You must log in or register to comment.
I plan on making the Lord of the Nazgul with a side of the Ring tempting my Wraiths. I think it will be a fun deck to play.
It’s okay. I think it could have been named better.
I understand their reasoning for not having a downside as part of the main mechanic, but at the least I would have expected more cards to add a downside. Like some powerful mythic with a really strong effect whenever the Ring tempts you, but when it temps you for the Xth time you lose the game, something like that.
The mechanic is very nice flavor-wise and fine as a mechanic but it doesn’t scratch any of my MTG itches. I’m a fan of combos and engines, and the mechanic does not lend itself well to that play style.
Not a fan of it being all upside. At a glance it doesn’t seem as annoying as Initiative, but that’s a low bar.
Feels convoluted in a mildly negative way.
I think the way it works is fine I just wish that when you were tempted you didn’t have to pick a different creature every time to become a ringbearer, moving the ring around is kind of a pain. You should be able to pay mana or pay 1-2 life to keep that creature as your ring bearer.
You don’t have to move it around, you just have to “choose a creature you control”. It can be the same creature every time.
Oh, I just re-read it. That kinda sucks…even more of a flavor fail than I thought. I saw it as the ring tempting other creatures and them fighting over it. Dang that’s just, here’s a good aura essentially.
Yeah, pretty much. Was hoping for more from such an important mechanic to the setting.
Good news: you don’t have to! Changing the creature is optional. It says so on the ring card, “choose a creature to become or remain the ring-bearer”
