Ninjawa said:
How about an errata or house rule that said something along the lines of "this ability can only be used if there is an underground, dark or mountain location in play." That way it fits better flavour-wise and the resource gain is a bonus rather than a guarantee. It would also mean that future quests would only have to account for the miner's effect if they had these locations.
I like that a lot. Makes perfect sense, thematically.
Grudunza said:
Ninjawa said:
How about an errata or house rule that said something along the lines of "this ability can only be used if there is an underground, dark or mountain location in play." That way it fits better flavour-wise and the resource gain is a bonus rather than a guarantee. It would also mean that future quests would only have to account for the miner's effect if they had these locations.
I like that a lot. Makes perfect sense, thematically.
2nded though it wont help on the next cycle as all the locations will be mountain/ underground
richsabre said:
2nded though it wont help on the next cycle as all the locations will be mountain/ underground
Not necessarily. There's a chance that more locations in the Dwarrowdelf cycle will not have one of those attributes. But as long as it's a boon for a shorter term thing during one AP cycle, then that's okay, I think. To me, the idea of the change is to prevent it from being super overpowered for everything. You could also nerf it a bit more by saying that it can only be used if the active location is underground, dark or mountain. Or just limit it to "mountain," as "underground" and "dark" don't necessarily imply a mining situation.
But regardless, I think that's a good way to limit the ability in a thematic way, while still having it be very useful for some adventures.
I can't find the actual post now, but sometime this weekend I suggested there may be cards coming up that discard allies, possibly as a way of combatting the Zigil Miner deck - looking at the Dwarrowdelf announcements recently has shown that it looks like this will be the case:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/lotr-lcg/Dwarrowdelf/the-long-dark/goblin-warlord.png
The "Lost" keyword seems to be a way around it, though whether it's the way around it, who can say? If "Lost" becomes a theme of the game, rather than an adventure-pack-specific keyword, I'd assume that they had a plan for the Zigil Miner all along.
spalanzani said:
I can't find the actual post now, but sometime this weekend I suggested there may be cards coming up that discard allies, possibly as a way of combatting the Zigil Miner deck - looking at the Dwarrowdelf announcements recently has shown that it looks like this will be the case:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/lotr-lcg/Dwarrowdelf/the-long-dark/goblin-warlord.png
The "Lost" keyword seems to be a way around it, though whether it's the way around it, who can say? If "Lost" becomes a theme of the game, rather than an adventure-pack-specific keyword, I'd assume that they had a plan for the Zigil Miner all along.
the entire point of the ziggy deck is to cycle cards form the discard pile.. so this in fact helps the deck.
booored said:
spalanzani said:
I can't find the actual post now, but sometime this weekend I suggested there may be cards coming up that discard allies, possibly as a way of combatting the Zigil Miner deck - looking at the Dwarrowdelf announcements recently has shown that it looks like this will be the case:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/lotr-lcg/Dwarrowdelf/the-long-dark/goblin-warlord.png
The "Lost" keyword seems to be a way around it, though whether it's the way around it, who can say? If "Lost" becomes a theme of the game, rather than an adventure-pack-specific keyword, I'd assume that they had a plan for the Zigil Miner all along.
the entire point of the ziggy deck is to cycle cards form the discard pile.. so this in fact helps the deck.
I must admit, I've not tried it, but I thought the "entire point" was to get the resources to play your deck?
yeah.. but the engine that drives it is a cycling engine... so you use Tomb + Stand and Fight to play the high cost creatures from the graveyard that you discard with Ziggy, and then cycle using Will of the West to get your Stand and Fights back in your hand.
If Lost discards allies, it won't be a way around Zigil. You could just discard another ally.
I don't care much personnaly if a solution / correction makes sense thematically.
If they want to go along with an errata, I'd rather have them make one that relies on the player's cards rather than the encounter deck. We do not control the encounter decks and there's no player card I can think of that relies on it for now. We want all player cards to be playable in all scenarios and all decks. I'd rather see something such as: use only once every 2 turns or some kind of clock mecanic dependant on the amount of resources generated, for example. Or even such a blunt restriction as "miner can't produce more than 3 resources with its ability" (even if you get a > 3 cost), because really, that's the problem with the miner (the huge amount of resources you get for such a low cost, compared to other acceleration cards such as Steward of Gondor or Horn of Gondor). They could even make him unique; that would limit its usefulnes.
As for Bonus Card's "thematic explanation" on why the world becomes more difficult to face, I don't buy it. The game is bound to become more difficult only in comparison to what it was earlier, and the only reason is simply the amount of player cards available. If the player cards pool was set in stone and they were only doing AP countaining new encounter cards, the power level could remain stable... but with players getting more and more new tools, they have to give new tools to the "opponent" as well. So that's why encounters will feel more difficult over time, especially for someone picking up only a Core Set and Kazadh-Dûm, for example. Another reason why the new encounters often feel harder (especially for KD) is just the paradygm change required from players to adjust. This game is so new and still in its infancy; the "veterans" amongst us have less than a year of experience to their credit, so we're not always able to "think outside the box" when faced with new quests. We repeat patterns because it worked in the previous cycle or quests (ex: while trying the Journey to Rhosgopel this weekend, I came to the realization that The Galadhrim's Greetings wasn't required; neither should Gandalf be used for threat reduction... this is contrary to how I was used to playing against the other scenarios; I needed to adapt). But we'll come to a point where we're better able to adapt and I hope the game's difficulty won't increase over time. Already, we know that by its nature, we're bound to see a power creep. If it's to be combined with a difficulty creep, FFG will end up killing the game... I'm sure they're aware of the risks (doesn't mean they don't make mistake, however).
SiCK_Boy said:
I don't care much personnaly if a solution / correction makes sense thematically.
If they want to go along with an errata, I'd rather have them make one that relies on the player's cards rather than the encounter deck. We do not control the encounter decks and there's no player card I can think of that relies on it for now. We want all player cards to be playable in all scenarios and all decks. I'd rather see something such as: use only once every 2 turns or some kind of clock mecanic dependant on the amount of resources generated, for example. Or even such a blunt restriction as "miner can't produce more than 3 resources with its ability" (even if you get a > 3 cost), because really, that's the problem with the miner (the huge amount of resources you get for such a low cost, compared to other acceleration cards such as Steward of Gondor or Horn of Gondor). They could even make him unique; that would limit its usefulnes.
As for Bonus Card's "thematic explanation" on why the world becomes more difficult to face, I don't buy it. The game is bound to become more difficult only in comparison to what it was earlier, and the only reason is simply the amount of player cards available. If the player cards pool was set in stone and they were only doing AP countaining new encounter cards, the power level could remain stable... but with players getting more and more new tools, they have to give new tools to the "opponent" as well. So that's why encounters will feel more difficult over time, especially for someone picking up only a Core Set and Kazadh-Dûm, for example. Another reason why the new encounters often feel harder (especially for KD) is just the paradygm change required from players to adjust. This game is so new and still in its infancy; the "veterans" amongst us have less than a year of experience to their credit, so we're not always able to "think outside the box" when faced with new quests. We repeat patterns because it worked in the previous cycle or quests (ex: while trying the Journey to Rhosgopel this weekend, I came to the realization that The Galadhrim's Greetings wasn't required; neither should Gandalf be used for threat reduction... this is contrary to how I was used to playing against the other scenarios; I needed to adapt). But we'll come to a point where we're better able to adapt and I hope the game's difficulty won't increase over time. Already, we know that by its nature, we're bound to see a power creep. If it's to be combined with a difficulty creep, FFG will end up killing the game... I'm sure they're aware of the risks (doesn't mean they don't make mistake, however).
I don't think it will be a difficulty creep exactly. It'll just get harder sometimes and easier sometimes. I think it'll be a natural progression towards more difficult at times. You see cards like "goblintown scavengers" what would stop other cards from penalizing costly cards, whether in hand, decks, discard piles or play. And why would this be any different than "zigil miner". This set makes gameplay for the good guy side a lot easier for now, but we might just need it for the future.
Just let him live as he is. If he turns out to be broken in future sets, you can all tell me "I told you so"
Interesting idea to attack the rest of the deck rather than the miner so as to make him more dangerous to use. Encounter cards forcing you to flip cards from the player deck and having effects based on cost would be a great way to limit a miner strategy, while at the same time opening up plenty of opportunities for deckbuilding around this (or setting combo via Gildor).
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new card has nothing to do with it... unless they plan to put a card like it in EVERY SINGLE ap from now on...
SiCK_Boy said:
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new guy costs 40 in order to engage, just hit him with three Gandalfs or descendants in the staging area.
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
SiCK_Boy said:
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new guy costs 40 in order to engage, just hit him with three Gandalfs or descendants in the staging area.
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
SiCK_Boy said:
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new guy costs 40 in order to engage, just hit him with three Gandalfs or descendants in the staging area.
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
SiCK_Boy said:
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new guy costs 40 in order to engage, just hit him with three Gandalfs or descendants in the staging area.
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
SiCK_Boy said:
Looks like this is the way the designers intend to penalize the Zigil deck with the new preview. However, that preview is for the 5th expansion pack in the cycle. Will there be anything in the first 4 to replicate this tendancy?
The previewed monster does add pressure on the Zigil player, but still, the cards only generate its Attack and Hit Points values. The other 2 values (Threat and Defense) are the critical one. Maybe we'll see another Ancient Nameless Evil Monster working that way, because otherwise, it's still easy enough to ensnare the enemy after having chump-blocked (and then you Fortune of Fate back the dead hero who sacrificed himself to defend against the beast)...
Still, that's a start, but I remain skeptical that all encounter decks will have enough of these type of encounter cards to put a stop or compromise the miner strategy.
The new guy costs 40 in order to engage, just hit him with three Gandalfs or descendants in the staging area.
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
booored said:
The new card has nothing to do with it... unless they plan to put a card like it in EVERY SINGLE ap from now on...
Well, how about they just make some other great player cards and pump up difficulties of the scenarios in different areas.
Bonus Card said:
booored said:
The new card has nothing to do with it... unless they plan to put a card like it in EVERY SINGLE ap from now on...
Well, how about they just make some other great player cards and pump up difficulties of the scenarios in different areas.
that would just cause more power creep
ps i had to have a laugh at those multiple posts- forum software =fail
Bonus Card said:
Also, that would be insane to have shadow/threat cost of three cards on him, to much of a game changer.
I admit it would be very strong. It wouldn't be so bad if we had access to more player library manipulation (Gildor is pretty much the only thing we have for now). But maybe it would make Radagast's Cunning a card worth playing (just like Journey to Rhosgopel brought Lore of Imladris a second [or should I say first] life).
I really don't see why people are rejecting the whole "if you find it too easy, don't use it" argument; as far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect solution.
If you're playing a computer game and you find the "Easy" difficulty setting too easy, what do you do? Do you increase it to "Medium" or do you sit around calling for "Easy" to be changed?
Why should this game be any different?
If Zigil Miner makes it too easy for you, don't use it.
Simple.
But there will be other players who don't use the card in the exteremely "broken" way, and why shouldn't they be allowed to? This isn't a competitive game, it's co-operative. I know that's a pretty obvious fact but I do get the distinct impression that not everyone fully appreciates just quite how much that should change your basic approach to this game. This isn't a game about you trying to beat all other players on an equal playing field; it's a game about loads of different players with loads of different skill levels all playing against the game. An equal playing field is not needed. And just because you're good at the game, doesn't mean other people are. And there's no reason that has to be a problem. There's no reason to destroy all the powerful player cards because some players find it too easy, the far simpler and more obvious solution is for those players to simply not use the card(s) that make it too easy for them.
Why is that a problem?
Stenun said:
I really don't see why people are rejecting the whole "if you find it too easy, don't use it" argument; as far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect solution.
If you're playing a computer game and you find the "Easy" difficulty setting too easy, what do you do? Do you increase it to "Medium" or do you sit around calling for "Easy" to be changed?
Why should this game be any different?
If Zigil Miner makes it too easy for you, don't use it.
Simple.
But there will be other players who don't use the card in the exteremely "broken" way, and why shouldn't they be allowed to? This isn't a competitive game, it's co-operative. I know that's a pretty obvious fact but I do get the distinct impression that not everyone fully appreciates just quite how much that should change your basic approach to this game. This isn't a game about you trying to beat all other players on an equal playing field; it's a game about loads of different players with loads of different skill levels all playing against the game. An equal playing field is not needed. And just because you're good at the game, doesn't mean other people are. And there's no reason that has to be a problem. There's no reason to destroy all the powerful player cards because some players find it too easy, the far simpler and more obvious solution is for those players to simply not use the card(s) that make it too easy for them.
Why is that a problem?
this is not the problems as i see it, im a fan of the dont it use thingy, however my worry is how the devs will change the game to keep up with the powerful cards, thus sort of forcing you to use them, getting rid of the opt out tactic
richsabre said:
this is not the problems as i see it, im a fan of the dont it use thingy, however my worry is how the devs will change the game to keep up with the powerful cards, thus sort of forcing you to use them, getting rid of the opt out tactic
And if the game gets harder, then Zigil Miner stops being a problem as all the player cards will soon be at that level - they won't make the game harder just because of one player card and then not bring out any others on the same power level.
So again, there's no real problem.
Stenun said:
richsabre said:
this is not the problems as i see it, im a fan of the dont it use thingy, however my worry is how the devs will change the game to keep up with the powerful cards, thus sort of forcing you to use them, getting rid of the opt out tactic
And if the game gets harder, then Zigil Miner stops being a problem as all the player cards will soon be at that level - they won't make the game harder just because of one player card and then not bring out any others on the same power level.
So again, there's no real problem.
apart from the power creep needed to bring the other cards to zigil level
