Jump to content



Photo

EOWYN + THORIN = ...


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Wallenstein

Wallenstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 10 November 2010 - 09:12 PM

2941 - Bilbo's journey, Thorin's death.

2995 - Eowyn birth

If the game is set before the Battle of the Five Armies, why this two characters appears together?

Hello designers. Did you ever read this book?

Maybe in first expansion we will see Gil-Galad, because why not? 

 



#2 FloLeBlanc

FloLeBlanc

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 01:08 AM

Imagine the ton of additional rules if every character they do has to fit into a timeline for deck construction purposes.
This is common to LCG's/TCG's, see A Game of Thrones for example. Some characters are present in multiple versions, some that died in the books can fight people who get introduced later.



#3 Wallenstein

Wallenstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 04:01 AM

But adding character into period where he doesn't exist is for me prove that designers have lack of ideas how this game should look.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Eowyn could be any other hero with generic name.

 

AGOT - I very like this game, but two unique characters in the same time controlled by two players is not good solution. AGOT LCG have no specific time set.



#4 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,292 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 08:28 AM

It's nothing new, in Meccg you could have Thrain II running with Merry and Pippin for example (or Bergil son of Beregond who sure as hell wasn't alive when Thrain was still kicking it).


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#5 atomicker

atomicker

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:11 AM

I agree with Wallenstein... of course I haven't seen the game yet, but I wonder if this kind of thing hints at a lack of creative thinking about the property on the part of the LCG designers. Instead of comparing LOTR to AGOT, I would like to point to Decipher's approach to the huge Star Trek timeline in their original CCG, where (if I remember my Trek correctly) characters and ships from different time periods were marked by icons that restricted where they could enter play. You couldn't put Archer, Kirk and Picard in the same deck without including some kind of card effect to allow it. Would it really have been so difficult to do something similar with Tolkien's Middle Earth? Start with LOTR-era-bugged characters, then release a Hobbit-era set or two, then a Second Age set, and on and on. Something like that could have added a modest new layer of complexity to deck building, been true to Tolkien's detailed setting, and (if timed correctly) would have offered FFG additional marketing opportunities around the upcoming movies.

Just my two cents...  :)



#6 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,292 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:26 AM

On the flipside, it would also restrict the players' options when putting together decks. Freedom of choice was one of the key strengths of Meccg, you could pretty much pick the party you liked, without having to be limited to a certain timeline set of characters.


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#7 Narsil0420

Narsil0420

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 08:32 PM

 Yeah, I feel like this is being a little nitpicky...

If you're that concerned, you can construct your deck so that you only use characters that lived at the same time, in the same region and actually encountered each other in the lore of Middle Earth. Also you should make sure that you only use characters that actually went through the region that the quest takes place in. Also, only use Item that the corresponding character actually used, and event cards that that character actually took place in. I love Tolkien's world as much as the next man but let's just enjoy a game shall we?



#8 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,058 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 08:50 PM

Wallenstein said:

But adding character into period where he doesn't exist is for me prove that designers have lack of ideas how this game should look.

To me it proves the opposite: The designers know when it is advisable to ignore 'history' to make for a better game. It's just like the changes Peter Jackson made to the storyline when he translated the novels into a movie: Different media require different approaches to fully utilize the media's strengths.

It wouldn't make any sense for such a game to restrict gameplay to only allow card combinations that follow a timeline. It would counter the point of an LCG, i.e. mixing and matching cards in any way you like.



#9 atomicker

atomicker

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:51 AM

I guess what surprises me most about this thread is seeing responses arguing that an increase in faithfulness to the source material would obviously damage this new LOTR card game. Is Tolkien's world really that much of an obstacle to gameplay? Is confidence in the abilities of FFG's game designers really that low? If so, maybe FFG would be better off saving themselves the LOTR licensing fee and making a Descent LCG instead... ;)

I think FFG designers have already done a fantastic job translating extremely complex licenses (like Battlestar Galactica) into very playable games, and I have every confidence in their abilities to deliver a high quality product. It's too early to tell where they're headed with the LOTR LCG, but I agree with Wallenstein in that I don't think throwing out the timeline hints at a game I will find very interesting... I will always be a Tolkien fan first and a gamer second. But if FFG's aiming to hook general fantasy gamers with a casual interest in LOTR, then a light game with minimal story content might work out. There certainly seems to be no lack of support for that approach in this thread.



#10 jogo

jogo

    Member

  • Members
  • 505 posts

Posted 13 November 2010 - 02:13 AM

I am a gamer first and a tolkien disliker(except hobbit) second.
So I am not at all interested in timelines and I hope FFG keeps out complicated things in deckbuilding due to some timelines. Game first.



#11 Darthvegeta800

Darthvegeta800

    Member

  • Members
  • 372 posts

Posted 13 November 2010 - 05:41 AM

Despite being a huge Tolkien fan, I don't really mind much.
It's a bit nitpicky I think.
In any case let's judge AFTER release?



#12 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,273 posts

Posted 14 November 2010 - 06:27 AM

Also the game is set between the end of the hobbit and just before the start of the fellowship of the ring so it covers a somewhat larger time frame than the Op suggested.



#13 ChaosChild

ChaosChild

    Member

  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 14 November 2010 - 07:14 AM

In that case, surely Thorin would already be dead? Same problem, different cause.



#14 Wallenstein

Wallenstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 14 November 2010 - 08:16 PM

If set after "Hobbit" it could be alternative history that Thorin didn't die. But moving one characters a few years back just because.... Because what?

If I want to play historical game about Ceasear I do not expect that I met Hannibal. 

It is like Vader + Qui-Gon Jinn in the same fight. Nice but stupid.

 

I simply expect the designers will do not bend "reality" only to sell their product.

jhaelen said:

The designers know when it is advisable to ignore 'history' to make for a better game. It's just like the changes Peter Jackson made to the storyline when he translated the novels into a movie: Different media require different approaches to fully utilize the media's strengths

I also do not liked flood made by Army of the Dead in Minas Tirith. One of many examples of Peter Jackson fully utilization of media's strengths, saddly so stupid. My fried who didn't read book ask me after that: Why they care if they have such powerful superweapon?  

 



#15 Artorius

Artorius

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 14 November 2010 - 10:23 PM

I am a Tolkien fan too and I don't see any problem with Thorin and Eowyn together. 

And if you read the article "Build your Felloship"  (I don't know how to post the link...) they say that the game it set NEAR the end of The Hobbit and just before the beginning The Lord of the Ring. 

Sorry for poor my english, not my first language =)

 



#16 Wallenstein

Wallenstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 15 November 2010 - 07:36 AM

Artorius said:

And if you read the article "Build your Felloship"  (I don't know how to post the link...) they say that the game it set NEAR the end of The Hobbit and just before the beginning The Lord of the Ring. 

If yes, it is true that Thorin alternatively do not die at the end of "Hobbit", and can live long enough to met Eowyn.



#17 Martin_fr

Martin_fr

    Member

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 17 November 2010 - 02:38 AM

MECCG was built upon a "what if..." universe. Plus the only timetable the authors specified was "the free peoples tried to orginaze to resist to Sauron" (the One Ring isn't even found at the start of the game).

LOTR (Decipher) was based upon the movies, so the timeline was a lot more specified and respected.

LOTR (FFG) is specifying a timeline (between Hobbit and LotR) which is a mistake to me : this will generate subject like this one (isn't Thorin dead at the end of the Hobbit) and brings nothing to the game.

Anyway, I didn't kill my eyes on the appendixes of the LotR book, so I didn't pay attention Eowyn was so youth. And I don't care about this detail, as it won't prevent me from enjoying (or not) this upcoming game.

The bright-side is that we'll play with famous characters (Thorin II) instead of some generic FFG-created "dwarf-lord" with equal stats and role.



#18 Narsil0420

Narsil0420

    Member

  • Members
  • 642 posts

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:16 PM

 This is interesting from the description page:

"Instead of directly retelling the classic stories that have previously been narrated, this game provides players with a variety of elements—characters, settings, enemies, events, items, artifacts, scenarios—that allow them to embark upon new adventures and share new experiences with these beloved characters during this ominous period of Middle-earth history."

I think they might have just added this recently because I don't remember this from the first time I read the page...

I guess they heard you Wallenstein!

 

 

 

 

 

 



#19 NinjaDorg

NinjaDorg

    Member

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:15 AM

 This is an outrage!  According to the rules Aragorn can DIE!!!   This never happened before the events of LOTR so I will NOT be buying this!  Foolish designers!!  I can't BELIEVE they designed a game where Aragorn can die, etc etc etc.

Seriously though, this game looks awesome.  So awesome I had to come back to the FFG forums to join the inane banter because I'm that hyped by it.

 



#20 Wallenstein

Wallenstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 11:20 PM

NinjaDorg said:

 This is an outrage!  According to the rules Aragorn can DIE!!!   This never happened before the events of LOTR so I will NOT be buying this!  Foolish designers!!  I can't BELIEVE they designed a game where Aragorn can die, etc etc etc.

Seriously though, this game looks awesome.  So awesome I had to come back to the FFG forums to join the inane banter because I'm that hyped by it.

 

If game is setup in specific period of tmie I expect that every character belongs to this frame.
I don’t like mixing characters from different realities (like prvious example Vader and Qui-Gon Jinn).

 

If character will die or not is tottaly diffrent matter.

Now with information that this is period from end of Hobbit till beggining of LOTR, everythink is fine.
 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS