Let's see here...
![[Ring]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/ring.gif "The One Ring")
- Betrayal of The One Ring; Gollum's Fate
Assuming a specific mention allowing
culture cards to be played by either player, both these cards should be able to be worded "Bearer must be The One Ring". It hasn't been done before, but should be possible. On second thought, perhaps it should be "Bearer must be the Ring-bearer." Obviously that adds a drawback that it could be discarded by the cards that only discard cards on a character (or if Frodo gets it and Sam takes it). If you don't mind that, then it's much easier.
For
Betrayal, I would need to check (just to be sure) what type of site does not reduce the Ring-bearer's resistance. As I understand it, sites that any fellowship is at don't, but what about controlled sites? Currently they do not.
If they shouldn't, then I think it should be worded "The Ring-bearer is resistance -1 for each unoccupied site on the adventure path." (although the other way around might be true as well) - otherwise, I'd add "controlled site or" in front of unoccupied.
First - this should almost definitely be unique. If you're the Shadow player, all you have to do is cycle through until you get 4 of these in hand, ideally at site 9. Unless your opponent's controlling the sites and staying barely ahead of you, he's in big trouble. If 1 site qualifies, -4 resistance; 2 = -8; 3 = -12...
The regroup action brings up another point. Unless they are Free Peoples cards after being played, this one would probably be "At the start of the regroup phase, if you can not spot a minion, discard this condition." If it does become one, you can make it a regroup action, removing "At the start of the regroup phase" and replacing it with "
Regroup:" instead (or leave it) - depending if you want it to be optional or not.
Gollum's Fate - I love this idea. However, when doing things like this, you need to keep alternate Ring-bearers in mind (and the fact there's a non-ring-bearer Frodo). So the to play ability should be something like "To play, spot Frodo bearing The One Ring." followed by "Bearer must be..." as mentioned above.
This should probably be alright to be non-unique.
For the rest... although it's slightly different, you can go with the wording of
Final Strike - "Any site 9 is named
Mount Doom" if you want to change the name or "Any site 9 gains the name
Mount Doom" so it's a combination of both. Flavor-wise, I think the second's a little better - the Ring-bound companions are at
Mount Doom, unbound as the regular version. Also, adding the name allows any references to the site name to work fine without any clarification. If you want it to be changed into the actual card, that's a little more complicated. If that's your intention I've got wording for that, though.
As for the response ability - the Free Peoples player will always trigger it if possible, the Shadow player will never trigger it if it's their choice - unless a Sam that can take the ring is in play, most likely for both. So, unless I'm mistaken on intention, it should be mandatory as well. In either case, though, while I love the flavor, as text it makes it a little more complicated than needed.
Unless you have methods to prevent the Free Peoples player from losing when corrupted, I'd suggest simplifying it a bit. Still it's a bit difficult. Since we know that the Ring-bearer is Frodo with this card, maybe have a single line "While the Ring-bearer is not Frodo or Sam, his printed resistance is 5 and gains "If this companion is killed, you win the game."" with a seperate line for "If Frodo is about to be killed at
Mount Doom, the Free Peoples player may spot Gollum or Smeagol to attach The One Ring to that character."
The One Ring, Inherent Corruption of Madness - first note is that I believe the 'o' of 'of' should be lower-case. Still, relatively minor and I'm not 100% sure on it. However, being unique is almost definitely a must...
Major benefits, for a very strong disadvantage (burdens for double-moving) - note: very strong is weaker than major...
First off, a very common mistake - the conversion of wounds to burdens should be a seperate line, outside a response unless it's by itself and you intend for it to be optional.
I'm curious as to the need for the skirmish ability - He can exert to wear the Ring, but gets no benefits for doing so (only adding multiple burdens when he would take wounds), while the response triggers on the only thing wearing the Ring affects (taking wounds) at no cost.
My main concern is that the regroup ability seems way too strong. I realize it's limited (and perfect for RB Smeagol - love that bit), but you effectively remove the rule of 9 limit with this Ring. Even adding 2 burdens per wound seems a bit weak for this - even more so that you can pick who, so even if a character's killed they're not out of the fight. I mean Smeagol, Merry and Pippin are known for their discarding tricks (or at least have decent) - this adds Sam, Frodo, Smeagol and others that get the majority of their abilities from cards that don't have to be attached to get fun tricks with dying.
Plus a combination I just spotted (that you may or may not have noticed)-
This ring + Gollum's Fate (even with my suggested changes): Start with the ring on Frodo, have Sam, Smeagol and 2 more points of companions. Get Gollum's Fate on Frodo, then kill him off and transfer the Ring to Sam. Let Sam build up burdens and/or wounds and play the non-Ring-bearer Frodo. When you get to site 9, if Frodo dies, then Smeagol steals the Ring from Sam...
![[Dwarven]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/dwarven.png "Dwarven")
-
Don't Tell the Elf - Pretty sure 'tell' should be capitalized. As an event it shouldn't be unique - not going to be in play and it already has the limit of 1 per deck.
Playing the card should be "place this card face-up in an opponent's draw deck" - I think it's normally deck, but then you'
ld have people argue to put it into a player's adventure deck. Then that player argue to try to put it out as a site...
Like the ability, but it's a bit odd to word... First is if you want to deny them the card draw or not - if so, do they reduce the size of their hand when reconciling? (I'm not sure if they would or not, so I'm asking what your intention is)
I'd probably word it "Whenever a player would draw this card face-up, that player shuffles it face-up into his draw deck. If it is that player's turn, he puts the top 2 cards of his draw deck into their owner's discard pile." If you want to deny the card draw, add 'instead' after 'shuffles it face-up into his draw deck'. Also, the wording if it's that player's turn allows for one of those two cards to be Don't Tell the Elf.
Balance issues - If it replaces the draw, the problem is that it's a recurring issue, especcially late game, that a cost of
![[5]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/5.png "5")
doesn't quite work. Maybe have it cost
![[3]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/3.png "3")
or
![[4]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/4.png "4")
, but add
![[1]](https://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/Smileys/classic/1.png "1")
whenever it would be drawn? If it replaces it
and reduces the cost of reconcile... same but maybe that player may reinforce a culture token? Should probably have something more than just the twilight, but I'm not quite sure what wouldn't be too much and make it a weak card. If they can replace the draw - you run the additional risk that they keep getting the card while 'redrawing', but they also don't lose the card. So if that's the case -
cost and exert an unbound companion? Admittedly, this opens it up more for multi-player...
Drinking Contest - Not much to say here. I think it works right, the only comment would be a slightly different wording that wouldn't affect the effect. (Namely, changing the token manipulation from a single line with an optional effect to a two-part effect that are both mandatory - add a token for each card you put under, then remove a token for each card your opponent puts under)
Balance-wise, I think it's actually pretty well done - however, I think you should have some reinforcement of some type (I'd say culture, but that might not fit). Right now, as long as you have Gimli and Legolas when you play it, all you need is enough to keep your fellowship alive - then you can set up an all Shadow hand during the Maneuver phase.
Orcrist - First thing is the card type. Hand Weapon, rather than Hanweapon (Easy mistake to make
)
The boost effect should be under the bearer line, and switched around "While skirmishing an Orc, bearer is strength +3 and
damage +2."
Another common mistake made - When does the effect trigger? Is it a response, so you can only discard it if you have Orcrist out when the card's played? If so "
Response: If a card you do not own is put into your draw deck, you may discard a card from hand to discard that card." Otherwise, "
Timing: Discard a card from hand to discard a card in your draw deck that you do not own." - Timing being whatever phase you want to be able to use the ability. If you can do it at any time...
As for balance - it depends on the timing of the ability and how many cards you have that go into other decks, really. Vitality bonuses are major effects, but the fact that only one companion can use it provides a significant drawback (mostly because he doesn't have much that requires him - for Aragorn it's a minor drawback). At worst, you have (for 4 twilight) an 11/4/6 Damage +3 that mills a card for each minion he's skirmishing if he wins. That's if he's skirmishing an Orc. Honestly, I don't think it's too bad, and the ability's so far a relatively minor one (although it's fairly powerful against the decks that work with it). Maybe have
Thorin III exert to discard the card and/or making it just strength +2 and damage +1 while skirmishing an Orc?
I'll try and get the rest at 2 cultures per post - and try for a post (roughly) every 12 to 6 hours (or sooner if there are multiple posts between mine), but I can't guarantee it as I started this one about 3 hours ago (admittedly I got
called away a couple times)
So, if you have cultures you want reviewed sooner, let me know and I'll switch them in (or if I notice anything in particular).
Topic: Contest!!! "Shelob's Lair" ready for overall review. (Read 39276 times)
