Erratum Proposal: The One Ring

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Khamul the Easterling
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Erratum Proposal: The One Ring

Post by Khamul the Easterling » Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:33 pm

Card text:

TW:
... Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a strike; ...
LE:
... Bearer may make a corruption check modified by -2 to cancel a non-Undead non-Nazgûl strike; ...
This allows the bearer to cancel a strike not only against himself but against any character (not even in his company). I don't know if this has ever occured to someone from ICE in their times but I find the current text quite inconsistent with the effect as described in the LotR books. I know this is normally no reason to release an erratum, though. :)

Anyway, I propose that the text be changed by inserting "against himself" at the end of the lines cited above.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Erratum Proposal: The One Ring

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:40 am

Speaking as an observer:

I disagree from a balance viewpoint; the One Ring carries a significant amount of corruption, which is already a counterbalance against this, as well as the innate difficulty of getting it out in the first place. At worst, if this somehow became a common strategy, hazards that are more directly anti-One Ring would simply need to be included in deck construction.

The most likely way to do it even remotely safely is to use Hobbit+Fellowships at a Haven, but such a set up is already costing you in terms of influence; by definition, a company sitting at a haven has no need to cancel strikes, so you have to have another company wandering around to take advantage of it.

I think One Ring strike cancelling belongs in the category of "powerful, but difficult to realistically pull off in the context of the 2-deck game." In longer games, it's hard to imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be better simply to dunk the thing and have done.
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: The One Ring

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:12 pm

This is another one on the list of issues the new NetRep-team and new CoE will have to deal with.
I tend to agree with Bandobras, but the simple thematic misrepresentation is quite irksome indeed.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Erratum Proposal: The One Ring

Post by Jose-san » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:53 pm

Khamul the Easterling wrote:Anyway, I propose that the text be changed by inserting "against himself" at the end of the lines cited above.
This is the real errata that The One Ring needs.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”