Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Distractionbeast

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

481 profile views
  1. I'm excited to run Aragorn with Unexpected Courage to do some super-questing. Mildly underwhelming pack, but not bad. It's been a good run.
  2. Wasn't there a clarification somewhere that only one character can actually be credited with the "defeat" - basically, only one character can have its damage assigned as the killing blow? I seem to remember this, but I'm not going to look it up right now.
  3. Contract: "I am no man" Single side: Your deck cannot contain any male characters. You cannot control any male characters. All heroes you control gain +5 (willpower), +5 (attack) and +5 (defense). Response: After a character you control is removed from play, you may raise your threat by 5 to put that character back into play. Response: If you feel that a male hero in play has more resources than they should, you may take a resource from that hero's pool and add it to the resource pool of one of your heroes. Response: If you feel that you do not have enough cards in your hand, you may search your deck for a card and add it to your hand. Then shuffle your deck if you want. You cannot be eliminated from the game due to your threat. If your threat to Sauron's patriarchy is higher than the other players, it is because you are just that awesome.
  4. You are absolutely right. There is certainly a strategic design there. But I do stand by my original take that it feels frustratingly limited to me at least. The more open-ended feeling from the tabletop game where you assess your options, build up your tactic for the turn, then execute and react is simply not there. It's just a different game - as I said - for better or worse. Some will enjoy the new pace and structure and others won't. I enjoy the format of the tabletop game to the point where the digital felt confining and it was not what I wanted. The original lets me, in some small way, play around in the world of Middle-Earth through these scenarios. The digital had me much more strictly playing the rules to gain - as you said - action advantage, rather than enjoying the lore and imagining the adventure represented by the ingredients. Not a bad game in design or balance, but it's not the same. Potential buyers: just do your homework and check it out before you buy. FYI, that's a good guide you've got there.
  5. Played it a while since it was early release. It's... okay. It's not the same game, for better or worse. The back-and-forth turn-based structure sometimes feels frustratingly limited (every action you take is followed by an enemy action). Protecting a vulnerable asset requires that I take immediate action and postpone all other actions. This leads to a sense that I need to treat all assets as expendable in order to execute more elaborate tactics. This becomes frustrating when I often put an ally or attachment into play knowing it is probably going to be gone with the enemy's next action (spend an action just to make the enemy waste his to undo mine). I'm not saying it isn't balanced per se, but it encourages simpler tactics and a more cavalier attitude toward your cards in play. It's a strange thing. In the end, I find it less comfortable to play than the physical card game which mostly outweighs the convenience of the digital platform. Edit: I do need to commend the designers for not remaking the physical game and for taking some risks and embracing the medium to build a unique product.
  6. Player encounter cards which are enemies, locations or treacheries. They would have a regular player card event to put them into the encounter deck (like ranger summons), but instead of just giving you a new player card when they come up and then surging, they would act as encounter cards, but with more controllable or situationally advantageous effects.
  7. If the damage is part of the cost, the effect won't trigger. However, the damage prevention, being a "Response" effect, is optional, so you can choose to ignore it selectively when needed.
  8. I didn't think of that card or ruling, but yeah, it looks like the same form. Too bad. I really don't get the deliberate exclusion of neutral attachments. Does that make it OP or something?
  9. The text of the card: Action: Choose an attachment with a printed cost of X in any player's discard pile and play that attachment for no cost. (The chosen attachment can belong to any sphere of influence.) Does the last part mean that the attachment MUST belong to a sphere of influence? It doesn't seem to be a necessary addition otherwise, but it's parenthetical inclusion implies a clarification rather than an extra requirement.
  10. This is exactly how my friend and I do things. It's coop, so it's all fine. The no table-talk rule is pretty loose - mostly just avoid specifics. We will usually kind of express our confidence in our hands before deciding whether or not to dump and redraw.
  11. I'm not going to say the game is dying. But as a huge fan from the early days, it is certainly showing its age. The cards and scenarios are becoming more and more complex as time goes on, which is not a good sign. The last time I played the Ring Saga campaign scenarios, it took like 50% more time just to track all the effects while playing. In the end, we spent more attention on the rules than the experience and it felt shallow. A healthier form of complexity would be in the combinations of simple, iconic cards within a growing card pool. It's not bad, but it's not great either. I do trust the designers and their judgment in general - they've demonstrated it repeatedly - but the mechanics cannot just keep going this way indefinitely. It will eventually need a reboot or refocus to support continued growth and for this particular game, I'm not sure that's "in the cards" so to speak.
  12. Possible, yes. Judging from the team size, I don't think it fits the scope of their approved budget. I use the term "practically" because it doesn't seem like it would be "practical" to do it. Timing issues alone have proved problematic for live humans to work out during game situations. Building a simulation with all the necessary signs and feedback, warnings, and information surrounding these tricky cases would be a monumental iterative design task. Unless, they simplified the card effects and rules for this version (I believe MtG does this). Anyway, I was responding specifically to the idea of recreating the card game and all its mechanics.
  13. The digital game is certainly not at the level of the tabletop version. But recreating the card game exactly - with rules and timing would be practically impossible. I work in game development and it is no simple or easy task to do what you describe. I think what they put together is a good start on a re-imagining, but it needs a couple more layers of depth and a much better UI. Perhaps they can add enough to bring it up to that level in DLC. We'll see.
  14. I'm going to go on record and say he is not immune to this effect, since it only references him as part of a trigger. However, knowing how things work out, I'm waiting to be contradicted.
  15. It has been clarified in the FAQ. AGH can be used to pay for cards of any sphere, but 0-cost cards are not "paid for" and therefore are immune from AGH and still require a match.
  • Create New...