Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edheliad

  1. Oooh I like that idea. The article does say our heroes will have a twist which makes us question our beliefs. Our belief that Wizards are the allies of the Free Peoples, perhaps? The 'Free Peoples' is a loose, catch-all term in the books that doesn't include subjugated or maginalised cultures like the Dunlending Hillmen and Wose people, both of whom have legitimate grievances against the Rohirrhim who stole and/or encroached on their lands. It doesn't include the men of the east and south who Gondor warred with even through the long years of Sauron's absence (and after his demise). The War of the Ring is a more complicated affair than simply Evil trying to destroy Good. Instead of breeding orcs or gathering non-Free Men to his side, Gandalf makes himself a presence in the two most powerful courts in the western lands, with a very cunning plan to put some random Ranger on the throne of Gondor (despite being a cool guy, Aragorn's claim is not that strong). Not only that, he had Faramir the "wizard's pupil" around as a backup! Ignoring any questions of morality, the aims of Gandalf and Saruman are fundamentally the same. They seek power, because their rivals seek power, which must be matched. It is the nature of their kind. The blue wizards went into the east. In all likelihood based on the text of the Lord of the Rings (as a rule I don't care what an author intended to write, only what they actually wrote), they gathered to themselves forces by whatever methods they found appropriate, came to war with Sauron (and almost inevitably each other), and were probably destroyed or driven into ruin. The numbers of Men from those lands that Sauron is able to muster against Gondor and Dale suggests there is no significant resistance there. Alternatively they went the way of Radagast and stopped caring entirely. But that would be boring.
  2. The Lore hero I use for those decks is Nenya (and Song of Wisdom).
  3. Sauron and Gandalf are both Maiar that raise armies and vie for dominance over Middle Earth. Saruman is not unique in the books.
  4. If the blue wizards were added to the game they should be enemies of our forces. Radagast was explicitly the odd one out in that he didn't raise armies in conflict with the other Maiar in Middle Earth, and there is no reason to believe even he wouldn't eventually be pushed to wage war with the victor.
  5. I also like that they go to great lengths to explain that the "game-changing" sidequest isn't all that significant in practice.
  6. Ironic that that card will make elf & dwarf friendships common instead of Unlikely.
  7. It feels Leadership to me in that it's the reassignment of labour. But then I don't really get a lot of the sphere definitions any more (if I ever did). Spirit is (elf)magic and hope/faith? Lore is tricks, traps, healing and learning (via victory display)? Tactics is fighting (and feels extremely boring as the other spheres all have a good handle on that now). Leadership should be about assembling, buffing and effectively mobilising manpower (or elf/dwarf/hobbit/horsepower as appropriate). Lore cards that deal with locations are things like Distant Stars; swapping one out for another. Spirit tends to place progress on them directly. Tactics... grappling hooks? Too often I look through my binder and just think 'interesting/fun card = lore or spirit'.
  8. The idea is that you can omit a character from the quest phase in order to create what is essentially a second active location for that quest phase. It's a gamble as you're potentially losing some questing power (but not if mounts are in play), for greater reward (two locations hit with the progress instead of one). It's use with other abilities that add progress (Asfaloth etc.) would just be a bonus should you happen have the right setup to make it worthwhile.
  9. Successfully questing puts progress on the active location. Or does the language prohibit that somehow?
  10. Fancy that, I'd completely forgotten that it was its own distinct phase. And that they were called Phases and not Stages. And I missed to add Warrior to his traits.
  11. Indeed. The White Wizard prefers to betray in broad daylight, and is a huge fan of bright colours.
  12. The Treason of Saruman doesn't have to be a quote. It's a description of an event. Saruman commits treason (does the White Council form a true legal entity? I'm not sure Eru will accept that technicality when it goes to trial). The Darkest Betrayal is a betrayal that must have taken place at night, but it wasn't just dark it was the darkest. No betrayal has ever taken such low-light conditions before.
  13. In part because the keyword takes up two lines all on its own. I don't think Elrond likes Unity as written.
  14. I prefer clutter on the card to having to look up more keywords. I guess it wouldn't be as annoying when it's in your own deck instead of an encounter deck (where most of the annoying pauses to check the rules occur), but I'm still not a fan, especially for a payment plan that is only a slight tweak on the ones commonly used in the game already. If the explanation can be fit onto the card, it should be imo.
  15. It's similar enough to neutral in effect it feels like pointless clutter. Instead of adding another keyword to remember or look up, each card could just say "Play only if you control hero with a lore/tactics... icon', if that aspect feels that important. I like the responses, though.
  16. Couldn't they just be neutral sphere with the same effects?
  17. "The Darkest Betrayal" sounds like the title of a 15 year old's first attempt at fanfiction. Edgy and meaningless.
  18. I have no idea what Spirit is supposed to represent any more.
  19. The boat has only just completed its first lap around Australia, so there's a few months left to go yet.
  20. The Hobbits only became useful once Aragorn stopped them eating all the time. Unless they're encounter cards I don't see the point.
  21. Galadriel. Great sphere, range of abilities, two unique personal attachments, and ties well with two powerful archetypes.
  22. Seriously?! This game is not based on the films, it's based on the books. And however the artist wants to interpret the books is fine! That their interpretation is different than the "commonly accepted" interpretation of the movies is not a bad thing. I would rather they copy the films than unrelated franchises like WoW or Elder Scrolls (which are two that have hulking orcs as standard), if they can't follow the books. In the books almost all Orcs are small, pathetic creatures (relative to capital M Men), in the films it's merely most of them (Uruk Hai being their own weird thing). I wasn't saying the films should be the primary source. If you'd quoted the entire post that would have been obvious.
  • Create New...