Hunter keyword, and other D errors

[sickofpalantirs]

Faithful stone ( yes I know it has erratra, its still crazy)
Saruman, SoS...though if you banned 2nd of the nine riders it wouldn't be too bad...
Gil-Galad of course
well I think the whole hunter keyword is OP, at least on the freeps side.  base 10 aragorns? base 9 faramirs? its crazy...I mean if it was hunter one I could deal with it, but for the same cost, they get a possible +2 bonus, its insane!

post yours, and argue over what is right  (erm, debate)

[Vroengard]

yeah, funny thing is, that if you are not facing uruks, which use to be (very strange) the only one with useful and playable hunter keyword, you can consider your hunter companions as companions with higher strength. that is weird.

[Jerba]

The whole concept of the Hunter keyword adding to strength is wrong. It should have been unloaded or not a strength enhancement.

[macheteman]

The whole concept of the Hunter keyword adding to strength is wrong. It should have been unloaded or not a strength enhancement.

amen.

[sickofpalantirs]

ok I moved it, and as such I have an idea.  Post your DC ideas for a better hunter keyword, a better faithful stone, a better frenzy of arrows, prized lagan, etc.
(by better I mean less broken, but still playable.)

[FingolfinFinwe]

I think for Frenzy of Arrows it would have been ok if they had just replaced all the 2's with 1's.  Still powerful and a follower deterrent.

Twilight Cost: 2
Type: Event • Archery
Game Text: Spot an minion to add 1 to the minion archery total. If you do, you may add an additional 1 to the minion archery total for each follower you can spot.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Yeah, that's how I play frenzy of arrows with my associates.

[Jerba]

Hunter: Unloaded. Done. Still there, but it works like the Ranger or Knight keyword.

Does that ruin any actual cards? Other than taking strength away?

[FingolfinFinwe]

Well, it pretty much kills some of the Uruk commons/uncommons that are 4-5 strength and hunter 4, but that can't much be avoided by changed the actual concept.  I actually like the hunter keyword... I just think that MORE minions should have it, considering how important it is for the free peoples.  Although at that point it becomes something that you would pretty much have to run in your fellowship to survive.. circles.. bleh.

[Braler]

I just think that the whole concept of adding a keyword that automatically adds to strength if it is not found on the opposing card is rediculous.  I know it is impossible to perfectly balance all elements of a game but come on!  This keyword by its very design TRUMPS all.  It makes many other options obsolete.  This all is not to mention the idea that it doesn't really follow any kind of flavor...  Flavor for a hunter keyword should be something along the lines of well... HUNTING.  IE: playing around with roaming like ranger, playing around with stealth like Traker, or how about something completely origional? There are so many options out there for this keyword that making it a blanket strength bonus seems sorta rediculous to me, not to mention a copout.  (gets off soapbox)

[Tbiesty]

I agree that the Hunter keyword basically as a blanket strength bonus is ridiculous.  It really should mean something that makes sense.  An idea I've had about Hunter is this:

Think of "hunting a wounded animal", the hunter will more likely catch and finish off a wounded animal than a healthy one.  Likewise, a Hunter character is stronger against a wounded character.  If a character has Hunter X, that character is Strength +X when skirmishing against a wounded character.  (Much more fair than the current meaning...IMO)  There have been cards in the past that worked similar to this (e.g.  Eomer, Third Marshal of Riddermark), so we know it fits into the game already.

That's it!  Simple, avoids trumping all non-Hunters, and kind of makes sense when you think about it.

[ununtrium]

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.

[MuadDib85]

Saruman, SoS...though if you banned 2nd of the nine riders it wouldn't be too bad...

I don't understand why banning Second of The Nine Riders makes SoS 'less broken'?

I think SoS is strong but not that bad, how does Attea make him broken? With the ammount of direct wounding decks in standard, SoTNR won't be able to use it's text very often anyway..

[legolas3333]

I think he means third of the nine riders cause you can play isengard ruined over and over

[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!