It's rather situational than weak. Think of it. You hammerstroke entire board, then use this core tactics event that prevents all enemies from attacking one player. And then demolish and massacre.

I just used Hammer Stroke to kill 14 goblins in The Seventh Level with Boromir's sacrifice!

What were you doing while 14 goblins were revealed ? Saving for playing Gildor ?

It's rather situational than weak. Think of it. You hammerstroke entire board, then use this core tactics event that prevents all enemies from attacking one player. And then demolish and massacre.

Exactly.

During our French encounter, the best Rohan deck was using Hama to reuse thicket of spear.

With some resource help from teamates, he was able to pull some the hammer stroke when needed.

What were you doing while 14 goblins were revealed ? Saving for playing Gildor ?

Defending like a boss with Beorn, Beregond, Bilbo(plus Arwen), and Watcher of the Bruinen!

I tend to think of running multiple mounts a bit more as if each (additional) mount were a title for the mount. For example, Eomer could be riding Firefoot: the Rohan Warhorse, rather than Firefoot *and* a Rohan Warhorse. It makes no mechanical difference of course, but thematically I think it makes a lot more sense that way.

man, westfold outrider.... The things you can do with this card continue to amaze me. Such an innocent looking ability but *man*... definitely one of the all-stars in my rohan deck, and I wasn't even using him to feint.

Right now Eomer's setup is Rohan Warhorse + Spear of the Mark. Firefoot + Rohan Warhorse is strictly better in every possible way except cost, at least when it comes to Eomer.

learn to read

Hey @MyNeighborTrololo, that's the kind of comment that makes many of us want to stay off of these forums for good. Why the brittle tone?

learn to read

Hey @MyNeighborTrololo, that's the kind of comment that makes many of us want to stay off of these forums for good. Why the brittle tone?

What tone? A person responded to my post as if it didn't read it.

I'm not sure that thematic reasoning like that makes any sense to me as a player. I try and build the most powerful deck I can and if the card has no restrictions I'll put as many mounts under a hero as the deck design needs. It is not up to me to gimp my decks to fit the theme. It is on FFG to make the cards thematic. Now in some cases they fail utterly, and others cards are pretty good.

That being said I think the mounts are fine as they are. I do not mind the restricted nature even if being unique fits the theme of a single horse. The thing is that the restriction is NOT about theme, it is about ability. While there are thematic reasons for the restricted keyword, the more important and 1st duty of it is for limited cards that have synergistic effects or powerful effects. This is why Firefoot is restricted not for some lame thematic reason, it is because of the powerful effect it has and to make it harder to utilise that effect.

@MyNeighborTrololo, Why not, "Hmmm... I'm not sure you read my post," or "I think you might go back and read my post"? You've got good things to say, but I think a less combative edge would make this forum a better place to be.

Takes less space and time.

Takes less space and time.

So do Hot Pockets and The Hardy Boys, but shouldn't these of all conversations be leisurely and unhurried? None of us are here for work. Why rush the conversation at the expense of keeping good company?

I often visit these forums from work where I do not have much time to post.

Well, you've got my two coppers. I'm new, excited about this community (your insights included!), and want to participate. But I get enough work-style communication at work. I'd love to see this game and community grow, but there will probably be a hobbit-sized ceiling to that growth if participants feel they're clocking back in. Matthew (Grey Company) is no longer with us. Who's next? Maybe growing the community and the game is worth a few extra characters?

ive always wondered if this forum would do good from an off topic section so that more users visit and join... it may be a way to help it grow... but im derailing now haha, sorry

there is only 2 posts on topic in on this page, trolo and eucatastrophem you7 and now me have all just wasted space.

no u

there is only 2 posts on topic in on this page, trolo and eucatastrophem you7 and now me have all just wasted space.

I'm not sure it's wasted space (where would you discuss such a thing in context?), but agree a return to topic is in order.

whats the topic again? oh! Dunland Trap! yeah, we want our cards!! :angry:

I'm not sure that thematic reasoning like that makes any sense to me as a player. I try and build the most powerful deck I can and if the card has no restrictions I'll put as many mounts under a hero as the deck design needs. It is not up to me to gimp my decks to fit the theme. It is on FFG to make the cards thematic. Now in some cases they fail utterly, and others cards are pretty good.

That being said I think the mounts are fine as they are. I do not mind the restricted nature even if being unique fits the theme of a single horse. The thing is that the restriction is NOT about theme, it is about ability. While there are thematic reasons for the restricted keyword, the more important and 1st duty of it is for limited cards that have synergistic effects or powerful effects. This is why Firefoot is restricted not for some lame thematic reason, it is because of the powerful effect it has and to make it harder to utilise that effect.

I'm not suggesting adding or removing restrictions. I'm suggesting changing the restriction to be more thematic/sensible, and honestly I think that this change wouldn't cause any issues with the current card pool's synergies. I find the fact that only the Tactics mounts are restricted applies to your reasoning, but it also makes little sense to me. In a sphere where we have these awesome things called weapons (and armor), they are adding a bunch of cards that limit your ability to use them.

In the story, they were wearing armor, carrying a sword AND spear, and rode on horses... one horse, not two. They certainly were not riding 2 horses that made them ineligible for armor or weapons. Sounds ludicrous. Anyway. I'm done with my rant. I've house-ruled it the way I think it should be, and that's good enough for me.

According to the Grey Company podcast, The Dunland Trap has now received the official release date 26th June. The Three Trials is simply labelled "Q3".

Indeed! The dunland trap is shipping! Let the cycle begin!

Two trias is on the boat, and Trouble Tharbad is at the printer now.

That's great news, although I'm sad to see The Road Darkens hasn't made any progress. It might be a full year between the first two trilogy saga expansions.

Looks like you can get it here for a reasonable price.

http://www.amazon.com/LORD-RINGS-DUNLAND-TRAP-PACK/dp/B00JVTDHTM

Well that was quick. Now we know that the second half of June is early in the second quarter. It's the new math.