Author Topic: Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Underhill (Read 7467 times)

Kralik · « **on:** February 04, 2011, 07:10:21 AM »

There are a subset of promos that are not legal in any format. Rather than tackle the whole subset, I'd like to look particularly at Frodo, Mr. Underhill. He has the same game text as Reluctant Adventurer, but the Gandy signet (which is very useful). Would it be acceptable to allow Mr. Underhill in any format that allows Reluctant Adventurer? Let's discuss and then vote.

hrcho · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:20:54 AM »

Quote from: Kralik on February 04, 2011, 07:10:21 AM

Would it be acceptable to allow Mr. Underhill in any format that allows Reluctant Adventurer?

My vote: Yes.

Tbiesty · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:30:19 AM »

Yes. In fact, in general I think the promos that mirror non-promos should be allowed.

Kralik · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:42:41 AM »

Can anyone think of reasons not to allow Mr. Underhill? Let's go for some discussion before a vote.

One reason is, of course, the signet. Gandalf is arguably more powerful/useful than the Aragorn signet.

Thranduil · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2011, 08:13:50 AM »

Quote from: Kralik on February 04, 2011, 07:42:41 AM

Can anyone think of reasons not to allow Mr. Underhill? Let's go for some discussion before a vote.

It is confusing to have 2 Frodo's with identical texts, but a different signet. And it's weird.

I obviously have no problem with people playing Mr. Underhill, but I wonder how much the confusion factor should be present in our deliberations...

[ASIDE: A great solution from my dream team hat would be to make a (V) version of Mr. Underhill which would be different and legal, and keep the original card illegal].

Thranduil

ununtrium · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2011, 08:40:15 AM »

I'd say: Yes, because of Mr. Underhill's similarity to RE. It would give a boost to signet strategies and this is always worth a shot.

And we always have Thranduil's dream team hat, if MU turns out to be overpowered...

Kralik · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:25:01 AM »

Thran, why would anyone really be all that confused regarding two cards with the same gametext? There are separate images for each in GCCG, so I don't see it as all that different as having, say, Hobbit Sword*** vs. Hobbit Sword**.

legolas3333 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:39:38 AM »

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO people, kralik obviously has some crazy deck up his sleeve that uses Mr. Underhill!!! I mean, look what he did with legal cards!!! *cough*Durin'sSecretSocietyOfDearFriends*cough* You can't give into his pressure!!!!!

However, I have no problem with anyone else playing with Mr. Underhill

Kralik · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:41:00 AM »

Ack, L3333 knows my secrets!

MR. Lurtzy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:51:39 PM »

It's one of my favorite frodo pics and definately deserves to be used. Yes.

jdizzy001 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:00:59 PM »

yes, if my vote matters.

Kralik · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:36:35 PM »

Before I open the vote... is there anything else that needs to be said?

Gil-Estel · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2011, 11:19:47 PM »

No, just play that midget

Witchkingx5 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2011, 08:44:09 AM »

Yes, it's nearly impossible to get one.

Kralik · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2011, 09:18:13 AM »

* Kralik has a couple.

And for the record, I will never cheat at GCCG collecting. I paid dearly in promos for the first and got the second recently after a game. All of my decks are proxy-free.

Thranduil · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2011, 10:19:09 AM »

Quote from: Kralik on February 04, 2011, 09:25:01 AM

Thran, why would anyone really be all that confused regarding two cards with the same gametext? There are separate images for each in GCCG, so I don't see it as all that different as having, say, Hobbit Sword*** vs. Hobbit Sword**.

I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

Tbiesty · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2011, 10:26:27 AM »

Quote from: Thranduil on February 05, 2011, 10:19:09 AM

I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

I completely agree. In fact, this is the motivation behind much of what I do. Simplifying the game (formats, X-lists, R-lists, etc.) would all be helpful. Hopefully, this is something the Rules Team can pursue and others will find a worthy cause.

Witchkingx5 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2011, 10:32:12 AM »

Quote from: Kralik on February 05, 2011, 09:18:13 AM

* Kralik has a couple.

And for the record, I will never cheat at GCCG collecting. I paid dearly in promos for the first and got the second recently after a game. All of my decks are proxy-free.

I meant real cards. There's no way GCCG will be asnearly as good as playing with real cards, with a real opponent with whom you can not only interact by sending text messages.

Legolis · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2011, 10:46:18 AM »

Quote from: Thranduil on February 05, 2011, 10:19:09 AM

Quote from: Tbiesty on February 05, 2011, 10:26:27 AM
I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

I completely agree. In fact, this is the motivation behind much of what I do. Simplifying the game (formats, X-lists, R-lists, etc.) would all be helpful. Hopefully, this is something the Rules Team can pursue and others will find a worthy cause.

I guess you can call me a new player I played my first game the other day. Sad part is I bought my first starter deck in 2001. This is one of the main things with me, I don't understand how they can print cards then later ban them, just doesn't make sense to me or probably anyone new to the game. I kinda understand now why but trying to figure out what is banned in however many different formats there are is kinda rough. It can be very intimidating trying to figure out what cards can be used and what one's can't. I kinda look at it like this, there are around 3500 cards and that is a lot to try to memorize. I know that it will get easier with time but for anyone trying to learn the game it is going to drive the teachers crazy!

Crabby Imposter · « **Reply #19 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:49:20 AM »

I've got a couple. ;-)