The latest in the series is up, and since most Eagles decks are early progression decks, it draws from a very limited card pool. You can see the statistics and commentary in this thread:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1517994/deck-analysis-part-six-radagast-and-eagles

And the deck is here:

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/9330/a-stereotypical-eagles-deck-1.0

I am still hoping the current cycle, since it is known to have Eagles in it, would have an Eagle-enabling Radagast hero in it, though we'll need something really cool to stimulate Eagles decks again. The stereotypical deck is a mono-tactics deck using the three core Tactics heroes, so not good for solo play except against Battle/Siege quests. A solo capable Eagles deck is totally plausible with some of the excellent more recent Tactics heroes, but it's still a tribe that needs a lot of help. A couple more cheap eagles with useful leave-play effects would even make Born Aloft and Meneldor's Flight worth playing -- my favorite new cards are cards that make old cards worth playing. Maybe the Woodmen will make even Power in the Earth a useful card.

Hirgon has already done a lot to revitalize and strengthen eagles. But you're right, it would be very nice to have a hero that ties the trait together thematically.

Because the Eagles were developed so early in the game's lif, your data is definitely going to be skewed by lots of decks from players who are buying things progression-style and have a limited card pool. I bet for a 'modern' Eagles deck, Hirgon + Eagles of the Misty Mountain would be present in nearly every single deck.

Yes, raw hero count is going to be distorted by progression-style. Factoring out Gloin Jank from early-decks-using-Gloin is going to be a challenge. If I evaluated heroes by percentage used given the card pool drawn from, Hirgon would definitely be ahead of Legolas in Eagles decks, I think. Of course, that approach also has a bias towards Hirgon, because *unless* you want Hirgon for your Eagles decks, it's not likely you'll be using cards from the Harad cycle.

For a modern Eagles deck, Hirgon + Mablung + TaEowyn and Hirgon + TaEowyn + TaTheoden each have three creators, and both of those mono-tactics would both be solo capable and considerably more powerful than the stereotypical mono-tactics deck I published. Yet for all that, the fact is that the my-first-mono-tactics Eagles deck *is* a lot more common at ringsdb, and I think it really does fairly represent "the stereotypical Eagles deck", which sadly isn't very good.

But I have hope that the current cycle's new Eagles will stimulate some more Hirgon decks, and the more support Eagles get the more new decks we'll see. Maybe by the end of the cycle we'll have a good sample to create a Stereotypical Modern Eagles Deck that can compete with other tribal decks for utility.

On further reflection, I think I probably picked the wrong cards. While I dearly love Support of the Eagles and think it's one of the few reasons to run an Eagles deck, it doesn't actually do anything to help muster the Eagles. Gwaihir, on the other hand, actually *does* help muster the Eagles. Requiring Gwaihir would cut out all the early mono-tactics decks like the ones I used in my sample, but it would also pull in a number of decks that don't really want or need Support of the Eagles, but are still a full-blown Eagles deck. I may need to revisit the stereotype.

Having many decklist who don't use recent cards is essentially the issue with your stereotypical system. Cards from the beginning are represented in too many exemplary compare to their efficiency and your decklist is not even playable by recent player since recent staples will be in 1X. I see it more as a vision of "what people have been playing" that a "what is good in".

I wouldn't think Support of the Eagles or Gwaihir are good barometers for pinpointing an Eagle deck. I expect many Eagle decks exclude both. But find me an Eagle deck that doesn't use The Eagles Are Coming (you used this one in identifying Eagle decks). In fact, find me an Eagle deck that doesn't use the holy trinity of Eagles of the Misty Mountains, Winged Defender, AND Vassal of the Windlord...

The eagles are coming is a good beginning. Vassal and eagles of the misty mountains work well too. I'm less convinced about winged defender who can be easily put aside in solo play.

Eagles are Coming is absolutely a required card for an Eagles deck -- if you're not playing that, it's not an Eagles deck. But I'm less convinced it fits the second criteria of "If you're not running an Eagles deck, you don't want this card." That's absolutely true once you get a few cycles in, but a progression-style deck early in the mirkwood cycle that only has that card to fetch the Vassal doesn't qualify, IMO. There's 25 different creators that use Eagles are Coming but leave Eagles of the Misty Mountains out. Maybe Vassal/Guardian/Misty/Eagles are Coming is enough for an Eagles deck.

Let's jump forward to Hirgon decks. If Hirgon is using The Eagles are Coming, is reasonable to suspect it's an eagle deck.

Hirgon + Eagles Are Coming: 22 different creators

but without Vassal: none

but without Guardian: three creators.

but without Misty: one creator

but without Gwaihir: one creator

but without Support: nine creators

It's pretty clear that Gwaihir is a *much* better indicator than Support of the Eagles, but it might not be better than Misty -- it does have the advantage over Misty that it will exclude first cycle progressive decks that use Eagles only because nothing better is around. Hirgon does give a discount to Gwaihir, and I'll agree that Misty gives you far more bang for the buck. But I see Gwaihir kind of like Anborn for trap decks -- you can run traps without Anborn, but including Anborn is a tell-tale sign that you're serious about traps.

I know in my own Eowyn/Gimli/Thalin progressive deck I dropped out Guardian/Vassal/Misty/TEAC after Defender of Rammas became available -- I wasn't really an Eagles deck, I just relied on Winged Guardian for defense and kept the rest of the package to take advantage of lost Guardians. I wasn't running Support of the Eagles, I didn't experience its awesome power until I ran Dori and the Eagles -- Dori is all about hero defense, so non-restricted, non-unique cards that boost my defense by 4 was of extreme interest.

BTW, these were the Hirgon/TEAC decks that left out Winged Guardian:

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/6785/big-tactics-allies-1.0

Vassal of the Windlord was the *only* ally costing less than 3.

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/7132/mono-tactics-hirgon-1.0

Defender of Rammas is in the deck, Guardian relegated to the sideboard

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/6112/hirgon-summons-an-eagle-1.0

Again Defender of Rammas, plus Gondorian Shield for LeDenethor

Here's the lone deck that left out Misty:

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/7649/the-birds-and-the-bees-1.0

Part of a Fellowship with Fastred in the other deck -- the important thing is to get out a W.G. so that Support of the Eagles can boost Fastred's defense.

Here's the lone creator that left out Gwaihir:

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/7574/bastards-of-thorondor-2.0

(Version 1.0 also left him out.) Besides playing Thorondor at the best possible time, this deck wants Support of the Eagles to go on hero Gandalf, so Eagles headed to discard isn't really part of the plan.

On a side note, I really like the "exclude" feature for the deck search!

2 hours ago, Rouxxor said:

I'm less convinced about winged defender who can be easily put aside in solo play.

You should give him a second chance. He's amazing in any deck with two tactics heroes, even though Defender or Rammas is highly superior.

3 hours ago, Rouxxor said:

Having many decklist who don't use recent cards is essentially the issue with your stereotypical system. Cards from the beginning are represented in too many exemplary compare to their efficiency and your decklist is not even playable by recent player since recent staples will be in 1X. I see it more as a vision of "what people have been playing" that a "what is good in".

Yes, it's definitely an attempt to capture "what's been played" rather than "what is good". The *optimal* X deck is going to be very different than the *stereotypical* X deck -- so that's not a bug, it's a feature.

With respect to actual deck construction, I only reduce the new cards that appear only in a single deck (of my sample) to 1x. Otherwise I grab by percentage of "eligible decks" and try to use the most common count (whatever that is) until I'm almost out of space. This actually grants a structural advantage to newer cards in the sample, since I assume, perhaps wrongly, that decks that only use cards through (say) Voice of Isengard don't have access to cards past Voice of Isengard. So for example, if my sample of Ent decks have a couple decks that include Leaflock out of thematic concerns, and the rest only use cards through ATS #3 because they don't *want* any cards after that, I seriously overestimate the demand for the new card.

However, since I'm using a raw count rather than a percentage to determine the most common hero lineup, that absolutely tilts the "stereotypical lineup" towards early and thematic lineups. I don't think this is avoidable without doing far more work, and trying to use a percentage basis for heroes would both result in a smaller sample of decks to breakdown and a hero lineup that is actually far less stereotypical.

Though no one asked for it, I produced a Gwaihir edition of the Stereotypical Eagles Deck:

http://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/9362/a-stereotypical-eagles-deck-gwaihir-edition-1.0

As I expected, it used TaEowyn/Hirgon/Mablung and is (I think) capable of one-deck solo play. It's nice to finally see one of my favorite Tactics allies, Honour Guard, show up in a stereotypical deck.

What do you mean by "capable of one-deck"? If you mean winning all the scenario of the game I think you are terribly wrong. It is not your fault, simply that we are talking about a mono sphere deck of the worst (at least in solo) sphere of the game. We are speaking of the trait that most people find the less powerful. And on another hand with many incredibly hard scenario existing, most from nightmare.

2 hours ago, Rouxxor said:

What do you mean by "capable of one-deck"? If you mean winning all the scenario of the game I think you are terribly wrong. It is not your fault, simply that we are talking about a mono sphere deck of the worst (at least in solo) sphere of the game. We are speaking of the trait that most people find the less powerful. And on another hand with many incredibly hard scenario existing, most from nightmare.

He means one-handed solo as opposed to two-handed solo.

Correct. The first Eagles deck is capable of beating Siege/Battle quests, and that's all. The second one could beat a wide variety of (non-nightmare) quests. But I doubt even an optimal Eagles deck would beat them all, and the stereotypical deck will never be the optimal deck.

Oh yes. In this cas I agree: it is a one handed deck, fully capable of beating a large range of scenario.