Caleb has just written in the preview that he likes to read what people think about his efforts: the feedback naturally wanted in any enterprise. Well, I think he can be pleased with the reaction to the just concluding cycle, the consensus tends to be it has been the best cycle yet.

At the same time, I do not think there has ever been such a unanimous negative reaction to anything in the game as there is now to the Outlands faction. For most of the players, this is an utter miss. And the only argument there seems to be for them is the fact that they can help new players be introduced to the game. I would argue against it, yes, it can help them win straight away but it might still feel strange and will not teach them to play in any good way, it will do the exact opposite, I feel, it will just show them some obvious moves which do no correspond with how the game usually runs (with more interesting decks).

So I am really curious what shall be done about the Outlands. And before the yells begin, I am not talking about errata, or leastways I do not even believe it might be that very helpful. For myself I actually got so tired with the trait that I might not pick them up even if they are shafted. And I cannot really see how they could be, though I feel the three most obvious cards that would need to be shafted are Herdsman, Men of the West - as two incredible safety cushions, and Lord of Morthond as a cheap draw engine.

For me the disappointment is ever so bitter because of how I had been looking forward to them when Hunter of Lamedon appeared in HoN. He seemed perfect then, I especially liked him being double-traited. But it went as we now know, and it may be a great lesson for the designers to learn. But for now I feel bad having some 28 cards in my box that shall never see the light of game.

this is a difficult one, but my answer is a little different from what others may expect - build upon them....

...i know no one wants to get more outlands cards, myself amongst them, but expanding the race is the only way to make them into an enjoyable part of this game

the real problem with outlands is there is no deck building options- the current outlands cards are just so obvious that even theme players like me find it hard to change the current line up

however if more options were to be added, most importantly more heroes so we dont have to run the center of all the outlands power, hirluin, then outlands at the very least could become playable to those who are able to make weaker decks by choice

i agree outlands are bad cards, and also agree that its a shame. what is worst is that they all came in one pack, which probably made things worst. but the only way to make them any better is to slowly release more outlands cards in the next cycle- sadly something i, and most, probably dont want

rich

This is a very interesting paradox, Richard. Thanks for the contribution. I think perhaps it might work, but errata would still probably be inevitable in order not to reach ridiculous territories.

agreed, it probably is. i doubt any of use, after a whole cycle, wants to return to gondor's fiefdoms until the saga time. but this leads to another question.....which to errata? the 3 you write are a good start, but there are still the 4 sphere's worth of power allies that are being boosted by each other....this is the toughest part....unlike dain for example, each card is being boosted by each other making for a complex web of power.

i wonder if there is a simple addition that can be had...such as all of the 'gains +1 X' type outlands allies get

"only works on heroes" or something similar

perhaps this would be too much?

this is a difficult one, but my answer is a little different from what others may expect - build upon them....

...i know no one wants to get more outlands cards, myself amongst them, but expanding the race is the only way to make them into an enjoyable part of this game

the real problem with outlands is there is no deck building options- the current outlands cards are just so obvious that even theme players like me find it hard to change the current line up

however if more options were to be added, most importantly more heroes so we dont have to run the center of all the outlands power, hirluin, then outlands at the very least could become playable to those who are able to make weaker decks by choice

i agree outlands are bad cards, and also agree that its a shame. what is worst is that they all came in one pack, which probably made things worst. but the only way to make them any better is to slowly release more outlands cards in the next cycle- sadly something i, and most, probably dont want

rich

Those are some really good thoughts.

Maybe a solution would be that the first outland character from each sphere that enters play only boosts once, and once the boost is activated it will not increase when more of the same sphere outland charcter is added So, the highest stats for a 1/1/1/1 character will get would be 2/2/2/2 if one of each outland sphere is in play, and that would be the cap regardless of how many more are added. If the only repersentitive of a sphere is destroyed then the boost is lost until it is rplaced by another of the same sphere. The 0/0/0/1 characters would be 1/1/1/2' and hurluin would cap at 2/2/2/5 seems normal for a hero, he still costs 8 but you have to work to boost him. Forlong 2/2/2/4

They still would be pretty strong. But the highest will power you could get would be 2 for all the 2 cost outland characters, of which there are 9, so if you sent all of the 2 cost allies questing that would only be 18 willpower compared to 36. The first number might not blow through a quest stage the second will almost certainly crush almost every quest card around.

That being said i really like some of these. Outlands in decks all on their own the way they are now, but i would still play Ether swordsmen if he did not boost other copies of himself when he entered play, 2/1/1/1 is pretty good for the cost of 2.

Maybe I will play them this way and see how it works. I think the change might scale them down a bit. They will stull be a powerful faction, but not ridiculously powerful.

agreed, it probably is. i doubt any of use, after a whole cycle, wants to return to gondor's fiefdoms until the saga time. but this leads to another question.....which to errata? the 3 you write are a good start, but there are still the 4 sphere's worth of power allies that are being boosted by each other....this is the toughest part....unlike dain for example, each card is being boosted by each other making for a complex web of power.

i wonder if there is a simple addition that can be had...such as all of the 'gains +1 X' type outlands allies get

"only works on heroes" or something similar

perhaps this would be too much?

I was wondering if along lines of allies could receive a max of +1 per trait or perhaps traits could only be increased to a max of 2 & Hero(s) a max of +2 per trait.

I think that the danger an errata hammer with Outlands is; if it makes them fairly average and undesirable to new players, (especially if this is indeed their target audience) then it would be even worst... as they'll still unlikely to be used by many of the more experienced players, whether under or over powered cos they be quite boring to play... unless like Richsabre pointed out... there were lots of deck options or another faction synergy... and i'm not sure that anyone would be too excited about this.

The grey company had some interesting ideas too; such as making all the '+1 allies' increase in cost, ie 2 points for the 1st swordsman, 3 for the 2nd, 4 for the 3rd... or making all the allies start with 0 for their traits etc...

At the same time, I do not think there has ever been such a unanimous negative reaction to anything in the game as there is now to the Outlands faction. For most of the players, this is an utter miss. And the only argument there seems to be for them is the fact that they can help new players be introduced to the game. I would argue against it, yes, it can help them win straight away but it might still feel strange and will not teach them to play in any good way, it will do the exact opposite, I feel, it will just show them some obvious moves which do no correspond with how the game usually runs (with more interesting decks).

Agreed! so much passion people have for a game this game with big highs and lows or, maybe likes and dislikes is more accurate, in this cycle... good times!

Maybe a solution would be that the first outland character from each sphere that enters play only boosts once, and once the boost is activated it will not increase when more of the same sphere outland charcter is added So, the highest stats for a 1/1/1/1 character will get would be 2/2/2/2 if one of each outland sphere is in play, and that would be the cap regardless of how many more are added. If the only repersentitive of a sphere is destroyed then the boost is lost until it is rplaced by another of the same sphere. The 0/0/0/1 characters would be 1/1/1/2' and hurluin would cap at 2/2/2/5 seems normal for a hero, he still costs 8 but you have to work to boost him. Forlong 2/2/2/4

They still would be pretty strong. But the highest will power you could get would be 2 for all the 2 cost outland characters, of which there are 9, so if you sent all of the 2 cost allies questing that would only be 18 willpower compared to 36. The first number might not blow through a quest stage the second will almost certainly crush almost every quest card around.

That being said i really like some of these. Outlands in decks all on their own the way they are now, but i would still play Ether swordsmen if he did not boost other copies of himself when he entered play, 2/1/1/1 is pretty good for the cost of 2.

Maybe I will play them this way and see how it works. I think the change might scale them down a bit. They will stull be a powerful faction, but not ridiculously powerful.

Yes something along those lines might work... though I would be happy to differentiate hero's and allies +1 for allies, +2 for Hero's... yes Hirluin could end up 3/3/3/5... but I don't think that Hurluin is too much of an issue...

Maybe a solution would be that the first outland character from each sphere that enters play only boosts once, and once the boost is activated it will not increase when more of the same sphere outland charcter is added.

I was writing this pretty much before I noticed you had. Yeah, without making the four unique, the bonus could simply just work once for each stat. I think they could easily come up with a wording good enough for that... And it could make a world of a difference...

I honestly cannot connect with the reason why people hate Outlands.

People say they are boring to deck build with, but there are plenty of variety.

Hirluin and Elrond seems to be such an obvious choices, but the other 2 heroes makes enough difference to deploy different strategy.

People say that Outlands are too strong, but it's not like Outlands let's you play 'faster' compared to other decks.

Sure they are pretty strong when you get enough allies out, but once you survive initial onslaughter of encounter deck and have about 6 ~ 16 allies in play, any deck should become a powerhouse.

Men of West? Lord of Morthond? These are more like mono-sphere boosters than Outlands booster for without them, mono-leadership Outlands would be much worse than other archetype for Outlands, nor do those cards make mono-leadership Outlands more powerful than other archetypes.

Also you don't need to use them all or none at all. Except for Forlong and lore outlanders, Outlands allies are also great addition to any existing decks.

Steward's Fear being an excellent gateway for newer players is an icing on top.

There absolutely have to be a pack that a new player can pick up and have chance of building half decent deck or else this game will die out early.

For example, in one of team covnent's videos, Caleb and Matt are aware of Steed of Mark being inferior to Unexpected Courage in many ways, but hints that since Steed has mount trait, there is a good chance the Mark will eventually recieve some sort of buff from other cards.

Let's say that became true in next Cycle.

For us old fans with all the expansions this is a good news; previously shafted card became competetive without having to go through errata. Yay!

Mount decks became so hot (since they would be latest power deck and people seems to love the idea of mounts) everyone on the forum is talking about the Mount decks.

Let's say a new player who wants to dive into the game and would also like to try out the latest hot deck, they would need Core Set, Voice of Isengard Delux, whatever packs containing Mount cards in that Cycle (probably 4 or more seeing as how other traits were spread), the packs containing Mounts from previous Cycles (1 from AtS and 1 from Dwarrowdelf), and unless they also buy Delux expansions of those Cycles, the quest from those 2 packs are useless.

And similar situation holds true for other powerful deck types (for example Dwarf decks are spread between 2 Cycles and 2 Saga Expansions).

So without a single pack containing self-sustainable 'decent' deck, new players have less reason to get into this awsome game; you buy latest expansions, only to find out your deck cannot even beat easy mode, complain on the forum and all the replies say 'it's not that impossible, just go back and buy old adventure packs', realize you need to buy couple packs from this Cycle and couple packs from that cycle, then find out half of the contents of the old adventure packs you bought are useless without their corresponding Delux Cycle...... unless you are patient enough to start from beginning and slowly work you way up, why would anyone spend that much money to try and get into a game he/she isn't sure if they will love?

I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but buff underdog cards using traits, give what initially appears to be simple, powerful decks in first adventure pack (or delux expansion) of new Cycle, and have a second deck type get slowly built over the adventure packs. Rather than nerfing Outlands, buff existing traits to a similar powerlevel of Outlands / Dwarf / Noldor.

Edit: I think people hate the idea of Outlands, not because of Outlands themselves but happening around the same time.

- People were expecting Gondor traits to be buffed, and was excited how their Guards of Citedel will finally see some play time, but after initial exciting Gondor cards at Heirs of Numenor delux, Gondor cards we got in the actual Cycle were too few and too weak. Visionary Leader may fix this, but it came out little too late and publicity is already made that Outlands trait 'stole' spotlight that should've been on Gondor trait.

- Although mono sphere is great in multiplayers and in select scenarios, they were not the kind of card people are excited to add to their deck. Most cards we got out of this Cycle holds promising future, but their current form is absolute disappointment compared cards we have already. We got new quests to test our decks against, but it felt like we got no cards to add to our existing decks... except for those darn Outlands that stole Gondor's glory. People probably know that Outland is just a word for Gondorians who are residing outside of central area (Anorien, Osgiliath, Ithilien), but that doesn't really do anything to change their mind.

- Iconic characters were 'ruined'. Denethor ally card is okay when you take a second look at it, but it doesn't live up to the name Denethor. I can see why they did it, I can see how he might be useful, but no way that card deserved to be called Denethor. Faramir card is okay, but for some reason developers didn't give us a chance to use him. Why would you release such an iconic hero that everyone was looking forward to then make him literally unplayable in the climatic adventure packs to follow?

Ok, designers may be glad the Outlands get at least some supporter among the community.

But one of your arguments basically sends the rest down the flush. Because when you say that any of the Outlands are great addition to non-Outlands decks, and you are right (in terms of power - and even enjoyment), then it is clear when you make an all-out Outland deck that it is overpowered. And it is, just play enough repetition and you shall see. Of course you can still lose but the chances are just enormously with you, and you don't even have to think about it much, you just pull them out. When I began to crush the Battle of Lake-town with them, repeatedly, I knew something was wrong. And as for the choices, no, there are few, not many, you just want them all if you want a strong deck.

And no, again, powering up other traits to the Outlands level is probably the last thing this game needs. We may need more treachery cancelation - for the variety - or even different card draw for different factions - and more synergies to the non-developed factions like Silvan, but the existing ones, and I am talking Gondor which some still think not strong enough, are competent pretty much on every level (against any quest).

As for new players, they don't need Outlands. I did well with a Core set, and I am sure others can. Buy one or two expansions and you're set. Learn to play the hard way, it will be more enjoyable in the long run.

I feel like ultimately outlands were a great way to give something strong to new players. I have fun with them, and sometimes I prefer not to use them. Peril in Pelargir and the like have tons of things to kill off allies without vast HP, it's not like there was never a counter-balance.

I honestly cannot connect with the reason why people hate Outlands.

Me neither.

It's just not that big a deal.

Cards don't get errated because they are not fun to play.

It's quite obvious that Outlands are powerful, but so are other more complex strategies. Outlands only require to pay resource, drop the ally, and go for the win.

I personnaly mix them with other strategies in order not to get too bored, and it works great.

I personnaly mix them with other strategies in order not to get too bored, and it works great.

That's my approach as well. I will sprinkle the cheap Outlands allies into my Gondor decks just to have a bit more variety. I've actually only done an Outlands-specific deck once, and it was very efficient at pumping out allies (I believe I had over 12 allies in play at one time!) but it just wasn't that interesting for me. So, in order to not get bored, I do the mixing strategy now.

Cards don't get errated because they are not fun to play.

It's quite obvious that Outlands are powerful, but so are other more complex strategies. Outlands only require to pay resource, drop the ally, and go for the win.

I personnaly mix them with other strategies in order not to get too bored, and it works great.

I think you just nailed.it. The reason why Outlands are so powerfull is that you only need card draw and resource generatiin and you are rolling. Dwarves (even without Dain) and Noldor/Silvan are forces can be as strong or stronger than Outlands but they take a lot more time to build up. Another reason i think Outlands are strong is that they depend too much on others factions cards. For example you need soke solid card draw for them to be effective and so you have to use either Beravor or some dwarf with King under the Mountain. I would really like more carda that could possibly make them more thematic but i guess they might become even more powerfull.

I honestly cannot connect with the reason why people hate Outlands.

Me neither.

Me neither too.

About Outlands. If you play a Nightmare mode they are ok for solo.

but un 2 or 3 players game regarding a nightmare or normal they are broken.

So I also hate them and believe we dont need cards like this .

about erattas. Erratas and times to times rules corrections is a part if this kind of games.

Since game is very complex and new cards all the time coming without corrections and some cards erratas game cannot be healthy. Is a matter of fact nothing alse. Caleb is trying to do his best for that. I cannot say he us brilliant but his on his way and maybe un the end of the day he will make it.

I again agree with you Glaurung, I think Caleb is on his way, and he seems to be very careful about his choices; these many-coloured guys seem to be the only real miss he has done with the cycle.

But one of your arguments basically sends the rest down the flush. Because when you say that any of the Outlands are great addition to non-Outlands decks, and you are right (in terms of power - and even enjoyment), then it is clear when you make an all-out Outland deck that it is overpowered. And it is, just play enough repetition and you shall see. Of course you can still lose but the chances are just enormously with you, and you don't even have to think about it much, you just pull them out. When I began to crush the Battle of Lake-town with them, repeatedly, I knew something was wrong. And as for the choices, no, there are few, not many, you just want them all if you want a strong deck.

I admit Outlands are powerful, but so are the only other race that is developed... Dwarves.

I feel like Battle of Lake-town is really bad example for this specific case.

Usually it is one of the highest diffculty quest, but any decent deck that was designed to pull 2 or more cheap allies per turn should be able to smash that quest.

I agree Outlands are powerful, but so are Dwarves. And Vilya deck is a very close behind them.

You can build Outlands to be faster than other decks and get them rolling faster, but those decks are weak against enemy heavy scenarios.

You can play it safe and build Outlands at normal speed, but there are other decks that can achieve the same effect in that given amount of turn with same level of safetyness.

Although there is one good point against the Outlands that I have missed; multiplayer.

All my arguements for them having been made for solo play situations.

I haven't considered a case where ther is a second deck designed to hold encounter decks at bay while Outlands deck focuses on snowballing and snowballing only.

If that is the case, I can see now why people might call Outlands stupid.

But still I would like to see this issue resolved by buffing existing cards (perhaps attachment type can be buffed up so overall meta would shift from ally focused to more balanced one) rather than nerfing existing cards.

I cannot quite agree with the Lake-town simplification. The treachery (Close to the Fire, or what it is called) will wipe weak allies - even if numerous. But the Outlands can quite easily overcome (or avoid) that with Herdsman and Men of the West; and Dwarves with Hardy Leadership.

The difference about the swarm is you pull out "Gandalfs" with the above. The Dwarves without Daín (and Legacy of Dúrin perhpas) would be quite fine.

Only a few points to make.

First, the claim in the OP that "I do not think there has ever been such a unanimous negative reaction to anything in the game as there is now to the Outlands faction" is perhaps a bit extreme. Certainly the Outlands faction has led to a lot of discussion, but it's not been uniformly negative. Not everyone is reacting in a negative fashion as noted by several people earlier in this thread. For my part, I like what the faction brought to the game.

Second, I do agree that an all Outlands focussed deck can be boring to run - once a player manages to get N allies in play that act like Gandalf, then yes, most scenarios will be easy to beat. Given that i'm into this game as much for exploring building decks and trying out new themes, this is not a problem - I'll just go create a different deck.

Third, not much has been noted (that I've read) about how Outlands can provide support even when you don't include all of them. For example, if you get three copies of Knight of the Swans into play then you have combined attack power equal to three Vassals of the Windlord and the Knights don't leave play after attacking. Similar things can be noted for the other spheres. The benefits to a new player just starting is that all this is one pack

I again agree with you Glaurung, I think Caleb is on his way, and he seems to be very careful about his choices; these many-coloured guys seem to be the only real miss he has done with the cycle.

I'm not sure how much Caleb had control over the Against the Shadow cycle. I think I remember reading that the Hobbit and Black Riders saga boxes were the first ones he's had full control over...

Yes, you are right, it seems the reaction is not as unanimous. And I am glad I sort of provoked those who usually have little to no input on the boards (and for long periods I count myself among them) to voice their opinion.

Still, from what I read, the view is rather unanimous, though the way of arguing differs. As I had pointed earlier, the fact that Outlands work well in different decks - i.e. using only one of their spheres - contributes to their over-powering nature as a whole.

And again, I would argue that they are not beneficial for new players at all. I see no point of providing the new players with an easy start that will teach them nothing about the mechanics of the game, save that they can win. Whenever they pick a different deck, they would be shattered, most likely, suddenly not being able to produce "Gandalfs" at every turn.

In my case, and I am sure others apply here too, starting with the core set only was beneficial for my learning process. There were very few cards to start with, yet the quests were very hard, so they were really pushing you to do your best, to find new ways. On the contrary, when a new player now takes the Outlands deck, he might start winning right away against most of the quests, I do not think that bring much fun into the matter, and it may surely feel disappointing to him when he picks up, say, a Gondor deck (and I do have a Gondor mono-Leadership deck that can beat pretty much anything, but I doubt new players would win much with it).