LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: So, what's the difference?  (Read 1712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 20, 2021, 06:57:07 AM
Read 1712 times

Olorin

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 510
  • You shall not pass!
So, what's the difference?
« on: February 20, 2021, 06:57:07 AM »
We all know that each culture has its own strengths/weaknesses/strategies... but sometimes there are so huge differences in their abilities that - yeah, afterwards - I wish there would happen some rebalancing; some examples...

so, what's the difference - compare:

1.) Shadow between vs. moment of respite
- same twilight cost, but
- 1 card or even discard vs. 2 cards
- any elf vs. just one certain unique companion

2.) Namarie vs. Traveler's Homestead
- 2 vs. 3 twilight
- none vs. spotting requirement (hand clog)
- many, many tokens vs. 1-3
- non unique vs unique
- 1 token required vs. 2 tokens required

3.) Lothlorien guides vs. Introspection
- 2 twilight cost in meneuver vs. 2 twilight cost in fellowship phase
- most likely 2 condition-discard of YOUR choice vs. only 1 condition discard of shadow-player's choice

4.) Glorfindel revealed in wrath vs. Shepherd of the trees
first look and if you wish then exert vs. first exert, and if it's bad for you, no one cares

5.) Glorfindel revealed in wrath vs. Gandalf Leader of men
starting benefit: both are twilight-cost -2, so total twilight cost = 2
Glorfindel: strength 9 plus unlimited ability - Gandalf: strenght 7 - done (a strength 7 character is overwhelmed easier by far than a comp. with strength of 9)

In many other cases you have to spot or even exert a certain unique character (talking about Gandalf himself) - whereas elves do not really care... usually it's fine if you just spot any elf, doesn't matter if companion or ally.
There should be a benefit if it's required to spot/exert a certain unique character compared to "none real spotting requirement"; spotting an elf is "pseudo".

I wonder, how the rest of the community think about that, knowing that Decipher will not make any changes/x-lists/bans, etc.

Thanks!

PS: What's the sense of a x-list, when the most broken card of all 19 sets - Gil-galad, High King of the Noldor - is not on it?
He is far more broken than Galadriel Lady Redeemed, number 2 in "brokeness".
Mithrandir I am known to the Elves, Tharkun to the dwarves; Olorin was the name in my youth in the West which is forgotten, in the South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; into the East I will not go."

February 20, 2021, 07:30:36 PM
Reply #1

Phallen Cassidy

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Bowman
  • Posts: 493
Re: So, what's the difference?
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2021, 07:30:36 PM »
Elves are overpowered. They have strengths other cultures don't yet no real weaknesses. I completely agree that Decipher favored them unfairly for most of the game's lifespan, I think they made a lot of little choices that individually were fine but acted against one another when combined. But I wouldn't look at those inconsistent later cards to say much -- really anything Hunters and beyond is in a class of its own. I don't think 2, 3, or 4 are fair because you could easily make that argument for/against any culture or strategy.

I don't totally disagree with 1. I think what Decipher was going for is that A) Elves are masters of healing and B) Gandalf is more valuable than any Elf, so it should take more to heal him. I think those are both perfectly fair until B falls apart and you have Elves who are more valuable than Gandalf in any way. Then A is too much. Gandalf is supposed to be the utility culture. You gain access to everything at the cost of relying heavily on a single companion. As Elves gained more and more without appropriate costs (or with easy ways to offset those costs), cards here and there that aren't too strong alone add up to a powerful machine.

5 is another issue, Decipher didn't respect its own rules. What is the point of saying GLR is cost 3 or Glorfindel is cost 4 when the Free Peoples will never pay that much? Leader of Men adds an interesting option for Gandalf decks, where the alternatives to starting Gandalf at -2 either mean you are more vulnerable early on or you don't have as much room for his cool stuff; but on the flip side you have a stronger companion. The alternative to starting Glorfindel at -2 is not using Glorfindel at all or adding a copy or two as a very good splash (maybe that's what they were trying to discourage and they just did it all wrong?). Whichever you pick the deck doesn't really change, which makes the benefit totally unnecessary. That his ability is great for both elven telepathy in general and Nazgul in specific just adds insult to injury. Blatant power creep.