Metagame: Part 5 – FAQs and an Evolving Metagame

Confused BearThe latest FAQ is hot off the presses, so it seems like a good time to take a step back and take stock of the meta-game. The Ring-maker cycle has just completed, and players are eagerly anticipating the release of the Lost Realm deluxe expansion and the next installment in the ongoing narrative of the Saga expansions. The general consensus is that the game is improving with each release, and this is certainly an opinion which I share. Still, with familiarity and love for this game comes a desire to see it become the best possible version of itself.

The Good

The most recent cycles and saga expansions have given us some great player cards. As cycles go, Against the Shadow might not have had the strongest heroes, but it bestowed a wealth of important cards, including Visionary Leadership, Gondorian Shield, Pelargir Shipwright and Mithrandir’s Advice.  Even the mono-sphere cards, which might seem like a missed opportunity now, will only become more powerful as the pool of available heroes grows. Ever card does not need to be a game-changer for the metagame to shift; support cards play important roles too.

Celeborn-TDT-smallBy contrast, the Ring-maker cycle gave us fantastic heroes like Celeborn, Mablung, Galadriel and Haldir. The deluxe expansions themselves bolstered Gondor and Rohan respectively, with Beregond and Éomer opening up new dimensions for Tactics decks. The saga expansions introduced Hobbit decks and one of the most powerful characters in the game in the hero version of Gandalf. These brief highlights don’t even begin to cover all of the other player cards in these expansions. All told, the player card pool has not only increased significantly in quantity, but quality as well.

Celeborn is a good example of a change in the design of recent heroes. Powerful, but not overly so, he forms the core of a new archetype, but not in a one-dimension way. Whereas the bonus from Dáin leads to Dwarf decks that play in a very straight-forward manner, Silvan decks involve a lot more decisions. When to play which ally, when to return a Silvan, and which one to return are all up for grabs. It even makes a big difference which event card you use to return a Silvan and the all-important moment when you stop the holding pattern and make a concerted push for victory.

Dain IronfootAll of these decisions are present in a Silvan deck, because of the various effects that form the core of this strategy. This is not to say that Dwarf decks don’t involve choices – every deck involves many decisions. However, the nature of “enters play” and “leaves play” effects is that they involve a great variety of decisions, and lead to decks with flexibility but less brute strength. This represents an interesting change in the style of archetypes in the game. Where a competitive card game might ban or restrict a card like Dáin, this game has wisely give him a more subtle but effective punishment – it has made him boring.

Many of the new heroes in the recent sets lead to these kinds of more nuanced strategies. Like the Silvan archetype, decks that feature Éomer and Prince Imrahil play with less traditional rhythm. Rather than try to get as many allies into play as quickly as possible, these decks tend to stay at a fairly constant number of characters. There aim is less about using an army to overwhelm the enemy, and more about taking advantage of heroes with powerful abilities and attachments. While this might at first seem to be a strictly inferior strategy, quests like The Dunland Trap underscore how a deck designed to utilize fewer characters and more response triggers can have tangible advantages.

If tempo decks aren’t your preference, the new cycles have provided plenty of support for Aggro decks as well. Mablung is an interesting example of a theme that we should see more of in the upcoming Lost Realm expansion: engagement-related effects. Not only is resource acceleration a great benefit for the cash-strapped Tactics sphere, but this ability fits in perfectly with other Aggro-style cards like Westfold Outrider and The Hammer-stroke. His Gondor trait is also quite useful as it allows him to use attachments like Gondorian Shield and Gondorian Fire – the latter a particularly good fit.

Aragorn-TLREnts and Dunedain look to bring their own unique twists on strategy. The nice thing about having a sizable card pool is that we have a decent number of Dúnedain cards already, so it should not too many more cards before a new archetype emerges for this trait. Tactics Aragorn in particular should be at the heart of some very interesting Aggro-style decks. Ents are still in a nascent form, with Treebeard having just been released, but they are already powerful, while still presenting unique challenges to deck-building. These are all signs of a growing and healthy metagame, and speak well for the future of the game as a whole.

A Growing card pool allows for decks which are both thematic and powerful. In the past, these two attributes tended to be mutually exclusive for all but a few powerful traits. With both branches growing in parallel, saga cards and cycle cards are combining to provide an interesting mix of cards. Archetypes like Hobbits and Gandalf decks obviously did not exist before, but there have also been more subtle shifts in the metagame. Cards like Dagger of Westernesse, Elf-stone and ally versions of Boromir and Galadriel can fit into many different kinds of decks, for example.

Another advantage of all of this diversity is that we can finally ween ourselves off of Dain, Glorfindel, Elrond, and other power cards. This is not to say that these are bad, but an over-reliance on any set of cards leads to an anemic metagame. Variety is important for keeping the game fresh and challenging. What’s more, these heroes can also been included in decks in which they are not necessarily the sole focus, but play more supporting roles.

We have also seen old traits and embryonic archetypes given new life. As of the Dwarrowdelf cycle, Rohan had the first glimmer of a Tactics deck. Certainly, Háma represented an eponymous archetype ever since The Long Dark. Thanks to Éomer, Firefoot, Rohan Warhorse and the fantastic Westfold Outrider (one of my personal favorite cards), Tactics Rohan is more than just a one trick pony.

Mablung-smallAs mentioned above, Celeborn and Galadriel bring new relevance to previously overlooked cards like Daughter of the Nimrodel and Silverlode Archer. Despite the disappointment that some may have felt after the Agaist the Shadow cycle, Gondor continues to see incremental improvement thanks to heroes like Mablung and interesting cards like Ithilien Lookout and Herald of Anórien. Even the seemingly forgotten Eagle decks received a lordly boon in the form of Gwaihir.

The latest errata is ultimately a good thing as well. When a card ends up being used in a way that is completely contrary to its original design, it can warp the metagame. Blue Mountain Trader is the perfect example of this. The card is useful in a multi-player game, and any piece of cardboard with the Dwarf trait is useful in some capacity. But the designer’s clearly never intended for this card to provide unlimited resource smoothing. This has been clarified, to the betterment of the game.

Will-of-the-WestIn a somewhat more controversial move, Will of the West is now removed from the game after it is played. I just want to say that I completely agree with this decision. The game does not need infinite combo decks. Some players on the forums have complained that this will prevent them for cycling their decks multiple times per game. The fact that this is even possible is a symptom of the fact that card drawing is somewhat out of control at this point.

Regardless, this errata does not prevent a player from getting their discard pile back after drawing half of their deck. It simply means that it is no longer possible to recycle your deck indefinitely. In a solo game, players are obviously welcome to play however they want and even ignore the errata, if they so choose. From the perspective of someone who plays primarily multi-player games now, I cannot think of many things less exciting than watching another player cycle through their deck a dozen times in a single game. To me, that is is opposite of fun. To put it another way, my play style is decidedly aggressive, so a game should be over with a dozen rounds at most. The fact that you have the time to use the same copy of Will of the West multiple times in a game is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong.

The Bad

The Ring-maker cycle had some great quests. The Dunland Trap and the Three Trials have become personal favorites and I look forward to revisiting them with different decks in the future. Even the easy quest of the bunch, Trouble in Tharbad can be fun as a testing ground for more thematic or experimental decks. That said, I feel like the time mechanic has been hit or miss in this cycle. Sometimes it works really well a creating a sense of urgency and serving as a deterrent to past tendencies of decks to “turtle” while they setup for later stages (Conflict at the Carrock is a great example of a quest that can be ruined by the turtle strategy).

Raven-Chief's-Camp-smallHowever, there were times for me playing this cycle when time, along with many of the other forced effects and passive abilities on encounter cards just felt mechanical. As this point, the pedantic reader might be tempted to reply that every effect in the game is mechanical – that is, after all, why they call them “game mechanics”. While true, this misses the larger point. At its best, what makes this game so great to me is that the game mechanics fall into the background, to the point where I don’t even notice them. Between the theme, the narrative aspects and the strategy of successfully overcome adversity, the game can be as engrossing as anything I have ever played.

Every game has rules, and as a game of deep strategy this game has a rather large and complex set of them. Still, when the Lord of the Rings: The Card Game is at its best the mechanics don’t feel like mechanics, they feel like part of the story. This is not easy to accomplish, and players of this game who might be new to card and board games in general might not even realize how good they have it. Sad to say, there are a lot of bad games out there.

Raising-the-Cry-smallLazy design, amateur artwork, non-existent playtesting, broken rules and whorish money grabs (I’m looking at you, almost ever movie-tie-in game ever created) can all lead to a poorly executed game of limited entertainment and no replay value. The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game is a great game, precisely because it has avoided all of these traps that so many game fall into. However, because it is so good it gets held to a higher standard. Most quests do an excellent job of representing an adventure through Middle-earth, accompanied by your brave companions, on a perilous quest, to overcome the forces of Sauron. However, this excellence means that when a quest falls short, when the gears of the machine poke through, it is more noticeable in contrast to its superior counterparts.

The enemy of elegance is complexity. At its best, there is a pristine elegance to the Lord of the Rings: The Card Game. Characters have three primary stats, which are used in three primary aspects of the game. The decisions that you make are all spokes on a wheel which revolves around these aspects. I think that the time keyword can be elegant, and when it is I appreciate it just like all of the other elegant features of this fine game. As my art teacher used to say, some techniques are best used sparingly, lest they overwhelm a piece. In my opinion, time, and any of these more maintenance-intensive effects need to be added to encounter cards very carefully, or they risk marring the beauty of a scenario and overwhelming other elements.

As much as it is nice to have a large card pool from which to build decks, there are downsides. One disadvantage is that it can be intimidating for new players. It also becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that cards are balanced, because of the sheer number of potential combinations with earlier cards. To be clear, this is not a criticism of the game, rather an observation of the inevitable consequences of a game growing and maturing. In other words, this is a good problem to have because it means that the game has lived long enough and grown large enough to have “big game” issues. It is worth pointing out these issues nonetheless, as there are steps that can be taken to help mitigate many of them.

Conquest-smallFFG has adopted a new format for rules books in their recent games. This is a very welcome decision from my perspective. As someone who owns quite a few FFG games, I have always felt that the rule books were one of their games few weak points. In that regard, the rule books for their latest LCG Warhammer 40K: Conquest are a revelation. One rule book serves as a “getting started” guide, which allows you to start playing the game immediately, and slowly introduces concepts rather than trying to inundate you with new concepts and rules all at once. The other rule book is an appendix of rules and keywords which serves as the definitive reference for more experienced players to ensure that they are playing the game correctly down to the smallest detail. You start with the one rule book to get your feet wet, then as you become more familiar with the game you only really need the second rule book as a reference for specific rules questions.

The decision to have two rules books was an excellent decision, and I applaud FFG for realizing that they could improve the “out of the box” experience of their products. Now I only hope that they release a version of the Core Set with this new style of rule books. It would also be the perfect opportunity to provide easy mode rules with the game. As it stands, new players will often end up at one forum or other asking a series of (mostly the same) questions, and hoping desperately for assistance. Fortunately we have a warm and helpful community so these new players are in good hands and will quickly find answers to their questions. Resources like Ian’s New Player Buying Guide are an essential part of introducing new players to the game.

However, something as fundamental as Easy Mode is the kind of thing that should be presented in the rule book of the Core Set, so that the community does not have to point them to a PDF buried in the bowels of the FFG site. While I have long since abandoned my pipe dream of an improved Core Set, I think that having improved rule books is a very reasonable expectation. As an experienced player who has links to all of the rules sheets and FAQs this is not something that I want for me, it is for the benefit of the new players the come to this game and find themselves a bit overwhelmed.

As much as I appreciate the  latest errata, it brings attention to a simple fact. There is too much errata for this game. The latest FAQ is 17 pages long. While not all of those pages represent changes to existing cards, this represents a burden of knowledge that new players must carry if they want to play the game correctly. It is unfortunate whenever a card does not play according to its printed text, but as the game grows this problem grows with it. Fortunately, the newer printings of the game are starting to include previous errata, along with the gold rings used for easy mode.

Still the longer a game lives, the further the actual metagame moves from the product itself. Some of the errata is so specific that it stops being entirely intuitive (e.g. gaining, adding and moving resources). It is becoming very difficult, especially with a large number of new players, for people to even keep track of which cards work differently than what is printed on the card. No doubt this was at least part of the impetus for the decision to stop A Game of Thrones LCG and reboot it with a second edition.

To be clear, I am not advocating something so radical as a reboot for this game. A Game of Thrones LCG, and the CCG that preceded it, has been around a lot longer than The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game. Because the encounter cards make up at least half of each release, the player card pool for this game grows at a much slower rate. Still, a large body of erratum can certainly be an impediment to new players, and is something to keep an eye on. It be time to think about taking steps to clean up some of the game’s edge cases.

The Future

The-Lost-Realm-smallLest anyone mistake my criticisms above as pessimism, the future of the game is as bright as ever. Deluxe Expansions and Cycles are running at full speed, with anticipation for both The Treason of Saruman and The Lost Realm approaching a fever pitch. Nightmare decks are steadily catching up to the latest content, and we now have Fellowship Event decks joining the GenCon quests as objects of expert-players’ desire.

The larger card pool means that player decks are as creative and innovate as we’ve ever seen. Rather than power creep with ever more game-breaking heroes, we have instead a plethora of options to facilitate vastly different archetypes and strategies. With a greater focus on narrative and the ongoing evolution of campaign mode, the game has even evolved beyond its episodic origins. There is no doubt that the game is in good hands with Caleb and Matt and a I look forward to an exciting 2015!

As always, these are one humble bear’s opinions, and I invite everyone to share their thoughts, rebuttals, questions and concerns in the comments below.

This entry was posted in Community, Metagame, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Metagame: Part 5 – FAQs and an Evolving Metagame

  1. Mauziz says:

    I really appreciate your comments here – I think you have some really insightful things to say about the state of the game, but I thought I’d chime in on the errata issue. I think the fact that this is a cooperative game helps alleviate some of that problem. The real issue of errata (in my mind) is having two players sit down for a competitive game and one player informing the second that their cards don’t work the way they think they do because of an errata. But with a cooperative game I think that the discovery that a card is slightly different than written will become a learning experience rather than sudden-loss moment. Finally, I’d like to point out that the list of errata’ed cards is actually quite small – most of that 17 pages contains rule clarifications and FAQ’s (many of which I think can actually be answered by carefully reading the rule book). Of course, it should be noted that I’ve played in several games in the past that have had really lengthy errata lists (including Star Trek Attack Wing whose FAQ is actually several different 200+ page forum threads with the developers. Hint: stay away from that game!), so perhaps I’m more tolerant towards such things. Thanks again for a great article!

  2. fouilloux says:

    Great article, I totally agree with your review
    However I would agree with Mauziz also: for me, most of the errata on the cards are here to prevent the game from being broken, like the new one with will of the west and the Blue Mountain trader. It prevent player to create infinite loop or stuff like that. I don’t think a new player would be able to do it (I am not a new player and I definetly can’t imagine one myself).
    The errata are here to prevent players from “cheating”, by using too much the power of a card and make it much more powerfull than it was intended. I personnaly ignore most of the errata, because I do not feel that I am cheating: I do not cretae infinite loop with the master of lore, I do not use Beravor to draw all my deck etc… So the errata is usually not an issue for me.

  3. INK1ing says:

    I am fairly new to the game and I do find the card pool to be a little intimidating but at the same time I am excited by the huge amount of possibility that I can see. One problem that I do have is the availability of older expansions. Khazad-Dum and its sub-cycle are virtually impossible to get hold of (here in the UK anyway). I totally understand the business decisions in releasing reprints in big batches but it’s a little frustrating for us noobs!

    I totally agree with Mauziz about the errata thing. Due to the co-operative nature of the game it is not such a big deal when your favourite event gets nerfed. It’s not like your tournament winning deck is now useless. Also, if you really wanted to you could just ignore it anyway.

    • Tom says:

      Seems i am really lucky to live in Germany, because playing whit the German cards, up til now, there was no problem to get them at the release order. And i have startet whit the game around christmas, because when i bought it last year around the same time, i had played the anduin scenario and especially the escape of dol guldur like 20 times until i defeat them. That is why at this point i was exhaust and tired of the game. But know after reading great advising post like the ones here or at Thales from the Cards, i feel much better and it feels more like a challenge to bring out the right deck to tackle down the quest.

      • mcnoat says:

        I’ve been waiting for my German copy of “Hunt for Gollum” for a couple of month now and according to a date I’ve found on the website of an online retailer I might have to wait a couple of months more…
        Yeah, most of the German expansions seem to be readily available, but not all of them.

  4. Ben says:

    Great article. I agree that errata can be very difficult, but I appreciate that they are at least adding the errata to re-releases. In recently trying to play Into Ithilien, I was reading done strategy tips and noticed people had different versions of Blocking Wargs. That was definitely helpful to have the update version.

    I was hoping to here you say something about the potential metagame changing player card quests that were spoiled recently. I’m looking forward to seeing how they incorporate those!

  5. Gwaihir the Windlord says:

    Another spectacular article! I enjoy reading your metagame articles and reading your opinions on our beloved game. I must say I agree with you completely on the time mechanic. I find it simply annoying at times, and although it provides for some interesting situations, I never enjoyed it all that much. I felt it was especially overused in The Antlered Crown, where nearly every location had Time X. That is why I am slightly wary about the upcoming side quests: another hit-or-miss mechanic. Will the side quests add fun and interesting decisions? Or will they just get in the way?

  6. EricF says:

    I think the only contentious errata have been Master of Lore, Nori, Thor’s Map, Zigil Miner, and Protector of Lorien (maybe Erabor Battle Master too). The rest of them just make the card function as intended, with minor tweaks, or exist to stop abuse that would rarely come up in normal play (eg Beravor).

    I find the new Zigil Miner to be more fun because it is less swingy than the printed version.
    Thor’s Map, Nori, Battle Master, and Protector of Lorien all have to have strictly “power level” errata that affects play even in non-degenerate situations, while remaining playable and useful cards.

    I’m surprised at how much baggage they heaped onto the Master of Lore. They could have killed any infinite combo, while still leaving its original functionality intact, with text like this:
    “Exhaust Master of Lore and name a card type (Ally, Attachment, Event). Until the end of the Phase, reduce the cost to play each differently named [Lore] card of that type by 1 (to a minimum of 1).

    • Beorn says:

      Yes, I wish they had gone with your proposed errata to Master of Lore. As it is they stopped an infinite combo but severely weakened him in the process. A cost of three resources for a 1 hit point ally that exhausts in the planning phase for a 1 resource reduction is a really dicey proposition.

    • Hear, hear on the Master of Lore errata that doesn’t kill the card!

  7. Glowwyrm says:

    Great article. While I agree with you that the state of the game is in a great place, there’s an issue with the meta-game that bothers me more than anything you mentioned: scaling. The two-player game is great, challenging but not impossible, play stays at a good pace (only two planning phases to go through), and scenarios can be finished in a reasonable amount of time. Solo tends to swing way too far on the difficulty scale, with the scenario being a cake walk or impossible. Multi-player is often punishingly difficult, with location lock and surge often ruining games (as has been mentioned frequently on the Grey Company and Cardboard of the Rings podcasts lately). A few tweaks to multi-player might fix things (like allowing for two active locations and ignoring surge after the third time it triggers in a round), but I’m not sure how you’d change solo play. Since this is a cooperative game players are free to tweak things with house rules however they please, but I think that the developers should consider making an official change to address the issue. Easy mode and nightmare have been excellent additions to the game to address concerns over difficulty, but I’d like to think that they could come up with an elegant solution to the scaling issues too.

    One final thought is that I have a sneaking suspicion that the side quests in lost realm are meant to reduce location lock in multi-player. I think we’ll see fewer locations in encounter decks as some of the card slots that would normally have been locations will be side quests. This will help prevent location lock, because players will have two places to “travel” to a round. We’ll see how this plays out.

    • Beorn says:

      These are all excellent points. I strongly recommend that you check out the upcoming episode 21 of The Grey Company Podcast. I did not talk about the scaling issue in this article because we talked about it on the episode, amd I didn’t want to reiterate those points here. There is a very special guest on this episode and I ask him about this (among other discussions). Suffice it to say, I agree that this is an issue but I didn’t want to put all of my ideas in one article. Thanks for your feedback!

    • Kjeld says:

      Speaking of house rules and location lock, for multiplayer games I think it makes a lot of sense to allow a second active location for 3-4 player games (maybe with a stipulation that both are non-unique or something like that). Thematically, you can imagine that the party split up to cover more ground (or were temporarily separated after fleeing some blocking wargs). Mechanically, the added advantage of pulling two locations to the active position should be partly negated by the frequency of nasty Travel and “While X is the active location…” effects. Anyhow, I think such a rule would be worth it to ease the excessive anxiety over location lock which often distracts 3-4 player games from the other aspects of the quests.

      • Beorn says:

        I agree, two active locations in 3 or 4 player games would be a good way to help deal with location lock. Even with that change, I still feel like repeatable location control in the form of Northern Tracker and Asfaloth are almost a requirement in many scenarios.

      • TalesfromtheCards says:

        I’m wondering how it would affect things just to have a player card that allows you to travel to a second location if there are 3 or 4 players.

  8. Wonderful delivery on the state of the game. As someone who has not been playing so many card and board games over the years, it’s good to be reminded that we have an exceptional product on our hands.

    I’m not complaining either, but the one “bad” element that I see coming up in the game is that we have just reached a point where we now have a card of nearly every major character. From here on out, most of the more powerful cards are going to be second versions of heroes (or ally versions of heros) and the latest Treason of Saruman preview is no exception (Gimli and Legolas).

    As a primarily solo player, this problem doesn’t effect me, so I wonder how you see it. You play a lot of multi-player pick-up games. At what point does it become an impediment to deck-building to know that you might show up with a Galadriel ally when another player has a Galadriel hero deck? Right now this problem only realistically extends to Gandalf, Galadriel, Haldir, Boromir, Elrond and Aragorn (I doubt anyone’s had a conflict with both versions of Pippin, Faramir or Denethor coming to the table), but by this time next year, almost any unique character in your deck could be a potential violation of uniqueness rules. Is this an issue for the designers to pay attention to? How?

    • Beorn says:

      This is absolutely a challenge for “pick-up” multi-player games. Fortunately, few archetypes are built around unique allies, so it is typically not a problem to have players swap out or “proxy” these allies for other cards. Where I really see a problem is with heroes. We will very soon have four versions of Aragorn (counting Saga) which is going to make coordinating decks a challenge, especially with such a high-profile character as the son of Arathorn. This is where archetypes like Ents and Eagles that feature few uniques, and characters that are not likely to clash, become that much more helpful in multi-player.

  9. First off, really enjoy your work, particularly some of the early work on looking at the quests as newish player.

    Unlike apparently most people, I never played a game with the pre-built core decks; I started off with a Gimli/Legolas/Aragorn dual sphere I tweaked together and ran from there. Later I introduced two of my brothers to the game and I go back and forth between solo, solo with 2 decks, solo with 3 decks, and playing 2 or 3 handed depending on if one or both brothers is around.

    Boring background out of the way, couple of questions about your opinion on metagame related questions.

    1) with the ….sporadic availability lets call it of the earlier materials, how would it affect play for someone who would purchase each new release as it came out while slowly infilling stuff from the first cycles as they became available. Having Antlered Crown but not Massing as Osgiliath, for example…

    2) for an admittedly casual player such as myself (had it since just before Christmas, played the first three quests, hunt for Gollum and…descent into Moria I think? and have maybe 50 games played total, give or take…how much will it affect the fairness of gameplay to ignore the errata, I have never bothered to hook up a printer and not sure if I care enough to run to Kinkos to print it out, nor do I particularly like looking at errata every time I play a card…but if it is huge impact perhaps I should

    Again, appreciate the time and effort you put into this

    • Beorn says:

      Thanks for the kind words, darth weasel. At various points there have existed what I call “broken” decks which abuse cards like Zigil Miner, Beravor and Master of Lore. If you are making heavy use of those cards the errata is relevant as it keeps everything balanced and prevents infinite combos which can break the game. If you aren’t using those cards or building broken decks I wouldn’t worry about the errata. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that you have fun playing the game.

      I don’t see any problem with back-filling the older scenarios. New players don’t have much choice when it comes to this, as it can be difficult to find older packs. I would try to play each cycle from beginning to end, if possible. Especially with the last two cycles, a narrative develops as you progress through the quests, so you will probably get more out of it by going through a cycle’s APs in order. There is no reason why you have to go through the entire game in order though, so I wouldn’t worry about having to skip older packs which are unavailable. One last word of warning: if you bring a deck built with newer cards to one of the older quests you may find those quests are less challenging. It depends on the quest and the deck that you bring, but old quests could not be designed with every future card in mind. In some cases, newer cards can make previously challenging quests trivially easy to beat. Good luck, and have fun!

  10. Pingback: Poll Results: Favorite Core Set Staple | Hall of Beorn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s