Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ppsantos

Powerful cards destroying long-term game balance?

Recommended Posts

 Wow this is quite the heated subject some people are of the opinion that the game is to hard that's good for them and others say its to easy so good for them too.  Honestly who cares?  Everyone has their own opinion let them have it.  I think math is hard, but my wife finds it easy differing opinions but it's not a big deal   If you don't like what someone says don't read their comment it's not like they are forcing you to read it especially if you know that persons stance already.  Sometimes people have differing opinions than you that's life.  I'm not meaning this in a negative way but I think everyone just needs to chill out a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Borg said:

 

Bohemond said:

 

Big Borg said:

 

This game is not MtG.  It is a cooperative game or solo game.  As a result, you can choose to limit the number of cards that you feel are a problem.  With a 50 card deck each, the cards that you are worried about may not even appear once!!  Please stop complaining.  If you disagree with a card, don't play it or limit it.

 

 

How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

 

 

 

And how would tournament play work exactly?  There have been threads that have talked about how the scoring matrix doesn't seem to make much practical sense.

 

 

 

First of all, you haven't answered my question. How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

In answer to your question, I have argued against the viability of the current scoring format longer than anyone else on these boards.  It doesn't work well now and I am skeptical that it will ever work.  That being said, I like the format of tournament style rules because they make for the best game play.  I like playing with decks that have a minimum of 50 cards even though you are only required to play with that limit for tournaments.

More importantly, I like the fact that designers build the game with that format in mind.  For instances, I believe the game is designed and tested with 50 card decks, even though you aren't required to play with them.  I think that if the game is designed with a restricted list in mind it would make for a better experience both for the 'hardcore' player, and for the 'casual' player who can just ignore the restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

 

How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

 

It would turn a fun, challenging game into a frustrating experience.  Our meta has fun, laughs and feels challenged by the current set of Quests.  None of our games have been decked out, so we don't always have cards that some feel are "powerful" coming into play.

 

But, let's stop talking generalities.  Please list the cards that you would like restricted and the manner of restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

The game would be better and more fun, for both the tournament player and the casual gamer, if Northern Tracker did not exist.  We can get into specifics if you wish (they have been covered elsewhere), but the general stance that many people in the thread are tacking seems to be that erratas, restrictions or bans always bad.  That simply isn't true.  Those changes can improve games under the right circumstances.

edit: just to be clear, I wouldn't errata a card or ban it in this case.  I think the best solution would be to issue a restricted list for tournament play (even if their aren't tournaments).  That way, casual players could ignore the list, just like they can ignore the 50 card minimum, if they wish.  I would place Northern Tracker, Gandalf, Steward of Gondor and Unexpected Courage on the list.  Given the way that restricted lists have been used in other FFG LCGs, I woul be suprised if we didn't eventually see one for this one.

Then don't play with those cards - easy as that. Nobody is forcing you to, and if you enjoy the game more without those cards, by all means leave them out. I just culled my Northern Trackers from my "Prince Imrahil doing double duty"-deck, simply to see how the deck would work without them. I also don't have three Gandalfses for every deck, and often I don't play him, even if I draw him. Different meta-games create different problems caused by different cards - it's unreasonable to lay all the blame on those cards and it's equally unreasonable to think these problems are omnipresent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

First of all, you haven't answered my question. How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

In answer to your question, I have argued against the viability of the current scoring format longer than anyone else on these boards.  It doesn't work well now and I am skeptical that it will ever work.  That being said, I like the format of tournament style rules because they make for the best game play.  I like playing with decks that have a minimum of 50 cards even though you are only required to play with that limit for tournaments.

More importantly, I like the fact that designers build the game with that format in mind.  For instances, I believe the game is designed and tested with 50 card decks, even though you aren't required to play with them.  I think that if the game is designed with a restricted list in mind it would make for a better experience both for the 'hardcore' player, and for the 'casual' player who can just ignore the restrictions.

Some players (myself included) like to adhere to the tournament rules (building 50 card decks) even though there aren't yet any tournament scene. For me, it's safe to say, that any restriction on, how I can play in a tournament would also limit how I would play casually.

I believe that the adventure packs have shown, that FFG have a clear vision on how to challenge us players in ways, that preclude us from using the established power-cards to reduce the quests to neglible difficulty.

I have noted, that players value cards and judge quests differentl. This suggests, that the issue isn't all that clear. In my view, a restriction list will only muddy the waters further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Borg said:

Bohemond said:

 

 

How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

 

 

 

It would turn a fun, challenging game into a frustrating experience.  Our meta has fun, laughs and feels challenged by the current set of Quests.  None of our games have been decked out, so we don't always have cards that some feel are "powerful" coming into play.

 

But, let's stop talking generalities.  Please list the cards that you would like restricted and the manner of restriction.

read the thread, I already posted specific cards. Unexpected Courage, Steward of Gondor, Northern Tracker and Gandalf.  As for the manner of restriction I would use the same rules that all of the other LCGs use.  Here is an example from the game of thrones rules.

:"The following cards are restricted for LCG tournament melee and joust play. A player may select 1 card from the restricted list for any given deck, and cannot then play with any other restricted cards in the same deck. A player may run as many copies of his chosen restricted card in a deck as the regular game rules (or card text) allow.'

As a casual player, who enjoys the game as it stands, why would you need to pay any attention to the restricted list? If I am correct, you play the A Game of Thrones LCG.  Has the existence of a restricted list for AGoT damaged your enjoyment of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I relly like the idea of a restriction list. Since it only "counts" in tournaments the casual or non-tounament minded players can just ignore it and feel good using all the cards, and the hard core players can play by that list and make it more challenging for them.

Me like that idea gran_risa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Kløve said:

 

Bohemond said:

The game would be better and more fun, for both the tournament player and the casual gamer, if Northern Tracker did not exist.  We can get into specifics if you wish (they have been covered elsewhere), but the general stance that many people in the thread are tacking seems to be that erratas, restrictions or bans always bad.  That simply isn't true.  Those changes can improve games under the right circumstances.

edit: just to be clear, I wouldn't errata a card or ban it in this case.  I think the best solution would be to issue a restricted list for tournament play (even if their aren't tournaments).  That way, casual players could ignore the list, just like they can ignore the 50 card minimum, if they wish.  I would place Northern Tracker, Gandalf, Steward of Gondor and Unexpected Courage on the list.  Given the way that restricted lists have been used in other FFG LCGs, I woul be suprised if we didn't eventually see one for this one.

 

Then don't play with those cards - easy as that. Nobody is forcing you to, and if you enjoy the game more without those cards, by all means leave them out. I just culled my Northern Trackers from my "Prince Imrahil doing double duty"-deck, simply to see how the deck would work without them. I also don't have three Gandalfses for every deck, and often I don't play him, even if I draw him. Different meta-games create different problems caused by different cards - it's unreasonable to lay all the blame on those cards and it's equally unreasonable to think these problems are omnipresent.

 

 

First of all, your argument would preclude restricted lists not just in this game, but in all LCGs.  You claim to want to follow tournament rules for your home play, but then effectively argue that such rules should not exist.  As the game continues to grow, their will be a growing list of errata.  In all likelihood, we will see some cards either restricted or banned at some point.  Such rules are part and parcel of tournament rules in all CCG and LCG.

The problem with those cards isn't in how they are played, its in how they shape the game as a whole.  If you are a designer for the game and making up a scenario, you need to think long and hard about whether or not locations in a scenario provide a viable challenge in the face of the existence  northern tracker.  You are faced, especially in crafting scenarios that work for multiple players, with creating a set of locations that Northern Tracker trivializes, or a set of locations which will be exceedingly challenging without a tracker in play.  Again, the game would play better and we would see better scenarios if northern tracker had never been printed.

Banning is an extreme reaction and one that designers tend to avoid.  but the restricted list is a viable alternative.  If you don't like the concept of a restricted list you shouldn't be following tournament style rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

 

 

 

 

Kløve said:

 

Bohemond said:

The game would be better and more fun, for both the tournament player and the casual gamer, if Northern Tracker did not exist.  We can get into specifics if you wish (they have been covered elsewhere), but the general stance that many people in the thread are tacking seems to be that erratas, restrictions or bans always bad.  That simply isn't true.  Those changes can improve games under the right circumstances.

edit: just to be clear, I wouldn't errata a card or ban it in this case.  I think the best solution would be to issue a restricted list for tournament play (even if their aren't tournaments).  That way, casual players could ignore the list, just like they can ignore the 50 card minimum, if they wish.  I would place Northern Tracker, Gandalf, Steward of Gondor and Unexpected Courage on the list.  Given the way that restricted lists have been used in other FFG LCGs, I woul be suprised if we didn't eventually see one for this one.

 

Then don't play with those cards - easy as that. Nobody is forcing you to, and if you enjoy the game more without those cards, by all means leave them out. I just culled my Northern Trackers from my "Prince Imrahil doing double duty"-deck, simply to see how the deck would work without them. I also don't have three Gandalfses for every deck, and often I don't play him, even if I draw him. Different meta-games create different problems caused by different cards - it's unreasonable to lay all the blame on those cards and it's equally unreasonable to think these problems are omnipresent.

 

 

First of all, your argument would preclude restricted lists not just in this game, but in all LCGs.  You claim to want to follow tournament rules for your home play, but then effectively argue that such rules should not exist.  As the game continues to grow, their will be a growing list of errata.  In all likelihood, we will see some cards either restricted or banned at some point.  Such rules are part and parcel of tournament rules in all CCG and LCG.

The problem with those cards isn't in how they are played, its in how they shape the game as a whole.  If you are a designer for the game and making up a scenario, you need to think long and hard about whether or not locations in a scenario provide a viable challenge in the face of the existence  northern tracker.  You are faced, especially in crafting scenarios that work for multiple players, with creating a set of locations that Northern Tracker trivializes, or a set of locations which will be exceedingly challenging without a tracker in play.  Again, the game would play better and we would see better scenarios if northern tracker had never been printed.

Banning is an extreme reaction and one that designers tend to avoid.  but the restricted list is a viable alternative.  If you don't like the concept of a restricted list you shouldn't be following tournament style rules.

I like the idea of restricted list. AGOT have it yes???? I never play other lcg so i didn know about that. I use to play magic and Lotr Tcg so there is no restricted lists only erratas and ban.So restricted list idea is quite cool cose pleased  all kind of players.  Why not??? why not???

Actually Bohemond i remebre you first lore/Leadership/Spirit deck in the time of the core set. Quite cool deck with Beravur, Gloin and Eowyn. Crazy boring for me to play but very effective!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

First of all, your argument would preclude restricted lists not just in this game, but in all LCGs.  You claim to want to follow tournament rules for your home play, but then effectively argue that such rules should not exist.  As the game continues to grow, their will be a growing list of errata.  In all likelihood, we will see some cards either restricted or banned at some point.  Such rules are part and parcel of tournament rules in all CCG and LCG.

The problem with those cards isn't in how they are played, its in how they shape the game as a whole.  If you are a designer for the game and making up a scenario, you need to think long and hard about whether or not locations in a scenario provide a viable challenge in the face of the existence  northern tracker.  You are faced, especially in crafting scenarios that work for multiple players, with creating a set of locations that Northern Tracker trivializes, or a set of locations which will be exceedingly challenging without a tracker in play.  Again, the game would play better and we would see better scenarios if northern tracker had never been printed.

Banning is an extreme reaction and one that designers tend to avoid.  but the restricted list is a viable alternative.  If you don't like the concept of a restricted list you shouldn't be following tournament style rules.

I see your point, but I still would consider a restricted list premature at this point. Again, we haven't seen a tournament yet - I have faith that FFG will rise above and challenge the power cards in ways we don't anticipate. Also Lord of the Rings LCG is a different beast from the other released LCGs in that we don't have any competetive play (until we see tournament play at least) - any "broken" card will mostly be ruining the game for the one playing it, not for the opponent.

Yes, the Northern Tracker is powerful, but I have had many games, where I have drawn him or Gandalf or another powerful card and not played them, simply because it wasn't the best play at the time. I don't consider any of them game-breaking. Note that I play almost all of my games either solo or two-player, which is where Northern Tracker is least powerful - I can certainly see him trivializing content in a four-player game.

In the end I will adhere to whatever guidelines FFG releases. I just hope they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I can't see playing LOTR in a tournament format.  There aren't that many players to have a number of "teams" battling Quests in a tournament setting.  At least, not in Delaware or New Jersey.  We are still trying to get new players involved.

And if there are tournaments, I would hope that the Quests are not announced ahead of time, but have several placed in front of the teams and  randomly selected.  This would avoid creating decks for a specified Quest.  Maybe that is the solution, instead of "restricting' or "banning" cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Borg said:

To be honest, I can't see playing LOTR in a tournament format.  There aren't that many players to have a number of "teams" battling Quests in a tournament setting.  At least, not in Delaware or New Jersey.  We are still trying to get new players involved.

And if there are tournaments, I would hope that the Quests are not announced ahead of time, but have several placed in front of the teams and  randomly selected.  This would avoid creating decks for a specified Quest.  Maybe that is the solution, instead of "restricting' or "banning" cards.

I don't know, I think it would be fun to play in a tournament. I've been thinking about how a tournament might be structured for a while now. You could even have different sorts of tournaments, for example, you could have one where the quests being used were made public beforehand so people could design decks for them and you could have ones where the quests are not made public and the participants just have to build the best all round deck they can. Also you could have a tournament where lets say 3 quests are chosen to be played and players may only use one deck each for all 3. You could have divisions in terms of solo, 2 player, 3 player and four player. you could do all sorts of things with a tournament. All you need is enough people who want to play etc. I know I'd love to play in an event like this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

 

 

How would issuing a restricted list for tournament play have any impact on how you interact with the game?

 

 



I can't believe we are actually discussing this. A banned/restricted list for a solo/coop game, that currently has no tournaments. Could anything be more absurdly irrelevant? To answer that question, it wouldn't really impact anyone in a meaningful way. Players who chose to follow it, would be doing it out of their own free will, not because it truly imposed any restriction on them. We are currently playing for nothing and against nobody. 

If you feel there are cards that should be banned/restricted, treat them in that manner. Play them as though they were. And I, along with everyone else, will treat them as we see fit, banned/restricted or not. A list, at this point, will hardly change anything. Those who think the cards should be restricted will play them as such, those who don't, won't. Not to mention, if they did put up a list, you have no assurance that FFG will agree with you on what cards should be on it. And then what? 

Decisions as to what, if anything, should be banned/restricted need to be made after tournaments, because that is how you can tell that these cards are truly causing a widespread issue. A few people, seeing an issue, within the limitations of themselves or their playgroup, hardly merit any kind of punitive action. Heck, you can find just as many people, if not more, that disagree with having a list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat, yet again, that the cards effect the design of subsequent encounter decks. Whether or not I choose to play with specific cards has no effect on how scenarios are designed and tested. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I would appreciate it if you took the time to understand what I have said.

You don't need a tournament structure to see that certain cards may not function as intended.  In fact, if you look at board games that FFG makes, the frequently use expansion products to effectively errata cards that have unintended negative consequences on the game.  And they make those decisions without the resource of tournament play.  A restricted list is less intrusive than major errata to text of cards, which we already have in this game.

And yes, if FFG made a restricted list it would likely differ from mine in some fashion.  I would be fine by that. A properly made restricted list would help the development of the game, just like it does with every other LCG.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, we already have tournament only rules which you are free to use and ignore (the 50 card deck minimum), despite the fact that we have no tournaments.  The arguments I have heard about a tournament restricted list would be equally applicable to the card card limit.

Why do we need a tournament rule about deck size in a co-op game with no tournaments?  If you want a 50 card minimum, just play with one, FFG shouldn't have to make it a rule.

However, the existence of the 50 card minimum improves the game, and rule doesn't have to change your game if you don't want it to.  I am willing to bet that FFG assumes a 50 card deck minimum when it designs player and encounter cards, and that assumption leads to a better product.

 

@Glaurung - thanks!  And yes, that deck is hideously boring to play.  Despite its effectiveness I deconstructed it to make way for more entertaining concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemond said:

I will repeat, yet again, that the cards effect the design of subsequent encounter decks. Whether or not I choose to play with specific cards has no effect on how scenarios are designed and tested. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I would appreciate it if you took the time to understand what I have said.

You don't need a tournament structure to see that certain cards may not function as intended.  In fact, if you look at board games that FFG makes, the frequently use expansion products to effectively errata cards that have unintended negative consequences on the game.  And they make those decisions without the resource of tournament play.  A restricted list is less intrusive than major errata to text of cards, which we already have in this game.

And yes, if FFG made a restricted list it would likely differ from mine in some fashion.  I would be fine by that. A properly made restricted list would help the development of the game, just like it does with every other LCG.   


 

If that first paragraph was directed at me, I can assure you that I understand what you are saying, thank you for assuming that I didn't. Balancing how a card plays out between solo and coop will be a challenge, much more so when it is a powerful card. But that comes with this kind of game in which you must design to cover multiple modes of play. The issue of cards affecting encounter deck design will always exist. By this kind of rationale, FFG should never make powerful cards lest they become overly powerful at some point. Personally, I think that if the Tracker is found to be that much of an issue, FFG can be creative enough to design counters against him. I'm guessing this is what bothers you, that they should not have to tailor their designs so specifically against any one single card. I can see how this would qualify a card as overpowered, but In my opinion, it is still too premature.

I truly believe that in a card game, tournaments are needed to ascertain what cards are tipping the balance of the game. Either that, or a long standing, proven ability of the card to wreck the environment. I just don't feel we are there yet. If FFG cannot find ways to make it less of a factor, then they should make whatever decisions they think will benefit the game. Note that I'm not against a list ever, just not at this point. 

I'm wondering, how would you deal with Steward of Gondor? Not looking to argue this one, just curious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titan said:

I'm wondering, how would you deal with Steward of Gondor? Not looking to argue this one, just curious.


Bohemond said:

I already posted specific cards. Unexpected Courage, Steward of Gondor, Northern Tracker and Gandalf. As for the manner of restriction I would use the same rules that all of the other LCGs use. Here is an example from the game of thrones rules.
"The following cards are restricted for LCG tournament melee and joust play. A player may select 1 card from the restricted list for any given deck, and cannot then play with any other restricted cards in the same deck. A player may run as many copies of his chosen restricted card in a deck as the regular game rules (or card text) allow.'

 

The issue with northern tracker isn't just power level. Northern tracker threats to remove an entire component of the game (travel) and neutralizes the majority of one of the three types of encounter cards. the designers are clearly already trying to devise anti-northern tracker cards, and, if Emin Muil is any indication, that process seems to actually make the game worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yesterday we have a long evening to play nightmare session with my friend Koby. We have 2 very good working together decks. Quest/draw/cancel effect deck Beravur/Eowyn/Eleanor and fighting deck Gimly/Theodred/Thalin.

In this thread before i use to explain how those 2 decks very good work together against any quest even against Osgiliath so here is my report about how is work in Nightmare.

First, big surprise for us nightmare with even new FAQ 1.1 rules is more easy and annoy then just solo game. Why???? Cose in this game you can control what kind of cards you have in your deck on the beginnig of every quest session. For example: In the first game by Beravur we both take all our deck in hands. Than When you come to the last stage of the quest you heal all your wounds, reduce your threat and discard to discard pile all the cards(by Protector of Lorien) which you dont need in the next Quest (in our case next one is Carrock). So then when you finish the first quest you start second one with the best cards in you draw deck. you can even discard all the cards keep only 7 and exactly manage your best starting hands!!! And Beravur deck get in starting hand dwarven tomb and Will of the west so you always can get your deck back from discard pike later for both players when you need it. So you can Choose your staring hand from quest to quest easy!!!!! This is amazing!!!! This advantage you can never get in normal game. So i dont tnink need to explain the encounter deck cannot do nothing against you. So you can manage your staring hand, You always have resources to pay for your cards(steward) you always have enough cards in both players hands so you can answer on any card in encounter deck and you always have advantage cose encouner deck still reveal only 2 cards per turn.

Poor baby encounter deck!!!! I feel pity for him!!!! Ohh my god!!!! This is what Nate French develop for this game?????Sorry but something wrong here.

Of course all of this is possible only cose Beravur and U. Courage on him 3 times. So if Beravur will have text limit once per round many things change. And Courage should be unique. When we get Boromir We change Thalin and then those decks will be much more powerful and there is some eagles from Emyn Muil we need too. Actually is not really necessary  even without those new eagles is working quite good.

I hope my english is good enough and every one undestand what i mean and you can always try this by yourself!!!! Cheers for every one.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Then maybe you should just play with one U. Courage if you think it makes it too easy. I only have one core set and I begin to think that although it's perfectly "legal" to have 3xevery card in your deck, this is probably why they didn't include it in the core set. Or one of the reasons anyway. Knowing it would be too easy to beat the game with certain cards x 3. I agree that if that's the case they should also have made it restricted. I'll agree with you on that Glaurung, strange as it might be lengua.gif But then see it from the perspective of all the one core set owners too. It's "only" you guys with multiple core sets that is in that situation and then it would be more fair if you just made those restrictions yourself instead of wanting more challenging quests all the time ;) AND to come with suggestions to erratta such as I think you have done earlier? And after the first tournament if it'll ever be, the discussion of banning cards could come up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then don't use those cards.
Seriously what's wrong people?! This is a non competitive, non tournament game. There is no 'abuse' unless you chose to do so.
If it's too easy, make it harder for yourself. If it's too hard, go for the more cost efficient combo's.
This is a story orientated game that has a sandbox edge in playstyle. You can easily put down your own restrictions in the game.

Not to mention the quests are going to get harder and far more complex. If like me you build 'general' decks not orientated towards one single quest you'll see performance flutter rapidly.

I'm terribly sorry but I just don't see a problem. You seem to look at the Lotr LCG the way I look at the Warhammer Invasion LCG balance. And these are both very different beasts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glaurung said:

Cose in this game you can control what kind of cards you have in your deck on the beginnig of every quest session. For example: In the first game by Beravur we both take all our deck in hands. Than When you come to the last stage of the quest you heal all your wounds, reduce your threat and discard to discard pile all the cards(by Protector of Lorien) which you dont need in the next Quest (in our case next one is Carrock). So then when you finish the first quest you start second one with the best cards in you draw deck. you can even discard all the cards keep only 7 and exactly manage your best starting hands!!! And Beravur deck get in starting hand dwarven tomb and Will of the west so you always can get your deck back from discard pike later for both players when you need it. So you can Choose your staring hand from quest to quest easy!!!!! This is amazing!!!! This advantage you can never get in normal game. So i dont tnink need to explain the encounter deck cannot do nothing against you. So you can manage your staring hand, You always have resources to pay for your cards(steward) you always have enough cards in both players hands so you can answer on any card in encounter deck and you always have advantage cose encouner deck still reveal only 2 cards per turn.

Poor baby encounter deck!!!! I feel pity for him!!!! Ohh my god!!!! This is what Nate French develop for this game?????Sorry but something wrong here.

Of course all of this is possible only cose Beravur and U. Courage on him 3 times. So if Beravur will have text limit once per round many things change. And Courage should be unique. When we get Boromir We change Thalin and then those decks will be much more powerful and there is some eagles from Emyn Muil we need too. Actually is not really necessary  even without those new eagles is working quite good.

I hope my english is good enough and every one undestand what i mean and you can always try this by yourself!!!! Cheers for every one.
 

I'm a bit confused Glarung, First how can both of you get all of your deck in hand using one Beravor? it would take at least 12 turns. Also after you finish a quest in nightmare mode (according to the official FAQ, page 5), you are supposed to shuffle all non hero cards in play and in hand into their owner's decks and discard all unspent resources and reset threat to the value of the threat cost of their heroes. Also Steward of Gondor is unique and therefore there can only be one in play, and as such you only get 2 extra resources a turn. I'm having difficulty believing that a quest like massing at Osgiliath where you start the quest with 3 scouts per player in the staging area would not pose a problem even with your strategy. Do you mulligan more than once? I don't think you're followng the rules correctly. If you are finding it that easy, you must be missing something. Perhaps you could record a quest and post on youtube so we can see exactly how you play. Maybe we can see some mistakes you are making that you aren't aware of. If this is the case hopefully we can help improve your playing experience. happy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silverhand77 said:

Glaurung said:

 

Cose in this game you can control what kind of cards you have in your deck on the beginnig of every quest session. For example: In the first game by Beravur we both take all our deck in hands. Than When you come to the last stage of the quest you heal all your wounds, reduce your threat and discard to discard pile all the cards(by Protector of Lorien) which you dont need in the next Quest (in our case next one is Carrock). So then when you finish the first quest you start second one with the best cards in you draw deck. you can even discard all the cards keep only 7 and exactly manage your best starting hands!!! And Beravur deck get in starting hand dwarven tomb and Will of the west so you always can get your deck back from discard pike later for both players when you need it. So you can Choose your staring hand from quest to quest easy!!!!! This is amazing!!!! This advantage you can never get in normal game. So i dont tnink need to explain the encounter deck cannot do nothing against you. So you can manage your staring hand, You always have resources to pay for your cards(steward) you always have enough cards in both players hands so you can answer on any card in encounter deck and you always have advantage cose encouner deck still reveal only 2 cards per turn.

Poor baby encounter deck!!!! I feel pity for him!!!! Ohh my god!!!! This is what Nate French develop for this game?????Sorry but something wrong here.

Of course all of this is possible only cose Beravur and U. Courage on him 3 times. So if Beravur will have text limit once per round many things change. And Courage should be unique. When we get Boromir We change Thalin and then those decks will be much more powerful and there is some eagles from Emyn Muil we need too. Actually is not really necessary  even without those new eagles is working quite good.

I hope my english is good enough and every one undestand what i mean and you can always try this by yourself!!!! Cheers for every one.
 

 

 

I'm a bit confused Glarung, First how can both of you get all of your deck in hand using one Beravor? it would take at least 12 turns. Also after you finish a quest in nightmare mode (according to the official FAQ, page 5), you are supposed to shuffle all non hero cards in play and in hand into their owner's decks and discard all unspent resources and reset threat to the value of the threat cost of their heroes. Also Steward of Gondor is unique and therefore there can only be one in play, and as such you only get 2 extra resources a turn. I'm having difficulty believing that a quest like massing at Osgiliath where you start the quest with 3 scouts per player in the staging area would not pose a problem even with your strategy. Do you mulligan more than once? I don't think you're followng the rules correctly. If you are finding it that easy, you must be missing something. Perhaps you could record a quest and post on youtube so we can see exactly how you play. Maybe we can see some mistakes you are making that you aren't aware of. If this is the case hopefully we can help improve your playing experience. happy.gif

 

I already have my video but quality is not really good.  I cannot fix position of my camera and i hold camera in my hand so is not really nice.I try make better one.

About Beravur you put 3 U courage on him. And Steward is unique. I was a Decipher tournaments director 10 years before and was the best player in my country in Lotr TCG and 1 of the best MTG player as well. I know the rules dont worry. And my friend Koby as well very proff player so we both dont understand the rules????We oriented on the tournaments so we do EVERYTHING according to the rules and only rules. This is not a question.

About house rules and tournaments. I buy this game cose of Tournaments. And FFG in Some thread say there is a tournament system only come later.And in the rule book there is a tournament deck 50 card minimum + no more then 3 copies each. So we use this rules nothing more.

 I buy 4 core set and my goal to win World cup(i always sad this from begin). We play only the OFFICIAL rules in this case. Cose all other experience you dont need it can even harm you. And we play on the same condition as  every other players. We have all the same rules the same cards but different strategy and different ideas how to use the cards. Actually this is a whole point!!!

So we find the combo which is broke the game. And this is nothing new actually about this. Before in the Lotr TCG from Decipher was a same story.

1 player, after second set was release(MInes of moria) he make combo which is kill most of the decks. And was the same problem.Unlimited DRAW!!!He draw a lot in the first turn and get kiling Shadow hand combo and on the next turn he kill he is opponent.

Then Decipehr change the draw rules. Who use to play this game they know rules of 4 is: You cannot draw more then 4 cards in single turn.

But is true communty here is really different to community of the MTG and LOTR TCG in my old times(7-10years before).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glaurung said:


 

I already have my video but quality is not really good.  I cannot fix position of my camera and i hold camera in my hand so is not really nice.I try make better one.

About Beravur you put 3 U courage on him. And Steward is unique. I was a Decipher tournaments director 10 years before and was the best player in my country in Lotr TCG and 1 of the best MTG player as well. I know the rules dont worry. And my friend Koby as well very proff player so we both dont understand the rules????We oriented on the tournaments so we do EVERYTHING according to the rules and only rules. This is not a question.

About house rules and tournaments. I buy this game cose of Tournaments. And FFG in Some thread say there is a tournament system only come later.And in the rule book there is a tournament deck 50 card minimum + no more then 3 copies each. So we use this rules nothing more.

 I buy 4 core set and my goal to win World cup(i always sad this from begin). We play only the OFFICIAL rules in this case. Cose all other experience you dont need it can even harm you. And we play on the same condition as  every other players. We have all the same rules the same cards but different strategy and different ideas how to use the cards. Actually this is a whole point!!!

So we find the combo which is broke the game. And this is nothing new actually about this. Before in the Lotr TCG from Decipher was a same story.

1 player, after second set was release(MInes of moria) he make combo which is kill most of the decks. And was the same problem.Unlimited DRAW!!!He draw a lot in the first turn and get kiling Shadow hand combo and on the next turn he kill he is opponent.

Then Decipehr change the draw rules. Who use to play this game they know rules of 4 is: You cannot draw more then 4 cards in single turn.

But is true communty here is really different to community of the MTG and LOTR TCG in my old times(7-10years before).

 

 

Even with 3x Unexpected courage on Beravor. the most cards you can draw in a single turn is 8. for both of you (presumably with a minimum of 50 cards in your deck) it would take at least 12 turns to draw your entire decks. Lets say your opening hand has one copy of U Courage in it, on average it would probably take at least 2-3 turns to draw into a second one and then probably the same to draw into the third. I'm just thinking that in this time, you would also have to deal with enemies and questing and attcking and defending etc, plus you would have to control your threat all of which costs resources and requires exhausting characters. And then in Nightmare mode you'd have to shuffle all of them back into your deck and start again.  You would need a lot of luck to get through all of the available quests one after the other as easily as you claim. I'm not buying it. The game just isn't that easy especially in nightmare mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 to start off with (leaving only 43 to draw through), 9 per turn eventually (8 from Beravor + 1 each turn), that's 50+ cards in 5 turns by my math (9x5 = 45 + 7 = 52). Of course resources are an issue as is drawing all 3 UC, but then again, there is Ancient Mathom for 1 resource -> 3 cards. I've seen 35+ cards with Beravor + 2x UC in my games (vs Carrock of course, there is all the time in the world for hoarding cards during stage 1) in somewhere around 10 turns without fully optimising the draw as well (throwing a few cards for the other deck as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dam said:

7 to start off with (leaving only 43 to draw through), 9 per turn eventually (8 from Beravor + 1 each turn), that's 50+ cards in 5 turns by my math (9x5 = 45 + 7 = 52). Of course resources are an issue as is drawing all 3 UC, but then again, there is Ancient Mathom for 1 resource -> 3 cards. I've seen 35+ cards with Beravor + 2x UC in my games (vs Carrock of course, there is all the time in the world for hoarding cards during stage 1) in somewhere around 10 turns without fully optimising the draw as well (throwing a few cards for the other deck as well)

Yep I can see that your maths is correct. However I still don't think you could pull it off 8 consecutive times in a row especially with massing in the mix. You wouldn't have much time to hoard cards in massing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...