Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Questioning the value of expensive allies rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
You know, call me crazy, but I'm not sure that cards like Beorn and Gildor are worth their cost. Sure, they have great stats, but are they good value for the resources you're paying for them?

For the price I pay for Gildor I could instead purchase two Erebor Hammersmiths and an Erebor Record-Keeper. I will get a lot more usage out of three allies than I will from one. Some encounter decks will kill allies. Good. This means I only lost a 1-point ally instead of the guy who cost me 5.

The other thing to think about with stats on someone like Gildor is: how much can you utilize those stats on any given turn? Unless you have a way to ready allies, which further dilutes your deck, you are either using him for questing OR defending OR attacking OR his special ability. Are any of those one things worth the investment of five resources?

Saving up five resources is going to take at least two turns if I am playing all Lore and a lot longer if I am playing a multi-sphere deck. A lot can happen in two to five turns in this game, including losing all those precious resources to an unwelcome treachery encounter, or losing your Lore hero for that matter. I generally want to spend resources as soon as I have them for fear of losing them. And, anyway, you don't get any points for leftover resources at the end of the game... nor do they carry over to the next game. An unspent resource is a wasted resource.

Related to the above point, if I have to save up resources to buy Gildor, how many times am I going to be able to use him? Should my Erebor dwarves be drawn in my first hand, I will have them out on the table and questing immediately. With Gildor, unless I am playing with only Lore heroes, I am going to have to wait at least five turns before he gets out and that's five turns when I did not get to use him, or anything else I could have spent those resources on. If the average game lasts, say, ten turns, is it worth waiting half the game to get him out?

Unique allies have another additional cost you have to think about: how many do you play with? What is the cost of putting three copies of Gildor in a 50-card deck? You're likely only going to use one of them during a single game (barring Sneak Attacks, which are transient and don't really count IMO.) What will you do if you draw the other two copies of Gildor when one is already out? You either play with one and hope you draw him early enough to use him, or you play with multiple copies and hope you don't draw the other copies and fill your hand with stuff you won't be able to use. I want every card I draw to be usable right away. I will make exceptions to this rule for unique cards that improve efficiency, like the ubiquitous Steward of Gondor.

Lastly, all allies are inherently fragile. It is much easier to heal a hero than it is to heal an ally. Allies are more likely to fall victim to nasty encounter/shadow cards. Consequently, I'd much rather lose an ally that I can afford to lose. Sure, there are cards that will heal allies, but do you want to fill your deck with them? Along with the "ready ally" cards that is going to dilute your deck even further.

In my view, deck-building in this game is all about efficiency, and the expensive allies just don't make the cut most of the time for my decks.

(Note that I do not count Gandalf, who will always make the cut, so long as he only ever costs me 1 resource and a Sneak Attack card.)
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duke Of Lizards
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
flag msg tools
Livin's mostly wasting time, and I waste my share of mine
badge
I am a breathing time machine
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

That was a good read. How do you feel about the other high cost allies? You mention Beorn but then focus on Gildor thereafter.

For the most part I agree with you, but you present some worst case scenarios. There are now many ways to accelerate resource production in this game, so resources aren't always as tight as you imply, and there are many scenarios in which a player can pretty reliably get 5 resources on a lore hero as early as round two (Bifur, Steward of Gondor, Theodred, Zigil Miner, etc).

Tactically, that likely leaves a player in a pretty vulnerable state for a turn of so, but the payoff can be tremendous. I won't even mention the Zigil/Gildor deck that can be fueled by these high-cost cards. Three willpower or three defense can be game changers. And in the case of Beorn, his attack in combination with a ready ability can finish off some of the worst baddies without blinking. Radagast is another example of a high cost ally that can be an integrally contributing part of the right deck. There are definitely some high-cost allies that are not so good. Brok Ironfist and Dunedain Wanderer come to mind.

Not even in a secrecy deck


Anyway, I think in general, you're right. A few low cost allies give you greater flexiblity (action advantage, right?) than a single high cost character. I just had to advocate another point of view devil. And besides, I like Gildor very much and I felt he needed a little defending
2 
 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
It shouldn't take 5 turns to get power guys out. You can do it usually in about 2 turns. It's usually like you have 2 Lore Heroes, save 1 green resource from a turn, next turn get your new 2 green resources, and use Steward of Gondor to generate 2 more.

If you only have 1 Lore Hero and you don't plan on putting Steward of Gondor on that person or anything and it's thusly gonna take you 5 turns to pay for a card, obviously that card shouldn't be in the deck then.

And the "are they worth it" question? Yes. Power allies like Gildor, Haldir, Beorn, etc. have great abilities and stat numbers so that I only have to exhaust like 1 or 2 people to kill a moderate enemy instead of needing to have many more to do the same thing. That leaves other people free for stuff like better questing. Most of them can also block a lot of enemies and hardly take damage whereas more smaller characters like you're talking die in 1 hit from even smaller enemies and then you have to keep replacing them.


All that said though, cheaper allies like the Hammersmiths are great too in the right deck builds, for example with like Dain. Or decks with lots of allies and Faramir/Sword That Was Broken. It mostly depends on what your want to do with a deck.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Clements
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Turns out Esseb did touch the flag. Don't tell him I said so though.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also depends on your card drawing. 3 cheap allies are 3 cards, Gildor is 1 card. If your card draw is lower then you will benefit more from expensive cards.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kris Van Beurden
Belgium
Leuven
Vlaams-Brabant
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
For the price I pay for Gildor I could instead purchase two Erebor Hammersmiths and an Erebor Record-Keeper.


And you pay a price for that flexibility - you played 3 cards rather than 1.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Beano
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an excellent topic and the point is very arguable either way as it is dependent on the situation. Clearly if you are comparing questing alone, a Gildor doesn't justify itself compared to a couple hammersmiths and a record keeper. You will get more cumulative questing assuming noone dies (Record keepers are quite fragile). Hammersmiths and record keepers happen to be exceptional values for their cost.

A Gildor or Beorn can have a very high value in combat, as it is much more likely that you can come out of it with little or no damage. Compared to an Erebor Hammersmith which despite being sturdy, will usually take damage and die after a couple of attacks. Gildor and Beorn have the defense to withstand repeated attacks without taking damage.

Ultimately I tend to agree with your premise (at least for the moment) mostly because the game provides numerous card synergies for having more allies out. Faramir, Sword that was Broken, Dain, Hail of Stones, and Legacy of Durin come to mind as cards to build your deck around. And then there of course are cards like Imrahil, Horn of Gondor, Eagles of the Misty Mountain, and Valiant Sacrifice that effectively reward having lots of allies.

But there are numerous ways to get out big allies out that shouldn't be ignored as they alter your equation. Sneak Attack was already mentioned but is also great for Beorn and Gildor in some circumstances. Timely Aid has ridiculous value in a secrecy deck if Beorn, Gildor, NT are available. Stand and Fight along with a Good Meal or two can make it very cheap to bring in a heavy hitter. The reality is that if you can afford to play a big ally over a small one. The big ally is almost always the better choice. Card synergies could certainly change this balance in the future.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
polychrotid wrote:

That was a good read.


Thank you.

Quote:
How do you feel about the other high cost allies? You mention Beorn but then focus on Gildor thereafter.


When I started writing this it was as a response to the "Who are the best allies" thread. When I realized it was getting a bit long and off-topic I figured I would make it a thread of its own. The other thread had people responding to the question with the most expensive allies, mentioning Gildor and Beorn specifically, hence that remaining in my intro.

Truth is, I am not a big fan of Tactics and have not played enough with that sphere to feel qualified to express a meaningful opinion on Beorn specifically. My feeling, for what it is worth, is that he is not worth his cost because Gandalf will be better and easier to slot in than Beorn most of the time. I mean, if I want to use Beorn to smack down powerful enemies, it's most of the time going to be for 8 attack using his special. Presumably, the enemy is going to be sufficiently tough that I have to get through a lot of armour to damage it. Gandalf can do 4 damage ignoring the armour altogether, and can be used as an attacker as well. Keep in mind I almost always use Gandalf with Sneak Attack, so he is going back to my hand, creating a similar but better effect than Beorn.

Additionally, if I am playing Tactics, presumably I am already able to hurt my opponents using other, cheaper transient or permanent effects. Similar to my argument re Glorion, I think I would rather buy a bunch of nice weapons for the same price as I'm paying for Beorn.

Well, I guess that's a lot of opinion for someone who doesn't feel qualified, so take that as you will, heh.

Quote:
For the most part I agree with you, but you present some worst case scenarios. There are now many ways to accelerate resource production in this game, so resources aren't always as tight as you imply, and there are many scenarios in which a player can pretty reliably get 5 resources on a lore hero as early as round two (Bifur, Steward of Gondor, Theodred, Zigil Miner, etc).


My current deck, based around Dain Ironfoot, Dwalin and Bifur, does use all of the cards mentioned, except Theodred obviously. Until I removed Glorion, I often had both him and Zigil Miners on the table but I rarely used them in tandem to generate resources. I much prefer Steward of Gondor for that, and don't mind using multiple copies. It's not so much that I lack in resources; rather, I find better things to spend them on.

I guess when I build a deck, I assume the worst. It may be true that when I draw Glorion I have the resources to pay for him. But why leave that to chance? I know I can afford Henamarth Riversong right away.

Quote:

I won't even mention the Zigil/Gildor deck that can be fueled by these high-cost cards.


Thanks for not mentioning that :-)

Quote:

Three willpower or three defense can be game changers.


I will have more than three willpower on the other allies I bought instead (used in tandem with Dain, which is how this particular deck excels).

Quote:

Brok Ironfist and Dunedain Wanderer come to mind.


Yeah, the fact that I am running a Dwarf deck and can't find room for Brok is indicative of something. If your strategy for getting expensive allies in play is to let your heroes die, some rethinking might be in order, heh.

Quote:

Anyway, I think in general, you're right. A few low cost allies give you greater flexiblity (action advantage, right?) than a single high cost character. I just had to advocate another point of view devil. And besides, I like Gildor very much and I felt he needed a little defending


And you have done so well, thanks for the feedback.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Mattr0polis wrote:
It shouldn't take 5 turns to get power guys out. You can do it usually in about 2 turns. It's usually like you have 2 Lore Heroes, save 1 green resource from a turn, next turn get your new 2 green resources, and use Steward of Gondor to generate 2 more.


Well, if your focus is on Lore, then I concede the point that you will find it easier to raise the funds to buy Glorion. However, you will also have other problems inherent to focusing on only one sphere.

Quote:

If you only have 1 Lore Hero and you don't plan on putting Steward of Gondor on that person or anything and it's thusly gonna take you 5 turns to pay for a card, obviously that card shouldn't be in the deck then.


I agree. And yet I keep seeing single Lore hero decks that include him.

Quote:

And the "are they worth it" question? Yes. Power allies like Gildor, Haldir, Beorn, etc. have great abilities and stat numbers so that I only have to exhaust like 1 or 2 people to kill a moderate enemy instead of needing to have many more to do the same thing. That leaves other people free for stuff like better questing. Most of them can also block a lot of enemies and hardly take damage whereas more smaller characters like you're talking die in 1 hit from even smaller enemies and then you have to keep replacing them.


I should mention here that I tend not to use my small allies for defending, unless I have no choice. Rather, I am usually using a tanked up hero.

Thanks for commenting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Kamakaze wrote:
Also depends on your card drawing. 3 cheap allies are 3 cards, Gildor is 1 card. If your card draw is lower then you will benefit more from expensive cards.


Resource generation and card draws are intricately linked, I agree. However, I don't think there is a tremendous benefit to including expensive cards, ally or otherwise, in a deck that does not have some way to get additional card draws. Such a deck will still have the same problems paying for Glorion no matter how many draws it gets (unless you are also digging for resource generating cards while you draw).

Thanks for commenting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Tegarend wrote:
Quote:
For the price I pay for Gildor I could instead purchase two Erebor Hammersmiths and an Erebor Record-Keeper.


And you pay a price for that flexibility - you played 3 cards rather than 1.


In what way do you consider that a cost? The fact that my hand now has fewer options than it would otherwise? I would have fewer options anyway by virtue of being broke

Thanks for commenting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
compton9890 wrote:

A Gildor or Beorn can have a very high value in combat, as it is much more likely that you can come out of it with little or no damage. Compared to an Erebor Hammersmith which despite being sturdy, will usually take damage and die after a couple of attacks. Gildor and Beorn have the defense to withstand repeated attacks without taking damage.


I would argue that the potential risk of losing an expensive ally as a defender is offset by the negligible cost of losing a cheap one. Sure, Gildor can take a few hits before he dies. But that is more or less equivalent to losing, say, three cheap ones defending against the same hits that would have killed Glorion. I would say, as far as value, they break even on this point. However, as mentioned above, I tend not to use cheap allies as blockers except in emergencies.

Quote:

But there are numerous ways to get out big allies out that shouldn't be ignored as they alter your equation. Sneak Attack was already mentioned but is also great for Beorn and Gildor in some circumstances.


I already use my Sneak Attacks for Gandalf. Three copies of each, as most people do. Adding additional expensive allies will make Sneak Attack less useful as I ideally want parity between the Sneak Attacks and big allies in order to get the most efficient use out of them.

Quote:
Stand and Fight along with a Good Meal or two can make it very cheap to bring in a heavy hitter.


I'm sorry, but does using A Good Meal seem like a good combo to everyone? It does not to me. Saving two resources on another card sounds good, but I don't think it justifies wasting a card slot.

I do like and play with Stand in Fight, as it obviously already helps with cheap allies, but I don't think it helps that much with expensive allies, since I am still paying the full cost, again.

Quote:
The reality is that if you can afford to play a big ally over a small one. The big ally is almost always the better choice. Card synergies could certainly change this balance in the future.


"IF" is the big question here. If I could afford a Lamborghini, it would definitely be my best option to get to work. Sadly, I can only afford a Toyota Echo. But, by driving an Echo, I am also able to afford lunch, for which I am thankful.

Thanks for commenting.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Clements
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Turns out Esseb did touch the flag. Don't tell him I said so though.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ghostwes wrote:
Tegarend wrote:
Quote:
For the price I pay for Gildor I could instead purchase two Erebor Hammersmiths and an Erebor Record-Keeper.


And you pay a price for that flexibility - you played 3 cards rather than 1.


In what way do you consider that a cost? The fact that my hand now has fewer options than it would otherwise? I would have fewer options anyway by virtue of being broke

Thanks for commenting.


If you assume infinite resources but 1 card per turn, then expensive allies are better.

If you assume infinite cards, but 1 resource per turn, then cheap allies are better.

Somewhat exaggerated laugh but if you don't agree with that then there is no convincing you.

When given a mix of the above, a mix of cards is often the better choice. With the default card draw and resource generation, 3 cost cards would be best.

Now given you start with 6 cards, this pushes it towards cheaper cards being better, but unless you have good card drawing, the cheaper cards will lose effectiveness, as your resource generation out paces your card draw.

This all depends on the scenario anyway, as some punish many characters and allies, and others punish few allies.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitch Willis
United States
Kathleen
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it depends upon the scenario, as well as the ability to generate extra resources...I was just playing Journey Down the Anduin last night, playing a Tactics/Lore deck (Glorfindel/Gimli/Legolas). I was fortunate during my initial draw and was able to handle the initial Hill troll with little problem (Feint in round 1, Gandalf in round 2)...however during the 2nd stage, the other Hill troll and Chieftain Uthak came out...most scenarios, having the resources to bring out Beorn , but in this situation, he was a necessity. I'd never have made it past the 2nd stage, much less beat the scenario, without him in play...

As for Gildor Inglorion, if you can get him in play, he's like having another hero...he's great at questing & defending, but stats aside, his action of letting you look at your top 3 cards, draw one, and rearrange the other 2 can be very handy when your lookin' to get a key card out...

While I'll always have a copy of these allies in my deck, along with another fairly expensive ally (Haldir), it would depend upon the scenario/situation as to whether I'll rush to save/spend the resources to bring them out...but at least that option could be available if needed...

Nice post & good discussion...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duke Of Lizards
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
flag msg tools
Livin's mostly wasting time, and I waste my share of mine
badge
I am a breathing time machine
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm glad to see an actual strategy discussion in these forums rather than the same rules questions over and over. Thanks for the topic.
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
ghostwes wrote:
Mattr0polis wrote:
It shouldn't take 5 turns to get power guys out. You can do it usually in about 2 turns. It's usually like you have 2 Lore Heroes, save 1 green resource from a turn, next turn get your new 2 green resources, and use Steward of Gondor to generate 2 more.


Well, if your focus is on Lore, then I concede the point that you will find it easier to raise the funds to buy Glorion. However, you will also have other problems inherent to focusing on only one sphere.


2 Lore Heroes is one of the best bases to get into ALL spheres as you can use the Rivendell Minstrels and have them pull Songs. Plus there's still my 3rd Hero.
2 
 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
Another interesting point is that even though the main question here is "what is better: expensive allies or cheap allies?" that's not really how I, and I would assume some others, build decks. I usually build with a mix of big AND small characters. That way I have some cheap guys to put out early while building up my big guys or in case I don't find Steward of Gondor or something. Builds like that seem to have worked the most consistently for me after over 160 games.

So I think the correct answer is: they all have a place.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Kamakaze wrote:
If you assume infinite resources but 1 card per turn, then expensive allies are better.

If you assume infinite cards, but 1 resource per turn, then cheap allies are better.

Somewhat exaggerated laugh but if you don't agree with that then there is no convincing you.

When given a mix of the above, a mix of cards is often the better choice. With the default card draw and resource generation, 3 cost cards would be best.


We do not have infinite resources or cards. Theoretically, resources are infinite in the sense that we get one per turn, so long as the game is still being played. Realistically, we are looking at around 10-to-15 turns per game, if my own games are the norm (except that one solo game of %^$&ing Return to Mirkwood which lasted forever.)

Using the same metric we can say that -- barring use of either card-drawing or resource-generating mechanisms, or encounters that deny us the same -- we are going to be seeing an average of 16-to-21 cards and 30-to-45 resources total throughout the game.

So, it looks like the average cost per card should be around 2 or 3. Sounds about right to me. So, if you want to play expensive allies, or whatever, then it might be wise to also lower the costs of some other cards in your deck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas McGranor Jr
United States
Erie
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think that expensive allies are inherently better then cheap ones, or vice versa. In card games, the value of any given cards if often impacted by the other cards in your deck. If you are running a deck with Dain that is using all the Dwarf tricks, of course two Hammersmiths and a Record Keeper have more value for their cost. But if you build a deck with lots of healing and attachments, Gildor shines with his Hero-like stats and ability. Lots of card draws? Many small allies are easy to find. If you have no drawing, it might be better to use ones with more staying power so you don't have to replace them as often.

But my experience is that the best option is a mix of cheap and expensive allies. We've had success with mostly big allies, and with swarm style builds. But a mix leads to more optionns, and versatility is key to a deck that can handle any quest.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Miller
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
It's all about synergy to me. I play with beorn and gildor in my secrecy deck that has taking initiative, timely aid, sneak attack, and resourceful. There are a lot of opportunities for those cards to help me in that case. If I was playing with Dain and beravor I would want all the cheap little dwarves I could get my hands on.

On one turn I played sneak attack on gildor, tapped him to take beorn out of my hand and put it on top of my deck, and then played timely aide to put beorn into play for free. (my heroes were bifur and theodred.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boghog
Germany
flag msg tools
ghostwes wrote:
I rarely used them in tandem to generate resources. I much prefer Steward of Gondor for that, and don't mind using multiple copies.

Sadly Stewart is unique. Seems to be a common mistake.

As far as your other point is concerned: You write that you don't often use your small allies do block attacks and I can see why. So there's your flexibility cost: Gildor CAN be used as a very effective defender when the engaged enemies mount up and will often survive.
Plus: Even sparing your Erebor dwarves the dangers of defending won't protect them from those nasty "deal one damage to all [insert condition here] characters" treacheries. One or two such cards will wipe out a whole army of cheap allies whereas the likes of Gildor and Beorn will live long enough to be of use/healed in your next action phase.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wes Weston
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
boghog wrote:
ghostwes wrote:
I rarely used them in tandem to generate resources. I much prefer Steward of Gondor for that, and don't mind using multiple copies.

Sadly Stewart is unique. Seems to be a common mistake.


I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I realize that it is unique, but I still don't mind playing multiple copies of it, even if it means drawing useless ones later. The upside of having SoG in play, especially early, is so good that it's worth playing multiples, despite its uniqueness.

Quote:

Plus: Even sparing your Erebor dwarves the dangers of defending won't protect them from those nasty "deal one damage to all [insert condition here] characters" treacheries. One or two such cards will wipe out a whole army of cheap allies whereas the likes of Gildor and Beorn will live long enough to be of use/healed in your next action phase.


Yes, those treacheries tend to hurt me a lot, and I save copies of A Test of Will for when they appear. Or try to, anyway.

There are cards which will similarly devastate a deck that focuses on having one or two key allies, however, so at the end of the day your mileage may vary, I suppose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Beano
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ghostwes wrote:


I would argue that the potential risk of losing an expensive ally as a defender is offset by the negligible cost of losing a cheap one. Sure, Gildor can take a few hits before he dies. But that is more or less equivalent to losing, say, three cheap ones defending against the same hits that would have killed Glorion. I would say, as far as value, they break even on this point. However, as mentioned above, I tend not to use cheap allies as blockers except in emergencies.


With a relatively short list of exceptions (secrecy, direct damage, or feint), you have to block with something. If not cheap allies, and you have no expensive allies in play, then the answer is heroes. There are certain shadow effects that make that less than an ideal option at times. While there are certainly more ways that an ally could be killed even one as sturdy as Gildor or Beorn, you are certainly better off losing an expensive ally than a hero (which Gildor and Beorn are roughly equivalent to in their defensive prowess)


Quote:

I'm sorry, but does using A Good Meal seem like a good combo to everyone? It does not to me. Saving two resources on another card sounds good, but I don't think it justifies wasting a card slot.

Quite frankly, I've been back and forth on this as well. Its value is mostly to accelerate a card play at the very beginning of the game which does have its uses - particularly since the first 2 turns are often the time the player is the most vulnerable. But even after the first few turns, its value depends on your card draw/card expense/resource acceleration ratios.

Quote:

"IF" is the big question here. If I could afford a Lamborghini, it would definitely be my best option to get to work. Sadly, I can only afford a Toyota Echo. But, by driving an Echo, I am also able to afford lunch, for which I am thankful.


The Zigil/Gildor combo abusers might be able to claim the ability to construct a scale model of a Lamborghini with the spare resource tokens they have. But still, point taken. Ultimately, I am not sure there is a solid argument that filling my deck with 3 and 2 cost cards is any better than 4 and 1 or 5 and 0. In the end, the cost ratios just need to balance out to ensure that resources and cards are not going to waste.

Once again, great topic!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boghog
Germany
flag msg tools
ghostwes wrote:

So, it looks like the average cost per card should be around 2 or 3. Sounds about right to me. So, if you want to play expensive allies, or whatever, then it might be wise to also lower the costs of some other cards in your deck.

On the face of it that seems right. If you have cheaper cards, then you will accumulate resources but have nothing to spend them on. If you have more expensive cards you'll accumulate cards and have nothing to pay them with.
But extra resources and extra cards can be used in other ways. Depending on your strategy (e.g. Protector of Lorien vs Map-Keeper) one or the other may be preferable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jose Bellomar
United States
flag msg tools
mb
I think it all depends on the kind of deck you play really. I play a deck that is resource heavy and low on allies so I have more than enough money to spend on Gildor or Beorn. Alternatively, you could focus on massing smaller allies against the enemy but when they get hit once, they will die!! Stronger allies cost more because they are stronger or can quest or can do crazy stuff Gildor's Card cycling!! Beorn and Gildor plus Gandalf's Search plus Beravor's draw 2 cards...makes for an interesting deck
 
 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.