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.
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 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:11 pm

Well define overpowered. I don't think that is the issue here.
as said before, i think the issue is the balrog-sb thingy

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

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

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:48 am

I am with Eric again,

the sole problem lies not with Whctk,(in my opinion) but with discarded characters coming back basically at any balrog site fresh & unwounded next turn

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2637
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:05 pm

But the discard & come back rule merely gives the Balrog a strength of healing which is mitigated by the low bodies of such characters in the first place. It's no more overpowered than FWs playing allies or characters from the discard or Heroes getting high-MP Factions for low rolls. It's strong, but it doesn't go over the top any more than other alignments do in their strengths.
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. :)

Frodo
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

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

Post by Frodo » Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:24 pm

I don't have a clear judgment here, since other players have used these cards more than I have, but just some considerations:

*Negative play experience is a big deal. If these cards remove some of the fundamental interactions of the game--facing autos, for instance--on a common, likely basis, then we should try to deal with that.
*We should probably come up with two or three solutions, then present these to the community for debate.

--Frodo

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:40 pm

I think there is a very simple solution to this.
Balrog Rules, Characters and Companies wrote:When a Balrog player brings into play a non-unique character with a mind of 3 or less, that character may come from his hand, his discard pile, or his sideboard.
Voilà:
Balrog Erratum Proposal wrote:When a Balrog player brings into play a non-unique character with a mind of 3 or less during his organization phase, that character may come from his hand, his discard pile, or his sideboard.
Pros:
-Prevents cheezy use of WHCtK
-Let's Brian play with his big boys from the sideboard
-Allows a surface company to get reinforcements from the sideboard with WHCtK during org phase

Cons:
-I nerfed my own deck a bit ;)

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:53 pm

cons:
-nerfed my deck as well :lol:

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2637
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:15 pm

That seems like a good idea; let's see what the others think.
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
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 511
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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Great, easy and effective solution indeed.

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:24 pm

agreed

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

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

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:30 pm

Ok seems a reasonable way to play it, and no cards need changing

Nicolai

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:45 pm

I'm against this.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

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

Post by Jose-san » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:19 pm

I like this. Yes!

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2637
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:32 pm

Sauron wrote:I'm against this.
Out of curiosity, though, are you less against this than you are against the 2-mind rule? This still would allow extra character points for the Balrog.
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. :)

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:34 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sauron wrote:I'm against this.
Out of curiosity, though, are you less against this than you are against the 2-mind rule? This still would allow extra character points for the Balrog.
I'm against, there is no level of against for me.

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 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:17 pm

cons: Great Cheez still has his way with it, which is the main reason to propose such a rule change in the first place.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”