LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed  (Read 24809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 15, 2011, 11:41:53 PM
Reply #45

Thranduil

  • *******
  • Information Offline
  • Wizard
  • Posts: 4996
    • Zalman's Dungeon (blog of SF stories by Thranduil)
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2011, 11:41:53 PM »
I agree with Tbiesty and Imrahil. Ban her now, and errata her later.

Though I think errata is confusing and annoying (to have a card that doesn't do what it says) and I probably wouldn't endorse it for a still-printed game, for LotR and it's finished card pool, I think erratas are ultimately the only sensible solution, rather than bans. But I don't think we should be sitting here now arguing about how LR should change, and so we should ban her. Then, at a later date, go through X'ed cards and give them all errata.

February 16, 2011, 03:50:49 AM
Reply #46

Ringbearer

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 709
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2011, 03:50:49 AM »
Poor rubbercarp is playing a game against her right now...good for him for not complaining, but bad matchup with Ninja Gollum and all...
-wtk

That wasnt rubbercarp, that was me. And go easy on the guy, he didnt know about the "gentlemans agreement".

February 16, 2011, 05:18:36 AM
Reply #47

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2011, 05:18:36 AM »
If it's a "Gentleman's Agreement" on GCCG, then can't we all be "Gentlemen?" ;)

February 16, 2011, 09:53:36 AM
Reply #48

Crabby Imposter

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Orc
  • Posts: 37
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2011, 09:53:36 AM »
IMHO, a "gentleman's agreement" only works when playing against people who frequent TLHH.  And it only works with people willing to be "gentlemen"... sorry Kralik, but we just can't all be gentle.  Ban her, and don't look back.

February 16, 2011, 10:19:53 AM
Reply #49

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2011, 10:19:53 AM »
That was rather the point, my dear crabby friend.

We "agree" to force gentlemanly behavior. :mrgreen:

February 16, 2011, 12:03:59 PM
Reply #50

plnp123

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Goblin
  • Posts: 20
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2011, 12:03:59 PM »
I'm also for banning her immediately.
Many seemingly new players are starting to use her and its very annoying. Also in GCCG corsairs aren't played that often. Many of us agree4ee to have different more creative decks. Its shouldn't be much of a problem.
I don't know who was ringbearer playing against but Ive seen at least two people using her. I played against one with my new ninja gollum deck -hrcho and wtk have played against it- and didn't stand a chance against it.
I propose that we start voting on this matter as soon as possible before LR usage gets out of hand

February 16, 2011, 02:09:34 PM
Reply #51

jcb213

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Villager
  • Posts: 202
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2011, 02:09:34 PM »
If you don't like Galadriel, LR the  easy solution is just to not play a game against an opponent who is using her.
  • If you are playing casually in person, just tell your playgroup that you won't play against a deck using her.  There are plenty of other decks to play with and people will oblige
  • If you are playing online, just tell your opponent before you start the game that you will not play against a deck using her.
  • If you are running a tournament, see what the majority of players feel (which is usually to just ban her) and then do what they want for that specific tournament. 

For the LOTR tournament at SW worlds last year I announced in advance that we were banning her for that specific tournament.  For the LOTR tournament at the TX SW event in April I will also be banning her.  That's what the majority of players who will be at the event want so that's what we will do.  As long as people know in advance there should be no issue.

Galadriel LR is definitely a pain, but some people do enjoy both the decks she goes in and the challenge of building a competitive deck that can beat a deck with her in it (or changing the strategy of how you play your favorite deck to be able to run to 9 against a deck with her in it).  For our local playgroup we just make sure to only play a deck with her in it if the other person doesn't mind playing against her.  If someone really wants to play with her, then there are others who also want to play with/against her and they can play.

Basically, there is no reason to modify the official ban list (because that can open a can of worms and be a slippery slope once people start complaining about other cards - everyone has different opinions about what is broken or NPE), just make your preference known in the games/tournaments you play in ahead of time and all is well.

February 16, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
Reply #52

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2011, 02:44:05 PM »
First, we aren't modifying any "official" list.

Second, there is a reason: I don't want the conversation to be:

Kralik: Anyone for Movie?
JoeBob: I will!
Kralik: OK, but no Lady Redeemed.
JoeBob: Awww, I like Lady Redeemed.
Kralik: Sorry, won't play vs. her. Pick a different deck.
JoeBob: Fine...

...later...

Kralik: Anyone for a game of Movie w/o LR?
JoeBob: Anyone for a game of Movie with LR accepted?
Franky: I'll play, JoeBob! (meanwhile, picks a shadow deck tailored vs. LR and Elves).


If the majority of GCCG/TLHH players don't want LR (yes, that is a real "if" question, which is why we will vote), why not remove her from the possible options to keep it simple?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 02:45:53 PM by Kralik »

February 16, 2011, 02:56:58 PM
Reply #53

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2011, 02:56:58 PM »
Deck validator takes care of that.

February 16, 2011, 03:55:13 PM
Reply #54

Imrahil

  • ***
  • Information Offline
  • Troll
  • Posts: 164
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #54 on: February 16, 2011, 03:55:13 PM »
On GCCG Kralik is God.  God provides universal morality and/or absolute law.  Therefore GCCG rules/formats/realities are whatever Kralik decides.

Philisophically, you can spend as much time arguing the potential non-existence of gravity as you want, but you still won't be able to fly.
Never under any circumstances take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

-Dave Barry

February 16, 2011, 04:12:56 PM
Reply #55

Thranduil

  • *******
  • Information Offline
  • Wizard
  • Posts: 4996
    • Zalman's Dungeon (blog of SF stories by Thranduil)
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2011, 04:12:56 PM »
Philisophically, you can spend as much time arguing the potential non-existence of gravity as you want, but you still won't be able to fly.
I would contest that. All you have to do is forget to hit the ground!


Seriously, for people in this thread saying that you don't think that any ban lists should be changed, good on you—you have a completely valid opinion and you should stick by it if you want to.

But, I can't see a reason why you are therefore posting in this thread (or indeed this board!) which is designed to create a TLHH format. This format will be created by modifying banned lists, issuing errata, promoting new formats etc. If you don't want that to happen, then that's completely fair enough, but it's really unhelpful and useless for everyone for you to be posting here! I believe there is even another thread which addresses this precise issue.

Thranduil

February 16, 2011, 06:48:10 PM
Reply #56

hrcho

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 588
  • One does not simply Rock into Mordor.
    • My trade list
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2011, 06:48:10 PM »
I think this has gone long enough. I've posted the poll. Have your say and let's be done with this dirty business. ;)

All you have to do is forget to hit the ground!

Hitchhiker Fan?
Some days you're the statue, and some days you're the pigeon.

Trade List (TLHH)
Trade List (Mahasamatman)

February 16, 2011, 09:16:46 PM
Reply #57

ununtrium

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Horseman
  • Posts: 307
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2011, 09:16:46 PM »
There is always the "casual" play environment. Movie Block has to be simple and fair. LR is a card I like a lot, but our not very competitive players group uses her only, when we're in an even less competitive mood, if you know what I mean. So I voted Yes on the ban.

It is a matter of wanting to win or wanting to be entertained...
I am a Lieutenant Commander on the G.A.B. Saffron team. My trade lists:
http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,3255.0.html
http://www.tradecardsonline.com/user/ununtrium

February 17, 2011, 06:40:29 AM
Reply #58

jcb213

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Villager
  • Posts: 202
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2011, 06:40:29 AM »
If people want to ban Galadriel, LR that's fine, but how long will it be until someone is calling for a ban of Sam SoH?  Decipher banned him at the same time they banned Galadriel, LR and he really makes burden decks not competitive in movie block.  Or what about Saruman's Power?  That wipes out the entire free peoples support area of conditions, so condition heavy decks are destroyed by it.  You can make arguments for lots of different cards that are not fun to play against and totally destroy multiple decks or limit deck-building options.  What about all the other cards that are part of movie block that Decipher banned later on?  Fortress Never FallenSaruman's SnowsLegolas, Dauntless Hunter?  All of those can destroy certain decks and make the game not enjoyable for your opponent as well.  I absolutely had discard decks and think they are completely detrimental to the game, can we ban all discard related cards as well?

I guess my question is really this - will this be a one time addition to the GCCG movie block x-list or is the community open to adding more cards to the x-list later on?  You can call this "LHH Movie Block"  and say it's a different format from movie block, but if you are changing the GCCG x-list for movie block then aren't you effectively changing movie block for all online players?  I'm just worried that this could set the precedent for multiple additional bannings for GCCG.

February 17, 2011, 07:20:44 AM
Reply #59

hrcho

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 588
  • One does not simply Rock into Mordor.
    • My trade list
Re: Preliminary Discussion: Lady Redeemed
« Reply #59 on: February 17, 2011, 07:20:44 AM »
@jcb213:

I doubt your fears will come true. None of those cards you mentioned are as OP as Galadriel, LR. This was thoroughly discussed and I will not go into reasons why.

Even if many players do show dislike to certain cards, we can always open a discussion similar to this one and then push it to voting.

Also note that we are banning Galadriel, LR only as a temporary action until The Rules Team decides (with the help and agreement of TLHH community) upon the best errata for Galadriel, LR. No one really likes errata, but as Thran and Tbiesty both said, there are no new LotR TCG cards in the making. There will be no more set rotation and we've got ourselves hands full of cards that are unusable. The best way to make those cards usable is to fix them. That process has already started and even though it might take some time to get there, we are moving. The great advantage of online playing and virtual cards is that they are a lot easier to fix than the real cards. Have faith and feel free to help.
Some days you're the statue, and some days you're the pigeon.

Trade List (TLHH)
Trade List (Mahasamatman)