Jump to content

John Constantine

Members
  • Content Count

    2,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Constantine

  1. I want there to be Saruman but I don't see it. I make a solemn promise: If there is Saruman in the upcoming cycle, I'm going to purchase every AP and Deluxe box up to the one where Saruman is released.
  2. It doesn't feel overpowered, because it doesn't gives you an advantage, it (partially most of the time) mitigates a disadvantage. Plus, it is printed on a very costy hero.
  3. Reducing threat is not counter to the Isengard Archetype, it is counter to the Valour archetype
  4. I see mass threat reduction as both perfect mechanical and thematical fit. Mechanical fit is obvious, thematical fit is that Saruman was working with these forced for a long time and mastered them, so he is able to mitigate the downside while working with them.
  5. I made mass threat reduction on playing Doomed for Saruman as a way to offset the inherit disadvantage Doomed mechanic has in multiplayer. Sure, there are fair cards like Deep Knowledge or Legacy of Numenor, they affect all players and it's only right their threat also affects all players. But then, there is "local" stuff like Herald of Anorien, Mirkwood Pioneer, and most importantly - Grima. It is unfair to punish the entire party for the advantage only one player is getting, in case of Grima - 1 resource, which makes him virtually unplayable in multiplayer. That's the flaw of the Doomed mechanic, it cannot target just the right player. So what I did with Saruman's ability is just try to make Grima and non-global Doomed stuff playable in multiplayer. I even tried to patch this issue up in my "fix the game" pet project long ago:
  6. Extremely similar to my Saruman stuff earlier in this thread.
  7. I think it is very clever you made use of the victory display mechanic.
  8. Hi. Since you are doing what I've essentially done once, I think you mite be interested in looking at my interpretations from the past: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1684833/lotr-lcg-rework-project-v10-release
  9. This is not how slavic barbarians looked like thou. This is civilized slavic warrior look.
  10. Best you can hope for is what happened to Harad, which wasn't much.
  11. Why? You already snatched the original post. No point in having the images in non-original one :'D Also, look - it's dat elven butt from the First Player token!
  12. This is not a saga so I don't see why contract would be limited to it.
  13. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/6/18/concerning-hobbits/
  14. https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/90/19/90191e4e-a341-4379-b398-5963b7a87ebf/mec01_online_only_rules_reference_for_website.pdf
  15. https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/90/19/90191e4e-a341-4379-b398-5963b7a87ebf/mec01_online_only_rules_reference_for_website.pdf
  16. Wow, the new Burning Brand is almost like the way I reworked it in my "fix the game" project long long ago: I was a little more liberal.
  17. I don't think it has a cost in a traditional sense you mean. It has no resource cost, and if it's double sided - it doesn't go into the deck. You include it into your deck and it starts the game in play immediately, like a boon permanent from saga.
  18. Quite interesting. I hope article that explores that card comes soon. Thank you.
  19. What is the fullest description of the visible text on the contract?
  20. It seems I was right about contract being an agenda equivalent from the AGoT2 LCG. Sad that second hero is not Saruman tho. Fingers crossed for him in the packs. Grima + Smeagol + Nya'shish deck, anybody?
×
×
  • Create New...