Topic got a little distracted from the main argument, but I too feel like giving my two cents on this multiple core sets issue.

I personally don't have a problem with people purchasing more core sets, I do however have a problem with FFG who made this option viable for these people. By putting useful cards in limited quantities into the core set, they encourage players to buy new ones, ending up with a crapload of less useful--or totally useless--cards. Unlike CCG-s, however, this game does not have an active single-card market. And even if it did, who would want to buy, for instance, the encounter decks of the core set again? So basically the owners of multiple core sets end up paying 40 or 80 bucks for only 4-5 cards. That is not cheap!

When I first heard of the LCG format, I too was hopeful that it might be the next evolutionary step after CCGs. But it quickly turned out that if I wanted all the useful(!) cards, I would have to pay a lot more than I pay for my Magic the Gathering cards. Beside LOTR, I am also an active Magic player, yet I never had to spend as much money on cards as on LCGs. Okay, I do keep away from the very expansive singles range (I do not buy singles for 40 bucks), but I never really felt the impact of that. The bulk of the useful Magic cards can be bought for 10-50 cents (1 dollar tops) from online shops, and I am quite successful with them even in organized competitive play. I spend about 20-30 dollars every 3 months (whenever they release a new expansion) and that is that. I am more or less up-to-date, which cannot be said about LOTR or other LCGs.

Bottom line, I don't feel that the LCG format in its current form delivers on its promise of being cheap and superior to CCGs. Of course, it would be different if all sets would indeed contain three copies of every card, but FFG cannot dismiss the potential revenue from people who are willing purchase multiple sets. So they they keep doing what they do now, in my opinion, undermining the basic principle of LCGs.

By the way, I am not complaining, more like thinking in writing. I am quite happy with LOTR so I am also happy to spend money on it.

I for one would relish the possibility of multiple encounter sets - I've just bought my second core set in order that I might have two of the Mirkwood quests permanently set-up so that I can go to them as and when I feel like it, and thought I'd pop in here before I go off to scour the internet to find someone selling more. So please, if anyone has multiple core sets and is willing to part with the encounter sets, let me know! (Of course, a side benefit is I finally get three copies of some cards, and an extra copy of some others, but that's not the prime motivating factor here for me).

As to the actual subject of this thread, I have been having some thoughts on this the past day or so that I thought I'd post for everyone's general amusement.

They way FFG have celebrated the Zigil Miner and the synergies possible has me thinking - hand on a minute, everyone is so quick to assume FFG just "didn't think this through", or something, and no-one seems to have thought of it from the other side, that maybe this is precisely what they planned for the card? That they have published a deck-list that embraces the possibilities can be seen as reactionary, I suppose, but I think instead they're just lulling us all into thinking "oh no, look how ridiculous this game has gotten!" or whatever the arguments are.

Strikes me they've got some fresh hell in store for Dwarrowdelf, and are currently all laughing at the posts on here as they start to design the third cycle. For one thing, the new Ambush keyword, that discards two attachments every time you flip a card with it on, is only going to be the tip of the iceburg. Arwen has fairly decent stats and benefits for a free ally, essentially, so what's the betting Redhorn Gate will have some crushing penalties to any exhausted allies? She has some good benefits when she exhausts, but only 2HP to gamble with. Something like The Necromancer's Reach, but oh, so worse, and oh, so more frequent. Let's see your Zigil Miner decks thrive when you have to discard from play every exhausted ally, never to be recovered by such trifles as Will of the West!

Something that always struck me as a solo player is that I had to wait for an adventure pack or two before getting a card that could have really helped me on earlier scenarios. Like having Astonishing Speed in Hills of Emyn Muil, for instance. So maybe the Zigil Miner is merely one of these "I could have used this card ages ago!" type of cards, because they know he will very soon be of little use up against the looming might of Caradhas and all that lies beyond.

Such are my thoughts

Rince said:

No offense but I call bull.

Even Richard Garfield would tell you that Magic (and all other CCGs) is a bigger money-sink than any LCG.

Please refrain from turning this thread into a debate about the cost of LCG or the worth of owning multiple Core sets.

Spalanzani: So you are implying there could be a condition in future quests such as "deal one damage to each ally as it exhausts" or "deal 1 damage to each ally exhausted at the end of combat" or such, on a more frequent basis, that would make abusing the miner too risky?

It's possible they'll go that way. But if they do, they'll prove my point. If you have a single quest built this way, it's fine (meaning that this quest becomes more "hero" oriented; rather than relying on allies, you need to reply on heroes). But if they do a thing like that in multiple quests, on a regular basis, they'll not only attack Miner, but all kind of allies that were specificaly designed as being vulnerable because of their low hit points (Henamarth Riversong, Daughter of the Nimrodel, Silverlode Archer). Basically, it would render ALL 1 hp ally useless (except maybe for Snowbourn Scout).

I don't think it'll become a "staple" encounter deck strategy, but it could complicate things a little bit.

And let's think further: we're bound to see at some point a card offering damage cancellation (such as the effect of Frodo). It's been missing from the player's arsenal since the beginning of the game. When it does, we're back to square one...

That's pretty much what I think, yes. As a natural progression, the more allies there are available to be played in the game, I think it's likely there will be more treachery cards that will target allies rather than merely characters. Or perhaps, as the Dwarf subtheme begins to take off, maybe we'll see some more dwarf-hatred to try to balance it, I don't know. Succinctly put, I can't see them doing something to so grossly overbalance the game that has, up to now, proven to be quite balanced as it has progressed, without fighting back, as it were. I think it's quite obvious they're aware of what they've done by producing the Zigil Miner, and cards like Ring Mail will certainly help him in upcoming strategies should we get cards that target allies. Something like the Caradhas quest would also be able to do this quite thematically, too. For example, by not committing willpower to the quest you aren't allowed to take any actions next round (heroes and allies). Or maybe even discarding them - in effect, the mountain has beaten them, and they have been forced to turn back, abandoning your fellowship.

I wouldn't say that producing cards that specifically attack allies is a direct response to the Zigil Miner though. There are other allies in the game that would be equally affected by that, after all. If there's some sort of card that forces you to discard (or deal impossible amounts of damage to) dwarven allies, then I might be a little more convinced.

But, without being glib about the whole thing, I accept that the company see it as a logical progression of a game they have created, so on the back of that I expect they have something in the works that will build on this, for better or worse.

Oh, and the damage-cancellation card is a good idea. The easy way for this would be to have it as "Limited (only 1 card per deck" type of thing, as has been done for a good while now in A Game of Thrones. This is something that hasn't really been seen in this game so far, and to tell the truth, I don't know how I'd feel about seeing it come in, being used to it from AGoT...

spalanzani said:

i agree with some of those points, i have said from the start of these zigil deck emerging that i believe, and still do, that FFG has something in store for them (and might i add was mocked for proposing such foolery), i have not decided however if it will make the situation worse or better, and if i will like the outcome, guess ill just have to wait a few weeks for rehorn

also be assured that FFG are watching this discussion (ive only ever seen admin talk once in about 10 months on here), i think they have a keen interest in player opinions about zigil, and that it was no mistake.

Maybe they do, maybe they do... I'm afraid that whatever they come up with won't be enough to stop the miner without being ultra-targetted (ex: deak 1 damage to every spirit dwarf as it exaust; heroes cannot gain resources except during the resource phase) or having a destructive effect on multiple strategies at once (ex: dealing damage to any ally exhausting or using an action).

And if they come up with an ultra-targeted response, it will confirm it was a mistake to do the card in the first place. If they just increase the power of the encounter deck, it may be the beginning of a major power creep.

We'll see... I hope to be able to revisit this thread once in a while as more player cards come up.

OK, first thing first, i own 5 core sets (i'm a collection entheusiast and hate playing with proxies) so i can have multiples decks at once and build every quests without needing to switch cards from one to the other ... and true enough, owning multiple sets make things easier. Putting everything in 3x in core set would have been highly ineffective tho, as it would have made the "take it and play it" decks from the core set way less efficient ... and the deal was you could start to play without deckbuilding ...

But i'll gladly send spare encounters deck if people need them, feel free to mail me.

That useless piece of trivia out of the way, i'll circle back to the zigil miner ...

In every CCG / LCG / TCG / anything else with cards and rules, strong cards are the one enableing you to break the standard rules : counterspells are nice cause they break the rule "your opponent can play cards", extra draw break the 1 card (or 2 card) per turn rule, tutor allow you to play cards you didn't draw because you went looking for them in your deck...

The more you circumvent the standard rulebook lines, the better the card is.

I always thought Stewart of Gondor was a very strong cause it allowed you to produce 300% of the standard ressource production, Zigil miner is even worse, i won't argue with that.

Sooo, basically, until they print a card that break the rules even more than zigil miner, some will find it overpowered, some will find it abusive, some will want to ban / restrict / put an errata on it. That's perfectly normal, peoples have been screaming against Force of Will for years now (another MTG reference, sorry, i'm trying to stop, but kind of an addict).

Is it completely game breaker ? For the time being, yes ... Man, i've spent countless hour trying to build a good 1 player deck and that dwarven rascal scores better than me an enable you to deal with the quests i'm having trouble completing ... me angry ...

The key word here is "for the time being" ... Bunch of you stated it already, but The Valar only know what FFG has in store for us.

My concern with some posts is about the part where they'll need to design cards specifically to address the Zigil-gate. That is not true (imho).

There are 3 types of card in the game (player-wise) : Equipements / Events / Allies.

Allies being, by far (in sheer theory), the most potent of all, cause they enable you to have "extra heroes", helping hands to quest, defend, attack, activate abilities and such. So, the encounter deck will always have cards to inder equipments, events and allies ...

As allies are stronger, it's perfectly sensible (bad guys point of view) that cards to deal with allies are stronger.

Put a treachery card that says "inclifct 1 damage to every ally in play - this cannot be canceled" in encounters deck, That will, pretty much (sill imho) solve the Zigil miner problème the mobs are having. Plenty of solutions exist that don't target specifically the miner but that are well designed to maim him. Same thing would be true for any card and any deck. A Location with X threat and HP (sorry, don't know the right names in english) with X equal to the number of characters sharing a keyword in play would pretty much slow the Rohan rider to an stop and still be an inconveignance for most decks.

I don't like the way zigil miner is designed ... Even so i think every sphere need a ressource producing card, this one is just too much, too soon... but well, let's give time to time.

As for Zigil miner deck in tournaments ? Well, easy answer, random pairings, fixed deck. If it trully is that much overpowered, most people will come with that kind of deck, having to solve heroes match at the begining of each game so it will give waaaaaaaay more space to creative thinking and "out of the box" decks.

It's one of the reason i don't put every good unique cards in all decks that can use them, in my 3 man (well, 2 man 1 woman but ratlings are all furr, so you can't tell males and females apart) usual game table, we each have 3 to 5 decks, and pick one at random. Try and explain you can't forfeit your Boromir cause he's your lone Tactic heroe when your fellow player think exactly the same.

ok forgive my dumbness here, but are we saying that FFG are perhaps going to specifically put into play some sort of encounter card/quest card that stops miner, or are we saying that they are going to create a quest so hard that you have to use zigil, it just wont be really easy?

i hope its the first one that people mean, because isnt the second sort of forcing you to build a deck based around 1 card? not too fun in my opinion. isnt that extremely limiting on a game based around deck building?

as i say, im getting sort of confused at this point so i could be reading this all wrong.

richsabre said:

For my part in all this, I'm saying the first one. Though not so far as to actually stop it, more like just to make you think twice about this being The One Deck.

spalanzani said:

i was hoping someone would say that

I also think we're more likely to see that first option, although the way they phrased that Boromir's Guide - Part III comment can make one wonder.

But even such a card as the one described earlier (1 dmg to all allies, can't be countered) won't put a total stop to miner decks since that deck runs on Stand and Fight. So it'll stall you, maybe slow you a bit, but I think the miner deck would easily come over the top. If such encounter cards were made, it'd be ok... they'd be a bit of an annoyance and maybe they'd be more devastating than I anticipate, but it's fair.

What I think they (the designers) may not have foreseen (and/or may not be caring so much about) is the impact of future player cards and how they'll combine with the miner... That deck is bound to become even stronger than it currently is. It's not something we can say of most other decks (okay, maybe Sylvan is bound to become a winning strategy or at least a cool thematic deck, but who anticipates eagle decks to become much better than they currently are?).

The analogy with MtG is interesting. MtG designers did admit to a number of mistakes over time (Jace the Mind Sculptor being the most recent I can think of). But they have a number of ways to correct them: banned and restricted lists; errata (we've seen some for LoTR already) but, more important, a rotating format. We do not have it yet for LoTR; I don't know if we'll see it 5 years from now or as part of the tournament rules they'll design (and being a Vintage MtG fan, I'm not sure if I want to see a rotation in LoTR). But for now, as was pointed out often before, static quests are bound to become easier over time as players acquire new cards (having tried a few challenges this week-end with "restricted" card pools, I realize how quickly that statement can be proved).

It could be a sound strategy to just keep players buying AP. Or it could be that after a couple cycle, nobody will care about older quests (like, 2 years from now, nobody will wonder if Journey to Rhosgopel is easy or hard because we'll all have gone to the next step).

I do accept this idea that older quests will become easier as time passes. This game is bound to "suffer" from some kind of power creep over time. What I fear is that I could take that miner deck (at least for the 2 player variant) and try it against upcoming AP without adding any new player cards and keep on easily winning. That would prove my point about the miner's strength. And if so, the solution from the designer's standpoint would be to either accelerate the power creep so that the encounter deck beats the miner (not something we want, I believe, assuming we're in this for the long run - ket's say at least 5 to 10 cycles of expansions), or design specific encounter cards to limit the miner. If we see this happening, I'd just like it to be accompanied by some form of communique stating: okay, we screwed on the miner, here's our fix for it.

Or maybe they'll just ignore it because a lot of players are in the Bilbo category and won't care so much about playing powerful cards (just like many players are happy with a single Core set and enjoying the game as much as anyone else), but more about playing interesting quests in Tolkien's world.

I think your making good points here but I would point something about "power creep" and "quests getting forgotten and not played" as time goes by.. Like if I buy Mass Effect 3 and then buy a DLC of a new quest.. play that quest.. and then what? It is over.. no one complains about that.. also if you play Skyrim, after 100 hours of playing no one complains about going back to the early quest and being able to kill the monsters with a single swipe of your sword. It is the same thing here. This isn't a dueling game.

My point is that you are talking about a duel game, witch this is not. The quests, are not "extensions" of the old quests. There is no backward compatibility or even allowance in the new quests and player cards for what came before. Each new cycle.. is a new quest. It is designed for the power state of the cards AT THE TIME and is self contained, not caring about the future or past. I see zero problem with this. You can also run restricted rules to bring back the challenge of the old quests.

As for the mythical "tournemt" system.. well the rumor here (and it is a rumor.. but supported from events at GenCon) is that tournament play will be with a brand new encounter deck made just for that event (latter sold as a print on demand.. exactly like Massing) So power creep again, has nothing to do with torny play, in fact when they make those decks that can customize it to the current meta game of the popular decks. So again, this has zero problem imo.

So basically what I am saying is that power creed, ban lists, restricted lists and rotation have no need to be used in this game at all. As long as they design the quests to take that into account. It is up to the player, to play the game in a way they find entertaining. If you do not like tracker.. do not use it. If you do not like Ziggy, do not use it. UC, Protector.. blah blah blah.

Still there are problems you have touched on that I do agree with. Already you HAVE to buy Khaz to play Darowdelf, as that cycle used encounter cards from Khaz. People talk how Shadows of Mirkwood is also a MUST buy for, among other things, the songs. The LCG is "supposed" to be a non-collector orientated format for card games, were you can just pick the packs you need for your deck. That is how it is marketed, to the jaded and broke ccg player anyway. But the cards are spread out so if you wish to play in a competitive environment, you need every pack. This is still better than finding random rares, or Mythics they even have now.. still if you are talking a competitive scene you need to buy every single pack released.

On top of this, as a new player after you buy CORE, you will have to buy the equivalent to Khaz for what ever the current AP Cycle is. Then if you look at the store and like a Darrowdelf (yay watching in the water.. gotta get me some of that ***** YEAH!) oh wait.. you now need to also buy Khaz.

So... what I am trying to say here is that even with power creep and w.e there will be key packs that HAVE to be bought, even by new players. It would be those key products that I would design my quests and player cards around, as they HAVE to be bought by everyone. So while Ziggy breaks all of Shadows of Mirkwood, there is no reason that it will break Darowdelf, and future APs as it is in a "core" release.. so they can reasonably expect everyone to own it.. (assuming they do worry about this)

Also what you say about Ziggy is true. As I think he is only going to get better. I also think the eagle deck will be getting better, I have a bet that the darrowdelf packs will have eagles in them (you start on the mountains in the snow according to the images) The elf deck has;t even started yet and the Dwarf deck is guaranteed to get stronger. BUT, only to those that have the old cards.

SiCK_Boy said:

That is exactly what I am afraid of. One little mistake and the game balance goes down the toilet!

SiCK_Boy said:

Actually, unless killed by specific encounter cards, every deck will become stronger as the card pool gets bigger. Every eagle the print will make the eagle deck more potent (because more options) even if it is only a "not too bad" one. And, assuming they stop printing new eagles, tactics even and attachment will still increase it strength. Only when they stop printing : 1) eagles, 2) tactics that can (not at strong, just can be played) be played by eagle deck, 3) attachments that can be played by eagle deck, will the strength of eagles wane.

I won't say that zigil deck will not gain power faster and better, but imho, it's the kind of deck that gain very significant advantage from one card and then have to wait for 5 adventure pack to get another one ... time might prove me wrong tho.

that being said,

As far as history told us, there will be no cycle rotation for LotR LCG, i've been playing Cthulhu LCG since the very release of the game and there is still no cycle rotation ... 6 assylum pack cycles, 2 deluxe expension in ... the LCG format simply does not support that kind of mechanism.

Another MTG analogy : 1 block (1 edition + 3 extension) provide roughly 775 cards (250 for base + 3x 175)... to have that amount of new cards in Cthulhu we would have to wait for ... (provided they keep the pace of 2 cycles and 1 deluxe expension a year) about 3 years (that is 6 AP cycle with 20 new cards each and 3 deluxe box of 50 cards) ....

In LotR it would be even slower, as you only get 10 new player cards per AP and, if design stay the same, 13 per DE. I won't do the math but, if there is no cycle rotation start in near future for CoC LCG, i don't foresee one for LotR.

So, zigil miner will keep being a problem 3 cycles from now ... but hey, every CCG has this kind of burden ... I've been attending a Legacy MTG tournament few days ago, and about 60% of decks were splashing green just to play Tarmofoyf (oh no, i'm addicted again) and WotC made no move in 5 years to correct what they KNEW was a mistake (one of the designer admited knowing since the card was printed it was 1 mana to cheap).

Imho, you don't need to raise the overall power of new cards (player or quest) to adress a specific card, definitively not in a duel-oriented game (tho ban lists tend to be a more definitive answer) and neither in a cooperative game.

As a mater of fact, the overall power of new cards will keep increasing steadily for 2 reason 1) new card create new combo, new combo create new power 2) you want your players to be happy so they keep feeding you money and, be honest about it, most of us, at least partialy, love having better decks, stronger cards, more win, less fail and a bigger ... well ... you know what i mean ... card pool.

TBH, i don't see as much of an increase in difficulty with KD as most people (don't get me wrong, they are harder, just not THAT harder). I don't rely on Test of Will much, so the new tendency to have treachery be uncancellable don't affect me to much. Same thing will be seen with every kind of powerbase, zigil included ... i wouldn't be much surprised if he retired with the next deluxe expension after having mined too deep and too skillfully. After all, the nail that stands out just beg for the hammer to strike.

True, we might have to suffer for 6 month of Zigil supremacy, but as i understand it, Darrowdelf was designed at the same time as KD, so if they didn't see the true strength of zigil miner when designing it ... well ... i'm sure they'll do something in the upcomming Battle of Bree (working title) DE (yeah i have some faith in humanity still).

Now i'm going to scout for a zigil deck list and brace for the next half of the year ...

sensei yaourt said:

thats my point though, what if you dont want to use him, or at least dont want to create your decks around him? the beauty of this game is its customisation value, with near limitless (well as the card pool grows) variations of decks it will be so anti-creationist (a word or not?) to force players to base decks around 1 card for 6 months....

anyways would you mind explaining cycle rotation to me? im dont really know what that means

In Magic: the Gathering, they come up with 3 to 4 expansions per year. They've been doing this for the past 20 years or so and each expansion is "limited", so you can't buy packs after 2 or 3 years, usually.

When the game reached a point where new players weren't able to compete with those who had played since the beginning, because the older and more powerful cards weren't available in packs anymore (and singles were costing over 100,00 $), they came up with this concept of "format". Basically, they defined multiple formats where each was limiting which expansions you could use.

The "standard" format was defined as using cards from the last 2 years of expansion, approximately. This meant that the "standard" for most tournaments was to use only cards that anyone could hope to get in packs.

This kept on evolving over time with multiple formats being created, each with its "breaking point", all the way from Vintage (all cards since the beginning of the game allowed) to Legacy (cards from the beginning of the game, except for uber-powerful and expansive cards) to Extended (cards from the last 6 years or so) to Standard (current pool of buyable expansions).

The parallel isn't the same with LCG since most expansions are still available (from what I know; I don't play the other LCG). But, as was said, in a PvP format, what matters is that each player has access to the same resources. If a solid deck emerges, counter-strategies will emerge as well. With LoTR, there's no evolution from the encounter deck's perspective: that deck is stuck in time with its meager resources while players keep getting new goodies. Hence my question about whether or not we would see some sort of rotation at one point. This is mostly from a tournament / competitive perspective. We see it already with player-run online tournament: most tournament use restricted pool (single Core set, only cards available at the time the quest was printed, etc.). This could be a solution to prevent Zigil miner from dominating the game in a longer term perspective.

And it's true that nobody is forced to use the Miner. But if we look at it from a competitive standpoint (which as been my approach since the beginnig of this discussion), the truth is that people will want to play the best deck, period. That means the deck that wins most consistently with the best scores. In theory, if multiple tournaments were run against the same quest, you'd see all players using the same deck over time because there's always a better solution in a game such as LoTR. Yes, there'll always be a luck factor involved, but given time, the player community will find what the best solution is to each challenge and logic would dictate that someone who's goal is to win will play it.

(This is in no way intended to diminish the love that "Bilbo" players derive from the game; it's a coop game that has plenty to offer beyond "winning with the best score" and the designers have to consider all these things when making new cards).

This is one of the hardest to follow threads!
It would help if some points were new threads and whole slabs of text weren't copied again and again.

If Zigil Miner is broken, does it even matter since we're all casual players right now? (As jhaelen said)
Is Zigil Miner even broken compared to Steward of Gondor, Northern Tracker, etc? (As Glaurung said)


I just built and used Zigil Miner in 4-5 games, not seeing him in a three or so turn game (the lowest difficulty Khazad-dum quest).
I would have lost him in one game if not for another player cancelling a treachery card. I think this is probably the weak point of the card, it will be exhausted in the quest phase, and may make it harder to find another copy of Zigil Miner. Arguably Dwarven Tomb or Gildor could help find another Miner, however flipping cards is still disruptive.

I built my deck with 30 cards with the same cost, out of 50 cards. I did not get any resources 2-3 times out of 20 or so, and probably only used Gildor + Zigil Miner 6-8 times as the Miner + my deck was very consistent and I wanted to use Gildor for other things. I don't feel Zigil Miner needs Gildor, however my deck did have a lot of restrictions forced upon it.
I played with 30 3 cost cards and didn't feel that I really needed to use the Miner with 4+ cost cards as my hand played out smoothly and I imagine most would have already experienced this with Steward of Gondor already, paying for everything in your hand quicker than you can replenish it.

Where the Miner probably pulls away from Steward of Gondor in power level, is that in a three sphere deck, you could effectively have Steward on any given character each turn, rather than all the tokens going towards one sphere only.


My $0.02

richsabre said:

In Magic the Gathering, each year sees the release of one themed block of cards (which includes 3 expansions) and a yearly core set. The standard format (which is the most widely played format both in casual and organized play) only allows cards from the last 2 blocks (6 expansions) and the latest core set. Therefore, when a new block is released, the available card base shifts from the oldest to the newest block, creating cycles. Basically in MtG, you play with new card every 2 years. But of course, there are other formats that allow players to go back and use much older cards, such as Legacy and Modern.

i see thanks for the info

gone questing said:

We're not all casual players, so yes it does matter. But I understand Casual players don't feel too concerned about this thread and the Miner.

Yes, Miner is broken compared to Steward of Gondor. Steward is unique and produces 2 resources a turn. Miner is non-unique and produces double that, easily. As for Tracker, it's a different aspect. I don't think Tracker is broken, althought I admit he's strong and I would never NOT play it. But Miner comes into play on turn one while Tracker needs 4 resources. Also, Tracker helps in one aspect of the game, but Miner helps in ALL aspects since he allows you to play all the other cards you have.

gone questing said:

If you know the encounter deck has cards that can damage exhausted characters and you don't have a mean to counter those, then simply wait to use the Miner during a later phase (such as combat). Yes, it means you won't get that huge first turn resources boost, but after that, it's business as usual and the Miner is safe.

gone questing said:

If by "flipping cards" you mean that putting cards in your discard pile is a "penalty", you need to reassess things. With Dwarven Tomb and Stand and Fight, you want to put cards in your discard pile. These cards become "resources" you can use as a player, as opposed to cards in your player deck (especialy since we don't have any cheap tutor yet to get our silver bullets). As long as you make sure to keep at least 1 Will of the West or Dwarven Tomb, you'll never "deck" yourself out.

gone questing said:

Try the same with 5 cost cards instead. Steward doesn't produce enough resources when you hand is full of 5 cost cards. You need the miner. Also, some of those cards are rarely played, but they do change the game's dynamic once you're used to them (Beorn's Hospitality, Fortune or Fate). And don't forget you can (must) always provide resources to your partner with Parting Gift. Giving a 20 resources boost to your partner means he'll play is whole hand (whether it be full of 1, 2, 3 or 4 cost cards).

SiCK_Boy said:

I say that because without a competitive scene, there is no metagame on par with other competitive CCGs. In my experience, that is the thing that pushes you that bit further when you're at your perceived max. I used casual only as a lack of a better term... no offense of course.


SiCK_Boy said:

Without those cards in your hand, you are more likely to put them in your discard than draw them, without other card draw. Don't get me wrong, I agree, I play them and they're great, but Zigil Miner alone is not going to find Dwarven Tomb or Stand and Fight for you, quite the opposite... which is what Gildor is for


SiCK_Boy said:

I may. Right now, as in the last 24 hours, I knew Lore had a lot of 3 cost cards, so built for reliability rather than pushing it to the extreme, straight off the bat. I didn't want to need Gildor per se. I didn't always use him when he was available because of this.


The Boromir article contained a 51 card deck using Zigil Miner, with the following stats;

COST, QUANTITY
6, 2
5, 9
4, 6
3, 2
2, 14
1, 15
X, 3

(ie. Two cards that cost 6, etc.)

What number do you call for Zigil Miner without Gildor around?


You could use the following in a deck, calling 5 for Zigil Miner and you'd have a 24/50 chance which is probably good enough, however, you may have to sacrifice not being able get cards into play without the Miner, and also have to use those cards...

Gandalf
Radagast
Grim Resolve
Beorn's Hospitality
Gildor Inglorian
Fate or Fortune
We Do Not Sleep

Landroval



No doubt we'll see how Zigil Miner pans out. Without Gildor, a specific deck setup is required, with Gildor, the cost and reliability of finding those cards will probably be enough for me to feel that it is the biggest card in the game (Steward being the previous) but not busted. However, I really hope that we don't get any cards that make Zigil Miner better!

Everyone is complaining about Zigil Miner. Why? Look where we started. Core level was hard as hell when we just had the core cards. Then moving onto Mirkwood it got easier. Why? Well, thematically Mirkwood Forest is not that bad of a place to journey through, not as bad as Dol Guldur, or even the Mines.

But why are the Mines so easy, well if you just attempted them without Dwarves they would be somewhat difficult. Again, thematically Dwarves make the Mines easier. Now, back to Dol Guldur, and other somewhat difficult scenarios, well once there is some sort of fellowship, combining the best of the strengths of Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Elves makes them easier to accomplish.

I think in due time, you will see a correction of balance, and not because the game is flawed, but because thematically the world of Middle Earth becomes more difficult to face. Some places might be easy to dwarves, but wait until the dwarves have to face a snowy scenario, or maybe wade through waters, thematically these areas would make it impossible for Zigil Miners to mine, and perhaps there will be a reflection of that within the cards.

I agree, that the introduction of Zigil Miners has given us LOTRLCG players a cakewalk for the time being, but I think there is much to anticipate in future sets.

Just be patient!

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.