Erratum Proposal: River

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:04 am

Since the automatic-attack proposal is awaiting processing ( :) ), here's another one.

A couple of disclaimers:

1) This is not the same as the sample I gave in another thread; and
2) This card actually doesn't work as written. Miguel says as much in this thread.

There are three problems with River:

1) It doesn't actually work, as mentioned above;
2) It is a blatant exploit to play this on a site nobody is moving to because somebody could potentially move to it. The fact that it can be a dump hazard against squatters as well as effective against movers makes it a sure bet for inclusion in the hazard portion. ICE did not intend it to be a dump hazard and disallowed dumping cards in general;
3) New players are discouraged and disgruntled to find out that their Fallen Radagast, flying around as a bird, will get stopped by a body of water three miles below him.

Therefore:

River
Playable on a company moving using region movement or Under-deeps movement. Target company may do nothing during the site phase. Discard at the end of the turn or if a Ranger in the company taps to discard this card.

Pros:
1) The card will actually work mechanically;
2) The exploit of playing it as a dump card is removed, meaning that it will become great against movers and clog against squatters, as it was intended to be;
3) Tapping the Ranger is made an active condition, so that there is no confusion about what the Ranger must be doing before you can do things during the site phase; and
4) A direct boost to Starter Movement and Special Movement. While River may still affect a player using Coastal Seas, it will at least not affect companies Belegaer or Eagle-Mounts.

I recognize that this one is less likely to be unanimous than the automatic-attack one (which I'm pretty sure everybody hated), but I honestly feel this will be better for new players, for balance, and for the metagame, helping to bring a bit more life to the game.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Vastor Peredhil
Council Member
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Kempen (Niederrhein) Germany

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:53 am

In this I can see the original River,

so it seems an nice errata indeed

Aye

mfg Nicolai

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

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by marcos » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:36 pm

i have to disagree with this one. There are a few things that concerns me:

1) well yes, but the fact that a short event remains on table after resolution seems a bit weird. Or do you propose to errata it and make it permanent?

2) how do you know that this card was not meant for dump and run? As i have seen not too long ago, what people is calling the "original" river is just another mess of ICE, since the original river (wizards, unlimited - blue border) has the text of the river that we all play nowadays.

3/4) I feel that a newbie could be confused by the kinds of movement that this card can affect.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:10 pm

Funny you should mention that -- the Limited Edition River contains the same "discard at the end of the turn" phrase.

River was one of the very first errata that ICE issued -- once it got to people playing the actual game, they found out that merely containing a Ranger was an essentially toothless restriction, since the overall best characters (Aragorn, Beorn, the Elf-Brothers) were Rangers, as well as everybody but Gandalf among the Wizards. :)

http://web.archive.org/web/200104251830 ... s/262.html

There's no mention here of River's validity as a dump card. The idea that you can play it on a site nobody's moving to is a later interpretation based upon an abusive reading of "potential effect." Play of the card should be illegal if the opponent has no moving companies.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

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

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by marcos » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:22 pm

Play of the card should be illegal if the opponent has no moving companies.
then this is what we should aim to... We have the same "problem" with beorning skin changers, just to name 1 card that comes to my mind, but i'm sure there are some more

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:01 pm

so why does using starter-movement need a boost? You want people to visit more havens? It also means you can't play it on a RW company. And a FW can't even use starter...

why doesn't the standard "playable on a moving company", or "playable on a moving company's new site" work?

I do like the UEP alot, what's bugging many people about river is the duplicability, not the de jure wrong mechanics. Sure the dump aspect is also annoying, and the theme of playing on site (and/or tapping dudes already present), but that should be not too difficult to solve.

If it's not duplicable, you'll need to find additional strats to tap the ranger(s). Because of this, the harsher effect of River affecting also the company you are joining already at the site not being able to support, might be mitigated somewhat, so we can make it tapping during m/h phase.

so something like:
Playable on a moving company using non-special movement. If the company does not tap a ranger at the end of the movement/hazard phase, it may do nothing during the site phase. Cannot be duplicated on a company.

The only downside is that it's a complete overhaul textwise, and I'm not sure if that is within the possibilities of any erratum process. Well but so is the above proposal. Are we looking for a complete rewrite, or more a text clarification and small adjustment?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:47 am

The complete overhaul textwise is because the card doesn't actually work as written.

The boost to starter movement is to aid the metagame; Fallen Wizards tend to be slightly more popular than hero (though most hero decks will still be using region movement), but the big thing is precisely the one you mention: active Ringwraiths. The single biggest limiting factor to the non-Akhorakill RW deck is simply that River almost completely shuts it down. If a RW doesn't have to fear River, we might see something besides Hoarmurath (though that's a long shot ;) ).

Finally, people using Eagle-Mounts to fly around shouldn't have to worry about Rivers. That's disappointing to a beginning player. :)
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: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:47 am

Well we agree about the goal, but not the means. I'd love to see more active RW decks, but with this mostly hero comps moving from Rivendell will benefit, which imo is crappy. It won't be enough to boost active RW, and it will not be perceived as such (as a boost for RW), and I doubt people will understand why a starter-movement comp can't be targetted and a region movement comp can.

nb. I'll admit I'm not into competitive play anymore, but seems to me regular hero is still favoured over FW, lately the Cirdan/Eriador squat and Return O'King speed decks are very popular again.
nb. theme: Ringwraiths were indeed detained by rivers (needed a fell beast to cross Anduin, couldn't cross Baranduin via ferry etc.)
nb. The Eagle-mounts trip is special movement? then it's excluded anyway.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:47 pm

MELE 78 wrote:Note: Ringwraiths must use starter movement because of their difficulties with crossing water. It is assumed that the site paths used in starter movement represent known and well traveled routes so that the Ringwraiths can use them to avoid water barriers that do not have fords, bridges, or ferries.
The difficulty with crossing water is factored in by a Ringwraith's inability to use region movement. There is no need to make it a factor in the movement that is supposed to keep them safe from such things. :)

I agree that heroes have options, therefore this erratum would be merely a slight boost to them, and most useful on either the starting turn or the last turn. It could be that most people will not automatically think of active RWs, but I can guarantee that Jambo would be one of them. :) The effect is moderate, but when it comes to errata in view of the metagame, small rather than drastic should probably be the keyword.

The main thing that interests me is getting a card with an actual working text, so that it isn't a "the card says this, but you have to interpret as this for it to be playable." I factored in metagame and new players as a second.

P.S. Eagle-Mounts is definitely special movement, since you don't even have to be using region cards at all to play it -- it is valid with METW Starter Rules as well as the Standard Ones. :)

P.P.S. As the metagame circle turns, we will once again be seeing Fallen Gandalf havening Minas Tirith to stop Return of the King. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Shapeshifter
Council Member
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Shapeshifter » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:33 pm

I agree that the annoying thing with this card is that it can be duplicated and that it can be played on a non-moving company. This is what could me changed - maybe!
But don't limit it to companies moving with region or under-deep movement. Else I fear that we will see lots of flying Radagasts as this kind of deck could become unbelievably strong without the chance to stop it with a River. Well thematically it would fit, though, that Rivers wouldn't stop a flying Radagast, a company flying with the eagles or moving through Belegaer (no rivers), Forod (rivers are frozen), or Harad (rivers are dry) but what about Rhûn?

For now I have to say NAY to the current proposal.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:51 pm

Those are legitimate concerns. However, having Flying Radagast share equal time with squatting Radgasts and CvCC Radagasts might be a refreshing change in and of itself -- the Flying Radagast might still get nailed by a Creature. :) That is mainly a metagame concern, however.

When it comes down to it, as I said before, my primary concern with this one is a card text that works without the need for a bunch of rulings/interpretations of wordings. The metagame/new player concerns are important to consider, but not vital, and are therefore subjects for change.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

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

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:22 pm

Ben posted a link (and put some words in my mouth :lol:) in the OP, in that thread you find my imaginary version of River (from 2008, I will revise the text if necessary):

"Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase. The ranger may so be tapped until the beginning of the site phase, or at the beginning of the site phase without entering the site."

This is how River is currently played, and therefore as an erratum should not cause any upstir.

Personally I see no real need to nerf River, it's a great card and an effective strategy, but not every hazard portion uses it. Just because certain decks are very vulnerable to it, is not enough reason IMO.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Erratum Proposal: River

Post by Jose-san » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:57 pm

I agree with Mikko on this one.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”