[UEP, Failed] Nazgul Attacks against the Balrog.

[Bandobras Took]

Name:Nazgul Attacks against the Balrog.

Status:Proposed

Proposal maintainer:Bandobras Took

Categories:Consistency, Theme

Errata:Nazgul attacks against the Balrog's company and Nazgul automatic attacks against any company of a Balrog player are not detainment.

Problem:Right now, any Nazgul attack against the Balrog or his companies is detainment.  This makes no sense, as it means the Nazgul auto-attacks at Balrog sites are detainment, which I don't think was the intent.  Given that the Balrog has Barad-Dur raiding cards, it seems that Sauron's highest servants wouldn't merely ask him a couple of questions.

Solution:Make Nazgul attacks non-detainment for the Balrog player's companies.

Pros:A bit more consistency.

Cons:Might be a little too dangerous; I don't know, as I'm not familiar with the Balrog.

Discussion:  Would this really impact the Balrog?  How often are Carn Dum/Dol Guldur/Minas Morgul visited by the Balrog?

Voting started at:3/13/07

Voting ends at:4/1/07

[Zarathustra]

Since when are the nazgul auto-attacks at balrog sites detainment?

Also, Balrog companies face normal attacks from all creature types at darkholds and all underdeeps sites....

[Bandobras Took]

Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.

Therefore those Nazgul auto-attacks are detainment because those sites say "Creatures keyed to this site attack normally, not as detainment."

A Balrog company moving through Angmar (and not stopping at a site therein) will face detainment attacks from the Witch-King instead of normal attacks.  As I said, neither of these makes a whole lot of thematic sense.

[Wacho]

I think those Nazgul auto-attacks are not detainment.  Otherwise all of the orc/troll auto-attacks at places such as mt. doom, sarn goriwing, etc. would be detainment for minions as well.  I believe auto-attacks should be considered as a special category and not included in the rules related to detainment attacks.  Nothing else makes much sense.

[Bandobras Took]

Maybe it would be useful to restate the guidelines for detainment attacks:

Card text will sometimes state that an attack is a detainment attack.

Any Nazgûl attack against a minion company is a detainment attack.

Any attack keyed to Dark-domains, Shadow-hold, or Dark-hold is a detainment attack.

Any Orc, Troll, Undead, or Man attack keyed to Shadow-land is a detainment attack.

Any Nazgul attack means precisely that -- any attack.

Since auto attacks are not keyed to a site, they will not be detainment unless it says so on the auto-attack itself -- unless it is a Nazgul attack, because all Nazgul attacks against minion companies are detainment.  This is not just hazard creature attacks, this is not just specific keying.  This is any Nazgul attack.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but this is how the rules say it is.  Therefore, I'm proposing this UEP.

[Jambo]

Nazgul hazard creature attacks keyed to those Balrog sites would attack normally, as per site card text, instead of detainment as per LE rules.

[Sly Southerner]

How about we get a ruling on this before going further?

[Bandobras Took]

Nazgul hazard creature attacks keyed to those Balrog sites would attack normally, as per site card text, instead of detainment as per LE rules.

There's no question of that.

But a Nazgul attack keyed to Angmar, Southern Mirkwood, or Imlad Morgul is going to be detainment.  A Nazgul attack using Fell Beast is going to be detainment.  A Nazgul attack enabled by the tapping of an agent is going to be detainment.

How about we get a ruling on this before going further?

If somebody can come up with a good reason for saying the Nazgul auto-attacks against a minion company aren't detainment, then we'd need a ruling -- otherwise, it seems pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, it certainly seems as though everybody's been playing as though not all Nazgul attacks against a Balrog player's company are detainment -- which certainly speaks well for saying "yes" to this UEP.

[Leon]

I'd think that nazgul auto-attacks and attacks at site that specifically mention that the attacks there are non-detainment should be non-detainment, as stated before. But if a group of trolls and orcs wanders around I'd think a nazgul would go and ask what they think they are doing, so an attack keyed to darkdomain or with some other effect should be detainment.

Conclusion: I'd keep things the way most people are already playing it as it seems.

Before I can vote on this idea I would like a decision about the rules as they are as Adrian mentioned.

[Bandobras Took]

Before I can vote on this idea I would like a decision about the rules as they are as Adrian mentioned.

This is becoming distubingly similar to my Mumak UEP, where half the problem was convincing people to actually read the cards involved.

Reasons for Nazgul Auto-Attacks at Balrog sites to be detainment:

1)  Any Nazgul attack against a minion company is detainment
2)  A Balrog Player's companies are Minion Companies
3)  The Balrog sites say nothing (as in nothing -- rien, nada, nil) about attacks that are not keyed to the site.

Therefore, the automatic attacks are detainment.

Reasons against:

. . .

It's kind of weird for people to be asking for a ruling when one of the sides on the issue has completely failed to produce anything remotely resembling a valid argument for Nazgul auto attacks not being detainment against the Balrog.  The closest thing has been Wacho's post, but that was unfortunately based on an incorrect assumption regarding detainment attack rules in general.

But if a group of trolls and orcs wanders around I'd think a nazgul would go and ask what they think they are doing, so an attack keyed to darkdomain or with some other effect should be detainment.

I'm not sure -- that becomes a little ridiculous when Nazgul attacks keyed to Mount Doom are going to be detainment -- I can picture the conversation now:

Witch-King:  Where are you going?

Mountain-Maggot (gesturing at Bolg, Buthrakaur, and Azog):  We're going to Mount Doom, where we'll make extensive maps (Maker's Map), raise a personal army (A Few Recruits, Snaga-Hai, Great Bats), then untap the site with these old Records Unread and burn the place to the ground (Tempest of Fire).

Witch-King:  Right-o.  Carry on, then.

And I'm not even going to go into Nazgul Are Abroad not affecting the Balrog even if he's got the One Ring.

[Dirhaval]

I understand that those detainment AA is a bit off the story-line.
I like to keep the AA as detainment; this will get the Balrog away from
those squatting and Cheesy decks. If real AA scares a Balrog player from visiting Carn Dum, then I will laugh at him till Baliman's brew catches up with me.


TALE-END OF A HOBBIT JOKE  - Hero Permanent Resource Event.
[MP: 2(6)]
Playable when an untapped Balrog does not face an automatic-attack
of 15 prowess or less  with another untapped character in his company.
You may laugh and gain the pleasure of a scared Balrog. Place this card in
your MP pile when you defeat an automatic-attack with at least one strike of 15 prowess or more. You may continue to laugh. Can be played as a minion resource. You get 6 MP if the Balrog attack is type hobbit.

[Bandobras Took]

I'm not sure it will get the Balrog off cheesy squatting decks -- Stinker and Orcs of Moria still remain a great and safe source of MPs for the Balrog player.

The main thing that bothers me is the inconsistency -- the Witch-King attacks them in Angmar, and it's detainment, then attacks them at Carn Dum, and it's for real, then there's a Nazgul auto-attack that's -- surprise! -- detainment.  Can't Sauron make up these Nazgul minds?

[Sly Southerner]

It's kind of weird for people to be asking for a ruling when one of the sides on the issue has completely failed to produce anything remotely resembling a valid argument for Nazgul auto attacks not being detainment against the Balrog.  

The main reason I asked for a ruling is because the curent NetRep (Mark) has posted above (unofficially) that he disagrees with you.

[Zarathustra]

I'm afraid I did not consider the argument Ben had in mind.  Many people assume that all auto-attacks at and are detainment because they mistakenly think that auto-attacks are keyed to their sites.  I should have known better than to think Ben had made this mistake.  He's clearly right about the nazgul auto-attacks, unless someone can find something until-now-hidden saying otherwise.

[Wacho]

Oops.  I'm afraid I didn't look up those detainment rules before posting.  I still think that the Nazgul auto-attacks are supposed to be non-detainment; but the literal reading of the rules appears to be otherwise.  

As far as the UEP goes I think you should limit it to the Nazgul auto-attacks and any Nazgul attack against the Balrog's company.  I think that it likely that a group of orcs and trolls running around wouldn't be attacked out of hand by a Nazgul.  So I'd vote yes for the auto-attacks and attack's against the Balrog's company to be non-detainment.  As it stands though I think the UEP is a little too broad.