Because you refer to only the first part of Beorn text : immune to player card effect. The second part states that Beorn cannot have attachments which is a passive permanent check.

If is text is unblanked, though, he will lost his attachment.

This is actually not true. With Caleb looking on, I was playing my Beorn deck at GenCon two years ago, and I engaged The Lord of the Dead . The next round (with the Lord still engaged) someone played Citadel Plate on Beorn and Caleb and I were joking about how funny that was - a bear running around in a suit of armor. He specifically mentioned that after I kill the Lord, the attachment does not fall off. His immunity to player card effects would prevent the attachment from giving him any bonus hit points, so it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Still, for purposes of determining a valid target the immunity is only checked at the time the attachment is played, it does not cause the attachment to fall off later.

1st, thanks for sharing the deck Jban.

It's great fun to play.

Tho I tweaked it quite a bit to my liking.

Yet the core mechanism stayed the same, so it is not that important on what I did.

Anyway, now for my 2 cents on the deck.

I played a few games with 3 players.

While it is definaly a strong deck, it is in no way OP imo.

And it does not fare well against some quests, as others have stated.

For instance, we also played Antlered Crown, which punishes card draw & has foes with nasty engage effects.

I did indeed handle alot of the killing, wiping enemies of the board left and right.

But I also got in trouble quite a few times, with cards in hand, & engagement effects.

There are plenty of decks out there who equal it's strentgh, as this deck can't handle everything.

So imo:

A strong deck? Hell yes.

A fun deck? Hell yes.

A OP deck against the right quests? Hell yes.

A OP deck in general? No.

A OP deck agsinst the wrong quests? Hell no.

Which means: Errata worthy? Hell no! (imho)

Because you refer to only the first part of Beorn text : immune to player card effect. The second part states that Beorn cannot have attachments which is a passive permanent check.

Cannot have attachments is actually only checked at the time that you would play an attachment. It does not make the attachment fall off after his text is "unblanked". As I mentioned, Caleb specifically pointed this out to me as we were joking about the absurdity of a giant bear wearing a suit of armor.

Ok Danpoage, it seems strange as I was remembering something quite similar for an encounter card.

Anyway, my bad, sorry gandalf I was wrong. Thank you Danpoage for clarification.

If is text is unblanked, though, he will lost his attachment.

This is actually not true. With Caleb looking on, I was playing my Beorn deck at GenCon two years ago, and I engaged The Lord of the Dead . The next round (with the Lord still engaged) someone played Citadel Plate on Beorn and Caleb and I were joking about how funny that was - a bear running around in a suit of armor. He specifically mentioned that after I kill the Lord, the attachment does not fall off. His immunity to player card effects would prevent the attachment from giving him any bonus hit points, so it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Still, for purposes of determining a valid target the immunity is only checked at the time the attachment is played, it does not cause the attachment to fall off later.

Yes!! I actually know something about rules!

Jk

If they weren't going to errata the infinite loop Song deck that wins on turn 1 in any player numbered group, why would they need to "fix" a deck that helps out 3-4 player groups immensely?

Personally, I'm thankful that there's something like this to run with strangers at GenCon who have four random decks with no synergy.

Ok Danpoage, it seems strange as I was remembering something quite similar for an encounter card.

Anyway, my bad, sorry gandalf I was wrong. Thank you Danpoage for clarification.

No problemo, mistakes are easily made and I make them aplenty too. No need for apologies!

That's strange, I'm sure having seen an exemple that discarded the attachment while blanking temporarly a "no attachment" effect...

Maybe another card game but I'm still looking for the exemple.

--editing

I have wondered about this "attachments on Beorn" thing myself as well. Something like Self-Preservation wouldn't do anything after the immunity comes back, just like you couldn't heal Beorn with a Warden of Healing. But Burning Brand? This will be functional, right? It only directly interacts with the shadow effect.

I have wondered about this "attachments on Beorn" thing myself as well. Something like Self-Preservation wouldn't do anything after the immunity comes back, just like you couldn't heal Beorn with a Warden of Healing. But Burning Brand? This will be functional, right? It only directly interacts with the shadow effect.

If you attach Burning Brand and a Song of Wisdom while Beorn text is blanked i don't see why it shouldn't work....

As Danpoage have stated before, the attachments won't get discarded just because Beorn got his text back, which i have read somewhere regarding A Burning Brand also....

A Burning Brand don't directly interacts with the player card, imo, so it should work....

The Song of Wisdom wouldn't give Beorn's the lore resources though...

If is text is unblanked, though, he will lost his attachment.

The effect won't work but he will keep it, right?

It's the same as with Gandalf. You can play Burning Brand on him while you play it from your hand, because he temporaraly gains the Lore icon, but when the icon disappears, he still keeps the Burning Brand and since he ain't immume, the effect will stay too.

I would say it's the same as with this example. Except that I didn't make the notable difference about Burning Brand targetting the shadow card/shadow card effect as you did.

The only reason it might not work would be if "While attached character is defending" was considered to be targeting the character. Like, because Beorn is immune, the Burning Brand doesn't register that he's defending and so its effect doesn't trigger. It might well be viable though.

If they weren't going to errata the infinite loop Song deck that wins on turn 1 in any player numbered group, why would they need to "fix" a deck that helps out 3-4 player groups immensely?

Personally, I'm thankful that there's something like this to run with strangers at GenCon who have four random decks with no synergy.

I missed this one - what's the infinite loop Song deck?

If they weren't going to errata the infinite loop Song deck that wins on turn 1 in any player numbered group, why would they need to "fix" a deck that helps out 3-4 player groups immensely?

Personally, I'm thankful that there's something like this to run with strangers at GenCon who have four random decks with no synergy.

I missed this one - what's the infinite loop Song deck?

Song deck is made by lore heroes. So it is a powerful drawing machine. With songs and Love of Tales..., you get also the spirit sphere, for example. If you have WilloftheWest..., you can reach draw all hand, recycle the discard pile... (also need dwarven tomb), and you get the infinite loop effect.

Wasn't Will of the West errata'd?

Yes. It is removed from the game now after you play it.

No offense, but this threat nowadays only targets Beorn and what's possible with him. Maybe it might be more prudent to start a new thread about Beorn instead of making that discussion overe here. Everytime I see a new post in here I'm delighted to have some new insights about Tactagorn but to see new Beorn statements all the time isn't really useful.

So please start a new thread of you want to discuss Beorn instead of spoiling this one.

For new statement about tactigorn :

using him with Sam is really impressive and efficient too.

Tactigorn+merry+sam is a robust deck that is better at questing that pippin II+Tactigorn+merry. In addition he can be more versatile with sneaky Gandalf to deal with threat or nasty engagement force effect ennemies. In term of combat, the deck is just a little less efficient (not completely sure) than the former one.

In one line, Sam+Merry+Tactigorn seems a better line-up for me

I think this is an interesting topic. As a primarily solo player I don't think I can give the best opinion, but I can say that I have had a similar thought in solo with a Gandalf/Hama deck where I can consistently spam feint for the win. I avoid all shadow effects and all forced effects that trigger on attacks. The deck crushes everything, even nightmare difficulty, like nothing. I like what was said before about nerfing Merry, because it's Merry that allows Aragon to break. I feel that way about Gandalf breaking Hama/feint. With the expanding carpool we are bound to find some powerful combos and after already thinking the combo I found is in need of errata I am actually incline to Agee that maybe the same thing is needed with either Aragon or Merry. Also, I think feint should be removed from game like will of West or target only non-unique like O Erbereth

I think this is an interesting topic. As a primarily solo player I don't think I can give the best opinion, but I can say that I have had a similar thought in solo with a Gandalf/Hama deck where I can consistently spam feint for the win. I avoid all shadow effects and all forced effects that trigger on attacks. The deck crushes everything, even nightmare difficulty, like nothing. I like what was said before about nerfing Merry, because it's Merry that allows Aragon to break. I feel that way about Gandalf breaking Hama/feint. With the expanding carpool we are bound to find some powerful combos and after already thinking the combo I found is in need of errata I am actually incline to Agee that maybe the same thing is needed with either Aragon or Merry. Also, I think feint should be removed from game like will of West or target only non-unique like O Erbereth

Just thinking about idea to build up deck with Gandalf and Hama for Feint recycling and vuala see your post. Wonna try that combo now badly!

Hama/Feint falls into that category of super powerful deck types that I purposely avoid because it just drains the fun out of the game for me personally. Nowadays, if I use Hama, it's to re-use some other Tactics events that are more entertaining.

Can anybody enlighten me on Gandalf/Hama combo? I understand the principle of Hama recycling the Feint decks, but I don't quite catch what Gandalf hero particularly adds to it.

Thanks Glaurung, I enjoy watching your videos.

I have played a ton with the Gandalf hero and I have a lot of insight. Basically he is a card draw machine and a color fixer. With him you build a totally different style of deck because you want to put in a lot of events to play off the top of the deck in phases other than planning phase. Cards like daeron's runes and gathering strength are huge. This shrinks your deck down to nothing so you always see the card you need.

once I found Hama it was game over. The weakness of Hama is that he always runs out of cards or doesn'the see what he needs. Even if you get Hama going you can't seem to play any other cards. That is, unless you have Gandalf. Gandalf draws so many cards you never run out. Also, you can use the pipe to put feint on top and then play it, then attack with Hama to fetch it back, discarding the card you got with pipe so that you never suffer card disadvantage. Then with the staff you can draw even more cards. I always draw my whole deck, use will of west, and draw it again. It is nuts.

The main reason it is broken is because you don't have to worry about defending or shadow cards. If an enemy has a nasty force effect when it attacks you just bypass all that. I mean it is nuts. that gives me the ability to build the deck around questing and treachery control only so that the deck has no weaknesses. The only trouble I ever have is when dunlendings punish large hand size or crazy specialized quests like Dol Guldur or Rhosgabel. Other than that the deck literally never loses.