im happy to admit if i could afford 2 or 3 sets i would…..just cant!! but yeah, probably not to make it easier per se….just i like to have a complete collection

rich

benhanses said:

completely agree, the rules say 3 of a card, and the game is designed for 3 of a card…

benhanses said:

It's a bit silly, but it tends to come up because new players frequently wonder how many copies of the Core Set they should buy. For whatever reason, I see way too many posts on various forums that say something like, "It seems like I need three Core Sets--is this really the case?" For my part, I just try to point out that extra Cores are a luxury and not a necessity. Players should feel free to expand their deckbuilding options, but they are also able to have a satisfying game experience--and defeat any scenario--without buying the same product three times. I feel that's an important point of emphasis..

Speaking anecdotally, there's next to no correlation between number of Core Sets owned and player skill; I know some great players who use three and some similarly excellent gamers who get by just fine with one. You're absolutely right that there's no reason to belittle a player for using three copies of Core cards (since, after all, that's perfectly acceptable according to the rules). I do think it's often more interesting to play with just one Core (as it forces you to be slightly more creative), but it's not inherently better or worse than including full playsets. Do whatever makes the game fun for you.

Lastly, my sig is meant in jest (just in case the patent lunacy of the statement didn't make that clear. There is no link between masculinity and # of Core Sets).

benhanses said:

I didn't say that folks should restrict themselves to one core et if they don't want to. However, I think it's ridiculous to first make the game easier for you by adding additional cards and afterwards yo start to complain that it's now too easy. I played with one of Glaurung's decks and I know why he thinks the game isn't difficult enough. Playing with one core set would certainly improve his game experience, but if he doesn't want to, it's his own fault. It's like playing Civ on Prince level when you are good enough to win on Emperor.

the game rules are the bars that set the restrictions. If you make a deck in the rules and you break the game it is THE GAMES fault.. not yours. It is completely ridiculous to say, if the game is to hard you should gimp your own deck building choices and not think so hard and just make lame decks.

Sleeves and proxies. I'll buy a Core Set expansion kit if they ever make one (which I doubt), but I'll be damned if I'm buying another core set to get 3 copies of a card. But I can use a color printer with the best of them and if I want three copies of a card in my deck then I'll make it so.

Until I built a dwarf deck for The Hobbit that included Nori I hadn't played with a Spirit hero in over a year. I did that because I hated "Spirit's Silver Spoon". Now that is a well beaten horse, but I didn't complain about the difficulty of the game or quests because I was artificially handicapping myself. (I complained that the sphere's weren't - and aren't - well balanced.) Similarly, if I choose to limit myself by only including one copy of a card when the rules allow three I shouldn't complain about it.

booored said:

Hi Boored

I disagree.

The card pool is great enough now that with full freedom to design a deck specifically tailored towards a quest you will beat that quest pretty handily. And in doing so I (personally) don't feel much joy.

To me the challenge is in designing robust decks that can take on a full story arc, I also try and do these somewhat thematically, but to each their own! Calling these decks 'lame' is rather insulting as I feel they have a greater strength than a one shot quest deck.

Troymk1 said:

Boored is right of you use the rules and can build up some to mich powerful decks something wrong with balalnce of the game. But this game is not same as other PVP so here is different logic.

Anyway as you say cool deck can play against all quests not only the certain ones. So berofe SOF and Battle in Lake-town my Aragorn/Denethor/Glorifindel(FOS) can do it but now is terrible fall to this 2 last super quests. Os now i have a new deck Elrond/Hama/Glorifindel(FOS) with Vilya, Eagles, Cycling Feint and this deck sure can be Rule them all deck. But still need tuning!!!! Later share deck list.

Troymk1 said:

I think that is what most deck builders do. As in building decks for entire cycles. The "one deck to rule them all" has been a goal of deck builders form day one. Though I think it is pretty hard to loose using Hama, that deck is pretty much the deck that can beat all quests. Personally I make decks for entire cycles.

If you wish to gimp yourself by making less powerful decks then that is cool.. more power to you.. people have been making "thematic" decks for as long as CCGs have been around, and they have always been weaker. It is ridiculous to say though that people who are following the rules should have to think less critically, creatively and produce weaker decks to balance the game for the designers.

The Elrond Deck I posted in the Strategy section has been working REALLY well to do just that.

repair

Troymk1 said:

Yes your deck is pretty cool. But i think you will have problem in JTR cose you need heal the Eagle and Warden will heal only 2 wounds and then he will be removed from the game so Healing herbs better choice in my opinion.

Glaurung said:

Naw… With that deck it's really easy to stay on stage 1 and remove Rhosgobel via Asfaloth. Heal Wiley with multiple Wardens (remember he can refresh by paying a Lore token) and then blitz through stage 2 in one turn after you dig up enough Athelas.

Bullroarer Took said:

yes is possible but is slow down you beat no??? Score will be really high. But…….actually this is a problem of the Elrond deck: quite slowly. You win yes but with a high scores. My previous decks have a good score many under 70-60 but Elrond deck always more then 100.Anyway now quests also more and more difficult so is normal thing i suppose.

Score for me is a binary thing.

1 or 0 baby !! Wins and Losses

Troymk1 said:

Me too as the scoring system is inherently flawed.

Troymk1 said:

Try it!!! you will like it. Cose when you play for scores is change a lot and force you to risk as well. Before i try it i also though is not interesting but when i try it…….. is pretty cool and change game a lot. Then look quest log and you will see some interesting results there.