Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Lord of the Rings LCG
|Search for Cards|
|Recent Card Discussion|
Yesterday, 10:59 PM by RichardPlunkett
Shadow cards like this that might remove defenders are amongst the scariest in the game. But, this one is harmless against heroes and generally harmless early on. Still, repeatable shadow control is a mainstay of good defense.
Yesterday, 03:19 PM by slothgodfather
yea, the shadow effect takes affect and so when the attack resolves, you don't have a defender.
Yesterday, 03:15 PM by slothgodfather
I think the immunity would kick in as soon as he was in play, so it would prevent the dmg.
Yesterday, 02:56 PM by benfrohlich
I have a question about this card's shadow effect. If a defending ally is discarded by this effect does the attack become undefended?
Yesterday, 06:44 AM by RichardPlunkett
If Landroval puts Beorn back into play, does he come into play with one damage?
(or does his immunity prevent that damage?)
Oct 23 2016 03:23 AM by RichardPlunkett
Yes, Desperate Alliance lets multiple players benefit from his effect.
This ability to share/reuse once-per-game effects is likely why recent cards have started using "once per game for the group" instead. But unless they errata the old cards, enjoy the combo goodness.
Oct 22 2016 08:43 PM by GKZhukov
Am I right in thinking you can use Desperate Alliance to allow a 2nd player to trigger the ability and that still counts as once per game?
I've seen it mentioned that this works with Galdor of the Havens' "once per game" ability, and Red Eowyn explicitly states "once per game for the group", so don't see why this wouldn't work?
Oct 21 2016 04:28 PM by slothgodfather
Yea, I can see the confusion here. Is the "if no attack" supposed to trigger if you are on-course AND/OR if there are no enemy ships engaged? I honestly couldn't say. Have you checked the FFG forums for this yet?
Oct 21 2016 03:16 PM by Nerdmeister
Would "If no attack is made as a result of this effect" only be relevant if you are off-course? "This effect" referred to being the thing that happens if you are not on-course?
Will the Doomed 2 happen automatically if you are on-course
Could potentially lead to some strange decisions where you decide to stay off-course if your threat is high enough to get you eliminated but your fleet-setup is strong enough to easily withstand an extra attack; seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.
Oct 18 2016 07:58 PM by Palpa
I second this.
Can't think of any rule (or reason) why it should be different than that.
Oct 17 2016 10:44 PM by RichardPlunkett
I don't see why using Windfola would exhaust the character.
The situation of having been committed, then being removed will normally leave the character exhausted, which is likely a major part of why Windfola doesn't have exhausting the character as a cost or as an effect. And without it explicitly addressing the issue, the character's readiness remains in it existing state.
Oct 17 2016 09:23 PM by TheNameWasTaken
If Windfola's rider is ready and committed to the quest and then gets removed, would using Windfola's ability exhaust the rider too? Or does it depend on whether the rider exhausts to quest or not?
Oct 17 2016 06:13 AM by Friman
It could be done in very particular circumstances, such as suffering treachery effects that blank your card text, such as The nine are abroad, IIRC. There's a list of these cards in the Bill the pony entry, but I was mostly joking: no particular interest in having a pony hero. Not until the jump off the shark and give us a Gwaihir hero or something like that.
Oct 17 2016 05:34 AM by GKZhukov
Except you wouldn't be able to attach an attachment to blank no attachments as you'd need no attachments blanked in order to attach the attachment. So such a thing wouldn't make for a Pony Hero alas.
Oct 14 2016 08:32 AM by LoricatusLupus
I actually think that this is a better mount for new Eowyn than Rohan Warhorse, which most people I play with rate as the best. With the amount cards appearing recently which remove characters from the quest, it's vital for such a high Willpower hero to have a way back in. I'm certainly going to skip Snowmane for her in favour of Strider, but obviously that's not a good card if you're running three Heroes.
Oct 14 2016 06:17 AM by Palpa
Thats what I have in mind.
Signs of Gollum
Oct 14 2016 03:25 AM by calumfox89
Ahh ok, this makes sense! Thanks guys!!
Oct 14 2016 12:09 AM by RichardPlunkett
1 cost for 1 WP is fair price. The response is generally useless. If you are running Elfhelm, or have spirit heroes that always quest, and aren't attracting other restricted cards, then it might be playable.
Without Elfhelm, the main obstacle is its lack of punch. I generally want cards to do more than this. For example, it would be far more attractive at costing 2 resources for +2 WP (like Celebrian's). Without lots of card draw, having more than a few 1-cost cards in a deck tends to weaken it, and I wouldn't use that space on this.
Oct 13 2016 11:11 PM by Friman
I'd put Snowmane, Herugrim (both restricted, both on Spirit) or Golden Shield on Spirit Éowyn any day over Windfola. Tactics Éowyn has a lot more attachments to play with. The special effect of Windfola is too specific to matter in most quests, and being unique finally kills it, unless playing along with Théoden and spirit Éowyn and or Elfhelm. The reason I rated it as 1 star is because I misread and thought the only possible character to play it on was Éowyn, so I'm willing now to upgrade my initial rating up to 2 stars, Lord Inquisitor. I hope you curiosity has been slaked 1 for 1 WP is not a bad tradeoff at all, but still I can't find place for this in my spirit Rohan deck without Elfhelm.
Oct 13 2016 09:25 PM by Palpa
1 cost for one willpower, I can't see why you guys complain. OK. It's a card to draw, maybe that's what you don't like about it? But the tradeoff 1/1 is common
|Browse Full Sets|