A one-core play has two copies of Will of the West and one copy of Dwarven Tomb (which is obviously useful for fetching things besides Will of the West), so if the player cares about their deck running out there are only three cards to protect it -- and if they come out early, they aren't that useful. A Dwarven Pipe not only would protect your Will of the West from being discarded, but also puts the Will of the West where it would be *most useful*, at the bottom of your deck.

Running out of deck won't automatically lose your game outside a few quests. But if you churn deck quickly and run out of deck, and aren't running a Noldor play-Lords-of-Eldar every turn, your deck will cease to help you. Most of the time, even a 50-card mining deck should be set up to win before they run out of deck, I think. But there's no question Dwarven Pipe can dramatically extend the number of rounds before you run out of deck (plus give you more cracks at those lovely Hidden Caches). In effect both Dwarven Pipe and Will of the West both delay the time until you run out of deck, and do it for the same cost. Will of the West is used in some decks, why not Dwarven Pipe?

Dwarven Pipe isn't as useful as Dunedain Pipe and I think it would still be a little-used card at cost 0. But in a mining deck, why not?

6 hours ago, ColinEdwards said:

I don't follow you here; drawing a card isn't "a cost" (even if it wasn't the card you really wanted!)

Your chance of getting the card you want into your hand is unchanged; the tradeoff is between having your 'undrawn' cards stay at the bottom of your deck or going to the discard pile.

There's an inherent risk in discarding something you don't want to discard, every time to discard from the top of your deck. So yes, anytime you take a calculated risk, you are paying a cost.

I think everyone here understands that, but you have to do some mental gymnastics to argue it doesn't matter if you discard the Dwarowdelf Axe, or Steward of Gondor, because statistically "you're closer to the next one" and "it won't happen every often," and that when it does happen, you haven't harmed your chances of drawing one, but rather improved them. Statistics have a neat application of allowing you to ignore the reality of a situation by instead looking at all other possible realities, if it's convenient for you to do that, for argument's sake.

3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

If Beorn had placed the first undefended attack on Thalin, and chose to defend the second attack with Gimli, then there would only be one shadow in the remaining 26 cards that would kill a hero (Hummerhorns), and that's below 5%. But that'd make zero strategic sense, since the most common outcome would be adding no damage to Gimli while exhausting him, the worst of possible outcomes -- and it's also not relevant to the question of the risk of taking *both* attacks undefended, which is what I was estimating.

No, I meant if you take both attacks undefended, either attack that doesn't get a "bad" shadow can be assigned to Thalin. This makes the added risk of taking both attacks undefended to be less than 5%.

16 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

If discarding from the top of your deck is not a problem, it would be a good decision to use Zigil Miner blindly before you draw into an Imladris Stargazer (assuming you're using both cards), as long as you're drawing 2 cards per round ( to equal the number of cards that you are discarding). He's thinning out your deck and getting you closer to the Stargazer.

In your own 'every costs 2' deck, you built it to basically work no matter what gets discarded (with the exception of Will of the West), which is a deckbuilding choice you can only make if discarding from the top of your deck is perceived as potentially having undesirable consequences. But that aside, many (most?) decks are looking to draw a few key cards, so discarding blindly with Ziggy is not good strategy. Thorin's in the same boat, unless you build your deck for mining, yes you should consider the discard a cost with associated risk.

Every card in your deck is equally likely to be a card that you don't want to discard, but whether or not this matters depends on the human being looking at the numbers, not on the numbers themselves. Top card of your deck has a low % chance of being the card you want to draw (therefore it's OK to discard it and it helps you get closer to the card you want), but also the 2nd 4th 15th and 31st card in your deck have exactly that same percentage (therefore it's a bad idea to discard it because every card position in your deck has an equal % chance of being an undesirable discard, including the top card). On the other hand, the bottom 39 cards of your deck have a really high chance of being the card you want to draw, so yes go ahead and discard that top card. If there are 25 cards left in your deck, and you still haven't seen what you're trying to draw, the bottom 24 have a much higher chance of being the one that you want than the top card of your deck, so statistically the correct decision is still to discard the top card. And sure, even if you discard the card you're trying to get, you get information about what's left in your deck, so that's a benefit. But you just discarded the card you were trying to get. The information is less important than the error you've just made. Yes, that was a cost.

The statistics here are able to provide justification for the opinion/perspective you already have, regardless of which opinion/perspective that is.

I have to disagree with most of this, but I'm not sure how to explain my view of the statistics any better. Maybe try this thought experiment:

Let's say Thalin discarded the bottom card of your deck. You are playing a deck with no way to shuffle/search or draw more than 30 cards in a game.

1. Would you consider triggering Thalin to be a cost in this case?

2. Would you consider it a benefit to learn what cards were on the bottom of your deck?

3 hours ago, Seastan said:

I have to disagree with most of this, but I'm not sure how to explain my view of the statistics any better. Maybe try this thought experiment:

Not sure it's helpful, but I think of it like this:

- We have 3 cards left: something that is a game winner and two things that aren't
-The deck has three possible states: "X--", "-X-" and "--X"
- We have two draws left

So outcomes:

1. We draw twice:
In 2 our of three cases: we draw the card need: "X--" and "-X-": Win 2/3 of the times
In 1 of our cases, we left the card we needed in the deck undrawn

2. We draw, discard, draw
We win with "X--" and "X-X": Win 2/3 of the times
In one case, we discarded the card we needed

(The same result will hold regardless of whether of not we have 40 cards left in the deck after the 3 we are examining.)

I understand the points you're making, I just disagree with them. You're saying discarding from the bottom of your deck is the same as discarding from the top of your deck, because it is random.

In your scenario, the time that you discard a desired card from the top of your deck "doesn't count." It should not enter into our discussion here, apparently. There is no possible negative associated with that result, because the 'over time' statistics support your tactical choice.

If you'd like me to directly respond to your questions, however,

1- discarding from the bottom of your deck is a cost. In a vacuum you'll never draw it. In a real game, you have plenty of ways to shuffle your deck, and for lots of games it's a very normal occurrence to shuffle your deck several times within the course of a game. A really simplified reading of the probabilities involved with the game should not inform my tactical decisions.

2- gaining knowledge about what's left in your deck is a benefit. Your argument is hinging upon the presence of a benefit = the absence of a cost. There is risk involved in getting this information, that's all I'm saying. It's a cost. Mechanically it's a cost as defined by the game, and in practice it's a cost because there is risk involved, however small.

26 minutes ago, GrandSpleen said:

In your scenario, the time that you discard a desired card from the top of your deck "doesn't count."

Sure, it counts. Just like the time when that we didn't discard meant we didn't get the card we needed. If you aren't discarding, you are still paying the same 'cost'

(The other question is whether it's easier to get the card you need from your discard pile or from your deck. I sort of lean towards "rather have it in my discard pile".)

If you're building a mining deck, include as much recursion as you want, rather than draw cards (or in addition to). It's a smart play.

If you're not building a mining deck, or a 'discard from hand' deck etc., you probably have less, or no, recursion. Recursion options are much more limited in the card pool anyway, so you sort of get hemmed and have your deckbuilding options decided for you, if you choose to go heavy recursion.

1 hour ago, GrandSpleen said:

If you'd like me to directly respond to your questions, however,

1- discarding from the bottom of your deck is a cost. In a vacuum you'll never draw it. In a real game...

You're right that in a real game there are some other variables to consider. But before we consider them I wanted to see if we agree on this "vacuum" thought experiment, because if we don't, there's not much point on going into more complicated matters. We seem to have a more fundamental disagreement with math and statistics in general that I think is being clouded by the details of the game. So, assuming that you really will never shuffle your deck, is discarding your bottom card a cost?

1 hour ago, GrandSpleen said:

In your scenario, the time that you discard a desired card from the top of your deck "doesn't count." It should not enter into our discussion here, apparently. There is no possible negative associated with that result, because the 'over time' statistics support your tactical choice.

It certainly does count. There's definitely a negative possibility to discarding your top card: you may discard the card you want. But there's a second possibility: that by not discarding your top card, you prevent yourself from getting to the card you want. This has nothing to do with the "long run" of many games. In a single individual game, you're not sure which situation you're in, so it doesn't matter.

Let's play a mini game of LotR. My deck has 4 cards in it, and one of them is Steward of Gondor (SoG). The game only lasts 2 rounds (meaning I only draw twice), but if I draw SoG I win. Here are the possible orderings of my deck at the start:

A. SoG,X,X,X

B. X,SoG,X,X

C. X,X,SOG,X

D. X,X,X,SOG

Let's say I play without triggering Thorin. I will win the game if my deck looks like A or B, but I will lose the game if my deck looks like C or D.

Now let's say I trigger Thorin each turn, after drawing. So I will draw the first card, discard the second, draw the third, and discard the fourth. I will win the game if my deck looks like A or C, but will lose if my deck looks like B or D. In the case of B, using Thorin directly caused my loss. But in the case of C, not using Thorin caused my loss.

Therefore, given that I don't know which state (A,B,C,D) I'm playing, there's no reason for me to not use Thorin.

----

Now I'll throw shuffling into the mix. Each turn after drawing, I'll shuffle my deck.

On the first turn, if my deck looks like A, I win right away, and whether I planned to use Thorin or not doesn't matter.

If my deck looks like B,C, or D, I draw a non-SoG card then shuffle my deck. Now the possible orderings of my deck are:

E. SoG,X,X

F. X,SoG,X

G. X,X,SoG

Now, to Thorin or not to Thorin?

If I don't use Thorin, then on turn 2 (the final turn and chance to draw) I will win if my deck looks like E, but will lose if my deck looks like F or G.

If I do use Thorin, then on turn 2 I will win if my deck looks like F, but will lose if my deck looks like E or G.

In the case of E, using Thorin directly caused my loss. But in the case of F, not using Thorin caused my loss.

Therefore, given that I don't know which state (E,F,G) my deck is in after shuffling, there's no reason for me to not use Thorin.

I agree with Seastan for the majority of his speech (majority because I may have read too fast to ensure everything ^^).

Many players I encounter are afraid to discard the card they need from the top of the deck. It could be a real issue if you have planned to draw all your deck and don't play recursion. But in most case your get:
- Far from drawing your all deck (especially drawing it and still have your victory depending on finding one card);
- Some side bonuses of having some cards in your discard (like stand and fight, anborn, erebor hammersmith, elven light, knowledge of what you can draw)
- No essential card in x1, so discarding one still can get you draw more of them.

There is still cases where it is something that I won't recommend. For examples I probably will never play a card who discard from the top in a outlands deck, since my plan is to get all my allies in play, and playing recursion to get them since longer than the other build option I have.

2 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

If you're building a mining deck, include as much recursion as you want, rather than draw cards (or in addition to). It's a smart play.

If you're not building a mining deck, or a 'discard from hand' deck etc., you probably have less, or no, recursion. Recursion options are much more limited in the card pool anyway, so you sort of get hemmed and have your deckbuilding options decided for you, if you choose to go heavy recursion. 

I don't think it's really a trade-off between drawing cards and recursion: card draw is always better. The trade-off would be discarding a card from a deck that you weren't going to draw all the way through anyway.

If you have some way of fishing it out of your deck (Galadriel's mirror or something), then it's probably better to leave it in the deck. If you are have stuff that recurses stuff ( Dwarven Hammersmith, Orophin, Stand and Fight, whatever) or uses stuff from the discard pile, then your discard pile looks more attractive. (I think most people would have a slight preference towards having something discarded than undrawn.)

The main point through: discarding something typically isn't any worse than never drawing it to begin with.

7 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

There is still cases where it is something that I won't recommend. For examples I probably will never play a card who discard from the top in a outlands deck, since my plan is to get all my allies in play, and playing recursion to get them since longer than the other build option I have.

Milling your deck and then bringing them all back with that Leadership event is a really good way to fill your hand with outlands allies!

I like the shuffle example, it re-randomizes the deck, which is a nice complication. But if your deck is going to function well, you probably have added some card draw to it. You have Elven-light and Open the Armoury in your Everything Costs 1 deck. Let's use that repeatable card draw effect, and suddenly the thought experiment is biased toward "don't use Thorin." So let's imagine: Thorin will discard after you draw 2 cards (for example: in your 'everything costs 1' deck, this will be your Elven-light +Arwen combo being played each round before using Thorin).

Scenario A (SoG on top of deck), Draw SoG and win. Thorin: not a factor (result is the same whether or not you use him).

Scenario B (SoG 2nd card in deck), Draw X, draw SoG and win. Thorin or non-use of Thorin is not a factor in scenarios A and B. Thorin: not a factor.

Scenario C (SoG 3rd card in deck), Draw X, draw X, discard SoG and lose because you used Thorin. Thorin: caused a loss.

Scenario D (SoG is 4th card in deck), Draw X, Draw X, discard X, then on turn 2 draw SoG and win. But: if you don't use Thorin, turn 1 is Draw X, Draw X, and turn 2 is draw X, draw SoG. In scenario D, you win regardless of whether or not you use Thorin. Thorin: not a factor.

Scenario E (SoG is 5th card in deck), Draw X, Draw X, discard X on turn 1. Turn 2: draw X, draw X, discard SoG due to Thorin But without using Thorin, you were going to lose anyway (Game ends on turn 2, you were not going to draw SoG). Thorin: not a factor.

So with that addition, Thorin directly causes a loss in scenario C. For all the other scenarios, your win or loss is regardless of whether or not you use Thorin.

I made a scenario which suggests using Thorin carries more risk than reward, if we're staking a win-or-loss condition on drawing the desired card.

You made a scenario which suggests there is no difference between using or not using Thorin, and therefore you should just use him (and get +1 attack) as the win-or-loss is beyond your control (equal chance of either regardless of your actions).

If we add more complications, which way is this going to be biased? Would we see more and more scenarios in which using Thorin is equal to not using Thorin? Would we see more and more scenarios in which Thorin causes the loss? Would we ever see a set of scenarios in which Thorin directly causes more wins than losses?

Your example is even more biased, since you make a deck where everything can be drawn from. But of course there is also a set of scenarios in with Thorin causes more wins than losses. Put more cards in your deck and replace some X by some elven light and you have your set-up here Thorin causes more win than losses.

Right, the deck is more realistic, because it includes a card draw effect. I think realism is always going to bias this experiment toward "Thorin's cost is undesirable."

So OK, let's do this: add Spirit Dain and discard 1 additional card per turn (actually you can do up to 3, but now it's getting too complicated to process the possibilties). I won't add any card draw.

Scenario A (SoG is first card in deck), you win immediately. Discard from deck: not a factor.

Scenario B (SoG is 2nd card), turn 1 is draw X, discard SoG. Discard : caused a loss. If you don't use discard, you win on turn 2.

Scenario C (SoG is 3rd card): turn 1 is draw X, discard X, discard SoG. Discard: caused a loss. But, if you don't discard, you lose anyway. Discard from deck: not a factor.

Scenario D (SoG is 4th card): turn 1 is draw X, discard X, discard X. Turn 2: draw SoG and win. If you don't discard, you lose. Discard from deck: caused a win.

Scenario E (SoG is 5th card): turn 1 is draw X, discard X, discard X. Turn 2: draw X, discard SoG and lose. If you don't discard from deck, you also lose. Discard from deck: not a factor.

Scenario F (SoG is 6th card): turn 1 is draw X, discard X, discard X. Turn 2: draw X, discard X, discard SoG and lose. But you were going to lose anyway. Discard from deck: not a factor.

Result: neutral (equal # of wins and losses regardless of whether or not you use the discard)

Adding 1 card draw effect to that, I guess, will return us to "using discard from deck carries greater risk."

So far, we've done 3 scenarios. Scenario 1: use 1 discard effect. Scenario 2: use 1 draw effect and 1 discard effect. Scenario 3: use 2 discard effects only. "Discard from deck's" best result is "no negative result" but in 1 scenario it is "carries greater risk than not using discard from deck."

Now, put aside the thought experiment and come back to reality. How many decks are you going to build which include no card draw effects?

I can't think of any other effects which are going to result in more "neutral" results than "negative" results. You can run a dedicated mining deck (deck which benefits by discarding Ered Luin Miner or Hidden Cache), but in terms of "getting the card you want into your hand," the mining aspect of that deck still results in a "negative" result. That's the fun part of that playstyle: risk-reward plays (mining is not a purely "safe" archetype).

8 hours ago, Seastan said:

No, I meant if you take both attacks undefended, either attack that doesn't get a "bad" shadow can be assigned to Thalin. This makes the added risk of taking both attacks undefended to be less than 5%.

You can't take them both simultaneously and then decide which order to apply; they're done sequentially. So you don't know if the second attack will have a "bad" shadow until *after* you've taken the first attack undefended -- and the first attack will go on Gimli, not Thalin, if it does not have a bad shadow. So here's how it works:

First attack taken undefended:

No damage shadow (22 cards) -- 2 damage placed on Gimli, 4 hp remaining

+3 damage shadow (2 cards) -- can place on Gimli leaving with 1 hp remaining, 4/26 chance second undefended will kill Thalin.

2 damage to all (1 card) -- Eowyn killed, neither Gimli nor Thalin has hp left to absorb second undefended.

Citadel Plate discarded (2 cards) -- Thalin can take the 2 damage, none of the heroes have hp left to absorb second undefended.

Taking the first is unavoidable since you only have one defender. 1 card kills a hero outright, 2 cards force a defense to avoid a hero death (which leaves you in a terrible position -- it might be better to let Thalin die and kill an enemy), 2 force Thalin to take the second undefended, and 22 leave Gimli hp to take a second undefended attack.

Let's assume that the first undefended didn't have a damaging shadow, and you chose to put the damage on Gimli (smart), and that you chose to take the second attack undefended (also smart). Now the odds work out like this:

No damage shadow (21 cards) -- 2 more damage placed on Gimli, 2 hp remaining

+3 damage shadow (2 cards) -- kill Thalin.

2 damage to all (1 card) -- Eowyn killed outright and whoever takes the undefended attack is also killed

Citadel Plate discarded (2 cards) -- Gimli killed outright, but Thalin can take the undefended attack safely.

Note that if you decided to put the first undefended on Thalin, but still take the second attack undefended, there are *still* three cards that result in hero death -- with the Plate gone, neither Gimli nor Thalin has room for 2 points of damage in that case. So if you decide to take both attacks undefended, the chance of hero death is higher than 5%.

Quote

Many players I encounter are afraid to discard the card they need from the top of the deck. It could be a real issue if you have planned to draw all your deck and don't play recursion. But in most case your get:
- Far from drawing your all deck (especially drawing it and still have your victory depending on finding one card);
- Some side bonuses of having some cards in your discard (like stand and fight, anborn, erebor hammersmith, elven light, knowledge of what you can draw)
- No essential card in x1, so discarding one still can get you draw more of them.

And you take a specific example of the very specific case I name and then take a conclusion for all the situation. It is quite ridiculous. It is really close to a 2 deck cards within 2 turns, you will obviously prove that Thorin should not be used...

Let run a real complicated deck:

We play Arwen hero, Thorin, a 4 card deck containing a desired card names SoG, an elven light and 2 cards useless named X. You need to get the card on the turn.

12 disposition of the deck possible:

1/ SoG, elven light, X, X

2/ SoG, X, elven light, X

3/ SoG, X, X, elven light

4/ X, SoG, X, elven light

5/ X, SoG, elven light, X

6/ elven light, SoG, X, X

7/ elven light, X, SoG, X

8/ X, elven light, SoG, X

9/ X, X, SoG, elven light

10/ X, X, elven light, SoG

11/ X, elven light, X, SoG

12/ elven light, X, X, SoG

I will considerate we will draw as soon we can.

In the 3 first situation we win anyway. Cool!

In the following 2 we loose if activating Thorin, but loose anyway if we don't

In the 6th we can win anyway by discarding and drawing instantly with Arwen.

In the 7th case we use the same Arwen tech but draw a useless card and loose anyway.

In the 8th case we draw a useless card, discard elven light only if we use Thorin, and so can draw a useful cards. We win only with Thorin

In the 9th case, we loose anyway.

In the 10 case we loose anyway.

In the 11 case we discard elven light with Thorin, and then we are able to discard an draw again with Arwen so we draw the 4th card and win

In case 12 we loose anyway.

Result: Only 4 wins without Thorin (1, 2, 3, 6) and we win 2 additional with Thorin (8, 11).

We can do more simulation with many different cards but that will never be a prove, only some examples of what can happens. My opinion is the following: there is a wide range of benefits of discarding a few number of cards from the top and very few backdraws of doing so. Of course there is also mechanic that work well for taking advantage from discarding a lot from the top but there is also many cards in many thematic that have a use from the decks, and few to none who have an use if they are still in the deck at the end of the game.

32 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

And you take a specific example of the very specific case I name and then take a conclusion for all the situation. It is quite ridiculous.

I haven't responded to you at all Roxxour, my response was not written with your example in mind. So let's keep it polite. I've only added a third scenario using Seastan's rules.

34 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

It is really close to a 2 deck cards within 2 turns, you will obviously prove that Thorin should not be used...

Seastan designed the scenario as evidence that discard from deck is 'not a cost.' It has not been engineered to show that Thorin should not be used.

37 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

My opinion is the following: there is a wide range of benefits of discarding a few number of cards from the top and very few backdraws of doing so.

Then, you agree with me 100%.

Discarding from deck is a cost. It carries a risk/benefit calculation in real play, outside of a vacuum. This whole business with the Steward of Gondor 4-card deck is just intended as evidence that discarding from deck has NO negative possibility, statistically speaking. I simply disagree, since any addition attempt to bring us to a 'realistic' scenario biases the result toward "carries greater risk than not using discard from deck."

To summarize for the readers at home, and hopefully prevent any confusion, the two positions here are as follows:

Seastan: Discarding from deck should not be considered a cost, but a benefit. This is because, across all possible situations, discarding from your deck is either 1) is equally as harmful as not discarding from your deck, or 2) beneficial. (At least, this is how I understand his position, sorry if I am mis-stating the nuance)

Me: Discarding from your deck should be considered a cost. This because, across all possible situations, discarding from your deck is either 1) equally as harmful as not discarding from your deck, 2) beneficial, or 3) more harmful than not discarding from your deck.

(that's the main point we disagree on, that 3rd possible scenario has not been acknowledged, which I guess is why you wouldn't consider this a 'cost').

We are not debating whether or not Thorin is a good hero (we all agree that he is), and we are not debating whether 'discard from your deck' should never be used (we all agree that it can benefit you some of the time).

Oh and duh! Silly me. The situations where discarding from deck ceases to have any negative potential are 1) when you know what's going to be discarded [Imladris Stargazer, hero Gandalf] and 2) when there is no possible detrimental discard [you've built your deck to accommodate mining]

I don't claim to be an expert at statistics, or this game, but I will tell you my experiences. When I have played the starter deck with Thorin in it, I only hesitate to use his power if it has no effect whatsoever meaning I already am killing the enemy. With no expectation of drawing my whole deck, I consider the loss of one unknown card to be negligible. If it is a key power card, I will be bothered slightly but not much more than if I just never saw it. Undefended attacks on the other hand are something I avoid at almost all cost. Too many times I have gotten a shadow card with enough damage to ruin my day. (In fact it happened today, once to me and once to my wife) I guess in the end I would prefer the psychological cost of a lost card over a dead hero.

5 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

You can't take them both simultaneously and then decide which order to apply; they're done sequentially. So you don't know if the second attack will have a "bad" shadow until *after* you've taken the first attack undefended -- and the first attack will go on Gimli, not Thalin, if it does not have a bad shadow. So here's how it works:

You don't need to decide where to place undefended damage until after revealing the shadow card. So that's not how it works.

6 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

So let's imagine: Thorin will discard after you draw 2 cards (for example: in your 'everything costs 1' deck, this will be your Elven-light +Arwen combo being played each round before using Thorin).

The flaw here is that your crafted scenario allows you the ability to draw through every card in your deck. I've admitted from the get-go that if you've got enough draw power to draw your whole deck, then Thorin is a cost, so we don't need to debate that.

It wasn't card draw that tipped the scales against Thorin. It was the ability to draw your whole deck. This is evidenced by your second example where you retained the card draw but added more cards to the deck, and the result was once again neutral. Then you said:

Quote

Adding 1 card draw effect to that, I guess, will return us to "using discard from deck carries greater risk".

And I agree, but only because it would enable you to draw the whole deck in your example.

This is all consistent with what I've been saying.

But most decks (nearly all?) do not get anywhere close to drawing themselves in a game. Therefore I maintain that in those decks Thorin is not a cost.

17 hours ago, Amicus Draconis said:

Master of the Forge can do this as well.

Sure he can but he is of sphere considering that deck discard mechanic is mainly built in spirit and tactic. If you can build you deck including lore or have a different way to put him on the table (stand and fight) then yes, no problem. Still an alternative in sphere will be welcome I think.