And that's why Dain is restrictive, he literally nerfs every dwarf before their release.

In theory, yes. But have you seen this in practice? If you look at the list of dwarves we have, most of them follow the general "X cost 2X stats" curve that we see across the board, if not better. Sure, there are some duds (I'm looking at you Bombur ally), but every other trait has duds too.

That upcoming Dwarven Sellsword doesn't feel shortchanged for stats either...

Pretty much stole the words from my brain. The average dwarf really doesn't feel under-powered. And the Sellsword looks hella-sexy.

To @John Constantine's point though, Dain may be preemptively nerfing the HIGH end of the Dwarf allies and Heroes. I could see FFG intentionally holding back just a bit ASSUMING that Dain would be in play when balancing a more powerful character (I feel like the new Dori may have fallen a little foul of this...) but the average dwarf is no pushover without Dain when looked at in the context of the whole cardpool.

Yeah, Dwarf allies are fine without Dain, and then Dain makes them better. And I strongly disagree with the claim that he encourages interesting deck-building. The 5 dwarf stuff from the Hobbit boxes, the deck-mining sub-theme of the trait, these encourage interesting deck-building. With Dain, you just spam a bunch of allies which were already good and they become even better with no effort on your part beyond that one hero choice.

That's actually pretty fair. You COULD do that. I think it would bite you pretty bad in a number of quests but it would work okay for a lot of them.

I find Dain an interesting card to build around precisely because his effect is universal. As someone who plays the game pretty much exclusively with people who don't own it, I end up building everyone's decks myself to compliment eachother. That can present interesting decisions.

There are only so many Dwarves—how do I distribute them? Do I focus on the cheapest/weakest allies possible to leverage Dain to his maximum effect or bank on some of the slightly more expensive allies--and that's before we make room for some of the great Dwarf attachments and events. Leadership has the best Dwarf cards, how do I distribute them assuming Dain will be anchoring one Hero slot going in. Do I go Mono-Leadership for that deck and restrict the allies I can drop or give up Thorin or Balin (both great cards).

Maybe it’s the way I build my decks (always building each one to compliment all the others with a single cardpool) but to me he DOES generate some interesting choices along with all the other Dwarf mechanics you mentioned.

And that's why Dain is restrictive, he literally nerfs every dwarf before their release.

In theory, yes. But have you seen this in practice? If you look at the list of dwarves we have, most of them follow the general "X cost 2X stats" curve that we see across the board, if not better. Sure, there are some duds (I'm looking at you Bombur ally), but every other trait has duds too.

That upcoming Dwarven Sellsword doesn't feel shortchanged for stats either...

Let's take a look!

Spirit:

All, except for unique Bofur, spirit dwarf allies have 1 willpower, and 1 or less attack. Is that not a pattern enough for you? None of the spirit dwarf heroes has any of his willpower or attack stats above 2, and none of them has both his willpower and attack at 2 simultaneously and unconditioanlly.

Lore:

Not a single 2 willpower ally. Only 2 allies out of 8 have an attack value of 2, both are unique. Lore dwarf heroes don't have nenither willpower, nor attack exceeding 2 (one of heroes even has 0 willpower and 1 attack).

Tactics:

Tactic dwarf allieas at least can provide you with some decent attack without Dain, but if you wanna take them questing - you'll be vaguely dissapointed.

You would think tactics dwarf heroes would shine in this department? Nope. Not a single wp/atk stat above 2, quite some are obviously below.

So this is not irony, it's harsh reality. Most of dwarf allies (and quite some heroes) suck stats-wise unless Dain is in play to compensate.

The upcoming Dwarven Sellsword drains your resources consistently, and that's why he has such inflated attack/willpower. Hindering him because of Dain's existance would be completely blasphemous, because he is obviously not supposed to be used solely for dwarf decks, but for any leadership deck that can use some kickstarting. Thanks god they didn't pre-rendered him for dwarfs only (though decision to make him a dwarf is questionable, as they could have just made him some non-developed trait to be completely neutral trait-effect wise, but this one benefits dwarf players who are going to use him, so it's ok).

It can be difficult to demonstrate with specifics (as every detail can begin it's own rabbit trail debate) but in essence I agree with John Constantine. The point he is making is about game design not game balance. The problem with a lot of cards is not that they are overpowered but that they prohibit future design. The designers eventually back themselves into a corner.

Let me use the example of Northern Tracker. His ability is necessary to prevent landlock, especially in 3 or 4 player games. In solo he can often be overpriced and unnecessary. So, I would not say he is overpowered. Instead, his existence makes it extremely difficult for any other location control type card to exist. The only card that breaks through this is Asfaloth. Maybe with Gamling the Rohan tribe can provide competition, but basically whenever you see a location control card you think "well I can just run Norther Tracker".

Consider a hypothetical alternative which illustrates the point. Let's say that in the Mirkwood cycle they decided to focus on locations with the "river" and "riverland" trait (which they did) or "forest". Then they made a card exactly like Northern Tracker but it only placed progress on river or riverland locations. Immediately all kinds of design space opens up because now you can have a "Southern Tracker" for marshland or mordor locations. You can have a character that puts progress on "city" locations for quests like trouble at Pelegrir or Tharbad. Unfortunately those cards really can't exist because Norhern Tracker blocks their design. By making Northern Tracker universal it severely limits the ability for designers to make creative cards.

This is why a card is more bland the more universal it becomes. Imagine if Dain gave his boost to all allies instead of just Dwarves. It would completely ruin the game. Not because Dain would be too powerful, but because it would become extremely difficult to design alternatives. That is John's point. That is why I agree with him about Steward of Gondor. It should have had some kind of restriction. Treebeard should not be able to rule Gondor.

All fair points. And as I said before I agree 100% on Steward.

And @Jon Constantine makes some good points. I usually only play Dwarves in Dwarf decks where their real strength is their synergy (with or without Dain) so I don't know if a stat-for-stat reckoning is really a fair test but it does certainly illustrate the point of diminishing design space.

Still...I like Dain. And it's not even a matter of his power but the way he works. I can understand if I'm in the minority there though.

I think I may just be blinded by my own very different experience with Dain. When I played him regularly he was in a pair of purpose-built 100% theme decks that required some clever deck building due to not having access to a lot of the staple non-dwarf cards (Steward included, but also all non-dwarf allies and any attachments and/or events referencing specific non-dwarf items or events).

​Apart from Ents, Dwarves have the highest stats/cost of any trait.

So Dwarves have the best bang for your buck even without Dain. Dain takes them from "very good" to "insanely good", but let it not be said that Dwarves are "underpowered" without him.

I'm not making a comment on whether or not I think Dain is a good design. I am just trying to straighten out the facts.

Incorrect. Outlands is best tribe.

Again, debating raw numbers is challenging because context and abilities matter so much. Rohan and Gondor tribes are near the top while Silvan is at the bottom, yet I think everyone agrees that Silvan is the better tribe.

How does Ithilian Tracker, or Dunedain Wanderer, or Silvan Refugee, or Rivendale Scout, Pelegrir Shipwright, or Harbor Master, or Citadel Custodian, or many other cards skew the numbers when the stats/cost ratio is misleading?

Health is almost never as valuable as attack, so if a tribe gets a boost by having higher health it won't tell the real story (Silvan are low health, which is one reason they outperform their stat/cost ratio). A minion with well rounded stats is not as good as a minion with specialized stats (one resonance wandering ent is not actually a very good ally). So dwarves get a big boost from an ally like erebor Hammersmith because he has a lot of stats, but they are all spread out (and he has 3 health!) but his stats are not actually that impressive.

Then, should you count allies that nobody ever uses?

My point is that you can't just clear this debate up with raw numbers. I think the Dwarf tribe is strong even without Dain because of cards like Legacy of Durin, Lure of Moria, Erebor Battlemaster, and We are Not Idle.

That is why the question of design space is the more interesting one to me :-)

Of course there is more to it than just raw stats. But that's all that Dain provides. The point was that Dwarves are not shortchanged in stats because of Dain, that's all. I completely agree that Legacy of Durin, Lure of Moria, and We are not Idle make the Dwarf tribe one of the strongest archetypes even without a global stat boost.

With Faramir and Erebor Battle Master a dwarf deck will not be lacking in willpower or attack. Dain is an easier option, sure. Boromir also makes building Gondor decks a lot easier, Theoden for Rohan, Hirluin for Outlands. But you can still put together solid decks without them. Silvan is an interesting case, because it seems they are pretty dependent on Celeborn, and perhaps the reason they are still good despite their low stat/cost. But I will not say that Silvan are underpowered without him at this point.

​Apart from Ents, Dwarves have the highest stats/cost of any trait.

Ents: 3.76

Dwarves: 1.99 (Not including Sellsword)

Eagles: 1.94 (Not including Vassal/Guardian)

Rohan: 1.92

Gondor: 1.88

Noldor: 1.83 (Not including Elrond/Galadriel)

Dunedain: 1.79 (Not including Hunter)

Silvan: 1.72

So Dwarves have the best bang for your buck even without Dain. Dain takes them from "very good" to "insanely good", but let it not be said that Dwarves are "underpowered" without him.

I'm not making a comment on whether or not I think Dain is a good design. I am just trying to straighten out the facts.

You're avoiding my point, which was the dent that sole Dain's existance puts on willpower and attack of all dwarves coming out. Comparing the cost efficiency of entire statbox won't do it justice. For example, as I've stated previously, out of entire Lore dwarf roster, only two dwarves have attack above 1 (both unique, both have 2 attack, so it's not that much), and none have above 1 willpower. And Lore contains the most dwarf allies, mind you. Out of 5 Spirit (willpower rich sphere, so to say) dwarf allies, only single one possess more than 1 willpower, and he is, of course, unique.

It is got harder to build out-of-leadership thematic dwarf decks without Dain in them, because all dwarves that came out were designed with Dain in mind. They simply lack the stats you need to progress through the quest and not get eaten in the process.

I'm gonna slap a big ol' [Citation needed] on that. You have nothing but your own perception to back up the idea that the Dwarf allies' stats were downgraded to account for Dain, and given that their stats are, as noted, not just credible but good for their cost (not to mention some very useful abilities) I find it hard to believe that assertion.

And the suggestion that Dwarves "lack the stats you need to progress through the quest" I find untrue on the basis of direct experience, because I've used those allies in decks without Dain and found them to be fine.

Also, spread of stats can be way more useful than most people give it credit for.

My last response wasn't that great as I think about it because I answered within the paradigm of game balance instead of design. Again, the problem is not that Dwarves are not as good as other tribes. The problem is that you can't make the Dwarves too good because of Dain.

I am not sure how you can provide scholarly citation to show that Dwarves are pretty nerfed, but let's use what evidence is available. The designers don't reveal their behind the door processes, but they do change their design methods over time. Celeborn is an interesting case study because he came so much later. Rather than giving a bland global bonus, he boosts stats only on the first turn. This makes it so that you can have big expensive stat monster silvan without damaging the meta. In fact, Celeborn actually encourages people to play with cheap silvan allies that can be more easily bounced and replayed. Small cheap allies that get buffed temporarily are far less problematic and restrictive to future design possibilities. They are free to still design pretty much any Silvan they want to. I believe that Celeborn is a vastly superior design and if they could do it over again the designers would have done something less restrictive to future design with Dain. Another evidence is Theoden as the tribal leader for Rohan. He reduces cost instead of granting a global buff. With experiance they get better at design. I am not sure how this is all that debatable.

By the way, Dain does not just limit the design of characters but also attachments. Obviously they could not have an attachment like "visionary leadership" for dwarves. Once you have filled that design space you can't fill it again. It is better to divide the space into four or five cards rather than to make one grand card. Again, if Dain gave his buff to all allies then Leadership Boromir could not exist (and visionary leadership could not exist if Boromir was like Dain). That's the point.

Anyone up for a challenge to build a dwarf deck sans Dain and/or even sans Leadership? I' skeptical myself to be honest. Dain is just too good. I have no doubt that the designers have Dain in the back of their minds when they design a new dwarf (poor hero Dori ). That's just my gut feeling though.

PocketWraith makes a good point about personal experience. I have played Dwarf decks without Dain and found them to still be one of the most powerful traits. But lets keep arguing because game analysis is fun

You're avoiding my point, which was the dent that sole Dain's existance puts on willpower and attack of all dwarves coming out. Comparing the cost efficiency of entire statbox won't do it justice. For example, as I've stated previously, out of entire Lore dwarf roster, only two dwarves have attack above 1 (both unique, both have 2 attack, so it's not that much), and none have above 1 willpower. And Lore contains the most dwarf allies, mind you. Out of 5 Spirit (willpower rich sphere, so to say) dwarf allies, only single one possess more than 1 willpower, and he is, of course, unique.

There are only 5 spirirt dwarf allies. You shouldn't draw sweeping conclusions about nerfs from such a small set. This is especially true when you look at those allies individually:

My last response wasn't that great as I think about it because I answered within the paradigm of game balance instead of design. Again, the problem is not that Dwarves are not as good as other tribes. The problem is that you can't make the Dwarves too good because of Dain.

I am not sure how you can provide scholarly citation to show that Dwarves are pretty nerfed, but let's use what evidence is available. The designers don't reveal their behind the door processes, but they do change their design methods over time. Celeborn is an interesting case study because he came so much later. Rather than giving a bland global bonus, he boosts stats only on the first turn. This makes it so that you can have big expensive stat monster silvan without damaging the meta. In fact, Celeborn actually encourages people to play with cheap silvan allies that can be more easily bounced and replayed. Small cheap allies that get buffed temporarily are far less problematic and restrictive to future design possibilities. They are free to still design pretty much any Silvan they want to. I believe that Celeborn is a vastly superior design and if they could do it over again the designers would have done something less restrictive to future design with Dain. Another evidence is Theoden as the tribal leader for Rohan. He reduces cost instead of granting a global buff. With experiance they get better at design. I am not sure how this is all that debatable.

By the way, Dain does not just limit the design of characters but also attachments. Obviously they could not have an attachment like "visionary leadership" for dwarves. Once you have filled that design space you can't fill it again. It is better to divide the space into four or five cards rather than to make one grand card. Again, if Dain gave his buff to all allies then Leadership Boromir could not exist (and visionary leadership could not exist if Boromir was like Dain). That's the point.

If your point is that they can't make expensive stat monster dwarves anymore, then back it up with some examples, like how Gimli and Dwarven Sellsword don't exist (Sorry for for the sarcasm). I think the only other recent dwarf is the Longbeard Sentry who is a defender and unaffected by Dain in that regard.

Anyone up for a challenge to build a dwarf deck sans Dain and/or even sans Leadership? I' skeptical myself to be honest. Dain is just too good. I have no doubt that the designers have Dain in the back of their minds when they design a new dwarf (poor hero Dori ). That's just my gut feeling though.

Anyone up for a challenge to build a dwarf deck sans Dain and/or even sans Leadership? I' skeptical myself to be honest. Dain is just too good. I have no doubt that the designers have Dain in the back of their minds when they design a new dwarf (poor hero Dori ). That's just my gut feeling though.

For solo I just go a bit heavier on Faramir and Battlemasters.

http://goo.gl/UFw8Pe

Seastan, these are all spirit dwarves I have, I cannot avoid them if I am to build a dwarf deck without leadership. And spirit dwarves are not the only example I provided.

Bofur is also the only card from Spirit dwarves to feature more than of 1 willpower or attack.

Blue Mountain Trader's ability was not good, it was poorly designed (in terms of exploit-proofness), and the fix (not nerf) was coming as soon as he hit the shelves. And his ability is purely multiplayer-related, so for example, if you're playing solo (which is major case because I'm discussing the life without Dain), you're looking at an ally with empty text box, 1 wp and 0 atk. For 2 resources. 2 hp would have matter, if he had any impact, but he doesn't, unfortunately.

Dwalin - well guess why he is not designed for questing? Because Dain exists! With Dain, Dwalin is a 2/2/2/3 monster, capable of anything. They wouldn't dare to give him any excess willpower or attack, or with Dain he would grow out of proportion.

Kili - look at this fine example of Dain influence. Brothers are essentially the same, with different pictures and colors. They couldn't make blue one quest for more and purple one attack for more, for example, because with Dain - they would be doing too much on their own.

Zigil - still, he is a dwarf, and any player who wants some dwarf action going on is going to consider him. And will get dissapointed.

I just checked all lore allies on the cardgame db, and they have pretty decent stat boxes attack and sometimes even willpower-wise, apart from the ones who have some utility going on with them. Far better than unmodified dwarves. Something I certainly can use without Dain sticking around.

They ARE designed with Dain in mind, every dwarf is, because if they wouldn't - their stats wouldn't be so critically small. And that's the problem with stuff like Dain (an inderect proof to my words is lack of global unconditional faction-related stat boosts like Dain throughout all these cycles - they don't wanna make that mistake again).

I got it - you do not agree with me. But please - these huge text-wall arguments are putting straing on me, so if you're having intentions of arguing this further, then you can call me on skype or something. That would save the hell of a time for both of us, I'm convinced.

They ARE designed with Dain in mind, every dwarf is, because if they wouldn't - their stats wouldn't be so critically small.

Wasn't it just statistically proven that dwarves tend to have good stats?

They ARE designed with Dain in mind, every dwarf is, because if they wouldn't - their stats wouldn't be so critically small.

Wasn't it just statistically proven that dwarves tend to have good stats?

No. You should read the whole conversation, not separate parts of it.

I'm sure how to respond to your analysis other than to just say there is some fundamental disconnect going on here. Fili and Kili get you 2 WP, 2 Atk, 1 Def, 4 HP for the cost of 3. This is just plain good. And Dwalin is a sentinel with 2 defence and 3 HP that you normally only pay 1 for! How much more can you ask? You want Dwalin to be a 1 cost 2/2/2/3 sentinel defender? Come on.

Edit: Do people think that the upcoming Dwarven Sellsword would be 1 cost for 3/3/2/3 if Dain didn't exist?

Also, asking for a dwarf deck without leadership is a whole different level of a request than asking for a deck without Dain. You are asking us to give up a very good tale, we are not idle, hardy leadership, narvi's belt, and lure of moria, not to mention Thorin, Balin, and Gloin.

Edit: Nevertheless, http://goo.gl/igeuhx. Disclaimer: not as good as a Dwarf deck with leadership.

To be honest I am feeling strained here as well myself, putting a great deal of work analyzing the entire card pool and putting out some hard numbers. I understand no one is asking me to, but if you enjoy having these numbers to look at and work with, then brushing them off by handpicking a couple allies or saying "outlands is the best" is not going to keep me interested in continuing to provide such data (Duke, I know you followed that up with more points but it was a silly counterargument nonetheless).

Anyone up for a challenge to build a dwarf deck sans Dain and/or even sans Leadership? I' skeptical myself to be honest. Dain is just too good. I have no doubt that the designers have Dain in the back of their minds when they design a new dwarf (poor hero Dori ). That's just my gut feeling though.

Without Dain is easy. Thorin/Ori/Bombur can make for a pretty great Dwarf deck. Without Leadership may be more difficult if you want it to be definitely a Dwarf deck as opposed to just a deck with Dwarf heroes and a number of Dwarf allies, but I think there are probably some cases that could work.

Dwalin - well guess why he is not designed for questing? Because Dain exists! With Dain, Dwalin is a 2/2/2/3 monster, capable of anything. They wouldn't dare to give him any excess willpower or attack, or with Dain he would grow out of proportion.

Kili - look at this fine example of Dain influence. Brothers are essentially the same, with different pictures and colors. They couldn't make blue one quest for more and purple one attack for more, for example, because with Dain - they would be doing too much on their own.

Zigil - still, he is a dwarf, and any player who wants some dwarf action going on is going to consider him. And will get dissapointed.

I just checked all lore allies on the cardgame db, and they have pretty decent stat boxes attack and sometimes even willpower-wise, apart from the ones who have some utility going on with them. Far better than unmodified dwarves. Something I certainly can use without Dain sticking around.

See, these are your opinions and guesses at the reasons behind the design, not the objective facts you're trying to tout them as. Dwalin wasn't designed for questing because they wanted him to be a combat character. Fili and Kili have the same stats because the designers wanted them to have the same stats.

And personally, I've made plenty of use of the Zigil Miner and the Lore Dwarf allies without Dain. We have started getting some better Lore allies in more recent packs, but I'd still rate the Dwarves pretty well.

They ARE designed with Dain in mind, every dwarf is, because if they wouldn't - their stats wouldn't be so critically small.

Wasn't it just statistically proven that dwarves tend to have good stats?

No. You should read the whole conversation, not separate parts of it.

No, that is actually exactly what has happened. You disregarding it does not mean it didn't happen.

I certainly agree with DukeWellington that Dain is not as good or as interesting a design as Celeborn or Spirit Theoden, and I can see the point about design space being limited by putting too much into him back then. I just don't really think it has particularly negatively impacted the Dwarf allies that have been released. I think that by and large the designers give allies of all traits the stats they want those allies to have.

I never said anything about Outlands.

I'm not gonna continue the argument here because it will only stem more argument. I'll just say I didn't "brushed off" your statisctic based on nothing, I gave you a good reason why I did it, because they're weren't on point of my initial complaint.

No, that is actually exactly what has happened. You disregarding it does not mean it didn't happen.

Not, it's not what happened. My point was Dain hurts willpower and attack of all dwarves coming out, leaving a lot of lacking allies with no actual way to help you progress without Dain around, which I proved statisticly by providing the numbers. What Seastan did is he threw in defense and healt, both irrelevant to my argument stats. Neither defense nore health help you progress, they help you stall. And Dain does not hurts them either, because he does not affects them.

If you read my comment, the Outlands remark was in reply to Duke.

Just realized how off topic we are. Sorry Noccus.