Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gibby

  1. Indeed, the Red Book is off the scale. I though Hobbits were just fine with plenty of fair options and a variety of builds already; seeing this kind of support is somewhat surprising.
  2. Rules question: Does Daisy get a willpower boost from her signature weakness? The JD Necronomicon is a tome asset, but I am not sure whether as a weakness it is controlled by the player. To my recollection it was ruled that Roland's Cover Up signature weakness was not owned by the player (and hence its action could be triggered by any investigator at the right location), but I am not sure whether this ruling is based on Cover Up being a weakness or it being a treachery. In the first case, the JD Necronomical being a weakness, neo-Daisy would not get a WP boost. In the second case she would as she controls the asset.
  3. I suspect that this is the first in a series of print-your-own content. If so, it’s a nice way of FFG to give a nod to the community. I’d still be nice to have a way to get an official quality print of the new cards somehow.
  4. I am a bit puzzled (but not judging in any way) as to why a product that looked dodgy to begin with (featuring a well known hook and reel monetisation scheme), was confirmed to be dodgy beyond redemption and now appears to be dead is being mourned. Is it for the staples and foils in the introductory hook?
  5. Always great to see new community content! I liked that in the second episode the background made the text more readable (as compared to the first episode). The format is great. I like the premise of ‘keeping it real’ and looking at actual applications that go beyond theorycrafting. Subbed!
  6. From what we know: 1. The to be released collection is not the full game (insufficient volume). 2. FFG has made no announcement of this. 3. Distribution is UK/Ireland only. 4. The new golden rule is “if you don’t know what something means, ignore it” (says so on tue pictures on the CotR fb page). 5. The promotion of this product relies on an initial bait offer and tacky (non)-descriptions of what the game is actually about. 6. Caleb was not aware of this. For me the conclusion at hand is that this is a local attempt to cash in on existing material targeting an audience that is not aware of the current game’s existence. I think it is safe to say that this has nothing to do with the future (or non-future) of the game itself. Presumably, the reason we haven’t heard from it by FFG is that the product is not for the core gamer audience.
  7. Fair points. I guess no pony heroes then - poor Bill. I’m intrigued by Gildor because of the shenanigans he enables. Without having it thought through, here is what my impression is based on: -Vilya is a thing. A single exhaust can set up two activations. -Works fine with hero Gandalf. -Combined with shuffle effects lets you sub dead cards. -Likely fun with hero Erestor. Drew a card you don’t want now, but next turn? Gildor can help. -He’s a friend of dwarven miners and can go hide a cache or two, so Zigil Miner can go to town. The exhaust is a steep price to pay, but surely worth it in a variety of scenarios.
  8. Ad-hoc evaluation of unique allies as contract targets: General consideration: The expectation is that the best targets are those that have low stats, but are highly costed for amazing and recurring abilities. Lore Anborn: 8 threat cost, fair stats, relevant traits. Recurring traps is a relevant ability. Fair target. Leadership Anborn: 8 threat costs, fair status, relevant traints. Increase engagement cost and dealing damage ok, but not amazing. Ok target. Angbor the Fearless: 5 threat cost for a fair quester. Relevant traits. The valor trigger nombos with the low threat cost. Niche target. Arwen: 5 threat cost, relevant traits and her tried and proven ability make her a good target. To consider: her ally cost of only 2 which is part of what makes her great in the first place. Also you can't use her hero version. Good target. Azain Silverbeard: 7 threat cost, relevant traits. The ability is interesting, albeit a bit niche. Could be an interesting pick for quests with a number of low HP enemies. Niche target. Barliman Butterbur: Nope. Beechbone: The general problems with ents is that it is their ally cost that makes them attractive. Paying for the stats in threat and starting with an exhausted hero is meh. Beorn: 13 threat costs makes him one of the more expensive hero options out there. His ability is likely a tad better then Tactics Boromir discard ability, but then Beorn lacks his mad readying skills. Niche target. Bifur: Nothing to see here. Bilbo Baggins: 4 threat costs for a 2WP quester that does not die to 1 damage. Looks like a good deal. Starting with a pipe is also nice. I expect that he will be a popular target. Good target. Bill the Pony: The only way to get a hero with the coveted pony trait. Someone will play it for that reason alone, but other than that not very interesting as the main selling point of the ally is that its resource cost is 0. Spirit Bofur: Nothing to see here. Tactics Bofur: 7 threat costs for 2WP, 2 ATT and 3 HP is ok. The ability to repeatedly tutor for weapons will surely make him see play. Good target. Bombur: Maybe against quests with high threat underground locations? Very niche at best. Boromir: 9 threat cost with two relevant abilities and traits are likely sufficient to make him see play. The contract's readying limitation does matter here. Fair target. Brok Ironfist: Not very exciting to say the least. You could replace hero Brok by ally brook if the latter bites the dust just for the memes. Meh target. Ceorl: A hero that can be passed around the table. Very interesting. Fair target. Damrod: Discard for small benefit. Not very interesting. Meh. Denethor: Pay for stats with only downside abilities? Pass. Derwine: 7 threat costs for 3DEF 3P sentinel with built in shadow cancelling? I expect that this will see play. Good target. Derufin: Discard for small benefits? I do not see the point. Meh. Dori: His ability to take damage instead of a hero does not shine here. Pass. Dwalin: Blank ability. Pass. Spirit Elfhelm: Hot tech against certain quests. Niche target. Tactics Elfhelm: Blank ability. Pass. Elladan and Elrohir: Ok alternative to their hero versions with lower threat cost, lower HP and lower off-stat (the one that is not boosted by the sibling). Interesting to have options against Orc heavy quests. Fair targets. Elrond: 11 threat cost for an additional card at the start of the game and a body does that does not stick around? Pass. Emery: Blank ability: Pass. Eomund: Even though his ability requires to discard him, the effect of readying everyone Rohan can be powerful. Niche target. Eothain: 8 threat costs puts him in actual hero territory. His ability is ok, but not spectacular. Also Imrahil exists. Niche target. Erestor: 6 threat costs for an interesting ability that is not quite as extreme as that on his hero counterpart. Good target. Leadership Faramir: This was featured in the article, so it better be ok. I think it is. Ok target. Lore Faramir: Surely there has to be a quest or two where his ability matter during setup (depening on the precise rules for setup order). Niche``? Farmer Maggot: Meh. Fili: Meh. Firyal: 9 threat costs for a good quester with an amazing ability. Good target. Forlong: Everyone's favourite unique outlands ally as another hero? Surely this will be a thing with Hirluin and outlanded Imrahil. Good target. Gaffer Gamgee: 3 threat cost for a hobbit hero will put a lot three hobbit decks comfortably into secrecy territory. The ability is niche, but relevant. Ok target. Galadriel: Nope. Another white council member that does not like this contract. Galdor of the havens: Same stats as his hero version, but a interesting different ability. Will see play. Good target. Galion: 1 threat cost for a third hero will be good enough to make it into secrecy decks wanting another spirit hero. Ok target. Gamlin: Ability to recur Rohan allies on a stick may make this good enough. Meh stats for 6 threat costs. Niche target. Ghan-Buri-Ghan: If you ever wanted a wose hero, here is your chance. For only for threat cost, is ability is quite ok. The discard ability will rarely be used, but it's a nice bonus. Good target. Gildor: Hero quality stats and cost with an amazing ability. This will enable new decks. Good target. Gimli: 9 threat cost for an allrounder make him fairly expensive. Relevant ability. Ok target. Gleowine: 3 threat costs for card draw on a stick make this a Beravor light that will fit in a number of secrecy decks. Good target. Gloin: Nope. Glordfindel: 11 threat costs with a hero-level ability make this an eligible target. Fair target. Grimbold: Discard hero to feint? Not great, but you get a 2 WP tactics hero for 6 threat cost. Niche target. Guthalf: 6 cost sentinel tactics hero. Niche target. Gwaihir: If you always wanted a Gwaihir hero, but the actual hero Gwaihir is too expensive for you, then this will do. The response will fizzle though. Too bad. Meh. Halbarad: Too high cost for an all-rounder hero. Ability not relevant enough. Meh. Haldir of Lorien: Also too high cost for all-rounder. Ranged and sentinel are nice though. Niche taret. Halfast Gamgee: 5 threat cost leadership hobbit hero that quests for 2 and comes with a free resources. This will go in a number of hobbit secrecy decks. Good target. Hama: Meh stats and discard to use ability. Very very niche at best. Henamarth Riversong: Everyone's favourite scrier now collects 1 lore resources for round for 3 threat cost. Squishy, but good. Good target. Ingold: 5 cost for a strong leadership quester. Why not? Fair target. Ioreth: Covered in article. Good target. Jubayr: Defender that discards shadow cards. Good target. Kili: Nope. Landroval: The question here is whether he can bring himself back. Need some rulings, but likely niche. Leaflock: An ent. Niche. Leogolas: Nice to have options. Good stats, traits and ability. Good target. Lindir: Not sure on the rule here. If his ability triggers before you draw the starting hand, then this may be fantastic, but that I doubt that this is the case. Meh otherwise. Mablung: A 5 threat cost hero that quests for 2 in ok. The ability to increase an enemies engagement cost (if the setup timing allows it to trigger) is very narrow in application. Niche target. Meneldor: Another mediocre way to get an eagle hero. Niche for that thematic reason, but meh otherwise. Merry: 4 threat costs for a 2WP quester that doesn't die to a single damage. If you can afford 3 threat cost more for Sam, then this will be the better option unless you already run him. Niche target. Nori: 6 threat for an ok ability in a dwarven mining deck. Ok target. Orophin: 6 threat for a good quester/attacher stat distribution with ranged. Ok target. Pippin: 4 threat for 2WP and 2HP is ok. Both abilities are very relevant, makeing him a stand-out amongst hobbit targets. Good target. Prince Imrahil: Nombo time! Quickbeam: An ent. The main selling point as an ally is his ridiculously low cost. Less good as a hero, though the readying make this playable in some cases I suspect - even with the contract limitation on readying. Niche target. Robin Smallburrow: 5 threat cost for a 2 quester and an ability that is only occasionally useful at best. Ok, but there are likely better options. Ok target. Rosie: Everyone's favourite female leadership hero. Good target. Rumil: Ok stats and ranged, but nothing more. Meh. Sam Gamgee: I think the hero version is the better one here. However, this may find a spot in a hobbit deck that is looking for another spirit hobbit that isn't Pippin. Skinbark: Does nothing the first round, but the ability may be good enough in some quests. Haven't checked. Niche. Sulien: 3 WP for 7 threat cost is ok, but in spirit you could pay 1 or 2 threat more to get Lothiriel or Eowyn. Niche target. Wigalf: I suppose the readying ability makes him ok, but not exciting. Ok target. Yazan: Hero grade stats and hero grade ability (albeit on the weaker side). Probably the worst of the Harad allies as targets. Ok target. In my count that makes 17 good targets and a lot of other options to play around with. Also nothing seemed OP. A very interesting contract overall, that opens up a wealth of deckbuilding options. Happy to see this contract!
  9. Apologies for the necro. I just stumbled across this thread in a google search and couldn’t help but be amazed at how many wishes have come true three years later. Saga completed, ally Merry and Pippin, Dale trait explored, hero Radagast and Saruman, famous artifacts, agendas (in the form of contracts), Thranduil hero, Rosie ally (and she delivers!), Smeagol hero, revised core set (HoG fixed, but SoG left untouched in its imba glory), heck we even got a versus mode of sorts!
  10. You are not alone in your criticism. Common causes of grievances with the Hobbit saga scenarios are the riddle mechanic and the Smaug induced nothing-you-can-do-about-it board wipes. The good news is that things improve in the saga campaign spanning the three LotR books. Enjoy (even without the fancy lonely mountain treasures).
  11. Thanks for making the FAQ. I did have a look at it when searching for an answer to Q1 (not having the others on my mind yet). I now see that it answers Q3.
  12. Thanks for these answers! To elaborate a bit on the first point: During my first time reading of the rules I thought that it could thematically make perfect sense to strike where your team is already present with a base/outpost. A planet is big, why not show some force on the the other side? My first doubts came only when reading the rules for objectives during an assault on a system containing a base/outpost (with the defending player taking being the beneficiary of one of the base defence objectives). Common sense is nice if you are playing with sufficiently mature friends or when farsighted enough to make clear prior agreements. In other cases I prefer having clear rules to help avoid discussions that could otherwise unnecessarily taint the play experience. PS: I enjoy your I have you now blog. Did you ever finish the CC campaign you blogged about before taking a break (good to see you're back at it, btw)?
  13. When digesting the Corellian Conflict rules this weekend, several questions came to mind. I first tried finding the answers within the CC rules booklet itself, but either was blind to the relevant sections or look for something that wasn't there in the first place. Thinking the questions would be obvious, I tried the FAQ, google and this forum, but to no avail. Anyway here it goes. Any help is of course appreciated :). 1. When a player/team declares an assault, can that assault be declared at a location containing a base/outpost of the same team? It appears to me that this it at least not intended (the defending team would play the defending side in a station assault game, defending base the other team wishes to self-destruct), but it does not seem to be specifically disallowed by the roles. To answer the question why one would attack one own's base: Depending on the location of the other team's bases, one of the own team's bases may well be the highest scoring target on the map. If winning the assault wins the campaign and losing it doesn't end the campaign, then it may be preferable to attack one own's base instead of going for an all-out assault. 2. Can refit points be supplemented with resources points to repair scarred ships or squadrons? The rules allow both to be spent on repairs, but they don't specify whether they can be mixed for the purposes of repairing one and the same ship / squad. 3. If both teams are sufficiently close to the campaign point victory limit, who gets priority for declaring an all-out assault? I would suspect that an all-out assault is declared instead of a regular or special assault, meaning that the team who is not in the lead get to call an all-out assault first, but I couldn't find confirmation of this. Many thanks for your input!
  14. I would like some revisions to the keywords on core set cards. The 'archer' keyword seems obsolete and should be replaced with 'ranger' or 'warrior' on horseback archer and silverlode archer (the horseback archer is probably not a ranger). Edit: Nevermind, the "What if: Core Set Revisited" thread already raises that point. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/123002-what-if-core-set-revised/
  15. Crabble, I don't fully understand which are the instances of sphere rule related issues that your question "So where is the difference" pertains to. Let me take a blind stab and go through an examples of how Stand and Fight and A Good Harvest should work given their wording. A Good Harvest. The card reads: Action: Name a sphere. Until the end of the phase, you can spend resources of any sphere when paying for cards that belong to the named sphere. Example of allowed action: Name Tactics and play Thicket of Spears paying with a resource from say Aragorn, Denethor, and Baggin's sphere Bilbo each. Example of invalid action: Name Tactics and play Thicket of Spears paying with a resource from Aragorn, Denethor and Gandalf (Hero). In the latter case Gandalf does not belong to a sphere and hence his resources cannot be spend as tactics resources, even with A Good Harvest. Stand and Fight: Action: Choose an ally with a printed cost of X in any player's discard pile. Put that ally into play under your control. (The chosen ally can belong to any sphere of influence.) It seems painfully obvious that the text in parentheses was added as a clarification that the ability to recur allies is not restricted to Spirit allies. If its purpose had been to restrict its usage by excluding neutral allies, then it would have read "The chosen ally MUST belong to A (or ANY) sphere" or even "Neutral allies cannot be chosen". Also, in that case the role of the parentheses would not be very clear. Ignoring the added reminder text, nobody would have doubted that the card can be used to return Gandalf from a discard pile to play, except for those doubting that anything outside the Spirit sphere can be returned at all. I admit that the reminder text as it is phrased is a bit awkwardly. My guess is that the phrasing is an artefact of a designer not being aware of the existence an allies that does not belong to any sphere (Gandalf). If there were no sphereless allies, then the text would be perfectly clear in its function to express that the ability is not restricted to Spirit allies. The intention of the phrasing becomes less clear and confusing in the presence of the coreset's sphereless ally. However, even with the confusing wording, Gandalf is not excluded as a target (since it is nowhere stated that the chosen ally HAS TO (or MUST) belong to a sphere. The ruling that followed, as MightyRauros pointed out, was probably to prevent overly excessive Gandalf abuse in the early days of the game (as if Sneak Attack * 3 (6 with dwarven tomb) plus three hardcasts per player weren't enough). While I think that this was not the most appropriate way to address the Gandalf issue, I respect the designers' intention. What bothers me about the ruling is that it attempts to retcon the misguided reminder text by bending it beyond any reasonable interpretation of its original phrasing.
  16. I never understood the Stand and Fight ruling - it doesn't make sense to me. The card states "CAN belong to ANY sphere". For the ruling (that you can't play sphereless allies with S&F) to be coherent with its reasoning, it should read "MUST belong to A sphere". Personally, I choose to ignore it.
  17. Cool, thanks for the answer! Do you have an idea when the scenarios included in the base game take place? Suppose at the time we rescued our friend from the dungeons of Dol Guldur it had already been assaulted by the white council. Did they not destroy it entirely or take it over? How else could a Ringwraith retake it?
  18. Gibby

    The Dragon

    It does look interesting, though I would certainly be more excited about a city. I'm looking forward to future previews. I hope that after the corner expansions there will be a meta expansion expanding all expansions with new cards etc. as they did with Miskantonic Horror for Arkham Horror. The pile of adventure cards keep getting larger and larger while there are no new Highland and Dungeon cards.
  19. I bought a single copy the LotR LCG base set and will definately get the 60 "expansions". The fact that FFG decided to make the small expansions 20x3 played a major role in my decision of getting into the LotR LCG. When I learned that the base set would include one-ofs and two-ofs, I was a bit disappointed, but I accept their argument that they wanted to game to offer the best possible out-of-the-box experience which means a greater card variety. I would like to have all the deck building options available to me, but not for the price of another two core sets. I would however spend 10$-20$ for an "upgrade pack" that would complete the player deck cards found in the base game to three-ofs. It would also be a nice gesture from FFG towards its player base.
  20. Thaadd's posted reply put me somewhat at ease
  21. Gibby

    next expansion

    I'm still not overly concerned, but a sign of life - if just an official "be patient" - would be nice
  22. Concerning the print quality: I played cosmic encounter a while ago and the guy who owned it had the "alien species cards" (or whatever they are called) from the different expansions separated. There was a noticeable difference between the cards. I doubt it would get worse with print on demand content. Most of the turmoil around the PoD expansions for Death Angel revolved around the linen finish which the original DA cards have, but the PoD don't. For Alternate endings and characters in Talisman this is not a problem as they don't have linen finish.
  23. Gibby

    next expansion

    They "delayed" announcement of this year's big talisman expansion makes me a bit worried. I'd be very much relieved if we were at least told that it's coming at some point. It would be terrible if Talisman died when the expansions to come are the more exciting ones. On a different note, at the end of talisman's expansion cycle I would love FFG to publish an expansion expanding all expansions (like what they are doing with arkham horror) with new dungeon, highland, etc cards. It would be a great opportunity to bring some interesting elements of later expansions to the older ones. For instance, there is no reason why trinkets should be something exclusive to the highlands. I would just as well expect to find some fancy gem in the dungeon as I would in the highland. What about adventure cards that interconnect, say the dungeon- with the city-board? Plenty of opportunities for cool stuff!
  • Create New...