Deep Mines

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming 2018 ARV should be posted here.
User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:55 am

I propose the following erratum be issued:

Change:
Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII
To:
Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site only from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. This site is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck. 'The lodes lead away north towards Carahadras, and down into darkness.'-LotRII

Reference topic: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1960

Without this erratum, your company might forever be stuck at the Deep Mines site if the surface site (protected wizardhaven) is discarded. Furthermore, it requires you to leave a company behind at the surface site to enter the Deep Mines (unless you plan to leave using Gnarled Ways). Even if you do leave a company behind, if those character(s) are somehow corrupted, bounced to your hand, etc - your company in the Deep Mines may not ever be able to get out.

With this erratum, it makes the use of Deep Mines much less cumbersome. If your surface site is normally a haven (The White Towers, Isengard, Rhosgobel), you are allowed to have multiple copies in your location deck, so you can simply play another copy of the site to allow your company to return to the surface. If your surface site is not normally a haven, it still makes it much easier for your company to leave the Deep Mines by not requiring the surface site to again become protected before they can leave.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:03 am

If you want to make possible a moving to Deep Mines from site connected via Gnawed Ways, then remove first "only". :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
kober
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Deep Mines

Post by kober » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:30 pm

the Jabberwock wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:55 am
Change:
Deep Mines wrote:[..] The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines [..]
To:
Deep Mines wrote:[..] This site is the surface site for Deep Mines [..]
"This site" is ambiguous. How about striking out "protected" from the original sentence? Taking Konrad's suggestion into account, the result would be:
Deep Mines wrote:A company may move to this site from one of your protected Wizardhavens [W] and only if you have more than 6 stage points. The Wizardhaven is the surface site for Deep Mines (i.e., the sites are adjacent and the movement roll required to move between them is 0). You receive the three stage points if any of your companies are at the site. May be duplicated in a location deck.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:38 pm

The protected Wizardhaven may cease to be protected and may cease to be Wizardhaven. This site remains this site.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Shapeshifter » Tue May 01, 2018 1:04 pm

I think this is a tricky one.

Without the need to leave a character behind in order to keep the protected Wizardhaven in play this could change the way the game is played a lot. This is especially relevant for high level tournament play. It is possible that Deep Mines will see a lot more (cheezy) play with the proposed change. Concerning Deep Mines the proposed change, however, will lift all other fallen wizards nearly on the same level where Radagast already is (Rhosgobel is a protected Wizardhaven from the beginning of the game without the need to play a special card in order to protect it).

What about protected Hidden Havens (or sites with Mischief in a Mean way etc.)? With the proposed change you would still be stuck at the Deep Mines if you don't keep the Hidden Haven site in play. Unless you are able to play another Hidden Haven card later on.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Konrad Klar » Tue May 01, 2018 1:48 pm

If goal is to preserve a status of the surface site regardless of "protected", or the site type, it is inevitable that handling of Deep Mines will be easier.
After all this is the purpose of the proposal: a player with company at Deep Mines need to care about the Deep Mines surface site, like player with company at The Gem-Deeps need to care about The Gem-Deeps surface site - as long his Glittering Caves is in play or in his Location Deck, there is the site to which the company may return on surface.
(BTW. companies at Deep Mines under Refuge or Wondrous Maps are less lucky)
Shapeshifter wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:04 pm
What about protected Hidden Havens (or sites with Mischief in a Mean way etc.)? With the proposed change you would still be stuck at the Deep Mines if you don't keep the Hidden Haven site in play. Unless you are able to play another Hidden Haven card later on.
The situation may happen if the changes suggested by kober will be accepted. The changes are against purpose of the erratum proposal (as I understand it).
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu May 03, 2018 9:00 am

Shapeshifter wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:04 pm
I think this is a tricky one.

Without the need to leave a character behind in order to keep the protected Wizardhaven in play this could change the way the game is played a lot. This is especially relevant for high level tournament play. It is possible that Deep Mines will see a lot more (cheezy) play with the proposed change. Concerning Deep Mines the proposed change, however, will lift all other fallen wizards nearly on the same level where Radagast already is (Rhosgobel is a protected Wizardhaven from the beginning of the game without the need to play a special card in order to protect it).

What about protected Hidden Havens (or sites with Mischief in a Mean way etc.)? With the proposed change you would still be stuck at the Deep Mines if you don't keep the Hidden Haven site in play. Unless you are able to play another Hidden Haven card later on.
You bring up an excellent point. I cannot vouch for the tournament scene and I honestly have no idea how this change might affect high level tournament play, so thank you for giving your input.

Non-Radagast Fallen Wizards would still have to play a card to "protect" their Wizardhaven in order to enter the Deep Mines. So there is a bit of work to do there. Are the Deep Mines related cards so powerful that competitive tournament decks (outside Radagast) would pop up utilizing this strategy?

There are 3 options:

1) Make no change to the current rules and Deep Mines continues to be extremely cumbersome (and risky) for all non-Radagast Fallen Wizards.

2) Make the change from "The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site" to "this site is the surface site" allowing much more flexibility and play of the Deep Mines with other Fallen Wizards (this is the least restrictive option).

3) Make the change from "The protected Wizardhaven is the surface site" to "this Wizardhaven is the surface site" allowing more of a middle ground (more flexibility but not as much as option # 2). With this change, if the surface site is a natural Wizardhaven (Isengard, The White Towers), then the player simply needs to replay a copy of that site. If the site was a haven through the means of another card (Hidden Haven, Mischief, etc), then there would be more work involved as the player would need to give the surface site haven status again before his Deep Mines company could return.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon May 14, 2018 8:57 am

Shapeshifter wrote:
Without the need to leave a character behind in order to keep the protected Wizardhaven in play this could change the way the game is played a lot.
Can you elaborate? In general, having a protected wizardhaven is a strong asset one would rather not loose, so if at all possible you would leave a character behind to keep it in play. More so if it's worth MP's.

There are (plenty of) ways to defend against being stuck at the Deep Mines, but the effect can indeed be harsh, so I'm undecided about this one. But I do not fear a big change in metagame.

The fact that only Radagast has direct access to Deep Mines is utterly hilarious of course. Luckily in dreamcards we have protected Dwarf-lord havens :-)
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Shapeshifter » Tue May 15, 2018 7:11 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 8:57 am
Shapeshifter wrote:
Without the need to leave a character behind in order to keep the protected Wizardhaven in play this could change the way the game is played a lot.
Can you elaborate? In general, having a protected wizardhaven is a strong asset one would rather not loose, so if at all possible you would leave a character behind to keep it in play. More so if it's worth MP's.
It is true that no one likes to lose a protected wizardhaven and the MP connected with it, of course. It is also true, however, that it might be dangerous to go down into the Deep Mines and that it can be an advantage to take as many characters as possible downstairs. If you don't need to leave e.g. Beretar behind at your protected Wizardhaven this could make the difference if you play none, one or even two items that turn in the Deep Mines.

Btw, I have a "characterless" Fallen Alatar deck which I didn't get to work so far just beacause of the fact that I have to leave a character behind. Hmm, maybe I should better vote for the change :lol:

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Tue May 15, 2018 9:48 pm

Shapeshifter wrote: Btw, I have a "characterless" Fallen Alatar deck
Come again. Say what? =O



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu May 17, 2018 8:42 am

it might be dangerous to go down into the Deep Mines and that it can be an advantage to take as many characters as possible downstairs
Sure, but you suggested it would change the (meta)game, that seems a bit too much, as if not leaving a character behind makes going to the Deep Mines suddenly worth it.
Btw, I have a "characterless" Fallen Alatar deck
It must at least contain Alatar in the sideboard, otherwise it cannot be a Fallen-Alatar deck ;-)
@Jabberwock: he means that you start play without any characters on the table.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Sat May 19, 2018 8:33 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:42 am
@Jabberwock: he means that you start play without any characters on the table.
And there is an advantage to be realized by doing this?

Shapeshifter wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 1:04 pm
Without the need to leave a character behind in order to keep the protected Wizardhaven in play this could change the way the game is played a lot.
I would not be as convicted about this erratum if the character left up top to "run the elevator" was immune from harm. The biggest issue I have is due to hazards which may remove the character from the haven and seal the company down below to their doom. Call of Home would be extremely easy to play on the character left above. It doesn't even require a "moving character" to be the target. Cards such as Call of Home, Dragon Sickness, The Roving Eye, etc. all have the potential to bounce the guy in charge of the elevator. These hazards used as such can essentially be "game-winning" single hazards. That is too powerful.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 20, 2018 11:07 am

the Jabberwock wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:33 pm
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 8:42 am
@Jabberwock: he means that you start play without any characters on the table.
And there is an advantage to be realized by doing this?
Your opponent can't play hazards if you don't have a company; this causes clog.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Deep Mines

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu May 24, 2018 5:59 am

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 11:07 am
Your opponent can't play hazards if you don't have a company; this causes clog.
And how does one achieve a win condition without a company?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Deep Mines

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu May 24, 2018 1:45 pm

Eventually, you do play characters, but only after you've gotten the right setup. I've only seen such a deck attempted a few times. I think marcos had one that was also wizardless and consisted of characters coming in directly at sites which were then immediately Hidden Havened, thus producing clog initially and also limiting the chance of a character dying while moving to a necessary site.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Post Reply

Return to “2018 Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”