Just wanted to point out that the game technically takes place during the 17 years between Bilbo's party (when he leaves the ring to Frodo) and when Frodo finally sets out from the Shire. So Bilbo doesn't have the ring during this time period and Frodo does, which is why Frodo has the damage cancellation ability.

That's true. I didn't think long before posting, just had the idea and went with it. Oh well.

Yet the suggestion stands: attachment for Bibi to make him worth his cost.

I call an easier fix: a simple errata and reprint in future packs.

Game designers evaluated his ability as most powerful ability of all time as they gave him 3 points of threat over his head - biggest threat cost penalty ever seen in the history of LotR LCG.

But let's think about what we actually get for those 3 points of additional starting threat.

A whole 1 additional card each draw phase! Pretty good from the first glance, but... game can be played in multiplayer, you know.

So, basically, the thing currently are:

In 1 player game player gets 100% card draw boost from Bilbo;

In 2 player game, the potency of this boost is halved to 50%;

In 3 player game, it's shrinked to 33%;

And finally, in a 4 player game it's no more than 25% of a boost.

Not so shiny anymore. More of it, you can't even choose a player to prosper - it's tied to the first player token. Even worse, Bilbo is weakling of a character by himself and requires major work around him to get him running well... and for that you need a card draw, which becomes extremely spread the more players are in the game.

I think your analysis is a bit one sided. You claim that the card draw being split between multiple players reduces the effect - I assume on the grounds that in 2 player you only draw 3 cards instead of 4. However you disregard the fact that in multiplayer the threat cost for the ability is also relatively lower. (+3 threat cost for 1 player, a relative cost of +1.5 threat for 2 player).

The two players can more easily benefit from the free card draw without needing more supporting cards (resource acceleration primarily). The free card draw being passive is also not relatively worse - it's still +1 hero still available. Bilbo like all hobbits has poor stats it's true, but the hobbit trait is significantly more powerful now than it was when Bilbo card was created (then it was basically blank but his card draw ability was more unique in the card pool too).

Bilbo in a hobbit deck is a viable alternative to lore pippin to get you access to fast hitch, especially if you don't think you need the +3 to engagement costs (which isn't needed or relevant in a lot of quests).

I also think you're heavily undervaluing the benefit of +1 card in your starting hand (when the start of the game is the most critical) even compared to Berevor who may help more (with a ready effect) but you need to draw it turn 1 for that effect.

I'm not convinced the ability is worth +3 threat (although I think Bilbo is easily playable with a 3 threat cost). if Bilbo was threat 6 he would probably be in every lore line up forever though, I can't believe that people in this thread seriously think that he should be 6.

The extra threat cost heros are mainly paying for additional benefits -

Grima and Beregond each cost 1 threat extra - and are paying for resource advantage.

Hirlon, Elladan and Elrohir pay for the potential for better stats at a cost of 1 extra. (These guys also have the penalty of getting worse if things start to go against the player).

Elrond pays 1 threat for having two abilities. (the second is pretty weak though)

Now to my mind Bilbo is paying 3 threat and gets: A passive ability, that always triggers every turn, and is always useful.

So I think 3 threat is perfectly fine actually.

Misprint. Said it from the start.

Bilbo was a mistake I think. They meant for it to say 6 but no one caught on.

If it was, it would have been errated in the faq... it's been 6 faq since then !

But between Spirit Glorfindel and Lore Glorfindel, time has passed. Bilbon was design in a time where player'ss card where not so overpowered (except for few ones that still need balance). Then, at a certain point, player's became more and more powerfull, ability became greater (and so does responsability ) to a point where, sure, Bilbon became bad...

It is best to compare him with card that were printed around the same time.

Or better said: 3 threat points cost (the extra 3 threat points of Bilbo) are good for a 'direct card in hand' free with 2 cost? Let's see: Galadhrim Greeting cost 3 resources per -6 threat...

So 1'5 resources would be 3 threat.

We can think about the standard cost of 3 threat points are 1'5 resources.

Verdict: Bilbo's hability is better than normal ranking, because his cost is cheaper: you get for free an 'hability' with cost 2 rescoures (as Gleowine, even better: you have him in first hand automaticaly); the conditions is 'raise 3 threat'... but it is cheaper than Galadhrim Greeting, where decreasing 3 threat (the penalty of Bilbo) would cost only 1'5 resources, not 2 (the cost, remember, bilbo 'gives').

You missed something : galadrim's greeting.

Yes, it's a card, and to play it, you need to draw it. So the cost for 3 threat should be 1,5 resources + 0,5 card draw.

With Lorien's Wealth, we know that 3 card draw cost 1 card and 3 ressource, so that 2 card draw = 3 ressource, so 3 threat should be 2,25 ressources.

He was more balanced than most of the hero at the time... he was in the standard, but then, the standard changed, and he became weak.

Should they rebalanced him and make errata and reprint ? If they do, there is a lot of cards that need this, so they may never do it in the begining...

Rapier, quoting system of this forum is horrible, so consider this post as a reply to yours:

And I think your's is. Yes, it does. Because it is comparable to the encounter deck. You play with 4 players - you face 4 times more threats. But Bilbo still provides 1 card, regardless, which is 4 times less relevant in a 4 player game. That's just as a bold example.

Not saying they can't benefit from it. Saying they will benefit from it much less than one player, while feeling the double pressure.

Loppin is very strong, I don't think I would ever swap him for Bilbo, especially in a multiplayer game. I have a hobbit deck, featuring both Loppin and Bilbo though. Works well in solo. Would probably suck in mulitplayer.

And I think you heavily overvaluating it. This 1 card might be exactly what you need, but it might (and most probably - will) be nothing. I never actually felt that disadvantage of Gandalf's delay.

I, for one, never said he should be 6 threat. All I'm saying is 9 threat is too friggin much. Either increase his stats ot reduce it.

I've already listed my analysis of overpriced heroes earlies, so I won't be doing it again.

You think his threat is fine - fine. I don't think so. Good day, sir.

He was more balanced than most of the hero at the time... he was in the standard, but then, the standard changed, and he became weak.

Should they rebalanced him and make errata and reprint ? If they do, there is a lot of cards that need this, so they may never do it in the begining...

That depends on how good their design is - for example card draw becomes stronger as decks become stronger. So even though you might argue that heroes are getting more powerful (and apart form some Errant ones I don't think they are) Bilbo is still going to maintain strength because he can always help you to draw into the combo you wanted.

I like the thoughts of Rapier. It brings to me to compare Bilbo with Deep Knowledge (from last pack):

We can see that 1 extra drawn card costs 1 threat (without thinking you need the card in hand that triggers it, so it costs more than 1 threat, but ok); so if normal costs for 1 card is 1 threat, and a normal game is more than 3 rounds... Bilbo is cheaper than in first sight it seems!

Why are you still trying to justify this by comparing it to the player cards? It does not works this way.

Other heroes get their abilities for free or for minor increase, in rare cases even decrease, of threat.

I'm thinking, Bilbo is greater even in multiplayer. For lore sphere is easy other options for drawing..., but, for example, if another player is leadership monosphere? That player would love Bilbo in game...

At the moment, drawing hability is very cheap for lore, but for other spheres drawing effects are more expensive..., so Bilbo's hability is more important and cheaper than we can see in first sight.

Why are you still trying to justify this by comparing it to the player cards? It does not works this way.

Other heroes get their abilities for free or for minor increase, in rare cases even decrease, of threat.

I think that compare cards is a good way for evaluating cards farther their first sight.

And I think not. Example: Dain Ironfoot. Released same cycle as Bilbo. No threat penalty. EVERY FRIGGIN DWARF IN THE GAME GETS +1 ATTACK AND +1 WILLPOWER WHILE DAIN IS STANDING. Again, no threat penalty. Now, stop trying to justify Bilbo by comparing him to the player cards. No, seriously, stop.

Hability of Dain is different than hability of Bilbo.

In fact, the best hability in the game is the drawing cards. As you have more cards in hand, your game become better, you have more options to play. Dain is useless if no dwarfs in game, in hand. . You never see Dain alone, he is a king, and he goes with dwarves armies.

Bilbo can be played in all decks. So Bilbo is better, is more versatil.

Return to first theme: drawing bonus is better than other bonus (+wp, +attack, etc). So drawing effects must be more expensive.

If you want to draw cards, you need cards that draw cards. If you dont have them? You need more drawing...lol.

Only heroes in play in setup can fix this problem. Atm are: Pippin Beravor Ori...., all of them needs conditions: Ori needs 5 dwarves in game, Beravor needs to be exhausted, Pippin engages enemy... Only Bilbo has no conditions (so it is just his threat cost).

The hability of drawing cards has no price. Is the best hability. All tactic players make his mulligan around foe-hammer; spirit players around mathom....well, almost all, but it is ok, isn't?

Even if you want an specific card, for example, Gleowine. You need Word of Command, and Gandalf in game. So you need 2 specific cards in game and 6 resources. Bilbo gives to you all in the same setup of game. No need combos neither tones of resources. So it is good than developers add other costs like +3 threat points and limited to first player.

PD: and Bilbo is the unique heroe that allows to draw for other players diferent than lore sphere (wll, only Beravor is in adittion, jeje)

From my thoughts, the best card in all the game, in fact, is Bilbo...lol. Maybe only one card is better than him: Beravor.

PD: and Beravor needed be faqqed (you can wonder...)

Why are you calling abilities "habilities"? Is it some archaic british wording or something?

On the subject: Yes, it's different, because it's a lot better.

Cards are no use if you can't play them.

Well, arguement "dain is useless if there are no dwars" is equal to me saying: "bilbo is useless if I put cards that do not belong to sphere of my heroes into my deck". Bilbo is worse because he can't do what Dain can. In solo, if you're running 2 another dwarf heroes, it's +4 worth of stats, and +6 for each additional dwarf player. It's also increases with each dwarf ally.

Sorry for my language when it is not correct. Of course.

Dain only is played in few decks, Bilbo can be played in all decks.

PD: Dain is a very powerfull hero -you know, the overpowered dwarfs theme-, and we are comparing Dain and Bilbo, so Bilbo is good also

Bilbo is not good in comparsion to Dain. Dain has monsters stats and monster ability. Bilbo has weak stats and subpar ability.

No additional card you draw during your first resource phase thanks to Bilbo can bring the same effect of Dain just being there standing. Also, Dain is just 2 threat points over the Bilbo, lol.

And I think not. Example: Dain Ironfoot. Released same cycle as Bilbo. No threat penalty. EVERY FRIGGIN DWARF IN THE GAME GETS +1 ATTACK AND +1 WILLPOWER WHILE DAIN IS STANDING. Again, no threat penalty. Now, stop trying to justify Bilbo by comparing him to the player cards. No, seriously, stop.

Comparing any hero except Spirit Glorfindel to Dain Ironfoot you'll find the other hero comes up short. Dain Ironfoot is basically the best hero in the game, Glorfindel is a contender because of his stupidly low threat cost - depending on what you want these two heroes might be comparable or one would be better than the other.

No other hero even comes close. You shouldn't be using these two heroes as the basis for any hero to hero comparison because the conclusion is essentially - every hero is bad, or these two should be weaker. (Glorfindel should come in at 9 or 10 threat, Dain should do attack or willpower not both).

I used Dain as most prominent example of a hero having great ability with no threat penalty at all. Which, as I stated previously, was released in the same cycle.

Mndela, are you using Bilbo more than spirit glorfindel ? or more than Lore Pippin ? and win ?

If you want to compare him, compare him with Ori.

If you play Ori, you surely play with Bombur, and a third dwarf hero, and erebor record keeper.

Well, in 80% of game where I play Ori, I have my 5th dwarf turn 1, if not, turn 2.

So... Bilbon as +3 threat for 1 or 2 more card ? yeah... crappy.

I need to deckbuild dwarf ? well, you need to boost bilbo too.

I have played a lot of "tournament" and we never, ever, see bilbo more than once. (and that's like, 60 or more decks seen) (and it was me, testing him, and he died first turn against nightmare ungoliant spawn... Ori survived with the help of Dain)

Dain should do attack or willpower not both.

Here we go again, us errata seekers, haha. I actually think Dain should only work on Dwarf allies (just like they "dwarved" Battle Master). You still have a very, very good hero but it is not so straightforward, you do not get the boost from the off.

Just to throw some effects into the mix that could be powered by having a "spare hero" as some seem to think Bilbo to be. These effects all have in common that they are cheap resource-wise and if you built your deck with the strategy in mind to use one of your heroes exclusively to power such effects, then you can take it a long way. I have used Bilbo like this myself with good success.

And you still get the free card draw. Granted, it is less usable the more players there are (which I have also stated in earlier posts). Though you can´t look at Bilbo and then primarily choose to discuss him from a 4-player perspective; the example with Brand has already been mentioned in that regard.

Though I would still argue that Bilbo can work perfectly fine with burning brand and a bit of defense boost to take some enemy attacks as well.

Bilbo is for me the worst Hero of the game, just beatten by spirit Pipin. If you add Dunhere, I think you've got the top 3 worst Heros of the game.

That said, I regurlarly enjoy playing Bilbo as its quite enjoyable and fun in multiplayer games.

I agree with Nerdmeister. One hero not only quests, defends or attack, there are more and more possibilities.

PD: and Fast Hitch

Many heroes can be boosted to perform different spectacular things. Gimli, as an example, given right boost can kill most worthy foes with 1 hit alone. Oh, and if you happen to have heavy stroke in your hand...

That's not the point. Thread is not about how bad Bilbo is, it's about how bad he is for the amount of threat he brings compared to other heroes.