Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Narsil0420

Storm on Cobas Haven is Shipping!

Recommended Posts

we have the three elven rings now with The Grey Havens, and the Ring of Barahir (not one of the rings crafted by Celebrimbor, but a ring nontheless), and The One Ring is in the saga (which is where it should be, imo)

 

we also have Celebrian's Stone

 

i would like to see more lore-related artefacts in general.  i don't think it's necessarily a critique of how much the game has or has not included of them, but the player card pool is actually quite small compared to other games, especially for how long this game has been out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the Treasure and Boon cards, but to me, they just plain don't count. The fact that you can't put them in any deck against any scenario, like actual player cards,  and moreover, that you can't include them unless you earn them (a cool concept in its own right) just means that to me they're glorified encounter cards. The One Ring objective card is pretty much a non-card to me, even if the developers have said that it was the intention for the One Ring to do nothing on its own. 

 

We do have a few Artifact related player cards, yes, but the theme as a whole feels way too understated compared to others. The fact that the developers created a generic, nameless, sub-par Palantir player card either means that they didn't look up that there were 3 unique, distinct Palantiri in the hands of the Free Peoples during the time of the novels (lots of juicy exploration room there to make a whole cycle out of), or that they don't care, either of which would be a shame.

Edited by Gizlivadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd certainly like to see some of the lesser rings. I think each of the rings we've had so far has been a great addition, so I'd like to see what they'd do with the others.

I wouldn't want the one ring as a normal player card, though, I think that should remain in the saga expansions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd certainly like to see some of the lesser rings. I think each of the rings we've had so far has been a great addition, so I'd like to see what they'd do with the others.

I wouldn't want the one ring as a normal player card, though, I think that should remain in the saga expansions.

yeah, same on all counts.

 

would be interesting to see how they would add the lesser rings, and i also would absolutely hate to see The One Ring as a player card that can go in just any deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A One Ring player card would be extremely hard to make, I agree. I'm not particularly fond of the One Ring we already have, but I understand the decision to keep them it in the Saga boxes. I'm more talking about Lesser Rings, Palantiri and Doomed as a theme for corruption than the One Ring itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a few reasons, one being the scope of the game. This is about adventures before the War of the Ring, so having lots of Ring cards would pull away from that and point us more towards the events of the text (which are handled via saga) if only in spirit. Also balancing reasons, which have already been cited. The elven rings are super powerful and mostly restricted, as they should be, so those fit -- especially because of the restrictions of particular bearers. The Palantir has a nice "corruption" mechanic. How many more can the game support, if we're talking about the rings of Celebrimbor and Sauron? Using such a thing should be trouble for characters and I just don't see many ways the game can handle that. Play First Age.

 

If we're talking more generic rings, made by Men or Dwarves or Silvan elves, then what mechanical effect should they create? It seems like the cheap little bonus cards are already taken by Signals, so that leads us into very specific, "magical" effects, which perhaps seem best reserved for the greater rings that are already in the game. Such effects would take away some of the wonder of the Big Three rings, which are, to me, the capstone of powerful player card artifacts in this setting. 

 

I agree that the theme of powerful, corrupting items should be revisited, but I think it would best be done through the encounter cards. We got a tiny, literal taste of that in the Ring-maker Cycle, and I think a one-off quest where there is some kind of timer showing how this ring you picked up is whittling away at your heroes somehow, is a cool idea. 

 

Hope that was coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope that was coherent.

That was, and a very rational argument. I still just think it would be cool to get some of the lesser rings. And Thrain's Ring (or was it Thror's?) can have the same restriction of attaching to a particularly-named character only. And since the Seven didn't corrupt the dwarves to evil, just augmented their natural greed -- "it needs gold to breed gold" -- it could have an ability like Gaining Strength, exhaust the Ring and discard 2 resources from attached hero's resource pool to add 3 resources.

There's also design space for minor rings of power. They don't need a crazy ability like the Three, but still something more powerful than the Dunedain Signal stat boosts. A weak Asfaloth-like ability. Exhaust to place 1 progress on a location in the staging area. Or a Feint-like ability that requires you to fetch another enemy and engage it, so you can dodge a powerful attack at the expense of still having to defend a weaker one. Maybe a discard fetching, shuffle the top card into your deck. Or how about a tutoring ability, Doomed 1 to swap a card in hand with a card from the top 3 of your deck (shuffling first to prevent Stargazing). I think smaller abilities, and ones with worse costs, could still be practical.

And we do have a Palantir that represents decently the theme of using one, but realistically the card kind of sucks for gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Derek, but I respectfully disagree. Having Lesser Rings would "point us towards the events of the text"? And what's wrong with that? How about all the Eagles and Ents we've had in the cycles and not in the sagas, the only time when those factions did anything? Those guys did nothing and stood back during the 17 year gap and yet we can still bring Treebeard to fight at the Fords of Isen or Gwaihir to the Morgul Vale. I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me. 

 

The whole point of the game is to ask "what if"? "What if Beorn went on the quest?" as Caleb himself says in the Team Covenant Black Riders video. You say Lesser Rings would be too much to handle for the game? I think you're involuntarily insulting the developers with that claim. Of course they could handle it, just like they've handled everything else. You say Artifact related themes should be restricted to Encounter cards? Then Caleb&Matt clearly made a mistake when making The Seeing-Stone and Keys of Orthanc, and the whole Doomed mechanic, because the whole point of that was to slap an Encounter keyword on player cards to represent the shady stuff. We're getting Haradrim allies/heroes next cycle, allies and heroes we could bring to Arnor if we want to. Is it too much of a stretch to think Glorfindel might have had a minor elven ring on his finger during his travels?

 

This game is THE chance for the players and creators to go all out and really explore Middle Earth. Thematic concessions must happen. Sure, we'll hopefully never see something as an Orc hero or ally, but never seeing more Lesser Rings or Palantiri because they're too risky? Come on. The whole point of the game is to encyclopedically explore Middle Earth, and what you're arguing is just restrictive to that goal.

Edited by Gizlivadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a few reasons, one being the scope of the game. This is about adventures before the War of the Ring, so having lots of Ring cards would pull away from that and point us more towards the events of the text (which are handled via saga) if only in spirit. Also balancing reasons, which have already been cited. The elven rings are super powerful and mostly restricted, as they should be, so those fit -- especially because of the restrictions of particular bearers. The Palantir has a nice "corruption" mechanic. How many more can the game support, if we're talking about the rings of Celebrimbor and Sauron? Using such a thing should be trouble for characters and I just don't see many ways the game can handle that. Play First Age.

 

If we're talking more generic rings, made by Men or Dwarves or Silvan elves, then what mechanical effect should they create? It seems like the cheap little bonus cards are already taken by Signals, so that leads us into very specific, "magical" effects, which perhaps seem best reserved for the greater rings that are already in the game. Such effects would take away some of the wonder of the Big Three rings, which are, to me, the capstone of powerful player card artifacts in this setting. 

 

I agree that the theme of powerful, corrupting items should be revisited, but I think it would best be done through the encounter cards. We got a tiny, literal taste of that in the Ring-maker Cycle, and I think a one-off quest where there is some kind of timer showing how this ring you picked up is whittling away at your heroes somehow, is a cool idea. 

 

Hope that was coherent.

I totally agree Derek, well said.

We need more rings in general. For a game called Lord of the Rings, there are far too few rings, especially compared to other Tolkien card games, where they had many Lesser Rings, Dwarven Rings, etc

We got rings. All three Elven ones and the ring of Barahir. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons, this is The Lord Of The Rings. Just because you want them and the Blue Wizards doesn't mean that you are right and that Matt and Caleb should make it happen. No matter how much you complain about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think I'm "complaining", I think it'll be fruitless to argue. Anyway, what I'm suggesting is nothing out of Tolkien's writings. And also I've never played a RPG of any kind, only card games and, most importantly, Tolkien card games that have explored these themes much better than this one while still being true to the theme. I think it's clear that the developers have been eager to explore the unknown/hidden aspects of Middle Earth, and what Derek wrote can be said for themes and cards that we already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gizlivadi: I've always felt slightly iffy on your vehement callling for more artifact/ring/etc support, which seemed odd because I love that stuff as well, but I think I figured out why. My feeling is that while having access to artifacts and magic rings is definitely a good thing, they should never really be a full theme. They should be rare, only represented in a smattering of player cards. They shouldn't ever be as well developed as other themes in player cards because that would make them far more present than they ever were in the time-frame of Lord of the Rings.

I'm really pleased that we got the Three Rings, that we got the Doomed cards, Saruman, hero Gandalf, Gandalf's Staff, and a couple of spells. I'd be similarly pleased if we got hero Saruman, Saruman's Ring and Staff, and maybe one or two other bits. On the other hand, I don't think I'd be so pleased if we ever got enough artifacts and magic that you could build a deck entirely around them, because then they wouldn't feel as special and rare as they should. As such, while I'll be excited any time they do spoil a card following those themes, it's certainly not something I'm really looking for every time spoilers appear, because it's not something I really expect to be touched on more than maybe once or twice per cycle.

 

Beyond the things I specifically mentioned, I would certainly like a better version of Radagast, maybe the Blue Wizards (though I know there are potential rights issues there). I wouldn't mind a Lesser Ring, but I'd be hesitant about the idea of more than one - unless perhaps they were all unique so you'd have to pick one rather than using them all at once. I don't ever expect another Palantir (and the existing one is nowhere near as bad as people think it is) - it's not an aspect of the lore I'm particularly familiar with, is there a reason why the different Palantiri should behave differently to each other?

 

I suppose what I'm getting at in short is that while I'd like to see a little bit more magic in the game, I would stop well short of asking for the rods of the Five Wizards, the Keys of Barad-Dur itself, and a pair of boots much larger than the ones I currently wear. :P (No disrespect meant to your pov, the line just fit too well not to use it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more rings in general. For a game called Lord of the Rings, there are far too few rings, especially compared to other Tolkien card games, where they had many Lesser Rings, Dwarven Rings, etc

 

And how many Lord characters are there? (Just kidding!)  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pocketwraith: I think your posture is a very sensible and completely unserstandable one. I myself have a fascination with this aspect of Tolkien's writings, I admit, and one that is not shared by most people. If they decided to go all out and make a whole theme of cards enough to make an Artifact deck I wouldn't obviously mind, but I too think it'll never happen. In fact I'd be totally content with just 1 card called Lesser Ring and, as you said: "Saruman, Saruman's Ring and Staff, and maybe one or two other bits". Just that alone would be enough for me.

 

Regarding the Palantiri, I don't think it's so much about the objects themselves being very different as much as there being design space for 3 different cards being unjustly reduced to 1. Just knowing that one Palantir was held by Saruman, the other by Denethor and the other by the Elves of the White Towers suggests so many possibilities as to what each could do. For instance, the Palantir of Elostirion could not communicate with the others, being only able to look West across the Sea and get a glimpse of Aman. How amazing would it be if we got a card for that Palantir and giving it a discard Noldor ability or a Light of Valinor type ability? Instead we only have 1 Palantir card. It's about the design space being wasted more than anything else.

 

It's the same thing that happens with, say, spears in this game. Sure, maybe a Spear of the Mark and an Elven Spear aren't too different in terms of function, but it would have been rather boring if we got a single, generic "Spear" card as opposed to different spears that worked off of the mechanics of those traits (namely, staging area attack and discard). Same thing with the Palantir.

Edited by Gizlivadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need more rings in general. For a game called Lord of the Rings, there are far too few rings, especially compared to other Tolkien card games, where they had many Lesser Rings, Dwarven Rings, etc

 

And how many Lord characters are there? (Just kidding!)  :P

 

 

We'll get there, I'm sure :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We need more rings in general. For a game called Lord of the Rings, there are far too few rings, especially compared to other Tolkien card games, where they had many Lesser Rings, Dwarven Rings, etc

 

And how many Lord characters are there? (Just kidding!)  :P

 

 

We'll get there, I'm sure :P

All the Lord characters are too busy at the AGoT LCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a rhetorical question : how could they build a "corruption mechanic" that will not be redondant with the threat mechanics? Because that would be the point of ancients artefacts, like rings and palantiri and the like, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a rhetorical question : how could they build a "corruption mechanic" that will not be redondant with the threat mechanics? Because that would be the point of ancients artefacts, like rings and palantiri and the like, right?

 

I think Doomed is the perfect mechanic to represent this to be honest. No need to create another mechanic when you could revisit an old one that already has a connection with these themes (The Seeing-Stone, Saruman ally, Keys of Orthanc, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always go an extra mile if you want to create a really authentic corruption theme. Example from the top of my head: just like with the Rangers of the North, there are some harmful cards out of play that are getting shuffled into the encounter/player deck when you use a specific corrupting player card. 

 

Swift example:

 

Player event: 

Forbidden Knowledge

Cost: 0

Action: Shuffle the Bitter Price into the encounter deck to draw 3 cards.

 

Encoutner treachery:

Bitter Price

Surge.

When Revealed: Player with the most cards in his or her hand must deal 1 damage to a hero he or she controls for each card in his hand, or discard his hand. (This effect cannot be canceled.)

 

 

 

 

 

...or you can just stick to the Doomed, which is far more convinitent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...