Question: let's say Eomer attacks and destroys an enemy and 4 damage is left over, so you use Firefoot to place that damage on an enemy with 4 defense. If you then attack with your remaining characters, does that enemies defense get counted again? Just wondering.

Yeah their defense would still get counted as rather than attack strength, it seems Firefoot more or less does direct damage to them (not even counting their defense) so if 4 damage is left over and you place it on an enemy with 4 defense it'll ignore their defense and so long as they have 4 or less health; it will kill them.

This at least seems to be how it works? It doesn't say anything about their defense coming into play and is worded simply that excess damage is assigned to an enemy. Defense only comes into play when defending an attack I believe.

I could be wrong but it looks like it works this way.

Eagles are Eomer's good friend, their leaving can trigger Eomer's ability, they can support Eomer with considerable attack bonus to make a powerful alone-strike, and make Firefoot's ability effectively.

This works well on non-Eomer heroes if you ever use Unseen Strike, Khazad! Khazad!, or Grave Cairn (does anyone use Grave Cairn?). If you just have the one attacker but need to kill 2 enemies, you can drop down an event or two to overkill the first guy.

Let me elaborate on this a bit...

Card has plenty of restrictions on it's own:

It requires a Rohan or Tactics hero;

It's unique;

It's restricted;

It requires you to attack alone;

It gives half bonus attack to non-eomer folk.

Now to think of utilizing other heroes for this horse... Gimli requires to be severely wounded(probably with a citadel plate slapped across his face, though he won't be able to have two of these with da horse) to perform well, Dunhere will need to strike into the staging area(for his passive and bonus from spear), meaning you'll have to have an engaged an unengaed enemy both in the same time, Bard will need a distant enemy, meaning multiplayer or yew bow(unlikely). Too many if's. While with this horse alone Eomer is already 5, and if something as common as decease of an ally happens, he is 7. With little to no effort. He'd be a natural pick for this card even without this +1 additional advantage. The card is just designed for him.

Nothing you've said counters what I've said.

I never said Eomer isn't the best fit for this horse (he should be - it's "his").

All I'm saying is that, unlike other "named" attachments - this one isn't crazy to put on someone else, and could work quite nicely. Maybe not as nicely as on Eomer, but nicely nonetheless.

And, for the record, Gimli having lots of damage, Bard in multiplayer, and Dunhere attacking in the staging area while also having an engaged enemy are not difficult feats to pull off, by any means - certainly not appreciably more difficult than having 2 enemies engaged with you for Firefoot to work on Eomer.

No real point with Dunhere. The horse attachment triggers on engaged enemies. If a Dunhere deck is working you shouldn't have engaged enemies.

Exception might be Khaz quests with all those 2 health goblins. Thalin hits for 1 in quest. Block, shadow effect adds a new goblin to staging area, kill that with Dunhere and splash gose on engaged.. That salready has 1, so you only need 1 extra on your hit to staging.

No real point with Dunhere. The horse attachment triggers on engaged enemies. If a Dunhere deck is working you shouldn't have engaged enemies.

Exception might be Khaz quests with all those 2 health goblins. Thalin hits for 1 in quest. Block, shadow effect adds a new goblin to staging area, kill that with Dunhere and splash gose on engaged.. That salready has 1, so you only need 1 extra on your hit to staging.

As an exclusive multi-player player, i've had many games where I needed to engage an enemy to take the heat off others and yet still used Dunhere to engage a higher threat enemy still in the staging area. So, of course there is a point. Will it always go off? No. But it won't always with Eomer, as well.

Let me elaborate on this a bit...

Card has plenty of restrictions on it's own:

It requires a Rohan or Tactics hero;

It's unique;

It's restricted;

It requires you to attack alone;

It gives half bonus attack to non-eomer folk.

Now to think of utilizing other heroes for this horse... Gimli requires to be severely wounded(probably with a citadel plate slapped across his face, though he won't be able to have two of these with da horse) to perform well, Dunhere will need to strike into the staging area(for his passive and bonus from spear), meaning you'll have to have an engaged an unengaed enemy both in the same time, Bard will need a distant enemy, meaning multiplayer or yew bow(unlikely). Too many if's. While with this horse alone Eomer is already 5, and if something as common as decease of an ally happens, he is 7. With little to no effort. He'd be a natural pick for this card even without this +1 additional advantage. The card is just designed for him.

Nothing you've said counters what I've said.

I never said Eomer isn't the best fit for this horse (he should be - it's "his").

All I'm saying is that, unlike other "named" attachments - this one isn't crazy to put on someone else, and could work quite nicely. Maybe not as nicely as on Eomer, but nicely nonetheless.

And, for the record, Gimli having lots of damage, Bard in multiplayer, and Dunhere attacking in the staging area while also having an engaged enemy are not difficult feats to pull off, by any means - certainly not appreciably more difficult than having 2 enemies engaged with you for Firefoot to work on Eomer.

That's not true. You've said the reason why those heroes would work with the horse, I've said why it would be extremely hard to make them work. It's a lot harder than just having Eomer around.

No real point with Dunhere. The horse attachment triggers on engaged enemies. If a Dunhere deck is working you shouldn't have engaged enemies.

Exception might be Khaz quests with all those 2 health goblins. Thalin hits for 1 in quest. Block, shadow effect adds a new goblin to staging area, kill that with Dunhere and splash gose on engaged.. That salready has 1, so you only need 1 extra on your hit to staging.

As an exclusive multi-player player, i've had many games where I needed to engage and enemy to take the heat off others and yet still used Dunhere to engage a higher threat enemy still in the staging area. So, of course there is a point. Will it always go off? No. But it won't always with Eomer, as well.

Yeah, I definitely come at this game in a solo perspective. I play co-op often but not nearly as much, most people I know like to play more the complex and deeper dueling games when face to face. Still I can see how this could happen. Though in my experience most co-op there is a higher threat hand and they usually suck up all the monsters... not often have I seen co-op decks where there is a lot left in the staging area.

Let me elaborate on this a bit...

Card has plenty of restrictions on it's own:

It requires a Rohan or Tactics hero;

It's unique;

It's restricted;

It requires you to attack alone;

It gives half bonus attack to non-eomer folk.

Now to think of utilizing other heroes for this horse... Gimli requires to be severely wounded(probably with a citadel plate slapped across his face, though he won't be able to have two of these with da horse) to perform well, Dunhere will need to strike into the staging area(for his passive and bonus from spear), meaning you'll have to have an engaged an unengaed enemy both in the same time, Bard will need a distant enemy, meaning multiplayer or yew bow(unlikely). Too many if's. While with this horse alone Eomer is already 5, and if something as common as decease of an ally happens, he is 7. With little to no effort. He'd be a natural pick for this card even without this +1 additional advantage. The card is just designed for him.

Nothing you've said counters what I've said.

I never said Eomer isn't the best fit for this horse (he should be - it's "his").

All I'm saying is that, unlike other "named" attachments - this one isn't crazy to put on someone else, and could work quite nicely. Maybe not as nicely as on Eomer, but nicely nonetheless.

And, for the record, Gimli having lots of damage, Bard in multiplayer, and Dunhere attacking in the staging area while also having an engaged enemy are not difficult feats to pull off, by any means - certainly not appreciably more difficult than having 2 enemies engaged with you for Firefoot to work on Eomer.

That's not true. You've said the reason why those heroes would work with the horse, I've said why it would be extremely hard to make them work. It's a lot harder than just having Eomer around.

then we'll agree to disagree. i don't think it's nearly as difficult as you are making it out to be. you think it is.

Let me elaborate on this a bit...

Card has plenty of restrictions on it's own:

It requires a Rohan or Tactics hero;

It's unique;

It's restricted;

It requires you to attack alone;

It gives half bonus attack to non-eomer folk.

Do you mean Dunedain Mark > Firefoot?

• Can be played on any Hero
• Not unique
• Not restricted
• No attack restrictions
• Same attack bonus

Yes, Firefoot is very specific, but that's why it has a powerfull effect. This card allows you to damage high defense enemies while killing weak enemies. And after that you'll be able to attack the high defense enemy.

My entire point is, with this card being so restricted(not in the game term, but thanks to it too), they could have given this +2 attack bonus to wider audience. If not to all characters, then to rohans.

karagh, you missed my point entirely.

For me, Dunedain's Mark is far better than Firefoot. Not a single glimpse of thought is needed to say it.

In the restriction lists, you can add :

The excess damages redirection need :

- another non-unique enemy engaged with you,

- that enemy needs of course also to be a non-imune to player cards enemy

- to exhaust firefoot.

So to make it works :

1/ you need Eomer or a zillion combinations of attachments/events played on another hero to make it a powerful striker

2/ you need to be in a situation where you have multiple enemys engaged (or other cards interactions)

3/ you need to manage the combat defense parts before actualy using its power (unless using specific cards)

4/ you need to be able to strike a "small enemy" to make a lot of excess damages, lets say a maximum of 4-5 damages if you strike on the smallest enemys of the game

5/ you can assign this direct damage to non-unique / non-immune foe (which will probably solve nothing as the worst foe are unique or immune - even Mumak has its own type of protection to these direct damages)

Conclusion : very complicate to make it efficient, then very small outcome.

I think Bard can be an excellent choice for this.

Bard + Firefoot + Hands (+ Thalin) ---> could kill 2 enemies in quest-phase.

You don't need weapons on Bard to use this...7 "attack" isn't bad for normal enemies.

As a Bard "mainer" (I play a lot of multiplayer LotR LCG lately, and I play it with Thalin/Legolas/Bard deck), I would say that for me, Firefoot will be useless as enemies almost never engage me. Other players handle the defense (or I help them with the sentinels), so I can take advantage of ranged attacks and sheet. (and I'd rather use those restricted slots of his for some weps and/or horses that give more than just 1 attack with ocassional chance of overkill)

Courchevel

The restricitons you listed are not tied to the character it's attached to. My main complaint was narrowing already a narrow-use card by making it less effective on everybody but one single hero in the entire game.

Whether or not restricting the full bonus of attachments to certain heroes is a good thing or not is largely a matter of personal preference, in my opinion. While I can understand the argument that named attachments limit deck building options, I enjoy them because they further flesh out certain heroes and give you a reason to use them over any others. In that way, they actually enhance deck building. With Firefoot around, players have more incentive to use Eomer, rather than whatever Tactics hero they normally prefer. Now, if this was overdone, then it would be a problem, but the number of attachments that are like this is actually quite small.

In terms of gameplay, trying to determine whether a card like Dunedain Mark or Firefoot is better is difficult because you can't really make general conclusions that apply to all cases. It really depends on the deck. While Mark is the superior choice for some decks, I would definitely take Firefoot for an Eomer deck for a few reasons, even if I never used the trampling ability:

- +2 attack bonus for Rohan. The only other +2 attack options are both conditional (Dagger of Westernesse and Spear of the Mark).

- It's a Mount, so you could use the Horse Breeder to fetch it

I tend to agree with Raven here, but I class it as a general failure to understand the game, and card games in general.

Cards can not be judged on face value, in a vacuum so to speak. They can only be judged in how they interact with other cards. Comparing Mark to Firefoot makes is not really possible. Sure you can compare the face value of the card, but this has no real relation to the strength of the card once it is included in a deck that replies on the card for synergy.

Mark dose add attack to heroes a lot easier (lets just ignore resource requirements) but that is all it dose. It is not a card that synergies easily. The ability to bounce it around between heroes is nice.. but in general, most cases people would cast it and then it stays on that hero. So if you are looking at Firefoot's face value of adding 1attk, then yes it is weaker. Firefoot on the other hand has a synergistic effect. This means the cards true value is unknown until we see the decks that take advantage of that effect. So there is no way to really judge how powerful it will be. There has already been a few decks discussed that I feel are very promising as a powerful monster control hand. Something Mark can NOT do.

Is one better than the other? Well.. they are just different.

And yes, we would all like to have it with less restrictions, but the deep truth is that restrictions is what forces deck building (as raven kinda said). It is restrictions on cards that makes deck building interesting and fun and innovative.

The discussion seams to be, beyond the lame: is it powerful or not, to be about if such restrictions retard deck building options and it doesn't. In fact it increases deck building options by creating cards that only work with other parts of the sets. So as a deck builder you need to make a choice on what cards you use and this forces deck builds.. deck diversity.

If this was just all about cards being more powerful than the last released, what you get is power creep. One card replacing the orther and going into all decks.. every deck having the same card. Look at Steward of Gondor.. same card in so many decks.

Ok. I do not like to compare cards, it does not mean anything.

However, the versatility, the non-restricted aspect, the low cost and the belonging to a sphere that does not have much permanent attack boost of Mark of the Dunedain make for me a very useful and polyvalent card.

For instance, doing again another comparison , in the same color and for the same type of attachment (horse)

Rohan Warhorse :

Being able to attack another foe when you just kill an enemy is a situation that I will face in almost every game I will play.

The card is thus efficient and can bring a real help in common advancement of the game.

Firefoot :

Being able to deal excess damage if any to a non-unique non-immune enemy engaged with you when you just kill a foe in a solo attack is a situation very hypothetic, with little chance to occur.

The card is thus very situational and will rarely change course of the game.

Then you add :

Firefoot + :

Boost +1 attack (+2 Eomer)

Rohan Warhorse + :

Not unique

Cost only 1 ressource

Like all of you guys, I love the card for the fluff it adds to the story and even for the singular effect it has. However, I know that there will be very few Firefoot in my build. It will be fun to have the card on board and have its effect working, however, it will not change the course of the game. It will only be a nice gadget to make it works once or twice. May be with future player cards or new scenario, Firefoot would become more game impacting, but, for me, so far no.

Again, it is just arguments to explain a personal point of view. I totally respect other views.

Am I alone in thinking that rare combos that are one of the more wonderful aspects of the game?

For my play style, I want decks that have all kinds of possibilities, some of which may only happen 1 in every 3 or 4 games. The knowledge that a cataclysmic, almost-impossible, "The Eagles Are Coming! The Tower is Falling!" combo is possible with your deck, but also that the odds may be against it happening -- that's what this game is all about for me. The depth, tension, and narrative possible with that kind of uncertainty is what sets this game apart from every other game I own.

Cards that are simply more powerful are the last thing I want. Simply more powerful won't have me playing this game in 10, 20, 30 years. Bring on Firefoot! Bring on Shadowfax! And while you're at it, make Shadowfax 1 per deck, only able to attach to OHaUH Gandalf, and only while Gandalf is wearing Narya.

Am I alone in thinking that rare combos that are one of the more wonderful aspects of the game?

For my play style, I want decks that have all kinds of possibilities, some of which may only happen 1 in every 3 or 4 games. The knowledge that a cataclysmic, almost-impossible, "The Eagles Are Coming! The Tower is Falling!" combo is possible with your deck, but also that the odds may be against it happening -- that's what this game is all about for me. The depth, tension, and narrative possible with that kind of uncertainty is what sets this game apart from every other game I own.

Cards that are simply more powerful are the last thing I want. Simply more powerful won't have me playing this game in 10, 20, 30 years. Bring on Firefoot! Bring on Shadowfax! And while you're at it, make Shadowfax 1 per deck, only able to attach to OHaUH Gandalf, and only while Gandalf is wearing Narya.

I would think that you made this account and chose that username just to make that post!

Am I alone in thinking that rare combos that are one of the more wonderful aspects of the game?

For my play style, I want decks that have all kinds of possibilities, some of which may only happen 1 in every 3 or 4 games. The knowledge that a cataclysmic, almost-impossible, "The Eagles Are Coming! The Tower is Falling!" combo is possible with your deck, but also that the odds may be against it happening -- that's what this game is all about for me. The depth, tension, and narrative possible with that kind of uncertainty is what sets this game apart from every other game I own.

Cards that are simply more powerful are the last thing I want. Simply more powerful won't have me playing this game in 10, 20, 30 years. Bring on Firefoot! Bring on Shadowfax! And while you're at it, make Shadowfax 1 per deck, only able to attach to OHaUH Gandalf, and only while Gandalf is wearing Narya.

You're definitely not alone. I refer to them as my "Captain Kirk" moments, but I definitely live for those times when the unlikely combo comes off to ****** victory from the jaws of defeat.

@Gizlivadi: Ha!

@Raven - Good to know! Love "Captain Kirk Moments" -- I'm stealing that. And thanks for the blog and podcast by the way. Really helped my family get into the game.

Thanks for reading and listening!

p.s. I'm a bit amused that the forums censored a particular word I used.

lol, I think that is slang in some countries for girlie stuff... great example of blanket censorship being stupid!

Thanks for reading and listening!

p.s. I'm a bit amused that the forums censored a particular word I used.

hahahahahahah just realised what the word was =P

im sat here trying to work it out at 1.50 am