I'm surprised there isn't a review on this card yet. It's only downside being that there aren't any Noldor Heroes in the tactics sphere other than Elladan, Revealed in Wrath is great across a variety of quests. I have used it to get rid of some archery damage for a round, negate engagement effects, etc. "Southron Archer" and "Uruk of Mordor" from the recent Sands box have been some great targets as are many of the differing versions of Nazgul you can encounter in other sets. I think it's also perfectly costed at 1 as well.

As enemies continue to have nasty text boxes and with the hope that we will one day see more Noldor Tactics support, this card will only get better. Unless they start getting trigger happy with the "immune to player card effects" clause or load up encounter decks with unique enemies, this card will always be worth consideration.

Using Revealed in Wrath to negate Archery doesn't work because Archery happens at the beginning of the combat phase before you get an action window. I agree that it's a great card though! —
This card is fabulous in certain quests like Ettemors nightmare. —
@warden, thanks for that! Now I have to put asterisks on many a quest lol. Maybe just a few, but still! Archery aside though, still a great card. —

This is a card most people just dismiss as a coaster without giving it a second glance. It's easy enough to see why, but personally I put this card in the 'difficult to use' category rather than actually bad. I also picked it out as one of my top 10 favourite cards I never use. Given the difficulty in making it work, I obviously don't pull it out too often, but the two cases where I have it has worked out incredibly well for me.

The obvious place to start is of course, why is this card so difficult to use? The answer is that it requires you to lose a hero to gain the benefit - more than that, it specifically requires the hero to be destroyed, so you can't combo it with discarding Caldara. The one hero where you might generally plan on them getting destroyed is Beorn, who can't have attachments, so there aren't any particularly obvious targets at first glance. And the other downside of course is that inconvenient "Limit 1 per deck." That one you can kind of get around though, with Master of the Forge perhaps, or definitely with Rivendell Minstrel. The big problem is the need to kill a hero. That said, there's definite value in the consequent effect. There are two ways to look at using this card - one is assuming the hero will remain dead, the other is assuming you'll bring them back afterwards. Let's consider them separately.

So, firstly, what if the hero remains dead? Well, then you're now playing a 2-hero deck, with corresponding threat since you've reduced by the threat cost of your now dead hero. That's not necessarily a problem though. Two hero decks can be made to work, and in particular they've gotten some support in the Dream-chaser cycle in the form of Strider and Vanish from Sight. Of course, one might ask, if you want to play a two-hero deck why not just build a two-hero deck in the first place? The thing is, this way you have a third hero to help out at the start of the game (generally the most difficult point when you're most likely to want that extra resource and action), then sacrifice them to turn into a two-hero deck with all the corresponding goodies once you're already somewhat set up. The one downside is that one thing you're liable to get from running a two-hero deck is access to Secrecy, which you may lose to threat raises while you're establishing a board-state and digging Fall of Gil-Galad out of your deck - though of course Vanish from Sight can get you temporarily back in Secrecy regardless. If you're taking this option then there's less pressure to specifically sacrifice a high threat cost hero to get maximum reduction - in fact I'd say more emphasis should be put on how much the hero can do for you in the time before they're sacrificed - a focus should therefore go on heroes with significant early-game impact. Treebeard is a good one since you can use his ability with reckless abandon to make quest progress or kill enemies, knowing it won't matter in the long run, and potentially you can even use his ability to have him kill himself if you don't have a convenient enemy available when you want to do it. Any hero with a setup ability seems a good candidate - Denethor could play some early cards (e.g. Steward of Gondor) and/or give away his starting resources to give you a head-start before dying; Galdor of the Havens can get you a better opening hand, and if you have some means of emptying your hand you could trigger his once per game draw 6 as well before killing him; Éowyn's 4 will be very impactful early on, and either you can use her boost to kill a dangerous enemy or sacrifice her without triggering it, with the result that thanks to her setup ability the two-hero version of your deck will be running at -3 threat compared to what it would be if you just built it as a two-hero deck. Following the Galdor once per game idea, Aragorn could work, perhaps in a deck that ramps up fast with Doomed - ramp up (hopefully including drawing your useful two-hero cards), reset to starting threat, then kill Aragorn with FoGG attached to drop your threat down. There may well be other good options, but those are the ones which really spring to mind for me.

An alternative option to the three-hero/two-hero bait-and-switch in the modern card pool would of course be to play the ally version of Prince Imrahil, so you'll still have three heroes generating resources and all you've lost is the stats of your dead hero, and of course their threat.

And now we turn to the possibility wherein you don't leave the hero dead, but bring them back afterwards. In this instance obviously it's best to use a high threat cost hero. In this instance though, while Fall of Gil-Galad itself costs only 1 resource, all means of reviving a hero cost 5, meaning you're effectively paying 6 for the threat drop, at which point in the vast majority of cases you'd be better off just playing The Galadhrim's Greeting twice. However, there are ways around this. Say your hero-revival method is Landroval - he can be cheated into play with Sneak Attack or Elf-stone, at which point the cost seems much more impressive for that large threat reduction. All possibilities could be played for no resources via Vilya of course. Finally of course the recently released card The Houses of Healing can have its cost reduced by exhausting healers. Given that if this hero is taking a bunch of damage, if they didn't die you might well want to heal them up anyway, you may not even be losing out on that many actions, and you're getting a big threat drop out of it, so this definitely seems like a viable option. The one big remaining difficulty is that of course if you plan to kill off a hero you shouldn't give them any (other) attachments as that'd be a waste of resources in the long run, but the high threat cost heroes who will give you the biggest benefit for doing this are quite likely to be heroes you want kitted out with attachments. It's certainly doable though.

One final note is that while FoGG is limit 1 per deck, it is not unique. So if you build a multi-deck fellowship around this (or just convince a friend to stick a copy in their deck for you), you can double, triple, or even quadruple the threat reduction, which makes it distinctly better value whether you subsequently revive the hero or not.

Fall of Gil-Galad is certainly a difficult card to use, and it must be admitted that when it was released it didn't have so many good applications as it has now. But even then it was potentially useable for some pretty potent shenanigans, and with the ways the card pool has expanded now, this is a card which I think deserves some definite reconsideration by many of the people who have dismissed it in the past. I know I'm now tempted to try and build decks around two or three of the ideas I mentioned in this review.

This is absolutely the best of the Doomed player cards. For one thing of course card draw is the most crucial and powerful effect in the game, and for another the cost is easily manageable. Everyone gets 2 threat, everyone gets 2 cards. When Voice of Isengard was originally released I had a bit of a knee-jerk negative reaction to the Doomed player cards, but one more mature reflection I've come around and now it's exceedingly rare for me to build a deck with that doesn't include Deep Knowledge, just like Daeron's Runes. It's pretty hard to justify omitting it unless you're really concerned about your threat. And even then, I might well still use it because the extra cards you draw make you that much more likely to find whatever threat reduction you have.

I've commented elsewhere that the real power of Doomed cards lies in either accelerating the early-game, when resources are scarce and threat is low; or in providing benefits which other cards cannot. Obviously this is not the latter as a wide variety of other effects exist which draw cards, but it is to my mind the archetypal defining case of the former. A fair few times I've had issues because after paying 1 resource for Mithrandir's Advice I can no longer afford to play the useful cards I drew from its effect, but Deep Knowledge being free in terms of resources doesn't have that problem; and given that I'm sometimes reluctant to discard anything from my hand, plus the fact it affects everyone in multiplayer, I tend to even prefer this card to Daeron's Runes (though I'm liable to run both). That multiplayer benefit can be very significant as it really helps out decks which don't have such strong card draw of their own, but really gets bonkers when they do, and when perhaps multiple decks are using this card. Because then each draw effect gives some chance that someone will draw another draw effect, either for themself or for everyone (such as another Deep Knowledge or Campfire Tales), which in turn can draw into more draw, and so on and everyone ends up with a bunch of useful options for what cards to play that round.

As I said, I put this card into almost every deck I build. The only definite exceptions are if I'm specifically building for one of the Dunland quests fro the Ring-maker cycle, if I'm wanting to make use of Secrecy, and if I'm playing a quest which may have a significant engagement cost early on which I want to stay below (Such as 30 for the Hill Troll in Journey Down the Anduin or Murzag in The Morgul Vale), and even then it obviously depends on the starting threat of my deck(s). Otherwise, pretty much always use this, it's just incredibly good.

Unless you're playing in a quest where Threat is a concern (something along Trouble in Tharbad - though I'd argue even that quest is safe) there is no reason to exclude this card in a multiplayer game. Even when I'm hoping to keep my threat low with a Hobbit deck, I'm not upset if another player throws this down. —

Firstly, dam Éowyn. Best Waifu in Middle Earth.

How is she as a card though? Her version is a questing powerhouse, probably the strongest quester in the game. Eowyn likewise has 4 , which is great but is it enough by itself? When you look at the most used heroes with 3-4 , the 3 is just a + while their ability is the main driving force. Arwen Undómiel's insane resource generation, Celeborn being the backbone of any Silvan deck, Elrond having ridiculous versatility, Círdan the Shipwright having reliable and powerful draw, Glorfindel being one of the most OP heroes in the game or as Éowyn being able to increase her to much higher lengths.

Her ability is tough to gage, because it only matters IF you use it. It isn't something you should rely on. There are times where you will never use it. If you don't use her ability then she is just a 4 hero with 6 threat, which is perfectly fine and I can imagine that being a merit for some decks in itself. She also has the powerful Rohan trait, so if you have the cards in your deck she can become a powerful damage dealer, like Herugrim for example, but it's far more powerful on Éowyn and it's in the same sphere too. There is also Golden Shield which is in sphere for , but again.. it's still better for Eowyn. Regardless, ombine these two with Unexpected Courage and you have an absolute powerhouse, or even one of them with Snowmane.

Let's talk about her ability though. It changes the hero to basically a 9 threat hero but it gives her a total of 10 attack for 1 phase, also readying her, so it doesn't matter if you quested with her. Let me just say, this can be absolutely insane. You can destroy almost any enemy in the game. Add a readying affect to her and you can destroy 2 enemies. It's great knowing you have this in case you need it, even if you don't. Not to mention, that 10 attack can help you clear quests with the 'battle' keyword much more faster. These quests can be extremely difficult in the first few turns.

But, she's kind of boring and doesn't do anything special. She's just there, questing and that's it. If you have in your deck then sure, you can turn her into a questing and attacking powerhouse. If you REALLY need to you can kill an enemy or do a battle quest with her ability, but it's really just a panic button, and when you don't use it she's fairly mediocre. You want heroes to define your deck. Éowyn is a hero I feel that you include if for some reason there isn't anything better to add, but you need in your deck along with some form of high and/or you need low threat.

For solo, it's difficult not including her when I build a deck with tactics (usually only one hero). —

This is a really good card which I think is somewhat underused and underappreciated, including by me. There are I think three main reasons why:

  1. It does nothing in solo play. There is a significant portion of the community who only play this game solo, and barring the odd quest which makes you reveal extra staging cards, Gildor's Counsel does absolutely nothing there given the minimum of 1.

  2. It doesn't feel like you're doing anything. And of course, in fact, you aren't. Playing this card doesn't actually do anything to the state of the game when you play it, it merely prevents one encounter card being added to it. As such it doesn't feel as potent as playing an ally or attachment which directly alters your boardstate moving forward, or a different event which clearly interacts with the boardstate at the time (or at least with your hand). This is kind of an illusion though, this card is in fact very powerful. And of course unlike other preventative cards like A Test of Will or Feint, you don't get to choose what you prevent (unless you've scried the encounter deck), but regardless, less encounter cards is pretty much always better.

  3. It costs 3 resources. This one is a valid problem to have as 3-cost cards can be difficult to afford. After all, that's all the resources you get for a round spent on one card. And of course if, as is likely, you're not playing mono-, it will in fact take you more than one round to get enough resources to play this event. Combine that with the fact that access gets you some good card draw to fill up your hand with a wide variety of other good cards you could be playing, for less resources and this becomes a difficult sell. However a bit of logic would suggest that this is an absolutely worthwhile way to spend 3 resources in a multiplayer game, pretty much by definition.

Consider, in this game, the number of cards revealed in staging each round is equal to the number of players in the game. Ergo, in order to be pulling their weight and at least maintaining parity with the encounter deck, each player deck should be in one way or another dealing with the consequences of one encounter card reveal. Of course there are complications thrown into this by any quest effects producing additional cards and whatever cards were already there in setup, but by and large it holds true as a general principle - one deck should be able to deal with one card every round. And in this light it makes perfect sense that Gildor's Counsel costs the exact number of resources most decks will generate each round, because this is in fact the most direct way for a deck to deal with its one card for the round - at the cost of the full round's worth of resources, it simply deals with that card by not revealing it in the first place. And of course that's just the resources - whatever boardstate that deck has in play can still contribute and allow that deck to handle more than its one card for the round.

And that's all there realy is to say about it. Gildor's Counsel isn't a flashy card - as noted, it doesn't directly do anything, and it's a bit on the costly side. But it is logically, mathematically, worth that cost, and as such I would say that if your deck can reasonably afford to play it, you should probably at least think about putting it in.