Very good ideas. Congrats.

Came on lore sphere for Dúnedains!!! :

Solitary Ranger is a good idea, but the particular way you phrased the rule would create headaches for rule sticklers because it is too vague.

I suggest the following change:

"Engagement Action: Exhaust Solitary Ranger to choose a non unique enemy in the staging area. Until the end of the phase treat the enemy's text box as though it were blank."

It has almost the same impact, but it is much cleaner and easier to understand. It is also actually a better ability.

I think it should only work for the controlling player, not any player. Otherwise it's too powerful for a 1 cost repeatable effect.

Solitary Ranger is a good idea, but the particular way you phrased the rule would create headaches for rule sticklers because it is too vague.

I suggest the following change:

"Engagement Action: Exhaust Solitary Ranger to choose a non unique enemy in the staging area. Until the end of the phase treat the enemy's text box as though it were blank."

It has almost the same impact, but it is much cleaner and easier to understand. It is also actually a better ability.

You sure? I'm not really.... I see your version too much powerful. Just to cancel the engagement effect makes sense.

What do you think the other readers?

I think it should only work for the controlling player, not any player. Otherwise it's too powerful for a 1 cost repeatable effect.

ok, good, next review i will chenge 'after engaging an enemy' by 'after you engage an enemy'

If it is too powerful as is you can increase the cost. I think 3 would be about right. If it is problematic as a repeatable effect then you can discard the ally as part of the cost.

The problem I have with the wording, and the reason such a card would never be printed, is that you are not simply canceling an effect, you are canceling a specific type of effect, which requires interpretation. It may seem obvious, but e entually cases will emerge with differences in interpretation. It also sets a stylistic precedent in canceling types of card effects based on their context, rather than based on clear things like key words.

Technically you are not canceling an "engagement effect", you are canceling a "forced effect" that triggers when you engage the enemy. In order to stay consistent with standard syntax used in the game your wording should reflect that. Personally I think it is cleaner to blank the text as an action rather than cancel the effect as a response.

Just tinkering around with a new Halbarad hero since I don't really care for the first one.

And here is an event. I originally wanted to make you have to exhaust the characters before questing, similar to how Gildor's Counsel or Expecting Mischief work. But then the language to get them to attack the first enemy proved to be pretty problematic. Here is what I ended up with.

Just a fun concept I was tossing around in my head for some time and finally had some time to perform it:

I like it! What worries me is that, If the allies die, Kerren lose the resource icon permanently.

There are songs, you know

Please! Don´t make me use Songs! I hate then =O. Why are you so evil? T_T

UPDATED: Made a couple of changes. They're certainly not superior to Test of Will, but make it possible to have some "when revealed" cancellation without running a Spirit Deck. Unexpected Foe I just changed to Leadership and bumped the cost to 1. "Lost Blade" I clarified and reworded.

Came on lore sphere for Dúnedains!!! :

I agree with DukeWellington about the phrasing. His idea send just fine since it only works until the end of the engagement phase. I also agree it is to strong for a 1-cost repeatable card. Besides, Dunedain allies tend to be big expensive allies.

Just tinkering around with a new Halbarad hero since I don't really care for the first one.

And here is an event. I originally wanted to make you have to exhaust the characters before questing, similar to how Gildor's Counsel or Expecting Mischief work. But then the language to get them to attack the first enemy proved to be pretty problematic. Here is what I ended up with.

I really like this Halbarad, and Laying in Wait is very very similar to a card I showed in this thread a LONG time ago. The only real difference is that I don't think I allowed more than one character to attack, but I may have given an attack boost.

Just a fun concept I was tossing around in my head for some time and finally had some time to perform it:

Very interesting. Rhen feels a bit under-costed though. In any case, are you allowed more than one copy of Rhen or Melissa?

Why? By the FFG own standards, attack is cheaper than willpower. The intent was: you start the game with 1 copy of both out of play allies in the out of play zone. Once they leave the out of play zone - they don't come back there.

Rhen costs 2 for a total of 6 stat points, which is above average (Melissa's 5 points for 2 resources is already above average). Also, he's the equivalent of song of battle and a minor weapon for Kerren.

Even if attack is cheaper than willpower, which I don't believe is entirely accurate, you also have him with one more defense than Melissa. I don't see why you would give him +1 stat point compared to her.

Your biggest mistake is the fact that you're trying to evaluate those allies based on their cost and stats, like they're usual ones, but BAM - they're not. First of all - they're specific to one single hero, then - they're can only be put into play once, and only by two rounds worth of resources from that exact hero, so if you don't use anything to boost his resources - it's going to take 4 turns and all resources generated by him during that time to bring them in, not to mention the fact that you're practically strained during that time, having technically only two heroes with an actual sphere to pay for colored stuff.

Well, FFG wants a word with you, because they have been overpricing Willpower over Attack and Defense for ages.

Example: Dunedain signals for attack and defense cost 1, and the one for willpower costs 2.

Recent Example: Mithlond Sea-Watcher and Warden of the Havens both get +2 of their representative attack or defense if the top card of the discard pile is right, while the Sailor of Lune only gets +1 willpower. They all cost 2 resources.

You're also seem to be missing the fact that no one in their right mind is going to defend with this ally, because if it leaves play - it's almost impossible to bring him back, meaning this 1 defense is going to be wasted unless the Siege quest.

Willpower is generally more expensive, but then again, it's also way easier to build up in most cases via things like Sword that was Broken or Faramir. I think Sailor of Lune only gets +1 partially because h is inability to be damaged during arising is a potentially very powerful ability.

Honestly, though, John, I understand your arguments. I just don't think Melissa and Rhen should have a differing number of stat points, regardless of how they are laid out. Just my opinion, which definitely isn't necessarily one that matters a whole lot on this case.

While inability to be damaged when questing is indeed strong - it's passive, not agressive, like other two. Archer Gal gets +2 atk and ranged, the Defender Guy gets +2 def and sentinel (and he has 3 base health), they get +2 of their unconditional effective stat and an additional optional ability that may or may not prove helpful, just like the Sailor, but he still gets only +1 of his main stat.

The lore dunedain hero everybody is wishing:

Why is she shooting the ground?

¬.¬

Why your avatar is looking at the side instead the center?

The lore dunedain hero everybody is wishing:

I like the card, really like the idea that he gets two abilities depending on quantity of enemies engaged and the second ability is fine. Would it be possible for the first ability be something else? Cirdan, a hero also, and Erestor already does that.

I like the card, really like the idea that he gets two abilities depending on quantity of enemies engaged and the second ability is fine. Would it be possible for the first ability be something else? Cirdan, a hero also, and Erestor already does that.

Cirdan is spirit and Erestor is a leadership Ally. Daeron's runes are almost the same effect too. I like that card cycling is basically inefficient draw.

I like the card, really like the idea that he gets two abilities depending on quantity of enemies engaged and the second ability is fine. Would it be possible for the first ability be something else? Cirdan, a hero also, and Erestor already does that.

Cirdan is spirit and Erestor is a leadership Ally. Daeron's runes are almost the same effect too. I like that card cycling is basically inefficient draw.

But that mechanic is derived from Noldor characters (which our girl isnt) and we getting a lot of similar effects in this cycle. I think that it is a good opportunity to do something new with Renwad. Just saying that the card could be better designed and cooler if she did something else.