LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded  (Read 11418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

October 28, 2014, 09:58:11 AM
Read 11418 times

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« on: October 28, 2014, 09:58:11 AM »
Background: AEG, the company that makes Legend of the Five Rings CCG, recently brought back a classic CCG called Doomtown.  Only instead of keeping it CCG format, they're changing it more to the LCG format (only they call it the "expandable card game").

I've emailed AEG and they say if this project is successful enough... they might be open to bringing back some other games.

Obviously my number 1 choice is LotR:TCG (2nd would be Star Trek 2e).

So, if we could bring back the game... what would you do?  Uh... I guess let's put rules & themes on this thread (and maybe create a new thread for card ideas if necessary)

My thoughts since I haven't been able to stop thinking about it:

1) Change the One Ring to a type. (what to call it? right now all I got is "Great Treasure")  This would allow us to later expand into Hobbit movie territory with "Key-Bearer" fun and other possible properties. (unless you think Bilbo then should be like Frodo once was)

2) Site adjustment: Establish an icon for the 3 regions (reusing the tower & king symbol, then we'll have to make a fellowship symbol, or we could make it more generic to allow blending better of Hobbit etc) and adjust adventure deck building rules to include no more than 3 of any symbol.  Take the original site symbol and plaster that on "generic" locations that can be put in any region. (sites will little to no game text, mostly used for their keywords like "River" - think: http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/lotr18138)

3) Resume the original shadow cultures, particularly Isengard, Sauron, & Wraith. Evil Men may be kept, just using the raider symbol instead.

4) Adjust blocks to more easily allow rotation.  I don't know if LCGs use rotation, but just in case...

5) One big thing is to give each culture a way of using events besides their game text to encourage event use and prevent them from being dead weight in decks & play.

6) Allow more cross-culture characters like http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/lotr17093.  Utilize unloaded keywords to join multi-cultural decks. i.e. Ranger would be used on both Elven & Gondor while Knight would be Gondor + Rohan and spell would be Elf + Gandalf (valiant = Rohan + Hobbit or Dwarf?).

7) Dead == removed from game.  More than just killed characters will go to the dead pile.  If Gandalf gets anything out of it, it will probably be at a cost of trading another card into there.

8) Followers or Allies? The idea of "help from home" is one important to the flavor of the game, but both efforts to represent them seem to have run into balance issues.  Being old school I have a slight preference for allies with more effort put into balancing them out. (i.e. if you make a card to hose or deal with allies, give it an alternate use in case the opponent doesn't have any)

9) New keyword: Indomitable (the "triple to overwhelm" mechanic).  Foresight X? (like magic's "Scry", look at top x cards, put on bottom if you wish)

10) Adjusted rules: 2 big ones.  Sites can't come out in a region their icon doesn't match.  The "Response:" ability has a built in "(limit once)".  In other words, while you may "respond" to an action as many times as you are able, each response must be from a different card.  Mostly to keep things uniform and eliminate the "each time" text.

11) Formatting: Conditions can keep the "Support Area" on their middle line, but events should go back to "Bold Text:" because it's easier to see when you fan the cards in your hand to check when they are played.  Maybe put unloaded keywords on Event middle lines for later themes? (i.e. "Event * Ranger" So you can have, "Fetch a Ranger Event from your deck..." cards?)

And that's all I could think of at the moment.  I guess I'll put up themes in the next post.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 10:17:07 AM by NateWinchester »

October 28, 2014, 10:10:55 AM
Reply #1

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2014, 10:10:55 AM »
EDIT: Whoops!  I had forgotten I had touched on a lot of these once before in 2008.  So combine that and the following.

Themes after brainstorming.

DWARVES:
* Damage +1.
* prefer: Underground, Mountain
* Drawing cards (possibly having to lose some at end of turn or as cost)
* Love for possessions & artifacts.
* Hate: Moria & Sauron?
* Events: Stacked & saved for later use?

ELF
* Archer
* prefer: Forest, River
* Instead of drawing, stacks and manipulates their deck to set up "perfect" draws?
* Instead of boosting their strength, lowers enemies.
* Hate: conditions & archery.
* Events: Use as cost on much of their cards.

GANDALF
* Muster
* Little bit of every theme but much weaker versions.
* Likes rainbow fellowships.
* Hate: Shadow events.

GONDOR
* Defender+
* prefer: Town, Ruins (new keywords or should we stick with existing?)\
* Hate: Wraith and ___ Damage+ maybe?
* Events: Stack then spend?

SHIRE
* Toil
* favors: Dwelling, Marsh
* Hate: burdens
* Events: power allies and conditions?

ROHAN (block 2 on)
* favors: Plains, Battleground
* Hate: possessions
* Events: use to discard companions?

ISENGARD
* Damage+
* favors: River, Plains, Battleground
* hate: conditions
* Events: ___

SAURON
* Fierce
* favors: Ruins, Mountain, Underground
* Hate: allies
* Events: ____

WRAITH
* Toil
* favors: Forest, Dwelling, Marsh
* Hate: Possessions
* Event: ___

EVIL MEN (block 2 on)
* Lurker
* favors: Town, Dwelling, Battleground
* Event ____

WILD [need work on name]
* "unaligned" culture, designed to splash or not fitting a theme like Balrog or Watcher.

GOLLUM: TBD

MORIA: Block 1 only Shadow?
DUNLAND: Block 2 only Shadow?
Then we should have a Block 3 only Shadow.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 12:06:30 PM by NateWinchester »

October 28, 2014, 10:49:48 AM
Reply #2

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2014, 10:49:48 AM »
1) Change the One Ring to a type. (what to call it? right now all I got is "Great Treasure")  This would allow us to later expand into Hobbit movie territory with "Key-Bearer" fun and other possible properties. (unless you think Bilbo then should be like Frodo once was)

I think The One Ring is fine as its own type. If there's a need to implement a "Key-bearer" mechanic with that key later on, I'd say it can be its own card type too. I'd like to see the stuff from The Hobbit in the game, but I want to see it fully-integrated into what we've got. Perhaps players would have the option of starting with the key and the Key-bearer, or with The One Ring and a Ring-bearer. If they go with the Key-bearer, then the win conditions for them might be somewhat different. Perhaps The One Ring could even be implemented as an Artifact, for when you have a Key-bearer.

2) Site adjustment: Establish an icon for the 3 regions (reusing the tower & king symbol, then we'll have to make a fellowship symbol, or we could make it more generic to allow blending better of Hobbit etc) and adjust adventure deck building rules to include no more than 3 of any symbol.

I like this idea a lot. I've been wanting a new format where the first three sites come from Fellowship block, the middle three sites come from Towers block, and the last three sites come from King block. This would essentially be that. I'd suggest that Allies can be active if they happen to be at a site that totally matches up. (like Bounder at Region 1 site 2).

Take the original site symbol and plaster that on "generic" locations that can be put in any region. (sites will little to no game text, mostly used for their keywords like "River" - think: http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/lotr18138)

I wouldn't have generics that could go in any region, I think that would make it a little too much like what we already have. I'd suggest that all sites are region-specific, but the order you encounter them within that region is variable. Having all sites region-specific would also mean we could drop the mechanic of adding in extra twilight depending on what Region you're in, and just go with what's printed on the site.

3) Resume the original shadow cultures, particularly Isengard, Sauron, & Wraith. Evil Men may be kept, just using the raider symbol instead.

I'd resume all the cultures, I wouldn't drop any of them.

4) Adjust blocks to more easily allow rotation.  I don't know if LCGs use rotation, but just in case...

EFF rotation. I HATE rotation.

5) One big thing is to give each culture a way of using events besides their game text to encourage event use and prevent them from being dead weight in decks & play.

I dunno, I feel like there's already plenty of reasons to use events.

6) Allow more cross-culture characters like http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/lotr17093.  Utilize unloaded keywords to join multi-cultural decks. i.e. Ranger would be used on both Elven & Gondor while Knight would be Gondor + Rohan and spell would be Elf + Gandalf (valiant = Rohan + Hobbit or Dwarf?).

Multi-culture is fine, but there should also be downsides.

7) Dead == removed from game.  More than just killed characters will go to the dead pile.  If Gandalf gets anything out of it, it will probably be at a cost of trading another card into there.

I don't like this, lots of cards reference the dead pile, I think that mechanic needs to stay.

8) Followers or Allies? The idea of "help from home" is one important to the flavor of the game, but both efforts to represent them seem to have run into balance issues.  Being old school I have a slight preference for allies with more effort put into balancing them out. (i.e. if you make a card to hose or deal with allies, give it an alternate use in case the opponent doesn't have any)

I think both Allies and Followers have their place, I wouldn't ditch either one.

9) New keyword: Indomitable (the "triple to overwhelm" mechanic).  Foresight X? (like magic's "Scry", look at top x cards, put on bottom if you wish)

I'm not a fan of new loaded keywords. At least not until after several new sets have come out.

10) Adjusted rules: 2 big ones.  Sites can't come out in a region their icon doesn't match.

Fine.

The "Response:" ability has a built in "(limit once)".  In other words, while you may "respond" to an action as many times as you are able, each response must be from a different card.  Mostly to keep things uniform and eliminate the "each time" text.

Nope, sorry, hate this. IMO Response actions should continue to operate the way they currently do.

11) Formatting: Conditions can keep the "Support Area" on their middle line, but events should go back to "Bold Text:" because it's easier to see when you fan the cards in your hand to check when they are played.  Maybe put unloaded keywords on Event middle lines for later themes? (i.e. "Event * Ranger" So you can have, "Fetch a Ranger Event from your deck..." cards?)

I don't have strong feelings either way about this.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

October 28, 2014, 10:58:19 AM
Reply #3

Ringbearer

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 708
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2014, 10:58:19 AM »
You know this is a dream, right? Since the LOTr rights lay with Fantasy Flight who has its own LOTR game.

October 28, 2014, 12:11:06 PM
Reply #4

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2014, 12:11:06 PM »
You know this is a dream, right? Since the LOTr rights lay with Fantasy Flight who has its own LOTR game.

...until they don't.

How's Fantasy Flight doing with their game? Is it successful?
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

October 28, 2014, 12:15:14 PM
Reply #5

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2014, 12:15:14 PM »
You know this is a dream, right? Since the LOTr rights lay with Fantasy Flight who has its own LOTR game.

That's the other thing I'm curious about since last I checked, FF is mostly book based, the original was more movie based.

I mean you have FF, LCG, AND there is Crytpozic's LotR DBG so if there's two card games around LotR now...  (and yes I almost lost it when I saw Decipher's nazgul naming convention reused in the DBG, even down to Otsea's first misspelling)

October 28, 2014, 01:09:18 PM
Reply #6

Ringbearer

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 708
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2014, 01:09:18 PM »
I wouldnt count your hopes up high, Fantasy Flight is quite succesful with their games and also the lisence to anything Tolkien is quite expensive. Also, the rights to the TCg lay with Decipher, who might also have a say in this. I doubt they will invest hugely in a project which might not even run well.

October 28, 2014, 01:51:22 PM
Reply #7

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2014, 01:51:22 PM »
Decipher even still around? (website is.... kind of blank)

Of course the answer may not lie with AEG, maybe go with cryptozoic then since they already have a license for one kind of LotR card game.  Decipher's rights to the game engine would be the biggest hurdle, but then with the embezzlement issue... might be able to get it cheap.

October 29, 2014, 02:03:54 PM
Reply #8

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2014, 02:03:54 PM »
ALSO does anyone have or know of a good program to create/make up proxy cards?

October 29, 2014, 04:34:42 PM
Reply #9

Carl333

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 142
  • "But it is not this day. This day we fight!"
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2014, 04:34:42 PM »
Photoshop
"Do you ever wonder why we are here?  Maybe you're here because it is the only place you fit in.  Maybe you're here because you have nowhere else to go.  Maybe you're here because deep down, you want to be here.  It doesn't matter why you're here.  All that matters is that you are here!"

October 31, 2014, 06:58:13 PM
Reply #10

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2014, 06:58:13 PM »
So apparently... VS is coming back too.  You know I was looking on the trek site today... why didn't we get a Continuing Council?

Photoshop

Drat, I was afraid you'd say that.  What can I said?  I've been spoiled by Magic Set Editor.  Don't suppose anyone wants to try and help me create a LotR template, do they?

I think The One Ring is fine as its own type. If there's a need to implement a "Key-bearer" mechanic with that key later on, I'd say it can be its own card type too. I'd like to see the stuff from The Hobbit in the game, but I want to see it fully-integrated into what we've got. Perhaps players would have the option of starting with the key and the Key-bearer, or with The One Ring and a Ring-bearer. If they go with the Key-bearer, then the win conditions for them might be somewhat different. Perhaps The One Ring could even be implemented as an Artifact, for when you have a Key-bearer.

The biggest issue is avoiding cumbersome rules down the road.  Like should stuff that affect a "ring-bearer" (i.e. Return to its Master) affect key-bearers too with a rule mentioning things as synonymous or should they be kept separate?  And what if there's even more in the future?  The idea is to leave the maximum possible room for growth and additions.

I like this idea a lot. I've been wanting a new format where the first three sites come from Fellowship block, the middle three sites come from Towers block, and the last three sites come from King block. This would essentially be that. I'd suggest that Allies can be active if they happen to be at a site that totally matches up. (like Bounder at Region 1 site 2).

My buddies and I have often talked about doing that for fun.

I wouldn't have generics that could go in any region, I think that would make it a little too much like what we already have. I'd suggest that all sites are region-specific, but the order you encounter them within that region is variable. Having all sites region-specific would also mean we could drop the mechanic of adding in extra twilight depending on what Region you're in, and just go with what's printed on the site.

The big thing with generics is to allow some strategies to be filled out and have some variable adventure constructions.  A way of creating more than 9 sites with a specific terrain for deck building without having to test all possible iterations of sites with text.  In theory, once enough sets have released, generics will self-phase out once people have enough sites with text.

The only problem with losing the region twilight bonus (which I do go back and forth on) is that right now it keeps degenerate choke decks in check (say that five times fast) by putting a cap on how much they can reduce twilight while moving by 3-4.  Set up strictly site numbers and we have to watch (or just not create) twilight reduction cards less a 9 twilight site end up producing 0.

I'd resume all the cultures, I wouldn't drop any of them.

Besides ALL the problems I have with the new shadow cultures (and there are so many), the biggest issue is going to be one of distinction.  For example you have Goblin Runner vs Scurrying Goblin.  Both are the exact same card (one is just balanced more) and designed for the same strategy: facilitating swarms.  If you do one, why do the other?  You're going to hamstring yourself in design and start causing headaches as everybody tries to figure out whether this new idea for Uruk-hai someone had should go in Uruk-hai culture of Isengard.

EFF rotation. I HATE rotation.

I do too and would ideally love to see it never be implemented.  BUT if things ever got to that point, at least set the game up so it doesn't fall apart when rotation is.

I dunno, I feel like there's already plenty of reasons to use events.

The idea would be the game starting over from scratch (with some things reprinted and/or updated with new text so those of us with cards could still use them).  Way back when, events kept falling out of favor because they would clog the hand (I know, I tried running an event-heavy deck during Fellowship when the game first started), that's why the game started releasing so much love and pump for events in later sets.  Say what you will about G, Lady Redeemed (and boy could I) but at least one thing they did get right for her was an alternate use for events.  So, if we were relaunching, learn from the mistake and give ways for people to alternately use events to make them attractive deck building options.

Multi-culture is fine, but there should also be downsides.

Obviously.
Actually that is a better point than I considered.  Each shadow culture should have a way to punish multi-culture, but should do it in it's own way.  Hmmm... ok, the 4 basic: Isen, Sauron, Wraith, E.Men - what do you think would be thematic for each of them to punish multi-cul?  Also fellowship size.  Preferably something very distinct to each culture.

I don't like this, lots of cards reference the dead pile, I think that mechanic needs to stay.

See above on restarting.

I think both Allies and Followers have their place, I wouldn't ditch either one.

Actually it occurs to me that in a lot of ways, Followers make more sense as a shadow card and Allies as fellowship (I mean, seriously who believes Sam would drag his young son into battle?).  It would certainly make wargs & their riders interesting.

I'm not a fan of new loaded keywords. At least not until after several new sets have come out.

"Indomitable" would just be loading a keyword with text that's already on a bunch of cards.  I'm also open to any other suggestions for repeated texts that could be combined into a keyword.

"Foresight" is kind of like that only not as much.  It's mostly just a way to give the elves a mechanic more distinct from the other cultures without cluttering up a bunch of text.

Nope, sorry, hate this. IMO Response actions should continue to operate the way they currently do.

Can you make a stronger case for why?  Because a lot of problem cards came about because they didn't put limiters on them and responses was a common one.  It would also allow us to harmonize more things like instead of "each time... you may..." just do what originally was there: Response.  Give that it's bold, it has the advantage of being less likely to be overlooked by players when there's a busy board.  It also maintains the general action structure of the game.  It would hopefully prevent rule headaches like The Witch King's Beast from arising and finally it allows us to cut down to just "While..." and "Every time..." as trigger words.

Thx for the feedback, is there anything YOU would want to see changed or different if the game was reloaded?

November 01, 2014, 03:36:46 AM
Reply #11

thetimewarptrio

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 115
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2014, 03:36:46 AM »
3) Resume the original shadow cultures, particularly Isengard, Sauron, & Wraith. Evil Men may be kept, just using the raider symbol instead.

This is just a lurkers opinion, but I always thought "Evil Men" was the dumbest culture, because it wasn't really a culture. Bill Ferny, Wulf, and Haradrim are in no way shape or form associated with one another, so what sense did it make to lump them into the same culture? The only reason it was included was because they were designating cultures by races. And yet, race was a separate thing. Don't call a culture a culture, if it's only made up of mostly a singular race (obviously things like trolls, wizards, and Balrogs shake up the monotony. But Uruk-Hai culture, Orkish culture, Evil Men culture? Not a culture. For example, White Men isn't a culture. Finnish Men is a culture). It'd be like making a culture of "Good Men". Dumb.

If you're going to do anything, combine Dunland into Isengard.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 05:49:35 AM by thetimewarptrio »
If we're gonna play games, I'm gonna need a cup of coffee.

November 01, 2014, 08:22:48 AM
Reply #12

Carl333

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 142
  • "But it is not this day. This day we fight!"
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2014, 08:22:48 AM »
I have a couple high quality templates for the cards.  If you want I can email them to you.
"Do you ever wonder why we are here?  Maybe you're here because it is the only place you fit in.  Maybe you're here because you have nowhere else to go.  Maybe you're here because deep down, you want to be here.  It doesn't matter why you're here.  All that matters is that you are here!"

November 01, 2014, 09:06:40 AM
Reply #13

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2014, 09:06:40 AM »
3) Resume the original shadow cultures, particularly Isengard, Sauron, & Wraith. Evil Men may be kept, just using the raider symbol instead.

This is just a lurkers opinion, but I always thought "Evil Men" was the dumbest culture, because it wasn't really a culture. Bill Ferny, Wulf, and Haradrim are in no way shape or form associated with one another, so what sense did it make to lump them into the same culture? The only reason it was included was because they were designating cultures by races. And yet, race was a separate thing. Don't call a culture a culture, if it's only made up of mostly a singular race (obviously things like trolls, wizards, and Balrogs shake up the monotony. But Uruk-Hai culture, Orkish culture, Evil Men culture? Not a culture. For example, White Men isn't a culture. Finnish Men is a culture). It'd be like making a culture of "Good Men". Dumb.

If you're going to do anything, combine Dunland into Isengard.

I mostly agree with you there (part of why I hated the new "cultures").  Decipher did it, I think, because there were lots of bad guys in LotR which didn't quite fit into the big three but weren't quite enough to fill out a culture on their own.  You think maybe just go back to sticking them under "Raider" and have soft grouping enforcement instead of the subdividing keywords?  Or a new culture that will work mostly the same way? (what to call it though...)

I have a couple high quality templates for the cards.  If you want I can email them to you.

Thx Carl, I would appreciate that.

November 01, 2014, 02:12:24 PM
Reply #14

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2014, 02:12:24 PM »
The biggest issue is avoiding cumbersome rules down the road.  Like should stuff that affect a "ring-bearer" (i.e. Return to its Master) affect key-bearers too with a rule mentioning things as synonymous or should they be kept separate?

Separate. That's why there are built-in pluses and minuses to having a Key-bearer instead of a Ring-bearer. Return to Its Master would be useless against a deck using a Key-bearer... however think of the many cards that do bad things to a companion "except the Ring-bearer." A Key-bearer could still be targeted by those nasty things. And that's how we avoid cumbersome rules, by just sticking to what the card says it does.

The big thing with generics is to allow some strategies to be filled out and have some variable adventure constructions.  A way of creating more than 9 sites with a specific terrain for deck building without having to test all possible iterations of sites with text.  In theory, once enough sets have released, generics will self-phase out once people have enough sites with text.

The site path has never been very variable in sets prior to Shadows. Even if we just had one set of region-specific variable sites, I still think that would offer more variation than traditional sites offer, though less variation than currently exists in Expanded and Open... which I think most people would see as a good thing.

The only problem with losing the region twilight bonus (which I do go back and forth on) is that right now it keeps degenerate choke decks in check (say that five times fast) by putting a cap on how much they can reduce twilight while moving by 3-4.  Set up strictly site numbers and we have to watch (or just not create) twilight reduction cards less a 9 twilight site end up producing 0.

I've played against lots of choke decks, can't say I remember any of them reducing a site's twilight number by anything approaching 9. There are choke decks that take twilight out in Fellowship, but that isn't going to affect the twilight generated by the next site.

Besides ALL the problems I have with the new shadow cultures (and there are so many), the biggest issue is going to be one of distinction.  For example you have Goblin Runner vs Scurrying Goblin.  Both are the exact same card (one is just balanced more) and designed for the same strategy: facilitating swarms.  If you do one, why do the other?

Because the way Moria traditionally swarms is completely different than the ways that Orc culture swarms. The two cultures feel completely different to me.

You're going to hamstring yourself in design and start causing headaches as everybody tries to figure out whether this new idea for Uruk-hai someone had should go in Uruk-hai culture of Isengard.

IMO the reason the new cultures were created in the first place, was to minimize the amount of backwards compatibility new cards would have, so it was easier to avoid unforeseen broken card combos. Figuring out which culture a new Uruk-hai idea should go in, should (more than anything else) be determined by which culture won't produce a broken card combo with the new idea. This is actually easier to do with two cultures, since with one culture there is no choice; you either make the new card and X-list something, or don't make the new card.

I do too and would ideally love to see it never be implemented.  BUT if things ever got to that point, at least set the game up so it doesn't fall apart when rotation is.

Or we can just decide up-front to not do any rotation, beyond what has already been implemented in the rarely-played Standard Format.

The idea would be the game starting over from scratch (with some things reprinted and/or updated with new text so those of us with cards could still use them).

Says who? Not my idea! I'm interested in adding to what we've already got, not starting over from scratch. Starting over from scratch was basically the largely failed experiment of Second Edition.

Way back when, events kept falling out of favor because they would clog the hand (I know, I tried running an event-heavy deck during Fellowship when the game first started), that's why the game started releasing so much love and pump for events in later sets.

That's basically my point: I see plenty of events get used in Expanded. I don't see any need for cards that make events even MORE useful than they already are, because they're already plenty useful.

Say what you will about G, Lady Redeemed (and boy could I) but at least one thing they did get right for her was an alternate use for events.

I think most players would say that GLR's alternate use for events was something Decipher got wrong, not right. Too powerful.

I don't like this, lots of cards reference the dead pile, I think that mechanic needs to stay.

See above on restarting.

See above on not restarting. I want 100% backwards compatability, or else it's not really the return of LOTR TCG. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Actually it occurs to me that in a lot of ways, Followers make more sense as a shadow card and Allies as fellowship (I mean, seriously who believes Sam would drag his young son into battle?).  It would certainly make wargs & their riders interesting.

Shadow should never have any more followers than their single Saruman follower. Followers are too powerful for Shadow to have access to, beyond that single one.

"Indomitable" would just be loading a keyword with text that's already on a bunch of cards.  I'm also open to any other suggestions for repeated texts that could be combined into a keyword.

Again, I say no new loaded keywords, not for a good long while. Adding loaded keywords adds to the "cumbersome rules" you were talking about, things players have to remember that aren't just written on the card. I don't see the need for it. Just use the same text that's been used before. What, are you feeling the need to have more space on the card, so you can cram yet more game text in there in addition to the loaded keyword?

"Foresight" is kind of like that only not as much.  It's mostly just a way to give the elves a mechanic more distinct from the other cultures without cluttering up a bunch of text.

Elf telepathy is already EXTREMELY powerful as a mechanic. You're thinking of putting this on a bunch new Elf companions, as a loaded keyword? No thanks!

Nope, sorry, hate this. IMO Response actions should continue to operate the way they currently do.

Can you make a stronger case for why?

Can you make a stronger case for why not? Before we go changing the rules, I think there needs to be a really good reason for doing so. You've said there is, but I haven't heard it, nor have I experienced it in play.

Because a lot of problem cards came about because they didn't put limiters on them and responses was a common one.

For example? Give me some examples of these problems you've encountered with the way response actions currently work.

It would also allow us to harmonize more things like instead of "each time... you may..." just do what originally was there: Response. 

That's no good, because on conditions and a characters, "response" actions are a special ability, and special abilities can be canceled by certain cards. "Each time you may" text is generally not a special ability, and is thus something that tends to be more dependable. Lumping these two categories together and making them one thing is, IMO, not a good idea.

Thx for the feedback, is there anything YOU would want to see changed or different if the game was reloaded?

Well, for one thing, "reloaded" does not mean "restarted." "The Matrix Reloaded" was a sequel to the first Matrix movie, it was not a reboot. If we see more LOTR TCG, I want it to be sets that add to what we have so far, not some kind of reboot or reset. That idea frankly repels me even more than those new cultures neither of us like, that Decipher implemented with Shadows. I don't want to start over, I want to continue on.

Other than that, I'd just like to see the characters from the new Hobbit movies integrated into the game. That's pretty much it, really.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

November 01, 2014, 04:53:12 PM
Reply #15

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2014, 04:53:12 PM »
Huh, cryptozoic may or may not be doing an ECG on LotR.

Think we should all pester them to bring this one back to it?

November 01, 2014, 09:59:06 PM
Reply #16

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2014, 09:59:06 PM »
Hmm, no response to that guy's question in 3 months probably does not bode well.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

November 02, 2014, 05:29:15 AM
Reply #17

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2014, 05:29:15 AM »
Hmm, no response to that guy's question in 3 months probably does not bode well.

Depends on why.  If it's a rights issue... yeah that's not good.  If it's because they're having problems getting the game and mechanics to work... then we all can strike now! :D

Says who? Not my idea! I'm interested in adding to what we've already got, not starting over from scratch. Starting over from scratch was basically the largely failed experiment of Second Edition.

Ah there we go, we were talking past each other.

Ok let's be honest, if we were going to get any company to bring back the game we love, that's what they'd do: start over from scratch to invite the maximum possible number of new players.  I would like to see a compromise where the cards at least look the same so house games could combine the new cards into old decks if they want.

Now if you're talking a continuing council, where we start releasing new, virtual cards (like Star Trek), then I agree with your points fully.  Here I'll just start a new thread for that.

November 02, 2014, 03:50:41 PM
Reply #18

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2014, 03:50:41 PM »
Ok let's be honest, if we were going to get any company to bring back the game we love, that's what they'd do: start over from scratch to invite the maximum possible number of new players.

I disagree. If a company brings back LOTR TCG, the largest source of potential consumers are the people who've played the game before, not new players. Based on what I've seen on Gemp with the lackluster participation in Second Edition, most of those veteran players are not interested in starting over from scratch, with no backwards compatibility. I know I'm not. If a company brought back the game, but made it so I couldn't play it with any of the cards I already have, I would probably not invest in it.

The best compromise is to do what Decipher normally did whenever they began a new "block" of the game: The first new set is bigger, and designed such that you can play a balanced game just with that set (and other sets in the same block). That's how new players get introduced to the game, by participating in block play. The rest of us Veterans will still have Expanded, Open, Standard, etc... or else I'm just not interested.

Now if you're talking a continuing council, where we start releasing new, virtual cards (like Star Trek), then I agree with your points fully.  Here I'll just start a new thread for that.

I'd be in favor of that, but the fact is the vast majority of my experience is now online play via Gemp, and the fellow who runs Gemp is not going to add any new cards, rules, formats, or anything like that. So unfortunately a continuing council is not going to have any influence over that.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

November 05, 2014, 05:29:38 PM
Reply #19

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2014, 05:29:38 PM »
Anyone experimented with mulligans in their plays?  I don't see it listed in the rulebook and was wondering how it might be put into the game in a way that's fair.  Right now I'm thinking "add 1 burden to shuffle your hand and draw 8 cards".  But then considering some god hands... maybe 1 burden for 7 cards? (then 6, 5, etc)

November 05, 2014, 06:35:42 PM
Reply #20

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2014, 06:35:42 PM »
Decipher does have an official mulligan rule, you can reshuffle your starting hand and draw 6 cards instead of 8.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 06:42:57 PM by sgtdraino »
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

November 05, 2014, 06:36:59 PM
Reply #21

dmaz

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Global Mod
  • Posts: 555
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2014, 06:36:59 PM »
Decipher does have an official mulligan rule, you can reshuffle your starting hand and draw 5 cards instead of 8.

Is the 6 cards just on gemp?

November 05, 2014, 06:43:18 PM
Reply #22

sgtdraino

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
  • Ranger of Ecthelion
    • Facebook
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2014, 06:43:18 PM »
I mis-spoke, it's 6 cards. It's in the tournament guidelines.
"I would have followed you, my brother... my captain... my king." - Boromir

November 06, 2014, 05:15:41 AM
Reply #23

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2014, 05:15:41 AM »
I mis-spoke, it's 6 cards. It's in the tournament guidelines.

There it is.  Thanks it had slipped my mind where those were.

November 08, 2014, 09:58:20 PM
Reply #24

simplegarak

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Tracker
  • Posts: 146
Re: What if: Lord of the Rings: TCG Reloaded
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2014, 09:58:20 PM »
Hypothetical time:

Suppose Decipher kept up the trend and released a shadow side that would be ONLY in RotK (like Moria in Fellowship and Dunland in TTT).  Who or what would you pick as the side?  Corsairs?  The MOrcs?  Evil gondor wraiths?  Something else?