Keep in mind with Gwaihir - if you are dealing damage when they enter play, it means the enemies weren't killed last round and already made their attacks. If you are dealing damage when they leave play, it means that you are losing an ally on the table.

How much direct damage you you sustain with the eagles like this? Maybe 2-3 damage per round? I think Thalin, Ranger Bows, Expecting Mischief, and other direct damage effects are on the same level. And some of those effects are better because they don't happen during planning.

Gwaihir would also make Descendant of Thorondor into a great Sneak Attack ally. The only thing better would be to sneak attack in Gwaihir ally and bring in Descendant from the discard pile, but you can't do that with the hero in play .

Could someone write down the text box and stats for Gwaihir and Legolas? I can´t see the images.

Could someone write down the text box and stats for Gwaihir and Legolas? I can´t see the images.

Gwaihir:

Tactics, hero, 10 threat, 2 will power, 3 attack, 1 defense, 4 hit points

Response: After an eagle ally enter or leaves play, deal 1 damage to any enemy in play.

Legolas:

Leadership, ally 1 cost, 1 willpower 3 attack, 1 defense, 3 hit points

Ranged

Action: Play Legolas from your hand paying his cost

At the end of the phase if Legolas is still in play return him to your hand

I like Gwaihir as it is, but I wouldn't object to a per-phase limit. Looking more closely though, if you're not putting the limit on him, I would definitely make him only trigger off of eagles you control. Not that I expect to see a 4 player game with everyone running eagles, but if you're clever (looking at you Seastan), you could advise the heck out of it in 2 player games probably and never end up fighting enemies.

Eh, just because . . . Flame of the West . . . yada yada.

Spirit Beregond, or "Speregond," as it were.

Some thoughts on bringing back the Encounter keyword with locations, following up on a thread from a little while ago.

I'd love to see something like these encampments in the real game. Nice job.

As for the Spirit Beregond, he seems insanely good! Spirit can anything apparently...

Some thoughts on bringing back the Encounter keyword with locations, following up on a thread from a little while ago.

These are goddamn epic. Exactly what I want to see from the encounter keyword in the future! Positive player locations that are sort of like side quests but at the same time quite different because you can still make progress on the main quest stage while clearing them but also because they appear randomly from the encounter deck rather than being played during planning like side quests. These are fairly similar to ones I thought of a while ago but a bit more refined and with art to boot!

I really like the event you have created as well as it removes BOTH of the awful drawbacks of Ranger Summons.

First off you get to draw a card at the least so at least it has an immediate effect and you are not paying for something that may never actually happen. Secondly it requires you to destroy an enemy with a ranger character rather than costing resources which was the other major issue with ranger summons; paying a resource for something that could effectively never see play or completely fizzle as a shadow card. Foray into shadow not only provides an instant effect (albiet something that is pretty simple) by letting you draw a card but also doesn't make you spend resources for this effect that might never go off.

I think this is fantastic design and would actually be happy with pretty much these exact cards as real cards in the game.

Increasing engagement cost of enemies while at a "player" location is perfect mechanically and thematically.

Also lastly because the player locations are only temporary and not potentially permanent like the Ranger of the North they are nowhere near as powerful so it makes even more sense that the event does not cost resources and has an extra effect of drawing you a card. You have made me REALLY hope that they further the "encounter" keyword now and that we get some great player locations

I like the mechanic a lot, but would be tempted to either make them zero threat or remove Surge (I would lean zero threat). I'm not sure if this would make them too powerful or not, but potentially adding the extra threat of contributing to location lock could be an issue

yeah I would remove surge actually, threat and surge together is a bit much..

I like the mechanic a lot, but would be tempted to either make them zero threat or remove Surge (I would lean zero threat). I'm not sure if this would make them too powerful or not, but potentially adding the extra threat of contributing to location lock could be an issue

How do they look with no surge? I was following the precedent of Ranger of the North, but thinking about it further, surge makes more sense on an objective ally than it does on a friendly location.

It would depend on how you want them to interfere with the encounter deck. As zero threat locations with Surge, they don't interfere with the encounter deck at all (unless they come up as harmless shadow cards). As non-Surge locations with a token threat, they will be one minimally-damaging card coming off during staging, that still works against the players until they travel there (and could contribute to location lock).

Personally, I like them a bit more as zero threat, keeping surge. This way they provide a travel option to the players that would give them a bit of a reprieve, but only if there isn't a more critical location to get out of the staging area

Surge would still contribute to location lock just not as badly as them having threat.

even if it is a beneficial location it is still at risk of being under attack from enemies or attracting enemies due to a lit fire or one of a million other reasons it is thematic to still have threat even on a player location.

I get that them having threat contributes to location lock but honestly I think surge can potentially be far worse for the players in most situations. Even at 0 threat they can always be boosted by encounter effects or have nasty condition attachments as well as rare as this might be. Also if they have 0 threat it means you can literally just leave them in staging till you need them the most during an entire game because it has absolutely no negative effect whatsoever just sitting in staging if it has 0 threat.
I think it is more thematic, forces you to still make difficult decisions during travel (do I travel to the awful 4 threat location with a nasty effect and get it out of staging or do I only clear 2 threat but reap an additional reward from doing so) and overall seems better designed with a low threat value than with surge. I'm pretty biased though as I hate surge and think there should only ever be 2 or 3 cards in any quest that have surge I also use power decks and refuse to stop using Glorfindel purely because of Asfaloth so I rarely encounter location lock these days.

Don't get me wrong totally get where you are coming from but I think surge is potentially more damaging and makes more sense on allies with the encounter keyword than it does on locations with the encounter keyword. I also feel like locations, even player ones, should always have threat even if it is very low because thematically there is always a risk in travelling to a new location whether it be something you run into whilst travelling to said location or something you didn't initially see or realise about said location.

That's a totally valid point, and I completely agree. I was mostly giving the zero-threat & keep surge argument because it wouldn't mess as much (necessarily) with what the encounter deck is trying to do as the low-threat non-surge version of the locations would. You're right that it does create a more interesting choice for the players that way

Yes, I know this is mindlessly powerful and basically a Steward of Gondor for Noldor, but I made this precisely because I'm getting tired of using A Good Harvest + Steward in all my decks, especially Noldor. I would love it if this existed to replace it.

Yes, I know this is mindlessly powerful and basically a Steward of Gondor for Noldor, but I made this precisely because I'm getting tired of using A Good Harvest + Steward in all my decks, especially Noldor. I would love it if this existed to replace it.

I like this card a lot and I don't think it's overpowered at all. However I think it's in the wrong sphere, since it's based on discarding it should be spirit.

Not necessarily. Look at Erestor, Protector of Lórien, Galdor both hero and ally, and the Grey Havens in general. There's discard stuff in all spheres, and after Spirit definitely comes Lore. I made this Lore since all the most important attachments in Noldor are already Spirit.

Glad you liked the card though, thanks!

Yeah, it definitely should be in one sphere with Arwen

It's Arwen that is problematic, she abuses a lot of mechanics. New cards shouldn't be made handicapped by desitn.

Unfortunately, they should. It's a price you pay when create "an awesome" card - you now must always consider it when you create all other cards in the future. That's what I was talking about when I claimed that Dain Ironfoot weakens every released dwarf ally by merely existing.

There is some merit to what you are saying John. However, considering how well-costed and powerful in their own right the new dwarven allies are, I'd say that the designers don't follow your design paradigm, which I still think it's for the best.

I'm glad they don't do it now, but look back. You'll find a ton of weak dwarf allies, understatted specifically for Dain.

Yes I agree with you. So now that you admit the designers no longer intentionally weaken cards because of certain powerful heroes, we agree that Sunstone of Lindon should be spirit regardless of Arwen?

Ally stat balance and attachment ability balance is a tad different thing. I don't think this attachment should even exist at all due to existance of Arwen because it will snowball her out of proportion. I already got a deck that generates around 6 resources per turn (with Arwen and without Leadership), would I have this attachment, I would be playing stuff like crazy.

The biggest problem for me with this attachment is that it mimics Arwen's effect. Discarding 1 card for 1 resource is already god **** good trade. With this attachment, you'll be discarding 1 card for 2 resources, and then with at least 1 Haph you'll be just gaining 2 resources per turn losing nothing.

If you can already generate that many resources gaining even more isn't worth much. You won't have the card draw necessary to use them all anyway.