Broken?

[sgtdraino]

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?

[dethwish07]

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.

[dmaz]

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

[sgtdraino]

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!

[Ringbearer]

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.

[dethwish07]

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 , Dead Marshes for , 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!

[sgtdraino]

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 and . It's almost tempting to splash a little and 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 in, it would probably be Mauhur, Relentless Hunter. For , 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!

[dethwish07]

Just thought I'd throw these additional ways to contend with LR in Movie out there:

BNAP + an Enduring Nazgul
Brought Back Alive + A 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 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 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.

[dethwish07]

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, wounding, Forest Guls, Tentacle Swarm, 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: grind, Enduring Nazgul, Site control Uruks, 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.

[sgtdraino]

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
Ninja Gollum:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8217.0.html
Elf Looping:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8740.0.html
Orc Troll Super Swarm:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8453.0.html
Site Manipulation:
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, wounding, Forest Guls, Tentacle Swarm, 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?

[dethwish07]

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.

[sgtdraino]

lol. Wow, what a compliment! Thanks!

I'm now experimenting with a version that includes those two guys I mentioned earlier, from and . 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?

[dethwish07]

lol. Wow, what a compliment! Thanks!

I'm now experimenting with a version that includes those two guys I mentioned earlier, from and . 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.

[jdizzy001]

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.

[dethwish07]

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.