[UEP, accepted] Multiple Rivers only require one ranger

[Sly Southerner]

OK, after one false start here is another attempt on an UEP for River based on a suggestion by Wim Heemskerk (Gwaihir)

Name: Multiple Rivers only require one ranger

Status: Accepted

Proposal maintainer: Adrian

Categories: Balance

Errata: River
Playable on a site. If a company that has moved to this site this turn does not tap a ranger, it must do nothing during its site phase.

Delete the following curent CRF ruling: You must tap one ranger for each River played on the site. Replace with: Tapping a single ranger to meet the requirements of River also meets the requirements of any other Rivers already played and resolved on the same site.

Problem:
Every company needs at least two rangers to deal with River. It can be recycled and duplicated ad nauseam. If two or three rivers are played on a site this wastes a turn even if your company has a ranger. There is nothing more frustrating in MECCG than having your company repeatedly stopped from doing anything by recycled rivers even though it contains one or two rangers.

Solution: Being able to tap one ranger to cross all Rivers already payed and resolved.

Pros: Companies with less than two rangers will still be competitive. This will not kill the River though as it will still have the ranger tapping effect. It will still be useful to punish someone for forgetting to include a ranger. In some situations it will also still be possible to play a second River in a new chain of effects after a ranger has tapped, but this will require a bigger combo, eg:
Chain 1. River.
Chain 2. Force ranger to tap with creature attack or Adunaphel  - he can tap first for the River.
Chain 3. River.

Cons: This is a popular card and many people may not like to change it.

Rationale: Personally I dont think ICE intended every company to require 2-3 rangers to deal with crossing Rivers.

Discussion: We have had much discussion on this issue. This concept now seems to be the most sensible way to limit River without killing it off. See these threads for more discussion:
http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=879
http://meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=1094

Voting:

Adrian: Yes
Jambo: Yes
Lord Leuber: Yes
Mark: No
Charles: No
Bandobras: Yes
Khamul: No
Vastor: Yes
Dam: Yes
Wacho: Yes
Henrik: Yes

SUMMARY: YES=8, NO=3, TOTAL=11, %=73%

Voting started at: 1 August 05

Voting ends at: 31 August 05

[Bandobras Took]

Did you still mean to make River an enivronmnet?

[Sly Southerner]

Oops, no. Thanks. I've fixed that.  

[Jambo]

Now this I do like.  Hopefully with something like this in place there'll be freedom to create more interesting companies than Warrior/Ranger ones...

YES

[Lord Leuber]

Simple, elegant - YES for me!  :D

[Jambo]

It's a popular card because it's so clearly overpowered!  

The Mouth of Sauron is also extremely powerful but unlike River it can lead to inventive play by helping cool hazard combos to be achieved.  Not only that but it can also help combat the multitude of tricksee cancelling companies or squatting sages.  Plus it doesn't intrinsically negatively affect other aspects of the game.  With River, even if people don't use it, which is rare on GCCG, the fear of people using it is omnipresent and that's enough to mean the net outcome is always the same - Ranger companies.

[Zarathustra]

Still gonna have to say no.

[stone troll]

An emphatic no.  

Maybe players need to better explore ways to untap their rangers to deal with river (hundreds of butterflies, narya, cram, and forth he hastened, haz limit reduction, show things unbidden, bane of ithilstone to prevent recycling).  If you fear river, use card slots to deal with river.  If you fear corruption, use cards slots to deal with corruption.  If you fear combat, use chop cards or cancellers.  You can't have it all in a 30/30 deck.

[Bandobras Took]

An emphatic no.  

Maybe players need to better explore ways to untap their rangers to deal with river (hundreds of butterflies, narya, cram, and forth he hastened, haz limit reduction, show things unbidden, bane of ithilstone to prevent recycling).  If you fear river, use card slots to deal with river.  If you fear corruption, use cards slots to deal with corruption.  If you fear combat, use chop cards or cancellers.  You can't have it all in a 30/30 deck.

Not to turn this into another River discussion thread, but most of that argument is spurious.

First of all, combat and corruption do not directly prevent a company from doing anything in the site phase.  River slaps a moratorium down on the entire company unless it has an untapped Ranger -- or, as is more usually the case, more than one untapped Ranger.  Name a corruption card that direcly prevents a site phase.  In combat, the closest thing you have is Wild Fell Beast/Knights of the Prince.  And all those do is tap out a company no matter what -- any one of a number of untappers will work to overcome it -- along with the useful We Have Come to Kill.

Narya requires Gandalf.  Gandalf has declined in popularity because of River.  Closed circle.

Hundreds of Butterflies increases the hazard limit by one.  I untap and retap a Ranger, and my opponent plays another one.  This really hasn't accomplished a lot.

And the whole problem w/Bane or Lady is that they'll equally screw over your own deck.

The problem is not recycling so much as it is you're recyclling a card you can have three of in your deck that completely stops anything in the site phase.  As has been said in other threads, non-rangers have been devalued to the point of helplessness because you have to include two or three in a starting company just to make sure you don't lose a turn.

What weakening river would really do is force people to come up with more creative hazard strategies.  Which isn't a bad thing.

By the way, I vote YES.

[Jambo]

An emphatic no.  

Maybe players need to better explore ways to untap their rangers to deal with river (hundreds of butterflies, narya, cram, and forth he hastened, haz limit reduction, show things unbidden, bane of ithilstone to prevent recycling).  If you fear river, use card slots to deal with river.  If you fear corruption, use cards slots to deal with corruption.  If you fear combat, use chop cards or cancellers.  You can't have it all in a 30/30 deck.

Hmm.  One hazard card in the whole of MECCG dominates character selection and this is deemed fine... ?  Does that not seem crazy?  ;)

As far as I can see all River does in its current form is prevent interesting and unusual characters and resources from being played.  It regulates and conforms every character selection process into the same basic mould, even if it's not actually present!  And that's the worst thing about it. People instinctively take Ranger companies just because of the threat of Rivers!!  A whole subsection of characters are therefore never used, simply because of the risk involved in getting caught without several Rangers against a River strat.

Not only that, but in terms of dealing with this one card (River), you've then gone on to compare it to dealing with entire categories of hazards (corruption and combat)!  To me, when one card demands the same attention as whole group of hazards, that's the clearest indication yet that something's wrong with it.  At least with combat and corruption they can take many different guises and can be dealt with in a plethora of inventive ways.  :)

Regards

[stone troll]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  :? "Old" farts like me are just cranky about changing basic cards.

However, I can think of three cards off the top of my head that have forced basic company compostion or deck strategy changes:

1.  Beorning Skin Changers-forces use of high prowess warriors (and ways to keep them untapped) or Promptings straight up in the deck.

2.  Alone and Unadvised-forces company size of 4 or more or heavy dose of perm removal/cc helper cards.

3.  Rolled Down to the Sea-forced wholescale changes to the One Ring strategy.

[Khamul the Easterling]

Sorry that I'm not adding anything to the discussion, but I vote NO for this one.

[Gwaihir]

Hmm.  One hazard card in the whole of MECCG dominates character selection and this is deemed fine... ?  Does that not seem crazy?  ;)

Hmm.. if you put it that way, can we UEP something in such a way that diplomats are suddenly used?

I've got to admit that to me the many-River threat is a USA thing, and as such something that is currently commonly seen in a specific play 'group', but not dominating the game as a whole. In other places it either never caught on or phased out already. So it is, as Charles sketches, not beyond what the meta-game can handle.

[Yeah, you read correctly: I didn't vote.]

[Bandobras Took]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  :? "Old" farts like me are just cranky about changing basic cards.

However, I can think of three cards off the top of my head that have forced basic company compostion or deck strategy changes:

1.  Beorning Skin Changers-forces use of high prowess warriors (and ways to keep them untapped) or Promptings straight up in the deck.

2.  Alone and Unadvised-forces company size of 4 or more or heavy dose of perm removal/cc helper cards.

3.  Rolled Down to the Sea-forced wholescale changes to the One Ring strategy.

The primary difference between the first two and River is how you overcome them.  You listed two options for each, to which we might add:

for Skin-Changers; Goldberry or simply play Minion.

for Alone and Unadvised Corruption-resistant characters such as Hobbits or Minions.

Now let's list all the options for overcoming River:

1. Have untapped Rangers in a company.
2. Don't move for the length of the game.

. . . am I missing any?

Oh, and on a strictly humorous note -- the original text of River merely required a company to have someone with the Ranger skill -- no tapping, no real sense in playing multiple copies on a site -- talk about a change of a basic card.

[Jambo]

My sentiments exactly Bandobras.  Furthermore, this change is actually more of a change to the CRF's interpretation rather than a change to the card text per sé.  One could conceivably interpret the card this way already...

From a personal perspective I simply don't get this fascination with a continual overdose in Ranger-only companies...!? Can one of the naysayers please highlight why they like playing With tons of Rangers all the time?

Also on a humorous note, maybe we should consider making a [UEP, Europe, proposed] <______> &nbsp;