lleimmoen said:

If you are going to tell me that I am wrong, please let me know how I am wrong.  The odds of the draw on the mulligan are exactly the same as the odds on the initial draw, save for the fact that you end up with a seventh card by the time you start playing.  If the first part is right I don't see how the second part can be in error.

Narsil0420 said:

Maybe i sound bad but i saw this game and……. You was ok Narsil but other players……sorry but even Glorifindel cannot help you if you dont know how to play this game. The players level is important! We cannot talk really serious of you even dont know rules well.

First you dont even remember the cards. And for sure dont remember cards game text. You cannot be a good player if you dont remember ANY cards game text in your mind.

 You correctly computed the probability for not getting it in a 6 card hand (67.57%) and the probability for not getting it in a 7 card hand (62.96%)

So, you get it in your opening hand in the following ways:
1) You get it in your first hand. OR
2) You miss it in your first hand, mulligan, AND get it in your second hand + first draw.

So, the probability is:

(1-P(miss on 6)) + P(miss on 6)*(1-P(miss on 7))
 

Which is: (.3243) + (.6757)(.3704) = .5746 (ish).

So your final probability is 57.48%, which is pretty damn close to Bohemond's answer (if not identical, depending on how we both rounded).

And math IS my strong suit. :) I should get my PhD in May.

Glaurung said:

Then you should go help them out. I'm sure they'd welcome your constructive feedback. 

Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be snarky. If you think they made some poor decisions during the gameplay videos, you should suggest alternative strategies.

First, I appologize Bohemond, I thought you are not minding the 1-P time P rule because you didn't show it among the numbers. The way you computed was right, I just didn't see how you added the two numbers within the post. I am sorry I didn't recognize the right thing.

Minor point, you don't mulligan for 7 cards, you still mulligan for 6. I was talking about the opening hand (and I thought we both were). But that doesn't change things much. The correct number is about 54% which makes my initial statement that it were below 50% totally incorrect.

Radiskull, way to show you didn't study your PhD for nothing, thanks for the clarification. Again, the final number is slightly off because you do 7 cards in stead of 6 but that is indeed a minor thing.

lleimmoen said:

Not to worry, I certainly could have erred as well.  We all make mistakes.

lleimmoen said:

I did 7 cards in the second draw because I'm interested in the probability that I "start the game" with the card.  Since there's really not anything to do between the initial draw and the first Planning phase, I included the first draw from the resource phase as well.

You're right, though - it doesn't change the probability much at all. 54.34%, as you found.

I know, it makes sense. I thought it'd be better without it because then you've got some factors like Bilbo giving one extra card, encounter cards forcing you to discard, etc; thus the crude opening hand might be the best starting point, from which one can go with Beravor, Runes, etc. to further pull the scales.

To come back to the OP, having this (way) over 50% chance of having any card from the early start really makes the "one player card + hero" combos very powerful. Not that it is a new thing by any means, it just reminds me that the likes of enLightened Glorfindel or enCouraged Beravor are "quicker" and likely more effective combos than the likes of Stargazing Miners.

I'm playing with Glaurung's deck against FoS. Win/loss ratio is 2-1. The first two games were easy wins, although Aragorn got 2 damage in round 1 of the first game which made me a bit concerned, but then the rest of the scenario was location heavy - with Asfaloth in my starting hand it wasn't that difficult. Game 2 saw no trouble at all.

Game 3 was the most interesting. LoV, Asfaloth, Haldir, Gildor - all in my starting hand, and "Steward of Gondor" in round 1 which I played on Denethor. In round 2 I lost Aragorn to Unexpected Trap, but got to stage 4B without any bigger problems. There I faced a "Nameless Thing" which got Gandalf and Protector of Lórien as attachments when I engaged it. I defended with Haldir, but got "Unexpected Trap" again, this time as a shadow card. Haldir - dead! Denethor - dead!

In the next two rounds I planned to sacrifice Gléowine and Riddemark's Finest as meat shields in the last turn of stage 4 and stage 5. With 10 cards in my hand (thank you Gléowine!) and Protector of Lórien attached to Glorfindel I had a good chance to finish stage 5 in a single turn. But first I had to defend Nameless Thing. Riddermark's Finest bites the dust, and the shadow card was "Lost and Alone". All my cards gone! Then I sent Glorfindel and Gildor questing, and my encounter was - drumroll - "Lost and Alone"! Game over!

However, it was a loss I enjoyed because it was so, uhm, elegant and epic.

I will play some more games, perhaps against other scenarios too, to properly  evaluate this deck. So far I like it, although it seems to be a bit vulnerable against enemies in the first couple of rounds. And I would always choose Westroad Traveler over Riddermark's Finest. Or more copies of Arwen.

An aspect I find boring in the game (and I know others are going to disagree because they praise it) is customizing your deck for each different quest.   It is a tedium for me that I do not enjoy.  Perhaps PC/video games spoil me because they shuffle the deck and deal out the tokens for me, but there are a lot of minutia involved and the deck changing is about as muct time consumption as it is to play an actual quest.

If the quests were epic, meaning they had 20+ stages to them, awesome battles, and lasted for many hours, then I see the point.  But these quests are short, the game length is short (all great things, mind you) but because they are short, the deck customization is not something I enjoy.

So for good or bad, I go with "One deck to rule them all"

My son plays with me sometimes…sometimes I solo with one deck, sometimes I solo with his deck as well.  I enjoy starting at quest 1 and then rolling all the way to the end and see how we did.

I am an engineer, I guess I'm good at math, but I don't buy into the 50 card logic everyone harps on.  I use 80-90 deck cards and I'm never playing with a mindset of, "dangit, why isn't that card showing up yet?".  To limit my deck to 50 would be far too stressful because I do not see how some cards are that much more powerful than others.  If I choose a card, I put all 3 in…I rarely limit them in that regard…and I throw in the songs (most of them) as they can generate me some revenue if I have the right cards + rivendell minstrel.

But I digress.

The heroes we use:  Loragon, Glorfindel, Frodo.   I've often considered swapping out Frodo and I'm going to try Denethor as someone has suggested.  Glorfindel with his new gigs is indeed powerful, but I honestly don't see how one hero wins anything.  Most enemies which cause problems have 3-5 armor and Glorfindel attacks with a 3.  In the beginning, he can really help with questing, but some missions are oriented towards swarming you with enemies so his role does vary from mission to mission.  Asfaloth, in my mind is probably the one card I do enjoy having…but so is fast hitch for Frodo.  Have I ever considered reducing my deck?  Nah.

This deck is a four sphere deck.  Song of battle is in there so I can get Glorfindel the sword and bow.  And other songs are added in order to get unique items for Loragon.  There are also things to support Frodo, etc.

All in all, even with my statistically inferior deck (when compared to the 50 card decks), I wholly enjoy playing this game and I'm winning more than I'm losing, (however I swear a lot when playing Escape from Dol Goldur and I don't usually win that one…in fact, I think I've only won it once)

I spam Glorfindel and use Frodo to absorb damage and my threat shoots from 24 to 48 in no time flat…but I don't care…it is all part of the early game strategy to reduce damage and I just use Loragon to reset and then after the reset, you play a little more tight to the chest.

My son's deck is also a ton of fun, and THIS is what I like about this game is the synergies between cards.  Due to the latest series, there has been a lot of focus on dwarves, of course, so he has an all dwarven party.  His favorite missions are when he can bring in all dwarven allies (his deck literally has nothing but dwarves in it) and then use the battlemaster to kill a troll in one fell swoop, or use his cards to commit everyone to defense or to the quest and then refresh them and pummel them into oblivion.

His heroes are Gimli, Dain, and Gloin.

The synergies with his deck and mine are fantastic…as I often purchase items for him and he will do likewise.  Gloin committed to quests (with Dain's ability) is very helpful and Gimli tends to play the same as Glorfindel…quest early and then attack later.

Anywho, we are probably noobs in the grand scheme, but we enjoy the game tremendously.  We get lazy, though, we never change our decks…his is 70+ and that is how we like it. 

The synergies and the figuring out how to work together to overcome something difficult is what I enjoy.  Some of the quests are awful, especially the gollum ones because I really dislike it when I "lose instantly" or "can't attack this turn".  Those are hokey game elements to me.  I personally wish there were ways to create 3 or 4 decks and have even more synergies. 

A game I enjoy playing is Shadows over Camelot…yes, I know that Battlestar Galactica is supposed to be better, but it frankly isn't if you play with 6 or more people and we like to actually finish within an hour, although the traitor mechanics are nicer.  The point I'm making is that cooperative games are fantastic.  And I've seen some great designs which make games difficult.  I just wish they could get more epic in their scope.  I want to command 12 heroes, not just three.  I want to have broad expanses and linked quests…not some hokey nightmare mode.   That is what I want…but I really am quite happy with what I have.

Thanks for listening, and happy playing!

leptokurt said:

As much as I like the new Strider (and I had initially thought the new Glorfindel is tailor-made for him) I experience Beravor as a better option. The card draw still rocks for my games. And I would definitelly rather go with WRT than RF if I have Asfaloth (and I guess Tracker too).

Interesting approach indeed mr Schmoo. This is what is so nice about the game, it can be enjoyed in many different ways.

I've been using Glorfindel (spirit) a lot lately, and he is really good. I have a little bit of trouble in the games where i don't draw an early LOV, but for the most part, Glorfindel (spirit) rocks. I would say the the cost analysis for him is a bit off. I often read that he should cost 7 more threat (as befitting his stats) but this is obviously a mistake. Unlike most of the other top tier heroes, Glorfindel (spirit) is all stats, he doesn't have any cool special actions or abilities.  That's gotta count for something, right?

I've read alot of people's writing about how the new glorfindel is overpowered. However, when I see the card on it's own, the stats, the threat cost, the lack of a useful ability, the presence of a penalty, he does not look overpowered on first sight. Also, all the time when people write about how he is overpowered, they write about light of valinor and Asfaloth.

That made me think. I have now tested the new glorfindel without light of valinor, and without asfaloth. I have been testing with the old glorfindel and both attachments, and I have been testing with the twins and the light of valinor. (in a deck with the twins and Eowin)

The conclusion I came to is this: the new glorfindel is good. Very good. But not overpowered. Asfaloth is also a very good card, when played on a glorfindel it's in the range of northern tracker. The card that is more than very good is the light of valinor. It is not so much overpowered on a twin, but it is on any of both glorfindels: quest for 3 and attack for 3 is very good. It does the same as unexpected courage at half the price. And the real aspect of overpowered comes when you combine the new glorfindel with light of valinor. In that case, not only do you have an unexpected courage at half the price, you also get to ignore the penalty on glorfindel.

So my conclusion: 
Spirit Glorfindel is a very good hero, like there are other very good heroes. 
Light of Valinor borders to being overpowered when combined with the right hero (Lore Glorfindel)
The combination of Spirit Glorfindel and Light of Valinor is overpowered in my eyes. With overpowered I mean: is much more powerful than any other combination of 2 cards in this game.

As a bonus: Since you are likely combining Spirit Glorfindel with a Lore hero for Asfaloth anyway, Daeron's Runes is a very good card to go fetch a Light of Valinor if you don't hold it in your opening hand. It also gives you something to do with a second copy of any of the unique attachments. And it costs 0!

So true about the Light. Being unique I used it twice in my deck at first, but, before long, I realised that it has to be represented thrice in order to get it asap. Same goes for Arwen. The only two uniques being thrice in my deck. And the Daeron's Runes inclusion is a nice idea as well. I haven't used it yet, but I see people arguing about how strong it is. I might include it next time I play.