Its better to have 8 less threat and no caldara then to have her quest for 2 every round.

... and 1 less resource per round... unless you really need secrecy, I don't agree.

You kidding? Arwen is identical except for 1 less hitpoint.

You kidding? Arwen has 1 less attack, 1 less defense, AND 1 less health.

1 less attack..... so what. Tell me when you use Caldara's 1 attack.

If Arwen is defending, she has 2 defense because of her ability.

Only difference is the resource generation. I'd rather have 8 less threat and run secrecy than have Caldara for just her stats and not ability.

Good point about the Attachment boost though Trololo. Its just when I build a gondor deck with all that gondor attachment stuff, I never use caldara so it doesnt matter anyways.

Its better to have 8 less threat and no caldara then to have her quest for 2 every round.

i was skeptical, too, until i saw her in action in the hands of a skilled player.

while i've not used her myself, she is quite the powerful hero.

We play multiplayer. My friend plays monospirit with Caldara, my other friend plays monoleadershit with Boromir, I play tactics.

I slap Gondorian Shield across her and she defends for 4, Boromir gets Visionary and Caldara quests for 3. Leadershit player can donate her a resource with his Wealth, if needed. And in the time of need, Caldara(being already exhausted), triggers her ability and brings back some Elfhelm and Damrod, both ready for action.

We play multiplayer. My friend plays monospirit with Caldara, my other friend plays monoleadershit with Boromir, I play tactics.

I slap Gondorian Shield across her and she defends for 4, Boromir gets Visionary and Caldara quests for 3. Leadershit player can donate her a resource with his Wealth, if needed. And in the time of need, Caldara(being already exhausted), triggers her ability and brings back some Elfhelm and Damrod, both ready for action.

I usually don't load her up with attachments, because I plan to discard her regularly, but part of this is definitely the key to why she's so good.

Quest with her, soak up attacks with big allies so they die (or discard Damrod to trigger the threat reduction, if you really want), and then use her ability to bring back two allies with hero equivalent stats that are ready. And then pay 5 to bring Caldara back. It's a big source of action advantage.

Its better to have 8 less threat and no caldara then to have her quest for 2 every round.

... and 1 less resource per round... unless you really need secrecy, I don't agree.

Resourceful.......

We usually do not trigger her very fast, so she'll have plenty of time to utilize stuff.

.only the rules for unique characters i think is to much....3 per deck as usual ok for me

This is a newish one we have introduced. Unique cards have become so powerful and in circles with many dedicated players all with 3 cores having 12 Gandalf cards at the table is a real downer and as we play for points at the store we needed this restriction to stop some crazy shenanigans.

We are even considering a limit of 5 cards per deck of non-named for this same reason. Games suck when you have 12 tests of will and 12 shadow cancels etc etc. So 5 cards per deck regardless of how many hands that deck is.

The proposed, table talk rule and the proposed unique card rule are in conflict with each other. If you can't tell me that there are three Faramir's in your deck, how do I know if I can have a Faramir in my own?

They are not in conflict at all. There is nothing wrong with talking about decks and contents during the deck design before the game. In many cases one player has made all the hands. This information is sharable and is part of the general strategy that occurs before you start the game.

The thematic enhancement table talk rules are about restricting talk during the game, not during deck building or general strategic thinking like.. hand 2 can quest, and 3 has sentinels and can block for hand 1.. etc etc.

BTW, I also play a rule variant that no heroes can die and no players can be eliminated or the quest is failed. It's just generally more fun for us.

I think while tossing a game and replaying if you choose to is a personal decision, there shouldn't be a rule about any death ending the game. I see nothing wrong with quitting and restarting if it falls apart to quickly, though when we play for points in contest at the store (we use these rules btw) we factor in retries as a penalty.. this stops restarts as a type of mulligan.

I think deaths can be really fun, especially if you play campaigns that use the real death rules.