Can i have a little guidance please regarding the Wandering Took. In one player mode, when you put him into play, is his threat reduction a "dead effect" as there is no other player to pass him to OR can you put him into play then put him on the discard pile to trigger the threat reduction? If its the former, the stats on his profile doesnt fill you with much encouragement to take the little fella along with you. (Even though the artwork is amazing)

Ted Sandyman said:

i would say its useless- i mean you have to raise the other plays threat by 3 - so even if you could somehow get the action to work- it would just be -3 then +3 threat, so no change

i just use him because i love the theme of it- gotta love me some halflings

Dont think i will include him on a solo quest next time then even though im a halfling fan myself. Maybe more hobbit heroes will appear in the future!! I can picture a Lobelia Sackville-Baggins card with awesome stats and a scowl that would make a hill troll scarper!

Putting him on the discard pile to trigger the threat reduction is pure wishful thinking.

Ted Sandyman said:

i cant wait for a shire pack- book 1 of the fellowship is the best of the trilogy

While its effect is useless in a single-player game, Wandering Took has pretty decent stats for a 2-cost Spirit ally. 1-1-1 with 2 health makes it plenty versatile for a cheap price. I don't know that I'd use it over some of the comparable Rohan allies (West Road Traveller, Westfold Horse-Breaker, etc.), but it's never a dead card.

I think woundering took is one of the true ulsess cards at the moment.. it has zero utility and the draw should be replaced with a card that dose something. Still there may be a time it will be good.. like Keen-eyed is also crap, but could defiantly find play with that new monster about to come... my point is yes he is complete crap... do not use him.. but keep his effect in mind as at any time a new AP will give us a use for him

Hmm,

of course his ability is a blank in single player mode...

But he is so versatile in multiplayer, he essentially has:

1) Ragend

2) Sentinel

3) Threat manipulation

4) Dark Knowledge+ (defend an attack, resolve the Shadow card as defended, move the Took, take the damage undefended. Though the jury still seems to be out on this one)

I'm really a big fan of this card for 2+ players.

Hmm,

of course his ability is a blank in single player mode...

But he is so versatile in multiplayer, he essentially has:

1) Ragend

2) Sentinel

3) Threat manipulation

4) Dark Knowledge+ (defend an attack, resolve the Shadow card as defended, move the Took, take the damage undefended. Though the jury still seems to be out on this one)

I'm really a big fan of this card for 2+ players.

1,2 yes... but attack of 1 is no good, and a chump block has its use... but as has been said, there are other cards with the same cost that are just a ton better. Like Gondorian Spearman for example. What I am saying here is that he is a wasted draw when compared to other 2 drops for spirit, and the other spheres alos have much better 2 drops.

3 - please tell me when this threat effect is ever useful?

4 - This dose work. You have a action phase after shadow cards are revealed but before the attack resolves. There is no "jury" on this... it is in the rules in black and white. Also in the rules is there is no stacking.. meaning that if you activate teh ability the attack is as if it was 100% undefended.. dmg has to go on a hero and any "undefended" effects are countedstill seems to be out on this one)

When we just had core and a pack or two of mirkwood, I could see using Wandering Took (spirit just didn't have that many 2-cost allies). At the moment, I see no reason to run him in anything other than a thematic deck

booored said:

You are certainly right, that Gondorian Spearman is a more useful defender than the Wandering Took. But that is not my point.

The Spearman is a better defender, but the Took is better at questing or attacking.

The West Road Traveller is a better quester, but the Took is a better attacker or defender.

The Veteran Axehand is a better attacker, but ...

I think you see what I am trying to get at. The usefulness of the Took is about his flexibility for me.

booored said:

You are welcome:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/763061/hammer-anvil-2-0-build-your-own-decks

booored said:

I totally agree with your stance, I infact never doubted that, but there seems to be a lot of people over at BGG, that are more sceptic. Just saying...

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/757764/wandering-tooks-ability-and-undefended-attacks

are you talking about the Golin resource engine in a 2 player game using took to block and then not block if it is a safe card to dmg golin.... cause that has nothing to do with the threat effect.... .. . .

booored said:

No, I am talking about the article that I linked. Have you read it?

(And Gloin certainly profits from the Took, but I agree that this has nothing to with the threat effect...)

Wandering Took + Elfhelm is a pretty fun combo.

radiskull said:

How is that supposed to work? Elfhelm cannot reduce the threat increase from the Tooks ability. Or am I missing something?

plueschi said:

I skimmed it but there is a lot of text for what look like fairly average deck list to me. As I said above I really can not see why you would run this card instead of the other better more useful 2 drops. I still do not see what you are talking about if it isn't the resource engine.

Whoops. You're right. I was mis-remembering Elfhelm's text.

booored said:

Well, the strategic premise in that article is to build 2 decks with a high/low threat split. (In order to get all enemies on one side of the table).

People might not agree that the premise is a good one, but within that strategic decision, the Took is a useful card, is it not?

I think he will be very useful with the new secrecy cards. If you are running 3 of the Tooks you can give them to other players to reduce your threat by 9 during your planning phase then get them back on the same turn. As long as the other players can handle the temperary threat increase you should be able to pay for the secrecy cards and still be able to run 3 heroes.

radiskull said:

No problem mate. I was just starting to drool over Elfhelm in combination with Boromir though

You all know whats funny? A guy on BGG just received an official answer, that the Wandering Took can NOT produce undefended attacks with his ability... Too sad.

plueschi said:

This is the 1st and most obvious strategy when people start building decks, witch is why nearly all of the 2player decks posted use this idea. he point though is the wandering took and if he has any real use.. you speak of utility but at what cost.. is a card that is mediocre / next to useless at everything worth the draw slot of a card that is extremely powerful or dose one of what the took dose but very well worth it.. the answer is no.ght not agree that the premise is a good one, but within that strategic decision, the Took is a useful card, is it not?

plueschi said:

If this is true, witch I doubt (I'm sending in my own rule clarification now) it is a 100% reversal of the rules states as they are know as of the FAQ. There has been Nate responses on a number of effects that say the removal of defender makes the attack undefended.

Dark and Dreadful
Undisturbed Bones
A Foe Beyond
Cut Off

Just off the top of my head... also it meas you can do things like block with Horse breaker, then sac it for the effect and the attack is still undefended...

All of these are not tuire.. or at least are not ture as of teh FAq ... if this IS a true ruling (witch I doubt) it is a 100% reversal of how the game is working now and I hope this isn't true as it is a complete **** up from the designer .. once again making everyone scores invalid.

The difference between your examples and the Took is that your examples remove the defender from play. Wandering Took is still in play, just under the control of a different player.

I'll be honest, it's not the ruling I expected, but it is playable. It is substantively different from other shadow effects that remove a defender from play before damage is assigned.

I have no reason to doubt that this is an official ruling. You just doubt its veracity because you don't like it.

that is true... this "could" be a difference.. but if this IS the rules.. and I'm going to get my own confirmation.. then it raises all sorts of questions about the damage stack.. something with the game is not meant to have... Like if this took thing is real.. then what happens when you declare a blocker, reveal the shadow card and then player 2 sneak attacks a Son of Arnor for example.

booored said:

Well, I can only say that his value to me lies in his flexibilty. And that is all there is to say about it for me.