Namarie vs sleep caradhras

[jdizzy001]

Why was leokula thumbed down for saying he does not think Namarie is too powerful (I thumbed it up again)?!? People, you REALLY need to grasp the whole "thumbs" concept. His post was not offensive, not unhelpful in any way, it was just his opinion and he wasn't being a jerk about it or anything, simply, calmly stating he does not agree with people all over the boards claiming the card is broken, he simply thinks it's powerful (and btw, if anything, that's a HELPFUL post, it might shed some light into people that, perhaps, the card is powerful but not broken). Geez.

I second that, this isn't facebook

[macheteman]

its also not gladiators...

[jdizzy001]

you mean like American Gladiators with the giant ear swabs?

[macheteman]

more the roman ones where the emperor and everyone would thumbs up or thumbs down you.

[FM]

And either way, you'd get killed.

[MuadDib85]

The real reason this card is broken IMHO is cause its infinite on-demand condition removal with Gilgalad, HKOTN. All you need is 2 namarie and a couple hunters.

Throw in Leaving Forever and you have something that really is broken.

[Elessar's Socks]

I think of "broken" generally as cards that break accepted gameplay (e.g. the Gil-galad loop), cards that distort the meta so badly that maybe only 2-3 decktypes are competitive (possibly in rock-paper-scissors form), and staple cards that when played first, determines who wins.

Namarie isn't broken, IMO--regarding the loop, I think that's an issue with Gil-galad. But I also wouldn't consider brokenness to be the sole criteria for reworking something. For example, Decipher talked about cultural enforcement, cultural strengths/weaknesses, cards being too versatile, etc. when explaining their X-List choices. If fixing a card (doesn't have to be Namarie) would make the environment "better," then maybe it doesn't matter so much whether or not that card was actually broken.

[Gartax]

You are probably right on the fact Namarie is not broken, but it is defenitly a NPE (negative play experience) card.

Namarie has the same kind of power as Ulaïre Enquea had in movie block. The mere present of it shater the meta. The shadow player now must take that card into account while building his deck.

But honestly I think most of the Hunters block card are beta version of what they should have been and way too strong compare to the rest.

In a hunter block format where shadow condition are not that important, Namarie is not a problem. It is just a boring card like countless other in that block.

[Ringbearer]

You cannot compare Namarie to shotgun Enquea. Enquea was a protection against big fellowships protecting a ringbearer too well, while Namarie nukes everything that is condition based.

[Gartax]

I think you miss my point, I do not compare the 2, I compare the impact they had/have

In movie block you can't go big fellow (unless you have enquea protection).

In hunter block you can't go condition based deck unless you built around it.


So to take your own expression

Namarie nukes everything that is condition based.

Enquea nukes everything that is big fellowship.

Same KIND of power

[macheteman]

not exactly true. i have and have seen MANY movie block decks run 9 comps in movie block. ent decks, knight decks, rainbow decks, anything with shadowplay, merry's sword, or preparations.

don't get me wrong, you see plenty rule of 5 going on, but also a healthy dose of "drop 9 comps and just try to catch me" countless times i've just dropped all my splah comps ranger of the north son of hamfast greenleaf, etc. and just made a run for it.

[ket_the_jet]

You can build around Shotgun Enquea. You can't build around Namarie.
-wtk

[Gartax]

I agree that Namarie is more absolut than Enquea, but you had/have to take those card into account while building your deck.

I am not comparing those 2 cards, I am simply saying that they have somewhat of the same "impact" on the meta.

Namarie, don't play condition (wich is boring by the way)

Enquea find way to wound/exert it before it kill your main companion. (wich is more challenging)

[Ringbearer]

I find no conditions a lot harsher than 6 companiosn to be honest.

[NappyKorn]

I never play shotgun enquea to hope for a big fellowship, I play it when I have a deck that can get me 5 burdens fast so reguarless of the companion count I can get me some death. Enquea in my opinion is alot easier to counter either keep the fellowship 5 or fewer (if you go more then have protection and there is quite a bit of that reguardless of the culture you play) and/or introduce burden removal which isn't all that difficult either. Namarie on the other hand kills any thing with a condition and its more difficult to counter cause they get first maneuver action hence trtashing a shadow condition that could take it out and its more difficult to play an event during shadow phase because you have to wait for what can possibly come and that can clog a hand. You have to either get setup or get lucky from your opponent to effectively use Enquea but Namarie is a 1 card (next to no setup involved) deck killer.

What I don't understand is they let Namarie hang around to keep people worried but they get rid of Orkish Smith which is/was probably the best counter for it. Sure lets get rid of 1 of the only cards that can keep Namarie at bay so it can be an even worse card to see played against you.

Complaining about this card or that card won't change crap anyway it's here it's not going to get errata now or ever or ever be x-listed or not, only thing we can do is hope our opponent plays the game for fun and tried to avoid the NPE crap. Again we always have the choice to say if you run this card or that card find another opponent cause I'm not looking forward to playing that cause its no fun.

Take my gold call me a noob for giving my 2 cents, its all good. SEARCH FEATURE FTW!!!!!!

NK