[UEP, Failed] Nazgul Attacks against the Balrog.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

You do have a point Bandobras with the One Ring, but usually it's not the Balrog himself but his companies who get it for him (because of the testing), so you'd have to devise another kind of ruling for that (if you still want to exempt the orcs/trolls from general nazgul attacks.)

"Any nazgul automatic attack against a balrog company is not detainment. Any nazgul attack against a balrog company which bears the One-Ring is not detainment.

The Mount-Doom argument is reasonable too, but not that solid, the Witch-King would not let you burn Gundabad either after all. I guess ICE didn't see many reasons for the Balrog's companies to venture to Mount Doom, or they would have made a specific version of the site, like they did for Cirith Gorgor/Ungol. Likewise Nurniag camp, Urlurtsu Nurn. Shelob's lair is a bit of a odd duck here. Perhaps the ruling could also include:

"Any nazgul attack against the Balrog's company at or moving to a site in Mordor is not detainment."
(Mordor being Gorgoroth, Udun, Morgul Vale) This makes it all very complex, but just letting nazgul attack the Balrog anywhere is not right imho.

[Bandobras Took]

This makes it all very complex, but just letting nazgul attack the Balrog anywhere is not right imho.

How are the Nazgul going to be attacking the Balrog "anywhere," especially when half the Balrog decks you see have him never sticking his nose outside Moria and simply using a Great Shadow to resolve any possible threat?

[Bandobras Took]

Drat, this is going to fail by 5%.

[Leon]

I think the discussion obscured a bit of what you hope to get with this UEP, Bandobras. I do hope the UEP comes through since I find it very logical and I would play it like you suggest already. I the rules are read rigidly the Nazgul autoattacks are certainly detainment now, even though people will not play it like that.

[|Highwayman|]

a bit off topic, I just noticed this:

Given that the Balrog has Barad-Dur raiding cards

and I can't think of any such card that Balrog has...
can anyone help me out here?

[Bandobras Took]

Sorry, meant Under-Courts -- you know, lower Barad-Dur?

[|Highwayman|]

Sorry, meant Under-Courts -- you know, lower Barad-Dur?

ahh, now I see
I got wacked down there by Nazguls a few times (been playing that the note on some sites about all attack keyed there attack normaly not as detainment overrides the rule the nazgul attacks should always be detainment)

[Bandobras Took]

At the date of closing the vote, there were 8 in favor and 5 against -- the 66% minimum was not achieved, so the UEP failed.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

If you'd stick to the automatic-attack UEP, I'd vote in favor (so that would pass then I guess)

[Sly Southerner]

I think this failed for two reasons:
1. You tried to change two things in one UEP: nazgul automatic attacks and nazgul attacks against a company containing the Balrog.
2. Editing the UEP half way through created confusion.

You may find a simpler UEP (see above suggestion by Thorsten) has a greater chance of success.

The difficulty also is that even with just automoatic attacks you are still affecting three site cards with one UEP so you would have to think hard about how to word it to keep it simple.