Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by narubianHorror293

  1. I just want you to know that it is really appreciated. Thank you for your efforts. OCTGN is amazing, but I need the save functionality Lackey provides, so this is a life saver for me!
  2. OMG, that's exactly what I wished for in the general speculation thread on the LCG forum!!!! Will buy ALL.
  3. Well, this image has started doing the rounds on the internet: http://www.pic-upload.de/view-30734678/news.jpg.html I can't stress enough how happy will this make me. I need another co-op LCG so bad, mainly so I can solo it (LotR I keep for the friend with which I started collecting it), but also because a CoC co-op LCG makes so much sense! I really really hope this is not a hoax...
  4. Cool. Shouldn't it be only Weapon items, though? Way more thematic sense, and gives more meaning and strength to weapon attachments, the same way Foe-Hammer, for example, does.
  5. I so agree. The Horrors have too many fiddly bits for me. Make a coop (soloable) and I would buy everything plus the chewing gum. Yes yes yes. I would buy everything. I'd buy EVERYTHING. I want a Lovecraftian-themed Co-Op LCG so bad! That looks REALLY cool, but I think this should be differentiated from the LotR LCG a little more. Both in visual design and basic mechanics. Though I guess the creator/s will do that as this fan-made game is developed. Is there a BGG thread, or a forum thread here, where this is maintained and updated?
  6. Oh, that's nice! Thanks! I like my archetype names more, though.
  7. I just read the "Ned, Shagga, and Jaime… Revisited - Nate French on Player Archetypes in A Game of Thrones: The Card Game" article published yesterday on the FFG site. First off, I really enjoyed it - it's a good read, and one that's highly relevant for LotR LCG. While reading the article, you can understand how these considerations of player archetypes that Nate French talks about were clearly also taken when he designed the LotR LCG. It is of course a reference to the classic MtG player archetypes, and the two sets of archetypes have a lot in common, naturally. Second, I think that the three archetypes that Nate presents there - Ned, Shagga and Jaime - have clear parallels in our beloved game. So, risking being redundant (as this has probably already been discussed), I think the right names for the same archetypes in LotR LCG are: The LotR LCG "Ned" - The Master of Lore A true fanboy of the source material, the Master of Lore enjoys building highly thematic decks, recreating his favorite tales through the game. He also takes offense when mechanics and theme collide. Legolas can't be the Steward of Gondor. There's no chance Thorin managed to get his hands on Celebrian's Stone. Gimli and his father Gloin shouldn't be hanging out together all throughout Middle Earth. And no! The eagles can't go into Moria! Motto: "Aragorn hasn't actually met Gandalf until T.A. 2956." I gotta say I have a little of the Master in me. I'm not a fanatic, so I'm ok with Glorfindel and Bilbo finding their way into one of my LotR saga decks, but I do have to assure myself that it might have been the case that Bilbo had joined Froddo, and that the company came upon Glorfindel rather than Gildor, who then decided to tag along. I will, however, for the life of me, will not allow Aragorn, Gimli, Boromir or Legolas feature in my Saga decks before the point in the story in which they appear in the books. The LotR LCG "Shagga" - The Grey Companion The Companion is in it for the puzzle. The great thing about a living card game is that the card pool keeps expending, and new ways to try and play the game are continuously created (and destroyed). Compi enjoys hours of pouring over his card boxes or binders to find just the right card to complete his new deck, or to find some way to utilize an old over-looked card. Motto: "I can make this Song deck work." This is so me. This is what I enjoy the most about this game (the theme coming a close second), and what I spend most of my time on - I probably spend 80% percent of my time with the game building decks or thinking about decks, and only 20% playing, and I'm just fine with that. The LotR LCG "Jaime" - The Glaurung Being that LotR LCG is a cooperative card game, where players combine their effort to fight the encounter deck, the game makes it kinda hard to get too competitive. That's not going to stop The Glaurung, though. Forged in the dark fires of Orodruin, trained by the KGB and armed with three core sets, The Glaurung is in it to crush the encounter deck and make Sauron kneel before the might of power-gaming. He's also the most strict about the rules out of the three archetypes, because he's got to beat the encounter deck in his own game. Motto: "Is too easy. I wait for Nightmare cards." I am definitely part Glaurung. When I build a deck, I usually bend my thematic idea when I start optimizing it to become the best it can. Also, I think there's a definite type that is missing from the list and is prominent in the LotR LCG player community... The LotR LCG "Hodor" - The CotR Brandon The CotR Brandon isn't too worried about thematic sense, and though he likes to win that's not his main concern either; The Brandon likes awesome cards. The Brandon wants to throw Steward of Gondor and Gondorian Fire on Tactics Boromir to have him kill four goblins in one combat phase with a completely over-the-top and unnecessary attack strength of 11, because that's just fun. And if the rules get in the way of that, maybe the rules need to sit this one out. The Brandon likes Sneak Attacking core Gandalf, he likes pumping Gimli with wounds and he likes killing stuff with Beorn. Usually, he likes Tactics. A lot. Motto: "Can I put this axe on Beorn? I'm gonna put this axe on Beorn." Well, I guess we all got a little Brandon in us (naughty thoughts!), because everyone likes to smash things up in an epic LotR-films-like way So, what do you think? Are these player archetypes a good representation of the people of our community? Is there an archetype missing? And can I put this axe on Beorn? I'm gonna put this axe on Beorn.
  8. I too think the direct damage effect deserves a resurrection, but I don't think it should be just one card. Maybe a few good cards rather than one OP one will be better? Like, one Lore ally (Ithilien Captain, Sniper, whatever) that boosts by 1 direct damage that is done to enemies in the staging area, and another Tactics attachment that boost direct damage to enemies engages with you by 1. And perhaps a Tactics hero that can exhaust (limit once per round) to boost a direct damage effect by 2, anywhere on board (but only boost an existing one, not create an effect on its own).
  9. I think this suggestion is a nice way to make the game much easier, and will definitely make a lot of thematic decks viable (and the group of elite decks currently ruling the meta, it will make unstoppable). However, it will make the game a very VERY different game, and it can't even be considered (IMHO) a variant of easy mode, as it makes several important aspects of the game either non-relevant (deck fetching) or a lot less important (card draw). As a past MtG player, and an avid deck builder (both for MtG and LotR LCG), I gotta tell you that the randomness of the deck in general and specifically the opening hand makes up so much of the game and challenge of deck building, that the effect of such a house rule will be tremendous. So yeah, this might be a nice variant for thematic play, that may even become quite popular (given the feedback in this thread), but it is obviously not a change that can be organically incorporated into the game without taking too much away from it. This aspect of the game is really important to me, and from the other kind of reactions in this thread - I'm not the only one. On a personal note - I think that's exactly what house rules are for, especially in a co-op game. I personally would probably never play this variant, the same way that I don't ever take a second mulligan; It's part of the fun for me (and I'm fine with people doing what they want to make the game more fun and thematic for them). My most recent anecdote regarding this is not getting LoV in either my opening hand or my mulligan in my Bilbo+Glorf secrecy deck in the second LotR Saga quest (I think). Not only that, I found it maybe in turn 9 or 10. And I was forced to quest with Glorf to keep our heads afloat, so my threat kept going past 20 and than back down once I got some threat reduction. It was challenging, and unique, and made for some hard decisions - and it was a blast! (and we won )
  10. Totally bummed about this. I really wanted another coop LCG (though I knew the chances are slim to none for two coop LCGs coexisting). But as a former MtG player, I'm happy for a CCG community (legend of the five rings, in this case) getting its game revitalized in this superior format.
  11. Just LotR, but I have every product of that. Will go into any solo/coop one, but have no community play competitive ones.
  12. This is something I just noticed, and found to be kind of cool; the art for the Faramir character in ME:TW CCG and the art for the Damrod hero in LotR LCG have so much similarities it almost looks like the latter pays homage to the former (although I guess it's probably just a coincidence). This made me think generally on whether the art of LotR LCG is ever inspired by the art of ME:TW CCG. I remember finding similar art similarities a couple of time in the past (maybe Fatty Bolger and Dagger of Westernesse, to some degree, though not really. Or Beregond), but it's really hard to know if those are intentional homages or just that these are some specific characters, items and locations that were either so well described in the books or was given some definitive artistic interpretation by some third artist, that anyone drawing them is bound to come up with something the reminds you of past art. The Faramir-Damrod thing, however, is just uncanny. Most of all the pose. Maybe we should interview some of these artists!
  13. Yeah. I like the conditional-ity of it. Anyway, I guess I read you wrong and so I ended up designing something else that a replacement for Horn of Gondor. Anyway, we're good. We'll just keep discussing cards here. It is! Very neat idea! It's only half a hero - only resources, not the hero type - so it's not a sword thain, and can only replace a dead hero. I like it a lot! I don't know if it's too strong with 1 cost (given that hero resurrection cost 5, and that sword thain is 4), but I think with either 1 or 2 it's an incredibly solid design. Good job!
  14. How is the CoC solo variant? is it good? Do you play it a lot? Do you play more solo, or more competitive? Do you think the solo variant is good enough to buy the game for?
  15. Welcome to the game and the community! Their both great, and I'm sure you'll enjoy them both. Always remember that you can come here for help, or just to talk about the game.
  16. Congratulations on your new blog, and good luck! It sounds like a niche that is not covered by the current LotR LCG blogo-sphere, so I think it's a worthy new addition to the community. I'll be sure to check it out every now and then!
  17. Well, that's your opinion. Obviously, I didn't meant my opinion is the god-given truth, only that that is how I feel about the card. I personally think that willpower boosts in tactics should be dependent on combat-related triggers. I think tactics Theoden should be considered the exception, because I believe that if it is taken as the rule, and we have even just one or two more static, unconditioned willpower boosts in tactics - like your card - mono-tactic decks will be able to quest quite successfully (and it might be not too hard to achieve), which I think shouldn't be the case. As to the core set thing - I didn't realize you we're aiming to design a card that will go into the core set. I wasn't, in any case; I was rather aiming to design a card that would play nicely with the current card pool and meta, and will sit along side Horn of Gondor rather than replacing it. Furthermore, if core set is what you're aiming for, I think your card will be even more of a sphere-breaker in the core set, because the willpower boost for tactics precedent was not set then (not suprising, given there are exactly two tactics cards in the entire game that even have the willpoer symbol printed in the card text - Theoden and Halfling Determination), and it would have made the borders between the different spheres less clear and sharp, which I think is important in the core set, as it sets the tone and player expectations for the rest of the game. Regarding the identity of the card, I think my version really kind of captures it, as it uses one of the thematic ways in which the spirit and will of Rohan characters are represented in the game, where much of their power and motivation comes from characters dying (being discarded). I even think that getting willpower from characters dying is more of a Rohan thing (think Ride to Ruin, although that's progress and not willpower), where imagine them getting all pumped and excited with some speeches about their fallen comrades, while getting resource out of discarded characters feels more Gondor like, and even specifically Horn of Gondor-like, as a dying character (Boromir) blows the horn in his last moments to summon more allies (resources to pay for them), or perhaps Gondor sends more forces to where a military defeat has occurred. That's the way I imagine it, anyway. Finally, from your tone I get the feeling you were offended by my reply, and even that you are generally offended by my version of the card. I don't think it's that bad! Anyway, my point is that I think this thread - and this forum generally - are for us to share our opinions and discuss this game that we love so much. Specifically, I think you can expect to always gets some comments and discussion on your creations that you post here - and that is a good thing. In my reply, I meant only to convey my opinion about the card, and to develop a discussion regarding this idea that intrigued me; I don't think that your card is wrong, or that you're stupid and that you don't "get the game!" or don't "get the meta!". I simply have a different idea on how to translate a concept from the books to card form, and how it combines in the current card pool. I'm generally a guy who prefers subtler cards with subtle effects, that combine in some small ways with cards released all throughout the game, and that require building around them, and matching them to the correct deck type and mechanics to get them to work - and even then they should only be pretty good, only one part of a well-oiled machine. In MtG terms, I'm a Johnny. I don't think that I would ever design a card that is outright strong and that is almost an auto-include in any deck, like your card (zero cost for +1 willpower, for me at least, means auto-include in any tactics deck). And that's OK. It's OK we have different opinions about things, and I think we should keep discussing them without using offending language ("kills the identity" was kind of strong, I think. It's not nice to read that about something you did ). Because usually allies leave play during the combat phase, so that would mean only getting the boost when you trigger some effect with an ally that can choose to leave play, or when a treachery kills an enemy. Which is even less-powerful and more subtle. I like it! (if you read the previous part of this reply, you know that that's my thing). I think that a one-cost attachment that says "While committed to a quest, attached hero gains "Response: after an ally leaves play, ready attached hero. It gets +1 willpower until the end of the phase. (Limit 3 times per phase.)"" will be pretty cool! I would like to try and make it work in a deck that fits this mechanically (Rohan + Silvan? Or a two handed Rohan deck + Silvan deck?). It wouldn't be very strong; which is good. Yeah, now you see why it's needed. I don't think that it will never get played - I think that's a harsh thing to say about any card, especially given the diverse player pool we have, and given how much this game enables you to try weird and experimental deck designs (given that it's solo/cooperative rather than competitive). I like that it's subtle and will be outright weak when played in an unsuitable deck. I think some limitation should be in place. Maybe twice per round? I think you wouldn't want to see Tactics exploding with resource. I think it's ok that a resource generation option for tactics won't pay itself in the round it enters play. It's a sphere that should struggle a bit with resources, so this is a short term investment - in an appropriate deck, it will pay itself back in a round or two.
  18. Hey wtfboar! The final overall advice section in the buying guide (made by the awesome Tales from the Cards) that CJMatos linked to is really really useful. Here is a link directly to that section: Tales from the Cards new player buying guide - Overall Buying Advice I think you can use it as a general rule of thumb for your next purchase or two. Once you have even just one more deluxe or sage expansion you'll have enough cards and quests (you get 3 quests in the deluxes/sagas) to keep both deck building and questing fun and fresh, and then you can treat yourselves to an adventure pack every time you feel like trying a new quest. This is the game with the most replay value I have ever had the pleasure to play (because there are tons of content). If you love LotR then you're in for a treat. Also, the quests keep getting better and better, and really more thematic. The last few cycles have great overarching stories and twists... Oh, I envy you for getting to go through the Against the Shadow cycle for the first time! Or the Ring-Maker cycle! Also, welcome (both of you) to a great community. Always good to have somebody join.
  19. I think that a zero-cost +1 willpower attachment for tactics, even unique, is too sphere-breaking. If tactics get some +willpower ability, it should be related to combat somehow (which is kind of hard to do, since questing is done before combat). How about this: I think this is more in line with the concept of Rohan getting willpower when allies leave play, but this also enables tactics heroes in general to benefit from this ability, although this obviously has a lot of synergy with Rohan decks. P.S. This probably should say "attach to a hero", although I don't mind attachments that attach to allies.
  20. Well, this is my first try at making a custom card, so go easy on me. I guess it probably has been done at least a few times already, but I felt like giving Magali's second beautiful treatment of Arwen a hero version. First, I think that she's a viable hero by the virtue of her stat line alone; She has the lowest starting threat of any hero with 3 willpower short of Sglorfindel, even lower than Sam's. This because she has almost no "wasted" points. As we know from heroes like Beregond, Eowyn and Galadriel, single purpose heroes with dedicated stat lines are a rare and precious thing. Also, Spirit only has three heroes with 3 or more willpower - Sglorfindel, Eowyn and Galadriel (and beardy, soon, of course). So she's a nice alternative to Eowyn if you don't want to run her, or specifically want to run a Noldor, or maybe you are playing multiplayer and Eowyn is taken and you need a cheap spirit quester (Galadriel doesn't quest from turn one, so it's not exactly the same part). Second, I wanted to give her a cool and thought-provoking ability that is not straight out strong, and reflects her role in the books. Obviously, it couldn't be something confrontational, but rather something that represent the way she provided support and willpower to others; her general role in motivating Aragorn for sure, but also specific acts like making the Livery of Elendil herself, which her brothers then take to Aragorn before he enters the Paths of the Dead, and her noticing and taking care of Frodo's illness after the War of the Ring by giving him her "spot" on a ship to the undying lands and a white gem she wore on a chain. Also, since we know Celebrian gave here the Elfstone/Elessar, but also that Galadriel gave it to Aragorn when the Fellowship visits Lorien, I think it is safe to say that she asked Galadriel to give it to Aragorn as a gift and a boon. I hope this manages to stay close to her ally ability, but still giving it an interesting twist. She is a classic quester in that you know that you almost always want to quest with her, as her ability doesn't clash with it. However, rather than a static boost, it gives you the ability to return a questing character to defend from some unexpected enemy that will engage you, in case you miscalculated. Of course, you can also use this just to get +1 defense on a character meant to defend from an enemy already engaged with you, but you then run the risk of not having that character ready to defend if no enemy shows up, which means you have to think a little (which I like about abilities), and that the ability is stronger when combined with the right elements/mechanics (which I also like), in this case scrying. Second, I knew I wanted to give her a version of the Elfstone: I would have preferred calling it Stone of Eärendil, but this had to be the same name as the core set one as this is the same item. I'm not 100% sure about the sphere; I think giving willpower makes sense, atleast considering the hope it was meant to give to Aragorn, and the version of the story where Celebrimor makes a second Elessar, after the first was lost, to bring joy and hope to Galadriel. However, it was also specifically said that "the hands of one who held it brought to all that they touched healing from hurt", so I wanted it to have some healing effect, hence my uncertainty between Lore and Spirit. Giving Arwen a lore icon when she wears it emphasizes more the healing powers of the stone, and Arwen's special ownership and connection to the stone (she did receive it from her mother and carried it for who knows how many years). Finally, in the 17 years in which the game takes place, it might as well be in the possession of Arwen, as she might have given it to Galadriel just a short while before the fellowship forms. So, what do you think?
  • Create New...