Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tarvalar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

526 profile views
  1. Imrahil, as Prince of Dol Amroth, can probably be said to have a mild maritime theme, though his synergies generally work with Gondor- or Silvan-related decks, neither of which are particularly nautical.
  2. Hi, all, I've gone ahead and shared my decks- hadn't realized that that was a box that needed checking. Thank you for letting me know! Beorn's deck in particular looks quite similar. I should probably try that one out and see how different they are in playing. Some differences I noticed just from eyeballing them: -I really like Erestor's ability to sub out cards, since this deck relies on so many uniques. -My Heir of Mardil on Imrahil is really nice, and synergizes with Denethor's ability perfectly. -Valiant Sacrifice in my deck is probably a little redundant with Heir of Morthond, and could probably be replaced with a different ally to ensure that A Very Good Tale is more reliably useful. -Armored Destrier is probably a better card than Sword of Numenor, though I do like Imrahil having a high attack... -I'd have to experiment, but I'm not convinced that Reinforcements/For Gondor is as useful as the other cards, as the temporary bonus that they offer doesn't seem as useful as cards which offer a more permanent boost.
  3. I've just uploaded my first solo deck, and would be interested in hearing reactions from more experienced players than I: https://ringsdb.com/deck/view/102497 A month or two ago I ran into the Into Ithilien roadblock and (as I understand is fairly common) stopped playing for a while trying to re-adjust my expectations for the game's difficulty. I wasn't keen on running through the Gondor campaign with the same band of dwarves I'd survived Moria with, but I was struggling to find a thematic substitute that could survive the exceedingly difficult Into Ithilien and Cair Andros scenarios. While I get the impression that Outlands decks aren't the favorite of many seasoned players, I've thoroughly enjoyed playing through this one. The notion of a lord of Gondor (Imrahil), his protective counselor (Denethor) and his captain of the guard (Hirluin) rallying their followers to victory in the defense of Gondor is very exciting; I also enjoy how both Imrahil and Hirluin become significantly more powerful as each quest continues. In terms of improvement, I'm not 100% convinced that Faramir and Visionary Leadership are necessary, though there have been moments where they've been important. The two Swords of Numenor on Imrahil are a little indulgent, but with his frequent multiple activations, I've enjoyed having him as a powerhouse damage dealer. The Outlands decks I've seen elsewhere tend to have Elrond and therefore don't use Lord of Morthond, though I've found LoM to be extremely valuable. Has anyone played a similar deck, or do you have any recommendations for making it tighter?
  4. I'm sorry you find the thread toxic! I think we're all just a little surprised and disappointed at this announcement. It'll be interesting to see how it develops, but it seems to involve just a handful of head-scratching decisions that make it hard to get really enthusiastic. If this game looks like your cup of tea, though, I'm glad!
  5. Here's from the announcement: "With thirty-three unpainted and easily assembled miniatures, and all the cards, movement tools, tokens, and terrain that you need for battle, the Star Wars: Legion Core Set is the perfect way to bring Star Wars battles to your tabletop." (For reference, that's one mini less than IA's core box, so pretty equivalent, for whatever that's worth.)
  6. Totally valid point! I suppose I should clarify that I don't at all like the feeling that developers are angling for ways to make me spend more money than I'd rather spend. If there's one developer that I feel is all about trying to milk their customers for money, and the other seems to be genuinely more excited about developing new and interesting games and being responsive to the fans' concerns, then if the quality of both companies' games is otherwise equal, I'll feel much better spending my money supporting the latter. At the same time, I'm encouraged by what folks are now saying that the minis may in fact be more compatible than I initially assumed. I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with miniatures - Imperial Assault and War of the Ring are my main mini investments thus far- and I'll confess to relying on the rest of you to figure out how they'll look next to one another. We'll see how it develops! Still, I can't help but scratch my head at why, if IA skirmishes and Legion battles look like they'll be around the same size, why they wouldn't just make the scales identical. Though that may have something to do with me being surprised that the scale of the battles will be as similar as it's looking...
  7. I had the same reaction. They do mention that the miniatures are unpainted fairly early on in the article, but I only picked up on it on my second read-through. Even a single picture showing how the minis look unpainted would have been a bit more forthright, but I'll withhold judgment until we see how their next few articles look.
  8. As far as I know, it hasn't been formally addressed yet- and I'll be thrilled to be proven wrong here!- but all indications are that Legion minis will be incompatible with Imperial Assault minis. I'm honestly really disappointed with this, and it's certainly going to affect whether or not I buy the game. I'm irked for the following reasons: From what we've seen, the minis are just large enough to make the two next to each other look goofy. Exactly why the minis couldn't be the same size isn't at all clear. If they were much larger or smaller, it would be one thing, but it seems almost as if they were specifically designed to be just different enough to be incompatible. Furthermore, I'm a little surprised that the scale of the battles involved looks like they'll be pretty darn close to Imperial Assault skirmishes. In fact, the core box for Imperial Assault included one more miniature than Legion (34 vs. 33). I'd anticipated that FFG would release another SW game focusing on larger battles (a la Hoth, with AT-ATs and air support, but this doesn't seem to be it at all. So if the number of combatants are as similar between games as it looks, why change the scale of the minis? While I suppose the larger Legion size allows for more detail, I'm honestly perfectly happy with the detail of IA miniatures, which are already on the larger side of my preference- though I may be in the minority on this point!. I don't know whether to ascribe it to poor coordination, or, to be less charitable, to wonder if this is a more cynical move on their part to encourage their customers to buy more of their products. If it's the latter, I'm really disappointed. You'd really hope that they would encourage loyalty from their customers by creating opportunities for crossovers between games, not discouraging them. Let me know if you guys think this is an overreaction- I'm happy to concede that there's plenty about the game that we don't know. Still, this seems like a decision that they really didn't have to make that hurts their customers more than anything, and doesn't make me excited at the prospect of shelling out $90 just for access to a new game. Thanks for reading!
  9. You may already know this perfectly well, but your wording in your original post suggests you might not: you're never required to send a leader to defend if you're attacked. For smaller engagements that you're sure to lose, it's often preferable to not waste the leader's action. Incidentally, a frequently overlooked rule is that if the defender already has a leader with tactics skills in the battle zone, he cannot freely move another when attacked. So if you catch poor Jerjerrod in charge of an Imperial fleet and attack it, your opponent can't deploy the Emperor for free to get a competent leader there.
  10. I've messed around with this idea myself, and here's what I've come up with: Allies are gained normally through green/agenda missions. However, successfully recruiting an ally this way also grants the player a 1-time only reduction of 1/3 its threat cost. So a 12 point ally can be brought in for 8, etc. It probably seems pretty meager this way, but I've found that reducing allies' cost by a full 50% gives that side a very heavy advantage. This way, there's still a tangible bonus that can go a long way to helping whoever plays it- even heroes like Han and Chewie are, in most cases, still very much worth it at 66% cost. But it doesn't go overboard. As far as missions go, this is a house rule I always use. I'm very attached to it: When drawing side missions, draw two as normal. After the rebels select their mission, discard any unplayed missions into the game box. This has four major advantages to me: 1. There's no longer a chance of Viper's Den eating up 50% of your mission space all game. 2. You can count on seeing 14 of 16 side missions each campaign. So if your goal is to unlock elite rebel troopers with Gideon, or getting Diala her lightsaber, you have excellent odds at getting to do so, far more so than the vanilla game. 3. Agenda missions get much nastier, as if heroes take them on, they're turning their backs permanently on two side missions. 4. Most importantly, choosing side missions becomes a much more interesting and thematic decision. Rather than making a predictable decision knowing that the other mission will be available forever, heroes need to make a much more difficult call. In the original rules, if you draw Deadly Transmission and find out that the Empire is about to discover Obi-Wan, you can decide to put that off for five campaign missions before arriving at your leisure to rescue him. By my rule, it's a now-or-never deal. Do you assist Obi-Wan, or do you rescue Loku's former companions? Whichever you do, you won't do the other. It makes for a genuinely exciting moment.
  11. In my campaign, I found it a superb addition to Davith's arsenal, especially purchased as quickly as possible. I attached the item that adds an extra surge once per round, and it made him extremely dangerous (max of five surges that way!). My experience is that credits are always very valuable- the Rebels never have quite enough to do everything that they want to do- and saving 500-1000 credits on weapon purchases for Davith is a great way to kit out the other rebels while keeping him very dangerous and very viable.
  12. I've had very positive experiences with her in standard campaigns. She doesn't have the "oomph" factor that really overtly impressive characters have. What she does do well, however, is nicely increase the entire team's efficiency. She's fairly unique among heroes in that her most useful skill, Tool Kit, is only 1xp. Being able to guarantee successes at skill checks for even your most inept characters can easily save you turns, and, by extension, entire missions. Her combat abilities, with the uber-buffed weapons described above, totally hold up. And she's very fast, and also fairly tough. It's also important to not overlook the devices' surge benefit in the early game if used properly. A device on early game Verena means that her starting knife becomes surprisingly lethal. Late game, guaranteed surges on the DXR-6 are also a wonderful thing. A player taking Saska isn't going to become the rockstar of the team, but I still feel like she's a very solid character with no serious weaknesses who can fairly passively make a profound difference on the campaign.
  13. That, and you're not actually able to retreat!
  14. Yeah, I'd definitely recommend using the action cards- they do make the game a lot more fun. Most important rule to remember with them is that they always need to be used in the system where their associated leader is. I would recommend using the vanilla setup for systems, though. It's a fine starting place, and saves you the headache of making decisions whose ramifications you're not in a position to understand.
  15. No, it's a space station. The rules reference is very clear on this. It is, though I don't think your judgment is quite right on this. What the RR says is that "The Death Star and Death Star Under Construction are a type of ship known as a space station. They are not capital ships or structures." (p. 6) As such, the Death Star is clearly a ship, and so I can't think of any reason that it couldn't be used for bombardment.
  • Create New...