[UEP, accepted] Khamul the Ringwraith as an Avatar

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:46 pm

Name: Khamul the Ringwraith (Avatar).

Status: Accepted

Proposal maintainer: Jamie Pollock

Categories: Balance

Errata: Khamul the Ringwraith
Unique. Manifestation of Khamul the Easterling. Can use sorcery. -2 direct influence in Heralded Lord mode. +1 prowess in Fell Rider mode. +2 to all body checks resulting from failed strikes against or successful strikes from Khamul. As your Ringwraith, one Ringwraith follower in his company may be controlled with no influence. You may bring this follower into play during your organization phase.

Problem: Have you ever seen a minion Khamul deck other than my fun one? No. Why?  Because he's arguably the worst Ringwraith as an Avatar.  He's second to both Akhorahil and the Witch-King for active RW decks; probably even Ren too. He's even terrible as a squatter.  In fact his only use is as a RW follower to the Witch-King.

Solution: Make it so that any creature/character targeted by Khamul has its body reduced by -2.

Pros: We would then have the CvCC RW that Khamul was supposed to be and he might just see some table-time as a result of this change.

Cons: I don't see any. Too powerful an avatar change?  I doubt it considering you have the Akhorahil Malady deck and the Witch-King with the fiery blade both already surpassing the "acclaimed" hero killer.  

Rationale: He was meant to be the hero killer and given that CvCC is still difficult to successfully orchestrate for RWs against heroes, this might offer a welcome chance to shift the balance for the 2nd in command.

Discussion:

Voting:
Jamie: YES
Eric: YES
Michiel: YES
Mark: YES
Christoph: NO
Henrik: NO
Petter: YES
Kris: YES
Adrian: NO

SUMMARY: YES=6, NO=3, TOTAL=6, %=66

Voting started at: 20 Jan 05

Voting ends at: 03 Feb 05

Edit: updated to clarify the change.

Lord Leuber · Post by **Lord Leuber** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:03 pm

Basically, you mean "+2 to all body checks resulting from failed strikes against Khamul"?

If so, then yes!

Thorsten the Traveller · Post by **Thorsten the Traveller** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:04 pm

I vote yes too.
ICE saw him as an attacking ringwraith, but why only target elves, that's strange indeed. ringwraith attack decks could use some promotional efforts.
I myself don't see Khamul as an attacking ringwraith however, he couldn't even smell 4 hobbits sitting under his nose

and Khamul isn't that useless either, he's a ranger with some influence, good prowess in fell rider and can have a follower without that stupid card they ride together. also, sorcery is very usefull when attacking.

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:11 pm

For balance purposes I wonder if it would be better to replace -2 to the body of an elf character with -1 to the body of a character.
That way you are giving something and taking something away.

BTW Jambo I think you have a typo in your errata. Did you just mean to remove the word "Elf"? It is unclear to me what "-2 to the body of any strike from Khamul" means.

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:13 am

Essentially what Lord Leuber said!

And I don't think a -1 to the body of a character would inspire me to use Khamul, given the Witch King with the fiery blade or an Akhorahil malady deck are substantially better at doing the same job..

henrikbe · Post by **henrikbe** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:50 am

"...failed strikes against Khamul", would that also include successful strikes from Khamul in CvCC? Or is it supposed to only affect CvCC? This needs to be clarified a bit, I think. As it stands now, it will only affect hazards and opponent attacks. That doesn't make him an attacking ringwraith, just a good defender.

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:26 am

In short: YES.

In CvCC everyone is considered to be facing a strike, whether attacking or defending. Hence the playing of cards that effect strikes is legal for both, e.g. Risky Blow. Khamul's ability would therefore be in effect when defending or attacking.

The big difference is that only the defender is considered to be facing an attack.

Lord Leuber · Post by **Lord Leuber** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:22 pm

Jambo wrote:In short: YES.

In CvCC everyone is considered to be facing a strike, whether attacking or defending. Hence the playing of cards that effect strikes is legal for both, e.g. Risky Blow. Khamul's ability would therefore be in effect when defending or attacking.

The big difference is that only the defender is considered to be facing an attack.

Exactly, Jamie. In fact, I copied my line from the notorious 'suggested changes to card texts' topic, where I put it before, after copying it from the balrog weapon(s) (either the Whip or the Thong). And, they work the same way.

Zarathustra · Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:50 pm

Please change the exact wording of the erratum to what Leuber suggests, and I think I'll vote yes to this one. Khamul sucks right now.

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:26 pm

Original post updated to clarify erratum as per Lord Leuber's post. AS a result I've also added Mark down as a yes!

I've love to see the World Champ make a good Khamul deck if this change ever came into effect !!

Lord Leuber · Post by **Lord Leuber** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:42 pm

Jambo wrote:Original post updated to clarify erratum as per Lord Leuber's post. AS a result I've also added Mark down as a yes!

I've love to see the World Champ make a good Khamul deck if this change ever came into effect !!

As soon as I can use this change in a tourney, I'm going to Ride Against the Enemy with this guy!

Sly Southerner · Post by **Sly Southerner** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:10 pm

+2 to all body checks seems very powerful, especially when the original version only applied to Elf characters. This would make it easier to kill any hazard creature eg Dragons, Ents etc etc. I've never tried to put together a Khamul deck, but isnt this quite a big change? Doesn't it go further than CvCC?

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:16 pm

Killing creatures isn't that much of a plus for minion, especially RW. I don't foresee that being a problem. CvCC is still really hard to pull off for non-Akhorahil RW decks duer to cancellers, rivers, etc. At least for Akky, one has the advantage of all the magic cards to arrive at the site unharmed and untapped. Getting Khamul tapped would simply mean the defender then sacrificing a pleb for the cause..

Khamul the Easterling · Post by **Khamul the Easterling** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:28 pm

The modification of any bodycheck as claimed in the original proposal is too strong IMO. I don't see the need to make Khamul stronger than he is. So, I vote: NO

Jambo · Post by **Jambo** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:01 pm

The modification to the body check is only major if the RW can initiate CvCC, something that RW's cannot naturally do very easily with all the support cards they need.. The only successful hero killing RW at a competitive level is Akhorahil (maybe occasionally the Witch King with Fiery blade) and to date I've never seen a Khamul deck. The thought of him being considered "already strong" seems a grave over-exaggeration.

Regardless, I have added your NO to the list.