The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: sgtdraino on February 17, 2014, 11:33:52 AM
-
I hear this word thrown around quite a bit on Gemp, and I'm interested to see what players truly think constitutes "broken." Most of the time I hear the word used to refer to things that are admittedly powerful, but not (IMO) completely outright "broken."
So what does it take for something to really qualify as "broken," be it a card, or a format?
To my way of thinking, something only qualifies as "broken" if there is no counter to it, and playing against it will constitute an automatic loss regardless of strategy, unless you happen to get very very lucky.
I think there's only a few decks in Open Format that truly qualify as this.
Thoughts?
-
I hear this word thrown around quite a bit on Gemp, and I'm interested to see what players truly think constitutes "broken." Most of the time I hear the word used to refer to things that are admittedly powerful, but not (IMO) completely outright "broken."
So what does it take for something to really qualify as "broken," be it a card, or a format?
To my way of thinking, something only qualifies as "broken" if there is no counter to it, and playing against it will constitute an automatic loss regardless of strategy, unless you happen to get very very lucky.
I think there's only a few decks in Open Format that truly qualify as this.
Thoughts?
I tend to agree with your definition. Something like the Horn Filter/Frenzy of Arrows pre-errata would qualify as broken to me. Now with Frenzy nerfed to #$&*@!, it is no longer a concern and the Horn filter deck in and of itself is not broken. Powerful? Yes. Conversely, it will not necessarily win you the game and it is fragile to some commonly played strategies.
I think more than likely, however, most people consider something to be broken if it is seriously format-warping. I don't know who around here plays magic, but I think a good example of a format-warping card in magic would be Jace, The Mind Sculptor when he was in standard. The deck known as Caw-Blade, which made full and effective use of Jace, The Mind Sculptor, completely dominated that standard meta so that every match was a Caw-Blade mirror match or a a Caw-Blade vs. "deck designed specifically to hate it out" match. That kind of dynamic is what I would consider format-warping. I think some people view Galadriel, Lady Redeemed in Movie as "broken" (either by Sgt.'s definition or by one similar to the aforementioned one I discussed). I see her as incredibly powerful and versatile, but I do not see here as format-warping as I have outlined above. I see Madril/Horn Filter/HKotN/etc. in expanded as being the same: powerful and versatile, but not format-warping.
And honestly, as far archtypes go within formats, I think LotR has a wide variety of competitive options versus other games like M:tg, etc. and even more viable decks/archtypes.
Some people might consider some archtypes to be a NPE (negative play experience), but that does not necessarily make such decks (or the cards within them) "broken."
Disclaimer: I do not personally play with LR in my movie decks or any of the other "problem" cards mentioned above with the occasional exception of Madril (roaming rangers have always been a pet strategy of mine), so I'm not so much speaking from the perspective of "oh, I love using these "broken" cards!" but rather a more objective one of "These cards do not appear to warp the format they are played in and are thus acceptable to me." In other words, I'm just fine playing against the folks who do want to use the supposed "broken" cards/strategies as I don't perceive them that way.
-
I'm really going to look forward to the responses to this discussion. I love seeing different things analyzed from different points of view.
I think we've all been there though. You get beat really bad by some kind of strategy that you haven't exactly seen, and it FELT like there was no counter or way out. That's really when the term broken starts getting thrown around (out of an emotional response, more than an actual analytical response).
Cards like Palantir in TS, LR in Movie, Madril in Expanded, just FEEL broken because, in their nature, they subvert strategies, rather than generate sheer power.
Example: Keeper of Isengard is extremely powerful. He gets complained about, but is less often called "broken" because his modus operandi is relatively straightforward. He makes Uruks tougher and essentially adds to their vitality. If I build a deck keeping that in mind, I will pack cards that will work against that, or protect myself.
Now...what cards like Palantir, LR, Madril (each in their respective formats) do is quite a bit more sinister. They say "I don't care what your strategy is, or how you plan on accomplishing it. I just won't let you come anywhere near going through with it".
You have at least some level of satisfaction after getting beaten down by a powerful strategy like Uruks in Fellowship, or Besiegers in Movie, merely because you at least had a chance to do your best to fight against it, and use everything you had to put up an effort. The above mentioned 3 cards are different in that they don't let you do even this. It leaves the one who is beaten with a sick, annoyed feeling. This is why people start screaming "broken".
It is true, however, that cards like Gilgalad and Powerful Guide could be analyzed and constituted as broken by some, as well, but for reasons that the card is simply too powerful. These cards don't carry the same undertones as Madril and LR.
So what's actually broken? Yes, it depends on your definition of "broken". Up till now, I haven't analyzed all of this enough, but I've refrained from calling LR broken, just because I know there ARE strategies to combat her. She CAN be stopped. So therefore she can't truly be broken (at least in my mind).
On the same hand, I HAVE seen situations where a combination on Gilgalad and Cirdan in Movie came across as VERY broken. If you observe that they have massive healing ability to combat archery or wounding, and Cirdan so that you can't win any skirmishes, the cracks for getting any kind of shadow strategy inside to break through are so tight they are almost non-existent.
Anyhow, I'd like to talk more on this, but I have to run for the moment. I look forward to seeing what else everyone has to say :)
-
I think more than likely, however, most people consider something to be broken if it is seriously format-warping.
Great post. It is fascinating to me that someone actually dinged this post for -1 gold! I know, because I thumbed it up, but now it's back to zero. Why would somebody ding dethwish's gold for this post?
That kind of dynamic is what I would consider format-warping. I think some people view Galadriel, Lady Redeemed in Movie as "broken" (either by Sgt.'s definition or by one similar to the aforementioned one I discussed). I see her as incredibly powerful and versatile, but I do not see here as format-warping as I have outlined above.
I don't play Movie too often, but I'd say it seems to me that the only way to counter LR in Movie, is to devote a significant amount of deck real estate to Sauron culture. Am I wrong? Or else just don't rely on any conditions or possessions lasting out a turn... and that does sound pretty format-warping to me. Are there other ways of countering her, that are not culture-enforced? That don't force you to adapt a certain kind of Shadow strategy?
I see Madril/Horn Filter/HKotN/etc. in expanded as being the same: powerful and versatile, but not format-warping.
The issue where Madril is concerned, is that he is effectively countered by a single card (Ships of Great Draught) that has no culture enforcement and is difficult to get rid of. Any Shadow strategy can easily be ready for Madril with minimal deck real estate. I have 3x Ships of Great Draught in my deck, and I can't even remember the last time I lost to a Madril deck. Now, granted, if you're playing against my deck, Ships is probably not going to be enough... but that's because my deck doesn't rely on Madril to the point that it collapses if I lose him.
And honestly, as far archtypes go within formats, I think LotR has a wide variety of competitive options versus other games like M:tg, etc. and even more viable decks/archtypes.
I agree!
Some people might consider some archtypes to be a NPE (negative play experience), but that does not necessarily make such decks (or the cards within them) "broken."
I agree with this too. I think choke classifies as this, because it is extremely frustrating to barely get to play anything during your Shadow phase. Dwarfs are especially frustrating because they can play a crap ton of stuff, get super strong, and generate almost no twilight. BUT there are counters to them. Smeagol is similar, with his events that play out of discard... but again vulnerable to certain things (as it should be)
I'd also say that extreme site manipulation qualifies as NPE. It can be VERY frustrating to face the same horrible site over and over, while your opponent gets a site that heals him every turn. Unfortunately, site manipulation is so powerful that the only way to truly be ready for it, is with site manipulation of your own. My deck gradually evolved to include more and more site manipulation to counter things like Ulaire Nelya, Third of the Nine Riders using Buckland Homestead to discard all my conditions over and over, to the point that my deck now qualifies as an extreme site manipulator, something I at one point despised. It could be argued that this is format-warping... but then with the advent of Shadows it feels like Decipher intended to shake up the game with the new site mechanics, and when they issued clarifications and rulings on the various siting cards, those rulings always favored a more powerful interpretation. So... maybe this was intended?
Hobbit Hospital with Scouring might qualify as format warping, since (in my experience) they will roll right over you unless you have MASSIVE condition discarding ability. Playing minions only seems to heal them up more, and take off burdens! Perhaps there are other counters to this strategy besides condition bombs that I'm not aware of?
I'm really going to look forward to the responses to this discussion. I love seeing different things analyzed from different points of view.
Ditto!
I think we've all been there though. You get beat really bad by some kind of strategy that you haven't exactly seen, and it FELT like there was no counter or way out. That's really when the term broken starts getting thrown around (out of an emotional response, more than an actual analytical response).
lol, that's true. I remember that, for the longest time, Ninja Gollum felt completely unstoppable to me... until I discovered Gladden Homestead. Hurray! Gollum still gets me occasionally, but only very rarely.
Cards like Palantir in TS, LR in Movie, Madril in Expanded, just FEEL broken because, in their nature, they subvert strategies, rather than generate sheer power.
The OG TPOO is definitely VERY powerful if you're not ready for it... but again there's that caveat: It's got an easy one-card counter in the form of Erland, Advisor to Brand (which admittedly requires a little culture enforcement). So, I tend to like cards like this, because the opponent will often rely on them overly-much, and be unprepared when I completely disable their strategy.
Example: Keeper of Isengard is extremely powerful. He gets complained about, but is less often called "broken" because his modus operandi is relatively straightforward. He makes Uruks tougher and essentially adds to their vitality. If I build a deck keeping that in mind, I will pack cards that will work against that, or protect myself.
Now...what cards like Palantir, LR, Madril (each in their respective formats) do is quite a bit more sinister. They say "I don't care what your strategy is, or how you plan on accomplishing it. I just won't let you come anywhere near going through with it".
You have at least some level of satisfaction after getting beaten down by a powerful strategy like Uruks in Fellowship, or Besiegers in Movie, merely because you at least had a chance to do your best to fight against it, and use everything you had to put up an effort. The above mentioned 3 cards are different in that they don't let you do even this. It leaves the one who is beaten with a sick, annoyed feeling. This is why people start screaming "broken".
This is an interesting train of thought. I have observed that many players seem to feel that skirmishing is somehow more "legit" than other strategies. That somehow it is more honorable to beat a minion with strength, than to discard it in maneuver, shoot it in archery, or direct-wound it in skirmish. I would challenge those players to realize that strength boosters are no more or less a legitimate game mechanic than anything else. And because of the admitted power-creep as new sets come out, it becomes more difficult to consistently beat minions in a straight-up skirmish. These alternatives to fighting are what give our game more variety, are what continue to make different cultures interesting and viable. Heck, if every culture was just pile-up-the-weapons and play skirmish events, to me that would be quite dull.
I also wonder if some of those players who complain, are perhaps more accustomed to playing earlier formats (like Fellowship), where there was much less emphasis on alternative strategies, and much more emphasis on your basic slug-fest. Perhaps those players simply aren't used to later formats? Or are just not comfortable with the different meta?
It is true, however, that cards like Gilgalad and Powerful Guide could be analyzed and constituted as broken by some, as well, but for reasons that the card is simply too powerful. These cards don't carry the same undertones as Madril and LR.
Gil-galad is MUCH more difficult to counter than Madril, and the long minutes spent in regroup looping conditions do qualify as an NPE. I think it's hard to argue that undertone isn't there, when Gil-galad's putting those same skirmish events in hand every move, and/or cycling them back and forth off the top of his deck with Woodhall Elf, Exile.
I think, generally speaking, what frustrates players is anytime it seems like, whatever you play, nothing gets through to harm the opponent. Powerful Guide can definitely fall into that category, once it's set up. And here again, MUCH more difficult to counter. At present, I still believe that Power Guide is THE most powerful FP strategy in Expanded.
But still not broken. :)
So what's actually broken? Yes, it depends on your definition of "broken". Up till now, I haven't analyzed all of this enough, but I've refrained from calling LR broken, just because I know there ARE strategies to combat her. She CAN be stopped. So therefore she can't truly be broken (at least in my mind).
What are the different ways to stop her? Or is there only one?
On the same hand, I HAVE seen situations where a combination on Gilgalad and Cirdan in Movie came across as VERY broken. If you observe that they have massive healing ability to combat archery or wounding, and Cirdan so that you can't win any skirmishes, the cracks for getting any kind of shadow strategy inside to break through are so tight they are almost non-existent.
I haven't observed a Gil-galad deck that has massive healing ability. It seems to me that this is the one weakness of the strategy. Have you seen something I missed?
Anyhow, I'd like to talk more on this, but I have to run for the moment. I look forward to seeing what else everyone has to say :)
Dang right!
-
Mirror pre-errata was broken. That is hands down the worst card ever made. The rest is just combos of cards being unfun or broken, or just simply badly made.
-
I don't play Movie too often, but I'd say it seems to me that the only way to counter LR in Movie, is to devote a significant amount of deck real estate to Sauron culture. Am I wrong? Or else just don't rely on any conditions or possessions lasting out a turn... and that does sound pretty format-warping to me. Are there other ways of countering her, that are not culture-enforced? That don't force you to adapt a certain kind of Shadow Strategy?
I don't consider LR format-warping because other competitive fellowships exist that do not use her. As I had (attempted to) outline, I really only consider something format-warping if it turns the format into a two-deck format, i.e. the problem deck and its counter deck. I do not think that is where movie block is at all.
As for countering LR, I think the approach should be something akin to your Ultimate Madril's shadow with Grima and Saruman's power. In other words, play a splash minion and the counter card (Terrible as the Dawn). Examples I'd include are the following:
Great Hill Troll (yes, expensive but a great body and can kill off a condition in the later sites)
Tower Assassin (nice body and can be used to eliminate problem allies)
Orc Slaughterer
Orc Archer Troop
Shagrat, Captain of Cirith Ungol
Orc Insurgent
Orc Pillager
Morgul Hunter
Obviously there are others, but those are a few that jump out at me. I like the Tower Assassin, personally. As for ways to address her without having to adjust your strategy or your list... Well, there are options for getting your cards back after she has removed them (Host of Moria for [moria], Dead Marshes for [sauron], Gorgoroth Agitator for besiegers, etc). But really, no. If LR is a problem card for your deck, you will hafta decide whether to include the appropriate counter measures, or, if your deck real estate cannot be tampered with, go forth without such preparations. This is basically the though process I go through when building magic decks (I primarily play Modern format). Questions such as "are these countercards that hurt my overall deck consistency worth putting in to shore up my weakness to this matchup? How likely am I to play that matchup (how dominate is the deck that my deck is weak against)?" etc. You hafta do a cost/benefit analysis and determine your best bet, knowing all the while that fortune may not be on your side in that you don't include your counter cards and your first 3 rounds of swiss you are paired with be the deck you are weak to. Or maybe you include the counter cards and you never play a single round against that matchup. This is the meta and it isn't always predictable. All you do is your best to be prepared for it with your limited information.
As powerful as she is, LR and cards similar to her (Legolas, DH) exist because some shadow sides can be so absurdly powerful with all of their conditions. Also, to keep things in context, remember the shadow sides that came to be alongside LR: Corsair, Besieger, Ninja Gollum. These are incredibly powerful shadow sides. LR was a check on these. Obviously, she was tuned a tad high, but as I have pointed out, not format-warping.
Hobbit Hospital with Scouring might qualify as format warping, since (in my experience) they will roll right over you unless you have MASSIVE condition discarding ability. Playing Minions only seems to Heal them up more, and take off burdens! Perhaps there are other counters to this Strategy besides condition bombs that I'm not aware of?
Here, I think we are disagreeing on what format-warping is. The fact that Madril/Horn Filter/HkotN/Hobbit Hospital/etc all exist as competitive archetypes is evidence (at least from my perspective) that there is nothing truly format-warping out there in expanded. And we notice the trend of conditions being an issue, from Legolas, DH and LR to Hobbit Hospital. Conditions are obviously some of the most powerful cards in the game. Players need to respect them and give them their due consideration when constructing their freeps AND shadow sides.
That is one of the reasons I like the shadow side to your ultimate Madril, Sgt. It is an unconventional swiss-army knife type shadow. Not only does it address the cards the opponent plays, but also how they are played.
I think we've all been there though. You get beat really bad by some kind of Strategy that you haven't exactly seen, and it FELT like there was no counter or way out. That's really when the term broken starts getting thrown around (out of an emotional response, more than an actual analytical response).
Yeah, there is something to this. It makes me think of another M:tg analogy: Timmy, the Mono green stompy player, has an emotional response when he pays 7 mana to drop a beastly green fatty only to have it met by countered by his opponent Spike's Mana Leak, sending that fatty straight to the graveyard before it ever resolves. Players with less experience tend to see counter spells in M:tg as broken. However, those of us who have played the game for a while know to watch for how much mana our opponent leaves open (with which to potentially cast a counter, knowing how to play less important spells to goad our opponent into countering a less meaningful card, etc.
Another magic analogy would be commitment/over-commitment to the board. This makes me think of our discussing of The Number Must Be Few in the other thread about Horn Filter. In magic, aggro players (a player playing a deck designed to use creature attacks to win the game) hafta be careful not to over-commit to the board. The reason for this: sweepers like Wrath of God (2WW, Sorcery, Destroy all creatures, they can't be regenerated). If the aggro player just spits his hand out onto the board and then it gets Wrathed away and he is left handless in topdeck mode, he will be hard pressed to win the game. But if he were to commit to the board only what he needs to win the game, he has backup in his hand should he face a board wipe. This same kind of thing happens in LotR with freeps/shadows that throw down a ton of conditions only to walk into a Sleep, Caradhras or a Saruman's power... It is simply the risk you take for trying to eek out the advantage that comes along with playing all those cards.
Sorry if the magic analogies are getting annoying. It is just that as time has gone on, both LotR and magic have made me a better player at the other game.
Btw, if someone disagrees with everything I have said, that is cool. You can downvote my gold or w/e you want. I don't really care about the gold system at all and hafta remind myself to use it when I think someone writes out something really cool because I know others do care. However, if you disagree with me so much, I really would appreciate hearing your take on things if you'd take the time to articulate it. It will make this discussion much more constructive for everyone to have more perspectives represented.
Edit: I'd just like to also say how awesome it is that we are having some substantial conversation on the boards! I am clicking refresh on the forum home page all day, every day on my phone so it is nice to have some new stuff to read!
-
I don't consider LR format-warping because other competitive fellowships exist that do not use her. As I had (attempted to) outline, I really only consider something format-warping if it turns the format into a two-deck format, i.e. the problem deck and its counter deck. I do not think that is where movie block is at all.
Ah, okay. I would certainly agree with that. One example that occurs to me, is from the Star Wars CCG, back when Numbers decks became really prevalent. It's been so long now I can't even remember the specific cards or how it worked... but I remember that Decipher eventually printed up a couple of magic bullets that effectively nerfed the Numbers strategy.
As for countering LR, I think the approach should be something akin to your Ultimate Madril's shadow with Grima and Saruman's power. In other words, play a splash minion and the counter card (Terrible as the Dawn).
That makes a lot of sense... although I'd say it still leaves LR as a bit more unreasonable than Madril, since it would most likely take at least twice as many cards devoted to countering mostly just her, whereas SP condition bombing is highly effective against a wide range of FP strategies. If I were playing Movie, I reckon I'd most likely do exactly as you suggest: 3x Terrible as the Dawn, 3x Tower Assassin.
Here, I think we are disagreeing on what format-warping is.
Well, I was mostly going by what you were describing. I see now that you're talking about a higher degree of warping than I thought.
The fact that Madril/Horn Filter/HkotN/Hobbit Hospital/etc all exist as competitive archetypes is evidence (at least from my perspective) that there is nothing truly format-warping out there in expanded.
I agree. IMO there is quite a bit of variety out there in Expanded.
I'm curious, which formats do you think have more variety, and which formats do you think have less variety? In theory, formats with less variety could be an indication that those formats are less balanced. Or their card pool sucks. ;)
Conditions are obviously some of the most powerful cards in the game. Players need to respect them and give them their due consideration when constructing their freeps AND shadow sides.
That is one of the reasons I like the shadow side to your ultimate Madril, Sgt. It is an unconventional swiss-army knife type shadow. Not only does it address the cards the opponent plays, but also how they are played.
Thanks! That's very nice of you to say. I feel like most players tend to overlook my Shadow side, and focus mostly on the FP. I think both sides of my deck are very strong... but possibly my Shadow might be stronger than the FP. I think it's neat that my Shadow contains every culture except for [Dunland] and [Uruk]. It's almost tempting to splash a little [Dunland] and [Uruk] in there just to say I've got 'em all... but I haven't yet figured out how to do that and still keep it as effective as it is now. If I were to put [Uruk] in, it would probably be Mauhur, Relentless Hunter. For [Dunland], probably Dunlending Ravager, to take out some weak allies. I'd do one of each, but I'm really not sure what I'd take out to fit them in. I'm also proud of the fact that my Shadow contains cards from every set except for three: 3, 14, and 16. The FP has cards from 3 and 14, so 16 (The Wraith Collection) is the only one my deck as a whole lacks.
Sorry if the magic analogies are getting annoying. It is just that as time has gone on, both LotR and magic have made me a better player at the other game.
They don't bother me. But since I've never played Magic, I don't really follow them, of course.
Edit: I'd just like to also say how awesome it is that we are having some substantial conversation on the boards! I am clicking refresh on the forum home page all day, every day on my phone so it is nice to have some new stuff to read!
Ditto!
-
Just thought I'd throw these additional ways to contend with LR in Movie out there:
BNAP + an Enduring Nazgul
Brought Back Alive + A [isengard] tracker
Bill Ferny (with a way to add to his strength, or maybe use desert lord to wound her twice and hope they don't have any pumps?)
Called + Nazgul
Fierce in Despair
Fires and Foul Fumes
Frenzy (assuming you can exhaust her, maybe Desert Lord as mentioned above?)
Gorgoroth Assassin (if your playing besiegers and don't wanna run Terrible as the Dawn, but just remember to have an engine to go down with it, or a site controlled, the same turn you wanna assassinate her).
Haunting Her Steps (yeah, it is a stretch)
Many Riddles (Yeah, you'll get at least a turn out of it, but it is more vulnerable than Brought Back Alive)
Orthanc Champion
Over the Isen (Go down with this, play a [dunland] minion, play and use Freca to grab a site, assign to LR. It'd probably be helpful to have a Hides to play that turn as well to protect Freca)
Reclaim the Precious (long shot, assuming she has nenya)
Saruman, Servant of the Eye + An [isengard] minion
Ulaire Toldea, Messenger of Morgul
Obviously some are easier than others, but that is how this works. Cultures/arcetypes/decks have strengths and weaknesses.
-
I'm curious, which formats do you think have more variety, and which formats do you think have less variety? In theory, formats with less variety could be an indication that those formats are less balanced. Or their card pool sucks. Wink
From most to least:
Expanded > Movie > Standard > Block > Sealed.
Now, that probably seems obvious. I'll try and break it down a little.
Expanded Freeps: Madril/IB, LRS, PG, HKotN, Horn Filter, Hobbit Hospital are all very competitive. I think all of these are capable of being tier 1 decks in expanded. Less competitive archetypes that still see play are things like Where Now the Horse Rohan, Non-LRS/PG Rainbow wounding decks, Non-HkotN telepathy, Elven Hunters, Knights, etc.
Expanded shadows: Troll Swarm, [orc] wounding, Forest Guls, Tentacle Swarm, [Men] Archery, Rapid Reload/Demoralized, Whispers in the Dark, and Rainbow Wounding are all what I would consider the shadows being capable of tier 1 in expanded. Less competitive archetypes are things like Besiegers, Lurker Swarm, [men] possession stacking swarm, Corsairs, Ninja Gollum, etc.
For movie freeps, Dwarves (discard or non-discard), LR Cirdan Elves, Last Alliance, Knights, Noble Leaders, and Eowyn, LoI wounding. Secondaries would be Hobbit Hospital, Legolas DH, Emir Delic -style Rohan, Elven Archery, Elf/Men Archery, Ringbound Rangers, Gondor Wraiths, etc.
For movie shadows, Besiegers, Corsairs, Ninja Gollum, Moria Swarm, Dunlending Elder site control beatdown/swarm. Secondaries: [sauron] grind, Enduring Nazgul, Site control Uruks, [isengard] warg riders, etc.
Standard looks more like a mixture of Expanded and the king block movie shadows due to bannings. Dwarves and Rohan are more relevant here than the are in expanded and movie, respectively.
Block and sealed lack variety due to their card pool size, naturally.
Anyway, that's my analysis off the top of my head. Some of it is probably arguable. In such a case, I'm happy for those debates to occur.
Sorry for the double post, btw. I didn't feel this meshed well with the content of my previous post and thought it should be its own entity.
-
Obviously some are easier than others, but that is how this works. Cultures/arcetypes/decks have strengths and weaknesses.
Very nice! Reminds me of some of the various "Anti-_______ Strategies" threads I've made:
Madril:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8455.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8455.0.html)
Ninja Gollum:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8217.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8217.0.html)
Elf Looping:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8740.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8740.0.html)
Orc Troll Super Swarm:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8453.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8453.0.html)
Site Manipulation:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8278.0.html (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8278.0.html)
From most to least:
Expanded > Movie > Standard > Block > Sealed.
Sounds about right.
Expanded Freeps: Madril/IB, LRS, PG, HKotN, Horn Filter, Hobbit Hospital are all very competitive. I think all of these are capable of being tier 1 decks in expanded. Less competitive archetypes that still see play are things like Where Now the Horse Rohan, Non-LRS/PG Rainbow wounding decks, Non-HkotN telepathy, Knights, etc.
What tier would you rate Smeagol Ring-bearer choke decks? They generally just run Smeagol, either Faramir, Son of Denethor or Aragorn, Heir to the Throne of Gondor, and sometimes Pippin, Hobbit of Some Intelligence. They are often paired with Ninja Gollum Shadows. And how about Dwarf Choke? I see that quite often as well.
Expanded shadows: Troll Swarm, [orc] wounding, Forest Guls, Tentacle Swarm, [Men] Archery, Rapid Reload/Demoralized, Whispers in the Dark, and Rainbow Wounding are all what I would consider the shadows being capable of tier 1 in expanded. Less competitive archetypes are things like Besiegers, Lurker Swarm, [men] possession stacking swarm, Corsairs, Ninja Gollum, etc.
What tier would you rate the Sgt. Draino Swiss Army Knife? ;)
-
What tier would you rate Smeagol Ring-bearer choke decks? They generally just run Smeagol, either Faramir, Son of Denethor or Aragorn, Heir to the Throne of Gondor, and sometimes Pippin, Hobbit of Some Intelligence. They are often paired with Ninja Gollum Shadows. And how about Dwarf Choke? I see that quite often as well.
Tier 1.5/Tier 2 probably. With site manipulation so prevalent and various powerful shadows having ways to play out many minions cheaply (or even add to the twilight pool) I feel like these decks struggle a little more than the other decks I mentioned as being tier 1.
What tier would you rate the Sgt. Draino Swiss Army Knife? ;)
I had actually intended to mention where I placed your shadow in that post, but I apparently got distracted from it due to my overall goal. Honestly, I feel like your shadow has the potential to be the Jund deck of the format. Again, a magic comparison. I'll explain. In Modern format M:tg, Jund has been the most overall successful deck, putting up consistently good results. A lot of the other top decks have been combo decks, such as Twin, that intend to combo out for the win on turn 4. Jund, however, is a very "fair" deck in that it just uses solid cards to beat you down for the win. Jund plays the best possible cards in its colors (which are Red, Black, and Green, though they occasionally splash white). Tarmogoyf (a $140 card), Dark Confidant ($65), and Liliana of the Veil ($50) are just a few of the awesomely powerful, but fair, value cards in the Jund deck.
I feel like your swiss-army knife shadow is comparable to the Jund deck in that it plays some of the best value cards in the game, as far as shadow cards go. As you point out, you have a mixture of cultures. That mixture allows you to play the most powerful cards from those cultures in a devastating mix. Your deck also has the potential for massive card advantage due to things like Mouth of Sauron which pulls Rapid Reload (allowing you to turn twilight into exertions), Saruman's Power (an X for 1 trade, where X is the number of their conditions in play!), Evil-Smelling Fens (recur the best cards for your match up), Morgul Squealer (dig for the best cards for your match up), and Neyla (a sort of pseudo-card advantage designed to get the most out of your site package. That is just to mention a few. I'd be interested to see your shadow pair with some other freeps to see how it performs independent of your Ultimate Madril, but overall, due to the sheer power and value in it, I'd say the deck definitely falls into the top tier.
-
lol. Wow, what a compliment! Thanks!
I'm now experimenting with a version that includes those two guys I mentioned earlier, from [Dunland] and [Uruk]. So far it doesn't seem any worse, and might be better. I used Dunlending Ravager to successfully murder BBB, PPP, and used Mauhur, Relentless Hunter to take out an exhausted Erland, Dale Counselor. To fit those guys in, I took out one The Mouth of Sauron, Messenger of Mordor (two still seems to be enough), and Saruman, Black Traitor. I'm still a little iffy on taking out Black Traitor. I originally put him in as a counter to Wise Guide preventing Saruman's Power, but in practice I don't feel like I'm running into that very often, and saving up 2 Saruman's Power will still generally do the job unless Wise Guide's vitality is boosted. Still, it is sometimes nice to be able to discard a condition without the need of a two-card combo. But then again, if Saruman, Servant of Sauron is out, Black Traitor is useless (and vice-versa)... so I think this may be the better option.
What do you think? Is there something else in there you think should come out instead?
-
lol. Wow, what a compliment! Thanks!
I'm now experimenting with a version that includes those two guys I mentioned earlier, from [Dunland] and [Uruk]. So far it doesn't seem any worse, and might be better. I used Dunlending Ravager to successfully murder BBB, PPP, and used Mauhur, Relentless Hunter to take out an exhausted Erland, Dale Counselor. To fit those guys in, I took out one The Mouth of Sauron, Messenger of Mordor (two still seems to be enough), and Saruman, Black Traitor. I'm still a little iffy on taking out Black Traitor. I originally put him in as a counter to Wise Guide preventing Saruman's Power, but in practice I don't feel like I'm running into that very often, and saving up 2 Saruman's Power will still generally do the job unless Wise Guide's vitality is boosted. Still, it is sometimes nice to be able to discard a condition without the need of a two-card combo. But then again, if Saruman, Servant of Sauron is out, Black Traitor is useless (and vice-versa)... so I think this may be the better option.
What do you think? Is there something else in there you think should come out instead?
I think taking out Black Traitor is probably the best move. When I look over the list, that is the card that jumps out at me. Unless you are using him for Saruman's Power (which there is a good chance of), he is a 4-cost event that removes a condition but still gives the opponent a maneuver phase. Grima can fulfill the function of playing Saruman's Power just fine and then you don't hafta worry about Servant of Sauron's uniqueness. So, yeah, good call.
-
Broken is a funny term. What makes a card broken? Cost vs. benefit? Power level of card when alone? Power level of card in combination? A rule exploited by a card? Even LR when used in isolation isn't too bad. I've been on the wrong end of an LR deck, but I've also been on the right end of some really great combos (gandalf fruitloop decks ;) ). I'm not adding too much to the conversation but I guess I'll just mention it is important to define broken in a very specific context. Very few cards are truly broken. I would argue more card combinations are broken than individual cards. Personally I think SoH is more broken than LR, but that is in reference to the cards' individual power level when comparing them text vs text.
-
Broken is a funny term. What makes a card broken? Cost vs. benefit? Power level of card when alone? Power level of card in combination? A rule exploited by a card? Even LR when used in isolation isn't too bad. I've been on the wrong end of an LR deck, but I've also been on the right end of some really great combos (gandalf fruitloop decks ;) ). I'm not adding too much to the conversation but I guess I'll just mention it is important to define broken in a very specific context. Very few cards are truly broken. I would argue more card combinations are broken than individual cards. Personally I think SoH is more broken than LR, but that is in reference to the cards' individual power level when comparing them text vs text.
Thanks for contributing, jdizzy001. These are great points. It is a rare case indeed when a single card itself breaks a format. I honestly don't feel like we have anything like that. Combinations of cards, as you indicate, are more likely to be "broken" as opposed to an individual card.
-
This is a nice discussion. Thanks for starting it, sgtdraino, and contributing, dethwish07 and others.
As one of the very long-term players of this game, from the first day of public release, my historical definition has been that a Broken Card is one that prevents the opposition from playing the game, while an Overpowered Card is one that is well above the cost curve.
I think the most Broken card ever was Far-Seeing Eyes. For the first week of public Constructed play, it was not unique. Really!
Other cards I consider Broken because they shut down many opponent strategies or just win the game:
combo cards like Steadfast Champion and Gondorian Captain
The Mirror of Galadriel, pre-errata
The Palantir of Orthanc, definitely sets 1-3 or 1-4, and Movie due to initiative
Galadriel, Lady Redeemed in Movie Block
Frenzy of Arrows, pre-errata
Madril, Defender of Osgiliath (though I know sgtdraino disagrees)
and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.
Note that there are counters for many of these, but they require serious commitment and they force someone to weaken their main strategy to play them. I don't like that.
Overpowered card examples:
Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Sam, Son of Hamfast (though I like him because I think corruption victories should be tough to obtain, not having Frodo enforcement makes him overpowered)
Aggression
Final Account
Corsair Marauder (which to me is more powerful than Castamir)
-
Without having read through everything: LR is definitely broken.
You have to commit so much of ur deck just to counter galadriel that even if you can pull it off, ur shadow side will be very limited because of all the dead cards ull end up having (unless ur already playing a sauron deck in which they fit). And even with Terrible as the dawn used, shes not gonna die if she's got the ring, so you need to save up for 2.
-
Interesting discussion, but I would think that either if a card is broken or just over powered, it is best if there is an additional format that leaves it out.
Simply because, if you do not have spaces where that card will not be used, then everyone (or most everyone) uses it.
And for the sake of the game, it would be nice to have diversification in decks...
There should be definitively for instance, a Movie format without GLR.
Otherwise, we won't see Shelob 8R strategies around, moria, etc, and we would also benefit from decks being built better (without diluting with As terrible as dawn).
To wrap my two cents, take poorman formats or sealed games; it could be interesting having more balanced games instead of knowing right from the start "shoot, my deck does not work against this.."
-
I understand your point, daisukeman. Even in poorman there's always a strongest card and a best deck - which in most formats tends to be a swarm deck. How overpowered must a card or cards become before we should ban it? How much of the metagame must it take?
Take Corsairs in Movie Block as an example, without Galadriel, Lady Redeemed. GLR takes out the boats and makes Corsairs less powerful. I think corsairs are the best deck without her, but are Peter Jackson and the Marauder too powerful? Probably not, since there are good decks against Corsairs like archery/Eowyn and Knights with only conditions. But you'll see them a lot.
-
There should be definitively for instance, a Movie format without GLR.
Otherwise, we won't see Shelob 8R strategies around, moria, etc, and we would also benefit from decks being built better (without diluting with As terrible as dawn).
There is a Movie without GLR option for the leagues, and we've played it a few times. But don't expect any diversity. You'll see Besieger, Dunland, Corsairs going crazy and the same freeps to counter them, sadly.
dethwish already named a few viable strategies that work and aren't bothered by GLR at all. But people just like to complain that their own shadow gets destroyed by her instead of thinking of a new one that doesn't. In every format some shadows just aren't playable that well.
-
This is a nice discussion. Thanks for starting it, sgtdraino, and contributing, dethwish07 and others.
My pleasure!
Other cards I consider Broken
<snip>
Madril, Defender of Osgiliath (though I know sgtdraino disagrees)
I disagree! :) Because...
Note that there are counters for many of these, but they require serious commitment and they force someone to weaken their main strategy to play them. I don't like that.
The main counter to Madril does not require serious commitment, nor does it force someone to weaken their main strategy, nor (even though you didn't mention this) does it require any dedication to any particular culture.
and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.
Why should monoculture be a safe bet? Multiculture decks already have numerous counters against them, I think it's very reasonable that monoculture gets Dark Horseman. After all, if the game is supposed to simulate the feel of the story, it's the story of multiple cultures banding together to take the ring to Mount Doom. Not just a bunch of Dwarfs or a bunch of Elves.
-
I hear you...
About:
dethwish already named a few viable strategies that work and aren't bothered by GLR at all. But people just like to complain that their own shadow gets destroyed by her instead of thinking of a new one that doesn't. In every format some shadows just aren't playable that well.
Either preparing for her or restraining yourself from playing other interesting shadow alternatives still takes away the fun (disregards certain decks and some deck building initiatives).
It's for the sake of the game mostly, you don't have to keep proving you are excellent players and can use strategies to defeat her.
So I think that the Movie without GLR should be done for casual games too, or better still she should have an errata.
Decipher didn't put it but we could do it, right (at least call it a new "community errata format")?
Discarding a shadow condition or possession shouldn't be as easy...
Because as long as she is allowed, then count me in: I will be using her in my competitive deck.
--
And yeah, I do not think Corsairs should be banned.
Indeed these are not OP against all freeps, and there are "natural" counters... if I'm allowed, I'm kind of introducing this "natural counter" term here: for me, cards such as fierce in despair, or gorgoroth assasin are natural counters (in their own decks accordingly) because you would want to use them in the deck...regardles what you are facing.
As opposed to using Terrible as dawn!
Galadriel is really FU IMO because the benefit/cost relation is way too unbalanced.
She reminds me of that easter-egg/cheat in Age of Empires where you would magically bring one modern car to shoot up the crap out of the whole 12-century scenery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJyvxSnEmY, anyone?).
1. She is absolutely free!
..no strings attached, you may even choose her as "cannon fodder" in your starting fellowship, if you don't want to use elvish events (but why wouldn't you?).
Even Smeagol costs 1 burden, even Madril in expanded has spotting requirements implicitly attached.
To emphasize on a solution idea, the meta/community should errata her as cost=1 (or two?).
By the way, does anybody play her as non-starting fellowship???
2. Her ability is too easy and for serves more than 1 purpose.
..she does not add twilight, does not require exertion, does not require having initiative or certain number or cards, not even spotting something!
#$&*@!, it can even be done at regroup for nothing, but to cycle your hand!!
Take Derufin, secret sentinels or other cards that have a nice and needed ability. No other card is like this on its own.. you gotta work out these, they cost something you may think twice about.
I think it would be more balanced if she had an errata for her ability such as either:
* Restrict her's ability to only fellowship (not regroup)...
* Discard one shadow card and an elvish event to...
* Exert an elf + discard an elvish event to...
We could apply this same thing to other OP cards (e.g, for Sam SoH: include "limit 2 burdens per turn", for Forearmed: include a "limit -8" part, for Vilya: include "any shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this" or so..., etc).
-
and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.
Why should monoculture be a safe bet? Multiculture decks already have numerous counters against them, I think it's very reasonable that monoculture gets Dark Horseman. After all, if the game is supposed to simulate the feel of the story, it's the story of multiple cultures banding together to take the ring to Mount Doom. Not just a bunch of Dwarfs or a bunch of Elves.
Sgt. is right of course about the easy counter to Madril, but I'd also like to say that I completely agree with this assessment of Dark Horseman.
-
The main counter to Madril does not require serious commitment, nor does it force someone to weaken their main strategy, nor (even though you didn't mention this) does it require any dedication to any particular culture.
I wouldn't feel comfortable with less than three Ships of Great Draught. I think three Shadow cards is a serious commitment. Try this: Take Madril Mark whatever and add three Hides. Hides costs 1 instead of 2 and draws you a card back, so it's less painful than Ships of Great Draught. What happens?
Three Shadow cards, plus three FP cards, is a bigger commitment for decks with less than 100 cards. As an example, I just posted a good but not Tier 1 Smeagol Morgul Orc deck:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8807.0.html
It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.
As for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman, from a storyline perspective I agree with you. From a gameplay perspective, it closes off decktypes that people want to play. I included it because it's an example of a card that's potentially Broken by my definition but not Overpowered. I don't think it's Broken and I wouldn't remove it, like dethwish07, but it changes how I play the game - I won't play mono-race decks in Extended.
Similar cards include Grima, Wormtongue and Grima, Chief Counselor. There were a few concerns about Wormtongue but most players understood the idea of countering tanks, particularly Aragorn. Grima, Chief Counselor was controversial because it took away storyline possibilities, though eventually people realized that deck culture consistency was generally better than tossing in suffering Eowyn, Lady of Rohan.
-
I wouldn't feel comfortable with less than three Ships of Great Draught. I think three Shadow cards is a serious commitment. Try this: Take Madril Mark whatever and add three Hides. Hides costs 1 instead of 2 and draws you a card back, so it's less painful than Ships of Great Draught. What happens?
3x Ships of Great Draught is indeed what I stock in my deck as a counter to other Madril decks. Looking through my game history, of the last 19 Expanded games I've played (as far back as my history goes), ZERO have been vs. Madril. So, that's 19 games in which Ships of Great Draught has been completely useless. Did it hamper my strategy? No, not to any significant degree. I'm sure part of that is due to my deck size, and part of it is due to the strategy itself (I can use Gollum to dump cards out of my hand, for example). But that's all part of the give and take of designing an effective deck.
Three Shadow cards, plus three FP cards, is a bigger commitment for decks with less than 100 cards.
For decks with less than 100 cards, that may in fact be the case. However, it is natural that smaller decks do have some disadvantages, just as they have some advantages. I don't see a problem with that. Smaller decks are going to be weaker against certain types of opposing strategies, that's just the nature of the game.
It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.
Then perhaps you need to change something in order to make it more effective.
As for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman, from a storyline perspective I agree with you. From a gameplay perspective, it closes off decktypes that people want to play.
Apparently it doesn't, because I still see plenty of monoculture decks being played. In fact, I know a number of those 19 Expanded games I mentioned were against monoculture, whereas none of them were against Madril. So it would seem that monoculture is in fact more popular than Madril, in spite of Dark Horseman.
I'd say the people who complain the most about Dark Horseman, are those who like to use Dwarf Choke. They play 3-5 Dwarfs, generate almost no twilight, and IMO are pretty close to unstoppable... if it weren't for Dark Horseman! So I say thank goodness Dark Horseman is there to bring some balance to that strategy.
Similar cards include Grima, Wormtongue and Grima, Chief Counselor.
And, just like with Dark Horseman, I still regularly encounter people piling possessions on one guy, people using 4 or more cultures, and (in spite of Shotgun Enquea) people using 6 or more companions. These "magic bullets" can be powerful cards, they're supposed to be powerful cards. But since players keep using these strategies, I think that is a clear demonstration that they are not too powerful. I think they're just powerful enough.
-
daisukeman:
While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.
Sure, Sam gets in the way of corruption. As he should. He's supposed to help Frodo ease the burden of wearing the Ring, the card reflects it and I'm fine with that. He is not cultural enforced and therefore banned in Expanded, which is also fine by me. Expanded Dwarfs shouldn't be able to remove burdens easily.
Vilya needs Elrond to be in play which alone gives 4 twilight. Those 4 tw could be the end for your freeps in just that very turn.
Forearmed needs a whole freeps strategy dedicated for it to work properly. Be it Nenya RoA or Gandalf MoW, it forces your deck into this direction. And it hinders cycling, too.
In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.
-
I don't believe Dark Horseman is Broken; I'm using the card as an example of an idea that can become Broken quite quickly. Another example is Argument Ready to Hand.
There were occasional complaints about the splashability of Shotgun Enquea. Note that Decipher started culturally enforcing large fellowship stoppers - the two best splashes, Enquea and The Number Must Be Few, come from set 1, which also included Savagery to Match Their Numbers, Ulaire Nertea for Moria recycling, Uruk Warrior, and Greed.
Looking through my game history, of the last 19 Expanded games I've played (as far back as my history goes), ZERO have been vs. Madril. So, that's 19 games in which Ships of Great Draught has been completely useless.
Thanks for the information. I see Madril a little more often, maybe 10% of the time, though playing casually is not the same as playing competitively. In movie block, I have a nice Galadriel, Lady Redeemed / Corsair decklist in GEMP, but I never bring it out in casual play. Almost nobody else does either, but I'd expect half the decks to play GLR in a serious event.
One of my extended decks has a Warg shadow. I have lots of fun and win a little over half the time, but it's not Tier 1 or Tier 2. In a competition, I'd instead play a good deck. There's nice discussion about Tier 1 above, which agrees with my perception that the proportion of Madril decks would be much higher.
It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.
Then perhaps you need to change something in order to make it more effective.
What I meant was that I have a choice:
1) Add three cards, making a less effective 35 card deck.
2) Yank out three cards and play 29 cards + 3 Ships of Great Draught. That's a less effective deck.
3) Play my effective 32 card deck and lose to Madril.
None of those choices are appealing.
-
What I meant was that I have a choice:
1) Add three cards, making a less effective 35 card deck.
2) Yank out three cards and play 29 cards + 3 Ships of Great Draught. That's a less effective deck.
3) Play my effective 32 card deck and lose to Madril.
None of those choices are appealing.
My recommendation would be to take out a Nertea and a Saruman to add two Ships of Great Draught. You're running a 64 card deck and your saying Madril IB makes up about 10% of your games, so I'd say two would be enough. Whereas Sgt. needs three because his deck is huge (though it cycles pretty well).
It may not be appealing, but one has to make some choices when considering the field of decks one is going to be playing against. If your cost/benefit analysis doesn't deem it worth removing two cards and hurting our deck consistency a bit to add Ships of Great Draught to easily counter a deck you play against 10% of the time, it is that same analysis that is going to affect your play experience against Madril DoO without the inclusion of said counter. Sometimes we just hafta take our lumps. That is the way I look at it, anyway.
Edit: I'd also like to note that I agree with Euk's analyses of Vilya, Sam, and Forearmed.
-
While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.
In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.
Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.
-
While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.
In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.
Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.
Honestly, adding burdens usually comes as the result of something other than skirmish resolution which is the conflict the game tends to center around. In my view, it makes sense that a win condition that doesn't center around the game's main conflict should be a bit more difficult (even though in spite of Sam, it still sometimes isn't). Think along the lines of a mill/discard deck in M:tg if you're familiar.
Basically, I find Sam acceptable when things like Enquea, ToTO, Morgul Brute, etc exist (especially without the more prevalent counters to such things which are available in Expanded). I mean, there are cards that basically just mean "play this to add a burden" or in some cases, "play this to add X burdens." So, I can see how the argument can be made that stapling 3 burden removal onto a thrarin, dwarven speed bump, is overpowered... when you frame it like that. But when you put it in the entire context of a format with other real cards that also do "powerful" things, the argument isn't as compelling.
Edit: Also, in reference to Euk's comments about the banning of Sam, SoH in expanded: the other factor in this was that after Shadows was introduced, resistance was a factor for all companions. SoH would provide a resistance buffer against fellowship resistance reduction shadow strategies that would make for quite a struggle (whereas a committed full on corruption deck wouldn't be as bothered). I feel movie is the same way. Committed corruption can contend with a deck that runs SoH. Fellowship resistance (aside from the RB) is not relevant in movie, of course.
-
Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.
Yeah, I agree with jdizzy001 that there is huge potential and OP in the sense of Sam being so splashable for very little cost.
But, I understant that this character is supposed to provide that...
The bottom line here (at least what I would propose so that we do some other thing rather than just complain), is that:
Since Decipher seemed to have screwed up with some cards, and we the meta/community can creatively think of some "abusive" combos (OP, broken, whatever seems out of line of what other cards can do at max.. -> use common sense here), some errata could be included for some of these cases.
Specially, when it looks as simple as including a "limit X" part.
And, I'm in favour of this because just look at the options:
a) do not ban -> leads to non-creative decks, user rants, and general abuse/NPE.
b) ban -> too restrictive. card is no longer used. "too square" a measure and then again, narrows down deck possibilties.
c) errata with limit or effect's cost modification -> has to be a realistic but not a harsh modification so that the card is still used!
With forearmed, a limit -8 seems ok because it will be enough so that you still use it in your deck, but not as way too much for instance -18 with a sauron.
And limit -8 seems ok or something Decipher may have done, right (see undaunted)?
it was not there because at the time of the TT format, it was sheer-way-too-much-luck if you got a -10 tops.
I know there may be better examples other than Vilya or Forearmed but these were the ones I could think of from the top of my head...
-
Forearmed is tricky. Clearly they never sought to limit its potential as the idea of making a minion -x was supposed to be a bit more random/lucky (which has been pointed out). However, in the same block they released all the elf telepathy cards so big D must have planned for players to be tactical. And since big hitters like the witch-king and the balrog have been around since FOTR someone must have said, "hey, what if Forearm gets used with the 'rog?"
Forearmed is also tricky (in stating that it is OP) because there are at least 2 ways to avoid the skirmish phase all together: Archery and wounding (as in ninja gollum). There is no denying that elf telepathy is effective, but of all the strategies out there, forearmed is not *that* OP. However, I will admit, my experience with elf telepathy is limited to movie block. I don't know how it fairs in different formats.
There is always Enduring evil as well. When it came out making a comp -9 (though horrible when it occurred) was never considered OP.
-
Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.
I dunno... there are so many ways to take off burdens in Expanded, I'm not sure I really think Sam would break it. Although, granted, the other means aren't quite as spashable as Sam. Shadowfax, GOTM is in many ways more effective than Sam, Jarnsmid, Barding Emissary is similar to a burden removing meat shield, as is Bilbo, Aged Ring-bearer. Then again, Sam on top of all these other means is probably too much, especially some of the healing/burden removing combos that can be pulled off with him.
And as far as instituting new errata or banned lists, MarcinS and co. are never going to do that. We've been through that a number of times. I think the best we can hope for is a new unofficial scenario that incorporates its own X and R lists, but good luck getting such a thing implemented on Gemp.
-
See, that is the thing: the LotR Tcg has always been too fragmented and divided by various issues and is one of the key reasons why we never formed a players committee akin to those formed by Wars and Trek players. So basically, we can play the official formats decipher left us as they left them...
And we can make house rules with our private play groups. If people have an aversion to playing against GLR or so given strategy like Horn filter, then you can make that known in chat and ask politely that people using those cards/strategies not come to your open table to play. And if someone wants to be a jerk and comes in against you with that strategy you hate, just concede the game and move on. If they repeatedly do it, report them for griefing.
Also, I'll say this: we as players have some power over the game... However, what we lack is authority. We can sit here and type all day abou how we should errata the x-list and unban all those cards... But no one (unless Decipher comes back from the dead and reacquires the lotr license) has the authority to do it.
I'll give this analogy: the paper the US dollar is printed on is not worth the dollar itself. Dollar bills have a value because we all agree they have a value. Unless enough lotr tcg players agree to whatever the proposed changes are, the proposed changes will have no value. The majority of lotr players would have to consent to any proposed changes for those changes to be legitimate.
So, really, if people want change, they should start trying to recruit like minded individuals and build consensus. But, honestly, knowing the community in the way I do, I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: Ftr, I played both Star Wars and Star Trek ccg's before and during their post-decipher players committee era. I'm fine with the idea of virtual cards, errata, etc. in theory and in practice if it can be done as adroitly as these two groups have done it. I'm not talkig about spitballing dream cards, but rather serious, competitive playtesting. Of course, there'd hafta be a committee around to form an R&D group for such things first...
-
Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.
I dunno... there are so many ways to take off burdens in Expanded, I'm not sure I really think Sam would break it. Although, granted, the other means aren't quite as spashable as Sam. Shadowfax, GOTM is in many ways more effective than Sam, Jarnsmid, Barding Emissary is similar to a burden removing meat shield, as is Bilbo, Aged Ring-bearer. Then again, Sam on top of all these other means is probably too much, especially some of the healing/burden removing combos that can be pulled off with him.
And as far as instituting new errata or banned lists, MarcinS and co. are never going to do that. We've been through that a number of times. I think the best we can hope for is a new unofficial scenario that incorporates its own X and R lists, but good luck getting such a thing implemented on Gemp.
I suppose it bears worth saying, all my posted are made from the movie block umbrella. Those three cards are certainly good ways to remove burdens, some of which are more effective than SoH. However, that being said, each of those cards require an additional cost to optimize. SoH is a stand alone 2 twilight for 3 burden removal plus meat shield. That is what makes him so good and "OP." By himself and without aid he can remove 3 burdens from any deck regardless of culture.
-
And we can make house rules with our private play groups. If people have an aversion to playing against GLR or so given strategy like Horn filter, then you can make that known in chat and ask politely that people using those cards/strategies not come to your open table to play.
This point, dethwish, reminded me of something I wanted to develop after my prior posting :)
Like I mentioned before, there are certain strategies that generate that "aversion". You don't want to approach it because you know what you're getting into. These are the strategies that most people will find "broken". Personally I do find games against certain Gil-galad or Telepathy/Cirdan decks to be obscenely boring and mundane. (gotta admit it at some point, lol).
The argument that I would like to develop is that the cards surrounding these strategies, or dare I say, even the strategies themselves, are not broken. I would go so far as to say that they are not overpowered (a lot of people have been substituting "OP" for broken these days).
For an example:
John Doe, who hasn't really played much with or against elves (not a veteran of the game), tries out a Corsairs Shadow in Movie Block. He gets thwarted by GLR, because his opponent had placed her there to prevent possession and condition abuse (two very VERY strong Movie Block shadow strats, when not put in check).
So, he doesn't complain, he just decides that he'll use her in his deck too (you punch me, I punch you right?). However, he goes on only to have his Fellowship broken at site 8 by Besiegers, even though he WAS using his Lady Redeemed to discard the engines almost every turn.
How can this happen?? Well...it has happened and we will see it happen again whenever someone tries to use cards like GLR or Madril as "silver bullets" rather than building them into a carefully constructed fellowship strategy.
I know because I HAVE lost to Besiegers and Corsairs while using GLR. These are not "overpowered", "broken", cards. They are cards that were put into play to help certain fellowship strategies combat very strong shadow strategies. If you try to splash LR into a Gandalf/Hobbit deck, with 8 or 9 elven events, its very likely that you will still lose to an opponent who uses condition and or possessions, because they just KNOW how to play their shadow well, and KNOW when not to invest too much into the conditions.
So if we know that Madril/GLR/Gil-galad aren't technically broken, then what's all the fuss about? Well...even though the cards themselves aren't broken...when they are used carefully, and inserted into a meticulously developed and thought-out deck, the results can be devastating for an opponent. You can't call the Madril strategy broken, just because sgtdraino figured out a way to develop his Fellowship side so that all of the drawbacks to using IB as a key strategy were minimized. This is essentially what he did. As he himself pointed out, his deck is not invincible. There are ways to combat it.
NOW, before you go off and say "well that's not fair, I don't want to have to add x3 Ships of Great Draught just to avoid my shadow getting killed by him", just remember that you probably don't play a copy of Grima, WT in all of your decks, and yet you have the chance of getting run over by dwarves bearing 8 cards each. Also remember that it's even more unlikely that you have a Grima, CC, and yet you know there are some killer rainbow fellowships that will laugh at your Nazgul deck. Maybe you think that in expanded your Nazgul deck won't need those Morgul Gates or Dark Approach...there's so much twilight anyway, right? So you save a few slots and you lose to a Lone Smeagol Ringbearer deck.
I think you see my point...there are hundreds of competitive combinations in this game, and many counters. Many decks are super strong. But that also might make them weak to that rogue card that no one saw coming.
What sgtdraino has done with his deck (if you have played him), was tried to make a very solid "jack of all trades" deck, if you don't mind me using the term. It addresses all of the major threats in any strong Shadow OR Fellowship he goes up against, while yet, not investing too far into one of those to make a KILLER strategy based on one little thing. If your fellowship loses to him, it's likely you've been methodically beaten down over the course of at least two sites, as opposed to coming up against one giant bomb. I think what he's done is extremely clever, and definitely groundbreaking for the game...BUT the fact still stands that there, in fact, exist, some strategies that could overcome him or anyone if you aren't prepared for it.
As one final example, I want to share what I recently tried to do with a card that I came across called, Ted Sandyman. I noticed that he was a Hobbit minion, and looked at all shadow cards involving hobbits. Maybe you yourself already realized that Ted can trigger Fool of a Took!, which takes out one of the major drawbacks to using that bomb strategy in normal competition - the necessary presence of another Hobbit. In expanded its not unheard of to see masses of Gimli RB or Galadriel RB decks. Ted Sandyman put the trigger for this event completely in my control. Sgtdraino helped me by suggesting that I develop my deck into a fellowship with a Horn filter, to cut down on the set-up necessary. There are two to three other cards that are involved in the bomb (you might get to see it sometime :) ), but basically, if you keep your fellowship alive, IT WORKS. It was entertaining watching a Gil-galad deck spend sites 2 - 6 fiddling with all of those tokens and conditions like it actually mattered. Once the bomb when off, there was really no chance of Galadriel surviving.
So...why is Ted Sandyman not broken? Because there ARE COUNTERS. If you have PATHS, A New Light, the right Gandalf, or even White Arrows, you may or can beat the shadow. I just go into the game risking that they don't have those cards, because they aren't as commonly played as a Greenleaf would be in Fellowship Block.
But isn't that the risk in any game? Your opponent MAY be carrying the right cards to take you down...and because none of the cards in your deck or your deck itself is actually broken, he COULD take you down...but you just gotta do the best you can with what you have and hope he doesn't have those cards sometimes :)
Sorry for the lengthiness...I usually just dump all at once as opposed to spacing out my thoughts haha
-
I wish I could give dmaz a lot more than one gold for that post, lol. Dmaz, I feel like you have effectively communicated my sentiments on the topics in a much more coherent, less ramble-y way than I have, so thank you. I agree with you about Sgt's deck being groundbreaking and good on you guys for developing the ted sandyman / fool of a took strategy.
-
Like I mentioned before, there are certain strategies that generate that "aversion". You don't want to approach it because you know what you're getting into. These are the strategies that most people will find "broken". Personally I do find games against certain Gil-galad or Telepathy/Cirdan decks to be obscenely boring and mundane. (gotta admit it at some point, lol).
It's funny you used the word "boring" there, because that is another word I hear thrown around quite a bit. Most often I hear it from an opponent when I'm kicking his #$&*@!, and his strategy is being completely ineffective. He'll say, "Ugh, your deck is so boring," or "what a boring deck." In this instance, I tend to interpret it as a code word that means, "Wow, your deck is really hard, and I can't seem to do anything against it. I must vent my frustration somehow." So, what are some thoughts about this word? What do we think it means when people use it on gemp?
I could understand it to mean a deck type that we commonly see a lot. You guys most likely know the archetypes: Dwarf Choke, Hobbit Hospital, Elven Telepathy Looping, Smeagol Choke, Ent Horde, Powerful Guide, and yes even Madril (although I swear I see a lot more variation between different Madril decks than among the other archetypes). So, in that sense, I could see something qualifying as "boring" because it's something we've seen a lot, and isn't really trying to be innovative. Of course, some of that is unavoidable when you're talking about a dead game.
I could also understand it to mean a deck strategy that forces you to wait for long periods of time doing nothing, such as Horn Filter, Gil-galad Looping, or other strategies that take long strings of actions before the other player gets to do anything. Sitting around watching the screen can indeed be boring.
So what does that word mean to you, in terms to LOTR TCG?
The argument that I would like to develop is that the cards surrounding these strategies, or dare I say, even the strategies themselves, are not broken. I would go so far as to say that they are not overpowered (a lot of people have been substituting "OP" for broken these days).
I've noticed that too. "Overpowered" might be another term worth taking a closer look at, and one that I feel is too often applied to cards that don't really warrant it.
So if we know that Madril/GLR/Gil-galad aren't technically broken, then what's all the fuss about? Well...even though the cards themselves aren't broken...when they are used carefully, and inserted into a meticulously developed and thought-out deck, the results can be devastating for an opponent. You can't call the Madril strategy broken, just because sgtdraino figured out a way to develop his Fellowship side so that all of the drawbacks to using IB as a key strategy were minimized. This is essentially what he did. As he himself pointed out, his deck is not invincible. There are ways to combat it.
HAHAHA!!! Thanks man, you flatter me. Yes, my deck is largely a bunch of redundant failsafes developed over time as counters to various things that have screwed me over in the past.
I think you see my point...there are hundreds of competitive combinations in this game, and many counters. Many decks are super strong. But that also might make them weak to that rogue card that no one saw coming.
Indeed. Particularly any deck that is overly-reliant on just one (or a few) strategies.
What sgtdraino has done with his deck (if you have played him), was tried to make a very solid "jack of all trades" deck, if you don't mind me using the term. It addresses all of the major threats in any strong Shadow OR Fellowship he goes up against, while yet, not investing too far into one of those to make a KILLER strategy based on one little thing. If your fellowship loses to him, it's likely you've been methodically beaten down over the course of at least two sites, as opposed to coming up against one giant bomb. I think what he's done is extremely clever, and definitely groundbreaking for the game...BUT the fact still stands that there, in fact, exist, some strategies that could overcome him or anyone if you aren't prepared for it.
Wow, thanks! That's very kind of you to say. Yes, it's true, my deck generally doesn't "bomb" in the sense of large groups of minions coming out. Instead it tends to whittle down Fellowships by attacking whatever key strategies they are relying on, and then finishing them off once their strategy has been disabled. The "bombs" of my deck come in the form of whatever minion is custom-built to #$&*@! with the opponent's strategy. My Gollum cards tend to be pretty good at pulling out whatever minion that happens to be, and then recycling it.
As far as weaknesses go, I'd definitely say I'm still weakest against Forest Nazgul. Sixth of the Nine Riders played over and over wreaks havoc on me, and there's really no way I can think of to stop it. Third of the Nine Riders using Buckland Homestead over and over is another issue that I can only partially deal with. And if anybody has any bright ideas about these guys, I'd love to hear them here:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php?topic=8811.msg86339#msg86339 (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php?topic=8811.msg86339#msg86339)
Otherwise, my Fellowship is sometimes not the fastest-moving in the world. For whatever reason, I am loathe to let my guys get killed, and as such I tend to be cautious. Sometimes the opponent will simply outrun me, and for whatever reason my Shadow isn't able to take him out. Normally this is a draw issue, and every deck is occasionally just going to get a bad draw.
As one final example, I want to share what I recently tried to do with a card that I came across called, Ted Sandyman. I noticed that he was a Hobbit minion, and looked at all shadow cards involving hobbits. Maybe you yourself already realized that Ted can trigger Fool of a Took!, which takes out one of the major drawbacks to using that bomb strategy in normal competition - the necessary presence of another Hobbit. In expanded its not unheard of to see masses of Gimli RB or Galadriel RB decks. Ted Sandyman put the trigger for this event completely in my control. Sgtdraino helped me by suggesting that I develop my deck into a fellowship with a Horn filter, to cut down on the set-up necessary. There are two to three other cards that are involved in the bomb (you might get to see it sometime :) ), but basically, if you keep your fellowship alive, IT WORKS. It was entertaining watching a Gil-galad deck spend sites 2 - 6 fiddling with all of those tokens and conditions like it actually mattered. Once the bomb when off, there was really no chance of Galadriel surviving.
Heh heh, Ted was a clever idea. Dmaz, you've said you're probably going to forgo the Horn Filter because it's just too cruel, and are instead going with Dwarf/Gandalf, right? Well, I've got another suggestion: Add OG Glamdring to potentially use Gimli more than once per turn, one Saved From the Fire, any version of Smeagol you want, one copy of Captured by the Ring, one Gollum, Dark as Darkness, one Evil-smelling Fens, and one Led Astray. Once the rest of your bomb is ready, use SFTF to burn Smeagol and take those three Gollum cards (except Gollum) into hand. That will enable you to swap any of your sites for Cavern Entrance, as well as adding 3+twilight, 1 threat, and getting 2 more Moria minions (Fens plays Goblin Sneak, Sneak puts a guy under your deck, then your event puts all that in your hand). Whaddaya think? Wouldn't be any worse than waiting to draw Nelya, and this way you get more minions for less twilight. Oh yeah, and start Dammed Gate-stream to pull Deagol and get Glamdring right away. Thoughts?
So...why is Ted Sandyman not broken? Because there ARE COUNTERS. If you have PATHS, A New Light, the right Gandalf, or even White Arrows, you may or can beat the shadow. I just go into the game risking that they don't have those cards, because they aren't as commonly played as a Greenleaf would be in Fellowship Block.
Yep. Although I would note that my suggestions would make your deck immune to A New Light, since those three Gollum cards are not minions. With those three in hand, you can use Fens to play Ted from discard. But I don't see a way around PATHS, that would magic bullet this deck I think.
-
I wish I could give dmaz a lot more than one gold for that post, lol. Dmaz, I feel like you have effectively communicated my sentiments on the topics in a much more coherent, less ramble-y way than I have, so thank you. I agree with you about Sgt's deck being groundbreaking and good on you guys for developing the ted sandyman / fool of a took strategy.
Thanks very much! And thanks for the continued contribution to the topic. A lot of your points are what get my mind working :)
It's funny you used the word "boring" there, because that is another word I hear thrown around quite a bit. Most often I hear it from an opponent when I'm kicking his #$&*@!, and his strategy is being completely ineffective. He'll say, "Ugh, your deck is so boring," or "what a boring deck." In this instance, I tend to interpret it as a code word that means, "Wow, your deck is really hard, and I can't seem to do anything against it. I must vent my frustration somehow." So, what are some thoughts about this word? What do we think it means when people use it on gemp?
So what does that word mean to you, in terms to LOTR TCG?
More or less, I suppose, I was taking more of a literal standpoint on the word. Whether I'm winning by quite a bit, or losing, I still often find all of the setting up and fiddling with tokens/cards on the top of the draw deck process with Elves kind of mundane and or boring. I have to give them that the strategy is very effective and can be cool how it works so well, but for some reason I can't get around the "well here we go with all of the elven nonsense" feeling...haha not sure if that makes sense...it's definitely a personal problem that I have, not any problem with the game or the cards...maybe if I tried actually playing WITH them it would leave me a little more open minded...someday!
On the Ted Sandyman side street topic, I HAD been tinkering a deck using Gollum just because of the versatility that his cards bring, but I had completely forgot about SftF working because Smeagol is the same culture, haha.
I've played two games like this so far and won both...however I never used SftF just due to being able to get through all the cards in the deck fast enough. Another problem that it would create is that if I wanted to use SftF, say, mid-game, if would mix up all of the cards that I have already placed below the draw deck. AND I wouldn't really want to use it opening game, if I drew it starting hand, because I would just be setting myself up to hold cards for the whole game.
That being said, using Gollum has been great with Evil Smelling Fens to ensure another two minions. In one game I wouldn't have won without him (the guy boromir RB and x3 Banners Blowing + another event haha).
My only issue is that Led Astray doesn't let me replace their site if they play pathfinder/SfaE/use smeagol. I'm tempted to replace Nelya with the Led astray, merely because of Gollum's versatility with ESF. If they are controlling sites, I will use ESF to fetch Nelya. If they have no ability to site playing (maybe an elf deck), then I can toss Ted to bring back later.
Anyway, it's still a work in progress, but thanks for the many tips along the way :) I think it more broad brushstrokes, whereas you have the deeper know-how about the game and how cards interact.
-
Mostly @ sgtdraino and dethwish -
I spent some time trying to make a Movie deck that would be as effective in Movie as sgtdraino's deck is in Expanded.
While the fellowship had some clear limitations, and I ended up having to go with all elves to keep the culture count low and keep survivability high, I was able to make a shadow that has killed three times in a row.
Here's a replay. You can kind of fast forward till around site 5/6/7, and even then you can get the idea with it going fast.
http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=dmaz$0e5d0kzf9lclw5zy
The shadow is a mishmash, and the large deck of 40/40 is able to cycle somewhat decently due to x4 Alliance Reforged and a combination of low cost minions/ESF/Gollum cycle pulls/Morgul Squealer. The nice thing about ESF (just like you use in your expanded deck) is it's ability to let you never be afraid to discard minions, because if you get an ESF out, you have the ability to repull whatever minion hurts them the most. I've used it for both Grimas, as well as Morgul Squealer...hoping I can use it for Sauron some time.
While I make some clear mistakes in that replay (I'm still learning a lot of aspects of the deck, as well as my own fellowship), you can see how it can be potent :)
I mostly posted this here because after Grima came out the second time he kept saying "stupid broken Grima". I pointed out that the real culprit card here is Evil Smelling Fens, haha. Still since the combo was called "broken", I thought I would throw it down here. There are many counters to my shadow, but I'm trying to make it so that they would usually need to have the right combination of cards in hand AND on table to make a solid stand, or be able to double without getting spanked.
-
I spent some time trying to make a Movie deck that would be as effective in Movie as sgtdraino's deck is in Expanded.
Ha! You know, in the last Expanded League, sgtdraino's deck really didn't do that awesome! ;) I feel you, though. I'd like to do the same thing, but still haven't really found my footing in the Movie format. A guy made a deck for me that does pretty well, but that's really not the same as coming up with something yourself.
While the fellowship had some clear limitations, and I ended up having to go with all elves to keep the culture count low and keep survivability high, I was able to make a shadow that has killed three times in a row.
Cool. I watched your replay, but can't really get a feel for how it works yet.
The shadow is a mishmash, and the large deck of 40/40 is able to cycle somewhat decently due to x4 Alliance Reforged and a combination of low cost minions/ESF/Gollum cycle pulls/Morgul Squealer. The nice thing about ESF (just like you use in your expanded deck) is it's ability to let you never be afraid to discard minions, because if you get an ESF out, you have the ability to repull whatever minion hurts them the most. I've used it for both Grimas, as well as Morgul Squealer...hoping I can use it for Sauron some time.
Sounds pretty good. You've inspired me! Maybe I'll take another shot at a Movie deck I really like.
I mostly posted this here because after Grima came out the second time he kept saying "stupid broken Grima". I pointed out that the real culprit card here is Evil Smelling Fens, haha. Still since the combo was called "broken", I thought I would throw it down here.
Yeah, Fens is great. I really wonder if the best Shadow for movie might be a hybrid of Ninja Gollum, with various silver bullet minions.