I would argue about shadows, as they are best dealt with either a Burning Brand or Balin himself.

I thought we agreed we were talking about the core set. Certainly BB is the best way to deal with shadow cards now.

Oh, must have slipped past me somehow.

I believe the game was always intended to be primarily delineated by the Traits, and that the sphere distinctions are just to add another layer of card design and deck building.

In case Caleb or Matt is looking at the thread I want to say a few more things.

Let’s compare two cards from the first cycle, The Favor of the Lady and Dunedain Quest. Both are 2 cost attachments that provide +1 WP, with the former in Spirit and the latter in Leadership. I’m would argue that they are functionally identical cards in two different spheres from the same cycle. I don’t think this should happen. (And for MtG, Mark Rosewater would not let it happen.) Also, I know that some of you are warming up your keyboards to type in Celebrian’s Stone, but that’s a unique.

Now let’s consider Dunedain Quest a little farther. It costs 2 while Dunedain Mark and Dunedain Warning each cost 1. Is it because a point of WP is more valuable that a point of AT or DF? Generally I think it is, but it depends on the role of the character in your deck of course. And yet, when we threat value the heroes 1 WP = 1 AT = 1 DF. I have built viable Spirit Secrecy decks, but I think it will be a long time before Tactics Secrecy is an archetype. Perhaps AT and DF should be rolled together into one Combat number? It takes away from design flexibility, but perhaps makes more sense. “You’re good at swinging your sword, but not raising your shield?” I think you are either good in combat or you’re not. Just a thought.

You’ve probably noticed that I’m not offering a lot of solutions to the inconsistencies/problems here. I’ve been following the game since before it was released and posting on BGG and here since then. After the core and during the first cycle I almost walked away from the game. I’m glad I didn’t, the game is much better now and under the stewardship of Caleb and Matt seems to be getting better and better. If the core were to be revisited though, or the game get a reboot in the distant future, these are things I hope the designers consider.

I honestly think the designers realize this now and have been slowly shifting the game to do this. Witness siege and battle. But really, the game has been slowly shifting to a more tribal theme and not a sphere theme. Maybe this should have been how the different factions were delineated from the beginning. I'm not sure.

Yeah, I think they did. It is hard for me to mentally differentiate how I see just the core set vs all the cards released so far.

The "tribal shift" is a fact. It seems much more natural anyway to think of characters in terms of, say, Dwarves and Dale folk, as opposed to "guys that are good at fighting" and "guys who draw you cards". But still, I think I remember the designers saying in some interview not that long ago that the sphere-centric approach is what they will be holding to.

A little perspective. The core set was made about 4 years ago by a different design team, that was probably not thinking 'too' far into the future. Playing with one core set would have been essentially undoable without something to boost the set. It was those cards. (Steward, UC, Blade) Even with two sets it was torture. You needed resource generation, and you needed readying. That said; I can't tell you how many times I played a game and never drew any of the three. In those days it was unusual to draw more than 15 cards in a game.

I also can't bear the thought of restricting a deck to one card (i.e. the above). Smacks of Magic way back when 1/5th of the card pool was banned or restricted during the few first 'growing pains' years.

Just sayin'.

A little perspective. The core set was made about 4 years ago by a different design team, that was probably not thinking 'too' far into the future. Playing with one core set would have been essentially undoable without something to boost the set. It was those cards. (Steward, UC, Blade) Even with two sets it was torture. You needed resource generation, and you needed readying. That said; I can't tell you how many times I played a game and never drew any of the three. In those days it was unusual to draw more than 15 cards in a game.

I also can't bear the thought of restricting a deck to one card (i.e. the above). Smacks of Magic way back when 1/5th of the card pool was banned or restricted during the few first 'growing pains' years.

Just sayin'.

They designed the quests at the same time as the player cards for the core set.

They could just as easily have made Dol Goldur and Journey down the Anduin easier to accommodate not having these cards as powerful as they are.

I played core only (1 core only mind you) without it being torture because the game was good. (Dol Goldur wasn't exactly fun but it felt good the first time I beat it).

The core set would have been significantly better if Dol Goldur had been weaker and the player cards had been more even in power. (Alterantively if the average power level had been higher and mirkwood and anduin had been harder - since it's a relative issue).