Jump to content

tripecac

Members
  • Content Count

    331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tripecac

  1. Back in 2019 I made a point of playing LotR LCG at least once a week. I made it through Mirkwood, Dwarrowdelf, and the Hobbit saga. I then started Heirs of Numenor. And that's where I got stuck. Over and over I tried to beat "Peril in Pelargir" but never got close. I dutifully smashed my head against that scenario each weekend, but those sessions lost any semblance of "fun". The frustration was most likely due to the fact that I refused to abandon my Dwarf decks. I just didn't want to deck build. I kept hoping I would get a lucky card draw, but it never happened. Then, for my 2020 New Year's resolution, I decided to finally start Gloomhaven (which I'd bought more than a year ago). Once I got Gloomhaven unpacked and the rules read, I realised that Gloomhaven is not just a table hog, but a time hog... and that I really didn't have enough time (or mental energy) to play both Gloomhaven and LotR LCG on a weekly basis. So, I decided for 2020 to focus on Gloomhaven and put LotR LCG on hold (or "hiatus"). Although I haven't played LotR LCG since 2019, I still keep reading about it, listening to podcasts, and collecting the new packs and play mats. It's a terrific game, and I am still passionate about it... even though I don't play it. But this brings me back to the top of canonical decks. Over and over as I listen to podcasts (particularly Card Talk), I think about how nice it would be to deck choosing rather than deck building. I would much rather decide between one of a handful of pre-constructed themed decks... and not worry about making card choices myself. Gloomhaven has a little bit of deck building, but for level 1 characters your card choices are very limited... For example, for the Brute I think you need to pick 10 of 13 cards. So you are basically just choosing 3 cards NOT to use. This choice is very easy and fast compared to LotR LCG, where you have to select 50 cards from a set of many, many hundreds of cards. When I am starting a scenario in LotR LCG, I would like to pick a deck, try it a couple times, and if that doesn't work, pick a different deck. Nice and easy. I don't want to have to choose cards. At least, not until I have A LOT more experience with different deck types. Right now I just know Dwarves (Dwarrowdelf and Hobbit saga), since I don't really count those sloppy hodge podge decks I played back during the Mirkwood cycle. Dwarves were the first "real" decks I played, and so far remain the only "real" decks I've played. I've never tried decks based on Hobbits, Elves, Eagles, Outlands, or any of the other themes. Just Dwarves. And that's because I do not enjoy building decks from scratch. At all! So... Have there been any efforts recently in getting together some "canonical decks"? For example, I'd love something that would help me tackle Heirs of Numenor... as long as it's progression-style (at least at the cycle level, if not the pack level) and relatively thematic. I'm guessing it would be Outlands, since that's the archetype introduced in this cycle. I don't mind using cards from later in the cycle, so is there a "canonical" Outlands deck which is designed to get through this cycle?
  2. I've tried Perils in Pelargir many times, with different types of decks. and haven't gotten anywhere close. I'm 99% sure the problem is my deck building habits. Whenever I try to build a different style deck, I end up slipping in "just a few" favorites, and half an hour later, I end up with either huge decks (100+ cards) or the same old dwarf swarm decks I'm trying to get away from. I just can't seem to let go of my favorite cards. So I'd like to try someone else's decks for a change, with zero editing on my part. I play 2-handed, each covering 2 spheres, so I prefer to stick with that (so that I can experience all 4 spheres). I also play progression style based on what I've finished so far, so I can use cards from: 1) core set (I'm playing in OCTGN so can have 3 of each card) 2) Shadows of Mirkwood cycle 3) Khazad Dum 4) Dwarrowdelf cycle 5) Hobbit Saga (I've finished both parts) 6) Heirs of Numenor If the "Against the Shadow cycle" has some killer cards in it, then I wouldn't mind "cheating" by accessing those cards, but I don't want to go any further into the future than that. Given those requirements, is there a specific pair of decks you're recommend, for tackling Heirs of Numenor? If you don't know of specific deck recommendations, then is there a recommended way for me to *find* decks that meet those requirements, perhaps via ringsdb? Thanks!
  3. So, I finished the Hobbit saga, and finally managed to beat Lake-Town. I'm now tackling the first quest in Heirs of Numenor: Peril in Pelargir. Twice I tried it, and twice I got completely crushed within the first 3 or 4 turns. My decks (I play 2-handed) are not even close to making headway. Starting with 2 enemies in the staging area, and then drawing up to 2 more at the beginning of the quest phase, and then up to 2 more during staging... Both times I ended up having to fight 4 or 5 enemies on turn 1. So I couldn't really quest, and either ended up threating out or getting too many heroes killed to make it worth continuing. Peril in Pelargir feels so imbalanced (and "unfair") that, to be honest, it's very tempting to "take a break" for a few weeks/months/years and focus on other games. I can now see why so many people said that the Heirs of Numenor quests are painful and discouraging. Lake-town was hard. The Hobbit quests were confusing. But Peril at Pelargir is just plain depressing. Is this how you felt when you first tried it? Did it throw your momentum off for a while? And, if you persevered, what helped you get through? Did you overhaul your deck(s)? Shift to/from 1-handed? Play Easy Mode? Cheat? Or did you give up on the idea of beating each quest, allowing yourself to "fail forward" after X attempts, with no real consequences other than a bruised/battered ego (and perhaps some bent cards)?
  4. I tried Lake-Town again last weekend, and made it a little further (stage 2) but still got slaughtered. I definitely need to adjust my decks. Cards like Forest Snare are a waste, as is Thalin. I'd still like to stick with Dwarves, if possible, because that's the only archetype I know, and Dain's ability seems pretty awesome. Is Lake-Town relatively beatable with a Dwarf swarm? Or am I making things hard for myself?
  5. I'm trying The Battle of Lake-Town for the first time. Question 1: During setup, I drew Town-Baiting, which says Smaug makes an attack. However, Smaug is not in play. So, should I just ignore that card? Question 2: The active location is South Pier, which says "When faced with the option to travel, players cannot travel to other locations." Meanwhile, Fisherman's Dock says "Travel: If there is 1 active location, exhaust a hero to travel here". So, am I able to exhaust a hero to travel to Fisherman's Dock or not? Or does South Pier prevent me from doing that? Question 3: Can I travel to 2 Fisherman's Docks in one turn? Or can I only perform one "Travel" per turn, in which case I need to wait until a later turn to travel to the 2nd Fisherman's Dock? Question 4: Can I use 2 Travel Actions per turn? Example: Merchant's District has a Travel Action which lets me remove it to the victory display. Can I remove 2 Merchant's Districts per turn, or do I have to wait until the next turn? Question 5: Can I do a Travel Action in the same travel phase that I perform a normal Travel? For example, can I remove a Merchant's District and travel to a Fisherman's Dock in the same travel phase? Or does a Travel Action "consume" the entire travel phase? Question 6: When the locations in the staging area get too numerous, we just don't have a chance, because staging threat increases, burn damage increases, and we're too busy "fighting fires" to defend effectively against Smaug, let alone hurt him. I'm guessing this is a normal experience for first-time players. Is this one of those scenarios designed to force you to build a deck to beat it? In other words, is it a "puzzle" scenario? And are most of the standalone scenarios "puzzles"?
  6. I see what you guys are saying. And I definitely don't want this topic to turn into a 20 page leviathan. In terms of Caleb's rulings, this sentence seems to be key: I can understand why Caleb, as a designer, would not want players to be able to skip Stage 4B (which resembles a frantic action sequence in a movie). It's part of the "plot" of the quest. However, I think the word "immediately" (which both Caleb and I used) is open for interpretation. I am looking at page 21 of the Rules Reference Guide. In section III Quest Phase I can see the following "Framework Steps" listed: In my example, the quest stage changed before I had reached the end of 3.3 Staging. So, I hadn't yet reached 3.4 Quest Resolution (where you compute progress) yet. I still had more encounter cards to draw. 1) During Staging, an encounter card was drawn which forced the switch from Stage 2B to 4A (and then 4B). 2) After that, I resumed Staging (drawing and resolving encounter cards). 3) After that, I had an Action Window, in which I could use cards or effects to boost Willpower, tweak staging area threat, etc. 4) After that, I started Quest Resolution (comparing willpower vs threat to compute how much progress/threat would result from questing). 5) After that, I placed progress on active location until it was fully explored, and then resolved any effects of exploring that location. 6) Finally, I placed remaining progress on the current quest stage, which was 4B. Between the start of Stage 4B and the placing of progress on it, there was still quite a bit of activity (encounter cards, player actions, etc.). So, the defeat of Stage 4B was not "immediate" in terms of game timing (as page 21 of the rules reference clearly shows), even though I used that term casually in my previous post. When Caleb and I used the word "immediately", we did so casually, and, to be honest, a bit sloppily. In my case, I used it incorrectly. In Caleb's case, my guess is that he was trying to say that the overall intent was to get players to "feel the pain" of Stage 4B... but intent is fuzzy, and we're after crystal-clear game rules which we can apply again and again without having to repeatedly post questions like these on the forum. Once we understand the game rules, it is then our job as players to battle against them, using whatever tactics, tricks, and luck we can find! So if the designers leave a "weakness" in the rules (like a bare patch in Smaug's armour), then we, as players, should be permitted, and even expected, to take advantage of that bare patch... just like Bard did. So when Caleb said "immediately", did he mean: a) "within the same Framework Step" b) "within the same Phase" c) "within the same Round" or d) something else ? We don't know. We can only guess. And post questions about it. So what do the rules say? Page 12 of the FAQ clearly indicates that players can make progress against 2 different quest stages within the same Phase; they use Legolas in the Combat Phase as an example. Since the FAQ was updated long after The Lonely Mountain was released, I don't think we can brush off the FAQ's ruling as "out-dated" relative to the mechanics of The Lonely Mountain. So, if we can make progress against multiple quest stages in the Combat Phase, then why not the Quest Phase? Where is it written that the Quest Phase is "different" in that respect? In fact, you could argue that Legolas's multi-stage progress is happening during a smaller "time interval" (within Player Attack Resolution somewhere between 6.8.3 Determine Combat Damage and the following Action Window) compared to what's happening in The Lonely Mountain (3.3 Staging -> Action Window -> 3.4 Quest Resolution). So if Legolas can do it, why can't we? Is Legolas really *that* awesome??? After all, we're not talking about the movies now, are we? :) So why can't we change stages multiple times in the Quest Phase? So far the rules seem to be saying we can. In fact, the previous scenario had us doing just that!!! In Flies and Spiders, when we defeat Stage 1B, we go to Stage 2A/2B... and then within that same Quest Phase (and even the same Framework Step), a "When Revealed" effect forces the stage to change again, to Stage 3A/3B! The jump from Stage 1 to 2 to 3 all happens in the same Quest Phase. That very concept of multiple stage changes per Phase is still fresh in our minds when we start playing the next scenario, which is The Lonely Mountain. So at that point, it is only natural for the player to think that multi-stage progress is now just another part of the game. We were, after all, just shown that it could be done! And that FAQ ruling quite clearly supports the idea. Look, I understand that the designers of The Lonely Mountain may have "intended" for us to spend at least a round or two in Stage 4B. (And in I fact already did, having spent several rounds in 4B before returning to 2B for a second go at the treasure.) However, their rules are just not thorough enough to ensure that their intent is experienced by every player, every time through the game. They win some, they lose some... just like us. I don't know how the rest of you guys feel, but to me, the quests and cards in the Hobbit saga are the most confusing, frustrating, and "buggy" so far. I like the general idea of the quests. I like having Bilbo floating around, and the powerful Treasures. And I like the extreme focus of the encounter sets (which makes it easier to anticipate which sort of threats are coming at you)... But man, there are so many moments in the Hobbit saga where I feel like they needed to test this stuff more, and spend more time clarifying and smoothing out the rules. The Hobbit saga is a rough, awkward ride... like that Rhosgobel Rabbit sled. It's entertaining on the surface but ultimately becomes a little cringe-inducing. It feels rushed and clunky, like the movies. I'm glad The Hobbit saga exists, and I've enjoyed many moments while playing it, but it really could use a heavy revision. Of course, that would mean a 2.0, and none of us want that... because they wouldn't stop at The Hobbit. They'd go back and "2.0" everything. And soon we'd be broke again. With zero time left for anything else. And you can bet they'd neuter Steward of Gondor if they get a chance. And that's my Easy Mode. So I'll keep mumbling and grumbling my way through the Hobbit saga. Almost done with it now. Just 1 more quest to go. And after that will be... let's see... The Battle of Lake Town and The Heirs of Numenor. Sounds good to me. After these glitchy Hobbit quests, those should be a piece of cake, right?
  7. Page 10 of the latest FAQ says this (when talking about Legolas): I interpret this as meaning that if the quest stage changes for any reason, we do *not* interrupt the questing flow. Instead, it sounds like we do this: 1) replace the current quest stage with the new one 2) follow the setup rules on the quest stage (usually sides A and B) 3) continue drawing 1 encounter card per player (assuming both the old and new quest stage expect you to draw 1 per player - I'm not sure what happens if different stages require different numbers of encounter cards drawn per round and you are mid-way through drawing those cards) 4) compare your willpower vs the staged threat to determine if questing was successful 5) apply consequences of questing (based on rules of new quest stage) 6) if successful, add progress tokens to new quest stage (after adding them to active location, of course) Does that sound correct? If so, then if in my example, I have enough willpower to add 7 progress to Stage 4B, then I immediately jump back to 2B. That would definitely be helpful!
  8. Here's one situation: Croaking Crows in in play. First encounter card is a location. This causes progress to be put on Smaug the Golden. He's now got 6, so we immediately change to Stage 4A, which gets resolved and then flipped to 4B. Now, what happens to the rest of questing? Once we finish drawing encounter cards, do we resolve questing against the newest stage (Stage 4B in our example), which means we could possibly finish that quest stage the same turn? Or is questing aborted for the round, due to the change in quest stage?
  9. To me, playing LotR LCG 2-handed feels more like controlling multiple characters in a computer RPG (Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, etc.) - It still feels like a solo experience, just with more characters to control. If you play Journeys in Middle Earth, you will be forced to control at least 2 characters, so maybe that would help you get used to multi-character control?
  10. Just a quick update... I have stuck with the once-a-week routine, and it's been working out great! The Hobbit Saga has been a real pain to get through, though. I am finding its quests much more difficult and frustrating than the Dwarrowdelf ones. That said, it's neat having Bilbo floating around on the edges. Despite, or perhaps because of, the frustrating scenarios of the Hobbit Saga, I'm very glad I've been forcing myself to stick with the once-a-week schedule. If I hadn't created that "rule" for myself, I suspect I would have skipped a weekend or two or three or... and wouldn't have made as much progress as I have. So, although "momentum" requires effort, it does have the benefit of ensuring an overall sense of progress through the game, and plus, even the hardest, nastiest quests have their fun moments. I love it when my Dwarf swarm is finally kicking butt... and I love that sense of relief when I finally beat a quest I've lost repeatedly. Those infrequent, "hard-earned" moments are very satisfying, and they wouldn't happen if I didn't "force" myself to maintain momentum. It's a truly great game. A very hard one (for those of us who don't enjoy deck building) but also one that is very thought-provoking and emotionally/intellectually rewarding... when we finally win. TLDR: There is no winning without losing. And there is no losing without playing. So play.
  11. I'm glad you enjoy 2-handed! Out of curiosity, are you playing with real cards, OCTGN, or something else?
  12. Wow, 4 handed solo... That's a lot of OCTGN instances! Can it even be done? I can imagine it would hurt the brain. And not to mention the morale when you draw 4 encounter cards each turn, some of which are surges... sheesh! Some of the scenarios use the encounter deck as a timer (e.g., Hobbit Saga trolls). So playing 4 handed means you have 1/4 as many turns to finish the quest as 1-handed. Interesting idea, though...
  13. If you're into OCTGN, here are tips on playing 2-handed in OCTGN: https://talesfromthecards.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/a-quick-guide-to-octgn-two-handed/ I almost always play with OCTGN rather than physical cards, mostly because in building and resetting virtual decks is a lot faster. But OCTGN lacks the tactile appeal of board/card games, so I can see why many people prefer playing with the real cards.
  14. I definitely prefer 2-handed, and would never go back to 1-handed. If each hand uses 2 spheres, you have access to all 4 spheres, which means you never need to worry about "missing" any cards. Also, playing 2-handed means you have twice as many opportunities to boost not just one hand's cards but *both* hands' cards. (For example, Dain boosts all dwarves in play, not just the dwarves belonging to Dain's hand/"player"). Playing 2-handed might require a little more overhead, but it's not much, and the benefits will likely quickly overshadow the extra work. At least, they did for me.
  15. I see... and if they ever enter the discard pile in Stage 2, as either a shadow card or an "overquesting" card, we also move them from the discard pile to the staging area? That definitely makes it easier.
  16. This is the topic I read when researching the Stage 1 purse/key issue : It says that Caleb [Grace I presume] told us this: If there are no Troll enemies in play when Troll Purse or Troll Key are revealed, then they are placed in the discard pile. Cheers, Caleb Once I read Caleb's ruling, I stopped researching the issue. From then on, whenever I saw a purse or key in Stage 1, I put it in the discard pile and left it there. Is the consensus now that Caleb was wrong?
  17. Is there a place in the rule book or FAQ which says a card's "if [this card] is discarded" text is triggered whenever it is placed in the discard pile, regardless of where is was prior to the discard pile? If the "if [this card] is discarded" wording triggers every time the card is placed in the discard pile, then wouldn't that create an endless loop if Troll Key or Troll Purse is revealed or discarded during Stage 1? 1) discard the card (since no trolls) <-- or is this interpretation incorrect? Should the purse/key stay in the staging area until a troll arrives? 2) add the card to the staging area (triggered by "if [this card] is discarded" card text) 3) goto 1 Maybe what is throwing me is #1. When I first played this quest, I drew a Troll Key in Stage 1. Since there were no trolls, I googled what to do, and read that we're supposed to discard the card. So I did... and I played it like that the rest of my times through the quest. However, I just now did some more googling, and see that people say we should leave the key/purse in the staging area. This contradicts that earlier advice, but avoids the endless loop, so it seems more logically sound. However, that interpretation favours of the player, and usually we're supposed to interpret rules *against* the player. So is the Stage 1 discard interpretation incorrect? Would the correct thing be to keep the Troll Key and Troll Purse in play (in the staging area or attached to a troll) as soon as it is drawn or discarded, for whatever reason? Of course, that interpretation only works if we are allowed to obey the "if [this card] is discarded" wording. Are there other cards with "if [this card] is discarded" wording?
  18. I played using OCTGN, which had that errata in place. However, FAQ 1.9 says this: "When a card is drawn as a Shadow card, only its Shadow text is considered to be active." Therefore, when a Troll Purse or Troll Key is drawn as a shadow card, none of the non-Shadow text on the Troll Purse and Troll Key is "active", so it's as if those cards are totally blank. This means we completely ignore any text on the card which talks about what to do before or after it is discarded, since that text is effectively "not active". The only way those cards' text becomes active is if those cards are put into play "normally" (and not as shadow effects). Correct? Or is there a rule somewhere saying that sometimes, some parts of a card's non-shadow text can be regarded as "active" even when the card is drawn as a shadow card? I've seen other cards where the shadow effect refers to the non-shadow effect, but that sort of text is not present on Troll Purse or Troll Key, so my interpretation is that those cards are treated as blank cards when resolved as shadow cards.
  19. I played again, and had the same result this morning. It was even "worse" actually: I ended up over-questing by 11, with only 4 cards left in the encounter deck, and neither the purse nor key were in play. So, another "win", but no treasure. It seems pretty tricky to draw the key at the right time during Stage 2: 1) it can't be a shadow card 2) it can't be one of those cards we discard whenever we overquest Yes, I know there are some encounter cards which let us put cards from the encounter discard pile back on top of the encounter deck, but those cards don't work if they were discarded too early or too late. It seems that the only way to guarantee the key is to: 1) never engage enemies (which means keeping threat really low and preventing encounter cards from forcing engagements) 2) never overquest These 2 requirements are very hard to achieve, at least for me. Can a deck even be built to do that? Or are they other ways to guarantee that the key is never discarded? Unless I am misinterpreting something, it seems that we are not really intended to get the treasure unless we are either: a) lucky b) really good at encounter deck manipulation, or c) willing to play the same scenario over and over until we get a "treasured" win I for one think 2 [untreasured] wins (after 3 earlier losses) is pretty much my limit, so unless there is a an easy "fix" that I haven't considered, I think I will give up on the treasure and just continue to the next scenario. Will the rest of the Hobbit saga be significantly more difficult without those treasures?
  20. I was finally doing well in the first Hobbit saga scenario (after 3 failed attempts). This time, I was in Stage 2, had massive armies on both sides (I play 2 handed), had killed 2 trolls, and was itching kill the 3rd. Bilbo had Troll Purse attached, Troll Key was attached to the last troll, and Troll Cave was in the staging area. So, all I had to do was grab the Troll Key, travel to the Troll Cave, and explore it. That would take 2 turns max. Bilbo was ready, and all I needed to do was damage the final troll with an attack. The first encounter card forced the troll to engage the player with Bilbo. It sacked 2 characters, but I had so many that it didn't matter. All I needed to do was hit the troll. But then, when I resolved my questing, I saw that I had so much willpower that it completely emptied the encounter deck. This forced me to go to Stage 3. Which immediately ended the game. Yikes. Since Troll Cave was not yet in the Victory display, my understanding is that this means I cannot discover Sting, Glamdring, and Orcrist, correct? This stinks! I was doing so well... but I guess I ended up doing "too well".... Hmmm... And then I realised: this ending doesn't make sense. You see, by questing too well, I forced dawn to arrive, which froze the trolls. Okay, that's a little weird, but I can accept that. However, what I don't like is this next bit: According to the game, since the trolls froze before I had explored the Troll Cave, I didn't have a chance of discovering the treasure. No chance. Zero. Zip. Never mind the fact that we had the purse, the last troll had the key, and the cave was right there in front of us (in the staging area). It's as if the dwarves, in a fit of idiocy, decided to simply drop the purse, ignore the key, and ignore the cave. "Oh well, job done, nothing more for us here, on to Erebor!" No curiosity whatsoever. But this is opposite from the book! In the book, the trolls were frozen before the cave was even discovered, right? After the fight, the Dwarves explored a bit, and *then* found the cave. So why can't we explore the Troll Cave *after* eliminating the trolls? That's what I was expecting to happen anyway, since it's consistent with the story. (This was my first time seeing the third quest card, so the fact that the game ended immediately was a nasty surprise). I don't understand why the game forces us to explore the cave before finishing off the trolls. That's just such an unexpected deviation from the book. And, since familiarity with the book is part of the appeal of the saga expansion, it seems strange that the game would try to "trick" us like this, almost as if it is punishing us for trusting the book/lore too much. Is this why some people don't rate the Hobbit sagas highly? Do these sort of thematic/gameplay conflicts recur throughout the Hobbit saga? Or is this the worst offence? Or did I completely read the game/quest wrong? Am I missing something here?
  21. Okay, I reposted the question in BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2251702/what-play-between-campaigns It will be interesting to see if it gets any more responses there. It certainly might not. It could be that it's just a bad question! After all, it's asking people to discuss games that are unlike the game we're supposed to be discussing. It's like going to a winery and saying "excuse me, but I'm getting a little tired of wine, so can anyone recommend a music supply shop?" And... silence. "Anyone? Anyone?" My only hope is that someone else finished the campaign, is experiencing similar "threat fatigue", and is also in the mood to consider/discuss different types of games.
  22. Is this question better asked on BGG (since it propose a break from LotR and Arkham, both of which are FFG)?
  23. Last weekend I finished the first JiME campaign (and did pretty poorly). I'd like to want to take a break before starting the 2nd (or restarting the 1st with my kids). I'm still playing LotR LCG every week (and LOTRO every day), and am itching for something non-Middle Earth for a change! I'd like to start a different campaign-style solo game, ideally something more relaxing and "forgiving" than Journeys in Middle Earth. In other words, I'd rather not have an aggressive threat meter breathing down my neck. For that reason, I think I will save the Cthulhu-themed games (Mansions of Madness, AH LCG, EH, AH, etc.) for later. Ditto for Pandemic Legacy. Here are some of the games that are sitting on my shelf, unopened, and which are neither LotR or Cthulhu related, and which have good reputations for solo games : - Gloomhaven - Mage Knight - 7th Continent - Legends of Andor Also, I can start these: - Scythe (Rise of Fenris introduces a campaign, right?) - Conflict of Heroes I also have Too Many Bones coming soon, so I could hold off for that. So... any suggestions on what would be a pleasant solo campaign game to fill the gap until the next deep dive into Middle Earth?
  24. I'm playing 2 handed (Leadership/Lore and Spirit/Tactics), so have already been including Will of the West (x3) and Dwarven Tomb, but I see how Eleanor would be an even more consistent way to prevent some of those engine-killing treacheries. However, Eleanor means "breaking" the Dwarf theme, which would probably motivate me to rebuild both decks from scratch. I don't actually mind the idea of moving away from Dwarves for a while (since I played them all the way through Khazad Dum and Dwarrowdelf), but there seem to be 3 reasons to stick with Dwarves: 1) purely thematic (The Hobbit is all about Dwarven heroes) 2) most of the new cards in The Hobbit saga seem to be Dwarf-centric, so it would be nice to try those out 3) I don't know of a better archetype at this point in my card Pool (progression style) Those 3 reasons have been motivating me to stick with a pair of Dwarf-centric decks. However, if the rest of the Hobbit saga has lots of other "swingy treacheries", then I don't mind leaving the Dwarves behind, at least for the duration of the saga. I did have another question: If I stick with Dwarves, but replace most of the attachments with more allies, is it better to use high-cost Dwarf allies (since I'm already using all the cheap ones) or cheap non-Dwarf allies (like Snowborne Scout)? Does a "Dwarf swarm" deck typically also include some non-Dwarven allies, or is the idea to limit it to Dwarves (so that they all benefit from Dain's bonuses)?
×
×
  • Create New...