Potential Carambor Fix

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:51 pm

Carambor's irritating when used by FWs in conjunction with a couple of other cards.

Here's a possible fix that won't dampen his usefulness for RW Players:
Unique. May tap at the end of his company's movement/hazard phase to allow it to move to an additional site on the same turn. Another site card may be played and another movement/hazard phase immediately follows for his company. The new site path must contain at least one Wilderness, and hazard creatures may be played and keyed to his company's new site and site path regardless of resource effects in play.
This has the advantage of still allowing crazy draw with Carambor (which is one of Carambor's purposes; the other being long-distance movement), but will make it next to impossible to make it risk-free.
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. :)

Ringbearer
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Ringbearer » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:35 pm

Or give him mind 7. Problem solved without difficult errata :)
"I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemies eyes."
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.

Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:16 am

Except that bars him from FW use at all, and he'll be costing an extra influence for the alignment that couldn't abuse him in the first place.
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: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:52 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Carambor's irritating when used by FWs in conjunction with a couple of other cards.

Here's a possible fix that won't dampen his usefulness for RW Players:
Unique. May tap at the end of his company's movement/hazard phase to allow it to move to an additional site on the same turn. Another site card may be played and another movement/hazard phase immediately follows for his company. The new site path must contain at least one Wilderness, and hazard creatures may be played and keyed to his company's new site and site path regardless of resource effects in play.
This has the advantage of still allowing crazy draw with Carambor (which is one of Carambor's purposes; the other being long-distance movement), but will make it next to impossible to make it risk-free.
I don't see what the problem is with him as now. Why are you guys trying to modify him? I played Carambor in Nation Cup finals, got the combo off and still failed to win. It's not like this type of deck is an automatic win. It has about a 60% chance to go off 1st turn if you go 1st, 70% or so if you go 2nd. It doesn't win any more or less than any other top tier deck.

It has a bunch of problems with the deck as well. 1st it only really works versus Hero. Versus minion, minion can draft him faster than FW. etc.

i gwanunig
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Graz, Austria
Contact:

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by i gwanunig » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:16 pm

because ...

It is still annoying to play against such deck. I tried it once for myself - but I didn´t feel satisfied because I like to play with/against my opponent and not for myself.

But thats only my personal feeling,

BR i,g,
What business does an Elf, a Man and a Dwarf have in the Steiermark? Speak quickly!

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:49 pm

i gwanunig wrote:because ...

It is still annoying to play against such deck. I tried it once for myself - but I didn´t feel satisfied because I like to play with/against my opponent and not for myself.

But thats only my personal feeling,

BR i,g,
So by this defenition, we should ban squatting decks too? Because you really aren't playing against your opponent then either?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:12 pm

No, squatting and even haven-squatting are necessary to make moving safer. Right now, people have to give consideration to squatters when considering their hazard portions, which edges out hazards that would otherwise go to nail moving companies.

I suggested this because I don't think it was ICE's intent to allow infinite movement to exhaust, and this combined with potentially negative play experience falls within the domain of "ameliorating the play environment." At the same time, I don't want to see Carambor removed from FW service or made too expensive mind-wise for RWs, as this makes for more limited play. Thus, my suggesting doesn't even necessarily remove the possibility of Carambor -- just makes it a bit harder.

By contrast, it was ICE's intent to make squatting decks viable and competitive, else they would never have made cards such as Hiding or Hide in Dark Places, both meant to aid squatters, nor would they have made the FW alignment, which derives a great deal of its strength from the ability to get MPs at havens, and even tapped havens.
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: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:35 pm

My apologies. I accidentally hit Edit Post instead of quote, it seems.
Sauron wrote:I don't know there seems to be an awful lot of cards that allow for multiple movements, bridge, forced march, etc. While highly unlikely you could build a deck that used such cards to cause the same kind of thing.
All of them have their limiters. Infinite Carambor relies on a combination of two cards to even get going, and that a combo which only FWs can pull off. The most obvious comparison is World Gnawed, and that still doesn't allow bouncing. Ditto Gangways. Given that all movement enhancers are limited, an obscure combo that manages infinite movement seems to contradict ICE intention regarding movement enhancers. I have a deck that uses a combo of Forced March/Uvatha Unleashed to try and draw a turn-one One Ring, but even that has draw issues and vulnerability to Elf-lords.
Bandobras Took wrote: By contrast, it was ICE's intent to make squatting decks viable and competitive, else they would never have made cards such as Hiding or Hide in Dark Places, both meant to aid squatters, nor would they have made the FW alignment, which derives a great deal of its strength from the ability to get MPs at havens, and even tapped havens.
Hiding was in the Wizards no? Before you could even squat?
Are you kidding? In Wizards, Thorough Search allowed the play of Greater Items. Between that and 3 MPs for Rescue Prisoners before storing, only a weirdo would move more than once (and that, probably to get Ally MPs). It was the realization that they made squatting play too strong that led to the errata issued for these cards. Not only that, but Old Road allowed for safe 3 MP faction play from a Haven, to say nothing of the Pallando/Cirdan/Elves of Lindon combo, readily available from the first set. Squatting was a part of the game from day one. Not so infinite movement.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:37 pm

I accidentally edited Sauron's post instead of replying to it. Mea culpa. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: (Goes and hides in a corner.)
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: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:57 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:I accidentally edited Sauron's post instead of replying to it. Mea culpa. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: (Goes and hides in a corner.)
It's ok :) mistakes happen.

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Sauron » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:59 pm

Bandobras Took wrote: Are you kidding? In Wizards, Thorough Search allowed the play of Greater Items. Between that and 3 MPs for Rescue Prisoners before storing, only a weirdo would move more than once (and that, probably to get Ally MPs). It was the realization that they made squatting play too strong that led to the errata issued for these cards. Not only that, but Old Road allowed for safe 3 MP faction play from a Haven, to say nothing of the Pallando/Cirdan/Elves of Lindon combo, readily available from the first set. Squatting was a part of the game from day one. Not so infinite movement.
Hmm, I guess I need to brush up on my history. When I started rescue prisoners had already been made 2mps. So I had a bad frame of reference, but yes I can see what you mean. I concede the point.

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:45 pm

Seems to me metagame takes care of Carambor for the moment. If he should become too dominant rather than a nuisance, then we act.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Jose-san » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:11 pm

I think it's good for the meta-game that the Carambor deck exists.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:30 pm

Jose-san wrote:I think it's good for the meta-game that the Carambor deck exists.
Because . . . ?
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. :)

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Jose-san » Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:12 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Jose-san wrote:I think it's good for the meta-game that the Carambor deck exists.
Because . . . ?
Because it's another "top" deck you have to take into account in the tournament scene. I don't think there are too many of those.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”