Light & Shadow - Complete Card List

[sickofpalantirs]

what were their express reasons for banning canceling RB skirmishes? it'd be interesting to see what they said.

[Thranduil]

Well, I've had enough of the culture. I'll announce the reprint when we have a clear winner - right now it's looking like NFFatRoD.

And so moving on in my list, I find that is the next culture (weird, them being next in the alphabet and all that... ) And so, I thought I'd throw some minions down. The herald is part of a Shadow cycle of heralds that reveal the top card of your draw deck. Lugdush is the name of a random uruk in Uglúk's patrol, which I got from the Encyclopedia of Arda.

Isengard Pathfinder
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Aggressor. Damage +1. Tracker (for each aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each Shadow card is -1).
When you play this minion, you may spot a companion with resistance 3 or less to draw a card.
L C 172

Isengard Herald
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 8
Vit: 3
Sit: 5
Damage +1.
At the start of each skirmish involving this minion, you may reveal the top card of your draw deck. If it is an card, you may exert this minion to exert a companion it is skirmishing.
L U 170

•Lugdush, Servant of Saruman
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Damage +1. Tracker.
Response: If a tracker wins a skirmish, play Lugdush from your hand; he is strength +3 and fierce until the regroup phase.
L R 174

[DáinIronfoot]

Isengard Pathfinder
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 8
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Aggressor. Damage +1. Tracker (for each aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each Shadow card is -1).
When you play this minion, you may spot a companion with resistance 3 or less to draw a card.
L C 172

I don't recall seeing aggressor before, but I think it could get pretty crazy. I'd throw in some cultural enforcement to it, like "for each [culture] aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each [culture] card is -1". That helps keep it from getting too wild.

The rest seems okay. Brownie points for bringing back tracker!

Isengard Herald
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 8
Vit: 3
Sit: 5
Damage +1.
At the start of each skirmish involving this minion, you may reveal the top card of your draw deck. If it is an card, you may exert this minion to exert a companion it is skirmishing.
L U 170

Seems alright to me.

•Lugdush, Servant of Saruman
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Damage +1. Tracker.
Response: If a companion loses a skirmish, play Lugdush from your hand; he is strength +3 and fierce until the regroup phase.
L R 174

I think would be a more appropriate cost. Either that or build in some additional cost to playing him with the response action. Oh, and make sure to limit it to skirmishes lost that involve trackers, or at least minions. Otherwise you'll see him tossed into all MANNER of Shadow decks.

[Thranduil]

I don't recall seeing aggressor before, but I think it could get pretty crazy. I'd throw in some cultural enforcement to it, like "for each [culture] aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each [culture] card is -1". That helps keep it from getting too wild.

I think would be a more appropriate cost. Either that or build in some additional cost to playing him with the response action. Oh, and make sure to limit it to skirmishes lost that involve trackers, or at least minions. Otherwise you'll see him tossed into all MANNER of Shadow decks.

Yes, you can toss him in any Shadow deck. That's kind of the point... I've very recently been converted to the opinion that there is far too much cultural enforcement in LotR, and this limits your deckbuilding far too much, and this is especially true for the Shadow side. MTG, for example, you have so much more freedom to mix colours and come up with new and fun decks, a possibility that I really don't think exists in LotR. To have an LotR strategy, most of the time the cards need to spoonfeed you (classic example, support area possession stacking). I say, why does it have to be like that? So I'm just making cards, sometimes without specific strategies in mind, and letting the player put them into decks. I think aggressor lets people do just that - they can throw synergistic cards together without having to limit themselves to a single culture. Aggressor is not a mechanic that every deck will want, which is why I think it's probably alright. However, it could be that I'm not costing it high enough.

Brownie points for bringing back tracker!

That's another of my points that I'm trying to get across with this set, which also ties into my culture argument. While keywords like valiant, knight, ranger, engine, machine, warg-rider, southron etc. are attached only to 1 culture, in my opinion they're completely useless - they're just an unnecessary limit to deckbuilding. Once you start throwing them everywhere the flavour makes sense, they become interesting, and more importantly, breed interesting and fun decks - it's a different way to approach deckbuilding. Instead of building a deck, I can now build a valiant deck. Instead of making an Shadow side, I can make a tracker Shadow side that features minions from across cultures, and these keywords become like creature types in MTG. So, while I'm currently hardly referencing any of these keywords at all, I'm just throwing them around.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to do here. If you have any questions or comments, tell me. I realise that you missed some of this preamble when you were AWOL, and I hadn't really taken that into account.

Thranduil

[DáinIronfoot]

I don't recall seeing aggressor before, but I think it could get pretty crazy. I'd throw in some cultural enforcement to it, like "for each [culture] aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each [culture] card is -1". That helps keep it from getting too wild.

I think would be a more appropriate cost. Either that or build in some additional cost to playing him with the response action. Oh, and make sure to limit it to skirmishes lost that involve trackers, or at least minions. Otherwise you'll see him tossed into all MANNER of Shadow decks.

Yes, you can toss him in any Shadow deck. That's kind of the point... I've very recently been converted to the opinion that there is far too much cultural enforcement in LotR, and this limits your deckbuilding far too much, and this is especially true for the Shadow side. MTG, for example, you have so much more freedom to mix colours and come up with new and fun decks, a possibility that I really don't think exists in LotR. To have an LotR strategy, most of the time the cards need to spoonfeed you (classic example, support area possession stacking). I say, why does it have to be like that? So I'm just making cards, sometimes without specific strategies in mind, and letting the player put them into decks. I think aggressor lets people do just that - they can throw synergistic cards together without having to limit themselves to a single culture. Aggressor is not a mechanic that every deck will want, which is why I think it's probably alright. However, it could be that I'm not costing it high enough.

I'm reluctantly okay with this then. I would just strongly advise not making a bunch of cheap aggressors, lest a Shadow player just load up with them and create the most ridiculous swarm deck of all time. I think this guy, with his stats and cost, is about the lowest you should go with them. I'm all for mixing Shadow cultures--which I also think is a fun idea that Decipher could have run with but mostly squashed--but only if it's done intelligently. It has to make sense, you know? I trust you to be selective with which cultures get aggressors and what those minions look like...but I'll pay close attention in the future. Cool beans?

Brownie points for bringing back tracker!

That's another of my points that I'm trying to get across with this set, which also ties into my culture argument. While keywords like valiant, knight, ranger, engine, machine, warg-rider, southron etc. are attached only to 1 culture, in my opinion they're completely useless - they're just an unnecessary limit to deckbuilding. Once you start throwing them everywhere the flavour makes sense, they become interesting, and more importantly, breed interesting and fun decks - it's a different way to approach deckbuilding. Instead of building a deck, I can now build a valiant deck. Instead of making an Shadow side, I can make a tracker Shadow side that features minions from across cultures, and these keywords become like creature types in MTG. So, while I'm currently hardly referencing any of these keywords at all, I'm just throwing them around.

I agree with you again...to an extent. I like the idea of mixing valiant into other cultures (I'm doing a little of that in The Way Into Mordor, if you remember), and having a few non-Gondorian knights and rangers, engines and machines showing up in odd cultures here and there...all of that. But again, it has to make sense. I still don't think I agree with a valiant Pippin or Sam, for example, but I can live with that. A knight or ranger or something just to make a formerly unbound keyword work (I presume you're redefining them as you did valiant, but correct me if I'm wrong...as you said, I'm a little behind the curve after two months away)...something like that I would have a major beef with.

DCs are, in my opinion, only half about whether or not they actually work and are balanced. The other half is flavor. I think spreading around certain keywords into certain places would absolutely destroy the flavor.

So, I'm on board for now. I'm just very curious to see what extent this blending will go to.

[Thranduil]

I'm reluctantly okay with this then. I would just strongly advise not making a bunch of cheap aggressors, lest a Shadow player just load up with them and create the most ridiculous swarm deck of all time. I think this guy, with his stats and cost, is about the lowest you should go with them. I'm all for mixing Shadow cultures--which I also think is a fun idea that Decipher could have run with but mostly squashed--but only if it's done intelligently. It has to make sense, you know? I trust you to be selective with which cultures get aggressors and what those minions look like...but I'll pay close attention in the future. Cool beans?

Yeah, I've lowered the guy's strength by 1 and raised Lugdush's cost - I think you're probably right that I wasn't costing them high enough. I don't really think that there are any 2 (or more) Shadow cultures that don't make sense together - Orcs, Uruks, Men and Nazgûl have all been in the same army after all. But yes, of course it's got to be intelligent. Aggressor is capturing the flavour of being aggressive and fearsome, and I don't think it's too broken because it also requires you to have the Shadow cards to play in the skirmish phase. But yes, please do keep an eye out - I may well go overboard!

I agree with you again...to an extent. I like the idea of mixing valiant into other cultures (I'm doing a little of that in The Way Into Mordor, if you remember), and having a few non-Gondorian knights and rangers, engines and machines showing up in odd cultures here and there...all of that. But again, it has to make sense. I still don't think I agree with a valiant Pippin or Sam, for example, but I can live with that. A knight or ranger or something just to make a formerly unbound keyword work (I presume you're redefining them as you did valiant, but correct me if I'm wrong...as you said, I'm a little behind the curve after two months away)...something like that I would have a major beef with.

DCs are, in my opinion, only half about whether or not they actually work and are balanced. The other half is flavor. I think spreading around certain keywords into certain places would absolutely destroy the flavor.

Yeah, a Dwarf knight doesn't quite fit, I agree - I don't plan to make one - but a valiant Dwarf sure does, as do knights, bounders could be rangers, fortifications, spells etc. In short, I agree flavour is paramount, which is why I'm putting the keywords only where the flavour makes sense. Obviously we seem to have a slightly different opinion on that, but that's cool too. I might actually change that Pippin to a knight just because he is of and it's a shame not to have that keyword.

I definitely want you to keep on watching out for brokenness and flavour issues - that's why I post these cards, after all!

Thranduil

[DáinIronfoot]

I'm reluctantly okay with this then. I would just strongly advise not making a bunch of cheap aggressors, lest a Shadow player just load up with them and create the most ridiculous swarm deck of all time. I think this guy, with his stats and cost, is about the lowest you should go with them. I'm all for mixing Shadow cultures--which I also think is a fun idea that Decipher could have run with but mostly squashed--but only if it's done intelligently. It has to make sense, you know? I trust you to be selective with which cultures get aggressors and what those minions look like...but I'll pay close attention in the future. Cool beans?

Yeah, I've lowered the guy's strength by 1 and raised Lugdush's cost - I think you're probably right that I wasn't costing them high enough. I don't really think that there are any 2 (or more) Shadow cultures that don't make sense together - Orcs, Uruks, Men and Nazgûl have all been in the same army after all. But yes, of course it's got to be intelligent. Aggressor is capturing the flavour of being aggressive and fearsome, and I don't think it's too broken because it also requires you to have the Shadow cards to play in the skirmish phase. But yes, please do keep an eye out - I may well go overboard!

Cool by me, my friend.

I agree with you again...to an extent. I like the idea of mixing valiant into other cultures (I'm doing a little of that in The Way Into Mordor, if you remember), and having a few non-Gondorian knights and rangers, engines and machines showing up in odd cultures here and there...all of that. But again, it has to make sense. I still don't think I agree with a valiant Pippin or Sam, for example, but I can live with that. A knight or ranger or something just to make a formerly unbound keyword work (I presume you're redefining them as you did valiant, but correct me if I'm wrong...as you said, I'm a little behind the curve after two months away)...something like that I would have a major beef with.

DCs are, in my opinion, only half about whether or not they actually work and are balanced. The other half is flavor. I think spreading around certain keywords into certain places would absolutely destroy the flavor.

Yeah, a Dwarf knight doesn't quite fit, I agree - I don't plan to make one - but a valiant Dwarf sure does, as do knights, bounders could be rangers, fortifications, spells etc. In short, I agree flavour is paramount, which is why I'm putting the keywords only where the flavour makes sense. Obviously we seem to have a slightly different opinion on that, but that's cool too. I might actually change that Pippin to a knight just because he is of and it's a shame not to have that keyword.

I can see all of those, yes, and in fact have at least one valiant Dwarf, knight, fortification, and spell mixed throughout my sets as well. I think our opinions might be closer in line than either of us thought. But only time will tell, I suppose. Because...

I definitely want you to keep on watching out for brokenness and flavour issues - that's why I post these cards, after all!

...I've got my eye on you. And not just because I work for the government.

[Thranduil]

I've changed my mind again about Lugdush, put his cost back and made him a tracker card. I decided this was going to be one of those rare occasions in this set when I actually refer to unloaded keywords. Good change?

Thranduil

[Anvar]

•Lugdush, Servant of Saruman
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Damage +1. Tracker.
Response: If a companion loses a skirmish involving a tracker, play Lugdush from your hand; he is strength +3 and fierce until the regroup phase.
L R 174

Nice cards, but why doesn't Lugdush say "if a tracker wins a skirmish"?

[Thranduil]

Nice cards, but why doesn't Lugdush say "if a tracker wins a skirmish"?

I was under the impression that that was a bit of an ambiguous wording - I'm pretty sure that losing a skirmish is better defined within the rules than winning.

Thranduil

[sickofpalantirs]

I JUST got the usefulness of aggressor. *facepalm*
kewl cards.

[Thranduil]

Okay, let's have some Shadow cycles now. The first is a cycle of 6-companion hate conditions. The second is a cycle of resistance lowering conditions. The third is a cycle of massive rare events.

Hard Pressed
Condition • Support Area
When you play this condition, you may foresee 1.
While you can spot 6 companions, each wounded companion skirmishing an minion is strength -1.
L C 168

Exhaustion
Condition • Unbound Companion
To play, spot an minion.
Bearer is resistance -1 for each wound on him or her.
Skirmish: Play this condition from your hand.
L U 165

Ruination
Event • Skirmish
Search.
This event's twilight cost is -1 for each companion with resistance 3 or less.
Discard each Free Peoples card borne by characters in a skirmish involving an minion.
L R 176

[lem0nhead]

Isengard Pathfinder
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Aggressor. Damage +1. Tracker (for each aggressor assigned to a skirmish, the twilight cost of each Shadow card is -1).
When you play this minion, you may spot a companion with resistance 3 or less to draw a card.
L C 172

Solid.

Isengard Herald
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 8
Vit: 3
Sit: 5
Damage +1.
At the start of each skirmish involving this minion, you may reveal the top card of your draw deck. If it is an card, you may exert this minion to exert a companion it is skirmishing.
L U 170

Alright, im teetering on saying wound nto exert.

•Lugdush, Servant of Saruman
Minion • Uruk-hai
Str: 7
Vit: 2
Sit: 5
Damage +1. Tracker.
Response: If a companion loses a skirmish involving a tracker, play Lugdush from your hand; he is strength +3 and fierce until the regroup phase.
L R 174

Meh, hes ok, id make him twilight cost -2 if played from hand as well.

[lem0nhead]

Im just reviewing the last ones as you post more!

Okay, let's have some Shadow cycles now. The first is a cycle of 6-companion hate conditions. The second is a cycle of resistance lowering conditions. The third is a cycle of massive rare events.

Hard Pressed
Condition • Support Area
When you play this condition, you may foresee 1.
While you can spot 6 companions and an minion, each wounded companion is strength -1.
L C 168

Fine, though could be an issue being non unique.

Exhaustion
Condition • Unbound Companion
To play, spot an minion.
Bearer is resistance -1 for each wound on him or her.
Skirmish: Play this condition from your hand.
L U 165

Ok...

Ruination
Event • Skirmish
Search.
This event's twilight cost is -1 for each companion with resistance 3 or less.
Discard each Free Peoples card borne by characters in a skirmish involving an minion.
L R 176

Urgh, evil.

[Anvar]

Nice cards, but why doesn't Lugdush say "if a tracker wins a skirmish"?

I was under the impression that that was a bit of an ambiguous wording - I'm pretty sure that losing a skirmish is better defined within the rules than winning.

Thranduil

Nope, I'm fairly sure that winning a skirmish is clearly defined as well. Eg. Kings' Legacy.

Anvar