With the 1.9 FAQ (https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/2e/31/2e3129b3-dc51-4c27-81ed-6a72f13e82f3/lotr_faq_19.pdf) we are forced to change our approach of several games mechanics. One of them are Caldara decks. Once based upon the multiple sacrifice and resurection of Caldara we now can only do it once per game.

Only a few days after this major change Seastan already got a new decks to show us: Caldara 2.0 with a lot of stuff from the old build but now based on Narya. We can't do quantity raise but we will do quality one, and use those expensive allies with Narya and a very good tale. Since it is not as efficient of the old Caldara (who was one of the very best decks) he is still a good deck.

But Seastan's list didn't accomplish my goal: having a list who can challenge any adventure without using the sideboard to adapt your deck. To perform that I, like usual, built two lists: one for the solo play and one for multiplayer play since many things work differently between the two (like the need of a sideboard when your friend's deck play the same unique as you).

Here is my solo list: http://ringsdb.com/deck/view/79054

Here is my multiplayer list: http://ringsdb.com/deck/view/82428

I sure be only at the beginning of my test so I will keep them both updated in the future. I welcome with joy any comments :).A

Thanks for taking the time to experiment with and improve my deck!

I think many people have misinterpreted the sideboard cards in my deck. You definitely do not need to keep swapping out cards in order to beat different quests. It's about optimization.

For example, can my deck, without substitutions, beat Nightmare Deadman's Dike? Yes, it's possible if I get lucky. But it becomes 10 times easier if I just swap in two Will of the West. The same is true for your version I feel.

Thanks for supporting that :).

I got the feeling that you don't try to optimize your deck to beat the quests without change. For example I'm pretty sure that a midrange version shoud include elrond counsel. It seem a good balance: very good to deal with threat engagement matter, cool to deal with threat trouble and it even find a use in quest where it is not a big concern. I'm pretty surprised that you won't fit it in the Main Deck.

Your example is pretty disturbing because you are already playing those will of the west, so you don't need to swap them in. But of course it could be more easy with some in my deck. But I choose to build decks who can be played from scratch (except about unique objective). So I have to find way to endure the specificity of the quest and find alternative way to win. I find it way more fun than just playing will of the west to nullify the Deadman's Dike problem. And everyone have to find his own convenience about that. You choose not to play a third will of the west against deadman's pike even if it would make your deck even better. You can have sidequest in adventure when there is no quest to complete for a long amount of time (steward fear for example). And we can go on and I'm pretty sure that many cards (few hundreds) will find a specific use against a specific adventure and can join the sideboard. There is a continuum between modifying a deck to fit better to the quest and building specifically against an adventure. I choose to be at the "no adaptation" side. It is an aspect of my excitement about playing this game. Just as your thing was to not include steward of gondor to make things harder. It it just the way I feel the game and it push me to others directions that I highlight with those versions.

Haha yes you're right that was a pretty bad example on my part. But I think you still understood my point.

I guess my question then is how well does this deck fare against the harder quests: Return to Mirkwood, Escape From Dol Guldur, Battle of the Five Armies, Battle of Carn Dum (all nightmare of course), Ruins of Belegost. Until I have a good understanding of how well it can manage these quests I can't really judge if your goal of avoiding sideboarding has been successful.

You are surprised at my lack of Elrond's Counsel, but in my testing I found that it only made a big difference on maybe 3-4 quests in the whole game.

I don't have enough data to answer you on all these quests. Except for return to mirkwood. On this adventure I have won among 50% of the game. I don't think that any of my loose can be avoided on "small" threat reduction (3 to 6). I loose on early Attercop, Attercop, +8 threat augmentation threat when I was unable to cancel (no more test, or more frequently because the quest forbid me to) or because I was way too slow.

I win thank to elrond's counsel (it was probably impossible without) and when I was able to rush the quest.

On 13/12/2017 at 0:51 PM, Rouxxor said:

Here is my multiplayer list: http://ringsdb.com/deck/view/82428

For a multiplayer deck having Steward of Gondor, Treebeard and Gandalf locked is not the friendliest thing. Can your deck work without at least some of them? May be Gandalf and Treebeard?

The main concern is more about Arwen and Glorfindel. Gandalf and Treebeard and steward can easily be sided out. This is why I have a sideboard

If you want to squeeze in Elrond's Counsel this might be how I'd do it: http://ringsdb.com/deck/view/82595

Elrond's counsel aside there is a lot of other change: one will of the west become a dwarven tomb, +1 sailor of the moon, +2 erebor guard for -1 northern tracker, -3 ranger of cardolan and -1 Elfhelm. This is the changes you have made while you continue to test? Except for - elfhelm it don't seem to be related to elrond's counsel.

Elfhelm was originally 1x. I moved it to 2x because it is a very important card for a lot of the hard quests (Return to Mirkwood, Nin-in-Eilph, Steward's Fear, Shadow and Flame, Wastes of Eriador). But I think it depends again on your philosophy. If you just want some small chance of beating each quest with no sideboard, it could be 1x and you could still win by getting it early.

The Erebor guards are cheaper to play for early AVGT and for setting up Caldara. I found I mostly used Ranger of Cardolan for archery or defending and these allies have the same defense/health.

I like the Tomb suggestion since for quests that really need Will of the West it can be used to bring it back if it gets discarded, and I am fine paying 2 to reshuffle the deck. But for all other quests it functions as cancellation (A Test of Will) or as threat reduction (Elrond's Counsel) as needed.

Made a lost realm / angmar awakened solo nightmare run with this deck and beat most of the quests in the first attempt. Removed some Ranger of Cardoland and added Thror's Key x2. That card came up when discussing Attack on Dol Guldur, and I had forgotten just how good this card is. The nightmare locations just become numbers!

The only quests that took more than 2 attempts were Deadman's Dike and The Dread Realm, both which swarmed me. However, I was much luckier against for example Carn Dum, where no nasty side quests showed, and not much sorcery in the beginning of the game as well.

So now, I'm doing a nightmare saga run. My friend plays a Faramir(Le)/Mablung/Pippin ent deck, so Treebeard had to go. However, Narya on the table for the ent deck is even stronger. We also proxied 'the dam burts' for his deck, and as a result, 4 Nazgul were destroyed on the same turn on stage 3 of 'A Knife in the Dark'.

I think that you have made a confusion between my decklist and Seastan's one. I don't play Ranger of Cardolan. But yes the deck is really strong. I play it for nightmare quests more than for normal ones.

Yes, some confusion from my part. I like some of your changes, but why 3x Ethir Swordsman and 3x Pelagir Shipwrigh along with Glorfindel and the heroes? There can't be a quest out there that requires that amount of willpower. Will however try to find the place for a Dwarven Tomb or two.

I don't plan to need my whole deck on the table before being able to win ^^. My purpose is to get quickly enough willpower. And I often use the large amount on the end of game, it allow me to choose not to travel or engage enemies who, otherwise, would be hard to deal with.