On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:24 pm

Right, so I say 'balrog has best cardmanagement in game", and you say "Lidless Eye has equal management," and then I'm using "made up feelings" and you have clearly refuted my point with facts...indeed, well if that is your way of viewing things, we are basically done, you seem to think that I just graduated from highschool, and that I would be fooled by such nonsense.
I find the balrog to not be over powered and I give you examples from the game
Must have missed those examples then, can you point them out again?
And sure, the Balrog tourney results of past 10 years are clearly anecdotal, way more so than your personal experience in playing against Balrog decks.
Or perhaps we should do a survey to check out which alignment people think is strongest? So what do you think the answer would be? Again, the 2 mind rule is not my idea...
How do you claim if Balrog comes 2nd in every category it comes in overall at number 1?
I don't claim that, I'd say it comes first in almost every category (except playing big MP cards and winning by dunk, but that's the same for all minions). But since you claimed you refuted that for each category, by stating this or that alignment is better for a category, I thought let's make the discussion easier for you and assume Balrog comes second (otherwise you'd have mentioned that more alignments would be better than Balrog per category, which you didn't). Seems basic stuff to me....
You want to turn this around on me?
Why would that be turning it around? You assume the position that you are correct and that if you are not satisfied with our line of reasoning, we have obviously failed. That's all very nice, but then I'd advise you to buy a stepladder, makes it easier to get of the high horse.
It is a valid way of discussing something that if we cannot agree on one point, we might agree on another. If you show me 2 mind rule makes Balrog below par, I'd be sympathetic to that of course.
My problem is you guys are creating new rules with no justification
Name me another one of such rules, I'd be happy to hear it :D .
If there a) were any precedence of unjustified CoE rules changes, or b) was evidence many people are against it, then your position would be a lot stronger.
For the moment I cannot conclude otherwise than that you are generally opposed to any changes being made, and you don't have any confidence in our (or anybody's?) abilities to judge the needs of the game.

Just remember that ICE in the first 4 years of the game made an endless list of corrections and errata, and that any (new) player also has to learn those. They only stopped with this list because they went bankrupt...guess which cardset was the last one, and never received any errata?...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Sauron » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:57 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Right, so I say 'balrog has best cardmanagement in game", and you say "Lidless Eye has equal management," and then I'm using "made up feelings" and you have clearly refuted my point with facts...indeed, well if that is your way of viewing things, we are basically done, you seem to think that I just graduated from highschool, and that I would be fooled by such nonsense.
I find the balrog to not be over powered and I give you examples from the game
Must have missed those examples then, can you point them out again?
And sure, the Balrog tourney results of past 10 years are clearly anecdotal, way more so than your personal experience in playing against Balrog decks.
Or perhaps we should do a survey to check out which alignment people think is strongest? So what do you think the answer would be? Again, the 2 mind rule is not my idea...
Point 1: Fact: Lidless Eye has 9 hand size, allows for a resource portion of 30 cards, versus Balrog which has 8 handsize, eats minimum 3 slots in the resource portion (33 minimum), but has no non-unique 3 mind chars. Assuming the 3 small mind characters for a lidless eye deck, then balrog vs Lidless Eye would be equal to resource portion, but the lidless eye gets 9 handsize.

You do realize a sample size of 10 isn't large enough to make a statistical analysis? You would need 10's of thousands of games to make a statistical analysis like you want to. So again 10 year range is still anecdtoal.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
How do you claim if Balrog comes 2nd in every category it comes in overall at number 1?
I don't claim that, I'd say it comes first in almost every category (except playing big MP cards and winning by dunk, but that's the same for all minions). But since you claimed you refuted that for each category, by stating this or that alignment is better for a category, I thought let's make the discussion easier for you and assume Balrog comes second (otherwise you'd have mentioned that more alignments would be better than Balrog per category, which you didn't). Seems basic stuff to me....
You want to assume something that isn't proven? IF and I preface this with IF, if it was shown that for arguement sake that Balrog was 2nd best in every category then you could perhaps make a valid arguement. But until proven to be 2nd in every category we can't make this assumption.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
You want to turn this around on me?
Why would that be turning it around? You assume the position that you are correct and that if you are not satisfied with our line of reasoning, we have obviously failed. That's all very nice, but then I'd advise you to buy a stepladder, makes it easier to get of the high horse.
It is a valid way of discussing something that if we cannot agree on one point, we might agree on another. If you show me 2 mind rule makes Balrog below par, I'd be sympathetic to that of course.
I have made my points, but I will be happy to real time debate this with you. I took your points which you used to make the Balrog seem over powered. But I showed many of those points to be wrong. As an example above I used the lidless eye card mangement. Therefore if your arguements used to prove the Balrog is Over Power are incorrect, then the Balrog isn't Over Powered because of the 3 mind rule.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
My problem is you guys are creating new rules with no justification
Name me another one of such rules, I'd be happy to hear it :D .
If there a) were any precedence of unjustified CoE rules changes, or b) was evidence many people are against it, then your position would be a lot stronger.
For the moment I cannot conclude otherwise than that you are generally opposed to any changes being made, and you don't have any confidence in our (or anybody's?) abilities to judge the needs of the game.

Just remember that ICE in the first 4 years of the game made an endless list of corrections and errata, and that any (new) player also has to learn those. They only stopped with this list because they went bankrupt...guess which cardset was the last one, and never received any errata?...
Why would I have to name another one of these rules? That is my point you guys are CREATING new rules without rules backing. Why do I need to make my position stronger? Your position would be stronger if there were rules made without justification, not the other way around.

I'm not opposed to any changes being made, I'm opposed to this change because I feel that A) Balrog isn't over powered, B) You guys are creating bad precedant with making rules up.

Many rules have changed in my time as a meccg player. Some I like some I don't like, but I can see reasoning in the justification of those rules changes. This one has no justification except a percieved over powerness.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2604
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:46 pm

Why is the current proposal by Mikko such a problem? My problem is you guys are creating new rules with no justification, because of a percieved problem by some players. Where do we draw the line with creating new rules with no justification. For example, It shouldn't be allowed to play more than 1 item/ally/faction at a site in a given turn, because Squatting decks are too powerful. Why can't we implement that rule? Or Dunking with the One Ring is too powerful it gives too many TPs, therefore they will now only get a 4-2 victory. Again these examples are extreme, but it's a slipperly slope you guys go down. You're trying to push through a rule change for a percieved problem by some, not all.

You are correct I don't percieve a problem with the Balrog. I've faced Balrog and won and I've been Balrog and lost. You don't just win because you can play 3 mind characters from the SB.
Actually, that's very similar to my original argument, which suggested that Chance Meeting/We Have Come to Kill be restricted, and that because I felt it makes for better gameplay, and is uniform across alignments. Not only that, but it's completely justifiable by rule.
I will leave this game and setup my council if the CoE continues to go down this path of inventing new rules with no justification within the rules. Why would I support a game/system/council where I don't know what the rules will be from 1 day to the next. What happens when that new player comes and reads the Balrog rules and then goes how come it doesn't work like the way the rule book says, and you can't point to a rule book, CRF, CoL Tournament Policy, and instead just say well we decided it was OP and it doesn't work that way.
This, however, is fallacious. A new player already finds River being played for no effect despite the rules, finds out that the NetRep team has no unified character play rules, finds out that In The Heart of His Realm can't stop a thing, finds out that "all attacks receive +1 strike and +1 prowess" is an action, etc. Beside all that crap, a small list of "CoE Errata to Ameliorate the Playing Environment" isn't really going to put them off.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:50 pm

Bandobras Took wrote: This, however, is fallacious. A new player already finds River being played for no effect despite the rules, finds out that the NetRep team has no unified character play rules, finds out that In The Heart of His Realm can't stop a thing, finds out that "all attacks receive +1 strike and +1 prowess" is an action, etc. Beside all that crap, a small list of "CoE Errata to Ameliorate the Playing Environment" isn't really going to put them off.
Heart of the Realm can stop some things. It just doesn't play the way you want it to be played. And this can be justified by the rules.
River is being played for a potential effect. Again justified by the rules.

etc, etc.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2604
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:08 pm

What's your take on ICE's ruling on the Palantir of Orthanc's MPs for FWs? Justifiable by the rules? Was FW Saruman too powerful otherwise?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

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

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:46 pm

1. Liddless Eye, of course, is not an alignment...it is a type of deck. Otherwise we would have to compare also with Pallando, instead of with the Wizard alignment, or with a Short Rest deck, or a Carambor deck. Comparing types of decks makes no sense. I'm only adding the Umi/Bumi/Bolg argument because absolutely nobody plays Balrog without those (why on earth would you?)

2. Having 4-8 less characters in the deck not only means less cards in deck, but also not having to draw them in the wrong phase and keeping on to them a full turn (or more)...Characters generally obstruct the cardflow, as stage cards do - which is the main obstruction for playing Fallen as we all know.

3. The tactical advantages are additionally important, as you never have to decide whether to discard a character or another card, as you can at any time access characters. Moreover, being guaranteed to start with an unparalled strong company (Bumi/Bolg/Radbug/2x Hill Troll e.g.) sets you up in the game, and we all know the game gets harder once you are detained/wounded etc. The implications of such for cardmanagement are hard to calculate, but all of this is part of cardmanagement indeed. Either way, a Balrog deck is generally faster than other decks, which is its main forte and a very strong one in a game that in a competitive setting depends on speed.
Why would I have to name another one of these rules?
Because you claim we have already made, or are proposing to make, several such rules. As this would in fact be the first CoE initiated or sanctioned rules change afaik, I would like to hear your other examples.
I'm not opposed to any changes being made, I'm opposed to this change because I feel that (-) B) You guys are creating bad precedant with making rules up
Do you ever read your own posts? This just makes no sense. So far, the only "changes" you refer to are the ones resulting from NetRep digests, and the NetRep claims only to explain existing rules and resolve conflicting cards within that body of rules. But any real change will inevitably involve "making something up." I was right in my first assessment that you deem this to be inherently a bad precedent, apart from this proposal.

Ok, your position is clear, let's take it in another direction: which changes in rules/cards would you like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? Which obstructions in the game do you see? You can use this board section, but preferably start another thread.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by marcos » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:57 pm

I'm only adding the Umi/Bumi/Bolg argument because absolutely nobody plays Balrog without those (why on earth would you?)
i did it a couple of times :oops:

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Sauron » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:17 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:1. Liddless Eye, of course, is not an alignment...it is a type of deck. Otherwise we would have to compare also with Pallando, instead of with the Wizard alignment, or with a Short Rest deck, or a Carambor deck. Comparing types of decks makes no sense. I'm only adding the Umi/Bumi/Bolg argument because absolutely nobody plays Balrog without those (why on earth would you?)
Balrog isn't an alignment either. Balrog is minion. You play FW/Hero/Minion. You don't play FW/Hero/Minion/Balrog. So the same would apply to you calling the Balrog it's own thing.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: 2. Having 4-8 less characters in the deck not only means less cards in deck, but also not having to draw them in the wrong phase and keeping on to them a full turn (or more)...Characters generally obstruct the cardflow, as stage cards do - which is the main obstruction for playing Fallen as we all know.
I do not disagree with extra stage cards or characters clogging up a deck, but I've also shown it's really quite similiar to other decks if you build it that way.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: 3. The tactical advantages are additionally important, as you never have to decide whether to discard a character or another card, as you can at any time access characters. Moreover, being guaranteed to start with an unparalled strong company (Bumi/Bolg/Radbug/2x Hill Troll e.g.) sets you up in the game, and we all know the game gets harder once you are detained/wounded etc. The implications of such for cardmanagement are hard to calculate, but all of this is part of cardmanagement indeed. Either way, a Balrog deck is generally faster than other decks, which is its main forte and a very strong one in a game that in a competitive setting depends on speed.
It really depends on the type of Balrog deck you play. Not everyone starts and uses Hill Trolls. I personally find them to add to the HL and not be worth playing in some of my decks. Again this is personal preference. A balrog deck can be faster than other decks, but it's not guarenteed just because of the 3 mind rule. It all really depends on how you build the deck and play it.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Why would I have to name another one of these rules?
Because you claim we have already made, or are proposing to make, several such rules. As this would in fact be the first CoE initiated or sanctioned rules change afaik, I would like to hear your other examples.
I'm confused by this statement. I'm saying there aren't existing changes like this and you guys are about to make one where none existed before. You guys are stepping outside of the norm here is what I'm claiming.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
I'm not opposed to any changes being made, I'm opposed to this change because I feel that (-) B) You guys are creating bad precedant with making rules up
Do you ever read your own posts? This just makes no sense. So far, the only "changes" you refer to are the ones resulting from NetRep digests, and the NetRep claims only to explain existing rules and resolve conflicting cards within that body of rules. But any real change will inevitably involve "making something up." I was right in my first assessment that you deem this to be inherently a bad precedent, apart from this proposal.

Ok, your position is clear, let's take it in another direction: which changes in rules/cards would you like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? Which obstructions in the game do you see? You can use this board section, but preferably start another thread.
Yes you are 100% correct I find this to be inherently a bad precedent apart from this proposal.

I will split off your last question as you suggested into a seperate thread.

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by thorondor » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:36 am

Sauron wrote:You guys are stepping outside of the norm here is what I'm claiming.
agreed, and thats why i do not yet participate in any of such discussions in public. first the new charter with some serious guidelines on how rules changes can be made, then lets start the process.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by miguel » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:05 am

I would just like to add one thing at this point. With the 2-mind rule you can still send a lone orc (with high body) to the Under-leas, face the auto-attacks and then play a tiny orc with WHCtK from sideboard and get the 4MP Axe.

This thread is trying to address two things:
(i) WHCtK with characters from sideboard in a cheezy way
(ii) Playing characters for points from the sideboard

While the matters are related, I fear they are not related enough to be discussed in the same thread. My proposal deals with (i), the 2-mind rule with (ii). Perhaps this discussion should be split for clarity?

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

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:55 am

A balrog deck can be faster than other decks, but it's not guarenteed just because of the 3 mind rule
No, it's guaranteed because of the playing chars from sb rule, but as we don't want to change that completely (I think abolishing it completely wouldn't be too bad either, e.g. Balrog can already play 2 chars AND play non-unique's basically everywhere in the Underdeeps, compare that to the hassle for other alignments), the 2 mind rule diminishes its effect, while maintaining the thematic feel (pesky orcs showing up everywhere).

btw. Brian, nobody said Umi/Bumi/Bolg plus HillTrolls had to remain a single company, they can split for low hl limit and maximum versatility of play (as a good Great Cheez deck does) :wink:

@Mikko. The two are very related I think, but most of it has been discussed, so no need to split.
Your proposal might be a good compromise, though aisb the real Great Shadow performance deck isn't hampered too much by it, and if we later on decide to go for a change on WhCtK/ACM it is useless, but perhaps that will prove to be a bridge too far.
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: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Shapeshifter » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:17 pm

I had a long discussion about this with Mario. It made me think a lot. Now I think that Balrog is not owerpowered because of the ability to play MP-characters from sb with WHKTC. It's just about the player's experience with playing against Balrog. Ok, WHKTC from sideboard is very strong as well as Dark Tryst for example. But compared to hero (look at Longbottom Leaf, lots of easy high MP cards) it's not that good.

Probably I would vote for a playtesting phase with the proposed erratum, though. However I don't think any such erratum is really needed. It's all just about experience... A good hero deck may always win against Balrog. It depends on the players experience. Those who win with Balrog-cheese will probably win with a good hero or fallen deck as well.

Just my 2 cents.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by marcos » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:46 pm

Shapeshifter wrote:I had a long discussion about this with Mario. It made me think a lot. Now I think that Balrog is not owerpowered because of the ability to play MP-characters from sb with WHKTC. It's just about the player's experience with playing against Balrog. Ok, WHKTC from sideboard is very strong as well as Dark Tryst for example. But compared to hero (look at Longbottom Leaf, lots of easy high MP cards) it's not that good.

Probably I would vote for a playtesting phase with the proposed erratum, though. However I don't think any such erratum is really needed. It's all just about experience... A good hero deck may always win against Balrog. It depends on the players experience. Those who win with Balrog-cheese will probably win with a good hero or fallen deck as well.

Just my 2 cents.
I couldn't say any better :)

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

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:18 pm

Sure, that's why all the experienced players choose from the same 3 types of decks, including Balrog....

A real SWOT analysis doesn't rely on a player's experience of course. Otherwise an Akhorahil Malady deck might as well come out on top.
Experience also equates to a high degree to knowledge of the meta-game.
But share some more of your insights please, other than Longbottom Leaf is good (a squatting Balrog can easily use Ancient Secrets, also good because versatile). If that talk was so long, surely there must be more to say.

Balrog has no high mp items, you mean, nothing like Ancient Black-Axe or Aiglos?
Well, in general minion has less high mp cards, so lets just dismiss all minion alignments?
But Balrog does have an easy 3 mp faction, 2 mp ally, and a 3 MP burn card which because of its versatility can mean a 5-6 mp difference (or more if you double factions). Or perhaps you prefer Dreams of Lore to Maker's Map?

As said so often, the game is currently about speed, playing characters (and MP's) from sb with ease allows great speed. If you think this is what the game should remain about, then so be it, let's all play Radagast, Short Rest, Mordor Shuffle decks and Balrog. Lets keep the tournament scene stay the same since 2000, what does it matter? It's their party.

But don't mistake the meta-game for an inherent strength analysis...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Logain
Council Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

Post by Logain » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:11 am

Bandobras Took wrote: The problem is Balrog vs. Balrog. Given that whoever plays the Balrog first is likely to win,.
Many characters are available, so starting characters are not the problem. Avatar is the problem.

Why not add a Balrog Haven site libelled like : "You may only play this site if you are of Balrog alignment and your opponent played his Balrog Avatar first. Your Avatar is the Balrog of Angband. You use Minion sites for Moria and Under Gates. All auto attacks against your companies are cancelled blabla".
Could be Remains of Thangorodrim, or another, or could allow player to choose to which site the haven is associated.

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”