, but still allow Bane to punish it slightly (no repeat cards from discard).

Yet it is still clear to me that HaE is stronger than TNAA if you are simply comparing the probability of enhanced creatures attacks (nazgul vs. drake/dragon). So why don't we start off by saying 4 cards each, but leave "from sideboard" off HaE for now? Effective immediately.

Frodo

[marcos]

Yet it is still clear to me that HaE is stronger than TNAA if you are simply comparing the probability of enhanced creatures attacks (nazgul vs. drake/dragon). So why don't we start off by saying 4 cards each, but leave "from sideboard" off HaE for now? Effective immediately.

yes, we can try that for now

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Yet it is still clear to me that HaE is stronger than TNAA if you are simply comparing the probability of enhanced creatures attacks (nazgul vs. drake/dragon). So why don't we start off by saying 4 cards each, but leave "from sideboard" off HaE for now? Effective immediately.

I also think that would be right.

Furthermore, Scimitars can't be played from under TnAA now, right? because of the tapping required, that's exactly the beauty of the solution! So no problem there. In fact, I'd argue to take Morgul Horse of the exception list, since you can't use it on the tapped nazgul anyway, but it might be used to key the guy to shadowland, which of course increases the probability of a nazgul attack considerably. Right?

You can't even tap your Adunaphel after you used this card to make nazgul playable, to tap the remaining guy! I like! you have to plan better tapping your nazgul.

I'd say, discard if your playdeck is exhausted. Why discard if the other guy exhausts? It can ruin it for you, and on the other hand also make it better for you. So, take middle way. I'm still thinking alot of Fury's could be played like this. Because you don't need to play 4 cards with it, just a Fury and a TNaA, so cycling can go pretty fast if you discard it upon emptying it.
of course, if you play alot of Fury's, you'll give away many mp's, which is good for Legolas/Gimli

[Frodo]

Wow, I just realized the extent of what I wrote about the Nazguls. I actually meant to say something different than what I wrote. I meant to say that if you have one Nazgul on the table, that one Nazgul cannot be tapped or discarded--not ALL your Nazgul. This is why I thought it would slow down the play of Helms/Scimitars. However, I like the version better that you guys thought I meant.

Er, I think Thorsten is right about Fury. You could even play it multiple times in one turn. Somehow I overlooked this interesting loophole. It's totally worth giving away one mp if you can have an almost guaranteed chance of wounding an important character, and possibly killing him/her.

What's terrible is I can't think of a way to still allow this card to be played on a Nazgul. Oh well. Let's put Fury on this list.

Btw, Two or Three Tribes should not be on the list.

Note: While it's true that HaE is more powerful than TNAA for creature attacks, I just remembered that TNAA is still a more "efficient" card in your deck that HaE. This is because all those Nazguls can still do something if they are not attacking. But all your At-homes and drakes, etc. can't do squat.

--Frodo

[Jambo]

Removing Fury is simple. Just add non-unique before non-creature.

Am I right in that if we removed morgul horse from the exceptions, this new version would actually prevent morgul horse being used from underneath to recycle tapped Nazgul perms? If so, then the nice thing about this new version is there's no reason to exclude morgul horse anymore; it could be used for keyability.

We don't have to bother with the Nazgul in play clause.

What do we do about WoPaT? And are you still sure ToTTP is ok to allow? (is this being modified to boost body rather than prowess?)

Not sure on HaEO and number of cards, and sideboard vs discard. Because of the requirement for at Homes, and Nazgul if it remains discard, I'm inclined to say sideboard should be allowed. Otherwise you'll always have a heavily diluted deck. I'd imagine the big ones are really Dragon's Desolation and Dragon's Blood...

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Jambo wrote:

Am I right in that if we removed morgul horse from the exceptions, this new version would actually prevent morgul horse being used from underneath to recycle tapped Nazgul perms? If so, then the nice thing about this new version is there's no reason to exclude morgul horse anymore; it could be used for keyability

That's what I said, waky waky rise 'n shine! (6.20 a.m.? oh boy)

that TNAA is still a more "efficient" card in your deck that HaE. This is because all those Nazguls can still do something if they are not attacking. But all your At-homes and drakes, etc. can't do squat.

Well @homes also have abilities, and they make entering a site a tiny bit more difficult, so all in all they can be very useful.
I guess dragon attacks can be more vicious than nazgul, and their keyability isn't any less. Why is Rumor of Wealth/Dragon's Desolation not played more often? I guess because of the fact it's a combo with a relative high degree of uncertainty, that drawback has now been seriously reduced.
Nazgul-Fell Beast combo is the same, except the attack is less vicious. By this line of reasoning, I'd go for dragons via discard and nazgul via sideboard, but to be honest, it might be better to playtest via sideboard first and see if it's not too strong, because the difference might be minimal, and but it's a bummer having to include nazguls just for the sideboard.
And for the number of cards reserved the difference is minimal too I suppose.

[Jambo]

That's what I said, waky waky rise 'n shine! (6.20 a.m.? oh boy)

Kids lol.

Well @homes also have abilities, and they make entering a site a tiny bit more difficult, so all in all they can be very useful.
I guess dragon attacks can be more vicious than nazgul, and their keyability isn't any less. Why is Rumor of Wealth/Dragon's Desolation not played more often? I guess because of the fact it's a combo with a relative high degree of uncertainty, that drawback has now been seriously reduced.
Nazgul-Fell Beast combo is the same, except the attack is less vicious. By this line of reasoning, I'd go for dragons via discard and nazgul via sideboard, but to be honest, it might be better to playtest via sideboard first and see if it's not too strong, because the difference might be minimal, and but it's a bummer having to include nazguls just for the sideboard.
And for the number of cards reserved the difference is minimal too I suppose.

Yeah, Dragons are definitely more powerful. Plus, with the use of their booster cards they can hit , or .

If the sideboard can be used, I might be inclined to remove the 'free hazard' clause for cards that target unique dragons. Likewise, only discard cards underneath HaEO when any play deck is exhausted, not HaEO.

[Jambo]

So we're currently here:

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your sideboard or discard pile and place them face down with this card. If there is a Nazgûl in play, you may play non-creature hazards placed with this card that have the word “Nazgûl” in their game text (except Long Dark Reach) as if they were in your hand. You may not tap or discard a Nazgûl on the same turn a card is played from undernearth this card. Once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile and place them face down with this card. If there is an "at Home" manifestation in play, you may play short- or permanent-event hazards (except “at Homes” and Parsimony of Seclusion) placed with this card that mention a named Dragon or the word “Dragon” in their game text or title as if they were in your hand. All hazards targeting unique Dragon creatures do not count against the hazard limit. Prowess of Age can only be played to give a prowess bonus. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

One could make it sideboard if DoN is in play.

[marcos]

One could make it sideboard if DoN is in play

i like that for both HaEO and TNaA

[Thorsten the Traveller]

I think it's a pitty you have to include like 5 nazgul if you want to play a dragon strat., just to get them out of sideboard. Do you think most people would play Doors if they play a dragon strat.? Doors is not that useful, of course it helps Dragon's Desolation, and the regions the dragons can be keyed to, and Fire Drake and Withered Lands. Still I'm not sure I would use Doors. Depends on resource strat. as well I guess. I would say playtest with direct sideboard, but I can go with sideboard if Doors in play as well.

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
That's what I said, waky waky rise 'n shine! (6.20 a.m.? oh boy)

Kids lol.

You have kids Jambo, and you play meccg!? respect!

[Jambo]

Doors might be quite nice for allowing both to take their cards from the sideboard. If we're wanting to really encourage people to use a Nazgul attack strategy then Doors is important because it's required for Morgul Night and Out of the Black Sky. For Dragons it helps keyability on many fronts, plus recycling through Pits of Angband.

Once the cards are across from the sideboard, however, then Doors becomes less of a necessity. If HaEO or TNaA is MT or VoM, then the cards will go into the discard pile which means they're much easier to re-fetch for subsequent TNaA and HaEO.

Remember, you can also half the hazard limit if your opponent's avatar is in play to move 5 hazard cards to the discard pile.

[Jambo]

Update:

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile (or sideboard if Doors of Night is in play) and place them face down with this card. If there is a Nazgûl in play, you may play non-unique hazards placed with this card that have the word “Nazgûl” in their game text (except Long Dark Reach) as if they were in your hand. You may not tap or discard a Nazgûl on the same movement/hazard phase a card is played from underneath this card. Once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile (or sideboard if Doors of Night is in play) and place them face down with this card. If an "at Home" Dragon manifestation in play, you may play non-unique short- or permanent-event hazards (except Parsimony of Seclusion) placed with this card that mention a named Dragon or the word “Dragon” in their game text or title as if they were in your hand. Hazards targeting unique Dragon creatures do not count against the hazard limit. Prowess of Age can only be played to give a prowess bonus. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

Are hazards that target unique Dragons also free when they're played from the hand (as opposed to from underneath this card)? Should it be the case that hazards are only be free if played from underneath HaEO? Should the text more closely match TNaA, i.e. "Once per turn..." ?

[Thorsten the Traveller]

I would prefer a construction like TNaA for HaEO also. Because if you cycle you might not get all hazards out of playdeck. On the other hand, once per turn has it's negative also. Maybe you may also play cards from hand under HaEO when it is played?

Reading this once again, it dawned on me there is a rather nasty possibility for abuse the way it is phrased now. I can play any card under HaEO from sideboard, and then just discard it myself with a marvels...that's no good.

[marcos]

Update:

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile (or sideboard if Doors of Night is in play) and place them face down with this card. If there is a Nazgûl in play, you may play non-unique hazards placed with this card that have the word “Nazgûl” in their game text (except Long Dark Reach) as if they were in your hand. You may not tap or discard a Nazgûl on the same movement/hazard phase a card is played from underneath this card. Once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

When this card is played, take up to four cards from your discard pile (or sideboard if Doors of Night is in play) and place them face down with this card. If an "at Home" Dragon manifestation in play, you may play non-unique short- or permanent-event hazards (except Parsimony of Seclusion) placed with this card that mention a named Dragon or the word “Dragon” in their game text or title as if they were in your hand. Hazards targeting unique Dragon creatures do not count against the hazard limit. Prowess of Age can only be played to give a prowess bonus. Discard when your play deck is exhausted.

Are hazards that target unique Dragons also free when they're played from the hand (as opposed to from underneath this card)? Should it be the case that hazards are only be free if played from underneath HaEO? Should the text more closely match TNaA, i.e. "Once per turn..." ?

i have a question about timing, does the effect from TNaA triggers AFTER a card from underneath it is played? I mean, you could still play a scimitar and therefore, the remaining nazguls in table won't be able to discard or tap. Am i clear?

I would prefer a construction like TNaA for HaEO also. Because if you cycle you might not get all hazards out of playdeck. On the other hand, once per turn has it's negative also. Maybe you may also play cards from hand under HaEO when it is played?

Reading this once again, it dawned on me there is a rather nasty possibility for abuse the way it is phrased now. I can play any card under HaEO from sideboard, and then just discard it myself with a marvels...that's no good.

agree with thorsten, we need more specific wording

[Jambo]

Timing is a strange one regarding scimitars and helms because of this wording:

Playable only if you have Nazgul permanent-event in play. Discard the Nazgul when this card is brought into play.

Here are some pertinent crf quotes:

· Annotation 6: If an action requires an entity to be discarded as a condition for the action's main effect, that entity must be discarded when the action is declared; this is considered synonymous with the action's declaration; i.e., it is not a separate action.

· Annotation 1: A card is not in play until it is resolved in its chain of effects. When the play of a card is declared, no elements of the card may be the target of actions declared in the same chain of effects. An exception to this is a dice-rolling action; e.g., a corruption check.

Presumably, therefore, the playing of scimitars or helms is synonymous with discarding the Nazgul. Interesting quandary. I'd like to believe that the text on TNaA would prevent this by removing the ability to fulfil the active condition of having to discard the Nazgul. Moreover if scimitars or helms has to resolve as per Annotation 1, then we should be fine.