Look, I know it is ridiculous for me to come up with new Ideas about where armies should go.
How many character dice can the Corsairs use?
How much leadership does the southrons have?
Answer = ZERO
Say the southrons conquer Dol, not Orthanc.
Can Minas T liberate Dol Amroth?
Can Minas T conquer Umbar + Far Harad + (angmar) for the win?
Can Minas T charge Mordor? (without being conquered)
All of these dont sound irrelevant, especially since after Dew North there is 11 troops left to defend 9 shadow victory points.
5 Wolves in the fords make rohan and companions do strange things, and they can just conquer Rohan instead. An army in Umbar does nothing until after muster dice have been spent on E&S and Corsairs, and the corsairs have moved.
In fact, it is actually way worse than marching toward Pelagir.
Who takes Pelagir in the corsair version, BTW?
Can Southrons use Fighting Uruk Hai?
Are wolves hurt by 'Southern Fiefs?'
A wolf army can have 5 elites, an Elephant army will have 2 elites.
All other cards (like onslaught) work better for the wolves, coz there are more people. Onslaught was specially designed for Hill men, right?
Wolves with straight character dice will conquer Dol Amroth. Umbar just looks at them, confused.
'I don't see how it's important that the Southrons can't move with character dice.'
It is the last turn, you have a single sword and eyes.
Merry, beseiged in Dol Amroth, summons the eagles and you lose.
Exactly the same thing can happen in Pelagir.
I have lost to the eagles scaring off my win, that is why I take them seriously. Odd you think losing games is a joke.
Wolves do just take Dol Amroth, I am yet to hear of ANY failure to do so. Wolves are simply better at being corsairs than the corsairs are. There are so many unlikely things that can go wrong for the Corsairs, but just cant for the Wolves. SS and Mr W are still to point out any strength the Corsairs have over the Wolves, except the abilitly to lose a second time lose using their wormhole.
Wolves are larger, faster, have inbuilt leadership, can use a wider variety of dice, and always take Dol Amroth without needing nazgul. Then they can be rebuilt somewhere useful.
I do not waste dice moving Nazgul, didn't spend to reorganise nazgul at all last game. Do you waste another dice moving the Naz away again afterward?
Wolves can easily take Dol Amroth on turn 3+, without any effort or special dice, or cards. Some games I do not need E & S at all, Wolves and Dol Guldur are simply easier to use and more effective.
If 5 wolves in the fords paralyses Rohan, how is it a bad thing to move into the Fords? If the 2 guys in the fords die, waiting and taking the easiest 2 points seems obvious.
If Rohan has defended itself, abandoning Orthanc and running straight at Dol is actually easier and faster. And you get to link up with Sth Dunland in the Gap of Rohan. I suppose that could force Orthanc to get conquered, but then I suppose you would only be larger and closer to Dol, but not better lead than the southrons as normal.
If the brilliant plan is to move a second southron army to Dol Amroth with corsairs, why conquer Dol Amroth twice? And where is the second army coming from?
If the southrons march into Pelagir, Dol Amroth just cant be liberated from the wolves.
Sure, mustering Gondor to war does stop the corsairs.
It does not stop the Wolves. Wolves can take Dol Amroth with any collection of dice, at a moments notice.
Go ahead and muster Gondor to war, build some elites in Dol Amroth, and then the shadow conquers Helms deep for the win.
Stops the corsairs dead though.
If Day Without Dawn is a signature card worth of all 3 nations at war, how come I only nail 1 will of the west, maximum, in the last 30 games?
Yes, Day without Dawn is brutal against beginners. I am not one, nor are my opponents.
SS-> I find it really frustrating you choose to type so loudly, and never edit or rewrite your posts. Some of what you say is worth reading. Pity it takes up so much space. As a play tester you (SS) get to wear some of the blame for the corsairs being utterly crap.
SS -> You believe that because you have said something, it should be permanant, even when wrong. You do not edit or control what you say. Your words are transient, yet set in stone. If I am wrong I edit, correct and improve. I accept I am wrong sometimes, and change and rewrite. You do not. You pump out lots, and lots of posts, and never seem to reread or imrove anything.
I do not.
I try to construct something worth reading, something with meaning. The reason you are replying to thin air is because you do not edit what you say. My post count comes in at 53, but I only have 13 posts. If I am sending a personal message I will say it in public, and then delete it.
I present a small target, but one that is worth reading.
I accept you do know what you are talking about, Mr Weasley too, but I would really prefer if you did re-edit and delete most of your posts. Actually, I would like everyone to re-edit and improve their post, pity it just doesn't happen. If you do not choose to control what you say, nothing I can do about it.
Well, actually I accidentally found out I could on BGG by deleteing the first post, which is how I got banned. Dont know if I can here. I am happy to leave other people's stale words behind.
If someone wishes to quote me, I cannot change their quote. The amount of spam that builds up on this kind of site is astounding. BGG was great for this.
Entire threads are made of peoples names, avatars, headers, footers, and 1 line per post. When I noticed this, I worked out that the only post worth reading on most threads was the first one. The problem is that the first post has something to say. The second post is merely by someone with a loud mouth. Hence the fact I delete, improve, contract and repost in a smaller more managable way in the first post.
By smaller, I mean the original post on this thread hit the maximum limit and is now spread across to the second post.
It is certainly worth reading though, and I intend to separate out some of it and repost, much like the extraorinarily useful 'The Best Free Start', which has improved by the way.
The difference between my threads and yours is that a new player can read very few of my posts and get lots of useful, and accurate information. Reading lots of your threads is like listening to a group of interesting people that were stuck on a bus, last year. Then someone askes about the the bus stop you passed 4 months ago.
I do not wish to record random conversations. I wish to record something better than that.