Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: 2nd preview for upcoming fanmade expansion rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Malex Berg
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Here's the link to my second (and newest) blogpost:

[URL removed, the project has been closed down, sry guys]

There's some explanation and elaboration on previous weeks happenings, followed by and new preview card (only in text format).

A questions for the community: Will it be well received that I post forum posts like this on to promote the blog, or will it be viewed as commercial and garbage?
I'm planning for regular weekly updates every monday, so it's not really going to spam the forum...

Also, please let me know what you think of the card(s) and the design. It's my intention to bring you interesting and fun cards, but also to bring insight to my reasoning in the design process. I'd be glad to hear your feedback.

Thanks for listening.

/ Malex
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Help me to help you! Help me to help you!
United States
Edmond
OK
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would think you would want it to cost a little more than 3 resources.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Smith
United Kingdom
Pimlico
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That card would be completely game breaking imo.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Goddard
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
What if this were playable only after a hero was destroyed? That would both be more thematic--someone stepping up into the breach--and could prevent game-breakingness.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Fanchi
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MalexBerg wrote:
A questions for the community: Will it be well received that I post forum posts like this on to promote the blog, or will it be viewed as commercial and garbage?
I'm planning for regular weekly updates every monday, so it's not really going to spam the forum...

I'm not a mod, so I don't know what exactly the posting policies are, but I'd suggest you create your own BGG blog to post notices of your updates. If you tag LOTR LCG in your blog posts, then people subscribed to the game will still get notifications of new posts, and you won't be cluttering the Variants forum for the game.

timgoddard wrote:
What if this were playable only after a hero was destroyed? That would both be more thematic--someone stepping up into the breach--and could prevent game-breakingness.

Agreed. It would make a good Response Event. Another option would be to allow it to play at any time, but only if you have fewer than three heroes. That might actually give players a reason to play with fewer than 3 heroes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Hancock
Australia
Birkdale
Queensland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think perhaps you should restrict the card to unique allies only.

It gives you the incentive of keeping these guys in play rather than using them disposably....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk Taylor
Scotland
Thornhill
Dumfries & Galloway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the idea for the card.

I agree that the cost/reward is way off though.
I think only unique allies should be allowed also up the cost to 5 or have a Threat increase charge attached to the card almost like you have to pay in setup.

Like it though, enjoyed your other preview as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Hancock
Australia
Birkdale
Queensland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kirnon_bhale wrote:

I think only unique allies should be allowed also up the cost to 5


+1
I like this guy. He agrees with me

I second the cost as well, especially if they get the "hero" trait as well.

Also, interesting mechanic the whole "increase threat in setup". I expect this to be something that FFG incorporates in the future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arne
Germany
Hamburg
Hamburg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:

Assuming Command
Unique Attachment - Leadership
Cost: 3
Attach to an ally.
Attached ally collects 1 resource each resource phase. These resources can be used to pay for cards played from your hand of the same sphere of influence as attached ally. Attached ally can take damage from undefended attacks and gains the hero trait.


I agree with the attachment being limited to unique allies.

Also, "collect 1 resource" and "can take undefended damage" could be splited to different attachments (maybe even different spheres?), the latter also being limited to a unique ally.
Maybe a cost of 5 for either card?

Cheers,
Arne
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk Taylor
Scotland
Thornhill
Dumfries & Galloway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Getting the hero trait is a VERY big bonus. It affects other attachments that can be played on the character and so many things. This really needs to be reflected in the cost of the card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Goodfriend

Berwyn
Illinois
msg tools
mb
Duuude...spell check.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malex Berg
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Thanks for all the constructive feedback!

Those of you that think this card is overpowered, would you care to elaborate?

I'm comparing this card to Steward of Gondor - and honestly, I'd say Steward is superior in almost every deck. Why? Because Steward repays itself the same turn it comes into play, while this card takes three turns to repay itself. Further; this card requires you to have an ally in play already when playing it (while Steward does not).

I'll formalize this argument a bit more:
Steward of Gondor costs 2, Assuming Command costs 3
Steward requires a hero, Command requires an ally
Steward gives you 2 resources/round, Command gives you 1
Steward enables the Steward trait, Command enables the Hero trait
Command enables the ally to take damage from undefended attacks

Looking at this I'd say that you pay 1 extra resource for slower resource generation, a better trait (but not enormously better, imo) and the possibility to take undefended damage with a fourth character. Add to this that you can play Steward on turn 1 (and you want to, normally) but you normally won't play Command until turn 3 or 4.

Those are my arguments why I believe this card is appropriately costed at 3. I would be really glad to hear your arguments on why this card would be breaking the game in its current stage.

Tackling some of the other comments:

I guess sticking it only to unique allies makes sense (though, I'll admit I was sort of looking forward to having this awesomely useless hero-Snowbourn Scout hanging out with my team...). Same goes for only being able to play it if you control less than three heroes, as it would encourage players to play with less than three heroes.

@Kirk: I agree that the Hero trait definitely is better than all other traits out there. But really how much better is it, anyway? Sure, it enables you to buy a lot more different and cool attachments to your hero, but is that really desirable? You've already invested heavily into this character (normally 7-8 resources), so I'd say it's more appropriate to invest in items for your other heroes instead, spreading risks and so forth.
Could you give me an example where the Hero trait gives this very big bonus that you're talking about?

@James: I apologize for not being a native English speaker. Have to somewhat blame my parents for that though. Their fault, not mine.

Once again: Thank you so much for the constructive feedback! I feel it necessary to point out that I'm more than willing to revise and change the cards I post as long you guys manage to convince me that your design is superior to mine. It might sound a bit corny, but I'm doing this for you and everyone else that's part of the community, so your input means a lot to me.

Thanks for listening

/ Malex
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk Taylor
Scotland
Thornhill
Dumfries & Galloway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MalexBerg wrote:
Thanks for all the constructive feedback!

....

@Kirk: I agree that the Hero trait definitely is better than all other traits out there. But really how much better is it, anyway? Sure, it enables you to buy a lot more different and cool attachments to your hero, but is that really desirable? You've already invested heavily into this character (normally 7-8 resources), so I'd say it's more appropriate to invest in items for your other heroes instead, spreading risks and so forth.
Could you give me an example where the Hero trait gives this very big bonus that you're talking about?

....

Thanks for listening

/ Malex


I just want to say that I am really enjoying your blog and card ideas thus far.

Hero trait is in my opinion bigger than you give it credit for.

1. Not only is the type of attachment better for heroes than for Allies but there are also a far greater number of attachments available for those heroes.
2. Many other allies have abilities that only target heroes. Suddenly Daughter of the Nimrodel works for healing on the character.
3. The most situational of my reasons but certainly the most noteworthy - The hero trait means that you have another character that can keep you from losing the game. If all your heroes have died but you have played this card on an ally you are still in the game.
4. The card can be used as a hero buffer when letting damage through.
5. The recycling value of the card is enormous, you create throw-away heroes when played with cards like Dwarven Tomb and attachment retrieval cards.
6. Its a very cheap way of getting an extra hero for no extra threat cost. Put this card in a deck using Gloin and Theodred and other resource generation, throw it onto someone like Beorn and you suddenly have a new strong hero out in play very quickly and no increase in threat to mitigate it.

Other thoughts on restricting the card but perhaps not increasing the cost of the card:
1. I think that this card should be unique, I don't think that we want to see a player running around with 6 heroes.
2. Perhaps the card could be treated like a hero when it comes to being discarded, in otherwords not be retrievable just like heroes that die are not retreivable.
3. Or have it have text much like Landroval - allowing it to only be played once.

I want to say the cost doesn't necessarily need to be increased, but the card could have other restrictions on it instead perhaps.

I hope that I have been clear. Also please don't take anything I have said as anything other than trying to be helpful.

regards.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malex Berg
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
kirnon_bhale wrote:
MalexBerg wrote:
Thanks for all the constructive feedback!

....

@Kirk: I agree that the Hero trait definitely is better than all other traits out there. But really how much better is it, anyway? Sure, it enables you to buy a lot more different and cool attachments to your hero, but is that really desirable? You've already invested heavily into this character (normally 7-8 resources), so I'd say it's more appropriate to invest in items for your other heroes instead, spreading risks and so forth.
Could you give me an example where the Hero trait gives this very big bonus that you're talking about?

....

Thanks for listening

/ Malex


I just want to say that I am really enjoying your blog and card ideas thus far.

Hero trait is in my opinion bigger than you give it credit for.

1. Not only is the type of attachment better for heroes than for Allies but there are also a far greater number of attachments available for those heroes.
2. Many other allies have abilities that only target heroes. Suddenly Daughter of the Nimrodel works for healing on the character.
3. The most situational of my reasons but certainly the most noteworthy - The hero trait means that you have another character that can keep you from losing the game. If all your heroes have died but you have played this card on an ally you are still in the game.
4. The card can be used as a hero buffer when letting damage through.
5. The recycling value of the card is enormous, you create throw-away heroes when played with cards like Dwarven Tomb and attachment retrieval cards.
6. Its a very cheap way of getting an extra hero for no extra threat cost. Put this card in a deck using Gloin and Theodred and other resource generation, throw it onto someone like Beorn and you suddenly have a new strong hero out in play very quickly and no increase in threat to mitigate it.

Other thoughts on restricting the card but perhaps not increasing the cost of the card:
1. I think that this card should be unique, I don't think that we want to see a player running around with 6 heroes.
2. Perhaps the card could be treated like a hero when it comes to being discarded, in otherwords not be retrievable just like heroes that die are not retreivable.
3. Or have it have text much like Landroval - allowing it to only be played once.

I want to say the cost doesn't necessarily need to be increased, but the card could have other restrictions on it instead perhaps.

I hope that I have been clear. Also please don't take anything I have said as anything other than trying to be helpful.

regards.


Good points you're putting forward!

I'm deciding to 'agree to disagree' here: It might be that I don't give Heroism enough credit, but in turn I think you give it too much... Yet you've convinced me that there should at least one or some more limitations to the card.

It's already unique. I will change so that it can only be played on unique allies. I don't like the idea of only being able to play the card once in a game (abilities can hace this effect, but I don't think actual cards should - I could probably write a whole blogpost about that some day). And indeed there ought to be some incitament to not play the card too many times during a game.

You could add a 'remove from the game'-clause when the card hits the discard pile much like Magic: The Gathering (sorry, it's called Exiled nowadays), but so far this hasn't been done in LotR LCG so I feel we should stay out of that area at the time being.

So I turn to the other alternative. Many of you have already touched on the subject: there should probably be a threat raise included in the cost.
It fits thematically also: When a character steps up and actively starts to work against the dark lord and his dealings, then the dark lord and his followers are due to take some notice.

My gut feeling tells me Assuming Command should raise the controlling players threat by 3 when it enters play. Would that be too much, or too little?

/ Malex
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kirk Taylor
Scotland
Thornhill
Dumfries & Galloway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ha! Perhaps you are right. To be fair your card provoked thought. I had never even thought about considering what makes Hero so good until you asked me to list why.

I think raising the threat will be a good approach, I think I suggested that earlier. It is also not out of line with official cards. (I think of Dark Knowledge which lowers Will for its benefit).

I am really looking forward to the rest of your blog and cards. I should also say that your first blog post the card was spot on in my book.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jarek D
United Kingdom
Maidenhead
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BuddhaBob74 wrote:
Duuude...spell check.


I think the point of this comment was that in the card text, "Attatch"/"Attatchment" should be corrected to "Attach"/"Attachment". Of course it would have been much more helpful just to politely say that.

Great ideas Malex. I like the concept of this card, though I'm also a little bit cautious about the idea of promoting additional heroes too easily. I'm not sure that I can pinpoint the reasons, but going by instinct and putting myself in Sauron's shoes for a moment, it feels like the Encounter deck now has to do 33% more work to finish off all those interfering heroes. Admittedly once you start losing heroes you're usually on a slippery slope to defeat anyway, but I think this would need a fair bit of play-testing to ensure that it's not disrupting the balance of the game.

1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malex Berg
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Poor Yorick wrote:
BuddhaBob74 wrote:
Duuude...spell check.


I think the point of this comment was that in the card text, "Attatch"/"Attatchment" should be corrected to "Attach"/"Attachment". Of course it would have been much more helpful just to politely say that.

Great ideas Malex. I like the concept of this card, though I'm also a little bit cautious about the idea of promoting additional heroes too easily. I'm not sure that I can pinpoint the reasons, but going by instinct and putting myself in Sauron's shoes for a moment, it feels like the Encounter deck now has to do 33% more work to finish off all those interfering heroes. Admittedly once you start losing heroes you're usually on a slippery slope to defeat anyway, but I think this would need a fair bit of play-testing to ensure that it's not disrupting the balance of the game.



I see, I'll go and change it. Thanks for informing me on where my grammer/spelling was off.

You are absolutely right that this card needs playtesting. I've done some, but not nearly enough. I also understand your instinctive reaction - four heroes are significantly better than three, but to what cost, exactly? Remember that you basically need to pour resources into Assuming Command, resources that you could have been using promoting your board position in several other different ways.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is the following: What is it that makes heroes so good? What is it that makes them so much better than allies?

I have my own theories, but I'll save those for my post on monday.

Also, I feel that I haven't addressed one point of critique enough: I think it was a really cool idea to limit the card to be played only if a player controls less than three heroes. In this case, however, I believe that it limits the card too much in a way so that very few people will actually play it (while in its current for more people will, partly because it's good and partly because really cool flavourwise) - I will save the can't-play-unless-you-control-X-heroes for other cards in the future.

Again thanks for all the good feedback - see you monday!

/ Malex
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jarek D
United Kingdom
Maidenhead
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MalexBerg wrote:

Also, I feel that I haven't addressed one point of critique enough: I think it was a really cool idea to limit the card to be played only if a player controls less than three heroes. In this case, however, I believe that it limits the card too much in a way so that very few people will actually play it (while in its current for more people will, partly because it's good and partly because really cool flavourwise) - I will save the can't-play-unless-you-control-X-heroes for other cards in the future.

Again thanks for all the good feedback - see you monday!

/ Malex


Just another idea - how about making it cost a variable amount which depends on the number of heroes the player currently controls? e.g. Number of heroes +2 sounds about right to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.