Hey all!

I am running through the Saga with my sister, and we are about to hit Helm's Deep. I've played it before so reviewed the cards last night. We don't want to do too radical a deck rebuild on either side. However we are interested in some sprinkling of cards that are beneficial for the scenario specifically. I am running Sam-Tom-pippin with a hobbit swarm deck and she is running Slegolas-limli-Glorfindel with the fellowship contract. Here are some cards we are considering:

1. Three big location attachments seem extremely helpful: Path of Need, Elf-Stone, and Put Off Pursuit. The extra quest points make a pretty nice difference there. Path of Need for multiple turns would be awesome.

2. Rally the West. I've heard that side quests are a little bit of a mixed bag. Is this worth including for the sake of willpower boost? For that matter are any side quests worth it?

3. Heirs of Earendil -- is this worth tossing the somewhat nastier locations without having to deal with travel cost? Or is threat an issue?

4. Thrors key also seems to be an auto include in many peoples helm deep decks. Just curious to see how necessary this is.

If there are some other one-offs that I am missing please let me know.

*on a quick side note, quadruple burglar decks seem to break this quest significantly since they each add +4 quest points each for a total of +16 to every location. Find a nice one you like, control burn the rest in staging with the likes of asfaloth, rhovanion outrider, etc.

17 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Path of Need for multiple turns would be awesome.

With Reforged it's definitely a possibility.

17 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Rally the West. I've heard that side quests are a little bit of a mixed bag. Is this worth including for the sake of willpower boost? For that matter are any side quests worth it?

They are definitely good in Stage 2, little less so in Stage 3.

Rally the West was key to our victory against Mount Doom by the way.

17 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Heirs of Earendil -- is this worth tossing the somewhat nastier locations without having to deal with travel cost? Or is threat an issue?

Locations in this quest have usually low printed quest points and since you can avoid the nasty "when explored" effects since you are discarding the location (while still getting the Guarded cards since the location leaves play) it's definitely good tech against this quest (besides you will definitely have some Elrond's Counsel to offset the threat). Just remember that in Stage 5 you cannot reduce your threat anymore.

17 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Thrors key also seems to be an auto include in many peoples helm deep decks. Just curious to see how necessary this is

Since sometimes the negative effect for exploring a location is worse than the positive effect for having it as active location it's quite worth it. Of course you can simply choose to leave the location with the Key in the staging area and safely explore it there.

16 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

*on a quick side note, quadruple burglar decks seem to break this quest significantly since they each add +4 quest points each for a total of +16 to every location. Find a nice one you like, control burn the rest in staging with the likes of asfaloth, rhovanion outrider, etc.

In the same note quite a few old quest have been significantly impacted in difficulty with the introduction of side quests making turtling (for a benefit too!) much easier.

Side-quests kinda break this scenario and tamper with the mechanics of the quest. Playing side quests and having the enemy complete them for you is not really how the scenario was intended to be played so I would recommend avoiding them. Especially if you want to experience the quest as it was meant to be.

3 minutes ago, MikeGracey said:

Side-quests kinda break this scenario and tamper with the mechanics of the quest. Playing side quests and having the enemy complete them for you is not really how the scenario was intended to be played so I would recommend avoiding them. Especially if you want to experience the quest as it was meant to be.

That's not actually how it works, since if you quest for a side-quest, the defense keyword is not in play, and thus if you fail, you are raising your threat, not placing progress. Granted, Devilry of Saruman will place progress on the side quest. But this is explainable. Orcs aren't the brightest of creatures after all. 😀

4 minutes ago, Bobbymcbobface said:

Granted, Devilry of Saruman will place progress on the side quest.

I thinky Devilry of Saruman was errata-ed to put progress on the main quest, not the current quest, so that's another hole fixed (pun intended)

2 hours ago, Alonewolf87 said:

With Reforged it's definitely a possibility.

Is it too hopeful to think they won't clear a location on a given round? That path of need could stay on that location? Or is the threat flipped in too much?

4 minutes ago, player3351457 said:

Is it too hopeful to think they won't clear a location on a given round? That path of need could stay on that location? Or is the threat flipped in too much?

I guess it's possible, my opinion are often biased by the fact that we usually play as a 4 player fellowship where precisely adjusting the Willpower is usually more difficult (predicting what the encounter deck will throw at you is much harder and you want to go wide questing to avoid nasty surprises and big threat increases). Also I seem to remember the location in the quest having between 2 and 4 quest points which made the whole thing even more difficult.

But I guess in solo it's quite definitely more possible to adjust the progress (especially through encounter deck scrying and manipulation) so that you keep the location with Path of Need active for a few rounds.

Ok so if the enemies would place progress and you are questing on a side-quest you just raise threat... But that would stall the enemy from advancing the quest stages normally though wouldn't it?

1 hour ago, MikeGracey said:

Ok so if the enemies would place progress and you are questing on a side-quest you just raise threat... But that would stall the enemy from advancing the quest stages normally though wouldn't it?

And what's wrong with that? The goal is to win is it not?

3 minutes ago, Bobbymcbobface said:

And what's wrong with that? The goal is to win is it not?

But if you keep putting out sidequests then the enemy can't physically advance the quest stages... Thats what I meant by saying sidequests are kinda broken here...

There are still effects on each quest card that can advance the stage, and there are downsides of questing for side-quests, namely, threat raise, and the fact that you most likely clear a location that has a bad effect. In my play experience with this scenario, side-quests have not always helped, and I've often done worse when trying to run them. I would not say they "break" the scenario at all. There is a major difference between an intelligent play that gives you a strategic edge and a "broken" interaction. In my opinion, something is broken if you are almost guaranteed to win (or guaranteed to lose, cough, cough, pre-errata Blocking Wargs) if you play it. Side quests on Helm's Deep are just another possible strategic option, not a game-breaker.

17 minutes ago, Bobbymcbobface said:

There are still effects on each quest card that can advance the stage, and there are downsides of questing for side-quests, namely, threat raise, and the fact that you most likely clear a location that has a bad effect. In my play experience with this scenario, side-quests have not always helped, and I've often done worse when trying to run them. I would not say they "break" the scenario at all. There is a major difference between an intelligent play that gives you a strategic edge and a "broken" interaction. In my opinion, something is broken if you are almost guaranteed to win (or guaranteed to lose, cough, cough, pre-errata Blocking Wargs) if you play it. Side quests on Helm's Deep are just another possible strategic option, not a game-breaker.

Well I'm not so sure. As long as you quest fine, the encounter deck can't really advance the stages other than the effect on the quest card which isn't gonna be much. The whole point of the quest is to try and stem the tide, and I think if you just used side quests to avoid the defence keyword, it would kind of destroy the theme of the whole quest...

36 minutes ago, MikeGracey said:

Well I'm not so sure. As long as you quest fine, the encounter deck can't really advance the stages other than the effect on the quest card which isn't gonna be much. The whole point of the quest is to try and stem the tide, and I think if you just used side quests to avoid the defence keyword, it would kind of destroy the theme of the whole quest...

Then that is fine. Yes, they might present a theme problem. Just like it would be a theme problem to play Haldir on Helm’s Deep.But that doesn’t mean they break the scenario. It is totally in player discretion to use a card and if a player feels a certain card goes against the theme then it is entirely in his right not to use it.

Yes it is up to the player. But I would simply suggest that if anyone wants to play the quest as it was intended to be played (applying the defence keyword/stemming the tide) then I would recommend not to play side quests. I don't think we really agree on what 'breaks' a quest but thats ok.

I played sidequests against helms deep once, and personally, it just took away all the theme and it honestly felt kinda broke to me. I think the defence keyword was a perfect design and amazing idea; I just didn't wanna strip the quest of its perfect thematic design.

So incredibly disappointing.

We lost. But only because we had to flip Sarumans devilry 3 (!!!) Times in 2 turns, and then later flipped 17 into staging when we were one resource away from from 5a. So close. And so many different combos of alternative universes from winning.

One really devastating night.

Still, the cards I outlined above were very helpful and a side quest or two when we were on top of questing would have been a huge boon.

My sister pointed out that, thanks to a decked out Gimli and a first round Jubyar, we did not take a single point of combat damage. All damage came from quest effects and archery. We owned the deck. But in the end, it found the perfect way to screw us over.

7 hours ago, player3351457 said:

So incredibly disappointing.

We lost. But only because we had to flip Sarumans devilry 3 (!!!) Times in 2 turns, and then later flipped 17 into staging when we were one resource away from from 5a. So close. And so many different combos of alternative universes from winning.

One really devastating night.

Still, the cards I outlined above were very helpful and a side quest or two when we were on top of questing would have been a huge boon.

My sister pointed out that, thanks to a decked out Gimli and a first round Jubyar, we did not take a single point of combat damage. All damage came from quest effects and archery. We owned the deck. But in the end, it found the perfect way to screw us over.

Yeah its fairly tough but a great quest. I loved using Le Eomer here, round one played unseen strike to boost him to 6 and took out a soldier of Isengard. That first round is the hardest.

I also used Theoden and Eowyn, rohan decks are not quite top tier but it was a lot of fun!

9 hours ago, MikeGracey said:

Yes it is up to the player. But I would simply suggest that if anyone wants to play the quest as it was intended to be played (applying the defence keyword/stemming the tide) then I would recommend not to play side quests. I don't think we really agree on what 'breaks' a quest but thats ok.

I played sidequests against helms deep once, and personally, it just took away all the theme and it honestly felt kinda broke to me. I think the defence keyword was a perfect design and amazing idea; I just didn't wanna strip the quest of its perfect thematic design.

"Intended to be played" is a slippery slope, since we don't actually know how a quest was "intended to be played", or how much foreknowledge of future development the designers have when designing a quest. According to the release schedule at BGG, both Treason of Saruman and Lost Realm were released in April 2015, so it seems wildly improbable that the designers were unaware of coming player side-quests when designing Helm's Deep, and indeed in the absence of the defense keyword, questing unsuccessfully leads to threat raises and questing successfully leads to clearing active locations, both bad things.

12 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

"Intended to be played" is a slippery slope, since we don't actually know how a quest was "intended to be played", or how much foreknowledge of future development the designers have when designing a quest. According to the release schedule at BGG, both Treason of Saruman and Lost Realm were released in April 2015, so it seems wildly improbable that the designers were unaware of coming player side-quests when designing Helm's Deep, and indeed in the absence of the defense keyword, questing unsuccessfully leads to threat raises and questing successfully leads to clearing active locations, both bad things.

Right, what I mean by 'intended to be played' is that when they design a quest with this defence keyword, I presume that its intended to be played with that keyword. And I believe that is a safe assumption.They probably had already created sidequests at this point, but its still a weird interaction that can completely negate the keyword that defines the quest.

Its isnt wrong or disallowed to run sidequests, its just a weird way to basically completely change the quest. I think if you want the full experience of this particular quest, side quests should be left in the binder this time...

56 minutes ago, MikeGracey said:

Right, what I mean by 'intended to be played' is that when they design a quest with this defence keyword, I presume that its intended to be played with that keyword. And I believe that is a safe assumption.They probably had already created sidequests at this point, but its still a weird interaction that can completely negate the keyword that defines the quest.

Its isnt wrong or disallowed to run sidequests, its just a weird way to basically completely change the quest. I think if you want the full experience of this particular quest, side quests should be left in the binder this time...

My presumption would be that Defense was created for Helm's Deep, and not the other way around. Let me explain....

What the Defense keyword allows you to do is create a situation where the players can *routinely* quest unsuccessfully, and do so without creating location lock. In a normal quest you couldn't do that -- your threat would raise, you can't clear locations, the threat just keep piling up and before long you threat out. But with Defense, instead of raising your threat progress is placed, clearing active locations and allowing you to travel. Yes, if you are unsuccessful too often for too much, you can get to the end of stage four and lose the game, but if you can keep the failure manageable and keep buffering with active locations, you might be able to survive the eight rounds needed to get to stage five, and when you get there (where your threat can't be lowered) you haven't had your threat raised by turns of unsuccessful questing and you might not threat out.

I think the designers wanted Helm's Deep to be epic, and intentionally create a staging area that looks unwinnable if it were a "normal" quest. Defense let them do that.

Given that Lost Realm and VoI were released so close together, the designers *knew* side quests were an option, but using Gather Information and questing unsuccessfully routinely puts you right back in the situation that Defense was created to solve -- your threat will mushroom, your locations won't be cleared, and you'll be dumped in stage five (where threat can't be reduced) with massive threat problems, if you even make it that far. Meanwhile, if you quest *successfully* you risk clearing your side quest -- and in the meantime you are clearing locations with a beneficial when-active and a punishing when-explored, something that could've been *avoided* if you had chosen to play it straight. And if you break even, it doesn't matter whether you used a side-quest or not for questing.

Progress will continue to be placed on the main stage when side-questing, via the main quest's forced effect, Devilry of Saruman, and assorted enemy/shadow effects. Even if you spent the entire quest unsuccessfully side-questing, I doubt you'd stay on stage two for eight rounds. But I don't think using side-questing to unsuccessfully quest successfully is much of a strategy for this particular quest in the first place. There are points where a side-quest failure may be preferable to placing progress, there are points where side-quest completion may be worth clearing the active location when successfully questing -- but I don't think it's something that changes the nature of the quest, it's just a tactical tool that *might* help in certain situations during the quest. This isn't quest-breaking, and the concept of players choosing the quest most beneficial for them dates all the way back to Battle of Five Armies.

I at first didn't realize that the enemy won't complete your side quest for you (since it doesn't have the defence keyword) so that is a good thing.

But if you added some good threat reduction and put out multiple side quests, you could just take the threat hit (a well crafted deck could limit that to only 1 - 3 threat), drop some galadrims greetings and Gandalf, and be fine. By taking threat instead of triggering the defence keyword you kinda 'alter' the quest mechanics.

I'm skeptical that if you're playing multiple side quests and also playing multiple Threat mitigation measures that a "well crafted deck" could continually quest unsuccessfully, but only by a little -- locations won't be cleared, and locations in staging are high threat. Card space devoted to side-quest and threat is card space not devoted to willpower and combat, and this quest demands both. It will be easier to underquest by only a little if you Defense quest, since you won't get location locked, and if you're underquesting by just a little you'll never get to the end of stage four aand lose.

So while a player can "alter" the quest mechanics in his favor by routinely underquesting against a side quest, I don't think a player can alter them *in his favor* by doing so. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be times where a side-quest might not be tactically usefully when over-questing or under-questing, but player side-quests were invented precisely to give the player the option of ignoring the main quest. Doing so against some ancient quest designed long before that option was invented could conceivably be not playing the quest "as intended" (for example, extending stage one in Conflict at the Carrock with Double Back), but given the release dates I don't think Helm's Deep is such a quest.

And let's not forget that this quest can really throw an outrageous amount of threat into the staging area. We played this week and had something like 28 threat in the staging area at the end of staging on the first quest phase. (2 player).

12 minutes ago, NathanH said:

And let's not forget that this quest can really throw an outrageous amount of threat into the staging area. We played this week and had something like 28 threat in the staging area at the end of staging on the first quest phase. (2 player).

Yeah the first round is the hardest in this quest I found. I liked playing Leadership Eomer and after playing unseen strike taking down a soldier of Isengard first shot... 4 less threat and no archery