Site manipulation is what makes an Expanded deck viable.
There are plenty of viable Shadow strategies which do not use site manipulation. Gil-galad Looping and Hobbit Hospital are two (IMO) tier 1 FP strategies that also rarely use site manipulation. Dwarf decks are also very competitive, and rarely use site manipulation. So no, in my opinion site manipulation does not define whether or not a deck is viable. Granted if your deck
can do site manipulation that is an advantage, just as doing lots of Archery is an advantage, or canceling skirmishes is an advantage, or removing burdens is an advantage, etc. Site manipulation is simply another dimension of Expanded Format which must be taken into consideration when deciding upon a strategy.
A deck that allows itself to get hit with the opponent's choice of sites right up to 9 is going to lose to a deck that is designed to take advantage of that.
I have lost to decks that did not incorporate any site manipulation.
If you go through with Barliman Butterbur, PPP pulling Speak Friend and Enter to play Mithlond every turn along with a method of recurring Travelled leader (normally Grimbeorn and axe) whilst simultaneously forcing your opponent into the terrible sites (Steward's Tomb etc) you almost certainly cannot lose to a player who innocently ignores site manipulation.
You can't ignore it, any more than you can ignore a deck that does high Archery, or a deck that can discard all of your conditions. What you do, is
prepare for it. All part of the meta. Just kill Barliman, or sabotage his system some other way.
You really have changed your tune, Draino.
Yep! I think that's very clear from the first post in this thread.
It was not so long ago that you were saying that site manipulation was the scourge of Expanded. Now you're the one whom I see doing it the most.
It was a natural evolution. I went on a quest to see what could be done to counter site manipulation, and the ultimate answer was... counter-site manipulation.
It's become a necessary part of the game, and in my opinion that stifles it.
The variable sites of Expanded Format are an intentional new dimension of strategy for the game. IMO they don't stifle it, they add to it. Sure, because of the variable sites, some strategies that were effective in earlier formats are no longer effective... but that is the nature of different formats. You have to work within the meta you are operating, and Expanded meta (thank goodness) has
a lot of variety to it.
however, the "Rule of a Steward's Tomb is Never Good" or RoaSTiNG for short doesn't seem to fit in there.
With the massive healing abilities many Expanded decks possess, a
Steward's Tomb on a sanctuary (or two) acts as a balance. Those who play me know that I often play
Steward's Tomb on one or both sanctuaries... and more often than not, it ain't healing me either! You learn to do without.
Also it destroys the flavour of the game. I started at The foot of Mount Doom, but went all the way back to a nice B&B in the Shire in one day only to find that because another Frodo decided he wanted to pay his respects that I've woken up in a strange tomb!
The quest to destroy the ring can be a long and
winding road, and in LOTR TCG, the Fellowship never did get to
Mount Doom until Set 15 came out, and they finally made a
Mount Doom site! So, ironically, the only way to actually dump the ring at
Mount Doom, is to play with the new variable site path!
I play a fair amount of Expanded, and some of my decks have decent win rates. And it is nice to see that some people have more original ideas (which is what you'd expect given that there is a decent pool of cards). However, Decipher had given up with the game by that point and there are a lot of holes (Namarie is fine but FNF is restricted being a perfect example stated above).
Decipher's not perfect, but I think they continued to make some great cards, right up to the end. I agree that
FNF shouldn't still be restricted... but does making it restricted break the game? Naaaah. There's other options.
If I'm being objective, I might say Movie is the best overall format for viable options, but even there the threat of GLR does limit Shadow possibilities.
I'd be interested to see a comprehensive list of Movie strategies, to see which format truly has more variety. I started a thread for that, but lately haven't had the interest to do much with it. Focused on Expanded, for now.
I think the real thing is that Expanded could have been soooo much more fun if a few cards didn't ruin it. Most of them involve forms of site manipulation, but the thought of a card like Gothmog, Morgul Leader in Fellowship block is just crazy.
Well, that's the point isn't it: He's
not in Fellowship block. He's in Expanded Format, where the FP have the means of challenging him.
Can you honestly say that Shadowfax, GotM is healthy for the game?
Absolutely. There are some
major corruption decks in Expanded Format. You have single cards that are capable of adding 3 or 4 burdens at a time!
GOTM balances that out. And just like any other card, if you really feel that challenged by
GOTM, then use a strategy to get rid of it!
PS - Ya took my gold for expressing my opinion about the format? Sheesh. Ya Corsair! Well, I ain't gonna take yours, so there.