Powerful cards destroying long-term game balance?

By ppsantos, in The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

Posted at

jhaelen said:

(Official) restricted or banned lists are only relevant for tournament play. You won't see a restricted or banned list until in an official tournament it becomes obvious to everyone present that a card is broken or so powerful that it unbalances the meta.

For casual play, players should feel free to create their own list of restricted and banned cards that they stick to when playing (or invent any number of houserules to make the game the most fun for their tastes).

We already have tournament-only rules in the game, despite the lack of any tournaments. The 50 card deck minimum is a tournament only rule. If the designers think that something is unbalanced they can issue a restricted list, even in the absence of a tournament scene.

@Glaurung - You can see a discussion of Nate's interview here http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/707056/nate-french-on-theonering-net. He says that the game doesn't need one yet, but a restricted list is an option if he feels the need arise.

@silverhand77 - Sorry if i was over seneative and took comments personally when you did not intend them. My bad. I need to develop Glaurung's thick skin. When thinking about card design, I was talking more about how it affect subsequent encoutner decks, rather than player cards (though that could be an issue as well)

Posted at

Bohemond said:

jhaelen said:

(Official) restricted or banned lists are only relevant for tournament play. You won't see a restricted or banned list until in an official tournament it becomes obvious to everyone present that a card is broken or so powerful that it unbalances the meta.

For casual play, players should feel free to create their own list of restricted and banned cards that they stick to when playing (or invent any number of houserules to make the game the most fun for their tastes).

We already have tournament-only rules in the game, despite the lack of any tournaments. The 50 card deck minimum is a tournament only rule. If the designers think that something is unbalanced they can issue a restricted list, even in the absence of a tournament scene.

@Glaurung - You can see a discussion of Nate's interview here http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/707056/nate-french-on-theonering-net. He says that the game doesn't need one yet, but a restricted list is an option if he feels the need arise.

@silverhand77 - Sorry if i was over seneative and took comments personally when you did not intend them. My bad. I need to develop Glaurung's thick skin. When thinking about card design, I was talking more about how it affect subsequent encoutner decks, rather than player cards (though that could be an issue as well)

@ Bohemond- Its all good mate :) I'm just glad you know I wasn't having a crack at you :)

Posted at

silverhand77 said:

Kobby said:

silverhand77 said:

Dam said:

7 to start off with (leaving only 43 to draw through), 9 per turn eventually (8 from Beravor + 1 each turn), that's 50+ cards in 5 turns by my math (9x5 = 45 + 7 = 52). Of course resources are an issue as is drawing all 3 UC, but then again, there is Ancient Mathom for 1 resource -> 3 cards. I've seen 35+ cards with Beravor + 2x UC in my games (vs Carrock of course, there is all the time in the world for hoarding cards during stage 1) in somewhere around 10 turns without fully optimising the draw as well (throwing a few cards for the other deck as well)

Yep I can see that your maths is correct. However I still don't think you could pull it off 8 consecutive times in a row especially with massing in the mix. You wouldn't have much time to hoard cards in massing.

Hi Silverhand77, I am the guy who plays with Glaurung and i can assure you we are not cheating.

the mechanics of the decks was already explained (i deck is protector and other one is control/quest), Massing is tricky in the first few turns (my estimation is 3-4) and after that you can prety much know if you are going to win or not, the trick is letting the Tactics/leadership deck be the 1st player. questing is done depending on draw (but usual quest value is 7-8) depending on how much we lose by we raise out threat (starting threat is 26 for the s/l and 29 for t/leadrship) you never reach 35 so you are safe for a round or 2 before next wave of enemies (Wainriders). starting of combat both snaga come to the spirit/lore deck and tactics/leadership get both wolves (he draws one and one goes automatically as he is the 1st player). Again you play now according to what you drew, for example if s/l deck can deal with the shadow effect Gimly can take an undefended attack (and then he can kill a wolf by himself) if t/l have sneak attack with Gandalf u can play it kill one and def against the other if you have feint or quick strike can use as well. on the spirit/lore front usually you take one or two undefended attacks (if you managed an unexpected courage or an ally and you Eleanor didnt cancel a shadow effect you have a potential of defending both) and then beravor kills one snaga. usually if you survive (8to 9 times out of 10 you will ) the rest is pretty much the same but easier as the staging area threat is lower, as you play your list of ally's is getting bigger and bigger as well as your hand (with the help if Beravor). must of the time after the initial 2-3 turns you wont have to deal with more than one enemy at a time and even if you do the t/l deck have enough sentinels that by then one is out and can help or the s/l dealing with it by itself.

resources issue is addressed by Theodred horn of Gondor and Steward of Gondor.

once you have Faramir is out its an easy cruise to the end. you don't even need to kill Witch King as both players will have enough questing value to do it in one go (Faramir and/or P.O Lorien makes sure of that).

Cheers

I can see what you mean about how your decks work. But please let me assure you I'm not accusing you of cheating, I just thought you might not be following the rules correctly or perhaps playing by a house rule, But I can see that you're not. Apologies for any misunderstanding around that.

Having said that, I do feel strongly that enjoyment of the game comes down to how we choose to play it. You guys are absolutely free to include or exclude and cards you want from your decks to make it harder and more challenging and therefore more enjoyable for yourselves. If your deck doesn't have an ulimited draw mechanic I believe you will find the challenge you are looking for. :)

silverhand77 said:

I can see what you mean about how your decks work. But please let me assure you I'm not accusing you of cheating, I just thought you might not be following the rules correctly or perhaps playing by a house rule, But I can see that you're not. Apologies for any misunderstanding around that.

Having said that, I do feel strongly that enjoyment of the game comes down to how we choose to play it. You guys are absolutely free to include or exclude and cards you want from your decks to make it harder and more challenging and therefore more enjoyable for yourselves. If your deck doesn't have an ulimited draw mechanic I believe you will find the challenge you are looking for. :)

Well, for me the challenge is in the deck building. As I am the one who built both Original Decks ( we evolve them as we play, new scenarios come and new cards are available) and basic strategy of how they should work I take great pleasure in seeing how well they work against any quest even against new quests. Both decks are generic and can work against any quest without the need to change cards (you can min max them even further for each specific quest so they will work even better, but there is no real need for that). for me that was the real challenge, after that its just enjoying the game ;).

Glaurung is arguing (and is right ) that we need some more quests like MaO, I believe we all agree that Emyn Muil was a big disappointment. I dont say that every quest should be lvl 7 or higher but there should be some balance.

Cheers

Posted at

I'm not sure why the lack of a restricted list should affect how scenarios are developed. If we take the premise that FFG will come up with original scenarios for tournaments, then what does that have to do with the scenarios that we see in the deluxe boxes and adventure packs? Since these are not tournament level scenarios, they may still to have to be developed as though the list didn't exist.

As we can all agree, players may or may not follow the list, but if you are designing with it's restrictions in mind, then players who don't abide by it (and who knows how many there will be) may not necessarily enjoy these scenarios. Can FFG take this chance? I think whether they determine Northern Tracker (or any other card) to be a game breaker, they may be stuck with it. Otherwise, they may alienate a substantial portion of their fan base. More so than in other games, FFG may just have to live with anything that is considered overpowered. The fact that you don't have an opponent that checks you or can adapt on the fly might force this.



Posted at

Do you believe FFG designs and tests scenarios with decks that use a 50 card minimum? I strongly suspect that they do, and I think the game is better for it. At the same time, I don't think that it makes the game worse for casual players who decide they want to work with 30 card decks.

Posted at

Bohemond,

I believe that this thread is pretty much played out. Great debate.

Since you come up with great topics where a lot of players participate, please start another discussion.

Great stuff!!

Posted at

I think it is a safe assumption that they design with 50 card decks in mind. I disagree that people playing with 30 card decks have a similar experience. 30 card decks just don't have the same depth and versatility as 50 card decks. Even if you do make it work and get to the stronger cards faster, this is the same as playing with restricted cards in a scenario that was not designed for them. The challenge and the fun may be significantly lessened. Furthermore, I would say that people playing with 30 card decks are a minority. Although, it may be officially a tournament rule only, I think 50 cards is quite widely accepted as the standard.

Restricted cards are quite a different animal. If you are designing regular packs around them, you are essentially forcing casual players to observe more advanced tournament rules or risk having a lesser experience. This simply isn't right. Some may observe them, but some won't. Players will end up with cards that they paid money for and want to use, but have become a hindrance to their enjoyment. As I have said before, I don't have an issue with a restricted list eventually, it may become a necessary evil when the time is right, but that is not now. And certainly not if it is going to be forced on the casual player.

Posted at

Big Borg said:

Bohemond,

I believe that this thread is pretty much played out. Great debate.

Since you come up with great topics where a lot of players participate, please start another discussion.

Great stuff!!

well said, you are probably right

Posted at

I agree that we are nowhere close to needing a restricted list or banned list yet.

There are some powerful cards, yes. But there is nothing wrong with that.

There will always be a top tier of the cards. If you ban/restrict some cards, there will just be the next group of cards that people consistently find to be the most efficient.

So, what I'm saying is, save ban/restricting for only when it's absolutely needed, for cards that definitely break the game apart, which we haven't seen yet. Some examples would be like, something that lets us draw 30 cards in a few turns, or some combo that instantly makes questing so high it auto passes each Quest stage the first time, or a way to stop every enemy from entering play or attacking for the whole game. You know what I mean? Stuff that pulls the game off it's tracks.

Beravor, Steward of Gondor, Gandalf, Northern Tracker, these are not those type of cards. Powerful, but not broken.