So now that Elrond is coming with his ability to put any type of ally into play, regardles of color the question beckons: Is there any reason for anyone to play with Radagast in their decks?

He costs 5 ressources to put down so he will be using at least 5 rounds to earn himself ressource-wise and since his ability only affects creatures whereas Elrond affects all types of allies, there doesn´t seem to be much point in him any longer. Even Elronds healing ability is better than Radagasts.

The only point to him right now seems to be a better way of using word of command (exhaust Istari character to search deck for any card) than Gandalf. He does give a bit of willpower for questing but not enough to justify the cost imo.

Bit of a shame I think, seeing as I like the card and have been experimenting with a few creature decks to get the most of him but Elrond plus Steward of Gondor seems to solve almost any problem ally-wise.

as with any card you have to sometimes wait for it to really become useful with later card releases……eg. i believe that fast hitch will become a firm favourite after the hobbit cycle. in packs to come there will be more cards that target istari, or alternatively more creature cards that he can interact with, summoning them perhaps, and then hopefully he will become more useful

rich

Even if Radagast can summon more creatures he is still bested by Elronds ability to summon all types of allies.

With at least 5 rounds needed to earn his cost back Im still questioning his future usefulness even if most future allies should turn out to be creatures

im sure ffg will release more istari cards that are rather more powerful than the one(S?) we have which will make him more useful..not just to do with creatures and healing, but perhaps wizardry in general..he may just have to be set to one side for the time being. after all the istari trait has hardly been expanded on

Radagast have his place in Elrond eagles deck. For resources, heal and for Tutor (Lore event).Sure with Elrond he more then welcome in the deck in my opinion.

Unless there are more Istari boosting cards coming, I cannot ever see playing Radagast. Something is seriously wrong with this card. As stated above he takes FIVE rounds to get equal on the resources - which are in general less valuable than those spent for him. In the meantime he quests for two. If it were three it could have made a difference, or otherwise if the cost was four at the most. As it is the card is terribly underwhelming in my opinion. Then again, maybe new creature cards will be more useful - like Ents.

yes the ents- looking forward to them, and i do think the more creature we get the better he will become, and im not just talking about what he can do now, but what he may be able to do in the future……….perhaps a new card is needed, a hero card?

radagast - lore

threat 10

willpower 3

attack 0

defence 1

radagast may pay for creature cards from any sphere

exhaust radagast to heal all damage on all creature cards in play (limit once per round)

I completely agree with Glaurung on this one. My friend runs an Eagle deck with him, and Radagast is what makes the deck to darn awesome! In an Eagle deck, Radagast is the equivalent to running a 4th Hero. So, yes, there is still a reason to play this guy. Also keep in mind, comparing Elrond to Radagast doesn't really tell you much; each card is made with a specific (or multiple) strategy in mind.

DurinIII said:

I have an eagle/rohan deck myself with Radagast atm. But that deck would run even better I think if I just omit Radagast and have Elrond as one of my heroes.

My point is that I made a deck to cater specifically to Radagast´s abilities. And after one look at Elrond I´m left with an empty feeling that there´s no reason for me to keep that specific ally in my deck anymore, even though the deck was built around Radagast most of the way

The problem is the following IMO:

With Elrond you will be able to put any ally in play no matter the sphere.

With Radagast, you can only play creatures (we have, at the moment, the Eagles and The Riddermark Finnest).

However, with Radagast you have almost a fourth hero. Ok he can only spend on creatures and we have few, but i'm sure it will increase.

With Radagast in play, you can spend Elrond or any other hero resources on events, attachments and leave the creatures to be played with Radagast resources.

Despite his high cost (5), he also can heal creatures, so you can save Healing Herbs, Lore of Imladris or even Warden of Healing for other characters.

So IMO in an Eagles deck, even with Elrond, you benefit from having Radagast on your deck.

But if you have this question with Radagast and Elrond, why not expand the question to any tactics hero (for the eagles) or any other hero with the song of battle attached?

Following your opinion, Nerdmeister and lleimmoen, than Radagast is always dispensable with the right combination of cards or did I understand badly your opinion?

--------

One question that I leave here is: "Can we play resources from Radagast and an tactics hero to play, for example Eagles of the Misty Mountains?"

This is, Eagles of the Misty Mountains costs 4, so can we play 3 resources from Radagast and 1 from Legolas?

Agree with Glaurung and DurinIII here. I like to run an eagles-centered deck, and like DurinIII said, it's like running a 4th hero. The main disadvantage of tactics is willpower. You'll find yourself sending powered-up Eagles of the Misty Mountains questing just because they are allies with some willpower strength. Radagast really helps here. @Nerdmeister: Perhaps this is the reason why you don't find Radagast profitable - the spirit cards (presumably Arwen, Westroad Traveller, Eowny and likewise) compensate the lack of willpower in tactics cards.

@CJMatos: Sure, it's the same as paying for a card from different heroes. Mixing Radagast's resources with tactics heroes' resources is fine.

I understand the argument on why Radagast is not very useful. I don't understand at all the argument that Elrond obsoleted Radagast.

Elrond does nothing Radagast offers. If I have Radagast, I also have three other heroes. If I have Elrond, he is one of the three heroes. So he doesn't replace Radagast, he replaces one of the other three heroes.

If you mix Elrond with an eagle deck and Radagast and have them all together…that is something extremely interesting…especially if Elrond can use his vilya ability and your eagles are free (or even Radagast himself is free…how awesome is that?).

There are some challenges. I think Vilya is a spirit realm item and Elrond himself is a lore realm item. So you would need to pair Elrond with tactics and spirit. That is an odd mix. Otherwise, you need to use song cards which then mean you are at the mercy of your deck.

Nonetheless, I haven't sat down and thought about it deeply…Elrond with his abilities and free Eagles/Radagast can be extremely powerful. I'm just not sure how to get the different spheres worked out.

Even with all of that said, Radagast is different than Elrond. People will pay 4 resources to get the "resourceful card", why is it a problem to pay 5 for essentially the same thing but that card can also heal and gives you +2 willpower each turn? So that gets me to my original point. I can see why one would not want to use Radagast at all. I cannot see why Elrond obsoletes him.

These cards are not relatable at all.. Radagast is NOT a hero but an ally… He gains a new resource that can be used to cast creatures.. NOT just eagels, so his usefulness will grow and grow as more creatures get released… and he can heal them… AND he can fuel various combos like Ziggy or Daeron's Runes for example.. and he adds 2 will… .

So NO this card will not replace Rada in anyway… What it "could" replace is songs… … .

Score!! Vilya is a non-sphere (neutral) item. So Elrond doesn't need to be paired with spirit deck. That makes the possibilities of him being mixed with tactics heroes to form an eagle deck is a real possibility.

I've dabbled with Eagle decks a lot. They have a lot of nice synergy and there are ways to keep the vassals, etc. from leaving play. As others have mentioned, willpower is an issue.

However, the largest issue is that the eagle cards are so very expensive…even with Radagast's help.

If Elrond is pumping out cards which get put into play for free, that changes things greatly.

Of course, I am now realizing the reason why spirit realm was on my mind…the Light of Valinor, which is an awesome card for Elrond is in the spirit sphere so that would be a problem with going this route.

In my opinion, fun games are those that give you multiple possibilities and they each work rather than one and only one possibility.

booored said:

Haven´t the card in front of me but isn´t Daeron´s Runes a lore card and would therefore require a lore hero in play (even if it has a cost of 0)?

Also I do realize that Radagast is "like having a 4th hero" but resourcewise you´d have to get him in pretty early for him to earn those resources back for you.

The only 2 areas I´d see him as uniquiely (spelling) useful is when paired with word of command (granted a very good card) and combined with Elrond´s heal ability. And it just does not seem to quite cut it imo.

There will be hopes for more cards to make him useful but before Elrond he actually was very passable in a creature deck imo (I have a mostly eagle deck with no tactics heroes).

I'm assuming the conversation so far has been restricted to solo play. Don't forget that if you have 2 players, only one can have Elrond, so if your partner had Elrond with a Noldor/Silvan deck, you could still run an Eagle deck with Radagast. Since both are unique, two players can't use them in their decks in the same game. So even though it may mean you feel Radagast is obsolete for solo play, he still has his place in multiplayer.

I can't believe how many people are complaining about Radagast taking 5 turns to pay for himself.

Name me one other ally that actually pays for itself directly. You get all the benefits of Radagasts card (2 questing, decent hp/blocker) AND you can use him as a resource accelerator - you can play him from turn 2.

Now sure his resources are limited to creature playing and healing - so if you don't run any creatures he becomes incredibly poor - but if you take lure of Moria and don't run any dwarfs that becomes worthless.

I can't understand the people comparing him to Elrond - in an eagle deck (the only creature deck currently) if you want Tactics/Lore you'd run Elrond and Radagast. If you're not running an Eagle deck you won't run Radagast and to say that Elrond can be used in more decks is true.

But you only get to take 3 heroes and you don't need Elrond to run Eagles, I would argue that you do need Radagast.

Even the assertion that one obsoletes the other is absurd. Radagast doesn't increase your threat by 13.

Rapier said:

If we compare Radagast to other allies in regards to willpower then your typical willpower 2 ally costs 2-3 resources. This will mean that if you take his resource ability into account, he will still need 2-3 rounds before he "makes up" for the difference between himself and a regular willpower 2 ally. Which makes me wonder why those resources would be better spent on Radagast (and finding him in your deck) rather than time and resources to get something like Steward of Gondor for Elrond.

Setup: Elrond + leadership hero + lore hero

Use your lore hero to search for steward of gondor (if you didnt get it in start hand), attach with leadership hero. Get his ring Vylia and now you have access to all 4 spheres and a load of resources with which to play any allies (minimum cost 4 resources). In this mix Radagast seems to me to mostly get in the way. Sure he could be nice if you just happened to draw him early anyway but you won´t need him that much since you got steward of gondor.

Point being that, as things stand now, Radagast has a role which it is worth building something around. When Elrond is added to my possibilities, I don´t see a real future for him anymore.

You are just wrong.

As stated many times these are not comparable effects. What you are failing to see is that Radagast is a ALLY NOT a hero.. you pull a extra coin a turn for your creatures, he can heal, quest (in addition to the hero) block (in addition to the hero).

What your talking about requires a number of cards to pull off, .. it is really a combo.. you need to not only draw the cards but also pay for them, to get those draws you are adding say 3 copies.. maybe even putting some card draw in.. so you are using a TON of deck slots to pull this off… meanwhile you can cold cast rada in 2 turns with zero help form anything else. Plus in your case you are uses existing recourse to cast creatures, you could be using for events and other spells. It doesn't cover the healing, it doesn't add quest power or block or the extra coin.

While yes.. this new hero and his attachment is going to be strong and may change the way people splash, though of course with minstrels fetching songs you can song splash a lot faster still… The All colour belt for dwarves didn't make rada obsolete and neither will this.. he just covers a lot of ground this hero doesn't. Sure you can build decks with or with out rada, just as you can build deck with or with out this new guy.. but they will be VERY VERY different deck engines.. completely different and not even comparable.

Don't use rada, use rada… w/e Even now people run eagle decks with out rada.. but saying this hero has ANY effect on his usability is just so out of the park it is hard to see how this thread can have gone on for so long, where prety much every post is saying the exact same thing.

As Boored said….. your compairing a Hero to an ally, there isn't a comparison to be made!

I like radagast, he is extra resources and he can quest… in a tactics eagle deck i dont think anyone would say no to 2 willpower!

booored said:

You are just wrong.

See previous statement.

Man that was easy

And to elaborate a bit more: I do understand what people are trying to say with Radagast still being a usefull card. I´ve read the proposed pros and cons (done some analyzing myself). And it seems to me we have pretty much exhausted the issue.

That I reach a different conclussion than you based on the available information is my bussiness. I hoped to get a debate started which might sway my opinion in the other direction tbh because I still want to see a use for Radagast.

Even though that hasn´t happened I still respect that others might not see things my way.

@ Booored: If you do find a way to make it work (outside of this highly theorectic discussion) please by all means let me know, so I can be excited about Radagast again. I just don´t see it right now

nevermind

w/e believe what you want… Lots of people have misguided ideas about card utility, it is what separates people that know how to play and people that don't.

You posed a question, and then everyone answered saying "umm no" so you can either learn from the thread or ignore it and keep saying the same thing each post that people have already refuted. This is called being stubborn.

There is a big difference between liking a card and it being OP or integral or w/e.

You say you want discussion but what you really want is people to agree with you. You haven't even tried to "discuss" ANY of the points others have raised. You are basically just going "Is to!!"

booored said:

Have you even read the answers? There are some ppl agreeing with me and some ppl disagreeing with me. If you even bothered to read my last comment instead of skimming it you can see that I state I had a hope there would be an argument to convince me otherwise.

I even asked you to return to the subject at a later date if you got it to work. I fail to see how that is close-minded?

Seems to me you´re the stubborn person, since you appear to be the one refusing a point of view that doesn´t match your own. I at least have said I wanted to be persuaded otherwise. Even if that hasn´t happened I was genuenly open to the possibility (which should be plain enough)

And FYI I wasn´t the first person to start a response with "you´re just wrong". Which I only did to make a point