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: 2577
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:15 am

Logain wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:49 pm
I warned ICE in 1998 about this combo, they banned it on the spot (french nationals 1998). Looks like players like Sauron made them change their mind afterwards.
Another problem with getting the rules to work are the number of traditions based on things ICE said that they never got around to actually writing down. :)
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: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:18 pm

Logain wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:49 pm
I warned ICE in 1998 about this combo, they banned it on the spot (french nationals 1998).
Which incidently was also the last time it was seen in a tournament :lol:. But seriously, I've played couple GO's again the last years, and didn't see the deck come up. How much of a threat is it? It's not cool having a broken strategy, but if everybody just ignores it...

Otherwise, I got no problem with the 1x per turn fix, is fine. Option 2/3 I don't agree with.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:41 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:18 pm
Logain wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:49 pm
I warned ICE in 1998 about this combo, they banned it on the spot (french nationals 1998).
Which incidently was also the last time it was seen in a tournament :lol:. But seriously, I've played couple GO's again the last years, and didn't see the deck come up. How much of a threat is it? It's not cool having a broken strategy, but if everybody just ignores it...

Otherwise, I got no problem with the 1x per turn fix, is fine. Option 2/3 I don't agree with.
I like preemptively fixing broken. If even one person is turned away from the game after playing against a deck in which they can do nothing, that's a loss we can ill afford.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Logain
Council Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Logain » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:16 am

Agreed

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by rezwits » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:01 am

If it's any consolation, fix 1. i.e. Once per turn errata, seems normal? As in, this is fairly what the card's purpose is?

Laters...
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:20 am

Carambor's ability should be interpreted as only being usable at the end of a company's "normal" movement hazard phase---the only movement hazard phase for that company in the rulebooks. It refers to a singular "phase" rather than "phases", and in the rules as written up to that point on the card there is only the one M/H phase per turn to refer to, so the ability must refer to (just) that phase. This interpretation reveals that the proposed "once per turn" change would actually result in an increase in power, in that a party could benefit from both Carambor's ability and e.g. Bridge on the same turn, whereas currently they couldn't.

Additionally...
miguel wrote:
Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:25 pm
Jose-san wrote:Too restrictive to my taste. Maybe I don't understand the Carambor machine fully. Why not issue errata for Here Is a Snake!instead, so it only lasts until the end of the current M-H phase?
The only card you need to draw for the machine is Washed and Refreshed or Healing of Nimrodel, then Carambor can keep running between Weathertop [-me_ha-] (Hidden Havened at draft) and The White Towers [-me_ha-] via Arthedain [-me_wi-] . The other cards mentioned above are just gravy; they help but are certainly not necessary for the machine to work.

Once the machine is up and running, the moves are relatively safe. Carambor is teamed up with a magic user, so his company gets benefits such as 20x Bitter Cold to help with the final move(s)... :lol:
Washed and Refreshed and Healing of Nimrodel should only apply to one M/H phase.

Underlines mine:
[HEALING OF NIMRODEL ‐ Short‐event (C)-]
Playable during the organization phase on a moving company whose site of origin is a Haven. If the company moves to another
Haven this turn, at the end of the movement/hazard phase all wounded characters in the company heal (from wounded to
untapped) and all tapped characters untap.
In addition to the above Carambor clarification, "if" should be read as a binary trigger, after the resolution of which the effect of the short event ends. This is different from "whenever" or "each time" paired up with an "until end of turn", or an "if" on a long event. So this card can only trigger once per play.
[WASHED AND REFRESHED ‐ Short‐event (C)]
Playable at the end of the organization phase on a moving company. When the companyʹs new site is revealed, the company
may untap a number of characters equal to the number of regions less than four in its site path.
"The company's new site" should be read as referring to the particular (currently unrevealed) site. The syntax parsing association should be [the [company's new site]], rather than [[the company's] [new site]]. Admittedly, either of these two parses are allowed in English, so this interpretation is my recommendation; additional sites that may later be played/revealed by the moving company are not referred to on this card.


I would be in favor of errata clarifying these points.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:42 am

Theo wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:20 am
Carambor's ability should be interpreted as only being usable at the end of a company's "normal" movement hazard phase---the only movement hazard phase for that company in the rulebooks.
No. A player has a movement/hazard phase during which each of his companies has a movement hazard phase. See METW p. 41:
You may only play hazard cards during your opponent's movement/hazard phase.
and
During your movement/hazard phase, both players draw cards when each company moves.
This does lead to some interesting things below.
It refers to a singular "phase" rather than "phases", and in the rules as written up to that point on the card there is only the one M/H phase per turn to refer to, so the ability must refer to (just) that phase. This interpretation reveals that the proposed "once per turn" change would actually result in an increase in power, in that a party could benefit from both Carambor's ability and e.g. Bridge on the same turn, whereas currently they couldn't.
Carambor wrote: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.
There is no limiter on this other than it be the end of his company's movement/hazard phase. And it explicitly gives the company another movement/hazard phase, so the ability is usable at the end of that one as well, so long as Carambor is able to tap.

Cards that mean normal actually have the word in their text. (e.g. Bane of the Ithil-stone, Great-road, Ancient Stair, Free to Choose, etc.)

It should not be inserted into card texts that do not actually have it.
Washed and Refreshed and Healing of Nimrodel should only apply to one M/H phase.

Underlines mine:
[HEALING OF NIMRODEL ‐ Short‐event (C)-]
Playable during the organization phase on a moving company whose site of origin is a Haven. If the company moves to another
Haven this turn, at the end of the movement/hazard phase all wounded characters in the company heal (from wounded to
untapped) and all tapped characters untap.
In addition to the above Carambor clarification, "if" should be read as a binary trigger, after the resolution of which the effect of the short event ends. This is different from "whenever" or "each time" paired up with an "until end of turn", or an "if" on a long event. So this card can only trigger once per play.
Right but wrong. The phrase "at the end of the movement/hazard phase" actually refers to the player's movement/hazard phase, so this one can only occur after all companies have finished their movement/hazard phases. This might be sufficient to knock out a Carambor machine if Carambor gets wounded. I believe this one has commonly been read as the company's movement/hazard phase, but that's not what it actually says.
[WASHED AND REFRESHED ‐ Short‐event (C)]
Playable at the end of the organization phase on a moving company. When the companyʹs new site is revealed, the company
may untap a number of characters equal to the number of regions less than four in its site path.
"The company's new site" should be read as referring to the particular (currently unrevealed) site. The syntax parsing association should be [the [company's new site]], rather than [[the company's] [new site]]. Admittedly, either of these two parses are allowed in English, so this interpretation is my recommendation; additional sites that may later be played/revealed by the moving company are not referred to on this card.


I would be in favor of errata clarifying these points.
In this case, though, if the company's new site is revealed, the effect happens. Any time the company's new site is revealed. The card is not played on a site, it is played on the company. There are any number of rules that make it clear that the site a company is moving to in the movement/hazard phase is their new site, so I don't think this one can tenably be read as referring to one specific site during the turn.

Overall this very much runs into the problem of ICE's sloppy wording; in this case, the wording is clear (Bridge and Forced March are also supposed to be at the end of the movement/hazard phase, not the company's), but people are inclined to blur the two because ICE had a hard time being consistent and clear in several other rules/card text areas.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:43 am

Good point about the differences between the player's vs company's movement/hazard phase. My previous post wasn't appropriately in that mindset, and definitely had problems. I give up on Carambor's current wording for now. ;) But I'd still like to propose the errata be "his first movement-hazard phase" instead of "once per turn".
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:42 am
<snip>
The phrase "at the end of the movement/hazard phase" actually refers to the player's movement/hazard phase, so this one can only occur after all companies have finished their movement/hazard phases.
Definitely.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:42 am
"The company's new site" should be read as referring to the particular (currently unrevealed) site. The syntax parsing association should be [the [company's new site]], rather than [[the company's] [new site]]. Admittedly, either of these two parses are allowed in English, so this interpretation is my recommendation; additional sites that may later be played/revealed by the moving company are not referred to on this card.
In this case, though, if the company's new site is revealed, the effect happens. Any time the company's new site is revealed. The card is not played on a site, it is played on the company. There are any number of rules that make it clear that the site a company is moving to in the movement/hazard phase is their new site, so I don't think this one can tenably be read as referring to one specific site during the turn.
<snip>
I see the possibility of your interpretation, but I continue to see mine as well. *sigh* English.

"A short-event's effects are implemented; then, it is discarded. The effects of some short-events last for a specific period as stated on its card." MELE p40

Without Washed and Refreshed having a specific period, its effects are immediately implemented. With the feasible parsing in my previous post [the [company's new site]], at the point of implementation, can only refer to one site. That is, the "effect" is to set up a trigger on [the [company's new site]] for when that (specific) site is revealed. If that site could somehow be hidden and re-revealed, I could imagine untapping being allowed.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:43 am

Theo wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:43 am
With the feasible parsing in my previous post [the [company's new site]]...
My discussion of parsing is probably not helpful for everyone. Maybe an example would help:

You are at work and your boss makes an announcement: "I know things are tough, so I'll promise the team this: when the team's new project is finished I'll allow everyone on the team to take a day off." Do you react by thinking this promise applies to (1) all projects for all time that could have a "new" label applied to them, or (2) only one specific project at the time of the promise that has the "new" label?

Bandobras' description scopes the promise as establishing permitted conditions for reward on the company/team, corresponding to case (1). My description scopes the promise as establishing permitted conditions for reward on the site/project of the team, corresponding to case (2). It turns out that both are perfectly valid English parses, but my personal reaction is case (2).
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:05 pm

I understand where you're coming from, and short event duration is another place in the rules with definite issues.

It's possible to read the short events as being more akin to the common interpretation of Eagle-mounts than the common interpretation of Fair Sailing.

I'm actually starting to agree with you. Such an interpretation provides a great deal of consistency. A duration is not listed for Washed and Refreshed, so it only implements its effects when it is played. This compared to Stealth, whose effects are explicitly stated to last until the end of the turn.

The problem comes with cards such as Hail of Darts, as those are effectively useless if they don't have an extended duration.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Theo » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:19 pm

I'm always in favor of making minion resources useless. :twisted: But yeah, without errata I'd agree with you. Otherwise an indeterminate duration could be interpreted any number of ways up to indefinite, which doesn't have a good feel for a short event.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

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

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Shapeshifter » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:49 pm

Logain wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:49 pm
So, do we do anything at all ? I propose to hold a poll :
1. Once per turn,
2. 7 mind.
3. Just ban him.
4. Do nothing, it's nice to play against a guy who plays alone.

(and validate 4 only if it has more votes than the other options).
Option 1 will make Carambor uninteresting, 2 unavailable for Fallen Wizards and thus limit deck options, 3 should be no option.
This is why I would vote for
Shapeshifter wrote:5. His special ability should not be usable when moving to a haven and not in combination with Spying Out the Land and Here is a Snake.
:)

Btw, I also like the original proposal from Bandobras Took:
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.
edit 18-01-23
Last edited by Shapeshifter on Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kjeld
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Kjeld » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:25 pm

I'm not sure I've completely followed the Bandobras-Theo exchange, so I'm posting this to see if I can clarify for myself.

First, the Carambor machine works with either Washed and Refreshed or Healing of Nimrodel, as miguel explained:
The only card you need to draw for the machine is Washed and Refreshed or Healing of Nimrodel, then Carambor can keep running between Weathertop [-me_ha-] (Hidden Havened at draft) and The White Towers [-me_ha-] via Arthedain [-me_wi-] .
Second, while this could be interpreted as a problem with Carambor, it could also be interpreted as a problem with either Washed and Refreshed or Healing of Nimrodel. Namely, the problem could result from the current interpretation of those two cards, which is that both create an ongoing effect that has no limit within the player's M/H phase.

To take each of these cards in turn, then:

1. Healing of Nimrodel reads, "If the company moves to another Haven this turn, at the end of the movement/hazard phase all wounded characters in the company heal (from wounded to untapped) and all tapped characters untap." This card thus only fuels the Carambor machine if the bolded phrase is interpreted to mean that the effects trigger at the end of each of the company's M/H phases, rather than at the end of the player's M/H phase. It seems clear to me that the effect should only trigger once, that is, once the player is done with his/her M/H phase and ready to move on to the next turn phase. This seems to be consistent with Bandobras' explanation of the distinction between the two types of M/H phase.

2. Washed and Refreshed reads, "When the company's new site is revealed, the company may untap a number of characters equal to the number of regions less than four in its site path." This card thus only fuels the Carambor machine if the bolded phrase is interpreted to apply continuously for the rest of the turn to every new site to which the company declares its intent to travel. Per Theo's argument, this is a very odd interpretation for a short event. It seems intuitive that this condition should apply to just one site, namely the first site revealed for that company during the turn. After the first site is revealed, Washed and Refreshed should leave play and its effect should be over. I do not understand why it should be interpreted as applying to additional sites beyond the first.

Ergo, if both Washed and Refreshed and Healing of Nimrodel are interpreted to have built-in limitations to the duration/timing of their effects, then the infinite loop of the Carambor machine (as stated by miguel) ceases to function, with no errata needed for Carambor.

Is that roughly the gist of the preceding arguments?

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:21 am

Exactly, with the footnote that interpreting the cards in such a way could cause complications with other cards.
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: Potential Carambor Fix

Post by Shapeshifter » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:45 pm

Before we try to change Carambor or the interpreting of other cards like Washed and Refreshed or Healing of Nimrodel let me try to understand what the real pain of the Carambor-machine is. And it is only that type of deck that makes Carambor infamous. I have seen (and won against) and even made other decks with Carambor that are really nice and not too powerful. I myself did never see The Machine perform, though.
From what I heard and read here it wins almost 100% if you start the game (50% chance) and if you have the needed ressources in your starting hand.
The trick is to let Carambor move infinitely during a single turn until both decks are exhausted twice (in a 2-deck game). Then the Council/Audience/Day of Reckoning is called automatically after your turn. That means your opponent won't get a turn at all in that case and you would only need 1 MP from non-character cards in order to win 6-0.

But...
... what if your opponent gets to start the game and scores some MP during his 1st turn (e.g. Orcrist, Rangers of the North and a Noble Hound for 8MP)? Then you would need to make lots of MP during a single turn unless you want to grant your opponent another turn. A 6-0 win is very hard then, even a 4-2.
... what if you don't have a Washed/Healing in your starting hand? Opponent might get a 2nd turn, too. (Ok, Dark Tryst and Eyes of Mandos could help with this.)
... what if you don' have Spying Out the Land/Here is a Snake in your starting hand? Opponent might even be able to play hazards on you and worse - eliminate Carambor?
... what if opponent has the right hazards in his starting hand despite the play of Spying Out the Land/Here is a Snake?
... what if opponent plays Carambor himself?

Well, this deck is definitely very good, but is it better than other top tier decks? Maybe I overlooked something and the deck is even better than I expect it to be. I hope I got everything right.
Of course it would be very boring to see the machine work if you cannot do anything about it. But if there is only a slight chance that you might play good hazards then it might also be a challenge. Btw, as Thorsten the Traveller pointed out, such a deck is not played very often, maybe because of the risks and more likely because people don't like to bore their opponents. And for casual play no one should ever consider to play it :wink: :evil:

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”