David Chapman
United Kingdom
Aberdeen
flag msg tools
Oh, alright - except for Codenames
badge
No, this is NOT my bloody "fursona"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nephrinn wrote:


Well, that's not in any way degenerate. +2 to a quest for 1 resource, usable every turn would be strong by itself, but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jedit wrote:
... but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.


Which is hardly a bad outcome - you have got an ally worth 3 for just 1.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Corbin
United States
Tallahassee
FL
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Jedit wrote:
... but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.


Which is hardly a bad outcome - you have got an ally worth 3 for just 1.


plus whatever threat increase you get for unsuccessfully questing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Corbin
United States
Tallahassee
FL
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm wondering if the new secrecy keyword would increase the viability of decks with less than 3 heroes to have a lower starting threat
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theduke850 wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Jedit wrote:
... but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.


Which is hardly a bad outcome - you have got an ally worth 3 for just 1.


plus whatever threat increase you get for unsuccessfully questing.
Which is almost certainly less than what you would have got had you spent the 1 resource on a different ally.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Elias
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Jedit wrote:
... but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.


Which is hardly a bad outcome - you have got an ally worth 3 for just 1.


I don't get it, why are they rewarding us for unsuccessfully questing? Something seems off about that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is something that didn't make sense to me:
Quote:
[...] you’ll want the majority of cards in your deck to cost no more than the number of resources you’re guaranteed to gain each turn from heroes of the card’s sphere of influence.

So if you have a 3 sphere deck with no extra resource generation or card drawing then they are saying the majority of your cards should only cost 1 even though you get 3 resources every turn but only 1 card.

Let's say I have one tactics hero who gets one resource each turn. In a 3 sphere deck I will only draw a tactics card every third turn so I don't understand the benefit of making sure most of my tactics cards only have a cost of 1.

Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot for a average cost closer to 3?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Gutowski
Poland
Gdańsk
flag msg tools
mbmb
BitJam wrote:


Let's say I have one tactics hero who gets one resource each turn. In a 3 sphere deck I will only draw a tactics card every third turn so I don't understand the benefit of making sure most of my tactics cards only have a cost of 1.

Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot for a average cost closer to 3?



No, it would not. You would be in very bad situation in first 2 turns and probably die before you get a chance to play your expensive cards. If you use mono sphere deck you can easily play such cards in first turn. In 3 spheres deck, you simply can't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Chapman
United Kingdom
Aberdeen
flag msg tools
Oh, alright - except for Codenames
badge
No, this is NOT my bloody "fursona"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
Jedit wrote:
... but as worded if you don't quest successfully you don't return Bofur to your hand.


Which is hardly a bad outcome - you have got an ally worth 3 for just 1.


Yes, Richard, that would be why I said it seemed degenerate.

Nephrinn wrote:
That's the catch. They're not rewarding you; they're making you take chances with raising a variable amount of threat or wasting resources to permanently or temporarily play the card.


No chance needs to be taken, unless there's a strict window on when you can use Quest Actions. If they can be used at any time during the quest phase, you can play Bofur after finding out what the final threat tally will be. He can turn a close fail into a pass, or a wide fail (3+) into a permanent advantage. And if you're already succeeding by plenty, you don't need to waste a resource to succeed by more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
guciomir wrote:
BitJam wrote:


Let's say I have one tactics hero who gets one resource each turn. In a 3 sphere deck I will only draw a tactics card every third turn so I don't understand the benefit of making sure most of my tactics cards only have a cost of 1.

Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot for a average cost closer to 3?



No, it would not. You would be in very bad situation in first 2 turns and probably die before you get a chance to play your expensive cards. If you use mono sphere deck you can easily play such cards in first turn. In 3 spheres deck, you simply can't.

That still doesn't make any sense to me. For example, there are only 4 allies that have a cost of 1. That's fewer than 10%. Are you seriously suggesting I remove allies from my deck and replace them with event cards merely because the event cards only cost 1? Even if I followed your advice, most event cards are situation specific so they wouldn't be played on the first turn even though I could afford them. By the 2nd turn each hero will have 2 resources available (unless the first was used on one of those 1-cost cards) and more might be available from non-guaranteed sources so I don't see why you are talking about "the first 2 turns".

ISTM that filling your deck with a mixture of cards that have different costs makes much more sense. Removing good cards and replacing them with mediocre cards just so the majority of cards can be played on the first turn doesn't make sense to me. With a few notable exceptions, my top priority is getting allies out ASAP. Stacking my deck with cards that cost 1 will greatly slow down how quickly I can do that.

You start out with 7 cards in your hand. Sure it would be nice to have one or two that you can play on the very first turn but there is no reason I can see why you would want the majority of those cards to be playable on the first turn. I agree that it would be good if the majority of cards could be played on the first or second turn but that means you want the majority to cost either one or two resources which brings the average closer to 3 which is what I suggested.

ISTM that the person who wrote the article might have simply made a mistake in their calculation because on average you do want to be able to afford the cards in your deck. If you were able to draw one card from each sphere every turn then their recommendation makes sense to me because it would assure that you could afford to pay for most of the cards you are drawing as you draw them.

Even if you follow my advice and shoot for an average cost closer to 3 then you will still, on average, end up with more resources than you can spend. I see no advantage to removing allies from the deck and replacing them with mediocre cards so you can end up with way more resources than you are able to spend.

Steward of Gondor is considered to be one of the most powerful cards available but following this low cost strategy it would be pretty much useless because even without SoG every hero is going to end up with many more resources than they can spend.

Let's look at some specific examples. Glaurung2's "Eowyn, Gimli, Theodred" deck has only 19/50 cards that cost 1. Xanalor's "Hobbits and Men" deck has only 21/50 cards that cost 1. My "Denethor Eowyn Theodred" deck has only 12/55 cards that cost 1. Those are the first three decks I looked at. Out of 27 decks I have written down *none* have a majority of 1 cost cards. Granted, some of them aren't 3-sphere decks but most of them are.

IMO it would do more harm than good to follow the guideline I'm questioning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sören M.
Germany
flag msg tools
theduke850 wrote:
I'm wondering if the new secrecy keyword would increase the viability of decks with less than 3 heroes to have a lower starting threat


That is most definetly the reason for this keyword, to make less than 3 hero-decks viable. If i understand it correctly, then secrecy x means, if your threat is below 20, then the card cost is card cost - x. How would anyone get a threat under 20 without starting with only 1 or 2 heros? And cost reduction makes perfect sense for less than 3 hero-decks, since you produce less ressources.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sören M.
Germany
flag msg tools
Nephrinn wrote:
twolate wrote:
theduke850 wrote:
I'm wondering if the new secrecy keyword would increase the viability of decks with less than 3 heroes to have a lower starting threat


That is most definetly the reason for this keyword, to make less than 3 hero-decks viable. If i understand it correctly, then secrecy x means, if your threat is below 20, then the card cost is card cost - x. How would anyone get a threat under 20 without starting with only 1 or 2 heros? And cost reduction makes perfect sense for less than 3 hero-decks, since you produce less ressources.


You could easily get it under 20 by using 3 of the 7 threat hero cards, say Frodo, Bifur, and Eleanor, for a starting threat of 21. Then use cards like Gandalf and The Galadhrim's Greeting to get it below that. You could also use Dwalin (for 2 extra threat) and build him to be an orc killer for threat reduction. And I'm positive there will be additional cards in the Dwarrowdelf cycle that will allow you to reduce threat.


Well, yes. But it seems difficult to stay below the threshold of 20 and as soon as you get above that at least the one card shown with that keyword gets pretty expensive for what it does. (Well I could still see one or two uses for it...). So going for triple-hero, below 20 decks could be possible early game, but will take a lot of effort to maintain throughout to not make secrecy useless after two or three rounds.

And afterall even if it is possible to include into a triple-hero-deck, it still has the possibility of making dual-hero-decks viable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Bielefeld
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bofur is a very powerful card: Even without his ability he has great stats (2/1/1/3) for a cost of 3. His ability is nearly a no brainer: when your questing willpower is 2 points lower than the threat in the staging area, you can play him as an action (you can do that after the encounter cards are revealed) and you get him permanently into play with no threat increase (an exact match of willpower/threat counts as not successfully quested). This card reads: +2 willpower for the cost of 1 plus you get a good ally into play...

Concerning secrecy: I'm not convinced about the 2-Hero-idea. In my opinion it follows a circular logic: In order to play a couple of cards for less I sacrifice 33% of my resource generation and play with one less Hero ability. Why not stick to 3 Heroes and play normal cards then in the first place?

The only future merit I see in this, is to construct a 2-Hero deck and milk the higher cost of secrecy cards with Zigil Miner but pay the lower cost to play them. But then: until we have enough secrecy cards for a full deck we'll have to wait a couple of cycles.

Besides: there are so many threat increasing quest effects slapped on players (Gollum/Return to Mirkwood, Objective cards/Escape from Dol Guldur, Balrog/Flight from Moria) that a full secrecy-build will have it's limits.

I'd wished that FFG had gone the path of strengthening mono-sphere decks with cards like Wall of Spears. For example my version of Timely Aid would be then:

Timely Aid
Leadership Event, cost of 3
Reveal the top 10 cards of your deck and put two revealed allies into play with a combined cost of not more than 6. This card must be paid from 3 different heroes you control.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LSU LSU
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Bofur is a very powerful card: Even without his ability he has great stats (2/1/1/3) for a cost of 3. His ability is nearly a no brainer: when your questing willpower is 2 points lower than the threat in the staging area, you can play him as an action (you can do that after the encounter cards are revealed) and you get him permanently into play with no threat increase (an exact match of willpower/threat counts as not successfully quested). This card reads: +2 willpower for the cost of 1 plus you get a good ally into play...


Is this right? You can get Bofur in permanently for 1 resource?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Bielefeld
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, if you quest unsuccessfully...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Boeren
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the idea of Secrecy, but I'm not convinced about the implementation just yet.

There's got to be more to it than just decks with less than 3 heroes or else they'd have just based the rule off the number of heroes rather than Threat.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Saloff
United States
Edinboro
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
This is a rebellion, isn't it? I rebel.
badge
He's a card player, gambler, scoundrel. You'd like him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dboeren wrote:
There's got to be more to it than just decks with less than 3 heroes or else they'd have just based the rule off the number of heroes rather than Threat.


It's not too hard to get your threat really low if you devote your deck to it. There are times we'll play and between Gandalfs and Galadhrims Greetings our Spirit teamate will be at 10 threat or less, and now there's newer tricks like Dwalin and Elfhelm. It's maybe not as easy now with the new scoring rules (since you want to go faster) but it's still possible to definitely get certain players under 20 threat, even with 3 Heroes, if you want to.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Rachemoss
United States
Silver City
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shelfwear wrote:
LSUtigers wrote:
Is this right? You can get Bofur in permanently for 1 resource?

Yes, if you quest unsuccessfully...

"Questing unsuccessfully" is not the same thing as "not questing successfully". If the willpower you committed equals the threat in the staging area then the quest was neither successful or unsuccessful. Page 14 of the rule book says the quest was successful if the willpower was higher and it was unsuccessful if the threat was higher but it says nothing about what happens when the willpower equals the threat.

You only return Bofur to your hand if you quest successfully. So Bofur remains on the table if the quest was unsuccessful or if it was a tie. As others have already said with few words, in the case of a tie you can keep Bofur (after spending only one resource on him) without having an unsuccessful quest.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.