Jump to content

tacomen253

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tacomen253

  1. Thanks for the info. Just played my first round of the first quest yesterday and had a blast. After going through both of the booklets, prey was the only thing I found myself struggling to interpret (was reading it wrong silly me). I will make sure I pay better attention to the symbols. Happy Holidays to my fellow gamers as well!
  2. I have a question about the mechanic some enemies have known as "Prey". Does the enemy engage the hero with the highest printed health value, or does the enemy engage the hero with the most health value after deducting wounds and adding health from effects such as "Full Plate" etc...?
  3. When you play an ally using Sneak Attack you do NOT have to pay for the allies resource cost. A well known combo uses Sneak Attack and the Gandalf from your core set.
  4. Well we do love our guns so I can see the confusion, but it means drinking
  5. Since I used Dain I have had a hard time getting him out of my deck haha. I am playing through the Khazad Dum expansion and the Dwarrowdelf AP's where dwarfs are pretty handy though.
  6. My interpretation of the poll results shows that there were 20 single core set owners, and that there were 24 multiple core set owners. This shows that multiple core sets was 20% more common than single core sets, or a split of 40-60. In your results you say it was a 17 single core set users, and 20 multiple core set users? That is close to my result, technically 41.18-58.82. So we have very similar results that are leaning towards multiple core set users. The bad thing is that I doubt we that we have enough results to meet the requirements of the central limit theorem, so this poll could be very misleading. So I cannot reasonably assume anything. But neither theory hyperbole. Is it fair to agree to disagree and go have some shots?
  7. I'm gonna call you on that and say no, probably "most" gamers don't have 2-3 sets. You might get away with saying something like "many of the gamers who are enthusiastic enough to post on online forums about this game have 2-3 sets." But definitely that is a subset of folks who play the game and may not be so representative of the larger population... Ah, hyperbole. Now as for this comment, I have to defend 7theye here. There is no reason to call people out like that, you could have been a bit more tact. What he said actually has some merit to it, but you call it hyperbole? Do you have any hard evidence of your claim Mr. Spleen?
  8. Pretty much yeah. Each expansion comes with 3 copies of each respective card. For most optimal decks each copy of that card is required which means each person will have to get that expansion. If you have 4 people you would need 4 expansions for optimal results. This game can easily get more costly than other card games. If you are willing to pay the cash though this is a great game to get into. The Quest Log is a great feature where you can log the quests you have completed. You can use the Quest Log to review previous quests you have completed to see how can improve, or use it to share and compare quests with friends. This forum is a nice place to go also, most of the people are pretty nice.
  9. Dol Guldur can be beaten possibly with the best cards and the best luck, but is it beatable with a minimal card pool... say just a single core set?
  10. I agree with the 2 above me. Another thing is that some actions have the "limit once per round" text also which means that even if you did ready the card through some special effect you would still not be able to use it if have already used it once that round.
  11. I made a thread on this exact question not too long ago, here is the link to it.
  12. I like this thread. I personally only have 1 core set. Mainly because of your number 1 reason, it saves money! I am a college student... so I do not have money to spend on 3 core sets (yet!). I never even thought about your other 2 points though. It is kinda nice to know I am using more strategy compared to others who may be using 2-3 core sets. Although if I could afford 3 core sets... I probably would get them
  13. @Rapier, Gandalf only able to pay for neutral cards seems counter intuitive. Like lleimmoen was saying, his story is that he appears wherever he is needed with the support of his wizard abilities, whether he is supporting humans, elves, or dwarfs (he is not sphere"ist"). Limiting him to paying for only neutral cards is the exact opposite of why FFG made his ally version a neutral card that can be played with under any sphere. That is my objective analysis. My subjective analysis is that to make a hero Gandalf only able to pay for neutral cards is silly. I personally never have more than 10% neutral cards in any of my decks, making Gandalf's resources essentially useless. And if you did have at least a third of your deck neutral cards, your other sphere's main focus will be on allies since there are a lack of neutral ones. Deck building is the acme of skill in this game, but limiting your flexability in deck building by using a duo neutral/sphere is poor strategizing.
  14. As op as that would be, a new Gandalf ally would most likely be unique. So the hero and the ally would not be playable at the same time because they have the same name, even though they are different card types.
  15. Strider's Path is a great card in the lore sphere for location management. I am a huge fan of it when I face encounter decks with around a half dozen location cards with nasty Travel effects. But if they are just locations without much Travel effects then I agree with awp823, Secret Paths may be your better option. I will actually be seeking Secret Paths today while scouting through The Long Dark. Oh is this not the Strategy Thread?
  16. I am right below you guys, in Tacoma! Being from the suburbs I am terrified of downtown, but as long as I have my gps I should be fine getting up to there to you all
  17. I could see something like that possibly making Bilbo more appealing. But only having 3 copies of it per deck would be still little tough. Maybe along with the attachment there could be an event card that does something like "Action: Search your deck for a 'ring' attachment and add it to your hand. Then shuffle your deck." That way with 6 Bilbo "buff" cards you will have about a 12-13% chance to get at least one of them in your starting hand, compared to only about 6-7% with only 3 cards. Perhaps Bilbo would be less frowned upon if he got some sort of boost.
  18. He was not old in terms of Hobbits . I have never been a fan of the Bilbo card, to the point where I have never even used it before. In terms of a Lore hero with defense he is actually not that great compared to someone like Denethor who has more hp, defense, and less threat. Also to consider him for questing or attacking is sort of a joke I think. Maybe I would use him in a multiplayer game, oddly only for his diminishing ability though. I would never use him in a solo game. So on this one I have to agree with MyNeighbour, Bilbo would be more appealing if he had a lower threat.
  19. When I first did that quest I thought I was slick by telling myself I was gonna use Glorfindel's healing ability to make this quest twice as easy. Then I read the quest effect
  20. Rapier said mostly everything I needed to. I also would never play with someone that wants to have matching heroes. Redesigning a deck is easy and should not take long anyways unless your playing against a quest deck you have never played against before, but then it would most likely not be a "pick-up" game. Attempting to limit "table talk" in a co-op game is the definition of antithesis. And the issue of "table talk" is not comparable to your example of having matching heroes. "Table talk" is an issue of communication and is not even possible in solo play. Having matching heroes is a repetition issue that FFG manages by placing quantity capacities and you have to pay attention to it even in solo play. These 2 issues are not the same at all.
  21. I agree with GrandSpleen and leptokurt. The rules of play defines what a cost is on page 8. Cost: The number of resources a player must spend from the appropriate resource pool(s) to play this card from his hand. Cost is not found on hero cards. I would say that the word "resources" is the keyword there.
  22. You are in WA also Cata! There seems to be several of us washingtonians around these forums. I have never been to any kind of "game night" in card game terms but I am down if someone tries to start some monthly gathering or what ev. Since this is your topic Isuckworse you are invited to Washington to play with us
  23. Thanks you two for your responses. For now I will continue playing in the order of my first post, using SoG to generate resources so that I can play other attachments, or allies in the same planning phase.
  24. So I have been going back and forth on this question. In this exact order, can I...? 1) Play an attachment. (Steward of Gondor). 2) Use that attachments action. 3) Play an ally (using the fresh resources from SoG). At first I use to play as though #2 was only legal after I was all done playing allies, attachments. But then when I look at the back of the rules of play on the Turn Sequences there is green at every sequence in the planning phase. Green=Any player can take actions generally... When I am told I can take actions "generally" I assume that the order stated at the beginning is correct. Would others agree that the order I played is legal? I just realized about 14 hours after I posted, that my topic title has pretty much nothing to do with my question lol... oops (I was sorta in a rush)
  25. Would you post a link to what Glaurung said please? ERRATA (1.16) The phrase “put into play” If a card effect uses the phrase “put into play,” it means that the card enters play through a card effect instead of through the normal process of paying resources and playing the card from hand. “Put into play” effects are not considered to be playing the card, and will not trigger any effects that refer to a card being played. “Put into play” will, however, trigger any effects that occur when a card “enters play”.
×
×
  • Create New...