Hunter keyword, and other D errors

[Tbiesty]

tbiesty, you are onto something here:

If a character has Hunter X, that character is Strength +X when skirmishing a wounded character.  

I really like this concept. And it would work for both sides, too. This is something we should playtest ASAP.

Thanks!  I think it works great.  If people could play-test it and also find that it is better and more balanced than the current ruling, it would be nice to someday have as an official "post-Decipher" Player's Committee rule.  Players could continue to use the "Decipher-era" ruling if they wish.

[MuadDib85]

Actually second of the nine riders is a nice in combo with Throne of the Dark Lord and Undead of Angmar. Put in some Uruk-hai plus a condition that makes the resistance -2 and autocorruption is there!

Saruman, Master of the White Hand helps aswell.

[Smeagollum]

Actually second of the nine riders is a nice in combo with Throne of the Dark Lord and Undead of Angmar. Put in some Uruk-hai plus a condition that makes the resistance -2 and autocorruption is there!

Saruman, Master of the White Hand helps aswell.

Yup It's allready resistance -5. Just to make sure the rb has a wound. Gollum dark as darkness should be in to I guess. Plus Abandoned Mine Shaft in case opponents has to walk from 7 to 9 to win. Tehn the resistance is allready -6 just a few to go...

[simplegarak]

tbiesty, you are onto something here:

If a character has Hunter X, that character is Strength +X when skirmishing a wounded character.  

I really like this concept. And it would work for both sides, too. This is something we should playtest ASAP.

On the other hand, if you play Hunters Block only, the original Hunter concept is more balanced, i.e. it is not so much an advantage to run Hunters companions/minions as it is a disadvantage not to run them, if that makes any sense.

I HATED the hunter keyword because it was so freakin' binary.  Wow, you gave your Uruk-hai hunter 6 3 times, giving him +18 strength?  Yeah I'll just give my companion hunter 1 and cancel all that out.  The +X while fighting wounded isn't bad (especially if you make it flat), I also liked the idea of "exert to make character +X".  Of course, just making it an unloaded keyword would have been best.

Here's idea: try a game where you use "hunter" like the "archer" keyword but during maneuver (each side count up their total hunters, etc then distribute wounds - no, make them exertions).

Other fixes:
Dwarves should be kings of drawing.  However, there is a hard rule against drawing more than 4 cards during fellowship.  Take away all the card drawing that Elves got for "post fellowship" phases and give them to the dwarves (Elves should have deck manipulation, maybe reconciling ahead of schedule but nothing more).

Allies... followers... poor D just couldn't get the whole "home front" down just right.  I wish they had done more allies/followers for shadow too.  Other than putting a rule limit on how many allies you could have, I'm not sure what could be done to really fix them, except maybe open some cards up to say "character" instead of "companion".  Also, give the "ally hose" cards an additional function.  Something like "exert an unbound companion or exert every ally", "this minion is strength +1 for every companion, +2 for every ally" etc.  And I still couldn't believe they released followers without any control for them (also, I hated their design, only artifacts should be golden).  Part of me wishes they acted like just another form of condition (play to support area, bearer must be a...)  I don't know, I just think there wasn't that much wrong with allies in the first place, they just needed better balance.  I'd probably make sure every ally (if not make it a rule) had text that required spotting a corresponding companion (to represent the home front joining their champion in support of destroying the ring, but they don't care if one of theirs is NOT involved).

I wish Rohan "army" had gotten more love - by that I mean a deck where you run a CRAPLOAD of Rohan companions who are then discarded (instead of dead) and replaced with more.  The army feel might also have come through if they had more soldiers that worked like followers, you played them on Theoden or other leaders for a bonus...

[Thranduil]

Allies... followers... poor D just couldn't get the whole "home front" down just right.  I wish they had done more allies/followers for shadow too.  Other than putting a rule limit on how many allies you could have, I'm not sure what could be done to really fix them, except maybe open some cards up to say "character" instead of "companion".  Also, give the "ally hose" cards an additional function.  Something like "exert an unbound companion or exert every ally", "this minion is strength +1 for every companion, +2 for every ally" etc.  And I still couldn't believe they released followers without any control for them (also, I hated their design, only artifacts should be golden).  Part of me wishes they acted like just another form of condition (play to support area, bearer must be a...)  I don't know, I just think there wasn't that much wrong with allies in the first place, they just needed better balance.  I'd probably make sure every ally (if not make it a rule) had text that required spotting a corresponding companion (to represent the home front joining their champion in support of destroying the ring, but they don't care if one of theirs is NOT involved).

By King block, Decipher had the fix for allies: they're fine, as long as they're not broken (like Lady of Light) and can't fight. But that isn't very interesting to have characters that can't fight. And so followers were good design to get the same flavour in a different more balanced way. And they were fine until cards like Frenzy of Arrows, Servant of Sauron and the Horns.