TLHH Virtual Set #1: Preliminary Discussion

[Thranduil]

Let's brainstorm some ideas for the first virtual set. Here's what I think we're looking for:

• A set of 9 cards.

• The cards we choose to make (V) versions of should be as many as possible of:
                  • Iconic
                  • Have great flavour
                  • Be so awfully bad that it never ever gets played
                  • Be from an early block (ideally FotR)
                  • Be rare (so that people feel more like they ought to have some play value)

• I would say we want a high number of characters because they're just cooler than any other kind of card.

• 4 FP, 4 SH, 1 Ring. The Ring should either be RR or Isildur's Bane. 2 characters for each, then 2 other cards.

• We should have 2 really awesome flagship characters to "sell" the set. These, in an ideal world, would be first sent around tournaments to get people excited about new cards.


So, speak! Let me know any of your own ideas, and what you think of mine so far.

Thran

[hrcho]

I didn't quite understand what you are suggesting. To create completely new cards or to recreate old ones? Or both maybe?

[Thranduil]

I didn't quite understand what you are suggesting. To create completely new cards or to recreate old ones? Or both maybe?

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I believe strongly that we should start in the Virtual card business—printing off slips to go over the text boxes of old cards.

If these are received well, at a much later date, we could get to full dream cards.

Thran

[Kralik]

I'm not entirely sure about distributing a printed set yet, but... we'll see.

[Jerba]

What cultures are you looking to 'Virtualize' at his point? All original FOTR cultures then, right? No intention of bringing old cards into the new cultures?

I nominate:
The Weight of a Legacy
The Gaffer, Sam's Father (Companion!)
Alive and Unspoiled
Let Them Come (New Gimli)
Stand Against Darkness (New Elrond)
Change of Plans (New Boromir)
Lurtz's Battle Cry
Fool of a Took
Beauty is Fading

[Thranduil]

I'm not entirely sure about distributing a printed set yet, but... we'll see.

We could start them on GCCG, couldn't we?

[hrcho]

Ok. First we should decide which cards should we take for the Virtual Set #1
I've been going through some cards and these are which I think need changing:

Haldir, Elf of the Golden Wood
Elrond, Elven Lord
Legolas, Nimble Warrior
Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor
Let Them Come
Change of Plans

Alive and Unspoiled
Beauty is Fading
Despair
The Weight of a Legacy
The Dark Lord's Summons
Helpless
The Witch-King, Deathless Lord

[Kralik]

Helpless? Really?

[hrcho]

I would've used a copy of helpless in almost all my nazgul decks if it didn't say "Spot Frodo...".

[ket_the_jet]

Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor is awesome. So is Lurtz's Battle Cry and a lot of other mentioned cards.
-wtk

[Kralik]

I would've used a copy of helpless in almost all my nazgul decks if it didn't say "Spot Frodo...".

Tip: Fellowship block.

[Jerba]

I would've used a copy of helpless in almost all my nazgul decks if it didn't say "Spot Frodo...".

Tip: Fellowship block.

Its not that great. Helpless usually lives up to its name, I mean even if the shadow player gets it out Sam has already removed the burdens and is prepped to be a speed bump. It doesn't do much unless they intend to keep Sam around which doesn't happen much in my experience (especially in FOTR block). It would screw a Sam/Frodo deck over though. I'd rather have another Morgul Gates, Nertea, or Blade Tip in FOTR block.

[hrcho]

Tip: Fellowship block.

I know, I know... it's just frustrating to have so many cards that are good only in a certain block.

Its not that great. Helpless usually lives up to its name, I mean even if the shadow player gets it out Sam has already removed the burdens and is prepped to be a speed bump. It doesn't do much unless they intend to keep Sam around which doesn't happen much in my experience (especially in FOTR block). It would screw a Sam/Frodo deck over though. I'd rather have another Morgul Gates, Nertea, or Blade Tip in FOTR block.

I lost too many games because of Sam to agree with you. I lost one today because of him. I killed Frodo at site 9 with Return to Its Master just to have Sam take the Ring...

[Kralik]

Indeed, Sam is not just a one-time speedbump (always). There are some Nazgul decks that focus on heavy corruption -- having Sam repeatedly remove 3 burdens with Hobbit Hospital or having the Freeps kill off a 9-burdened Frodo is a problem.

hrcho, I don't see the point of changing/virtualizing cards that have their proper place in the right block.

[hrcho]

hrcho, I don't see the point of changing/virtualizing cards that have their proper place in the right block.

Aye, it probably doesn't belong on that list. Can't blame me for trying

[Kralik]

Do or do not.
THERE IS NO TRY.

Whoops.... wrong forums...

[jdizzy001]

heir to the white city would be a good one to remake or are we just nominating set 1 only?

I was thinking "when the fellowship moves during the fellowship phase exert gorn to remove 2 twilight" OR "When the fellowship moves during the fellowship phase discard 2 cards from hand to remove 2 twilight."

Also I think more possessions should function like armor (bearer must be a man).  It makes no sense that faramir can't use a rohirrim sword just because he's from another country.  I mean legolas (from mirkwood) uses a an elf bow just as easily as haldir (from Caras Galardon).  It seems kind of rascist to clump all dwarves, elves, and wizards into one group then split up man cultures.  That's like saying all oriental folks are chinese while americans are oregonians, washingtonians, and new yorkers.  We don't need a universal culture, just more loose bearer rules.

[Abbott465]

I think your right that for general items like a random Rohan sword you should have more loose rules but still if something is more "culture" specific like Tower Guard armor or House of Eorl armor that it should still be kept in the right culture.

In the books (just read through them again :p) many of the characters use random armor and weapons from time to time. For example Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas were in Rohan Garb throughout the portions of the book that were in Rohan.

[Ringbearer]

I think we should first let the 4 people here come up with working ideas, then let the rest of the commnity comment. IF we have to have everyones thumbs up, we're getting nowhere.

[Jerba]

hrcho, I don't see the point of changing/virtualizing cards that have their proper place in the right block.

Aye, it probably doesn't belong on that list. Can't blame me for trying

I have been put in my place on this issue. It is a solid card. I guess I just never saw it played.

Also, I like the idea of V-ing Aragorn, HTTWC and returning him to the table. He is a useless Aragorn (if you folow the X-List) and could be updated without interfering with other versions that still see play (even if only occasionally). Besides, I have a foil one that really wants to play with all his friends.

[Kralik]

I do agree that there should be a few to get the ball rolling, but having community brainstorming at first isn't a bad idea either.

I'd suggest not errata'ing cards that are X-ed. Why? Take HttWC for example. He has his place in Fellowship Block. If you errata him to give him play in other blocks, he's gimped in Fellowship. Don't like choke? Then maybe Fellowship block isn't for you.

[Ringbearer]

It is obvious that when a card is V-ed, the original can always be used as well. BUT I want to see if we can make a few unplayables playable, and HTTWC isnt unplayable. When a card is selected, its always advisable to see which format it belongs to.

And FOTR block is played. If HTTWC would be in King Block, that could be another thing, cause I dont know anybody playing king block.

[jdizzy001]

It is obvious that when a card is V-ed, the original can always be used as well.

my thoughts exactly, perhaps a disclaimer on the V-card, "to use in formats other than FOTR block, change text to..."
food for thought.

also, if no one has a problem with heir to the white city, I vote we G list him again.  (G as in the G rating of american movies. Get it?)

[Kralik]

I don't have a problem with him in Fellowship block, but since Decipher moved away from choke in the sets after FotR, I think he should stay X-ed (along with NSttS, for example).

[Ringbearer]

The idea of a v-card is not to bring out an errata but to create a new card. If we would V FTTWC, uyou could play 1 V and 3 non-V, or any mix possible (and legal). Its not that if we V a card the non V cannot be used anymore. So a gametext adding: when not in FOTR block, do this wont work... Also too much text on a card is never good. Text should be short and clear.

[Ringbearer]

And to go back on topic about V-set 1:

Since the idea is to release a miniset of cards to show people what we want to achieve, I would suggest we pick a card from each movieculture which has little playvalue and V it. BUT to achieve this we would need 12 cards. One for each culture and one ring. Suggestions about cards?

I think we should add 2 or 3 companions and at least a few minions.

[Not a Zombie]

Gandalf, Mithrandir would be a good card to V. He is kinda cool and sees a bit of play, but I would like something a bit better. Although HttWC is only useful in FotR, I'd rather see something like Strength of Kings V'd. It is a cool concept, a great pic, and a cool name, but almost never sees play.

[hrcho]

Since the idea is to release a miniset of cards to show people what we want to achieve, I would suggest we pick a card from each movieculture which has little playvalue and V it. BUT to achieve this we would need 12 cards. One for each culture and one ring. Suggestions about cards?

I agree with RB on this. We should go with Thran's suggestion, but instead of 9 cards, let's make 12 + The One Ring as RB suggested. Also, I think we should make a new The One Ring, but make it common or uncommon. Tbiesty suggested we V the X-ed cards and also keep them as they are. I think that's a great idea.

I also think we will agree that The Weight of a Legacy can take its place as a card representing the culture.

Let's find others. As both Thran and RB said, it would be good if there were at least 2-3 companions and 2-3 minions.

Since we are trying to bring X-ed cards back to life, there are some obvious choices and some that are not so obvious:
- Aragorn, HttWC
- Galadriel, LoL OR Elrond, LoR
- Ottar, MoL OR Steadfast Champion
- The Weight of a Legacy
- Saruman, KoI
- Relics of Moria
- Men of Harad
- Ulaire Nertea, MoDG
- Eothain, Scout of the Mark
- Smeagol, Old Noser
- Dunland seems good as it is. Maybe we could create a new here, unless someone has a better idea.
- Sting

What are your thoughts?

[Witchkingx5]

I'm with:

Strength of Kings
Galadriel, LoL
Steadfast Champion
The Weight of a Legacy
The Misadventure of Mr. Underhill
The End Comes
Men of Harad
Ulaire Nertea, MoDG
Ceorl, Weary Horseman
Death to the Strawheads
Sting

[Ringbearer]

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
Leaping Blaze
Memories of Darkness
Arwen, Lady Undomiel
Gandalf, Mithrandir
Slippery as Fishes
Strength of Kings
Alive and Unspoiled
Durins Tower
Men of Harad
Helm! Helm!
The Weight of a Legacy
Melilot Brandybuck
The Witch-King, Deathless lord

Just a few suggestions.

[Tbiesty]

Since its parent topic was moved to Bag End, I'm posting this here:

I'll add that I'm thinking the first Virtual Set (and just the first) should take approach 1 (fixing the banned cards).  There are a specific number of them (like 20 or so), so it would be a good exercise for the "Dream Team" to show how it can design, produce, distribute (via V-slips and perhaps GCCG), and play-test a Virtual Set successfully.

Once that achievement has been successfully reached (proving that the "Dream Team" can provide quality work), then further Virtual Sets using more of approach 2 (remaking cards) can be pursued.  These Virtual Sets should then stick to a "theme" (Hobbits escaping the Nazgul, Rohan deceived by Saruman and Evil Men, etc.), rather than just make random weaker cards more powerful.   If virtualizing a currently weak card fits into a "theme", even better.

[Kralik]

I actually pack Slippery As Fishes x4, odd as it is, in my Gollum deck. Together with a well-chosen site path, and Final Strike, it can be very helpful.

[hrcho]

Arwen, Undomiel is a beast.

[Jerba]

I concur with Ringbearer, creating a Virtual version of a card should not overshadow the use of the original. We are NOT redoing the cards we are simply creating new ones. If I wanted to play the original HTTWC in FOTR Block I still could. But now I get to play it in other scenarios as well.

I think that creating new game text for a card that has been in the game for a long time is not smart if the original text isn't still available. With virtual cards we should be adding to the palette not trading in the old for the new. We'll have HTTWC and HTTWC (V). Two distinct and useful cards in their own right.

[hrcho]

Ok. If I got things right, I believe we all concur that we will build a new virtual set of cards that will be mostly comprised of X-ed and never-played cards, but we will still leave those cards available for play as they are.

- If there are any objections, make them or be forever silent.
- If there are no objections, we move to the next step of the process - selecting the actual cards that are to be remade. I think we have so far agreed to take 12 cards + The One Ring. There have also been several proposals as to which cards should be selected. Let's hear a few more and then I (or another Mod) will post a poll to finally decide which cards to select.
- once the cards are selected, we move to the actual remaking of those cards and creation of Virtual Set #1.

[Tbiesty]

Before you proceed, I'd like to understand how/when you will address this issue:

Since the number of X-listed cards if relatively small, and they that can all be fixed by small tweaks, I'd like to understand how these virtual sets will relate to implementing/distributing those fixes.

A couple options I find acceptable:
1)  Have the (V) version of the card be used as a "fixed" version of the card.
2)  Have the (V) version really be a separate card completely (with completely different game text), but then something, (perhaps by The Rules Team, or whoever decides which cards are allowed in each format), would be done for generating the "fixed" cards.

If you go with option 1, you can always wait in making (V) version of the X-listed cards, and just stick to weak cards, until you are comfortable with this "Dream Team" process.

The number of X-listed cards is very small, let's take this opportune time to make it right.

In fact, I've already created Card Inserts (V-slips), so much of the work has already been done.

Once I understand that you at least "have a plan" for the X-listed cards, I'll withhold my objection.

Thanks!

[Thranduil]

I do agree that there should be a few to get the ball rolling, but having community brainstorming at first isn't a bad idea either.

I'd suggest not errata'ing cards that are X-ed. Why? Take HttWC for example. He has his place in Fellowship Block. If you errata him to give him play in other blocks, he's gimped in Fellowship. Don't like choke? Then maybe Fellowship block isn't for you.

Yes indeed. Erratas are the domain of the Rules Team.

Also, I'd like to add a clarification that I think we should start with (V) versions of never-played cards rather than (V) versions of X-ed cards. Dealing with X-ed cards is again the domain of the Rules Team, and not the Dream Team. At least, in my view.

Sorry it took me so long to reply here, but for some reason the forum stopped notifying me of replies. Had I been here earlier, I would have said that we need to make clear the distinction between errata and (V) cards.

• (V) cards are in no way a "fix" for old cards. They are a way of taking the same card and adding a new flavour spin to it. This is to revitalise deck-building and to get excited about new cards in the community, without having to actually print anything, make any pictures, or breech copyright.

• Erratas are entirely a fix for old cards. They are either to fix power or rules issues. They are something which is made to maintain the spirit of the original card, both in rules and flavour.

These are fundamentally different concepts, and I think this discussion is getting confused.

We are talking about (V) cards. The reason we are talking about using old useless cards is because:

i) There are a lot of early cards for which the power level is just completely off due to lack of familiarity or experience with the game rules on Decipher's part.

ii) It is a shame to have cards (especially rare cards) sitting around in people's boxes and trade folders and not be used because they're too useless or limited.

These are reasons why old useless cards (or indeed X-ed cards) would be the No. 1 and 2 targets for (V) cards, but NOT in any way the same reasons that you might choose a card to make an errata.

Hopefully this rant makes sense!

Thranduil

[Thranduil]

1)  Have the (V) version of the card be used as a "fixed" version of the card.

This is why I think we need to be careful about the distinction between (V) cards and erratas. A great way to distribute erratas is to produce slips which people can just put over their sleeved cards. But those are not (V) cards! They are erratas.

I would add that your slips look fantastic. If they were to be released by the TLHH Player's Group alongside (V) cards, then I think they should have distinctive characteristics so that they could not be confused.

Thranduil

[hrcho]

Thank you, Thranduil for clearing things up completely (at least as far as I am concerned). I was just writing something similar, but you put it down way better than I could have.

I think we are now clear for selecting the cards. The criteria for the suggested cards would look something like this:

- Cards that are rarely if ever played
- One card per culture (where culture is defined for those before Shadows)
- We need a companion or two and a minion or two
- Cards suggested should not be from an X-List (we will leave that for later time and another team)

Anyone wants to add anything else?

[Thranduil]

I think a change of tact: let's take a step back and not look for cards we want to make into (V) cards, but about the goals for the V-set.

These are my goals (other thoughts greatly appreciated):

• Open new deckbuilding options
• Complement unfinished and/or unsupported strategies
• Take old rares out of the trade folders and into decks where they belong
• Include a spread of cultures and card types
• Include cards for a spread of different sorts of players

Any other important goals I might have missed out?

I'm going to make a design skeleton. What it's going to do is have the 9 slots (this number can change at any time, of course!) along with, for the moment, their card-types. They are each going to have a code. The code will run:

SSCC#

where SS is the set code (for the first V-set, this will be V1), CC is the card's culture (for the moment blank until we work this out more fully, so I will write **), and # is the card's number (1-9, or however many we end up with).

V1*R1         —       A Ring

FP
V1**2         —       Major companion (set flagship)
V1**3         —       Companion/ally (ally --> follower?)
V1**4         —       Condition or possession
V1**5         —       Event

SH
V1**6         —       Major minion (set flagship)
V1**7         —       Minion
V1**8         —       Condition or possession
V1**9         —       Event


The set flagships are exciting, flashy cards to get people into the V-set.

When we are going through each card, we will need to have in mind what we want out of it. For example, I think that each FP and SH should have at least 1 card that is designed to work with a strategy that never got going (Warg-riders, or discard for example).

Any comments for anything that I've said in my last few posts?

Thranduil

[Tbiesty]

Thanks guys!  I'm good with that and agree on the different team responsibilities.

You may proceed!

[hrcho]

Things look clear now for me to start suggesting some cards (although many have already been suggested). I will suggest 12 cards + The One Ring because that's option I prefer. It is not fixed and can be discussed and changed accordingly. I will attempt to find cards that would best fit the goals Thranduil put because they seem good to me and in the end, Thran is the one with the most experience and knowledge about this sort of thing around here.

-  The Weight of a Legacy - this is the one card I am 99% sure will be remade. I don't think it needs any explaining as to why. I think its the best candidate for the 1st V-set.

- a strategy that has a lot of cards, but has never really worked and rarely if ever sees play is Hobbits with a discarding Smeagol. This is where we could add a new card to try make it workable and maybe even competitive to a point. These are the cards that are related to that strategy:
Frodo, Master of the Precious
No Help for It
Rare Good Ballast
It Burns Us
Maybe a change to one of those cards could return that strategy back to life.

- Stump and Bramble. I like the general idea of the card, but its main disadvantage is that it's too meta specific. The only ent ally is Treebeard and there are 2 versions of him - Oldest Living Thing and Earthborn. While Earthborn actually sees occasional play, Oldest Living Thing does not. Maybe with some change to Stump and Bramble we could make ally Treebeard more playable.

more coming soon... gotta run now

[hrcho]

@ Tbiesty: I generally like the cards you suggested with a few exceptions:

- I would like to create a completely new ring (this is just my preference) and while the text of your ring seems ok, I would've called it something else instead of Isildur's Bane. It would be a C/U ring.

- Arwen, LU - it indeed doesn't use as much use as some other versions of Arwen, but it's a strong card with a nice text. I'd rather see Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor or Gimli, Lockbearer take the place as a flagship character. I still have to ask ket why he thinks Gimli, DoE great. I could count the number of times I've seen both Lockbearer and Dwarf of Erebor in play on the fingers of one hand. Also, your text for Arwen, LU makes can make her near to indestructible.

- The Witch-King, Deathless Lord - I agree that he could be the minion we remake, but your version of him I don't agree with. That's a very powerful text you gave him. I also don't like him as Twilight because his pic isn't as a twilight nazgul.

We have also made a little counting mistake. There are 6 Free Peoples cultures and 6 Shadow cultures, but in addition, there is Gollum culture. We could make two [gollum] cards - one to supplement Smeagol and one Gollum. That would make 7 Free Peoples and 7 Shadow cards + The One Ring = 15 cards.

I also think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves and let's first agree upon the cards we will take for the V-set and the number of those cards and then we will see what we can do with them.

I will soon post more suggestion for the cards.

[Tbiesty]

I'll stay more on topic this time...  

Going with 1 The One Ring, 7 Free Peoples, and 7 Shadow cards, sounds like a good size for a set (by focusing on hitting each culture with this first set is a good idea).

Here's a possible set that I think would work.

Ring:                                 V1R1   The One Ring, Must Be Destroyed

Companion:                       V1F2   Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor
Ally:                                  V1F3     Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer
Other:                               V1F4     Stump and Bramble
                                         V1F5     Lightfootedness
                                         V1F6     Days Growing Dark
                                         V1F7     Change of Plans
                                         V1F8     Fearing the Worst

Major Minion:                     V1S9     The Witch-King, Deathless Lord
Minor Minion:                     V1S10     Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
Other:                                V1S11     Alive and Unspoiled
                                          V1S12   The Weight of a Legacy
                                          V1S13   Men of Harad
                                          V1S14   The End Comes
                                          V1S15   Leaping Blaze


Idea for The One Ring:

•The One Ring, Must Be Destroyed (Something to encourage an urgency to destroy the ring, i.e. double-moving)
Str: +1
Res: +1
Each time the fellowship moves during the fellowship phase, either exert the Ring-bearer or add a burden.
Response: If the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, he or she wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, each time he or she is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Witchkingx5]

Agree on the card list, besides Gimli, DoE. I agree that this card is great, as it can be used very well in a Arwen, EoL Deck when Mallorn-Trees gets discarded, so I don't think we should remake this one. Elven Stalwart would be like a much better choice.

Lockbearer is great in TTT Block and TS.

As for the Ring, I don't think I would ever play him at all. During an average game, you movie like 5 times during the fellowship phase, presumably you don't have any possibilities to make the move limit +X. So this is about 5 Burdens per game, -1 as the Ring provides one Resistance. I'd always play SaWtC or AtAR over it.

And whenever creating such type of cards, it's really hard to get something "average" or "just fine". Whenever you start adding Burdens as a game text besides taking wounds, the card wither becomes extremely overpowered (when the opportunity is too good) or unplayable (when the drawback is too big and the advantage too small - as the Ring above).

So I wouldn't really touch this area. It's much better to create an "average" card. The game needs those, you can always make like a little twist to a card, but the basics should be like really simple, easy to understand and fun to play.

[hrcho]

- Gimli, DoE or Gimli, Lockbearer. To me they both seem as good candidates for a flagship character. Lockbearer maybe even a bit more than Gimli, DoE, because he is rare. On the other hand, I don't have an idea what to do with them. Dwarven strategies are pretty much successful (card stacking, heavy buffing, high damage...). Maybe we could make them gain/give bonuses for multi/culture (such as Lockbearer already does, but something more useful). Lockbearer text is not that bad, it's just that when someone's playing 2 unbound hobbits, they'll much rather go for Legolas, DH and/or Aragorn, Wingfoot.
@Witchkingx5: There are far better options for EoL dekcs (I'd even rather choose Hugin, EfL, not to mention Dear Friends.) Gimli, DoE is too expensive. And I don't know how many games of TTT or TS you played, but I've seen Lockbearer only once or twice and even then, he was used mainly to add to the theme as Gimli, SoG or Gimli, UG would've worked much better.

Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer - this could definitely go for a change. We could make his text encourage Valiant companions and discard/card-under-deck manipulation. Because Eomer, TMoR is so good and is not valiant, Valiant decks suffer.

- Lightfootedness -  we could make this a card to enhance Naith Elves. They are underplayed.

[gollum] - Days Growing Dark - aye, I agree to make this card enhance Discarding Smeagol

-  Change of Plans - I've seen this card used only in Fruit Loops. RotK rangers are underplayed here. Something to help them?

- Fearing the worst - here I disagree. It's a powerful card although severely underplayed. I use it in several of my decks and it saved my #$&*@! many times against and trackers. I was thinking maybe Frodo, Master of Precious to even more encourage Discarding Smeagol.

- The Witch-King, Deathless Lord - as I said, I agree that this be the flagship minion.

[gollum] - Gollum, NTC - I would rather take another card, but I honestly can't think of one. This might go.

- Alive and Unspoiled or Grima, SoG - both these cards are good candidates as both strategies have failed. men rarely work and could use some help. discard and/or corruption needs a lot of help.

- Men of Harad - site control could use a boost.

- I'd love to enhance corruption, so something along those lines would be great. Like Goblin Spear or Must Do Without Hope.

- Leaping Blaze seems a good choice. A sort of discard.


As for The One Ring, Must Be Destroyed - it's not a bad idea, although I'd change it a bit. Something like this maybe:

•The One Ring, Must Be Destroyed
Str: +1
Res: +1
At the end of the turn, if the Fellowship didn't move twice, add a burden.
Response: If the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound during skirmish, he or she wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, each time he or she is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Thranduil]

I'd like to stress that these are (V) cards—so titles can't change. I love the idea of the ring that encourages movement for you to destroy it, but if that is the flavour we are going for then I think it should be Isildur's Bane (V). I would most like to make a (V) version of the Ruling Ring because it is a card that everybody has tonnes of and will almost never use.

Other card ideas are very good. I suggested 9 both because of the aestheticism of 9 in LotR and also to be unambitious. But running with a 15 card set could work well.

Let's have a look at Tbiesty's list:

Ring:                                 V1R1  The One Ring, Must Be Destroyed

I've made my notes on this already. I strongly think this should be the Ruling Ring (V).

Companion:                       V1F2    Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor

Dwarf of Erebor is a good remake, though I strongly hear the arguments for Lockbearer instead. I think on flavour grounds, I would rather go for Dwarf of Erebor (the subtitle is much more fluid than Lockbearer, though Lockbearer itself is a bad subtitle for the card that in no way describes an unbound Hobbit strategy).

Ally:                                  V1F3    Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer

I think a ally is a good shout—a strategy right there that never got going. Aren't there any rare allies? I think I'd rather go for one of those.

Other:                               V1F4    Stump and Bramble

Very good idea. Title is limited to working with Ents, but that's fine.

                                         V1F5    Lightfootedness

Good flavour, lots of scope. Seems fine.

                                         V1F6    Days Growing Dark

Sure. The suggestion about supporting the Frodo+Sam+Sméagol strategy seems a reasonable fit here.

                                         V1F7    Change of Plans

I think this is a good choice. Doesn't scream flavour though... Isn't there another useless rare we would rather do? Also I was kind of surprised that a guy isn't the flagship character. I'd love to see an Aragorn or Boromir as the flagship, much more than Gimli.

                                         V1F8    Fearing the Worst

Again a good choice.

Major Minion:                     V1S9    The Witch-King, Deathless Lord

Yes I think The Witch-King is a great flagship, and it naturally makes sense to use the rubbish P version. This probably won't meet much argument!

Minor Minion:                     V1S10    Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature

Revamping a common Gollum is also good. But I wonder if having two major characters as the 2 minions in the set sends mixed signals. I think I'd rather have an unimportant minion for this slot. (Uruk Captain?)

Other:                                V1S11    Alive and Unspoiled

Yes I like it. We could make it to support the search card TTT strategy.

                                          V1S12    The Weight of a Legacy

Whoever said this was one of the most obvious cards that everyone would expect in the first set I think was right!

                                          V1S13    Men of Harad

Ever found it odd that the two cards Men of Harad and Men of Rhun had absolutely nothing to do with each other? When we do this card (which we will, in this set or a following), we should make it so that both of the cards look like part of the cycle they ought to be.

                                          V1S14    The End Comes

This has always seemed a weird card in to me. Probably has potential.

                                          V1S15    Leaping Blaze

We could make a much better version of this card for sure.

I think this is a good basis.


Strategies we've talked about helping:

• Náith
• Sméagol discard
• discard
• Valiant
• Men
• Search cards
• Site control
• corruption
• discard
• Knights
• Ents

Good stuff to think about.

Thranduil

[Kralik]

I'd go with the Ruling Ring over that option any day. Basically, you get +1 Res, but on the first turn you don't double the advantage is lost. It's only downhill from there.

[Not a Zombie]

I think rather than Change of Plans, maybe Strength of Kings as I suggested earlier. Either option is good though.

[Tbiesty]

Idea for The One Ring:

•The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (Something to encourage an urgency to destroy the ring, i.e. double-moving)
Str: +1
Each time the fellowship moves during the fellowship phase, either exert the Ring-bearer or add a burden.
Response: If the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, he or she wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While the Ring-bearer is wearing The One Ring, each time he or she is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Kralik]

Now that ring looks quite interesting.

[hrcho]

It does, but I think it's too powerful for a common ring. It can soak up wounds at any time, like Isilldur's Bane, but its penalty is far lower.

[Tbiesty]

Getting close to narrowing the list down... (Anything else before we "finalize" it?)

Ring:                                 V1R1   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Companion:                       V1F3   Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor
Ally:                                  V1F12   Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer
Other:                               V1F5     Stump and Bramble
                                         V1F4     Lightfootedness
                                         V1F6     Days Growing Dark
                                         V1F8     Strength of Kings
                                         V1F14   Fearing the Worst

Major Minion:                     V1S15   The Witch-King, Deathless Lord
Minor Minion:                     V1S7     Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
Other:                                V1S9     Alive and Unspoiled
                                          V1S13   The Weight of a Legacy
                                          V1S11   Men of Harad
                                          V1S10   The End Comes
                                          V1S2    Leaping Blaze

[Thranduil]

It does, but I think it's too powerful for a common ring. It can soak up wounds at any time, like Isilldur's Bane, but its penalty is far lower.

We're not looking to make a common ring, but a virtual ring. Of course it will be available to everyone with as many copies as they like, so it shouldn't dominate and make it the ring that is always the correct one to use. But it has to be better than RR otherwise it completely misses the point!

So we need something which is more useful than the Ruling Ring, but not better than any of the rare rings (because we should reward people for collecting real cards).

I think we should be looking for a strategy specific ring: i.e. every deck will not want to play it because it is better in some decks than others,

Thran

[Kralik]

The Binding Ring is a good example of that "strategy specific" focus.

[Witchkingx5]

I am the only one who does not like to "force to double move" type of ring? I still think that it's nearly impossible to make it balanced, and from my point of view, I think this very "strategy specific" card really needs t be a Rare.

Agree on those others even though not being happy to see DoE on the list. Where is ket's support when you need it?

[hrcho]

Agree on those others even though not being happy to see DoE on the list. Where is ket's support when you need it?

We are all fond of some cards that are not being used that much and we think them underplayed. I think that about Fearing the Worst (because it saved me so many times) and about Gollum, NTC (because he was the first Gollum I got and I used him in my Isengard Archer deck). But the statistical fact is that all of those cards are really rarely used, especially in GCCG where you always have a choice of a better card.

I love the picture on Gimli, DoE... and the funny thing is, I learned that he has errata just yesterday. And that errata makes him even more useless.

I am good with that list. I believe we can start remaking the cards. I suggest we open a new topic where we will actually come up with the new versions of the cards and leave this one for general discussion about the first virtual set.

[Witchkingx5]

ok. let's start then.

[Tbiesty]

I think the list is good to go.  For this first set, we tried to pick cards that haven't been used much since they came out. Sorry, if anyone was offended if a card that you are attached to personally was picked.  Besides, the original versions of the cards will still be available to use, so you're not losing anything.

Let do this!

[Thranduil]

Getting close to narrowing the list down... (Anything else before we "finalize" it?)

Ring:                                 V1R1  The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

Companion:                       V1F3    Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor
Ally:                                  V1F12  Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer
Other:                               V1F5    Stump and Bramble
                                         V1F4    Lightfootedness
                                         V1F6    Days Growing Dark
                                         V1F8    Strength of Kings
                                         V1F14  Fearing the Worst

Major Minion:                     V1S15  The Witch-King, Deathless Lord
Minor Minion:                     V1S7    Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
Other:                                V1S9    Alive and Unspoiled
                                          V1S13  The Weight of a Legacy
                                          V1S11  Men of Harad
                                          V1S10  The End Comes
                                          V1S2    Leaping Blaze

I have 3 issues with the list as it stands:

1) I'm not convinced by Gimli as a flagship character. Gimli is never half as exciting as a kickass Aragorn or Boromir (or even Faramir). I think I'd rather see an awesome character at V1**1, or possibly an awesome Gandalf (Grey Pilgrim (V), for example?).

(aside: Tbiesty, your numbering system is alphabetical; I think it will be easier to ignore the titles for a bit and keep the numbers thematic, so companions, then artifacts, then possessions, then conditions, then events, in culture order—that way if the card changes, the slot number stays the same).

2) I am not sure about having 2 unique minions, especially when those two minions are some of the most important minions in the entire book. I want the Witch King, but then I want to have either a non-unique minion or one of much lesser import. We shouldn't try to shine the light away from the Wikkie—he'll probably get mad.

3) I'm also worried the character ratio is a bit off. Characters are always the coolest and most useful cards that get made, so I feel we should include more than 4 out of 15. I'd go for at least 3FP/3SH. This would also allow us to keep a Dwarf of Erebor version while making an Aragorn or something for the flagship.

What do people think of these suggestions?



While thinking about the actual cards, we need to think about the goal of the set and the niche we want it to fill. We should consistently name each card slot with a purpose attached to it. The purpose should be perhaps a strategy/deck it's designed to go in, the type of player who will want it, distinguishing flavour, or any other key feature. Once we have an idea of what we want the cards and the set to do, then we can have some card submissions.

Thran

[Jerba]

I still don't feel like we've gotten a straight answer on this issue, if I missed it, sorry! \

When a virtual card is released the original version of the card will be playable, correct?

Example: When you release Witch-King, Deathless Lord (V) I could still play the original version in my deck if I wanted to, right?

[Thranduil]

I still don't feel like we've gotten a straight answer on this issue, if I missed it, sorry! \

When a virtual card is released the original version of the card will be playable, correct?

Example: When you release Witch-King, Deathless Lord (V) I could still play the original version in my deck if I wanted to, right?

Yes of course. The purpose of the (V) in the virtual card's title is to distinguish it in title (which is the distinguishing feature of any card, as far as the game is concerned—well, apart from Orc Pursuer and Orc Pursuer*...).

Thran

[Jerba]

Yes.

Thank you, sirs! I'm liking what is going on in here. To add a bit of input, I also think that their should be a generic minion in the set. Moria could use a non-Balrog/Watcher minion since it hasn't seen one since Realms!

[Ringbearer]

I would not take either Gollum or Grima, but go for other, unused minions. Maybe the Uruk Savage from FOTR, or Anicent Chieftain.

[Tbiesty]

One card from each culture (3 characters and 4 non-characters per side).

Thranduil, Ringbearer, Witchkingx5, hrcho...     How about this?  


Ring:                              V1**1   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring

"Flagship" Companion:    V1**2   Gandalf, The Grey Wizard
Other Companion:           V1**3   Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor
Ally:                                V1**4   Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer
Other:                             V1**5   Days Growing Dark
                                       V1**6   Fearing the Worst
                                       V1**7     Lightfootedness
                                       V1**8     Strength of Kings

"Flagship" Minion:           V1**9   The Witch-King, Deathless Lord
Other Minions:                V1**10   Gollum, Nasty Treacherous Creature
                                      V1**11   Goblin Archer
Other:                            V1**12   Alive and Unspoiled
                                      V1**13   Men of Harad
                                      V1**14   The Weight of a Legacy
                                      V1**15   Leaping Blaze
                                      

[uncle_elrond]

I like where the list is going.  Someone mentioned something earlier about a rare villager for Rohan that could use some updating and that would be Aldor, Solider of Edoras.  That would be another interesting card to redo.  Although Sigewulf really needs it too.

[jdizzy001]

i wouldn't be too worried about who is in this first set.  Technically, if all that is happening is the creation of a V text, we could make a V version of every card. I'm not saying that is going to happen, I'm just saying sets 2 -X could have Aragorn, Heir to the White City (v) for example. (which by the way, there should be one!)

[Thranduil]

A point I noticed as I went through the list in detail:

• Though I think in principle (and in future sets) there's nothing to stop us changing events into conditions and vice versa because they have the same template and we can change the type-line with a (V) slip as much as game text, for the first set I think we should keep the types the same.

• Hence I notice that there are 3 Shadow conditions and only 1 event.

• My solution would be to leave Men of Harad for now and put in a event instead. Well, actually I think I would push more for a minion instead of Gollum and then a event.

Thranduil

[hrcho]

Ok... I like Thran's idea and this is what I came up with:

 The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
 Gandalf, The Grey Wizard - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Gimli, DoE - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer - encourage Valiant companions and Rohan discard
 Days Growing Dark - encourage Discarding Smeagol
  Fearing the Worst - encourage fighting Hobbits maybe
  Lightfootedness - I don't have an idea for this yet, except to turn it into a wound prevention event
  Strength of Kings - encourage RotK unbound Rangers
 

  Desert Lancers - encourage Raider Site Control
  Goblin Archer - encourage Moria Archery
  The Weight of a Legacy - I posted my idea about this in Chamber of Mazarbul, will return to it later
  Alive and Unspoiled - encourage Isengard Corrupt/Discard or Isengard Search cards and Trackers
  Master Broke His Promise - I don't have an idea for this yet
  Leaping Blaze - encourage Dunland Discard
  The Witch-King, Deathless Lord - I don't have an idea for this yet

Let me know what you think and any ideas about the cards we are going to make are appreciated (especially for the ones I have no idea yet). But don't go too specific, just a general idea of the card.

[Thranduil]

I'd be wary of adding yet another Mumak Commander to the card pool! There's already enough confusion between Mumak Commander and GatS.

[Tbiesty]

I think keeping Men of Harad in the list is important.  To keep the number of each card type the same, perhaps swap out the minion for an minion to help Isengard Men?


 The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
 Gandalf, The Grey Wizard - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Gimli, DoE - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer - encourage Valiant companions and Rohan discard
 Days Growing Dark - encourage Discarding Smeagol
  Fearing the Worst - encourage fighting Hobbits maybe
  Lightfootedness - I don't have an idea for this yet, except to turn it into a wound prevention event
  Strength of Kings - encourage RotK unbound Rangers
 
  The Witch-King, Deathless Lord - I don't have an idea for this yet
  Goblin Archer - encourage Moria Archery
   - Rohirrum Traitor - Help out Isengard Men, etc.
  The Weight of a Legacy - I posted my idea about this in Chamber of Mazarbul, will return to it later
  Men of Harad - encourage Raider Site Control
  Master Broke His Promise - I don't have an idea for this yet
  Leaping Blaze - encourage Dunland Discard

[Thranduil]

Very well... (removed my last post).

I'm good with the list if you guys are.

Ah, but I didn't necessarily mean that we should run with Desert Lancers either... I think we should make sure we keep an open mind and look for cards that fit best. This goes for all of the cards, of course. The list is not set in stone, so we shouldn't get too attached to the specific cards.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

I think keeping Men of Harad in the list is important.  To keep the number of each card type the same, perhaps swap out the minion for an minion to help Isengard Men?

Like this:

 The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
 Gandalf, The Grey Wizard - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Gimli, DoE - I don't have an idea for him yet
 Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer - encourage Valiant companions and Rohan discard
 Days Growing Dark - encourage Discarding Smeagol
  Fearing the Worst - encourage fighting Hobbits maybe
  Lightfootedness - I don't have an idea for this yet, except to turn it into a wound prevention event
  Strength of Kings - encourage RotK unbound Rangers
 
  The Witch-King, Deathless Lord - I don't have an idea for this yet
  Goblin Archer - encourage Moria Archery
  Rohirrim Traitor - Help out Isengard Men, etc.
  The Weight of a Legacy - I posted my idea about this in Chamber of Mazarbul, will return to it later
  Men of Harad - encourage Raider Site Control
  Master Broke His Promise - I don't have an idea for this yet
  Leaping Blaze - encourage Dunland Discard

[Thranduil]

The reason I wanted to perhaps leave Men of Harad for now (it would definitely be in a future set!) was because I wanted to make it an event to match Men of Rhun, which I've also said that I didn't think we should be doing in the first set. Also, I felt that Weight of a Legacy is already fulfilling our completely junk rare quota and maybe we should reserve another one like Men of Harad for another time.

Obviously feel free to disagree with me! I do also like the idea of doing an Man, but doing an card to help Men would also fulfill that quota.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

I'm really fine either way.  I just thought many players will wonder why we excluded it, saying "You need to include the two most junk rares ever!"

Guys, please recommend a final list, so we get this nailed down.

[Thranduil]

Okay let's try a standard format that we can keep using (I couldn't be bothered to faff with tables so I've just put in spaces the old fashioned way!).

Code                      Card                                                                  Notes
V1*R01                   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring                              not too universal that it makes others obsolete

V1GA02                   Gandalf, The Grey Wizard                                     flagship character
V1DW03                  Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor                                          
V1RO04                   Sigewulf, Brave Volunteer or Aldor                        valiant companions and/or discard
V1GF05                   Days Growing Dark                                              discarding Sméagol
V1SH06                   Fearing the Worst                                                fighting Hobbits?
V1EL07                    Lightfootedness                                                   something for the Náith?
V1GO08                   Strength of Kings                                                unbound rangers or knights? (RotK)

V1WA09                  The Witch-King, Deathless Lord                             flagship character
V1MO10                  Goblin Archer                                                       archery and/or corruption
V1RA11                   Desert Lancers                                                    Southron site control
V1IS12                    Alive and Unspoiled                                             search cards and/or corruption
V1SA13                   The Weight of a Legacy
V1DU14                   Leaping Blaze                                                      discard? playing during skirmish phase?
V1GS15                   Master Broke His Promise


(I noticed as I was posting this that both Goblin Archer and Desert Lancers are . We might want to therefore find another guy—I think the guy is probably as good as we're going to get, unless we go for Ancient Chieftain. Also on twilight cost, both FP events cost .)

I think an overall theme might be good to narrow down our thinking when we're coming to cards.

I'm seeing a lot of Shadow cards possibly about corruption, and I'm also thinking about the central flagship: the conflict between Gandalf and the Witch-King (in FotR and RotK). Some sort of corruption vs. resistance?

Thranduil

[Tbiesty]

Looks good to me for a list. 

[Ringbearer]

I would keep this list. Goblin Archery can use some help. We have to keep in mind tho that some cards can be used for more formats, and can creature NPE that we didnt think of at first.

[Thranduil]

RB, you reminded me that we need to think about supporting different formats. For example, multiplayer is a format that I don't think any cards (apart from Cast it into the Fire!) have really supported. Maybe we should make some multiplayer friendly cards? Also we have to think about cards designed for standard, movie etc.

Thran

[Jerba]

The above list looks good to me. I'd like to see a whole virtual set facilitate multiplayer a little more, but a problem is that those cards have to be decent in normal play since multiplayer won't see online play. GCCG doesn't support anything more than 1 on 1, correct? If I'm right that means multiplayer focused cards are of limited use in online format and won't see play too often.

My dream would be to have cards that would make 4 player games more fun. I have a group of local friends I want to introduce the game to but I really want to play multiplayer.

[hrcho]

GCCG doesn't support anything more than 1 on 1, correct?

GCCG has a 3P and 4P tables, meaning it does support multiplayer game. (although, 1v1 is also a multiplayer )

[Tbiesty]

So it's agreed that the card list of Virtual Set #1 is done.

Let's begin the design of the cards themselves...

[Jerba]

GCCG doesn't support anything more than 1 on 1, correct?

GCCG has a 3P and 4P tables, meaning it does support multiplayer game. (although, 1v1 is also a multiplayer )

Good to know. I guess I should play that sometime...

[Tbiesty]

So it's agreed that the card list of Virtual Set #1 is done.

Let's begin the design of the cards themselves...

Do you guys want to start a new topic for this? Or just use this topic?

[Thranduil]

I will start a new topic in a couple of minutes.

[Thranduil]

Okay, I've written a ridiculous amount here. Please comment!

Thran

[Ringbearer]

It be an idea we made a subforum for set 1, and create a thread for each card. It is a lot clearer, and it makes the process work much faster.

[Tbiesty]

I cannot recall if we've discussed this or not, but I think we need to determine which formats we plan to eventually allow these virtual cards in. The reason I ask is because figuring that out will aid us in designing the cards (and the sets) themselves.

Here's a way I think we could organize it that I think would work nicely.

[#1: "Things Long Forgotten"]
  Virtual Set #1 would be virtual versions of Fellowship block cards.  (Allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie)
  Virtual Set #2 would be virtual versions of Towers block cards.  (Allowed in TS and Movie)
  Virtual Set #3 would be virtual versions of King block cards.  (Allowed in Movie)

[#2: "<insert theme here> (a chance to introduce a new keyword, etc.)"]
  Virtual Set #4 would be virtual versions of Fellowship block cards.  (Allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie)
  Virtual Set #5 would be virtual versions of Towers block cards.  (Allowed in TS and Movie)
  Virtual Set #6 would be virtual versions of King block cards.  (Allowed in Movie)
...

Note: Almost all the cards we currently have selected for Virtual Set #1 are Fellowship block cards,
         so deferring the few that are not Fellowship block until Virtual Set #2 or 3 should be reasonable.
         (e.g. The Witch-king, Deathless Lord could be the flagship character for Virtual Set #2)

By using this strategy, here is how Virtual Set #1 could look:

Code                      Card                                                                  Notes
V1*R01                   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring                         not too universal that it makes others obsolete
V1GA02                   Gandalf, The Grey Pilgrim                                flagship character
V1DW03                  Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor                                          
V1SH04                   Fearing the Worst                                           fighting Hobbits?
V1EL05                   Lightfootedness                                                
V1GO06                  Strength of Kings                                                
V1WA07                  Beauty is Fading                                              
V1MO08                  Goblin Archer                                                     archery and/or corruption
V1IS09                    Alive and Unspoiled                                           search cards and/or corruption
V1SA10                   The Weight of a Legacy

[Thranduil]

I'm not sure we need to be so strict on which cards we put in which V-Set (despite how aesthetically appealing it might be!).

I would push for a more general rule for the legality of V-cards: they're legal in whatever block and set the original card appeared in, and also Standard.

Thran

[Ringbearer]

I also disagree with block sets. Let us first get a decent set out (or a few), THEN we can look at themes and such. I know for a fact that some advocated a whole Vset devoted to X-ed cards, which is also block spanning.

[Tbiesty]

I also disagree with block sets. Let us first get a decent set out (or a few), THEN we can look at themes and such. I know for a fact that some advocated a whole Vset devoted to X-ed cards, which is also block spanning.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear what I meant in my earlier post.  I'll try to do a better job this time.

The point was I was trying to get at was that I think in the long run it will be much cleaner if every card within a virtual set is allowed in the same formats. That way we avoid having a virtual set where 5 of the cards are allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie, 2 of the cards are allowed in TS and Movie, and 3 of the cards are allowed in Movie, etc. In my opinion, it would look unorganized and would get confusing very fast (if every virtual set is like that).  

I'd prefer if we organized it where all the cards in virtual set #1 are allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie (which means Fellowship block cards).  Then for virtual set #2, we target TS and Movie (which means Tower Block cards).  Then for virtual set #3, just target Movie (which means King block cards).

[BTW, this is the same idea that Star Wars CCG did for their first 3 virtual sets to get things started...]

Since the "theme" for the virtual set #1 is basically "remaking the worst or most underused card of each culture in Fellowship block", virtual sets #2 and #3 could continue that theme for Towers and King.

After all that, since we would then have 3 sets out and would have gotten the hang of the process, we then could talk about true "themed" virtual sets, introducing a new keyword, etc.

[Hobbiton Lad]

I also disagree with block sets. Let us first get a decent set out (or a few), THEN we can look at themes and such. I know for a fact that some advocated a whole Vset devoted to X-ed cards, which is also block spanning.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear what I meant in my earlier post.  I'll try to do a better job this time.

The point was I was trying to get at was that I think in the long run it will be much cleaner if every card within a virtual set is allowed in the same formats. That way we avoid having a virtual set where 5 of the cards are allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie, 2 of the cards are allowed in TS and Movie, and 3 of the cards are allowed in Movie, etc. In my opinion, it would look unorganized and would get confusing very fast (if every virtual set is like that). 

I'd prefer if we organized it where all the cards in virtual set #1 are allowed in FOTR, TS, and Movie (which means Fellowship block cards).  Then for virtual set #2, we target TS and Movie (which means Tower Block cards).  Then for virtual set #3, just target Movie (which means King block cards).

[BTW, this is the same idea that Star Wars CCG did for their first 3 virtual sets to get things started...]

Since the "theme" for the virtual set #1 is basically "remaking the worst or most underused card of each culture in Fellowship block", virtual sets #2 and #3 could continue that theme for Towers and King.

After all that, since we would then have 3 sets out and would have gotten the hang of the process, we then could talk about true "themed" virtual sets, introducing a new keyword, etc.

This seems like the strongest option to me.

[macheteman]

i've used leaping blaze in dunland decks. i'm really not sure its that card that needs a remake.

[Tbiesty]

i've used leaping blaze in dunland decks. i'm really not sure its that card that needs a remake.

Keep in mind that a virtual card is a "new" card, it does not replace the old one.  You may continue to use the existing leaping blaze as is.

[Thranduil]

I've been converted, Tbiesty! I have come to the conclusion that your way makes the most sense. It seems very logical and simple to me to have every card in a particular V-set legal in the same formats.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

I've been converted, Tbiesty! I have come to the conclusion that your way makes the most sense. It seems very logical and simple to me to have every card in a particular V-set legal in the same formats.

Thran

Awesome!  So to sum it up, would this be the list we are using for Virtual Set #1?

Code                      Card                                                                
V1*R01                   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring                      
V1GA02                   Gandalf, The Grey Wizard                     
V1DW03                  Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor                                      
V1SH04                   Fearing the Worst                                          
V1EL05                   Lightfootedness                                                
V1GO06                  Strength of Kings                                                
V1WA07                  Beauty is Fading                                              
V1MO08                  Goblin Archer                                                  
V1IS09                    Alive and Unspoiled                                      
V1SA10                   The Weight of a Legacy

[Kralik]

I think The Grey Wizard is due for an overhaul far more than The Grey Pilgrim.

[Thranduil]

I know there are more FP than SH cultures in FotR, but I kind of want to make an equal number of SH cards. In particular, we need a nice flagship character (which is a shame, because the WK worked perfectly for this, but I think we should leave off Lord of Angmar given that we're going to do Deathless Lord in V2).

Agreed with your choice of Beauty is Fading 100%.

Thran

[FM]

How 'bout Watcher in the Water for a Flagship Character?

[Tbiesty]

IMO, I think it's fine without another flagship character.

[Thranduil]

How 'bout Watcher in the Water for a Flagship Character?

I actually really like this idea! But then how to make a Watcher in the Water different enough from the original and the reprint...

I was modelling the 2 characters based on starter decks. Also, LotR is an inherently dualistic game and I think different people will want a hero and a villain to get behind.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

In Fellowship block, the flagship characters for the starter decks were always Free Peoples companions.  In fact, for Mines of Moria, it was Galdalf and Gimli.  Therefore, it seems like at least for Virtual Set #1, this is already satisfied.

[Thranduil]

In Fellowship block, the flagship characters for the starter decks were always Free Peoples companions.  In fact, for Mines of Moria, it was Galdalf and Gimli.  Therefore, it seems like at least for Virtual Set #1, this is already satisfied.

Yes of course! Still, I like having both. But it's not necessary I suppose. I do kind of still want the same number of Shadow as FP, especially as it's the FotR Shadow sides that actually need a lot more work than the FP sides.

[Tbiesty]

I know what you mean.  Here's my thoughts...

For this first "virtual trip" through the blocks, we know we won't address everything.  I think a nice clean approach is to hit a single card from each culture (in many cases, the most forgotten card).  In FOTR, there are more Free Peoples cultures than Shadow cultures, but that's ok, because at that point the Fellowship hasn't encountered all the dangers they would later in their journey.

Once we get through each of the blocks, we can think about virtual sets being more as groups of cards that work together.  For FOTR, perhaps focus more on Shadow strategies, etc. at that time.

[Tbiesty]

In case anyone was curious, my playing group just did complete our first virtual set.
If you are interested in seeing how it turned out and how it works in our formats, it can be seen here within the format rules for CCG League.

[FM]

Saw some things I liked. Some I didn't, though. I think that the new cards lost a lot of flavor in some cases, as well as not being that much of an improvement considering their rarity (case in question: The Weight of a Legacy (V)). However, I liked the erratas. I'd probably agree with most of them to be needed, as well, although the new Sting sucks a lot, again, due to the loss of flavor, which was not properly grasped.

[Ringbearer]

I havent gone deep trough the cards, but I noticed a lot o cards simply lack culturl enforcement and could be splashed in any deck, having no spotting condition.

I also disagree with Blood Runs Chill as being restricted, its the only removal a dwarven deck has,

[Cw0rk]

I think that damage +1 easterlings needs more help than site controling Southron.