On the Balrog 2-Mind rule and the Real Culprit

All discussion of candidate rules for errata; open to non-members.
miguel
Posts: 658
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 10:19 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:cons: Great Cheez still has his way with it, which is the main reason to propose such a rule change in the first place.
What are you referring to?

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1513
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 10:37 pm

A Great Shadow deck that plays characters from sb only for points, obviously.

Of late other versions (say, Red Hills or the Heiner variant) are more popular, but the real speed Balrog (Wolf/Maps squat) doesn't even need WhCtK in site phase to win.

Imo the two problems co-exist, the speed problem (no carddraw/cardmanagement), and the points problem. Limiting 3 mind means automatically that to play points a player will include point chars in deck, thus affecting the speed problem also. Hence 3 mind rule remains best option.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

miguel
Posts: 658
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 11:06 pm

Well, I just made 35 MPs in 4 turns with Marcos' hero deck. Should we take a look at what could be done to make it weaker?

I don't think that overly nerfing the Balrog is necessary. I realize you haven't been playing GO in a long time, and back in the day there was a lot of complaining regarding the "over-powered" Balrog decks. I never thought that they were, and still don't. It's part of the metagame to prepare your hazards so that they can do the most damage, like 3x Arthadan Rangers vs. Wolfiehog. Honestly I think most of the complaining came from people's inability to adjust.

If you really want to nerf the Balrog, then yes, my suggestion is obviously inadequate. But it does remove the cheeziest element, and I've just never found it interesting or fun to play Balrog without his Hill Trolls ready to rock & roll.

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:18 am

I agree with Miguel, which is why I like the suggestion of limiting it to the Org Phase if we're not going to limit Chance Meeting/WHCtK. This preserves the Balrog's character play advantage without making it unduly easy.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1513
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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:36 pm

Sure, nobody knew how to adapt...that's why Balrog won 4 worlds in a row, and is still winning so many tourneys (in which a serious player plays it). The only reason it's less in forefront currently, is because of its success, people are bored to tears with it. There were times when 1 out of 2 decks were Balrog. But I guess that was just due to the fact that people are alot smarter nowadays, back then they were all inexperienced...

So: not really. Metagame will always shift, but a strict analysis of alignment shows for Balrog:
biggest GI/DI in the game (Umi/Bumi/Bolg have 18 DI together, hahaha)
biggest/best cardflow management (sure some decks can outdraw them, but I'm talking alignment here)
biggest flexibility in resource play (referring to movement; Arthadan Rangers? just squat at Isengard and play your Maps down there)
big (perhaps biggest, don't know) flexibility in direct interaction (CvCC, burning faction sites)
biggest average prowess
no MP modifiers needed
no real Balrog specific hazards (not squatting anyways)
high MP ally AND faction playable at a Haven

Basically the only thing missing is a good Balrog dunk,
and of course the Balrog deck is pretty limited due to limited character use, which makes it a dangerous alignment for its popularity (Sauron's preferred deviating argument).

Well, I don't/didn't wanna redo the analisis, it's pretty clear for all who want to see. And don't give me bull about not playing GO, I can still watch it, and I played Heiner at GermNats last year and it could have been an exact copy of 2003 worlds match, nothing much really has happened (Faithless Steward Mordor shuffle deck, oh yeah, who invented that one again back in 2004, hmm...was me, not proud to say)

Anyway, I don't see why 2 minder rule would "nerf" Balrog decks. Obviously I don't want to nerf them either.
Heck, Alfons won Dutch Nats with 2 minder rule Usurper deck in 2004, go figure (I played Faithless cheez only in qualifiers; so much for my Arthadan Rangers, they were twiddling their thumbs)

So WhCtK in site phase might indeed be even cheezier than playing chars straight from sb, true. But that's a general issue, not a Balrog issue.
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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:02 pm

I can't speak for others, but if this goes into an offical erratta I would most likely stop playing under CoE rules.

I know I've contemplating setting up a Council of Sauron because I don't like where things are heading. However I've not done so because I don't want to splinter the community as small as it is.

Sauron's 2 cents.

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

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

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:16 pm

As opposed to all the people who have quit playing, period, because they don't like where things are stuck? Speaking absolutely cold-bloodedly, if by making this change we can draw more people (back) into the game than have people leaving, we should go ahead and do it.
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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:21 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:As opposed to all the people who have quit playing, period, because they don't like where things are stuck? Speaking absolutely cold-bloodedly, if by making this change we can draw more people (back) into the game than have people leaving, we should go ahead and do it.
I don't know how many of those people you'd draw back with this change. This would be a guess. I think alot of the people who left the game aren't coming back. But again I could be wrong and every player who left would come back with this change.

All I can do is give my opinions and see where things shake out in the end.

miguel
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

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

Post by miguel » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:05 pm

Balrog also has the most dangerous 1st turn movement out of Moria, that was left off Eric's list. Having Hill Trolls playable from the sideboard means he can get a beefy company going on turn 1, and frankly many deck types need that. Take it away, and you diminish the variety of things Balrog decks are likely to do, with perhaps the underdeeps decks becoming more popular. This IMO would lessen the gaming experience as a whole.

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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:26 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Sure, nobody knew how to adapt...that's why Balrog won 4 worlds in a row, and is still winning so many tourneys (in which a serious player plays it). The only reason it's less in forefront currently, is because of its success, people are bored to tears with it. There were times when 1 out of 2 decks were Balrog. But I guess that was just due to the fact that people are alot smarter nowadays, back then they were all inexperienced...
And before Balrog it was FW and before that it was X and before that it was Y. It goes in cycles. And you can't really make statements like people are bored to tears with it, it's not a valid argument when debating this. I can say well because aliens brain washed them. It's not a valid arguement.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: biggest GI/DI in the game (Umi/Bumi/Bolg have 18 DI together, hahaha)
Sauron 30 GI
Lt x3 = 15 DI total 45

Balrog with Great shadow 27 Gi
Umi/Bumi/Bolg = 18 total 45

Oh look it's the same!
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: biggest/best cardflow management (sure some decks can outdraw them, but I'm talking alignment here)
Lidless eye I think would be just as good.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: biggest flexibility in resource play (referring to movement; Arthadan Rangers? just squat at Isengard and play your Maps down there)
big (perhaps biggest, don't know) flexibility in direct interaction (CvCC, burning faction sites)
Every alignment can play basically any version of the various decks, squatter, mover, underdeeps, big MP, etc, etc.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: biggest average prowess
How are you determining this?
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: no MP modifiers needed
Neither do Hero or Minion
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: no real Balrog specific hazards (not squatting anyways)
I think this is more about no real minion specific hazards, versus just no Balrog specific hazards
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: high MP ally AND faction playable at a Haven
Hero has the Pallando/Cirdan/Elves combo, and Wizard Ring
FW has whatever it wants
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Well, I don't/didn't wanna redo the analisis, it's pretty clear for all who want to see. And don't give me bull about not playing GO, I can still watch it, and I played Heiner at GermNats last year and it could have been an exact copy of 2003 worlds match, nothing much really has happened (Faithless Steward Mordor shuffle deck, oh yeah, who invented that one again back in 2004, hmm...was me, not proud to say)
I just refuted most of the things in your analysis.

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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:35 pm

Sauron 30 GI
Lt x3 = 15 DI total 45

Balrog with Great shadow 27 Gi
Umi/Bumi/Bolg = 18 total 45
just one remark, balrog with great shadow is 26+6(DI from hog) + Umi/bumi/bolg

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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:41 pm

marcos wrote:
Sauron 30 GI
Lt x3 = 15 DI total 45

Balrog with Great shadow 27 Gi
Umi/Bumi/Bolg = 18 total 45
just one remark, balrog with great shadow is 26+6(DI from hog) + Umi/bumi/bolg
Ok I concede that point, but I stand by what I say. You could also get into restricted DI versus unrestricted and you could further define it was more restricted versus less restricted, etc. But I concede the point. If I can find this many holes in the arguement in the 10 minutes I took to think about it, I don't think it's a really strong arguement.
Last edited by Sauron on Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:42 pm

and i agree with you on that :)

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1513
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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:53 pm

@Sauron. No dude, you think you refute it, with partial and incorrect evidence, and funily enough you mention this or that alignment might score better on individual categories, but then what? if Balrog comes second in every category, it's still overall nr. 1 :|

but I didn't wanna redo the discussion about the total strength cause we've been there before, just remember I didn't invent the 2 mind rule, seems there are more people that think Balrog might need correction. Simple question: why is the 2 mind rule such a problem? Why is the current proposal by Mikko such a problem? Seems you don't perceive the problem with Balrog, so I turn it around. You're saying Balrog will become useless with 2 mind rule? You will leave the game for not being able to play a 3 minder from sideboard? cause ICE in their infinite wisdom and on the verge of bankruptcy decided: without 3 minders from sideboard, this game just isn't any fun anymore.

seems to me disagree on principle, more than anything else.
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 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:24 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:@Sauron. No dude, you think you refute it, with partial and incorrect evidence, and funily enough you mention this or that alignment might score better on individual categories, but then what? if Balrog comes second in every category, it's still overall nr. 1 :|
I don't think I refute, I know I do. I give facts based on what is in the game, not made up feelings on what should be or shouldn't be. Please clearly explain your arguement where my "partial and incorrect evidence" is. Point by point listed as I have listed. Until you take the time to formulate a cohesive argument, your points are moot. I took the time to refute your points to show that they are indeed incorrect assumptions you make. You should at least do the same and try to refute my points.

You feel the Balrog is over powered and try to give examples, but I show where your examples are incorrect. I find the balrog to not be over powered and I give you examples from the game. I'm entitled to my opinions as you are yours, but I have backed up my points with examples and facts from the game where you have not. You use antedoctal evidence of well the Balrog won Worlds 4 years straight and that I played against Heiner in German nats. That is not proof by example, but is just hearsay and antedoctal evidence.

How do you claim if Balrog comes 2nd in every category it comes in overall at number 1? How do you define what is number 1? How did you get to this statement? Is the Balrog 2nd in every category or does it come in 3rd or 4th in some? Again you don't give examples or evidence
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: but I won't make this a discussion about the total strength cause we've been there before. Simple question: why is the 2 mind rule such a problem? Why is the current proposal by Mikko such a problem? Seems you don't perceive the problem with Balrog, so I turn it around. You're saying Balrog will become useless with 2 mind rule? You will leave the game for not being able to play a 3 minder from sideboard? cause ICE in their infinite wisdom and on the verge of bankruptcy decided: without 3 minders from sideboard, this game just isn't any fun anymore.
seems to me disagree on principle, more than anything else.
[/quote]
You want to turn this around on me? Sure I can defend my point of view. To your 1st point, why is the 2 mind rule such a problem. No the Balrog does not become unplayable with the 2 mind rule, I have not stated that the balrog is useless under the 2 mind rule. However I preface that with the balrog is not over powered as the way the rule stands.

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Sauron

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”