Light & Shadow - Complete Card List

[Thranduil]

Well, I'm frankly bored of (though any comments on any of the cards would still be appreciated! ); so I'm going straight into which I think has some pretty awesome stuff in. And here is some of it, starting with our partners in crime, Sméagol and Gollum. Obviously these guys are designed to mirror each other (particularly Sworn to the Precious and Corrupted by the Ring).

Also, have you ever noticed how if you invert the order of Sméagol's attributes, you get Gollum's?

•Sméagol, Sworn to the Precious (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
While the Ring-bearer is not wearing The One Ring, Sméagol is strength and resistance +2.
"‘We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us…'"
L C 60

•Gollum, Corrupted by the Ring (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, Gollum is strength +7 and fierce.
"‘Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it.'"
L R 52

•Gollum, Duplicitous Creature (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
Each time Gollum wins a skirmish, you may exert him to wound the Ring-bearer.
"‘Throttle us in our sleep, that's his plan.'"
L C 53

•Sméagol, Slippery Creature (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
Response: If a minion uses a special ability, exert Sméagol and add a burden to cancel its effects.
"‘Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious!'"
L R 59

[Pepin The Breve]

Well, I'm frankly bored of (though any comments on any of the cards would still be appreciated! ); so I'm going straight into which I think has some pretty awesome stuff in. And here is some of it, starting with our partners in crime, Sméagol and Gollum. Obviously these guys are designed to mirror each other (particularly Sworn to the Precious and Corrupted by the Ring).

Also, have you ever noticed how if you invert the order of Sméagol's attributes, you get Gollum's?

•Sméagol, Sworn to the Precious (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
While the Ring-bearer is not wearing The One Ring, Sméagol is strength and resistance +2.
"‘We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us…'"
L C 60
Great one, i like it. Stay simple, stay effective.

•Gollum, Corrupted by the Ring (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, Gollum is strength +7 and fierce.
"‘Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it.'"
L R 52
I guess he shoud have some way of making the RB put the ring? Or maybe he can be splashed in Nazgul deck or something. Anyway i like it.

•Gollum, Duplicitous Creature (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
Response: If Gollum wins a skirmish, exert him to exert the Ring-bearer.
"‘Throttle us in our sleep, that's his plan.'"
L C 53
Just fine for a C Gollum.

•Sméagol, Slippery Creature (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
Response: If a minion uses a special ability, exert Sméagol to cancel its effects.
"‘Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious!'"
L R 59
This one is quite powerfull! Cancel a minion special hability with a response is too much for just one exert! This Smeagol would be one of the best (if not the best) in many decks (any deck that have some way of saving him from overwhelms and such). With one exert he can cancel nasty habilties like Giant Among the Swertings, Scouting Orc, The Mouth of Sauron, Messenger of Mordor, and many more. And he can always be discarded and get fully healead and ready to cancel many actions next turn. Maybe if you raise the cost, like 2 exerts or something (that way he can´t abuse his hability).

[FM]

I don't like the first pair's interaction. It DOES make more sense story-wise, but I don't like how in order to make Sméagol better you make Gollum worse at the same time. It's just me, though.

[Thranduil]

I don't like the first pair's interaction. It DOES make more sense story-wise, but I don't like how in order to make Sméagol better you make Gollum worse at the same time. It's just me, though.

But isn't that the point? If Sméagol is in control, Gollum is always weaker and vice versa.

Pepin: I take your point on the Sméagol. I may do something about it. Thanks! Oh, and there will be a lot of stuff in the set focussed around making the Ring-bearer wear The One Ring, not least some cards.

Thranduil

[FM]

I guess. What bothers me is that, as a Rule of Thumb, Gollum should be the stronger one, and in order for Smeagol to take over, THEN you'd need to jump through hoops, at least that's how it's portrayed in the movie, Smeagol goes through a lot in that "monologue" scene in order to finally be rid of Gollum's influence, and it doens't last that long. But when you tie this to The Ring, of course, there's NO WAY it'd work out the other way around.

[lem0nhead]

•Sméagol, Sworn to the Precious (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
While the Ring-bearer is not wearing The One Ring, Sméagol is strength and resistance +2.
"‘We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us…'"
L C 60

Wouldnt it be better to make him 5 strength and 7 res and invert the statement? 'Not' statements are unusual.

•Gollum, Corrupted by the Ring (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, Gollum is strength +7 and fierce.
"‘Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it.'"
L R 52

Nice, if you can force the rb to wear it.

•Gollum, Duplicitous Creature (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
Response: If Gollum wins a skirmish, exert him to exert the Ring-bearer.
"‘Throttle us in our sleep, that's his plan.'"
L C 53

Not amazingly useful. Wound the rb would be good.

•Sméagol, Slippery Creature (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
Response: If a minion uses a special ability, exert Sméagol and add a burden to cancel its effects.
"‘Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious!'"
L R 59

Niiiiice.

[Thranduil]

Wouldnt it be better to make him 5 strength and 7 res and invert the statement? 'Not' statements are unusual.

Interesting. I'll think about that...

Not amazingly useful. Wound the rb would be good.

I thought that then it might be too good; if Gollum is unwounded and wins a fight, then he wounds the Ring-bearer 3 times. That seems a bit too strong against, say, Such a Weight to Carry.

Thranduil

[lem0nhead]

Sorry didnt notice it was a reponse, though it was a one time action. In that case its probably too good either way as you say, 3 exertions on the rb is horrible. Why not go for "Each time gollum wins a skirmish exert him to wound the RB" or even dont exert just wound him.

[leokula]

•Sméagol, Sworn to the Precious (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
While the Ring-bearer is not wearing The One Ring, Sméagol is strength and resistance +2.
"‘We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us…'"
L C 60

I'd never use it and it doesn't seem over or underpowered. A 5 strength companion that can became 3 is just plain useless for me. I don't like making common cards useless just for the sake of making a common card.

•Gollum, Corrupted by the Ring (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, Gollum is strength +7 and fierce.
"‘Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it.'"
L R 52

If you can make the RB wear the one ring, u have a firce 12 strength minion for 2 twilight that can come back every turn. Depending on how you make the RB wear it, I'll think it's over powered. You have to be very very VERY careful with that. I think you could lower the strength bonus and add something else to him, or don't mess with the RB wearing the one ring.

•Gollum, Duplicitous Creature (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
Response: If Gollum wins a skirmish, exert him to exert the Ring-bearer.
"‘Throttle us in our sleep, that's his plan.'"
L C 53

Another useless common I'd never use. Gollum, DaD is miles better. "But DaD is rare and this one is a common!" Whatever, there are a lot of useful good common cards, but useless weaker version of rares are just not needed.

•Sméagol, Slippery Creature (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
Response: If a minion uses a special ability, exert Sméagol and add a burden to cancel its effects.
"‘Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious!'"
L R 59

He can cancel three abilities in one turn crazy! He shuts down Saruman, RR, FOTR Enquea, Mauhur, Enquea, ToTo! I'd make him exert twice, and MAYBE heal him once every turn, so he can't use his ability more than once in a turn, and still can use it at least one in a turn.

Just a note about card designing:

This topic is an example of one of the aspects that make me say that professional design is miles ahead DCing: useless common cards that are toned down versions of very powerful rare cards, usually OP or very specific to the little DC set they're in.

People that write DC sets usually design cards that work with they're own designed cards in the same set, and are usually very very lame if used with real sets. And about the commons, it's just not cool to have commons that are useless. D did it some times, but they did a lot of awesome common / uncommon cards like forearmed, seclusion, there came a cry, streaming to the field, host of thousands, burn every village, kings' board, smeagol, poor creature... the list goes on and on.

It's easier to think "well a common card is bad, an uncommon is a bit better and a rare is a good one I'd use"... but that's not the real deal finding the right rarity to a card is very difficult, and maybe you shouldn't design with rarity in mind: you should design all cards and then add rarity comparing them to each other. Saying "ok let's design a common" and design a trash card like ur common smeagol and gollum (admit, they're lame and useless) is not the way, IMO.

[Thranduil]

This topic is an example of one of the aspects that make me say that professional design is miles ahead DCing: useless common cards that are toned down versions of very powerful rare cards, usually OP or very specific to the little DC set they're in.

People that write DC sets usually design cards that work with they're own designed cards in the same set, and are usually very very lame if used with real sets. And about the commons, it's just not cool to have commons that are useless. D did it some times, but they did a lot of awesome common / uncommon cards like forearmed, seclusion, there came a cry, streaming to the field, host of thousands, burn every village, kings' board, smeagol, poor creature... the list goes on and on.

It's easier to think "well a common card is bad, an uncommon is a bit better and a rare is a good one I'd use"... but that's not the real deal finding the right rarity to a card is very difficult, and maybe you shouldn't design with rarity in mind: you should design all cards and then add rarity comparing them to each other. Saying "ok let's design a common" and design a trash card like ur common smeagol and gollum (admit, they're lame and useless) is not the way, IMO.

Let's say first that this is not how I design cards at all. If you look at the designed cards for this set (and wait for more), you'll see that power level does not just depend on rarity. Look at some of the cards above. In general, I see card rarity like this:

C - simple cards which do basic things generally effectively (for example, Gandalf, Agent of the Valar a few pages back I think is very strong but very simple)
U - cards with which you can play on themes and support strategies (for example, Radagast above is uncommon, different but not especially good)
R - cards which can be rather crazier and more interesting, but not necessarily better (for example Gandalf, Mover of All is not outright amazing, but crazy, interesting, and a card which you want to build a deck around).

I also refuse to admit that both these common Gollum's and Sméagol's are "lame and useless". Sure they're not at the top of the power curve, but I would probably use them in certain decks. They're simple and they do their job; that's why they're commons.

On the other hand, there have got to be some "bad" cards in any set, because that's one of the ways the game differentiates between good players and bad players: the ability to know what's a good card and what isn't.

I appreciate all criticism, but I wouldn't mind if you criticised me with a little more respect, if that's okay.

Thranduil

[leokula]

I'm sorry, but if you're putting your cards up for review, you have to be ready to read whatever people might write. Whenever I think a card is lame and useless, I'll post so and if you don't wanna get bad reviews, than you can add to your topic "Good reviews only, please".

I wasn't being disrespecful at all. I'm sad that you get offended when I say a card you designed sucks. I thought you were more open to opinions and that the more reviews you got the better, but seems like all you wanna hear is good stuff about your cards or light reviews, so I won't bother with my reviews again.

I pointed out a few mistakes in your design and ur turning the tables on me claiming I'm disrespecful. I find it very low if you ask me.

[Thranduil]

I'm sorry, but if you're putting your cards up for review, you have to be ready to read whatever people might write. Whenever I think a card is lame and useless, I'll post so and if you don't wanna get bad reviews, than you can add to your topic "Good reviews only, please".

I wasn't being disrespecful at all. I'm sad that you get offended when I say a card you designed sucks. I thought you were more open to opinions and that the more reviews you got the better, but seems like all you wanna hear is good stuff about your cards or light reviews, so I won't bother with my reviews again.

I pointed out a few mistakes in your design and ur turning the tables on me claiming I'm disrespecful. I find it very low if you ask me.

No, it wasn't what you said; I can take criticism, in fact I always prefer honesty. It was the way you said it, but just forget it. It doesn't matter.

Thanks for your review!

Thranduil

[Pepin The Breve]

  Well, i have to say somethings about this card design stuff...

  First of all, "you can´t judge a card only by it´s picture". You can look a common "trash" card and think: "well, this one really sucks" but then, one week later, someone appears with a great new combo around it, using cards from other sets, or just with a fun deck that rely on it. So i guess we don´t need focus on design only "real good cards". A good card dependes on what strategy you stick with and which cards you will put along with.

   For example, i have a friend that looks to some card and he may think "well, this card doesn´t seem quite useful...but hey, if i put that with that other one..." and... BANG! there comes another nice (and orginal deck). I think the "bad" cards have their valor in this way: they can chalenge players to try something new! I prefer by far than a card that is all good by itself, which we have several.

   I´m not saying that more powerful cards shouldn´t exist, just that you may not take all others and leave to the trash can. probably you will avoid design cards like The Weight of a Legacy, but even there you can have fun trying to think in some deck you can use it.

   For me LoTR TCG is not all about "making the most powerful deck around and butcher everyone" but about having good and funny games! Of course that i usually try to make a competitive deck, but the most important part is having fun. I´m not saying that you cannot make an powerful deck and have fun, but we have to respect if someones just waana try an crazy idea.

   I think that people his DC's sets wanna hear some critiscism around it, but if the guy/girl thinks it´s a little offensive if you said that: "his card sucks and he can burn it out" (in a figurative way) then, well... nothing more fair than respect it and change our speach to something like: "well, the cards it´s not that good" and maybe give a suggestion to improve it (if you feel like it). I´m not saying that you have to always put good review on it (in fact sometimes the critic is a lot more helpful, but we can always try to make it in a constructive manner, avoiding that the other one feel offended).

   I´m quite sure that leokula was just trying to help and he doesnt mean to offend anyone, but i think that would be no problem for him change a little the way he express his comments  (having in mind that maybe someone gets offended with it). or maybe if you don´t feel like it you can just see if Thrand doesn´t get offended if you keep commenting that way (for some people doesn´t matter if they use that kind of expressions) or maybe you can just stop posting in his tread. i´m almost sure that people still wanna hear your comments on their stuff.

   I think we may find a way to get everyone nice with it where still contributing to the post. 

[Thranduil]

  Well, i have to say somethings about this card design stuff...

  First of all, "you can´t judge a card only by it´s picture". You can look a common "trash" card and think: "well, this one really sucks" but then, one week later, someone appears with a great new combo around it, using cards from other sets, or just with a fun deck that rely on it. So i guess we don´t need focus on design only "real good cards". A good card dependes on what strategy you stick with and which cards you will put along with.

   For example, i have a friend that looks to some card and he may think "well, this card doesn´t seem quite useful...but hey, if i put that with that other one..." and... BANG! there comes another nice (and orginal deck). I think the "bad" cards have their valor in this way: they can chalenge players to try something new! I prefer by far than a card that is all good by itself, which we have several.

   I´m not saying that more powerful cards shouldn´t exist, just that you may not take all others and leave to the trash can. probably you will avoid design cards like The Weight of a Legacy, but even there you can have fun trying to think in some deck you can use it.

   For me LoTR TCG is not all about "making the most powerful deck around and butcher everyone" but about having good and funny games! Of course that i usually try to make a competitive deck, but the most important part is having fun. I´m not saying that you cannot make an powerful deck and have fun, but we have to respect if someones just waana try an crazy idea.

   I think that people his DC's sets wanna hear some critiscism around it, but if the guy/girl thinks it´s a little offensive if you said that: "his card sucks and he can burn it out" (in a figurative way) then, well... nothing more fair than respect it and change our speach to something like: "well, the cards it´s not that good" and maybe give a suggestion to improve it (if you feel like it). I´m not saying that you have to always put good review on it (in fact sometimes the critic is a lot more helpful, but we can always try to make it in a constructive manner, avoiding that the other one feel offended).

   I´m quite sure that leokula was just trying to help and he doesnt mean to offend anyone, but i think that would be no problem for him change a little the way he express his comments  (having in mind that maybe someone gets offended with it). or maybe if you don´t feel like it you can just see if Thrand doesn´t get offended if you keep commenting that way (for some people doesn´t matter if they use that kind of expressions) or maybe you can just stop posting in his tread. i´m almost sure that people still wanna hear your comments on their stuff.

   I think we may find a way to get everyone nice with it where still contributing to the post. 

Pepin, you always speak the truth!

LK, I don't want you to stop giving me your opinions (however critical); I respect them and of course I want to hear them.

Thranduil

[sickofpalantirs]

Well, I'm frankly bored of (though any comments on any of the cards would still be appreciated! ); so I'm going straight into which I think has some pretty awesome stuff in. And here is some of it, starting with our partners in crime, Sméagol and Gollum. Obviously these guys are designed to mirror each other (particularly Sworn to the Precious and Corrupted by the Ring).

Also, have you ever noticed how if you invert the order of Sméagol's attributes, you get Gollum's?

•Sméagol, Sworn to the Precious (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
While the Ring-bearer is not wearing The One Ring, Sméagol is strength and resistance +2.
"‘We'll be nice to them, very nice, if they'll be nice to us…'"
L C 60
I'd say strength +3, resistance +2

•Gollum, Corrupted by the Ring (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, Gollum is strength +7 and fierce.
"‘Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It's ours, it is, and we wants it.'"
L R 52
coolio.

•Gollum, Duplicitous Creature (SH)
Minion
Str: 5
Vit: 4
Sit: 3
Response: If Gollum wins a skirmish, exert him to exert the Ring-bearer.
"‘Throttle us in our sleep, that's his plan.'"
L C 53
I think wound the RB would be much more...interesting

•Sméagol, Slippery Creature (FP)
Companion
Str: 3
Vit: 4
Res: 5
Ring-bound.
To play, add a burden.
Response: If a minion uses a special ability, exert Sméagol and add a burden to cancel its effects.
"‘Don't hurt us! Don't let them hurt us, precious!'"
L R 59

yeah something more like exert twice, healing him every regroup phase perhaps? though I think with the burden adding its ok.