Spippin is not that bad.

I'd have to disagree here.

IMO... Worst. Hero. Yet.

I can understand some people will find it challenging to build a deck around him, or simply play him.

But to me he is hands down the worst of the worst.

Plain crappy design right there. +3 threat is ridiculous for what he does.

But again, that's IMO.

Fatty is the worst by far.

Look at pippin, low threat, better than average willpower, bad attack and defense, bad hit points, useless ability. Okay he is used in a spirit questing deck (I mostly play multiplayer).

Now look at Fatty, higher threat, worse questing, same attack, better defense (although you won't be defending with him anyway), better hit points. Useless in multiplayer where you need to max out on questing. And in solo who wants to raise threat when you can just quest the snot out of it?

It's all a matter of opinion.

Fatty has been useful in our multi player sessions.

To his defense, I'll simply quote Ian's review of him from the tales of the cards blog:

The first reaction to this ability may be to ask, “Why on Middle-earth would you raise your threat to cancel threat? Isn’t that just re-arranging deck chairs on Numenor?” Still, this subtle effect actually allows Hobbit decks, who will normally be running with low threat levels, to enable faster quest progress. This can be useful both in solo and multi-player games. For example, in the former, you can raise your threat when you fall a bit short during an important quest push, say a few progress tokens shy of clearing out a crucial location or quest stage, thus moving you closer to victory. In the latter, a Hobbit deck with a low starting threat can take one for the team, preventing all players from failing questing or pushing everyone closer to where they need to be. It’s helpful to re-state this ability in different terms to really think about whether it’s useful or not. If Fatty Bolger instead said, “Action: Raise your threat by X to put X progress tokens on the quest,” would you view this as valuable? I’d have to say the answer is a clear yes, although Fatty’s ability doesn’t quite work this simply, as it is dependent on the threat strength of available enemies in the staging area, and this serves as an important limiting factor. Still, the point stands.

It's all a matter of opinion.

Fatty has been useful in our multi player sessions.

To his defense, I'll simply quote Ian's review of him from the tales of the cards blog:

The first reaction to this ability may be to ask, “Why on Middle-earth would you raise your threat to cancel threat? Isn’t that just re-arranging deck chairs on Numenor?” Still, this subtle effect actually allows Hobbit decks, who will normally be running with low threat levels, to enable faster quest progress. This can be useful both in solo and multi-player games. For example, in the former, you can raise your threat when you fall a bit short during an important quest push, say a few progress tokens shy of clearing out a crucial location or quest stage, thus moving you closer to victory. In the latter, a Hobbit deck with a low starting threat can take one for the team, preventing all players from failing questing or pushing everyone closer to where they need to be. It’s helpful to re-state this ability in different terms to really think about whether it’s useful or not. If Fatty Bolger instead said, “Action: Raise your threat by X to put X progress tokens on the quest,” would you view this as valuable? I’d have to say the answer is a clear yes, although Fatty’s ability doesn’t quite work this simply, as it is dependent on the threat strength of available enemies in the staging area, and this serves as an important limiting factor. Still, the point stands.

Is exhausting a hero and raising threat really an efficient alternative to a Radagast's cunning/Secret paths? I don't think so.

Sorry, double post.

I REFUSE TO FALL HERE!

About Fatty Bolger:

The game is a run for the victory, when you delay in advancing the quest, the number of encounter cards increase... So it is important try to pass to the next quest card (not always, but usually) each round possible.

In 4 players game, we needed one time 3 more progress tokens to advance to the next quest card, enemies are increasing, very hard scenario, and the game became harder in every round. Fatty were good here: he was exhausted chosing an 3 threat enemy, so we pass to the next quest card..., and we only must combat against the actual enemies in this round, no more (thinking of next round staying in same quest card).

His quote text is very clear about it: "I hope you dont need rescuing before the day is out" (he helps to you, to advance for the next quest card before it becomes too late)

It's all a matter of opinion.

Fatty has been useful in our multi player sessions.

To his defense, I'll simply quote Ian's review of him from the tales of the cards blog:

The first reaction to this ability may be to ask, “Why on Middle-earth would you raise your threat to cancel threat? Isn’t that just re-arranging deck chairs on Numenor?” Still, this subtle effect actually allows Hobbit decks, who will normally be running with low threat levels, to enable faster quest progress. This can be useful both in solo and multi-player games. For example, in the former, you can raise your threat when you fall a bit short during an important quest push, say a few progress tokens shy of clearing out a crucial location or quest stage, thus moving you closer to victory. In the latter, a Hobbit deck with a low starting threat can take one for the team, preventing all players from failing questing or pushing everyone closer to where they need to be. It’s helpful to re-state this ability in different terms to really think about whether it’s useful or not. If Fatty Bolger instead said, “Action: Raise your threat by X to put X progress tokens on the quest,” would you view this as valuable? I’d have to say the answer is a clear yes, although Fatty’s ability doesn’t quite work this simply, as it is dependent on the threat strength of available enemies in the staging area, and this serves as an important limiting factor. Still, the point stands.

Is exhausting a hero and raising threat really an efficient alternative to a Radagast's cunning/Secret paths? I don't think so.

You actually brought the fatty vs Spippin thing up in the first place, where Spippin clearly sux more.

Yet instead you choose to wriggle into some non-sense Fatty bashing. Do you hate fatties? Do you? DO YOU?

What does another sphere's cards have to do with this? Nothing. That's what.

I could start to compare Spippin to any other random card here and now too. But I won't, as it breaks the debate.

(And also because most random cards are better then Spippin.)

Disclaimer: I am not a fatty mind you

The problem of Brand is that he is exclusively for multiplayer, while most players are solo ones.

The problem of Brand is that he is exclusively for multiplayer, while most players are solo ones.

That fact doesn't make him suck.

It just means he's designed for multi player.

And these days I hear a lot of players saying they play 2 handed solo.

They should give Brand a try.

Brand + Rohan warhorse = ready heroes

The problem of Brand is that he is exclusively for multiplayer, while most players are solo ones.

That fact doesn't make him suck.

It just means he's designed for multi player.

And these days I hear a lot of players saying they play 2 handed solo.

They should give Brand a try.

Brand + Rohan warhorse = ready heroes

Never said he sux ballz. Just made a statement why, in my opinion, he sees so little use.

Brand + Merry = infinity assault.

The problem of Brand is that he is exclusively for multiplayer, while most players are solo ones.

That fact doesn't make him suck.

It just means he's designed for multi player.

And these days I hear a lot of players saying they play 2 handed solo.

They should give Brand a try.

Brand + Rohan warhorse = ready heroes

Never said he sux ballz. Just made a statement why, in my opinion, he sees so little use.

Brand + Merry = infinity assault.

True dat.

Brand + Merry + Rohan warhorses = KILLING SPREE!!!

Or a Merry-go-round...get it? GET IT? ....man I suck at jokes...

I just want to add to the discussion and point out the difference between a niche hero and a bad one. Brand is definitely a niche hero, given that his ability only works in multi-player. That said, he is amazing in his niche, especially now that the Warhorse and Merry can join in on the killing spree. Certainly, pure solo players won't give him a second look, and that is fine. But he is by no means a "weak" or "bad" hero, you just need to use him in his niche.

On the other hand, Spirit Pippin is just bad. I have tried him in several decks and his ability just doesn't work. Any of the combos that you would want to do around returning enemies to the staging area involve two key elements: non-Hobbit heroes (printed ranged keyword, Faramir, etc.) and keeping your threat low to avoid enemy engagement. The fact the Pippin's ability specifically kills both of these strategies is why he is such a poor design. I am not saying that you cannot make a decent deck with him, a threat cost of 6 opens up the potential for a decent Secrecy deck. The point is that his ability is garbage and doesn't work within any of the existing Hobbit archetypes. Sure you can just use him as a low-cost quester, but this is not a very good argument for him being a good hero. Think of it this way, how many times would you rather have Spirit Frodo for 1 more threat? Every single time would be my answer.

I like the new Hobbit archetype around optional engagement, and I think the heroes in The Black Riders are really well designed. I just don't ever see Spirit Pippin being anything but a curiosity. Just one bear's opinion, but it is based on my own experiences trying to make his ability useful.

I've made one deck with Pippin in a mono-spirit hobbit that was somewhat fun to play. The whole strategy was about avoiding enemy attacks. It worked on a limited number of quests. Other than that deck, spirit Pippin has been absolutely useless.

If I had to pick a worst hero in the game, SPip IMO is the clear winner, but I'll still give him a try occasionally.

The only hero i have never thought using is Hirluin, cause as written above, there is no challenge in deckbuilding with outlands. I might try someday but not yet.

Spirit pippin was also one i thought would never use, but along with sp frodo and sp glorfindel have made a great deck for me when i tried to. I have even managed to beat osgiliath using it.

In my opinion, some of the heroes and decks are more geared for Solo play and therefore I don't mind them being overpowered. Even with Dain or an outlands deck, some scenarios (i.e morgal vale) are still quite challenging in single player,

In my opinion, some of the heroes and decks are more geared for Solo play and therefore I don't mind them being overpowered. Even with Dain or an outlands deck, some scenarios (i.e morgal vale) are still quite challenging in single player,

Yes special if you play NMode. Outlands and Dwarfs is ok to deal with Nmode. But still i don't like Outlands….MAny players didn like it……..So sounds like really bad design…..