Jump to content

Seastan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Seastan

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,525 profile views
  1. Still working on refining the fellowship right now. It's similar to my solo list "The Shirebroke" (https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11796/theshirebroke-1.0) but expanded into two decks for consistency. Arwen is the strongest because she's got everything in one package. Spirit access, resource generation, card draw (through Elven-light), high willpower, reasonable threat cost, Noldor trait (for Elrond's Counsel). I'd put Cirdan at a distant second, followed by Galadriel, then Glorfindel (Eowyn if multiplayer), though Caldara has a argument for being in my second place slot, because like Dain she's crazy good if you devote your whole deck to her.
  2. I'm not sure this card does what you think it does. "Reveal" has a very specific meaning in this game - something you want to avoid, usually 😝.
  3. My most powerful deck uses Elrond, Arwen, and tactics Eowyn, which I consider to be the strongest heroes in their respective spheres. For leadership, I'd go with Denethor as the strongest. I think Dain is more powerful than Denethor if you build an entire fellowship around him, but when you get to the point of designing multiple decks to work in harmony, some crazy jank can start happening. For example, there's a two-player fellowship I have that trivially beats every quest and is centered around lore Bilbo of all heroes.
  4. Looks like you got a slight improvement with the new deluxe then. Frodo gets you slightly lower starting threat and a bonus to Drinking Song.
  5. You can achieve essentially the same effect with less text with the following: "Reduce the X value of the first Doomed X triggered each round by 1." And wording it this way makes it seem like Saruman is better at using Doomed effects, rather than reducing everyone's threat, which seems counter to the Isengard archetype.
  6. This deck has a very high rate of activating Fellowship on turn 1: https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/12421/therapidchargeoffellowship-1.0 It has never taken me longer than turn 2.
  7. Remaining unspoiled cards courtesy of @danpoage:
  8. He's also useful in conjunction with Imladris Stargazer to shuffle up a poorly stacked deck.
  9. If I were the designer, I'd put an entry in the rules reference that clarifies that all instances of "at the end of the X" should be implicitly understood as "immediately before the end of the X". That is, after all game framework steps that occur during X, but still within X. This would make all interactions with "once per X" and "until the end of the X" behave the way most players think it should intuitively. They don't carry over to the next X, and they don't allow you extra triggers of the effect or shut the option of using them. Similarly, "at the beginning of the X" should be implicitly understood as "immediately after the beginning of the X", i.e. before any framework steps in X.
  10. But logically this doesn't follow. If I am unable to win without X, it does not prove X is essential to victory, as it may be possible to win with some Y which I have not tried. I was able to beat this quest in easy mode using only player cards a single Core Set, The Lost Realm, and the Carn Dum AP. The deck and video are here. This is obviously way more restrictive than true progression mode, which would grant me access to almost 5 full cycles of player cards. I am quite certain that with all those options I could improve the deck to the point where it can handle standard difficulty. Why must every quest in this game beatable by a casual player with a limited cardpool at the standard difficulty, when that's the exact use case that easy mode was made for? Does psychological toll of knowing you're playing on "easy" mode take the the fun away for you? I'm sorry if this is the case. But if the game were such that every quest, at normal difficulty, could be handily beaten by a casual player with a limited cardpool, it would take away the fun for many, many more people. People that would be left wondering why FFG went to the trouble of printing gold rings on certain encounter cards, since no one ever needs to take them out. Again, why all this angst over a single quest? There are over 100 other quests that are not Carn Dum. Some of them are so easy that I get no enjoyment out of playing them. But I don't complain about them. I don't try to argue that player cards should be weaker so that those quests can be played at a difficulty level that I find fun. I just accept that with over 100 quests, not all of them are going to be my cup of tea. So ignore them and play a quest I enjoy. Which is easy because again, there are over 100 of them.
  11. Yes. There are more ways of beating Carn Dum than Boromir with Burning Brand, they're just not as obvious. And yet, progression style Carn Dum is a walk in the park compared to progression style (solo) Escape from Dol Guldur, so is the issue here really Burning Brand? Some quests are just incredibly difficult, and I don't see the problem with that. Not every quest should be designed such that a casual player can beat it after a couple tries. If they were, there'd be no point in having an easy mode.
  12. Because in this case, the developers have stated their intention. On various podcasts Caleb has said that Outlands was designed for new players and for people who dislike deckbuilding to still be able to have a good time playing the game. No, I think Outlands is supposed to be overpowered, as I said above. Just because some people want an errata is not enough reason to issue one, in the same way that just because some people don't want an errata is not enough reason for them not to issue one. It's the developer's decision. The Weaver combo you're talking about requires an empty deck, which comes with a significant setup cost and maintenance penalty, unlike Hama. I don't see how these are comparable. The idea of an errata for Steward has been brought up many times before. If I recall correctly, Caleb's stance (so far) has been that it is essential for new players to help them through the core set and first few cycles, so he is not inclined to nerf it. What if Legacy of Durin creates an infinite loop with some future card that is designed but not yet released? Would you prefer to have the errata come pre-emptively, or wait until after it's released and the community has had some time to exploit it? I have some problems with the Arkham Horror "taboo list" concept, but that is a whole other discussion.
  13. Ok so the problem is the delay between the release and the errata. That wasn't clear from your original comment. I'm just curious, do you have a time limit for when errata are acceptable, and beyond that you ignore them, or do you evaluate each errata on a case-by-case basis? The Out of the Wild errata came out a long time after the card's release, but nobody complained as it's arguably a buff for the card, so I'm curious if you follow that one or not. I actually don't disagree with most of your comments. I also think the Ered Mithrin cycle had the best player cards in a long time, while the Harad and Angmar Awakened quests remain my favorite. And I agree that Vilya and Outlands are overpowered, but I can see a good explanation for why that might be intended (Vilya, thematically, should be the strongest attachment in Middle-earth apart from the One Ring, and Outlands were designed for new players to feel powerful without a lot of deckbuilding). One thing often ignored in the errata discussion is that we don't have the same picture of the card pool that the developer has. The game is developed years in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff they are playtesting right now won't even come out until 2021. So it could very well be that Caleb has already designed some more Dwarf cards, but they would make Dwarves way more powerful than the already are, so we are seeing some nerfs to old (and frankly overpowered) cards like Legacy of Durin. In the end, the errata may make room for more design space in the Dwarf swarm archtype that would make them fun to play again (I am tired of that mechanic myself). I would gladly take a hit on a couple cards, regardless of their age, if it allows an archetype to grow and become more interesting to play. Meanwhile, maybe Noldor and Outlands will not see much development in the coming years, so he is leaving their power level alone (this is obviously all conjecture, as I am not a playtester). My point is, if you've been playing this game for the last 5 years, you clearly must think Caleb is a good game designer, and has done a good job of piloting this ship we've all been on. When I see a content announcement, it is easy for me to trust that the new cards will be a good fit for the future card pool, given Caleb's track record. Now, why should the trust in his future vision stop at level of creating new content and not include the adjustment of current content? Who knows better where this ship is headed?
  14. You play with the original text of Beravor and Zigil Miner? Without errata, some cards are too powerful for me to even have fun playing. So I'm glad we have errata to that I can actually use them in my decks. And you play with the original Blocking Wargs? As for enjoyment of the game, most people I talk to think the game has been getting better overall as time goes on, even despite the errata. People that dropped out after the Boromir/Caldara/Hama nerfs would have missed out on the amazing Haradrim and Ered Mithin cycles.
×
×
  • Create New...