About Elrond's Counsel in the News Article

[Angus Lee 24]

It is great that there is a new article by Caleb.

However, in the Playing the Deck section, point two says

• If my threat is getting high, I can play Elrond’s Counsel to simultaneously lower my threat and boost Glorfindel’s Willpower, increasing my chances of questing successfully.

I don't think you can use Elrond's Counsel to boost Glorfindel's Willpower since he is the only unique Noldor character (unless Arwen is in play) and the text reads:

Action: If you control a unique Noldor character, give another character +1[willpower] until the end of the phase……

If my interpretation of this card is correct, the text of the article should probably be clarified by adding that the above can be done only when Arwen is in play.  Is that correct?

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

Man, I never noticed that.  I'm sure I've played this card wrong in the past.

[bitva 4]

Actually, if that is indeed the wording on Elrond's Councel, you can give the extra willpower to anyone BUT Glorfindel, regardless of whether Arwen is in play.

[Nerdmeister 144]

The wording suggests you have to designate a unique noldor character under your control. If you designate Arwen as that character then the +1 willpower could conceivably be placed in Glorfindel

[Rapier1 146]

I'm more annoyed by it having two horns of Gondor than a minor rules mistake.

[bollywongaloid 14]

Rapier said:

I'm more annoyed by it having two horns of Gondor than a minor rules mistake.

Why does that annoy you? The deck isn't exactly built around card draw so it makes sense to have more than one copy of horn of Gondor to up your chances of getting it in play.

[Valyrian Steel 1]

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

[DevastazioneH88 17]

Actually you can give plus one willpower to anyone but the noldor you chose as your unique noldor character…I really don't see how that's hard to understand…tha card is phrased correctly…

[bollywongaloid 14]

Valyrian Steel said:

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

lol fair point

[CJMatos 54]

Valyrian Steel said:

 

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

 

 

 

That is the annoyance…

 

As to the Elrond's Counsel the correct reading isn't the one on the article, unless you already have in play Arwen…

 

So IMO, Elrond's Counsel asks you to choose a unique Noldor character you control and then give +1 willpower to any other character you or other player control and reduce your threat by 3;

 

[Rapier1 146]

Valyrian Steel said:

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

 

Exactly.

It's even more annoying now that I have 3 copies of black arrow and 3 copies of a path of need. (It means that with a little more thought the core-set could have been exactly as it is AND be complete).

[Dain Ironfoot 180]

Rapier said:

Valyrian Steel said:

 

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

 

 

 

Exactly.

It's even more annoying now that I have 3 copies of black arrow and 3 copies of a path of need. (It means that with a little more thought the core-set could have been exactly as it is AND be complete).

 

none of FFG's LCG's core sets have 3 of any card (all games have 3 card max in deck, except SW which is a little different). This is their business model.

They claim it's to provide more variety of cards in a given Core Set - if they did 3 of everything, there would be less variety.

Whether that's true, or they just want to sell more product, it has nothing to do with "a little more thought."

Even so, a booster box of Magic, argueably the most popular game in this genre, would be $89 on the low side and $110 on the high[er] side. The kicker is, you'd only get 30 rares and nowhere near a playset of all cards (4 of each).

For LOTR, if you paid retail for 3 core sets, it'll cost you $120. If you are a bargin shopper, you can get Core Sets for around $29, so 3 is $89. Definitely a bargin, all things considered, given similar types of games on the market.

While I understand some players reluctance to purchase 2 or 3 corsets, it was an auto-buy for me, and just about everyone I know in the local area that plays the game. And I'm a broke grad student! Haha. Maybe I just need better budgeting skills…

[Ellareth 28]

Always back to Core Set not having 3 copies of every card.

I myself now think not having 3 copies of every card was marketing decision from FFG. As someone always points out, they could've done 2 copies of every card and be done with that.

However, I'm okay with the Core Set as is. I only have 1 Core Set, but I have never felt I needed to buy more to enjoy the game and have fair chance against every scenario released so far.

 

From the article it looks like FFG is making 'Second Breakfast' a regular thing.

If these articles are meant to provide inside view of the game from designer's perspective, that's great, I love the idea and I will definitely check back regularly for more.

But if these articles just continue to provide how to make lateast released mediocre cards (such as Great Yew Bow and Bard) work in a deck by adding super over powered card (like Glorfindel) along with MULTIPLE COPIES OF CORE SET, they should stop, because it really isn't helping them at all - already yet another discussion about their marketing tactics has been rekindled and that can't be a good thing.

The deck they posted doesn't even need those extra cards from second core set, drop 5 cards (Feint, Test of Will, HoN, UC, Light in the Dark) and add in any combination of following cards to make up for the loss: Ancient Mathom / Vassal of Windlord / Winged Guardian.

Infact, if I wanted to centralized Bard even more, I'd get rid of Legolas and add in a Leadership Hero (perhaps Theodred or brand new Balin), add in bunch of Dunedain Marks, Erran Rider so now you have 6 cards that can shuffle resources in turn 1, some cheap 1 cost leadership allies, 2 copies of Steward of Gondor. That would give you so many choices that you wouldn't even need to consider adding cards from second Core Set.

All in all, I don't know why they decided to post yet another deck that requires 2 core set to flame the old arguement, when they could have easily posted equally functioning (if not better) deck featuring Bard using 1 Core Set.

 

Edit: That was a bit of negative comment…. I should add that I only sometimes comment negative stuff about this game because otherwise it is wonderful and flawless game and I think designers did excellent job especially with the new Hobbit box and HoN quests.

 

[CJMatos 54]

Negative or not. your point is tottally right;

 

They should encourage people to try and build fun and winning decks without having to buy more than one copy of each pack they released for the game;

[DevastazioneH88 17]

Dain Ironfoot said:

Rapier said:

 

Valyrian Steel said:

 

I believe the annoyance is due to every deck FFG putting out requiring more than one core set

 

 

 

Exactly.

It's even more annoying now that I have 3 copies of black arrow and 3 copies of a path of need. (It means that with a little more thought the core-set could have been exactly as it is AND be complete).

 

 

 

none of FFG's LCG's core sets have 3 of any card (all games have 3 card max in deck, except SW which is a little different). This is their business model.

They claim it's to provide more variety of cards in a given Core Set - if they did 3 of everything, there would be less variety.

Whether that's true, or they just want to sell more product, it has nothing to do with "a little more thought."

Even so, a booster box of Magic, argueably the most popular game in this genre, would be $89 on the low side and $110 on the high[er] side. The kicker is, you'd only get 30 rares and nowhere near a playset of all cards (4 of each).

For LOTR, if you paid retail for 3 core sets, it'll cost you $120. If you are a bargin shopper, you can get Core Sets for around $29, so 3 is $89. Definitely a bargin, all things considered, given similar types of games on the market.

While I understand some players reluctance to purchase 2 or 3 corsets, it was an auto-buy for me, and just about everyone I know in the local area that plays the game. And I'm a broke grad student! Haha. Maybe I just need better budgeting skills…

 

 

 

Sorry I quoted all of your post but I couldn't agree more with everything you said…

 

I think FFG could really sell "Complete Sets" for a higher price than normal "Core Sets" for those who want everything from the beginning…but still…FFG guys with their LCG own Wizard of the Coast and all TCG crap around the planet….so I don't mind spending 25 $ more for an additional core set…even because exept for the Core Set everything else comes in complete sets 

[Dain Ironfoot 180]

CJMatos said:

Negative or not. your point is tottally right;

 

They should encourage people to try and build fun and winning decks without having to buy more than one copy of each pack they released for the game;

I don't have all of FFG's articles memorized, but didn't the deck lists that came with the Hobbit expansions only build from 1 core set?

This is the first **** article of a series, and frankly, it gets old to see people ***** and moan about every thing FFG does on these boards.

Why not talk about the deck for what it is, not what it's not? (One poster did do this, and i think it was interesting).

Remeber: the article says that FFG looks at the Forums and takes some of the feedback into account. I think we owe it to the designers to be a bit more constructive in our comments, instead of always tearing them down, over things they probablly cannot control (do you really think the designers have much say over the marketing of a product, for example?).

[DevastazioneH88 17]

That said I agree that the article was a mess…I really enjoy deckbuilding,,, I built hundreds of decks since day 1 and I can say their choice was awful. Bard is a great hero but needs a lot of cards to get him to work in a solo deck, plus I think they should have either put in all the cards (thus 3 core sets) so they could build the best possible deck (with best I mean that works best with its synergies, not that has the best results) or stick to one core set…

I also find their choice of using Glorfindel in their very first article is a bit disappointing (and I am running a Glorfindel, Hama, Legolas deck rigth now)…I mean, what's the point in using him ?…everybody knows that since he came out most of the time in solo play when you select your heroes you have 2 slots instead of three (because the third is pre-assigned to Glorfindel almost automatically)…once I used to put Eowyn in a similar deck…but who does that anymore ( - 4 threat, + 2 HP, + 2 ATK - 1 WP at the only cost of raising your threat by 1 unless you have LOV, which most of the times you have)…

I hope they'll focus on less mainstream aspects of the game next time. And I also hope we see some new cards ASAP since they've been delaying Against the Shadows over and over and I'm really looking forward to get new (non-dwarf) heroes and player cards

[legolas18 114]

I think the deck is pretty good.  It's not the best, but it gets the job done while highlighting a card that didn't really have as much impact as they thought it would.  Remember, they pretty much dedicated a whole article to his Great Yew Bow, and it's nice to see them try to make the most of it.  I love tactics, so using a tactics deck that can still quest and make progress would be very nice.  I'm glad that they're starting these articles, it gives a viewpoint of what kind of decks that the developers themselves use.  I don't like how they used two core sets either, but those cards can easily be replaced by something just as effective or even better.

[leptokurt 242]

DevastazioneH88 said:

 

That said I agree that the article was a mess…I really enjoy deckbuilding,,, I built hundreds of decks since day 1 and I can say their choice was awful. Bard is a great hero but needs a lot of cards to get him to work in a solo deck, plus I think they should have either put in all the cards (thus 3 core sets) so they could build the best possible deck (with best I mean that works best with its synergies, not that has the best results) or stick to one core set…

I also find their choice of using Glorfindel in their very first article is a bit disappointing (and I am running a Glorfindel, Hama, Legolas deck rigth now)…I mean, what's the point in using him ?…everybody knows that since he came out most of the time in solo play when you select your heroes you have 2 slots instead of three (because the third is pre-assigned to Glorfindel almost automatically)…once I used to put Eowyn in a similar deck…but who does that anymore ( - 4 threat, + 2 HP, + 2 ATK - 1 WP at the only cost of raising your threat by 1 unless you have LOV, which most of the times you have)…

I hope they'll focus on less mainstream aspects of the game next time. And I also hope we see some new cards ASAP since they've been delaying Against the Shadows over and over and I'm really looking forward to get new (non-dwarf) heroes and player cards

 

 

Funny thing is that a lot of people considered Eowyn to be an auto-include in former times. ;-)

I don't think that Glorfindel is a must for every solo deck. Frodo is a good hero in general who can both quest and defend. Almost all the spirit dwarves are pretty cool. Dunhere has a unique ability that can be quite powerful in certain scenarios. Even Lorefindel is an alternative, especially during the Gondor cycle in which a low threat is not that important, but healing damage is.

 

But this article is about Elrond's Counsel, isn't it? The discussion about it a bit pedantic IMHO. True, you don't add the extra WP to Glorfindel himself, but in almost every adventure phase you send another character questing, so basically having Glorfindel as a hero enables you to play Elrond's Counsel which means + 1 WP for a player.

[Mr Coffee 23]

legolas18 said:

I think the deck is pretty good.  It's not the best, but it gets the job done while highlighting a card that didn't really have as much impact as they thought it would.  Remember, they pretty much dedicated a whole article to his Great Yew Bow, and it's nice to see them try to make the most of it.  I love tactics, so using a tactics deck that can still quest and make progress would be very nice.  I'm glad that they're starting these articles, it gives a viewpoint of what kind of decks that the developers themselves use.  I don't like how they used two core sets either, but those cards can easily be replaced by something just as effective or even better.

 

I will try and play this deck a few times to see how well I like it.  If nothing else, I am inclined to WANT to like it based merely on the fact that it gives a previously unusable (or at least little-used) her, Bard, some new life.  Especially in solo play which he was veirtually dead to…  I can definitely see where some tweaks could be done to make this fit each players personal play-style.  Some good suggestions already in the comments above!

[Mr Coffee 23]

leptokurt said:

But this article is about Elrond's Counsel, isn't it? The discussion about it a bit pedantic IMHO. True, you don't add the extra WP to Glorfindel himself, but in almost every adventure phase you send another character questing, so basically having Glorfindel as a hero enables you to play Elrond's Counsel which means + 1 WP for a player.

 

Agreed.  While I have no problem using Arwen to trigger the extra WP on Glorfindel, I would think it would be more useful the other way anyhow… since then you can use Arwen to trigger her ability to assign additional defense elsewhere (even back on Glorfindel himself if your hand doesnt set up with a better defender), and keeping Glorfindel in reserve to defend/attack if needs be (and if you are unfortunate not to have LoV on him).

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

benhanses said:

I will try and play this deck a few times to see how well I like it.  If nothing else, I am inclined to WANT to like it based merely on the fact that it gives a previously unusable (or at least little-used) her, Bard, some new life.  Especially in solo play which he was veirtually dead to… 

Bard is practically brand new.  It is hard for him to be dead already.  Are you thinking of Brand? 

[NotAZombie 9]

benhanses said:

leptokurt said:

 

But this article is about Elrond's Counsel, isn't it? The discussion about it a bit pedantic IMHO. True, you don't add the extra WP to Glorfindel himself, but in almost every adventure phase you send another character questing, so basically having Glorfindel as a hero enables you to play Elrond's Counsel which means + 1 WP for a player.

 

 

 

Agreed.  While I have no problem using Arwen to trigger the extra WP on Glorfindel, I would think it would be more useful the other way anyhow… since then you can use Arwen to trigger her ability to assign additional defense elsewhere (even back on Glorfindel himself if your hand doesnt set up with a better defender), and keeping Glorfindel in reserve to defend/attack if needs be (and if you are unfortunate not to have LoV on him).

 

Why do you guys think Elrond's Council can only give unique noldor characters +1 WP? It seems pretty clear that if you can spot a unique noldor, you can give the WP to anybody. 

 

Action: If you control a unique Noldor character, give another character +1 until the end of the phase and lower your threat by 3.

 

It just says "another character" not "another unique noldor character". I've seen quite a few people say that on this thread and I don't see it in the card. Was there a ruling I missed?

[NotAZombie 9]

Accidental double post

[GrandSpleen 1,756]

NotAZombie said:

Why do you guys think Elrond's Council can only give unique noldor characters +1 WP? It seems pretty clear that if you can spot a unique noldor, you can give the WP to anybody. 

 

Action: If you control a unique Noldor character, give another character +1 until the end of the phase and lower your threat by 3.

 

It just says "another character" not "another unique noldor character". I've seen quite a few people say that on this thread and I don't see it in the card. Was there a ruling I missed?

I don't think anybody said that.  Quite a few?  They are talking about Arwen because they are reacting to the article, but I don't think anyone has said they believe EC can only give +1WP to another unique Noldor.