Deck construction / Number of creatures

[Taurelin]

In decks specifically designed for "Hero vs. Hero" games, what am I supposed to do with creatures that give marshalling points with "*", such as Gondorian Rangers?

As far as I know, the Hazard portion of decks is supposed to include at least 12 creature cards (with Nazgul and other half-creature / half-event cards and agents counting as 1/2 creature).

So, is building a deck with 12 creatures - all of them merely giving *-MPs - in "Hero vs. Hero" decks
a) super-tech, because the opponent won't get any kill-MPs at all
b) allowed but useless
c) allowed but bad style
d) not allowed
?

My preferred answer would be c), but I'd like to hear some expert opinions. Thx!

[thorondor]

its definately allowed and not bad style necessarily.
look at the horse lords: gimli/legolas/aragorn have been questioned by rohirrim rangers. its detainment, that just fits. and all the good powers are on the alert these days, since its not that easy to immediatedly decide whether someone is friend or foe.
of course there are enough examples that wouldnt fit as well, but its not bad style per se.

[Taurelin]

That's good to know. Thanks for the info.

Thinking about it, it might even make thematic decks "more thematic". For example, complementing a Lorien/Fangorn-based resource strategy with Elves upon Errantry or Ent in Search of Ent-wives.


And I mean, the purpose of playing hazard creatures is often not to kill their characters, just to delay them. And for this purpose, detainment is perfect without giving away MPs.

And for clarification:
*-creatures count as full creatures, not half-creatures, correct?

[Darksatin]

*-creatures count as full creatures, not half-creatures, correct?

Yes, they count for full creatures.

the purpose of playing hazard creatures is often not to kill their characters, just to delay them

OK, but I think that it is best to try to wound the characters than to try to tap them. If the attack is dangerous, they tap anyway...

[Taurelin]

Perfect, thanks a lot.

[zirilan]

For some decks that use an agressiv resource strategy (influencing away stuff) you probably do not want to 'kill' opponents characters in order to keep his used at a maximum.

[Taurelin]

This might get a little off-topic, but anyway.

For some decks that use an agressiv resource strategy (influencing away stuff) you probably do not want to 'kill' opponents characters

The opposite is true, as well. I mean, In totally friendly games, like me vs. my wife (maybe also in "Cool Play" games), I also don't really want to kill her central characters, because it leads to great frustration. Simply winning because I gathered MPs faster than her is much more acceptable, from a psychological point of view.

[Bandobras Took]

The funnest games for me are indeed those where both players are succeeding and the winner is the player who succeeds more magnificently.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Nah, most fun are the games where opponent doubles you on faction points only to find out those are reduced to 1 MP because Robin Smallburrow is the only one left standing on his side

btw. playing only agents and/or creature/permanent-events also assures your opponent not scoring any kill mps (basically) and is even less fun. Playing a detainment strat is certainly not bad style in my book, and it can be very effective too.