Namarie (POLL)

[SomeRandomDude]

Okay, here is a poll concerning whether Namarie should be banned in Austrian format. The results here will be put on the list of rules for the Austrian format and will be considered the accepted variant of TLHH.

Please keep it civil. I will not hesitate to lock the thread if the conversation gets out of hand again. I'm closely monitoring this thread.

With that, I have the poll open for 7 days. Vote!

[TheJord]

I have voted, people know my feeling on this one

[Gil-Estel]

I think it should be restricted, or changed, limited to once per turn or such.

[thewitchhunter]

One card to bind them all... ;-P

Namarie kills each condition heavy shadow, so it should be x-listed in Austrian Format.

[sickofpalantirs]

It should be banned.  No one card should be allowed to totally kill a shadow.

[King89]

It should be banned.  No one card should be allowed to totally kill a shadow.

i totally agree with you.

[Kralik]

The problem I see is that many "old" Shadows are very condition dependent. Wouldn't want to lose entire playstyles to one "new" card!

[Gil-Estel]

Saruman's Power? Sleep Caradhras? Deep in Thought? Grown Suddenly Tall?

[Kralik]

Saruman's Power? Sleep Caradhras? Deep in Thought? Grown Suddenly Tall?

Gandalf strategies with a specific niche, and events at that. Compare with Namarie which provides infinite tokens for Gil-Galad and can be used incrementally. Also, Namarie with destroy conditions played in your Shadow phase, so they don't get even one turn to be used. Deep in Thought can do the same, true, but it has the twilight spotting requirement.

[Gil-Estel]

I know, but my main problem with Namarie is indeed the synergy with Gil-Galad. I would love to say namarie to him, let him go into the west . The reflections one is viable enough, also strong with a nice ability!

[sickofpalantirs]

SC lets you use em for a turn.  Grown suddenly tall! yeah for 5 twilight! 
for 2 twilight and little to no effort, namarie destroys all conditions.  Plus elves already had company of archers, secret sentinels, and in standard seclusion which provided more than enough condition discard.

[Olorin]

YESSS! I am happy to see your comments!

[Malachi]

Had a game recenly where my opponent had 2 Namarie out with 5 Huter companions. Each regroup he used Gil-Galad to play from discard 2-3 Elven Marksmanship and 1-2 Take up the Bow, then replay Namarie itself. So, even without the Faithful Stone almost none of my minions ever get to skirmish, not to mention my conditions.

[Olorin]

Had a game recenly where my opponent had 2 Namarie out with 5 Huter companions. Each regroup he used Gil-Galad to play from discard 2-3 Elven Marksmanship and 1-2 Take up the Bow, then replay Namarie itself. So, even without the Faithful Stone almost none of my minions ever get to skirmish, not to mention my conditions.

Yap, it's ridiculous to doubt that Namarie is broken or even to deny it!

[Gil-Estel]

Well, it is a ridiculous strong card, but it only affects the shadows working with conditions. The real problem stays with Gil-Galad with his ability to retrieve conditions. Well, this will be an endless debate.

[MR. Lurtzy]

It should be R-listed, not banned.

[Kralik]

Maybe the poll should be changed to the options:

-X-list
-R-list
-Neither

If you only had one copy it'd still be quite powerful, but you'd have to draw it and it can't be replaced with Gil-Galad as easily.

[Gil-Estel]

Ban Gil-Galad please.....

[Kralik]

Ban Gil-Galad please.....

*snifffffff*

[Gil-Estel]

Sorry Kralik didn't mean to dissapoint you

[MR. Lurtzy]

What about an errata?

[Foresight]

What about an errata?

Make it unique.

[Kralik]

What about an errata?

Make it unique.

R-list is better IMO.

[Elrohir]

It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so a small card.

Changeing Austria Format is the wrong way! I am absolutely against changing this Format. As it depends on Standard Format, we should change the standard Ruling for Namarie. According to this, Austria Format gets it new rules, and it is still clear.

Elven Supplies need the tokens of Namarie!

So, my suggestions for Namarie are (not detailed, but I am sure you understand what I mean):
1) Add a token here for each  hunter you can spot.
OR
2) Discard this or remove two tokens here and spot an hunter, to discard a condition.

To sum up: Do not change Austria Format X-List! It has to be the same as Standard!! So, if People decide to edit anything, then it should be done for Standard!

Ban Gil-Galad please.....

I like the R+ one much more than the new one.

Elrohir

PS: Shadow Conditions are not meant to stay in play if they are facing  or culture!

Had a game recenly where my opponent had 2 Namarie out with 5 Hunter companions. Each regroup he used Gil-Galad to play from discard 2-3 Elven Marksmanship and 1-2 Take up the Bow, then replay Namarie itself. So, even without the Faithful Stone almost none of my minions ever get to skirmish, not to mention my conditions.

This makes Sting of Shelob, Unseen Foe... pretty playable!

[FingolfinFinwe]

In a perfect world both Namarie and Gil-Galad would get an errata, but since errata is definitely something to avoid for simplicity sake restriction/banning is more in line.  I think Namarie has to at least be restricted.

[MR. Lurtzy]

I fully agree with Elrohir.

[FingolfinFinwe]

I agree that it would be best if Namarie were restricted in Standard (which would affect Austrian).

[SomeRandomDude]

We can't change standard. We don't have a PC and big D ain't doing anything anytime soon.

I think the optimal idea is banning Gil-Galad because he's the broken part of the combo, not Namarie, but that idea will never fly so I guess Namarie's gotta go.

[King89]

i guess we will play with namarie x-listed in austria format, independent how this poll will finish. although it looks really good.

[MuadDib85]

IMO hunter elves ares strong enough without namarie, so for those people who must use gil-galad, there are still plenty of other token cards.

Namarie is way too overpowered. Should definately be banned.  Elves also have some other nice condition removal, so the only thing that is to be lost with Namarie X-listed is the broken combo of destroying any condition based shadow decks.

I have never played Austrian format but it looks interesting, from my experience playing standard format, games are alot more fun (and more even) without namarie involved.

[Smeagollum]

Just make it unique! Same should happen to sudden furry, by the way!

[Olorin]

i guess we will play with namarie x-listed in austria format, independent how this poll will finish. although it looks really good.

Sure. Most bigger tournaments in Europe are arranged in realtionship of Germany and Austria - As I can count me in as a player whose words have definitely some weight here, Namarie will stay X-listed.

concerning restrict Namarie: this won't change anything. It's brokeness is to big. Only one Namarie can destroy a deck and therefore also the whole game!

Banning Gil-Galad: first I wanted to do... because he is one of the most broken things I ever saw (at the same level as Madril DoO). But however... I dont know why...

IMO hunter elves ares strong enough without namarie, so for those people who must use gil-galad, there are still plenty of other token cards.

Namarie is way too overpowered. Should definately be banned.  Elves also have some other nice condition removal, so the only thing that is to be lost with Namarie X-listed is the broken combo of destroying any condition based shadow decks.

I have never played Austrian format but it looks interesting, from my experience playing standard format, games are alot more fun (and more even) without namarie involved.

My australian mate, your are just THAT RIGHT, I can't say

And once again: r-list or make Namarie unique won't help anything. Banning is the only solution!

[Olorin]

Ban Gil-Galad please.....

yap, playing ancient blade or take up the bow in the regroup... evil...

I am that happy that decipher recognized at least that Elven Armaments need an errata (skip the archery... zzz).

[Smeagollum]

Just make it unique if that would make everybody happy.. There is enough against namarie which is named conditiondiscarding.

[Olorin]

Just make it unique if that would make everybody happy.. There is enough against namarie which is named conditiondiscarding.

And if you don't have got any condition discarding at the moment? then you lose the game because all conditions are lost! Once Namarie worked it's over. And in regroup? Gil play it again... NO! Make Namarie unique won't change anything... otherwise I would have it r-listed... but it just doesn't make any sense.

Let's r-list steadfast champion - would be the same.

[sickofpalantirs]

Plus for some decks (raiders) there condition discarding takes place in archery or skirmish.  and I don't have room for 4x freeps condition discarders.

and sudden fury unique? sudden fury is not that good...you have to get them out, lose skirmishes and its just skirmishes! not burdens or archery. 

[Smeagollum]

Just make it unique if that would make everybody happy.. There is enough against namarie which is named conditiondiscarding.

And if you don't have got any condition discarding at the moment? then you lose the game because all conditions are lost! Once Namarie worked it's over. And in regroup? Gil play it again... NO! Make Namarie unique won't change anything... otherwise I would have it r-listed... but it just doesn't make any sense.

Let's r-list steadfast champion - would be the same.

It's a game isn't it? If you are afraid for namrie then you should prepare for it.


I realy don't see any argument about if you don't have condition removal.

[Kralik]

sudden furry

  

Scary!

[Smeagollum]

If you don't see the power of sudden furry..... This is a great card! In Amsterdam we Restricted it, because it's able to give you so much powerboost that you can not be killed. Sure you have to lose skirmishes, but getting 4 tokens for one wound.. that's not to bad.

If you thnik namarie is to powerfull then sudden furry is that as well.

[FingolfinFinwe]

lol Kralik was poking fun at Sudden "Furry" -  as in, furry animal.  Now Sudden Fury, that is a very good card.  Not broken though imo.

[Smeagollum]

oh okay.. didn't see that he was poking fun......

I shall use my  next time

[Not a Zombie]

Maybe not banned, but certainly should have an errata.

[ephen]

Making this and The shire Countryside unique seems the solve the problem best because you can still run 4 copies and its not as powerful.

[sickofpalantirs]

one namarie can still kill a fellowship.  R-listed would probably be ok...

[Smeagollum]

one namarie can still kill a fellowship.  R-listed would probably be ok...

Well if it kills a fellowship, then I realy see no problem at all. Which freep player would play it then?

I play aften enough and really don't have any problem with it. Just play a shadow without conditions.

[Kralik]

Just play a shadow without conditions.

Why limit your options so much?

[Olorin]

Well, it is a ridiculous strong card, but it only affects the shadows working with conditions. The real problem stays with Gil-Galad with his ability to retrieve conditions. Well, this will be an endless debate.

@Smeagollum: see here... play a shadow without conditions? Gil-Galad will abuse Namarie though and replay always all elven conditions... and by the way: why should we "ban" e.g. whole Moria instead of one single card, Namarie?

...and Kralik already said right, why minimaze our options of the game --> would be less fun playing without those numerous conditons.

[Elessar's Socks]

IMO both Namarie and Gil-galad need fixing. If banning Namarie will encourage more condition-based decks, then I won't be too sorry to see it go. I think there's precedence for banning cards based on meta decisions, Saruman's Snows and Lady Redeemed being examples.

Gil-galad can create some truly nasty set-ups, though it may take several sites, and run into competition from a quick-moving Ithilien Blade deck, get knocked out by Troll swarm, etc. I'll put aside the power level of these decks for now. My issue with him is being able to draw out an entire deck (or however much is needed), which like the FP filtering from the Erkenbrand's Horn / New Chapter combo, IMO breaks what cycling should be able to do.

[MuadDib85]

 My issue with him is being able to draw out an entire deck (or however much is needed

I agree. Even with namarie banned, Gil-Galad can still cycle a whole deck using other token cards.

But if Gil was banned and namarie not banned, namarie would still destroy any condition based shadow decks.

Maybe X-list Gil-Galad and Namarie? Personally I don't like using either card, would rather no-one use them than everyone use them.

[SomeRandomDude]

I don't think everyone knows the broken combo.

Perhaps someone would like to explain how the Gil-Galad infinite loop works?

Olorin is right. R-listing and making unique won't stop the combo. I would ban Gil-Galad, but nobody likes that idea.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Banning cards is taking the easy way out, if anything there should be an errata.

[SomeRandomDude]

Banning cards is the simplest solution- errata is difficult to keep track of and if we errata all these cards, we're gonna turn away new players really fast. Any hope of keeping the game alive and growing is killed the second we take the "don't ban, errata" option.

I've been a proponent of combo-banning for a while, though. Some cards are good on their own, but in combination with other cards create broken combos. Like Madril/Ithilien Blade, Keyward/Warg, etc.

[MuadDib85]

Perhaps someone would like to explain how the Gil-Galad infinite loop works?

Leaving Forever is the key to the loop. (with tokens).

You can keep replaying leaving forever in the regroup phase with Gil-Galad to draw 2 cards every time, effectively being able to draw your whole deck. You have to also use Gil-Galad to re-play your token cards over and over, and with Namarie being able to add possibly up to 8 tokens every time you play it, it enables Gil-Galad to cycle ALOT every time it is played.

You need Gil-Galad, HKoTN, Leaving Forever and some token cards...

[MR. Lurtzy]

Errata would fix that very easily: HKoTN regroup action changed to "At the start of the regroup phase remove an token...". Problem solved.

[MuadDib85]

So maybe if Leaving Forever is X-listed the loop is stopped.

Then Namarie could maybe be restricted to 1x copy per deck and might not be so game-altering.

With cards like Buckland Homestead and Ulaire Enquea, DL
You can deal with 1x namarie easily enough...

But Gil-Galad's ability is probably still going to be too overpowered (even if namarie was banned).
Secluded Homestead and Uncertain Future are a couple of other options instead of namarie for some decent tokens every time they are played.

[MuadDib85]

Errata would fix that very easily: HKoTN regroup action changed to "At the start of the regroup phase remove an token...". Problem solved.

Please explain how this would fix the problem.

[MR. Lurtzy]

You could only replay leaving forever 1 time.

[MuadDib85]

You could only replay leaving forever 1 time.

Maybe I'm missing something, but there would still be plenty of other tokens left...

[Kralik]

Since it's "at the start of the regroup phase" and not a regroup action, you cannot use it more than once.

[Olorin]

I don't think everyone knows the broken combo.

Perhaps someone would like to explain how the Gil-Galad infinite loop works?

Olorin is right. R-listing and making unique won't stop the combo. I would ban Gil-Galad, but nobody likes that idea.

I seriously thought about putting Gil-Galad onto the X-list coz as I said, he is likely the most broken card I ever saw...

I also want to speak out a serious caution/warning to go the way of errata... this will cause a lot of confusion and probably - as NBarden meant - break the game the neck once up a time...

Nevertheless... imagine here is Austria format you are playing with your hunter elves and Namarie vs. Moria... and you have got 5 tokens on Namarie... you discard 3 goblin armories and 2 goblin swarms.... do you think Moria will have a chance then? Hunter elves does so much direct wounding... Moria won't have a chance... if all conditions are discarded... of course there are also cards that discard all conditons like Grown suddenly tall, etc. but these are cards from the old sets... which means the fellowship is also an old one which realtives the problem of all conditions... and once again: One Namarie - even if r-listed - can with gil-galad be replayed... so R-listing or making Namarie unique doesn't change anything...

banning Gil-Galad... yeah... he is such a broken card I can't say... his regroup ability on his own is broken alone... and why does gil-galad need to abilities?
Erland e.g. has got far less srength, far less vitality... far less resistance... and only one ability... so here is the question: why should a play e.g. companions if there are elven comps that are just THAT much better then all other companions form other cultures... with a lot of impossible to discard artifacts... DDD (direct damage deluxe), minion discarding, overwhelming, healing, threat removal, cycling, fighting, etc.

[MuadDib85]

Since it's "at the start of the regroup phase" and not a regroup action, you cannot use it more than once.

Ah, I get it now...That is not a bad idea, I thought he meant give gil-galad a negative effect 'aka denethor, oteom' to go with his 2 good abilities. Thanks for explaining that Kralik.

[Elrohir]

I have no problem if I play against a fellowship who discards all my shadow conditions, because then it is my fault, if I play a condition based shadow, right?

Just one all blades perish can destroy the whole planning of the archery against Nazgul. Ithilien blade kills the roaming orcs easily, Beauty is fading is one of my favourite cards, because it alway discards a companion (actually it discards one of my companions, but I like it because it is really strong!)

So it depends, which strategy you are facing. So how do you want to ged rid of Deceit without Namarie? Gollum offers too much pool to use the muster of Seclusion...

Olorin: Moria discards Namarie easiliy with Goblin Scrabbler, before Namarie works!

[Kralik]

Olorin: Moria discards Namarie easiliy with Goblin Scrabbler, before Namarie works!

You aren't going to be able to play 3-4 Goblin Scrabbler's every turn to take care of the Namarie's coming back in regroup. In response to "Just play a Shadow without conditions!" I would say, "Just play Elves with another of their many forms of condition discard!"

[Olorin]

Olorin: Moria discards Namarie easiliy with Goblin Scrabbler, before Namarie works!

You aren't going to be able to play 3-4 Goblin Scrabbler's every turn to take care of the Namarie's coming back in regroup. In response to "Just play a Shadow without conditions!" I would say, "Just play Elves with another of their many forms of condition discard!"

KRALIK! I LOVE YOU!!! Your words are just that right! YESSS!!!

[Kralik]

KRALIK! I LOVE YOU!!! Your words are just that right! YESSS!!!

I'd recommend laying off of the CAPS -- they make it sound like you are constantly shouting.

[macheteman]

i really find Gil-galad the most broken card in the loop. ANY card that can play unlimited conditions from discard-pile just by removing a token is insane. if you look around at all the other condition recursion cards out there, they usually have much bigger requirements. like: winning skirmishes, etc...

[Olorin]

i really find Gil-galad the most broken card in the loop. ANY card that can play unlimited conditions from discard-pile just by removing a token is insane. if you look around at all the other condition recursion cards out there, they usually have much bigger requirements. like: winning skirmishes, etc...

HMMM; LET ME SEE::: AH:: CAPS! Now, Macheteman is right too, Gil-Galad is most broken... he would be balanced with just his first ability incl. the errata, to take only skirmish events into hand... compare to Erland...

[Elrohir]

You aren't going to be able to play 3-4 Goblin Scrabbler's every turn to take care of the Namarie's coming back in regroup. In response to "Just play a Shadow without conditions!" I would say, "Just play Elves with another of their many forms of condition discard!"

I am sure Moria is able to play 2 Goblin Scrabbler every turn - and meanwhile, The Balrog, Demon of might kills some elves anyway! But this is another story...

[MR. Lurtzy]

Again, a simple errata would fix this. There is no reason to ban cards that can be simply fixed.

[Elrohir]

Can not we use a general ruling for infinite loops?

[SomeRandomDude]

I think that banning is indeed preferable to errata, because errata is hard for new players to keep track of. I always oppose errata.

True that Goblin Scrabbler can take down Namarie, but if you have to make a deck dedicated to killing Namarie, that kinda sucks. I mean, every deck has another deck that will kill it, heck, a dedicated deck can take out fruit loops or infinite Gandy, or Mordor Fiend. But nobody argues that, say, Fiend isn't broken because Traveled Leader/SftF can hose it every time with Caras Galadhon.

[macheteman]

Can not we use a general ruling for infinite loops?

but some infinite loops are balanced because of cost/effect. sometime it takes enormous set-up/ cost to pull a loop with minimal effect. for instance, the red book of westmarch loop isn't broken in my opinion, you can cycle through your deck, but it isn't an immediate kill.

also nazzy auto-corrupt is a good example. you had to get enough things to line up properly, and when you could do that, you corrupted the ring-bearer. but the requirements balanced the loop.

to destroy infinite loops is to remove a vital aspect of the game.

[SomeRandomDude]

Is true. The auto-corrupt combo would be shut down, plus you can't really define a loop of voluntary actions.

[MR. Lurtzy]

I don't see many new players coming to LOTR. With no new cards being printed, banning cards would just restrict different deck ideas.

[Smeagollum]

I don't see many new players coming to LOTR. With no new cards being printed, banning cards would just restrict different deck ideas.

I agree! Just make it a start of the x phase action.

And ... wel offtopic and maybe you might not like it.. but I'm thinking of making prints of the virtual set I'm making and use these cards as prizesupport in tournaments.

[ephen]

Seems like it has been proved that banning cards like Namarie wouldn't restrict deck ideas, it would allow people to run some condition based shadows. If a card is so good that everyone runs it or has to run something to deal with it it kills the diversity of decks.

[Olorin]

I think it is better not to compare Namarie with that card: http://lotrtcgwiki.com/pages/LOTR13042.html

This card is unique, twilight cost of three, cannot be replayed in infinite loops, cannot replay other conditions... at the maximum there get 3 tokens on it... but in the average 1 or 2... for 2 tokens (and not for just 1) you may discard a condition... and you have to spot a wizard...

... so I don't understand the discussion about Namarie: it's just a to broken card... Namarie just has to be banned! Elves have got so many other ways to discard conditions... but to keep the game at least a little bit balanced, Namarie has to be kicked out of the game!

off topic

Normally Gil-Galad should be kicked out too. We still have to find a way to handle his brokeness, I think!

Recently I played against Pepin... I played Glorfindel Eldarin Lord... guess the shadow I played against... Shelob possession with Gollum... this only Glorfindel destroyed the whole deck! win- remove threat, win- remove threat... whole time... shelob didn't have any chance...

In my opinion, Elves are overpowered in general... and I am not the only one...

another example is the elven ringbearer Galadriel...

well she was made with values of a hobbit... strength 3/ vitality 3... so there was no set back... and NOW?

Galadriel with the e.g. Ring of Reflections, the silver ewer and nenya... she is a companion... with strength 6, Vitality 5, Resistance 10 (with 4 other comps) - why shall I play Isildur or Gimli as ringbearer... they always have to add threats or burdens, etc... Galadriel... nothing...

We all know Decipher made a lot of problems... the balance of the game got lost. - DEFINITELY.

...or have you ever seen in a tournament that a deck with Ents or men won a tournament? No... because they are just to weak... same for Gandalf Ringbearer...

but Gondor, Ringbound Hobbits and Elves are reliable fellowships... but as I said before, to keep at least a little bit of balance, we have to kick out the obviously broken cards, that are just that broken, that an errata would be a complete other card and not just a little change, like Namarie, or Gil-Galad.
I am happy, that Decipher recognized to put an errata on elven armaments... (skip archery phase)... but they didn't (enough) on Gli-Galad and Namarie.

[Olorin]

Seems like it has been proved that banning cards like Namarie wouldn't restrict deck ideas, it would allow people to run some condition based shadows. If a card is so good that everyone runs it or has to run something to deal with it it kills the diversity of decks.

Word!

[Smeagollum]

Olorin

Elves were always very strong in lotr tcg. I just don't agree with you. There is enough against it. I'm really not afraid with a ninja-gollum deck for any elvendeck. If it becomes meta, people will start to play counterdecks against it and then it won't be that populair anymore. Just make it unique.
And I'm afraid that Corsairs will bash Namarie-decks.

What I don't like is that because a card is very powerfull and  people want to x those cards, because their decks can't stand it. In that case try to find a solution. Use your creativity and imagination.

[sickofpalantirs]

I don't see many new players coming to LOTR. With no new cards being printed, banning cards would just restrict different deck ideas.

what is it with you and wanting to keep your hands on OP cards?

[Elessar's Socks]

@Smeagollum: Where would you stand on Lady Redeemed?

For the record, I think she's in a class of her own (targeting possessions as well, pitching cards for Cirdan, requiring more specific removal), but the arguments back then for/against her are quite similar to the ones now. Don't play conditions, meta against her, condition removal is the Elves' strong point, etc.

[Smeagollum]

@Smeagollum: Where would you stand on Lady Redeemed?

For the record, I think she's in a class of her own (targeting possessions as well, pitching cards for Cirdan, requiring more specific removal), but the arguments back then for/against her are quite similar to the ones now. Don't play conditions, meta against her, condition removal is the Elves' strong point, etc.

I love her... want to marry kate Blachet for it  , but she's already married

No Seriousley. I like the card. But you're right; It is similar. Everybody thought it overpowered by then. But I never had that many problems with it. You see.. it's nice to be that powerfull, but if an opponenet plays a scrubdeck and you counter it then you'll have problems in keeping her. Again there's enough against it. I ussually use multipple tactics in a deck so that I don't depend on just one. If I play a condition-intensive shadow. Just be assured that there also will be enough minions to do enough to stop you without the conditions or I'll have a fellowship which will outrun yours.

Though I can sense some problems in combinations, but that wasn't meant to be and there wasn't enough playtesting.
Actually Big D made 2 games for Lotr: Filmblock and post 10. And that's why we suffer some problems now. And as I don't like to x anything then an errata is on it's place: For conditions and possesions you can make it unique. Events & comps you can't do that in that case you should make a text-errata. In her case I would say at the start of the maneuver or at the start of the regroup. Actually you could do the same with Gil-Glad & Glorfindel. But what you also could do is use the rule of 4 for those 2.

[Elrohir]

I do not have any problems with lady redeemed. And Glorfindel is an average companion. Just one threat remove is not that strong, compared to black land chieftain. You all see what happend after x-listing lady redeemed. Elves have heavy dificulties if facing Corsairs and the ships. This was an very unbalanced decision - and so it will be the same with Namarie.

[Smeagollum]

I do not have any problems with lady redeemed. And Glorfindel is an average companion. Just one threat remove is not that strong, compared to black land chieftain. You all see what happend after x-listing lady redeemed. Elves have heavy dificulties if facing Corsairs and the ships. This was an very unbalanced decision - and so it will be the same with Namarie.

Well the combo Glorfindel with lr is very strong. If you have 5 comps and you'll be able to add 5 threats and there are ways to get those removed as well, then you can remove 5 possesions/conditions.

Then again. I don't have a problem with it as well. Against everything there is a counter.

Further it's the same discussion as back then with LR, now it's namarie.

But if you want to keep everybody happy you can think of a small errata: At the start would help I think.

[Olorin]

Once again... Errata is not good... banning is better coz it causes less confusion... errata is just for cards that need a very small fixing... Namarie... needs a huge fixing... if it even can get fixed... by banning Gil-Galad perhaps... shall we ban Gil-Galad to let us get spending thoughts on errata for Namarie?

I just understand why there are some people against banning Namarie... though it's brokeness is that obviously... elves even don't need the card essentially... Namarie gets banned an fine.

perhaps next time we are talking about r-listing final account or steadfast champion or r-listing Galadriel LR... wuahahah... (notice for me: dunno which card is more broken: Gil-Galad, Namarie or LR)

I do not have any problems with lady redeemed. And Glorfindel is an average companion. Just one threat remove is not that strong, compared to black land chieftain. You all see what happend after x-listing lady redeemed. Elves have heavy dificulties if facing Corsairs and the ships. This was an very unbalanced decision - and so it will be the same with Namarie.

off topic
Glorfindel is strength 9. Play Boromir... he is just strength 7. you need to play a sword on him to get the same strength... this means you need to play one card more in deck (deck gets larger)... means also, that possession can get discarded again too. Glorfindel is strength 9 - but Shelob loses the whole strength bonus from possessions.... Black Land Chieftain may make threats... but don't kill all elves just by playing him... he is for sure not an average companion... you just need one card in deck... and not 2 (example Boromir).

[MR. Lurtzy]

If Namarie was R-listed an Gil-Galad given an errata (regroup action changed to at the start of the regroup phase), I think the whole situation would be perfectly balanced. Errata may at first be a little more confusing, but it is better than just making the card unplayable.

[Smeagollum]

Once again... Errata is not good... banning is better coz it causes less confusion... errata is just for cards that need a very small fixing... Namarie... needs a huge fixing... if it even can get fixed... by banning Gil-Galad perhaps... shall we ban Gil-Galad to let us get spending thoughts on errata for Namarie?

I just understand why there are some people against banning Namarie... though it's brokeness is that obviously... elves even don't need the card essentially... Namarie gets banned an fine.

perhaps next time we are talking about r-listing final account or steadfast champion or r-listing Galadriel LR... wuahahah... (notice for me: dunno which card is more broken: Gil-Galad, Namarie or LR)

I do not have any problems with lady redeemed. And Glorfindel is an average companion. Just one threat remove is not that strong, compared to black land chieftain. You all see what happend after x-listing lady redeemed. Elves have heavy dificulties if facing Corsairs and the ships. This was an very unbalanced decision - and so it will be the same with Namarie.

off topic
Glorfindel is strength 9. Play Boromir... he is just strength 7. you need to play a sword on him to get the same strength... this means you need to play one card more in deck (deck gets larger)... means also, that possession can get discarded again too. Glorfindel is strength 9 - but Shelob loses the whole strength bonus from possessions.... Black Land Chieftain may make threats... but don't kill all elves just by playing him... he is for sure not an average companion... you just need one card in deck... and not 2 (example Boromir).

Errata can be excellent for Gil-Galad & LR. No x-ing cards. There's no need for it. So no x-ing Namarie.

Of-topic: Shelob, eater of light will get the bonus, because it's not the possesion which gives her extra strength, but the amount of minions she spots on a possesion. So what you say is not quite true. A nice try though....

[Elrohir]

I think I would agree to errata Gil-Galad's Regroup ability to "At the start of the regroup phase". So there are no elven loops left.

[Smeagollum]

I think I would agree to errata Gil-Galad's Regroup ability to "At the start of the regroup phase". So there are no elven loops left.

Errata the ability for LR as well into: at the start of.
Make Namarie unique
Then things should be fine.

End of discussion; Smeagollum, son of Annatar has spoken
 

[Olorin]

LR cannot be allowed to play, otherwise Elves could discard possessions as well...

and if you think about Gil-Galad... once again... he don't need two abilities... cancel the whole regroup ability... compare gil-galad to erland... elves are to powerful...

[Smeagollum]

LR cannot be allowed to play, otherwise Elves could discard possessions as well...

and if you think about Gil-Galad... once again... he don't need two abilities... cancel the whole regroup ability... compare gil-galad to erland... elves are to powerful...

Sorry Olorin, but this is rabbish..
Why are you wining about elves constantly?

Believe me this is rare that I say this, because I don't like playing Elves, but it's not to powerfull... I think it's more that you lack creativity. It's only in your mind. I think Elves are balanced. If you do a little errata LR can be allowed to play. Oh wow, she's able to discard possesions. It just balance Elves against Shelob/web and Corsair decks. Just kill her and you don't have a problem with her.  And limiting Gil-glad's manouver or regroup-ability is allready big enough.

Now, I'm done with this discussion. You all know my opinion about it and about x-listing cards (which you should not do!!!!) and that opinion will not be changed. And I know enough others who agree with me.

CARDS ARE MEANT TO PLAY.. and if to powerfull then you take a look for a small repair.

[Ringbearer]

Namarie is obvious broken. Any card that kills outright several shadows shouldnt be allowed. Same with Lady Redeemed. You couldnt play Corsairs, Moria, Meatgrinder Sauron, #$&*@! even besiegers and dunland were off then... ururks were already weak and nazgul lost to glorfindel. What is left then?

I playe dthe Namariedeck vs troll swarm. Even with 3 trolls out none survived archery... and gil replays the entire shebang.

[Olorin]

Thanks Ringbearer!

@Smeagollum: I m not wining - I am just confused/I just don't understand why I have to explain the brokeness of the elves even if it is that obvious. Why don't you just say, "yes Olorin, you're right" or something like that... instead you defend the brokeness of elves and say it is balanced or can be balanced with small changes... this is not right.
I want to have a game which is balanced, fair and makes fun - just to enable ONE fellowship which is not to stop, destroy the game... and believe me... it is ME, who know... I know... of what I am speaking about... it was ME who participated the last official Decipher European Championship... guess the most common fellowship which was logically most likely to win... it was the overpowerd and broken Elves...
and I am far not the only one who thinks so... I am only one of very few player that post that here... but most of players I know think the same as I do... at the opposite only a few players seems not to aggree that (e.g. Elrohir and you)...
I would suggest to sleep overnight and look agian objective onto that several elven cards... I hope then you will also see that we are all right and these cards just destroy the whole game - coz they just aren't balanced and can only - if even - made balanced - but not by small repairs...

I didn't want the discussion about the x-list... I set this card on the x-list anyway... it would be forbidden on tournaments I organize anyway... independent of the poll here...

[MR. Lurtzy]

If Gil-Galad was given the errata "At the start of the regroup phase", and Namarie R-listed, what would be the problem? To me it seems you are dead set against fixing either of them.

[Gerontius]

Namarie and LR kill way to many decks. I hate condition discard of most kinds and few cultures have a reliable way to prevent key conditions from getting destroyed.

[SomeRandomDude]

Smeagollum and Olorin, please remember that each of you are both entitled to your opinion and do not have to agree with each other. With that in mind, can we have a civil discussion without accusing people of lying or dismissing their ideas as rubbish?

Take a step back and look at yourselves. You are going at each others throats over a game. And a game that is fully customizable to whatever house rules you want to play with. Is it worth the demeaning and condescension just because someone wants to play the game differently than you?

This can also go for other people who have been participating in the thread. You know who you are.

I'd hate to have to lock yet another thread because of your bickering.

[legolas3333]

you know my house rules make namarie a fellowship action... it helps a lot as shadow conditions last a turn at least which is enough for some to do their work

[Elessar's Socks]

Would errata be beyond the scope of Austrian format? Seems like the sentiments expressed here can apply to other formats as well. If we're going to be doing that sort of thing, maybe a TLHH format (based off the Austrian format or whatever) would be in order.

[Smeagollum]

Smeagollum and Olorin, please remember that each of you are both entitled to your opinion and do not have to agree with each other. With that in mind, can we have a civil discussion without accusing people of lying or dismissing their ideas as rubbish?

Take a step back and look at yourselves. You are going at each others throats over a game. And a game that is fully customizable to whatever house rules you want to play with. Is it worth the demeaning and condescension just because someone wants to play the game differently than you?

This can also go for other people who have been participating in the thread. You know who you are.

I'd hate to have to lock yet another thread because of your bickering.

Well, maybe you are right... I just don't like it that people wants to x a card, because they can't handdle it. And a lot of people gave enough space for a solution, but still the only thing I hear is x-listing. Come on the card was released 2 years ago... I never had any problems with it.
Somewhere the discussion is at an end and for me that is now.

By the way, maybe my words are bit rough, but there is no intention about quaraling. It's more simplic and direct (I'm very direct, sorry guys, but that's who I am) and just say or write what he thinks and believe me that's not the easiest way!
I actually like the guy (for so far as i know him), like I like all of you (Sounds Bilboish somehow). If he feels how do you say it.. atacked or something.. don't be.. I'm just done with a discussion over x-listing cards.. nothing personal.

On but oftopic. If you all decide to x cards then I cann tell you the view of Amsterdam players: We will not follow you in that. Restricting = ok, making something unique is okay. Errata is okay. Even creating or changing a rule is ok. But that's where it ends. The cards are meant to play and to have fun with. Just look at yourself everyone. I am absolutely sure that all of you people use own errata's on cards, changed rules (austrian format is the biggest example). Everything is better then x-listing, because don't you all want to play all the cards?

[Ringbearer]

I feel X-ing is easier than errata's. Errata's are harder to remember, as you have to play acard in another way as is written. Especially as there is no central organ of rules for LOTR anymore, its hard to keep track about errata's.

[Smeagollum]

is the easy wat the just way?

[sickofpalantirs]

Simply put, yes. 
If you really feel a need to discard conditions, use Seclusion.

[Elrohir]

is the easy wat the just way?

What does this mean?

[TheJord]

This whole thread is turning into a circus.

I STRONGLY recommend you stick to the following guidelines for the remainder of this thread

1) Cast your vote
2) Voice your opinion in relation to your vote
3) Leave any personal opinions about the wider pros and cons of Namaire for another time

[Imrahil]

well, as some of you know, The Old Took and I don't play anything beyond Bloodlines, so we don't have to deal with Namarie or Gil-Galad, but we do have an opinion about LR.  Basically we see her as an answer to the corsair problem (corsairs= instant kill to possession dependant decks, and destroy anything that doesn't have possession removal).  Some of you may argue this, but I personally have to build all my decks with the question "How will this match up against Corsairs?" running through my mind.

But the Old Took and I are considering banning LR anyway, because she is too effective against too many shadows.  For us, it takes the fun out of the game when we are forced to resort to a couple of decks, instead of the whole range of LOTR TCG.

It appears that Namarie/ Gil-Galad is a combo with causes the same situation.  And it is GilGalad which is causing the problem, as someone else mentioned earlier.  Get rid of him, and Namarie is a good card still, but not the supernaturally awesome power it is with the high-king.  Of course, there are positives and negatives, good things and bad things that can be said for both positions, but the fact remains that any card which dominates the meta as much as the High King has, is not really worth having around.

My vote is X-List

[SomeRandomDude]

Thread split, new thread here.
~NB

[Witchkingx5]

Well, as I was beeing able to get my hands on some copy of that card, I'd say: don't ban it

Seriously now, I think more about banning/ restricting gil-galad, HkoTN cus' he can provide infinite loops (and not just with namarie) so this seems a more valiable possibility for me.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Banning cards is never the best solution. Never.

[Beyo]

and in Poland when we play Austria format Namarie was always allowed. after all it can be discarded in shadow by event , or this Sauron card from 19 set can remove token from it.

[Vroengard]

this Sauron card from 19 set can remove token from it.

Sauron's Might

THIS CARD IS SO STRONG  I DONT KNOW WHY I NEVER USED IT.