| Card ID | Notes #1 | Notes #2 | Notes #3 | ||||
| DWC01 | Gimli | Recursion? | |||||
| DWC02 | Companion | fellowship draw | |||||
| DWC03 | Possession | weapon | culture tokens | ||||
| DWC04 | Condition | tale | resistance | ||||
| DWC05 | Condition | Tokens | |||||
| DWC06 | Event | search/tale | pump | ||||
| DWU01 | Companion | ||||||
| DWU02 | Companion | ||||||
| DWU03 | Condition | tale | |||||
| DWU04 | Event | search | card draw | ||||
| DWU05 | Event | maneuver | wounding | ||||
| DWR01 | Companion | Gimli | Friend to Legolas, alliance, culture tokens | ||||
| DWR02 | Companion | ||||||
| DWR03 | Possession | armour | resistance | ||||
| DWR04 | Condition |
A new Gimli (linked to elves)Remember to post the card ID you're making the card for. So you should say that Gimli (who looks quite rare) would be DWR01.
[2] * Gimli, Friend to Legolas
Strength 6
Vitality 3
Resistance 6
Damage +1
When you are about to place a token on a [dwarven] condition, you may place a token on an [elven] condition instead.
A new weapon for Gimli ...
[2] * Gimli's Battle-Axe, Cleaver
Strength +2
Bearer must be Gimli.
Each time Gimli wins a skirmish, you may place a token on a [dwarven] condition.
the card combo is too transparent? and is it worth it?
This is one case where the alliance keyword makes a lot of sense. How about:
[2] •Gimli, Friend to Legolas [Dwarven]
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1. Alliance: [Elven]. (You may replace [Dwarven] with [Elven] anywhere on this card).
Each time you are about to reinforce a [Dwarven] token, you may reinforce a [Dwarven] token.
Skirmish: Remove a [Dwarven] token to make Gimli strength +1.
I'd actually like to replace Bombur, Always last - with what I wish had been done in Reflections:
(0) Bilbo, Dwarf Helper [Dwarven]
Str: 3
Vit: 4
(Res): 8
Companion - Hobbit
Ring-bearer. Ring-bond.
While wearing the One Ring, other [Dwarven] companions are strength +1.
Skirmish: Exert a Dwarf with resistance 5 or more to make Bilbo strength +2.
This is one case where the alliance keyword makes a lot of sense. How about:
[2] •Gimli, Friend to Legolas [Dwarven]
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1. Alliance: [Elven]. (You may replace [Dwarven] with [Elven] anywhere on this card).
Each time you are about to reinforce a [Dwarven] token, you may reinforce a [Dwarven] token.
Skirmish: Remove a [Dwarven] token to make Gimli strength +1.
Just to note (don't know if you want it this way or not):
The above wording would allow you to double your token placement on both [Dwarven] and [Elven] cards. So playing Arod or Asfaloth would net you 2 tokens.
Yes you're probably right about the doubling of tokens -- too good. Also I like the idea of the [Dwarven] Bilbo, but I wonder if he should be an ARB. And I also wonder if we want to be using so many Hobbit cards. Obviously there are not so many Dwarves in the book, but there are enough (Farin, Frór, Glóin, Dáin, Grimir, Thrarin, Thorin III, etc.).
I will post the skeleton here when I've rejigged it to accommodate a reduced number of companions.
Also, since this is the only place the alliance keyword has so far been used in this set, IS IT WORTH IT?
Thranduil
I like this - but traditionally Decipher has not changed the culture of alternate RingBearers. Perhaps he should remain hobbit, but have similar gametext. Bilbo with dwarven possessions just doesn't seem right to me.
Interesting that possessions more often than not deploy on races rather than cultures - i hadn't considered this obvious fact.
This perhaps explains why we have a Aragorn DOR - given he is human - something Rohan and Gondor share. All the Rohan possessions and support cards that reference race will work on him.
However, an Elven Aragorn, or a Dwarven Bilbo may not transfer as smoothly. An [elven] card that reference Elf will not work on an [Elven] Aragorn. The same will be true for any [Gondor] card that references anything other than human, or perhaps a keyword such as ranger.
Changing the culture of a companion that doesn't match the race of their new culture will only limit the number of cards that can be used with them. And i don't think our intention is to limit the number of cards that work with these companions.
Retaining their culture but giving them text that links them to other cultures as Decipher has already done might be better. Using the Alliance keyword also retains their culture but expands the diversity of the card.
Just my thoughts.
Interesting that possessions more often than not deploy on races rather than cultures - i hadn't considered this obvious fact.One of the reasons I keep specifying that in a culture matters set, you need to make cultures matter. So start referencing [Culture] companions instead of races.
I would like to see the Alliance keyword retained. Perhaps it is more likely to be seem on Free Peoples cards than Minions. Given we are only working on Dwarves at the moment that may explain why its use has only been attempted once?Alliance would be more likely on Free Peoples cards certainly. But it can still appear on Shadow cards, to help tie the culture keywords thing together.
There will at least one Gimli in the set. There has only ever been one version of Fror, and he was released in FOTR, so perhaps time for a newer one. Also only one version of Durin III, Grimir, Uri, Linnar, Thorin III, Sindri, Thrarin, Dain Ironfoot. Is there any other dwarves referenced in the book (LOTR trilogy) that have not yet made an appearance? Are there any other obvious cross-culture companions? An [Elven] Legolas that helps Dwarves using Alliance keyword - rather than a [Dwarven] Legolas.Frór is a good idea. Both versions of Farin are useless, and so it could be worth having a new one. The only Dwarves talked about in the books are Gimli, Glóin, Dáin, Balin, Óri (maybe some other of the Hobbit dwarves who go with Balin to Moria) and possibly Stonehelm. There are already 2 versions of Grimir and Thrarin, and the Reflections Dwarves we might want to leave out. But doing a Balin would be quite cool given that he's actually quite central to the storyline.
DWC04
[2] Well-made Axe
Str: +2
Possession - Hand Weapon
Bearer must be a [Dwarven] companion.
While you can spot a [Dwarven] culture token, bearer is damage +1.
DWC06
[1] To Reclaim Moria
Event - Response
Stealth. Tale.
If a Dwarf just died, make every [Dwarven] companion strength +2 until the regroup phase.
DWU02
[2] *Bombur, Always last
Str: 4
Vit: 3
Res: 5
Companion - Dwarf
Bombur is vitality +1 for each [Dwarven] possession he bears.
If Bombur has 6 or more vitality, the move limit for this turn is -1.
After his journey to the lonely mountains, Bombur got so fat, it took 6 dwarves to help him move.
DWU04
[2] Rally to Battle
Event - Skirmish
Make a [Dwarven] companion strength +2 and draw a card (or draw 2 cards if that companion has resistance 4 or more).
Assuming we put a [Dwarven] Bilbo in this set perhaps we should make a simple [Dwarven] weapon that he can bear.
Your DWC04 would currently deploy on Bilbo. But giving him Damage +1 doesn't seem right. Perhaps something simple like this:
[1] Little Axe
Stength +2
Bearer must be a [Dwarven] companion.
While bearer is a Dwarf and you can spot a [Dwarven] culture token, bearer is damage +1.
This gives the flexibility of having the same effects as a hobbit sword without needing to put on in the deck and waiting to draw it, but still having a benefit if you are a dwarf. Don't know if thats a good thing or not.
Also quite like your ideas for DWC06, DWU02 and DWU04.
DWC06 - Like the idea but not sure the wording is right?
DWU02 Bombur - how about adding ...
For each possession Bombur bears he is Vitality +1 and Resistance -1.
Also - Bombur is from The Hobbit right? Any chance of giving this game text to another Dwarf? Probably doesn't make much sense though on anyone else though i suppose.
Well Bombur is from the hobbit but I learned that apparently Frodo asked about him which is where we find out he now "needs 6 dwarves to help him move". I made him as a joke, but like I said, would prefer to replace him with a Bilbo if we were to.
anyone remember a shadow card that reacts to a character dying so I can check the wording?
I would say DWC06 is good, but not for a common. For the common pump spell in the set, I feel like it should be more like the simple stuff like Axe Strike or Their Halls of Stone. We could definitely use the current design for DWC06 for an uncommon event (DWU04 for example), but for common we need a pump that can always be played. Maybe the best solution would be to swap the ideas for DWC06 and DWU04?
The DWC04 Little Axe is great! This is the sort of stuff I mean by culture matters. I'm not even sure you need the "If bearer is a Dwarf..." line.
Also notice about culture tokens and why I'm keen on them in this set: the cards that reference spotting requirements by cultures and not races or keywords in the game at the moment are most often cards that deal with culture tokens.
Thranduil
Just a question about Alliance. Can you replace [Dwarven] and make Gimli an [Elven] Card, or does alliance only works in the gametext?This is up for grabs. I'm not really bothered - we were talking about dual culture cards anyway, so it kind of makes sense that we could combine that with the alliance keyword, but it doesn't have to work like that.
Shoulder to Shoulder is a cool idea. What about this then:
DWR01
[2] •Gimli, Friend to Legolas [Dwarven]
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1. Alliance: [Elven]. (You may replace [Dwarven] with [Elven] anywhere on this card).
Maneuver: Exert a [Dwarven] companion and add [1] to heal another [Dwarven] companion.
Skirmish: Remove a [Dwarven] token to make an unwounded [Dwarven] companion strength +1.
Not sure about the last ability, but I felt he needed something else, perhaps to do with culture tokens. Though perhaps tokens is a better theme for a different [Dwarven] companion.
Thranduil
Just a question about Alliance. Can you replace [Dwarven] and make Gimli an [Elven] Card, or does alliance only works in the gametext?This is up for grabs. I'm not really bothered - we were talking about dual culture cards anyway, so it kind of makes sense that we could combine that with the alliance keyword, but it doesn't have to work like that.
I find it odd that the maneuver skill can be used without using Gimli himself. Exert someone else to heal someone else. Are there other examples of companions with skills that exert anyone to heal anyone? It seems that at least one part should link to Gimli. Or am i reading too much into this?No you're quite right. It does make a lot more sense for his ability to be "Exert Gimli and add [1] to heal another [Dwarven] companion."
If Gimli himself can become [Elven] culture it seems useful, but perhaps powerful? Normally one of the challenges of designing a multi-culture deck is balancing the cards that only work with some companions in your deck. Gimli will be able to use all Dwarf cards, and some Elf cards. This opens up deck design. Perhaps if he can change culture, his deploy cost should rise above 2?Currently it's any time. The way I see it is: you play a card or use an ability that checks for Gimli's culture. At that time, once the ability or card has been activated but before it has resolved, you choose what culture Gimli will be for that snapshot. He may be a different culture in a later snapshot, even one directly following. But at any one time, he is only 1 culture – in no particular snapshot can he count as both a [Dwarven] and [Elven] companion.
There is also a timing issue with Alliance? Can you trigger it anytime? For example, during a skirmish involving Gimli, can i play [Dwarven] and [Elven] events by switching his culture mid-skirmish? If order of events, actions is important, can i switch his culture multiple times?
It is probably easy enough to answer these questions. But with all the possible broken combos that may arise perhaps it is better to leave the culture of the card unchanged.
I think that Alliance should only involve the symbols in the gametext, unless all the alliance cards have a weaker gametext.Well given that we have the power to do either, which would you prefer?
Okay, so let's look at this:
DWR01
[2] •Gimli, Friend to Legolas [Dwarven]
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1. Alliance: [Elven]. (You may replace [Dwarven] with [Elven] anywhere in Gimli's game text).
Maneuver: Exert Gimli to heal another [Dwarven] companion or reinforce a [Dwarven] token.
I like it as well. However, if you replace the first [Dwarven] it says 'Exert Gimli to heal another [Elven] companion'. Perhaps it should just be Exert Gimli to heal a [Dwarven] companion or reinforce a [Dwarven] token. It doesn't really matter if you want to heal himself.Yeah good point. You can read the "another" as referring to the "companion" not the culture and I was mainly doing it with that Faramir, Captain of Ithilien in mind and his infinite loop with Stewards' Legacy, but it's probably not necessary in this case.