My friend and just beat this quest despite the only cards in our decks of higher cost than 2 being Hobbit Gandalf in my deck and Citadel Plate in his. So it's definitely possible to survive the Undead machinations without specific deck building.

I'm not sure that's possible of, say, Deadman's Dike -- are there powerful decks out there that can regularly beat that one without customizing for the particularities of the quest?

EDIT: I was somewhat mistaken: both of us also had a couple of Northern Trackers in our decks. Still.

Just finished my first attempt with exactly the same deck i played Voyage. Won the quest but have some questions so I can be sure i played right.

Whenever i travel to an uncharted location, thus reveal it, i add another one so there are always two uncharted locations on staging area. Then when i progress on stage two i add the seat of Morgoth and two more uncharted, seat of Morgoth on uncharted, and shuffle, thus there are five locations and i travel blind till i find it, correct?

It took three locations to finally find it.

I had Gildor, Burning Brand, Narya, Light of Valinot from the opening hand and got the See attachment round two, so this powered up my deck a bit. My other allies had a hard time though

Took me 4

Would have took me 5 if not for that event that lets you raise your threat to look underneath one of the uncharted locations.

@Nickpes - that sounds correct. Even if that location is the horrid one that goes back to the staging area after you flip it over. Travelling to the uncharted puts another one into the staging area. The first time I tried it we guessed correctly on the first time. The second play through we had several of those locations that let you peak after you explore them, so we just did a few rounds of that to narrow down our options. Really liked the way this quest works.

Have three games on it now ... won two of them (first and third attempt) with a good pace, in 10 and 8 turns with no damage on heroes and low threat but I was demolished the second of three attempts in just 3 turns

Nice quest, I prefer the Voyage but this was nice too and I used more events that worked with what is in teh discard pile. In my full Noldor deck I use the Lords of the Eldar event is powerful.

About the location mentioned,

If I have two exhausted heroes and one ready, I just exhaust the ready one and then the location stays active, right? If all where exhausted then it returns in the staging area. Correct?

I would rule it out as yes and no.

In the second case, when there are 0 ready heroes you control, you're not "not exhausting your ready heroes", hence you keep this location as active. It's like dat location from Wastes which forces you to engage a warg when you travel there - you're still able to travel there if the are no wargs in play that are not engaged with you.

So how can this location return to the staging area? Only when there are heroes you can exhaust and choose not to? In the example in Wastes of Eriador I was not travelling to this location untill a Warg appeared. I think players MUST fulfill the effect to travel

I always kept a hero ready (either with Light of Valinor or UC) just in case this location revealed

Yea, that's correct.

When you have ready heroes and are not willing to exhaust them, yes.

I think I need to present my case for you.

Here is location we are speaking about:

Note how travel text is a simple declaration of what happens when players travel there. There is no conditions, there is no "to travel here", there is no "must". This text is not a hard condition, it something that happens, if it's applicible, when you travel there.

Now, let us look at this specimen:

Take note how different it is from the previous. First of all, it has "to travel here". And, unlike the previous location, this one does not casually tells you what happens when you travel there, it commands you to perform something in order to travel here.

Lets take a look at another case, rarely used by designers nowdays, but still:

Player "must" do something to travel there. Can you see the difference now?

I'm pretty confident you can't travel to Eriador Wastes if there are no enemies in the staging area.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/186896-eriador-wastes-vs-slopes-of-amon-hen/

Also from the rules pg 23:

Some location cards have travel effects, which are
denoted by a bold “Travel:” trigger on a card. Travel
effects are costs or restrictions that some or all players
must pay or meet in order to travel to that location. If
the players cannot fulfill the requirement of a location’s
travel effect, the players cannot travel to that location.

Thats what I thought too Teamjimby

Then why would they release such confusing difference in the wordings? Even Glaurung fell for that on his video. Man that inconsistency within their own game is killing me. Is that so hard to make similar effect being written the same to prevent confusion? They're paid to do this ****, after all.

I guess this was the last time I'll ever be using logic when interacting with any of the FFG's LCG's cards.

It still seems like you can exhaust all 0 of your ready heroes - if in fact all of them are already exhausted - to travel there.

You know what? To hell with this. They can't proprely word a card? I'll be doing it the way it is written. Screw this.

I agree the travel keyword must be paid, but it's not clear to me that you can't satisfy an "each" when the number of each happens to be zero.

So for the wastes of Eriador example

Travel: first player engage a warg from staging area

You have to engage a warg to travel.

Travel: first player engages each warg from staging area

Here I would think you can travel as long as you engage *each* warg, even if the number of wargs is zero.

So in this case, if the instruction said each player must exhaust a ready hero or return the location, you'd clearly have to have a ready hero available to avoid the return to staging. But if each player must exhaust each ready hero, I'd think exhausting all the ready heroes should satisfy the requirement, even if there aren't any ready.

There's similar wording for the nightmare treachery "False accusations" (an either/or involving raising threat or exhausting each ready character), but I can't find where anyone's asked for a ruling on it.

Agreed. "Each" can include zero.

As for formatting, I'm with you on this. To say the same thing multiple ways is a terrible way to approach this. Honestly, they do this in GoT as well and wouldn't be surprised if it's in their other LCGs.

They really should follow a consistent formula for everything, which can basically be broken down into 3 parts:

After condtion X is met, Spend Y to do Z.

This can be used for Responses, Actions and even Travel. With formatting ironed out, then it does come down to semantics. If they use terms like "must" vs "may", etc. then we can properly identify how to handle it.

For I moment I even started suspecting it's a misprint, and instead of travel this card should have had forced effect. Would've explained a lot.

While I understand that the rules of the "Travel" action (not to be confused with the "Travel Action" action) on cards explains that you have to do that action in order to travel there, locations should either have it printed out ("to travel here.") or not have it printed out. Having it both ways is misleading and confusing - the same can be said about when enemies get additional attacks from card effects. Some say "and deal a shadow card" and some neglect to mention it at all, but the rules clarify they will get one regardless.

Either have it, or don't and tell us in the rules.

Yeah, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the wording, which seems to be common across all of FFG's LCGs. Things like "reveal and add to the staging area" vs "reveal", enemies revealed by/from the encounter deck, anything related to Thalin...

Agreed, plenty of inconsistencies here. In this case you just have to know that "Travel:" denotes a cost that must be paid, that part has been consistent through the history of the game, at least. Sometimes they just redundant wording, which is unfortunate but ...now you know.

Agreed. "Each" can include zero.

'All' can include 0. 'Each' cannot. That was the ruling as I remember it.

Agreed. "Each" can include zero.

'All' can include 0. 'Each' cannot. That was the ruling as I remember it.

I don't think I've ever heard that distinction. Do you recall where you saw it?

Agreed. "Each" can include zero.

'All' can include 0. 'Each' cannot. That was the ruling as I remember it.

I don't think I've ever heard that distinction. Do you recall where you saw it?

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1702-official-nate-rule-clarifications/page-4#entry110974

3. The difference between ‘all’ and ‘each’ is very significant because ‘all’ can include 0 whereas ‘each’ requires there to be at least 1 target. For example, with a When Revealed effect that read: “All engaged enemies make an immediate attack. Then, each player discards the top card of his deck.” the second effect will always trigger, even if there are no enemies in play. But, if that effect read: “Each engaged enemy makes an immediate attack. Then, each player discards the top card of his deck.” the second effect will only trigger if at least 1 enemy made an attack.

Cheers,

Caleb

I wish I had the time and energy to do something like http://ancur.wikia.com/wiki/Project_ANCUR_Wikifor this game.