Jump to content

KlAve

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KlAve

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Europe, Denmark
  1. Bohemond said: First of all, your argument would preclude restricted lists not just in this game, but in all LCGs. You claim to want to follow tournament rules for your home play, but then effectively argue that such rules should not exist. As the game continues to grow, their will be a growing list of errata. In all likelihood, we will see some cards either restricted or banned at some point. Such rules are part and parcel of tournament rules in all CCG and LCG.The problem with those cards isn't in how they are played, its in how they shape the game as a whole. If you are a designer for the game and making up a scenario, you need to think long and hard about whether or not locations in a scenario provide a viable challenge in the face of the existence northern tracker. You are faced, especially in crafting scenarios that work for multiple players, with creating a set of locations that Northern Tracker trivializes, or a set of locations which will be exceedingly challenging without a tracker in play. Again, the game would play better and we would see better scenarios if northern tracker had never been printed. Banning is an extreme reaction and one that designers tend to avoid. but the restricted list is a viable alternative. If you don't like the concept of a restricted list you shouldn't be following tournament style rules. I see your point, but I still would consider a restricted list premature at this point. Again, we haven't seen a tournament yet - I have faith that FFG will rise above and challenge the power cards in ways we don't anticipate. Also Lord of the Rings LCG is a different beast from the other released LCGs in that we don't have any competetive play (until we see tournament play at least) - any "broken" card will mostly be ruining the game for the one playing it, not for the opponent. Yes, the Northern Tracker is powerful, but I have had many games, where I have drawn him or Gandalf or another powerful card and not played them, simply because it wasn't the best play at the time. I don't consider any of them game-breaking. Note that I play almost all of my games either solo or two-player, which is where Northern Tracker is least powerful - I can certainly see him trivializing content in a four-player game. In the end I will adhere to whatever guidelines FFG releases. I just hope they won't.
  2. Bohemond said: First of all, you haven't answered my question. How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game? In answer to your question, I have argued against the viability of the current scoring format longer than anyone else on these boards. It doesn't work well now and I am skeptical that it will ever work. That being said, I like the format of tournament style rules because they make for the best game play. I like playing with decks that have a minimum of 50 cards even though you are only required to play with that limit for tournaments. More importantly, I like the fact that designers build the game with that format in mind. For instances, I believe the game is designed and tested with 50 card decks, even though you aren't required to play with them. I think that if the game is designed with a restricted list in mind it would make for a better experience both for the 'hardcore' player, and for the 'casual' player who can just ignore the restrictions. Some players (myself included) like to adhere to the tournament rules (building 50 card decks) even though there aren't yet any tournament scene. For me, it's safe to say, that any restriction on, how I can play in a tournament would also limit how I would play casually. I believe that the adventure packs have shown, that FFG have a clear vision on how to challenge us players in ways, that preclude us from using the established power-cards to reduce the quests to neglible difficulty. I have noted, that players value cards and judge quests differentl. This suggests, that the issue isn't all that clear. In my view, a restriction list will only muddy the waters further.
  3. Bohemond said: The game would be better and more fun, for both the tournament player and the casual gamer, if Northern Tracker did not exist. We can get into specifics if you wish (they have been covered elsewhere), but the general stance that many people in the thread are tacking seems to be that erratas, restrictions or bans always bad. That simply isn't true. Those changes can improve games under the right circumstances. edit: just to be clear, I wouldn't errata a card or ban it in this case. I think the best solution would be to issue a restricted list for tournament play (even if their aren't tournaments). That way, casual players could ignore the list, just like they can ignore the 50 card minimum, if they wish. I would place Northern Tracker, Gandalf, Steward of Gondor and Unexpected Courage on the list. Given the way that restricted lists have been used in other FFG LCGs, I woul be suprised if we didn't eventually see one for this one. Then don't play with those cards - easy as that. Nobody is forcing you to, and if you enjoy the game more without those cards, by all means leave them out. I just culled my Northern Trackers from my "Prince Imrahil doing double duty"-deck, simply to see how the deck would work without them. I also don't have three Gandalfses for every deck, and often I don't play him, even if I draw him. Different meta-games create different problems caused by different cards - it's unreasonable to lay all the blame on those cards and it's equally unreasonable to think these problems are omnipresent.
  4. Glaurung said: But when we will have a first tournament almost 90% of the deck list will be same. And 72,3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You've stated your position time and again. I've got a suggestion (something I think you've already been told): Don't make your expert decks - make theme decks or decks that are weaker on purpose. If the game can't challenge you (a statement I find very hard to believe), then challenge yourself. As for tournement play: Let's burn that bridge, when we reach it.
  5. Having re-read the rules re: ranged characters, I still think that player 1 cannot assist player 2's ranged characters, if they attack an enemy engaged with player 1. However, if player 2 attacks an enemy engaged with player 3, player 1's ranged characters can participate, according to the rules. Maybe the next FAQ will have something on ranged characters?
  6. Svenn said: Anuviel said: Can a ranged character declare attacks on an enemy engaged with another player if that player who the enemy is engaged with does not declare an attack? Yes. There are 2 times when a ranged character can attack an enemy engaged with another player. Here is an example. Player 1 has a ranged character. Player 2 is engaged with an enemy. 1) During player 1's turn when he is declaring attacks he may choose to declare an attack with a ranged character against Player 2's engaged enemy. 2) During player 2's turn he may declare an attack against an enemy. If he does so then Player 1 may choose to have his ranged character participate in the attack. However, if player 2 does NOT declare an attack then player 1's ranged character cannot declare an attack because it is not his turn. Make sense? Re 2): You're right that player 1's ranged characters can participate in player 2's attacks, but only insofar as player 2 attacks enemies he is engaged with. If player 2 has any ranged characters that attacks an enemy engaged with player 1 or player 3, player 1's ranged characters cannot participate.
  7. While a nice idea, I don't think you can do that. Ranged allows you to attack enemies engaged with other players, either when announcing attacks yourself or when said player announces his attacks. The rules don't allow player x's ranged characters to support player y's ranged characters attacking anyone but player y. Sadly.
  8. booored said: crichtonfarscape said: what was your score? Congrats on your "Highlander" deck That name better stick for this deck!!! "Highlander" is a common term for any deck with only one copy of each card.
  9. Truth be told, I don't really care one way or the other. If the reprints would take away a spot from a new card, I would be against such a solution, but otherwise I'm indifferent. The "missing" cards don't impede my enjoyment of the game, and I am at a point where I could see myself buying a second core set - not just for the player cards, but for the tokens, trackers and encounter cards as well (building several ready to go quests is a boon in my optic).
  10. Good luck! One thing, remember that Forest Snare only can be played in the planning phase, which basically means that any enemy you want to snare gets to attack you at least once (barring other cards played). I'm not saying you have played it otherwise, but it is a wrinkle at lot of players have gotten wrong the first few games.
  11. Will Fuqua said: I actually find Hunt for Gollum the easiest to solo of what's been released so far. Passage Through Mirkwood would be the second easiest to solo. I haven't even tried soloing CatC or higher. As far as Glaurung, I don't like you. You're arrogant and hard to take seriously when most of what you say sounds simply exaggerated. You every right to like or dislike anyone you want, but for the sake of this community, let's all keep our opinions of each other to ourselves, please? I personally have found Hunt for Gollum harder than all you guys, apparently. I know, I'm not a good deckbuilder (heck, I've known that since M:tG revised), but still my experiences have been best with Rhosgobel, then Gollum, then Carrock - solo that is. Anduin I haven't played in ages, Mirkwood likewise. I really should try the core quests again, soon-ish
  12. Rashley's right on both accounts: From the rules, page 16: Whether an enemy is engaged through an engagement check, through a card effect, or through a player’s choice, the end result is the same, with the enemy and the player engaging one another. In all cases, the player is considered to have engaged the enemy and the enemy is considered to have engaged the player. And from the rules, page 15: If a location ever has as many progress tokens as it has quest points, that location is considered explored and is discarded from play. Hope that helps
  13. Svenn said: 1) Solo quests are definitely tough. If you enjoy a challenge though, they are a ton of fun. 2) The quests are mostly randomized, so it's never really the same game twice. The encounter deck doesn't change, but it's random what you get and when. I think you can play each quest quite a few times before it really starts to feel old. There are new quests being released every month too! 3) Each sphere has it's own style. Some are more focused around combat, some around questing. There is a good variety between the spheres I think. You will typically end up playing a 2 sphere deck most likely. 4) Adventure packs are definitely worth it. Each one comes with a new quest and a few more player cards for deck building. At only about $15 each there's really no reason not to pick them up. I concur. There is alot of gameplay in the core set, and I have found the three quests in the core set to be very replayable - certainly you'll want to play them over both to learn their particular challenges, and to get a feel both for game itself and for the various decks. The four sphere are very distinct in their style, and they feel very different in the way they play. The adventure packs expand the game both with regards to deck-building and to replayablity. The new quests are very fun and quite challenging. I like the solo game, but the game has been best with two players - the coop elements are fantastic. Plus you get to pin your losses on someone else I hope you try the game, and I hope you enjoy it.
  14. Narsil0420 said: I say no, it's a great experience with just 1 core set. You waste so much money and so many cards if you buy multiple packs. Basically you're only using 50 of the 250 cards with the second core set. What a waste, totally unnecessary! I've been obsessed with this game for a year now (ever since it was announced) and I've never felt the need to buy an extra core set. Seconded. After many many plays, I am at a point, where I am considering getting a second core set, but I have been very satisfied with the playing experience provided by the core set.
  15. Titan said: Although this interpretation would make her ability actually useful. But I agree that the second card should still be considered as "revealed", which makes her ability still suck. Worst hero in the game so far. Are you kidding? The ability to dictate, at least to a degree, what treacheries will hit you is invaluable, especially in quests like J2Rhogobel. She might not fit your playstyle, but worst hero? C'mon.
×
×
  • Create New...