Jump to content



Photo

Petition to put "Sleeping Sentry" on a shadow card errata list.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Cunir

Cunir

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 06:22 AM

i suppose, flavour-wise, it doesn't make much sense that your characters always die every time. why cant they just be wounded?

it would be better if the card said something like "add 1 wound to each exhausted character". That way it is more like an ambush. Some characters might still end up dying, if they are already wounded or weak, but you have at least got a chance to survive it

i might actually start playing that quest like that from now on, with that house rule. it's better than just abandoning the card altogether



#22 Ellareth

Ellareth

    Member

  • Members
  • 168 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:50 AM

I think we need more "sleeping sentry".

 

That 1 trechery or shadow effects per adventure that tells you 'keep this card in mind, or you lose'

 

Trechery cards deserve as much attention as enemies and locations when building a deck, yet most decks are more about 'yeah let's kill giant spiders and orc chieftan, slaying legendary Balrog and Watcher or two along the way' than 'let's watch out for trechery of our enemy'.

 

Back in core set days, I needed to really watch who to quest and who to exhaust, how many hit points remained in my heroes because of direct damage cards (Orcs… Necro's Reach… Hummer shadow).

 

But when playing Mirkwood Cycle without Dol Guldur Orc set, Dwarrowdelf Cycle without Hazard of the Deep set, and Massing at Osgiliath, there is no tension at all, because all your questing characters are safe.

 

What we need is a way for each sphere to be able to prepare for Trechery cards (so far Spirit and Lore are only ones to have it), and couple of really nasty trecheries per pack that needs to be dealt in different ways (like Sudden Pitfall, I like it in a way it forces you to not quest until you get atleast 1 questing ally, and not defend with hero without a cancel trechery.. just changes the way I play).



#23 13edl@m

13edl@m

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:22 PM

I have to agree with Ellareth on this one.  The card is by all means negatable.(Unlike some horrible treacheries) Think: A test of will, elenor, and hasty.  My play group has both won and lost to this scenario.  We have the technology to build better decks.  We can build them better, faster, stronger. 



#24 Gunslinger83

Gunslinger83

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:15 PM

I think we need more "sleeping sentry" type treachery cards in future scenarios. Why? Because every scenario should have some kind of "motivator" to keep you from just sitting around and not progressing until you have a comfortable set of allies and attachments in play. If you move along quickly, and build decks that quest well, you have a much smaller frequency of running into the sleeping sentries and hazardous pit type treacheries. I like the tension and pressure to move quickly that fear of a card engenders. It just means you can't be lazy and slow build and takes away some of your control, which I like.


Pluse, I feel like the effects are pretty thematic… especially with the flavor text on a quest card mentioning you being worn out from your journeys.

 

I dearly hope FFG does not errata sleeping sentry, but rather makes more treacheries like it in the future.

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS