How do I know? Maybe from all the clues he gave me, like "if you don't use power cards you deserve to suffer or go play easy mode" (not direct wording, just a nutshell, no offense). And I've made plenty of points throughout this thread, thank you, if you so easily discarding all of them, then why are we even talking?

6) Keeping the enemies is not an option, the deck is relying on rush. Enemies in the staging mean no progress, mean location lock, mean game over. Trust me, I've played my fair share of games with that deck, in the end I've had to put 3 Gondorian Shields and simply forfieted any games that didn't turned it up in the opening hands, because I knew what was coming.

Speaking of a card draw, it's probably a bad example, but it is still valid: MonoLeadership deck and Lord of Mornthod. If you don't draw it anywhere near the beginning of the game - you're literally going to be out of your draw engine. And I've had those games, believe me.

Many secrecies literally rely on having Resourceful to properly function.

Decks that have some out of sphere cards rely on getting the glue.

You don't like it - fine. I'm not insisting on anything, this thread is a t-h-e-o-r-y-c-r-a-f-t.

When did I say thematic players deserve to lose or not have fun? That's why there is easy mode. Handicapped encounter decks for handicapped player decks seems fair to me.

Dear mr Neighbour are you troll-lol-loling me?

When did I say thematic players deserve to lose or not have fun? That's why there is easy mode. Handicapped encounter decks for handicapped player decks seems fair to me.

Dear mr Neighbour are you troll-lol-loling me?

Well, that's what I was talking about. Feta, as I said - no offense, I was talking about your attittude and impression you made on me with it.

Fixed opening hand would break the game, in my opinion. A game would need to begin with that being the rule from the outset.

6) Keeping the enemies is not an option, the deck is relying on rush. Enemies in the staging mean no progress, mean location lock, mean game over. Trust me, I've played my fair share of games with that deck, in the end I've had to put 3 Gondorian Shields and simply forfieted any games that didn't turned it up in the opening hands, because I knew what was coming.

Speaking of a card draw, it's probably a bad example, but it is still valid: MonoLeadership deck and Lord of Morthond. If you don't draw it anywhere near the beginning of the game - you're literally going to be out of your draw engine. And I've had those games, believe me.

Many secrecies literally rely on having Resourceful to properly function.

Decks that have some out of sphere cards rely on getting the glue.

You don't like it - fine. I'm not insisting on anything, this thread is a t-h-e-o-r-y-c-r-a-f-t.

If you manage to get location locked in solo with some of the best willpower in the game at your disposal, you're doing something wrong. Why does the deck depend on rushing? 25 starting threat, solo, I don't see why there's any need for you to rush. If you can't win with that deck without drawing a Shield in your opening hand, I suspect there's something else wrong with it.

Lord of Morthond is only really a good draw engine for Outlands in my experience. Even there it's not essential though. Mono-Leadership also has access to Valiant Sacrifice, Sneak Attack Gandalf, King Under the Mountain, Erestor, etc to draw more cards, plus things like ally Galadriel and A Very Good Tale.

Secrecies work much better with Resourceful, but you should be able to manage without it for a while. I'll grant that Secrecy, especially two-hero Secrecy without repeatable threat reduction like Merry or Galadriel, is a difficult archetype to pull off. But it still has enough toys at its disposal that it should be OK against some quests at least (some quests it just won't work, but almost every deck has quests like that).

Decks that depend on out of sphere cards should be built with sufficient draw or fetch effects to give a high likelihood of getting their resource-fixing cards in a timely fashion.

You say you're not insisting on anything, but the fact is you started this thread by asking a question, and you have then proceeded to brow-beat everyone who gave the answer opposite to your own opinion on the matter. You're in no position to be criticising other people for the impression they make with their attitudes.

Yes, and something wrong is not engaging and killing enemies as soon as they are available to engage and kill, as I previously said. And for that I need Gondorian Shield in my opening hand. If I don't have it - Boromir will die after 3-4 attacks at best.

There is a lot of "ifs" - those decks should this, these decks should that. Not everything can always accomplish everything, unfortunately.

I started a thread and asked a question, then I developed my opinion through the discusccion of this thread. I don't know the term "brow-beat", but I strongly disagreed only with people who claimed that change to be bad because of those combo decks which are already bonkers no matter what, any further boosts to them are trivial. I'm in a pretty decent position to recieve impressions and judge by them, and as you have seen, FetaCheese haven't argued my impression of him, which means it was right.

Now, I will stop responding to you, kind sir, unless you stop attacking me personally and start some constructive discussion.

When did I say thematic players deserve to lose or not have fun? That's why there is easy mode. Handicapped encounter decks for handicapped player decks seems fair to me.

Dear mr Neighbour are you troll-lol-loling me?

Well, that's what I was talking about. Feta, as I said - no offense, I was talking about your attittude and impression you made on me with it.

I don't see your point... Self-limitations is handicapping, which is fine to do if you wanna have fun for whatever reason and I often do it myself, but this does not indicate a weakness in game mechanics. Handicapping is common in our community,

I personally think that fixed opening hands would skyrocket combo decks since EVERY deck would see an increase in power. So if all decks double their strength with a new mulligan rule that simply means that weaker decks will still be weaker to power decks...and since new quests will have to accomondate for the power level of over 9000 of the power decks, then the weaker deks will still lag behind... Basically a new mulligan rule wouldn't fix things in the way you are suggesting because all the decks are affected. Using easy mode is a simpler, more elegant solution.

Edit: nah mate, me not answering doesn't mean I am conceding anything. This isn't reddit.

Now, I will stop responding to you, kind sir, unless you stop attacking me personally and start some constructive discussion.

LOL. Sure, Mr. Pot, this Kettle will just stop bothering you since there's obviously no point to continuing this 'discussion'.

FetaCheese, powergaming at it's finest. If X exists, not using X is handicapping. But, suprise, not everyone enjoys X, yet wants to play the game, and want to epxerience it in full (meaning full encounter deck, not easy mode). This is not a weakness in game mechanics, this is a weakness in game design, where not using X is handicapping yourself, and the encounter cards are designed around the X power level.

But you can't just count it like "doubling the strength" of the deck That's extremely dependent on the deck in question. Inconsistent start deck would benefit a lot from this, possibly increaing it's effectiveness 3-4 or even more times, while some crazy combo deck capable of wiping the quest on turn 1 will barely feel it. It will just take less time to setup the combo, the result gonna be the same. What the point bothering about those boring combo decks?

I didn't said you conceded your point, I said you didn't argued that you're a powergamer.

Nice strawmanning, especially when I have kept repeating in my posts about how often I play non-optimized decks, which is the majority of the time. Also I never told people what they should enjoy or not. There is no point to the rest of your post I haven't answered before though I will say again that weaker archetypes and weaker cards are normal in a CCG-inspired card game and not a game design fault for a variety of reasons (immature card pool is a major issue in Lotr). Finally, feelings don't trump reallity, especially gameplay which is governed by math and PROPABILITIES.

Seastan's Boromir deck might just be the most powerful deck I have played with and takes at least 3 turns to set up with Galandriel drawing, unless I am extremely lucky. You severelly underestimate the effect your mulligan theory would have for the game, it'd limit deck construction far more than not.

Stop using those strange terms I have never heard before

Non-optimized deck can easily be a power deck. Just through a couple of dwarf stuff in, add Dain and you have a non-optimized power deck Weaker archetypes do exist, however, and people who wants to play them too. Well, saying that this variant will just double any deck potential is opposed to both reality and math alike.

I never said anything about Seastan's deck. I've never actually seen it, to be more precise.

Man, I'm feeling like we're just tossing the same thing around back and forth, let's stop this and just agree to disagree.

Here, I will simplify it for you!

Mouhaha!! I really like your post!!! Amazing!!

I think I even saw that BGG thread on the last slide

Yeah... This game is brutal when you start playing it!

Off-topic rant:

People need to be more creative and open-minded with respect to what counts as thematic. The card can represent an essence, not merely the literal name on it. A card can represent a presence, a will, a force, and influence. Many would say that including three heroes that never met in the book(s) is off-theme. But, we can easily see how the actions of those heroes and their narratives intertwined to form the composite that is the beautiful LOTR universe.

This comes up a lot in the AGOT LCG as well; "How can this character combat that character? This character was dead before that character was even born." I think that people should not take the cards so literally. The cards represent an essence, a presence, a force that at some time made an impact on the universe in question. True, person X would never have been able to actually fight person Y; but, you can understand how the actions and presence of person X could run up against the essence of person Y.

Think of the LOTR narrative as a coherent whole, and all of the characters as a sort of symbiosis, a constellation of moving parts, some closer together than others, with the real beauty of the universe dependent on the gestalt. It could be thought of as even more beautiful to play a deck with characters that had little or no contact in the book, thinking of the beauty of their different lives and experiences, but how they both played a specific role in bringing about the climactic events of the overall narrative. It can be beautiful to think of a deck as a collection of unique lives and stories, with the ending to the story dependent on the actions of all of them, to greater and lesser degrees. If you really love the LOTR universe, it can be really cool and beautiful to play a deck and wonder what two characters might have said to each other, had they ever met, or entertain the "what if's" in our minds.

I encourage people to think about things as a whole, and not just say something like, "Those two never met. This is unthematic." -- not saying that anyone on these boards does that, but I have heard people in card-gaming over the years say many such things.

How about making it a Keyword and applying it only to extraordinarily challenging quests?

For something like the Siege of Cair Andros, the ability to choose your opening hand would enable a lot more deck types to be successful.

I've been attempting the quest with mono-lore lately, and it's very doable even with my limited cardpool - but only if I draw exactly the right opening hand.

So... do I just reset and mulligan until I get that hand? How does that make any sense?

Actually a nice idea. I would like something like a keyword that would be printed on setup part of each quest, like Planning X, where X would be the number of cards you can handpick for your opening hand instead of drawing.

I've done a bit of game design so I'd like to add my experiences with randomness.

First of all, this game has a sort of fixed opening compared to other games like Magic or Hearthstone in the shape of our three hero characters. Most cardgames starts you off with nothing.

Will it break the game by making super combo's available? I don't know, after all, the encounterdeck would be more difficult as well as a balance. But ideas like this shouldn't be judged on balance issues I think, that's for far later.

My major concern is with the primary reason randomness exists in games: replayability. Presumably players will build decks with their opening hand in mind and have a 'optimal' opening hand as part of their deck design. This means the first 2-3 turns are going to be VERY similar in every playthrough. As you know, the first few turns are key in this game, moreso than in other cardgames. If you win a game with a fixed hand, you'll likely win every other time you'll play. If you lose, it'll probably be nigh-impossible to win by trying again, discouraging players. Removing the randomness in the first few turns from the player-deck side, will narrow the performance of your deck considerably. Ironicaly, that means that if you're playing a challenging scenario, the first few encountercards will determine how the game is going to go, so I'll likely feel MORE random than before because the few random events that are left, become that much more important to the flow of the game! The more random events in a game, the more 'spread out' your luck can be. Better to flip a hundered coins than just one.

On the other hand, with an 'optimal first turn play', and very little variation in the first few turns, playing the game will become much less challenging for the player. Once you figure out the 'trick' of your deck, it'll either work or not. Sure, with well-rounded characters you'll still have to determine if you'll quest or not, but many other options become autopilot. Trying to discover the optimal play from a random set of cards from your deck is what keeps the game fresh every time you play.

What would it do for deckbuilding? I think it'll make deckbuilding a lot more interesting actually. In a way, it is a bit like programing an A.I. to play the game for you. You make the most important decisions before the game starts, then you just sit it out and watch it unfold.

As for balance, obviously stacking your cards is a form of making the game easier, just like easy mode. And, being a coop game and all, LotR is super house-rule friendly. I would only recommend using this rule against very specificly-difficult quests like Siege of Cair Andros as Introverdant said, but try not to abuse it too much. The regular Easy Mode is in my opinion a more elegant solution that keeps the game just as interesting, but allows sillier decks. I also really like the Hearthstone mulligan which let's you mulligan part of your hand instead of all-or-nothing. I would recommend that instead of Easy Mode or in addition to Easy Mode over a fully fixed opening hand. You'll just LIKE the game better that way, or atleast bored later rather than sooner.

I do think it's a good start for actual card design. We have Loragorn that let's you reset your threat, why not a hero that reset's your hand? But as the cardpool expands, we're getting more alternatives (letting you put more copies of a desired effect in your deck) and we're getting more fetch-cards that let's you search your deck for specific combo pieces. And if you're building a combo-deck finding ways to get the pieces into play is part of the deckbuilding fun! With a more limited cardpool, I can get the temptation. After all, core-set players are only going to defeat the Hill Troll if they get their sphere's anti-troll card. With today's cardpool, I feel like the days of cards being either super-powerfull or absolute crap are over. There are enough cards to keep the bad ones out and fill a deck with cards that are all useful.

Actually a nice idea. I would like something like a keyword that would be printed on setup part of each quest, like Planning X, where X would be the number of cards you can handpick for your opening hand instead of drawing.

It just seems way too powerful, even if each person could guarantee a single card. Have you played decks (or combinations of decks, given other players) where Legacy of Numenor (LoN) and Deep Knowledge (DN) are played at the beginning of the game. My playgroup commonly all adds in threat-reduction, and we all run either or both (depending on decks) LoN and DN. Have one person run Lore Aragorn, the people running Spirit include 3x Elrond's Counsel, and every player running 3x Core Gandalf. If you can always have an opening where each player gets double (or even triple) resources and 9-11 cards, the game would get really silly. My group consistently has absolutely insane opening planning phases as it is.

I'm glad to see the bickering has stopped, at least for now.

I want to get my say in here.

First of all, we need to remember the question: Would fixed opening hand nurture the deckbuilding or harm it? The question wasn't whether or not it'd be good for the game as a whole. I think that by allowing us to eliminate duplicates of some cards and some card draw effects, we make room for additional cards that would not otherwise end up in the deck, therefore, it would nurture and give more options for deck building. In this sense, it could be a good thing.

On the other hand, I do agree with so many people that the game wasn't designed with this in mind so it does break the game in a few minor ways.

All that being said, I think it's a fun thought experiment and would love to hear about you guys testing it out. No one is going to yell at you for trying this game with a few house rules, at least I sure as heck hope not.

I have always been a fan of the way the MTG handles mulligans; you can do as many as you want, but one less card each time.

Off-topic rant:

<>

While I see what you're saying, "unthematic" is obviously a very vague term here. I can't bring myself to enjoy playing decks that may be powerful but make little sense with regard to how the characters relate to each other and the world. Take this example concerning attachments:

- Nothing could bring me to put Steward of Gondor on Elrohir, even though it would make him a more reliable defender. He knew Aragorn and the other Dúnedain, sure, but he has nothing to do with the authority or resources of the Steward.

- I could, however, put Horn of Gondor on e.g. Eomer - because he hears horns cry from Minas Tirith and quickens his speed. That I would even call thematic.

Middle-Earth is a vast place, with different cultures, norms and flavour; there is a difference between what could happen and what really makes no sense -

- If things had gone differently, Thorin, Fili and Kili could have survived until the War of the Ring and gone to hang out with Hirluin and Mablung, or Cirdan decided to take a break from boats and go chill in Lothlorien. That's fine.

- But even with Elf-Friend, I can't fathom why someone would put Light of Valinor on Eowyn. She has never been there; her people is not in any way related to Aman. Get another readying effect for her - Theoden could've traded with elves in Eriador and received some Miruvor. That's fine.

Do you see the difference? The nitpicking you describe does sound tedious, but there is a very broad spectrum. If it makes little sense I'm not going to enjoy playing it.

As for the on-topic question: A fixed opening hand would make everyone play Noldor at this point just for the headstart.

One person's limits on theme are another person's opportunity for imagination. For example:

Perhaps Aragorn becomes king and takes on Elrohir (a long time friend, companion, and now brother-in-law) as an advisor and steward.

Eowyn and Faramir named their son Elboron - which means "Enduring Star". Perhaps this could be taken to mean that Eowyn developed a devotion to Elbereth later in life, and has a deep love of the Light of Valinor.

I like that FFG has allowed a great amount of flexibility and allows us to police ourselves. If we don't like certain combinations of cards there is no need to play them. At the same time I think it's harsh to condemn someone who does happen to use the cards together. They may have thought of a creative way in which it makes thematic sense to them, or they may not care at all. Either way, there is no need for rants

P.S. While Elf-Friend certainly has many interesting possibilities, its combo with LoV isn't that stellar. We are talking about a 2-cost 2-card combo to get 1 readying effect. UC or Snowmane is almost strictly better for this application so I'd be surprised if it gets much play. Not to mention you are taking up a very valuable unique card that another player could put to good use.

It worked well for the Babylon 5 card game, but it would make things too easy in this game probably. Let's start with 6 Test of Wills, all our best attachments, best ally and why not Doomed 4 out some resources. I guess we need a sigil to cancel that out... Look all set turn one.