Hi all.

I am wondering if FFG has already abandoned the Secrecy mechanism now that the Dwarrowdelf cycle has ended. Neither the Hobbit Saga nor any of the cards we have seen so far from the Númenor cycle have the Secrecy keyword. I can understand it for the Hobbit as this expansion is very much designed to be played with only the Core set. However, it is a disappointment that none of the spoiled Númenor cards have had Secrecy although I believe a couple of the new allies make good candidates.

I think the Secrecy mechanism was a very nice idea that expanded the options for game variations but we have had too few Secrecy cards to really make it work. If they already stop putting any more cards out I doubt Secrecy decks will be used much in the future. So, FFG please do not forget about Secrecy!!

I believe we will see more secrecy, at least on the new cycle Against the Shadow.

For me, it makes sense to join secrecy with fighting the shadows that come from Mordor.

However, as we are talking about Gondor and their effort to keep the enemies away from the free lands of Middle-Earth it could lead to no secrecy and more fight. But I believe that we will get both in the upcoming AP's, if not in HoN.

Well we haven't seen any eagles since the first cycle. It really depends what FFG wants to do with various keywords.

I think one problem is that they assume people haven't bought previous expansions - therefore they have to explain the secrecy keyword every time and that means reducing the amount of other "new" rules they explain.

It would be best I think if the deluxe expansions were printed with all the rules needed (for any expansions) since that wouldn't add much to printing costs, but would make keywords like secrecy more accessible in the adventure packs. (Since it is assumed that you will own the deluxe expansion that ties in with that cycle).

The Steward's Fear does seem like a good candidate for Secrecy but, as you say, none of those cards spoilered had the text. Let's not lose hope yet. What I think Secrecy really needs is a hero designed to use it, a bonus using secrecy cards or similar.

Rapier said:

I thought as much. I was wondering why secrecy was not covered in the Khazad box.

Overall, I think secrecy is not developed enough to be abandoned. I think we must be getting more cards in the future, perhaps the next next cycle will have them again.

As for Over Hill and Under Hill, despite not being secrecy, the cards went quite well with the strategy as six of them were of cost 0.

i also think it is something they shall come back to- cycles like sneaking into mordor (for there is of course no other way ) i woul expect to have alot of secrecy

id also hope hobbits (where are they!!??) and silvan would have alot of secrecy

rich

richsabre said:

What I think is missing most from the secrecy cannon is allies. I was really expecting to see some of cost 3 secrecy 2 allies to boost early rounds when the hero is missing (as most secrecy deck will probably only have two heroes, though I think the best ones have Glorfindel and two other low cost heroes). Yet, we have only got one secrecy ally and he's for coop which is quite strange as I think solo is better suited for secrecy.

On a completely different note. Taking Initiative may have been meant as one of those secrecy supporting cards, have anyone had any success with it? I find it very, very bad.

i really dislike that card as a normal non-secrecy card- you have to discard at least 3 to start with assuming you have 3 heros left

i never really thought about it secrecy, could be an idea

rich

Secrecy mechanic is really good example how bad designers of FFG do they job sometimes. They invented it, start it and abandon it.

Who play this really? It doesn work. So for what they do it?

I think we just need forget about secrecy once and for all.

i dont think they should forget it- its a good idea, both themeatically and gamewise, its just underdeveloped

rich

" It would be best I think if the deluxe expansions were printed with all the rules needed (for any expansions) since that wouldn't add much to printing costs, but would make keywords like secrecy more accessible in the adventure packs. (Since it is assumed that you will own the deluxe expansion that ties in with that cycle)." Great point Rapier!

Good question.

I hope they do keep printing Secrecy stuff.

Glaurung said:

I do. It does work. It is fun.
Keep it.

Rapier said:

I think you are correct about this which is why I fear that Secrecy will be left out in the future cycles. It is a very good suggestion that FFG should simply add the Secrecy explanation to the deluxe set rule "book" which has multiple pages and better room than the adventure pack's one page rule sheets. Then, maybe, FFG could just put a short reference to the deluxe rules in the smaller adventure packs… FFG, please listen.

Good points all; you know, it's such a simple mechanic, new players could also learn about it by typing it into there google search engine.

it could just be solved by adding at the end of the rules insert a web link with 'errata and rules updates' on….well, ok not solved fully, as it assumes internet access, but so does the FAQ……

rich

It's okay to assume internet access for an FAQ.

Fantasy Flight seems very reluctant to assume internet access for basic products. Also their policy of reprinting rules for games has been shown in other multi-expansion areas.

I mean Arkham horror had to reprint rules that were introduced in the first expansion in every subsequent expansion because they were so basic as to be included in every future release - but FFG still couldn't assume people had any of the prior expansions in the last big box expansion they did. (which reprinted a load of rules).

I think FFG are probably right not to assume internet access - at least some people that play their games must be doing it because they can't play computer games as an alternative.

maybe they could have just done a general rule for secrecy, instead of doing specific ones for each card. eg… if you are running a secrecy deck then every single card is 1 or 2 cheaper.

they could have said something like… every 4 cost card in your deck becomes 2, every 3 or 2 cost card becomes 1, and every 1 card is free

i dont think they've abandoned it though. it kind of worked well in khazad-dum because it fit the story. but it wont work so well in the next one.

it would have worked quite well for shadows of mirkwood as well though, treking through the forest and across the hills. its a shame they didn't include them from the very start

looking at the newest pack spoiler i would say it works very well….all that assassin style creeping around.

rich

Cunir said:

I disagree, I think that having it be a rule on some cards and not others is much better (and easier) for them from a balancing perspective. It also means you could make two identical cards (in theory) and they only difference is one of them has secrecy. So it allows them to do more card variations.

In practice I would expect a card with secrecy as a keyword to cost 1 more than a card that didn't have the word. That way if you get it before your threat is too high you get to be cheaper, but if you fail you have the penalty of an extra resource cost. If (As in my simplified example above) the cost was the same then you'd never use the card without the secrecy keyword.

Yes for the above. I think the mechanic is ok, the card pool is poor. But I am in the group that likes the idea and I hope (and expect) to see more secrecy cards in the future.

PS: Some of the secrecy cards have great design and they are highly playable even without the discout (though I would never put them in a deck with no chance of reaching secrecy). Timely Aid, Risk Some Light, or O Elbereth, Gilthoniel! come to mind.

I have allso suggested to FFG that they will make collective expasion rules PDF for all of their scenarios. They have not released anything yet, but I am still hopefull, because it would make it much easier to find some of those obscure rules, at least in the long run!