Ok, so you need location A and B, Path of Need, Thor's Map. Play Path of Need on location A, commit characters to the quest, exhaust Thor's Map to make location B active, run through it and make progress, travel to location A. Sounds like a nice combo, and there's not long till it be available.

Bottom line, with Henamarth (to scout what's coming), Hammersmith, Scout, Strider's Path, Thor's Map and Word of Command, Lore looks like an obvious sphere for the deck with Path of Need.

they all sound great ideas lleimmoen……i wonder - is it normal for a game to have such a big different from the 1st to 2nd cycle in the power of cards in the cycle?

richsabre said:

I cannot answer since I have only played MtG some half-life ago and the LotR tcg for about a month (of boredom). However, I do agree, the player cards from this cycle seem much more potent than those of the previous cycle, even though I would still call many of those from the core set among the very best.

I think we should have a new poll after this cycle is over before the Hobbit saga takes us for a new ride.

i agree- last poll most were core set cards- id say it would be about 75/25 core/dwarrowdelf cards now

Path of Need definitely looks like a potent card, but if you have only one copy in a deck, it seems rather foolish to try to build an entire strategy around it. If you can make good use of Strider's Path, anyway (and why not?), then go ahead and work it into a combo. That's good stuff. Otherwise, with my luck, I'd be worried that Path of Need would be at the bottom of my deck. Sure, I can draw there, but will I draw there before it's too late to get the boost?

Meanwhile, I have to agree that the Dwarrowdelf cards are more powerful on the whole than the Mirkwood cards, but the power of cards isn't an even field. It's a spiky chart, and there are definitely some powerful cards from the Shadows of Mirkwood. Boromir, anyone? Still, until they make another card that deals with Treachery effects, A Test of Will is hands-down the strongest card in the game. I'm not a fan of Sleeping Sentry. I think it creates a "false" gaming experience. If the encounter deck is meant to "play" against us, then it should start getting the edge and push an advantage. When it hits, Sleeping Sentry doesn't capitalize on an advantage; it just wins. But for all the griping about the card, it's easy to deal with the Treachery effect with A Test of Will. (And to deal with the Shadow effect with Hasty Stroke and/or Burning Brand.)

As I see it, the problem isn't that the Dwarrowdelf cards are stronger than the Mirkwood cards. It's that there are still aspects of the game (treachery cancellation) that are only addressed by one card. Until we have multiple cards that perform similar functions (albeit in different ways), we have auto-include cards.

Zigil Miner may or may not be too strong, but it helps move away from the "auto-include" status of Steward of Gondor. Path of Need may or may not be too strong, but it's certainly not an auto-include. If anything, it gives players with expensive Zigil Miner decks something else to toy with instead of Grim Resolve.

And if you're like Boooored and don't think you can have fun with such powerful cards… um, don't play them? Seriously, who's building your decks for you?

Thorongil said:

because some people ie the 'boromir' types play for the challenge of winning, and when they see a card such as these that we are discussing, they want to capitalize on it, whether it makes it too easy or not…………fortunatly im not one of those people……..

that argument is stupid.. yes of course you do not play wit ha card of you do not like it.. that is what everybody dose. The ones most people deicide not to use or run special rules for are Beravore, Northern Tracker, Unexpected Courage, Feint and Ziggy, though I play with Feint and Beravor.

Arguments about if they are OP or not is not the point.. player can chose to sculpt his game experience.. BUT that isn't a excuse for poor game design. Just making stupid OP cards that radically alter the core mechanics of the game and turn it into a game that plays itself were you literally do NOTHING (as in this new attachment card dose) or say Ziggy that removes the entire concept of resources is just lame. Sure you can just not play it.. but wouldn't it be better if they just designed GOOD cards instead?

What this card is doing is removing the entire decision making process on if you should tap, or hold back your cards. So teh turn becomes.. draw cards, play cards, draw encounter cards count defence and attack values new turn. The ONLY player decisions in the entire game once this card is out is when and if to play events.. EVERYTHING else is controlled by teh game and all you do is flip cards from the encounter deck and count numbers on attack,defence and will..

That is just stupid… your not even playing the game it is playing itself.. and yes sure you do not have to run teh card.. but why design it in the first lace.. what were they possibly thinking.. I mean Ziggy was bad enough.. but this card removes the player from the game and it is just rules vs rules… .

But the location doesn't have to be active for too long. Of course one can try and make it so but it is not automatically achieved. The encounter deck can still surprise you even if your heroes are ready.

As for the Sleeping Sentry, I do agree, that one really can make false impression of the quest. I actually find that quest quite easy but for two cards that can ruin the game when come at a wrong time.

lleimmoen said:

yes road to rivendell only has 2 cards worth worry about -sleeping sentry and ambush

Booored, I think you're overreacting just a little. Player choice is NOT removed from the game because Path of Need does not affect allies. There is still plenty of decision making on which allies to exhaust and when.

EDIT: Overreacting isn't the word I'm looking for. I shouldn't say things like "you are ____" on forums. Targetting others and telling them what they are thinking or doing is a sure-fire way to get emotions flaring and I apologize. I really meant to say, "Booored, I think the problem isn't as big as it may seem at first."

First off, there are very few locations that I feel have bad enough Trave effects that I don't want to get them out of the way. Many games are won or lost in the staging area.

booored said:

Cards that give such a different approach to the game are good. It keeps thing from getting stale. The challenge of building a deck to maximize the ability of a single card in a 50 card deck is appealing to me. After I have experimented with it, Path of Need will get filed away with cards like Zigil Miner. When I see future cards that compliment it's strengths and overcome it's weaknesses, I might use it again. Until then, I will enjoy building new decks. Half the challenge of card games is designing a deck that is able to deal with almost anything that your opponent can throw at you. And if there are cards that allow us to do that in new and exciting ways, all the better!

@ the janitor - i agree, but i get exited no matter what cards comes out, as i usually spend the first 5 minutes looking at the artwork! i dont know how long youve been on the forum/playing the game, however we have had this argument about 5 times over now, so im just warning you, there is a definate split in players who take your side and players who takes booored and others….of course there's people in the middle as usual, but i think those who have chosen sides would have budged the first time round if they were going to …..some people see it as new fresh approaches….some bad design…………

About this new card Path of Need, well, you are commenting a lot of it, but you are losing the best part (as richsabre noted), the amazing art of Magali Villeneuve . It seems that FFG people are counting on her for every new pack lately, a thing that really love .

About its usefulness, we shall see. It seems powerful, but only one in the deck, and a lot of cards needed to make the combos you comment above, I'm not sure we are going to auto-include it in all our decks. It's like Zigil Miner, I toyed with it for a while, but now, I don't use him at all. Just bored me.

Robert McMutton said:

As for the latter, it again confirms the designers are actually succeeding on many accounts since players take different approach. Some say Steward in every deck, I can do without, I really enjoy Zigil combos, some are bored (no pun intended), some think Gimli is the thing, I think he's the worst Tactics hero… sorry to be giving personal examples but that's how it comes to mind. People have different views and they enjoy, at least quite a few it seems. Some say the game's too easy, some say too hard.

As for the former, it took me some time to realize it is Boromir in the picture (arrows, shield, horn, of course), I got confused by the quotes. And yes, MV is taking the spotlight, if you only take player cards, I think she might have like 20% in this cycle (2 per pack). There's no one else to compete with that frequency, although BZ is having quite a few locations which I find mostly gorgeous. I am not actually checking much from the enemy, treachery art, is there someone who appears much more frequently than others?

i do not believe so….it seems they are more focused when it comes to player cards- ill have to check

i think the major characters or 'important' cards such as path of need always get more attention when it comes to art- makes sense i suppose

Look, maybe I am being a little harsh… yes it is true unless you get the combo out the attachment is not long for this world.. unless you have something like impassable bog out with 7 or w/e quest points. And yes ALL combo decks are OP… that is kinda how combo decks work… they are very weak but if the combo goes off then instant win.. though there is strong arguments in most CCGs about how combo decks should be limited as they screw with interactivity.

So in retrospect I guess I am being a little harsh.. but it frustrates me that instead of adding interactivity and synergy between cards they are adding cards that remove player interactions and card interactions.. and this imo is the complete wrong direction for a game.

The only way this card is useful is if there are more enemies engaged with you than you can handle. You still have to exhaust allies to quest. I'm surprised nobody is talking about this card in conjunction with a dwarf deck, though. Erebor Hammersmith+Sneak Attack with Legacy of Durin in play, plus Dain being able to participate in attacks for a round while getting his own buff. I don't think this is a gamebreaker because combat, in most quests, isn't how you win the game. It's an expensive card with a limited scope.

I think so far people have tried to cover how to "get most out of the card." What you're saying with Dain is "who shall get most out of the card once you get most out of the card," if that makes any sense. And of course, Dain is a perfect ride. I was also thinking of Stand Together having a great effect when you can defend repeatedly with three heroes. But the choice then be plentiful. As someone else pointed, I too wonder if we soon shall see a card that allows for a second attack against an enemy, I know Quick Strike does but only for one character.

Something that puzzled me about Path of Need: Does a location (ie The Carrock) with a "Immune to player card effects." text prevent you from attaching Path of Need to it or not? I'm not sure as the actual effect of the card isn't interacting with the exploration of the carrock at all and it seems that this text was created to prevent the players to explore the location too early. But on the other hand…. it's a player card you're attaching…

yes id say it was immune still - taking it very literally 'player card effects' is

1. is it a player card?

2.does it in anyway interact with the location?

yes and yes….the 2nd one yes as the effect is 'piggybacking' off the carrock

rich

booored said:

Point taken. However, I have one final counterpoint. Lord of the Rings is different then most CCGs. Because it's a Co-op game, some of the combo decks can actually improve interactivity. Instead of just hoping to lock into your power combo, it can be you and an ally working towards the same goal, each helping the other get the parts needed to make it work. This is the biggest draw of LotR for me, it involves building decks that are not only strong, but are able to synergize with what my teammates are building.

Doom1502 said:

richsabre said:

I disagree. If the card said, "Attach a location to Path of Need." I would see that as an effect and The Carrock would be immune to it. As it is written, the card has no effect on the active location. It is not moving the active location and it is not adding progress to the active location. It simply says "Attach to a location," which is an effect on the card, not the location. If The Carrock said, "Immune to player cards," again, I would concede that Path of Need could not work.

Hmm. I'm still thinking about this. "Attach to a location" is a player card effect, and I suppose the target of the effect is indeed the location, so maybe Richsabre is right. Grrr! I was so excited about that combo!

i always think it as (and i may be wrong again here) the immune locations cannot be tampered with in any way as they are part of the scenario…at least thats what the designers had in mind i think

The Carrock does say "immune to player cards," does it not?

Ok, so this is a techy kind of question… There is a few ways to look at this and again this is the kind of thing that should be a lot clearer. Is an attachment a player card effect ON the location. Say an Mathom… the effect is happening ON the Mathom card not on the location and triggered when teh location leaves play..… This is kind of like the target effect rule. Targeting a location specifically with an affect (not a card) is different that a global effect that targets all cards of a certain type on the board… EG: Dark Knowledge is a targeted affect and Burning Brand is not.

This is a very common thing and is in CoC, aGoT and a famous example is in magic the gathering Wrath of God vs Lightning Bolt.

I think technically this immune to player effects is talking about targeted affects.. so Northern Tracker, Lorian Guide, Shadowborn Scout, Riddermark Finest etc etc etc.. .there are tons.. these are all cards that target the location and resolves ON the location effecting the location itself. The Mathom or in this case this new card I hate effects is not occouring on the location. The effect is not targeting the location, nor is the effect doing anything to the location at all.

This is how the rule read to me on a techy level. So I think yes you can cast this on such places.. BUT I also think this is NOT what the designers mean. After playing this game form release I have a feel for their terrible wording and it very well could be talking about all player "card" interaction not player "effects".

Might need a ruling on this form nate