Jump to content

Distractionbeast

Members
  • Content Count

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Distractionbeast

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

307 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Interesting idea. So the idea is potentially to have a smaller number of sideboard cards and larger number of cards that interact with them? Still not sure if I'm a fan of the extra complexity this adds to the game, but it's an interesting idea to explore.
  11. I like the concept - specifically building on the mechanics of Ranger of the North. I don't think that splintering the card base too much is the best way to do this however. I actually think Ranger of the North would be more effective if there were multiple versions (as previously mentioned). This is the same effect we see with character-specific attachments: Vilya ONLY works with Elrond, etc. It severely reduces the ability for players to utilize the precious few cards produced in each cycle. And the special case rules make them difficult to work with and interact with other cards. Perhaps a more general approach would be better? Like creating a specific class of sideboard cards - like your "token" cards - which can be drawn into play by other cards, but otherwise obey the other rules of the game. However, what I'd propose is perhaps NOT requiring an actual sideboard, but simply allowing players to draw the card in from their collection. This would provide the ability to dynamically react to a scenario without having to build those cards into your deck beforehand. As a balance, these cards would probably need a steeper cost curve to offset their adaptability and accommodate an expandable pool of such cards. It would not be wise to balance them in such a way as to encourage most decks to use them for each scenario. But a dynamic, adaptable class of cards might be sustainable within the game. I haven't thought through the details though. For example: A dwarf ally 0/1/0/2 2 cost Spend 2 resources to add a token weapon or armor attachment to your hand. Limit once per round. Get the attachment from anywhere out of the game. Add it to your hand. Once in hand, it acts just like any other card and its cost must be paid to put it into play. This is a limited example, but hopefully it gets the idea across. It could also be cards added to the encounter deck or put directly into play, etc. Feel free to disagree.
  12. Well, the designers get the final official say on all matters, but I'm going to have to deny any correlation to the actual text. There is little consistent wording between these examples. Sorry, Matt and Caleb. I love you guys, but the explanation really doesn't clear this up. Dunhere's ability is passive and does NOT target enemies at all. It clearly says that Dunhere can target enemies in the staging area when he attacks. It is altering his ability to perform a normal attack. On the other hand, if it read "Choose an enemy in the staging area..." then I could understand the immunity. Forth Eorlingas could go either way, since it also does NOT target enemies, but just modifies the framework. Saying that characters can be declared as attackers against enemies in the staging area does not target the enemies. But I can accept that the designers simply intend it that way. Hands Upon the Bow uses the targeting as part of its effect. It does NOT "allow the character to target", but rather directs the player to target the enemy, hence the immunity would apply. Haldir's effect is structured similarly. Unfortunately, Quick Strike's wording is almost identical. Relying on the logic that an eligible target indicates a "normal" attack versus whatever other kinds there are is to read more into the text than is there and without the foundational consistency, we're just reduced to requesting a list of card effects which are affected by immunity and referring to it as we play. Long term, this is one area where the designers should focus on to develop a consistent vocabulary as classic M:tG did long ago. In that game, the term "target <cardtype>" always indicated a targeting whereas broad, general effects did not trigger immunities. Just for the record, as a rule, Matt and Caleb are knocking this game out of the park (in a good way), so take this as very constructive criticism from a big fan.
  13. I didn't see an answer in any other threads and I don't remember seeing anything in the printed material, so I'll ask it. Can player side quests be used in the Helm's Deep scenario? If so, how are they handled? It would be pretty cheap if enemies would quest them out for you and it would be a mighty stretch of the written rules if players could put progress on them in that scenario.
  14. Get it started man! Head out to the local gaming shop and make relationships with the owners. Seattle area didn't really have anything until a player started a Facebook group, then a local gaming shop started hosting events, and it's grown from there. Tried that already. They are not interested. They probably sell a handful of LotR products each year. According to them, there's just no customer base in the area and they couldn't give a whiff about LotR events. Plus, I'm too married and familied to spend free time at the local shop organizing and maintaining groups - which is what I'd have to do.
×
×
  • Create New...