V1: The One Ring (alpha playtests)

[Thranduil]

Here is the list of cards for Virtual Set #1 (V1) so far decided, along with some notes. The notes will hopefully be updated as we fill out more of the details of the set.

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


BEAR IN MIND that this list is unlikely to remain completely unchanged. It may be that for individual card design reasons, or whole set design reasons that the list will have to be modified. I'm just making this clear now so that it isn't a problem when it happens.



Goals
Virtual Set #1 aims to:
• Make new cards aimed at different deck-types, formats and players
• Fill out old and lacking strategies
• Get old cards out of the boxes and trade folders and into decks
• "Upgrade" older cards to modern design standards, but in no way to replace those cards


The Rules of Virtual Design
A couple of things are worth mentioning here, just to be super clear. There are some things we can change and some things we can't. First, what we can change:
• Attributes (strength, vitality etc.)
• Game text
• Lore text (though this may cause legal issues, which we'll have to know about)
• Collector's info (the virtual version is a different card, so has different rarity (V) and other collector's info)

Now, what we can't change:
• Title or sub-title
• Twilight cost
• Culture
• Picture
• Template

And this is what I think we shouldn't change in the 1st set:
• Type and sub-type
• Type/sub-type bar (eg. artifact --> possession or vice versa)

So we are making cards that:
• connect in flavour to the card's title and culture
• work for balance with the given twilight cost
• fulfil the aims set out above

A note on rarity: Rarity is only an issue insofar as availability of the physical card matters. So we can probably make virtual cards of rares slightly higher on the power curve because they'll be marginally less available. But nevertheless, we have to both be aware that the V rarity should both feel different and interesting as well as not be too much of a problem that normally a collectible card game fixes by availability, because anyone is free to download and use as many V cards as they like.


Set Themes & Title
This is of course completely up for debate. I think a theme will be useful in narrowing down our card designs (as Mark Rosewater would say: "Restrictions breed creativity"), and a title could be useful in advertising the appeal of the set. As I mentioned in the other thread, I like picking out the idea of Gandalf vs. the Witch-King, which led in my mind to the idea of resistance vs. corruption. With that in mind, I think a nice title/tagline would be Light & Shadow, or something similar. We should think about this further in this thread, I think.


The Process
This is how I envisage this design process working.

• We will deal with, as much as possible, 1 card at a time. From the experience of trying to deal with too many cards at once with too many people, it becomes very confusing and very difficult to keep up. Someone on the Dream Team will update the thread title to keep track of which card we are talking about at any given time.

• Perhaps let's try and follow the following order:
          1) Take suggestions for the card's text/flavour/any other notes
          2) Comment on the suggestions, and PLAY WITH THEM! More notes about this below.
          3) Refine the submitted cards and take another round of suggestions and comments
          4) Vote on the final competing versions, if necessary
          5) Move onto the next card and repeat.

• Playtesting is basically the most valuable thing we can all do when designing cards: unless you play with them, you have no idea whether they are fun, good, useless or annoying. You may have an inkling, but the only true test is to playtest, playtest, playtest. Maybe we'll try to make some draft slips and distribute them amongst the team (only), then play against each other. Get as many people as you possibly can to play against the cards we're designing, and play as many games as you can possibly fit in. I can't reiterate how completely VITAL this is! Try the cards individually as well as with other V cards as we go on. During this stage of design, we're not so worried about the card rules or power level, but the design value of how they play.

• If at any point we end up having individual designs that conflict with holistic design issues, then we may have to go back and refine an older card. We should probably do this at the end, once we've gone through all the cards in the set. Similarly, should one or more of the cards need to change original at a later date, we may also backtrack afterward.

• After we have gone through each individual card, then we will try and deal with any holistic issues that remain.

• Then we shall move onto development playtesting. Maybe here we'll distribute some "beta" slips to a wider group of playtesters, who will again play with the designed cards as much as possible. During this stage of playtesting, we need to pay special attention to power level and balance much more than their design potential.

• Once development playtests are done satisfactorily and any necessary changes made, we'll go through everything one last time.

• Then we'll work on releasing the cards on GCCG and real life! My vision here is promotion at tournaments. Maybe everyone who plays gets a RR (V) before anyone else, and winners get Gandalf and/or the WK.



I think I've said quite enough. When I'm writing this, I certainly don't mean to try and take control of everything. Of course we all need to input as much as we can, and I usually want people to disagree with me more than to agree! I just thought I'd lay down my thoughts upfront for others to critique (and please, please do!).

So, let the discussions commence! I think we should probably deal with all this preamble for a few days before getting onto designing the cards.

Thran

[hyvee_doughboy]

Thought #1:
>> • We will deal with, as much as possible, 1 card at a time. From the experience of trying to deal with too many cards at once with too many people, it becomes very confusing and very difficult to keep up.

This definately has merit. However, one thing that we may want to consider is making the Virtual Card *set* have a theme which may require more than 1 card to pull off.  For example, in the Star Wars players committee, they often released a set of V-cards that all worked well together. For example, they released a set that added "Vader's robotic parts", one added significantly to recreating the battle of Hoth, etc.   That way, you could really build a new *deck*, not just splash a few new cards.

For the first set, it probably makes sense to just V-ify a handful of cards hoping that they'll work well with existing cards, but it's something you may want to think about in the future.

Thought #2:

Does anyone here know anyone on the Star Wars CCG Player committe that designs any of their V-cards?  If so, it may make sense to contact them and find out what has/has not worked well for them.  They have a LOT of experience.  Maybe just a post on their discussion board asking for advice?

[Tbiesty]

...However, one thing that we may want to consider is making the Virtual Card *set* have a theme which may require more than 1 card to pull off.  For example, in the Star Wars players committee, they often released a set of V-cards that all worked well together. For example, they released a set that added "Vader's robotic parts", one added significantly to recreating the battle of Hoth, etc.   That way, you could really build a new *deck*, not just splash a few new cards.

For the first set, it probably makes sense to just V-ify a handful of cards hoping that they'll work well with existing cards, but it's something you may want to think about in the future.

I agree with this thought.  For this first set, picking a handful of cards (touching every culture), is a good way to get the hang of things.  However, each set after this should be more of a group of more closely related cards that help "recreate" a particular matchup or event from the movies or books, a true "theme" for a set.

Otherwise, the overall "Rules for Virtual Design" seem good (I'd just skip lore text altogether).  For playtesting, I can quickly produce the V-slips and make them available for download as needed.

[jdizzy001]

I hope you don't mind my following these V topics and commenting on them.  However, in regards to the proposed list. I say leave it as is and start making the V-texts.  If someone really wants to see a card redone wait for set 2.  The idea is to expand the game and the only way to do that is to stop correcting and altering the list of proposed cards to be V-ed. Just use the list you got and run with it. YOU CAN DO IT!  Also, as a final note which can be stored away for future sets, permanent weapons (if you played SWCCG you know what I mean.  If not don't worry about it yet cause you got a list of cards to make ).

[Tbiesty]

Brainstorming time... I'll throw the first card idea out there.  Starting with The One Ring... (something with an "optional" ability)

•The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str: +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Fellowship:  Add 3 burdens to make the move limit +1 (limit +1).
Skirmish:  Wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.

[hyvee_doughboy]

I like variety.  I've always wanted to start Bilbo as a ringbearer, but nothing could convince me to do it.  Here's an interesting idea:

•The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str+1
Bearer must be Bilbo.
[insert cool idea here]
While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Skirmish:  Wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.


A few options for the above (i'm open to others):
1) Tales played using Bilbo's text may play from discard pile.  (he is the author of There and Back Again)
2) Tales played using Bilbo's text may play from draw deck.  (might be too powerful)
3) [Gollum icon] characters are strength +2   (Bilbo pissed them off something terrible...and the ring does bring that out in people. Good for smeagol, bad vs gollum/shelob)


The intent here is to get some ideas flowing.  But...I'd *really* like to see it start with "Bearer must be Bilbo".  The reasoning is:
1) New ring abilities can be introduced without making it overpowerful (will only work in some decks)
2) Bilbo may actually get some play-time (this is about making "bad" cards good again...)
3) We already have a lot of generic rings to splash in decks.

[Ringbearer]

I wouldnt specify Rings for special ringbearers, thats not gonna work. Also I find the move limit bonus ring too strong. Use it, play Sam SOH and walk freely.

I was more thinking of something along the line of:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (v)
One Ring
Str +1, Vit +1
While the ringbearer wears the one ring, each time he takes a wound, add a burden.
Fellowship: Exert the ringbearer to remove a threat.
Skirmish: add a burden to wear the One Ring.

Costs of course are up to debate, but we havent got a One Ring that deals with threats. Of course it has les use in FOTR TTT and TS, but its an interesting concept for other formats.

[hyvee_doughboy]

>> I wouldnt specify Rings for special ringbearers, thats not gonna work.

I appreciate your response.  Could you clarify what you mean by the above?  I understand that it wouldn't be a general-purpose ring (that's actually the point :-)  ).  I understand that it won't fit in a lot of decks (that's the point as well).   We'll have that "problem" with a lot of cards. For example, there aren't many decks types that use Moria cards, yet a Moria card is on the V-List. That doesn't mean we need to make it fit in a lot of Moria decks...maybe just one or two.

Based on your comment, I'm guessing you have reasons why you feel it wouldn't work.  Please share those.  A good discussion is very helpful in bringing out new ideas.

[hrcho]

I agree with RB that The One Ring shouldn't be limited to just Ring-bearer. We want to expand deckbuilding options, not limit them. I have no problem if the The One Ring did indeed encourage having Bilbo, BotB as the Ring-bearer in some way, but not limiting it to just Bilbo.

I like RB's idea about threats. It is indeed the case that there is no Ring that in any way deals with threats directly and it is also what we are looking for - a bit more specific than your general ring.

We should agree upon the rarity and power of The One Ring first. For example, RB's suggestion for a ring is definitely for a rare ring... it's quite powerful. I'm up for making a C/U ring. Perhaps removing that vitality or strength bonus from RB's suggestion of The One Ring might do the trick.

[Tbiesty]

The threats idea seems generic enough.  We can figure out the "correct power numbers" (Strength bonus, vitality bonus, resistence bonus) through playtesting.

(here's my guess at a "beta" version)

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str +1
While wearing the one ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Fellowship: Exert bearer to remove a threat.
Skirmish: Wear the One Ring until the regroup phase

[sdpsc]

I thought I'd throw an idea out there too.  I have no idea if this is a good idea or a bad one, but I think the attribute trade-offs are interesting.

•The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str: +3, Vit -1
While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase.

[hrcho]

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str +1
While wearing the one ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Fellowship: Exert bearer to remove a threat.
Skirmish: Wear the One Ring until the regroup phase

I like it, but I think vitality bonus might be more appropriate than strength since the ring asks for exertions. I guess we have to decide for whom we want to make it. and Smeagol Ring-bearers need strength and all the others need vitality more. As far as I am concerned this is a done deal (any version - strength or vitality ring).

[Ringbearer]

I agree witht he others that when you pick a Ring for a specific ringbearer, you just limit deckbuilding a lot. Especially when the 1th set taht we wanna bring should be universally usable.

Also we should step away from thoughts about cards and rarity. There is no effect as: this ability is good, so its a rare, this ability is bad so its a common, this is moderate, so its unc. The original idea to make a common ring was just not to force players to have a rare in order to play the game.

[jdizzy001]

is there a way to gather the "rejected texts" and save them for later? Just cause we don't want to use a certain text for 'Card A' doesn't mean we won't want it for 'Card B.'

[legolas3333]

One more thing about The One Ring... Perhaps have it be during regroup instead of fellowship phase, similar to Sting, Elven Long Knife.  Less rapid healing available and minions could be present to take advantage of the exertion.

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str +1
While wearing the one ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Regroup: Exert bearer to remove a threat.
Skirmish: Wear the One Ring until the regroup phase

the Sting, elven long knife is great except sting is EXTREMELY OP, if your standard deck has frodo you are definitely running elven long knife I think it should either be, as ket said, adding a burden to remove a threat (though I see threat manipulation with shadowfax, gotm becoming a problem), OR you should need to add a burden to wear the ring then add text, Skirmish: If the wearing the One Ring, exert the Ring-Bearer to remove a threat.

just my two

[hrcho]

I agree with Gil about making separate topics. On the note of the ring, how about something like this:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
Vit +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Fellowship: Exert bearer (twice) to remove a (2) threats.
Skirmish: Add a threat to wear The One Ring.

We can increase it's cost a bit by making it a double exertion for two threats. We can also increase the cost of putting on the ring. That way it might be good against some decks and terrible against others. You can remove threats without too great a penalty, but against some decks it might be very difficult to put on The One Ring which is a big risk.

[hrcho]

@Thranduil (or anyone else who knows): Can we change signets?

[Thranduil]

@Thranduil (or anyone else who knows): Can we change signets?

Yes by the rules of Virtual cards. But, in terms of playtesting, drawing a new signet on a card might be difficult.

A quick note before I give my thoughts on the card ideas:

• Don't feel that we're in any sort of rush! We have no deadline to work to and we will produce a much MUCH better set if we work on 1 card at a time and take as long as necessary over everything we do. There really is no rush whatsoever.

• Someone mentioned about the rarity of the ring. We shouldn't make it too "out there" or too powerful. But it should be at least fairly different, interesting and appealing. This means we should probably be imagining that we are making an uncommon card.


The mechanical themes we've seen so far for The One Ring:

i) Specific RB
ii) Removing threats
iii) Double moving
iv) Attribute reductions


i) As other people have noted, doing it like this (though I support the goal of supporting ARBs) limits deckbuilding potential, which is not quite what we want. The best way to make a Ring that supports alternate RBs is to include a resistance bonus (like the Ring of Rings). This is much easier to do and much more universal.

ii) Dealing with threats is an interesting idea. But I, as others, would strongly counsel against a straight copy of Elven Long Knife's text—that would be incredibly overpowered. However, something like Hope of the Free Peoples would be very interesting to see (which also encourages moving, fulfilling perhaps 2 of our ideas). Also a question for here is how it particular fits the flavour of "Ruling Ring".

If I were to make something like a threat ring, I would go for something crazy to throw out:

•The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Skirmish: Add a burden to have the Ring-bearer wear 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 threat instead. If you can't add a threat, place a companion in the dead pile.

Or something like that. This is probably too crazy for the "semi-uncommon" feel that we're probably going for, but I thought it was worth mentioning!

iii) Increasing people's desire to move is a good thing, in my opinion, as it makes the game more fun. Put it often walks a dangerous knife-edge of being too powerful or too annoying. If done well, this could be very successful. If not done well, then it will be disastrous. But I think it's worth keeping this in mind for a bit longer and seeing if we can incorporate it into other cool things.

iv) I like the idea of messing with the expectations for attributes. It is a very simple and clean way to show a different kind of Ring. The most obvious attribute to reduce is probably resistance (for the Ring's flavour). This concept is very good and feels uncommon to me. The question is how we balance the reduction, and whether this is good V1 material that says "look at how cool we are and the cards we can design!"


We should see some more suggestions and discussions. Maybe we should put a deadline on the suggestions (like a week), then vote on the one we want to playtest?

Thran

[Ringbearer]

I wouldnt think of a ring adding threats, its not really the corruption one expects from a ring.

Maybe something in the line of this:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str +1
While the Ringbearer wears the one ring, each time he take a wound, add a burden instead.
Fellowship: add a threat to heal a companion wearing a ring.
Skirmish: add a threat to put one The One Ring.

[Jerba]

I'm having a hard time with the thematic element of the Ring removing threats. it seems the One Ring attracts trouble it doesn't get rid of it.

[Tbiesty]

Continuing to tweak...

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Str: +2
Each time the fellowship moves during the regroup phase, you may add a burden to remove 2 threats.
Skirmish: Wear The One Ring until the regroup phase. While bearer wears The One Ring,
each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Kralik]

I am a bit late to the party, since I have been focusing mainly on server stuff and programming. However, wouldn't it be better to replace, say, Isildur's Bane? I've always thought of the Ruling Ring to be the "base, common" ring and all others with their quirks as rare. Why not leave the Ruling Ring as-is?

[Tbiesty]

I am a bit late to the party, since I have been focusing mainly on server stuff and programming. However, wouldn't it be better to replace, say, Isildur's Bane? I've always thought of the Ruling Ring to be the "base, common" ring and all others with their quirks as rare. Why not leave the Ruling Ring as-is?

We're not actually "replacing" it, we're making an additional version available for use. Not sure if that was the point you were getting at, but I at least thought I'd give an answer.

[Kralik]

Yes, I know. Still, in my mind it remains as the simplest, most basic ring. So it seems to me that a virtual other ring would be better and leave 1C2 as it stands.

[Thranduil]

Yes, I know. Still, in my mind it remains as the simplest, most basic ring. So it seems to me that a virtual other ring would be better and leave 1C2 as it stands.

It's a good point. The reason I suggested the Ruling Ring in the first place was because it's a card that everyone has hundreds of lying around and not in decks. It is also quite an appealing idea, I think, and perhaps more of a talking point than a V version of Isildur's Bane.

Thran

[Witchkingx5]

All those removing threats can easily lead to broken combination. You really have to remember one thing:
If you create a card each and every Deck has acces to and you make the card too strong, it's only a matter of times when people start building Decks that are completely insane just because of that opportunity they got. Basically, having a Rong that removes threats makes a) every threat-adding strategy pointless, as you'll always have access to disrupt it and b) makes every Free People strategy using threats just insane. Did you forget there were tons of Sites from RotK that add Threats to give you an advantage. I could easily see someone start using those in an infinite loop à Gondorina Captain.

On the other hand, I firstly really liked that the One Ring adds threats, but Threats were introduced in RotK Block, so I'm not sure if we should create one card that does change the whole Rule concept in both FotR and TTT Formats.

What do you think of something like:

  .The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

Basically the Rong of Rings with stength Bonus instead of Resistance. I'd found interesting to have a line like: "Exert the Ring-Bearer twice to take off the One Ring", but that would pretty much destroy some of those "Force to put on the One Ring" strategies.

TMWYT.

[Tbiesty]

What do you think of something like:

  .The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

Basically the Rong of Rings with stength Bonus instead of Resistance. I'd found interesting to have a line like: "Exert the Ring-Bearer twice to take off the One Ring", but that would pretty much destroy some of those "Force to put on the One Ring" strategies.

You make a lot of good points with the dangers of working with threats; a simple tweaking of attributes like you have is clean.

How about a little more tweaking so it doesn't totally overshadow Isildur's Bane in terms of flexibility.
Less vitality should make the Ring-bearer put on the ring more often, balancing out the fact the the penality is one burden, instead of two.

We can always tweak the str, vit, and res bonuses, but here's my take...

  .The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +2
Vitality: -1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Kralik]

Now that would be funny on certain ARB's... but I could go for it.

[hrcho]

.The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +2
Vitality: -1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

I like it. A lot. It might be a bit too powerful, but we'll see through playtesting.

[Thranduil]

I think we should leave until the end of the week (Sunday 20th Feb) to receive any further suggestions or comments. Then we will pick out the suggestions we like the most, vote, and move into playtesting phase. Sound good?

So keep comments and suggestions coming in.

My worry about your simple change Wkx5 is that it's almost identical to the original RR, which we want to avoid for confusion's sake. So I like Tbiesty's version much more.

I would also make a point about the threats thing. I think it would be balanced with an effect like HoFP. Perhaps adding a burden instead of adding , but that seems reasonable to me. If it turns out to be too much, then it can also be limited to regroup/fellowship phase.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

I think we should leave until the end of the week (Sunday 20th Feb) to receive any further suggestions or comments. Then we will pick out the suggestions we like the most, vote, and move into playtesting phase. Sound good?

Sounds fair to me.

[Kralik]

I like Tbiesty's idea as well, but it just occurred to me that it's almost obsoletes Such A Weight to Carry. If you use Such A Weight to Carry even once, it's like the -1 vitality bonus. Twice and the new ring is better. On the other hand, the new right would be very painful to run with an ARB vs. Twilight Nazgul...

EDIT: I wonder if +1/-1 would be a more balanced alternative.

[Kralik]

Basically the Rong of Rings with stength Bonus instead of Resistance. I'd found interesting to have a line like: "Exert the Ring-Bearer twice to take off the One Ring", but that would pretty much destroy some of those "Force to put on the One Ring" strategies.

I don't think so. I'm not sure if it would be useful, since the most common way to FORCE putting on the ring (Resistance Becomes Unbearable) would overcome the ability.

[Witchkingx5]

Well, I was never a huge fan of those -1 Vitality abilities, but what can you do...

Basically, creating a new Ring is like creating new Duals in MtG. You try to tweak, it, but not too much, as it could become more powerful that the standard one. I also would never, ever risk having a 2-vitality RB in my starting fellowship, as any good wounding Deck would kill him during the first two sites.

Actually, I had another idea. It seems pretty weird, and I'm not sure if I like it by myself, but I'll post it anyway:

  .The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, you may discard a card to make him wear The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

I thought like: What kinda resources could we use? Threats? Nah, that doesn't really fit. Extra Burdens? Has been done before. So I came up with discarding cards, which can be both a negative and positive effect. Still has to be tweaked a bit, but the more I think of it, the more I start to like it. And discarding cards from hand was a pretty common theme in FotR Block.

So?


EDIT:

Basically the Rong of Rings with stength Bonus instead of Resistance. I'd found interesting to have a line like: "Exert the Ring-Bearer twice to take off the One Ring", but that would pretty much destroy some of those "Force to put on the One Ring" strategies.

I don't think so. I'm not sure if it would be useful, since the most common way to FORCE putting on the ring (Resistance Becomes Unbearable) would overcome the ability.

I was thinking of annuling effects à la Return to Its Master, but anyway...

[Kralik]

Of course, then you run the risk (benefit to Shadow) of not being able to put it on as well...

[jdizzy001]

Careful Ket, your being sucked in I really like the idea of adding threats to wear the 1 ring

[Jerba]

I don't really want to get too involved, but what about the impending danger aspect of putting on the Ring?

Response: Add two threats to put on the One Ring. Each time...

It's dangerous territory and it always means that the Ring needs to be protected by having companions around.
-wtk

I second this. Its a great limiter and has a great thematic element.

[Witchkingx5]

Bit I still think adding one two threats is a bot too much, especially when playing against Southrons or so, where your Ring would be like pretty much useless. One threat really should be enough, and the Ring should also provide a nice bonus, when you compair it to The Ring of Rings, which has no drawback and gives you +2 resistance straight away.

[Kralik]

It's OK for the ring to be "useless" as a trade-off. Take The Binding Ring, for example. You run the risk of not being to exert to put it on when you need to (or certainly, not being able to put it on in Skirmish if you didn't plan ahead), but that's part of the price you pay.

[Thranduil]

So I think we need to collect the various incarnations we've talked about in this thread. How about from now on (until the end of the week) we only post suggestions that we've made (updated by people's earlier comments when necessary).

I was also thinking that given how this is our first card, and The One Ring no less, that we should move into phase 1 playtesting with a handful of different versions. We can divvy them up among the designers, and get going. Sound good?

For the playtesting, we may need some "Alpha"-slips so that we can put the new versions into sleeves and play in real life. Anyone can do that? (Really basic stuff, we don't need anything fancy). And what about online? Does any one have a good idea about how we could easily playtest the cards on GCCG or something?

Thran

[Tbiesty]

For the playtesting, we may need some "Alpha"-slips so that we can put the new versions into sleeves and play in real life. Anyone can do that? (Really basic stuff, we don't need anything fancy).

Sure, I can do that.

[Tbiesty]

Here's a submission for the Sunday 20th deadline:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +2
Vitality: -1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[hyvee_doughboy]

Here's a submission for the Sunday 20th deadline:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +2
Vitality: -1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, he wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

I really like this one!  B but I agree with Kralik that +1/-1 might be more balanced.  Otherwise, i think this would almost completely replace the green ring (which is +2, and put on during maneuver)

[Tbiesty]

In order to make sure we have at least two versions submitted for Sunday, here's two variations involving ideas discussed previously:

Version 1:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Vitality: -1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

Version 2:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Vitality: -1
Resistance: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

[Ringbearer]

Why both vitality -1? I thought the threat ring didnt have that?

[hrcho]

Vitality Minus rings are stupid and they guarantee that anyone using an ARB doesn't use it.
-wtk

I'd use it with an ARB, but I'd have to pack heavy burden removal. Even though it lowers the vitality, the option of taking a burden instead of wound AT ANY TIME is very powerful. Although, with such good burden removal, Isildur's Bane perhaps becomes a better option. So I'd suggest something like this:

  The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength +1
Vitality -1
Resistance +2
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

This would encourage it's usage with ARB's, but I fear it might be too powerful. Maybe +1 resistance is better as Tbiesty suggested, but we should playtest both.

We could also go a bit higher with stats. Such as +3 strength and -2 resistance for example. This most certainly is not for ARB's, but it would encourage Frodo as the RB.

[Witchkingx5]

Agree on ket, I don't thnik a Ring should have a drawback by giving -1 vitality. Or maybe it's just me, nut I think that modifing to many stats isn't a good way to go.

I submitted my version before though.

[hyvee_doughboy]

Vitality Minus rings are stupid and they guarantee that anyone using an ARB doesn't use it.

Not to mention that my original point was that the danger in wearing the Ring was that two that's needed to be added, a condition that is relatively hard to meet (in exchange for the action being a response).
-wtk

I disagree.  I don't see a problem with using it with Galadriel, or Gimli RB, and it would work very well in a few of my decks that use Frodo.  Yes, it's bad for Boromir and not great for Isildur, however,  a lot of rings don't work good on everyone.   

To be honest, most RBs don't fight that often, so the vit-1 isn't a big deal, especially when you consider it's a response-ring AND only 1 burden per wound. 

It'll get my vote :-)

[Cw0rk]

I just wanted to say. I think that we should avoid having a One Ring that deals with threast, initiative or any other mechanic that was not there during FOTR Block.

[Tbiesty]

I just wanted to say. I think that we should avoid having a One Ring that deals with threast, initiative or any other mechanic that was not there during FOTR Block.

That's a good point.  A good rule to go by with these "V-cards" is that it can only use game mechanics, etc. that existed at the time the original version of the card was introduced.

[Thranduil]

I just wanted to say. I think that we should avoid having a One Ring that deals with threast, initiative or any other mechanic that was not there during FOTR Block.

That's a good point.  A good rule to go by with these "V-cards" is that it can only use game mechanics, etc. that existed at the time the original version of the card was introduced.

I would strongly disagree on this point! V-cards have to deal with a variety of different formats. We will need to make cards that support King block, Fellowship block, Extended, Standard etc. And I don't think we should restrict ourselves to the format in which the original card was present. I think it will be unhelpful and far too restrictive.

Also, that particular point doesn't apply to the Ruling Ring as it has been printed in every large set in Fellowship block and beyond!

Wkx5, can you post your version again so that they're all in a short space of posts?

Thranduil

[Tbiesty]

I would strongly disagree on this point! V-cards have to deal with a variety of different formats. We will need to make cards that support King block, Fellowship block, Extended, Standard etc. And I don't think we should restrict ourselves to the format in which the original card was present. I think it will be unhelpful and far too restrictive.

Ok. It was just a thought.  "Restrictions breed creativity". ;-)

[Inspire]

That's a good point.  A good rule to go by with these "V-cards" is that it can only use game mechanics, etc. that existed at the time the original version of the card was introduced.

If the threat idea is no longer a viable option, what about having the Ruling Ring give a strength or resistance bonus based on the number of FPs cultures or races that you can spot?

[Thranduil]

I would strongly disagree on this point! V-cards have to deal with a variety of different formats. We will need to make cards that support King block, Fellowship block, Extended, Standard etc. And I don't think we should restrict ourselves to the format in which the original card was present. I think it will be unhelpful and far too restrictive.

Ok. It was just a thought.  "Restrictions breed creativity". ;-)

No you make a great point, and we should probably discuss it and bear it in mind. (It happens that I personally disagree, but that's neither here nor there!). And restrictions do indeed breed creativity—but only the "right" amount of restriction! Obviously if you put on too much restriction, you no longer have any space for your creativity.

Thran

[Kralik]

I would agree with Tbiesty's point this time -- it makes no (or little) sense to me to have threats in Fellowship block when they cannot be accessed by any Shadow cards that play off of them.

[Kenddrick]

What is the bottom part for? The place where there is the name of the card? How does it fit in?

[hyvee_doughboy]

They have this for Star Wars V cards as well, and it's very helpful (will be more helpful as the number of v-cards grows.  Basically, it just says what card is supposed to go underneath the V-slip.  For example, if we eventually have a bunch of virtual Gimli's, this will tell youmwhich v-slip goes with which card.

Also think about the case of printing a whole page of v-slips and not remembering which v-slips go on which card.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Biesty for taking initiative on this.

[Thranduil]

Okay. I'd put at least one of the threat versions on the slips as well (the one that adds threats to wear the ring and/or the one that removes threats when you move). I'm also interested in seeing how the double-moving ring plays ("At the end of each turn, if you did not move more than once, add a burden").

Once that's been done, we want designers to download the strips and play, play, play! At this point, I don't think many other people should get involved (that will be for the beta playtesting phase—right now we're in alpha).

I'm looking at:

Wkx5
hrco
Ringbearer
Tbiesty

and whoever else posted a version of the card (sorry I've just encountered a very busy week so I'm not quite equipped to go through this stuff as much as I'd like, or to help much with the testing).

I think each person should go for 1 version which they will be mainly in charge of testing (of course they could test others too), and if possible that shouldn't be the version they designed.

So, in summary, add some more cards to the document, and divvy up the cards amongst yourselves!

Post any observations, great moments, terrible moments, thoughts etc. that come to you while playtesting right here!



And I'd just like to say how incredibly excitingly awesome this is! 8)

Thranduil

[hrcho]

I call dibs on this one:   

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Vitality: -1
Resistance: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

designed by Tbiesty.

I'll do my best at playtesting, even though it will most often be me against myself

I will build several different decks with several different ring-bearers and test it against the most common shadows (Corsairs, Moria Swarm, Sauron Wound...).

[Ringbearer]

Problem is I have no real time playgroup, I just play on GCCG a lot.

[Kralik]

It seems to me it would be better to narrow it down to a few -- then I could always add them to GCCG.

[Thranduil]

Kralik, it would be amazing if you could add even 1 of them (maybe one at a time?) onto GCGG.

I like the 4 options. I'm happy to run with so many because it's the first card we've designed and we're not sure how it might work in future. But ideally I think, for other cards, we probably want no more than 2 versions in alpha playtests.

Thranduil

[Kralik]

I'm not sure if you want to wait this long, but I was planning on releasing an update for next weekend.

[Kralik]

Right. I saw these, and suggested LESS options.

[Tbiesty]

Right. I saw these, and suggested LESS options.

Sorry, I should have been more specific with my question.

Once we have it narrowed down, will something like full size card templates be acceptable for GCCG? Or would you worry they "look too much like a existing Decipher card template"?

[Kralik]

Well, GCCG natively makes virtual cards based on the game text whenever you are missing the image.

[Tbiesty]

Ah, so it does.  Yep, I just tried it on my computer.  Looks good enough to me.

Here are the "playtesting slips" for the "alpha" playtesting.

Click here to download the playtesting card inserts for The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V).

[Tbiesty]

I call dibs on this one:   

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Vitality: -1
Resistance: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

designed by Tbiesty.

I'll do my best at playtesting, even though it will most often be me against myself

I will build several different decks with several different ring-bearers and test it against the most common shadows (Corsairs, Moria Swarm, Sauron Wound...).

Be sure to try out what happens if you have an exhausted Sam ready to take the ring when Frodo dies...

[Witchkingx5]

Started playtesting with the discarding Ring...

My first impression was, that it's a very good option against Hand Clog, even though I don't think Hand Clog really was a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Deck, more a niche one. I found that I can expand my Deck a bit as the Ring provides nice cycling. Will be playing against discard tonight.

[Tbiesty]

I tried out the "add a burden if you don't double-move" ring.

Here are the things that stuck out to me the most when using it.

1)  The first thing I noticed, was that I often forgot about the ring's "penalty" until some point during the next turn.  It's different than something like Thin and Stretched, because it's not your opponents card (it's The One Ring, which is always there), so they will likely forget it too.  Maybe that is just part of it being something new and different.

2)  Even when playing with Frodo against a deck that did not add any burdens, the Ring-bearer ended up with 3-5 burdens at the end. If you pack good burden removal, it's probably not so bad.  But if using an Alternate Ring-bearer or facing a corruption deck, there's not much breathing room.

3)  Lastly, it does suffer from a bit of a "when things are going well, it's fine; but when things are not going well, they get much worse" effect.  If you are having an easy game and your Free Peoples side is doing fine (i.e. you are double-moving a lot), there is no downside.  But if you are facing a tough game and your Free Peoples side is struggling (i.e. you are single-moving a lot), this ring just makes it worse.  A ring that penalizes me for having a close, down-to-the-wire game, would be something I'd avoid using if I know it's going to be a competitive game.

[Witchkingx5]

1)  The first thing I noticed, was that I often forgot about the ring's "penalty" until some point during the next turn.  It's different than something like Thin and Stretched, because it's not your opponents card (it's The One Ring, which is always there), so they will likely forget it too.  Maybe that is just part of it being something new and different.

As soon as you play a couple of games with it, you'll be fine.

2)  Even when playing with Frodo against a deck that did not add any burdens, the Ring-bearer ended up with 3-5 burdens at the end. If you pack good burden removal, it's probably not so bad.  But if using an Alternate Ring-bearer or facing a corruption deck, there's not much breathing room.

Well, this might be a sign  that it isn't worth the effort of playing that Ring, as you have to add cards to your Deck that make it playable. It would be more a niche card like The Snow Ring.

3)  Lastly, it does suffer from a bit of a "when things are going well, it's fine; but when things are not going well, they get much worse" effect.  If you are having an easy game and your Free Peoples side is doing fine (i.e. you are double-moving a lot), there is no downside.  But if you are facing a tough game and your Free Peoples side is struggling (i.e. you are single-moving a lot), this ring just makes it worse.  A ring that penalizes me for having a close, down-to-the-wire game, would be something I'd avoid using if I know it's going to be a competitive game.

That doesn't sound good at all... I usually try to afford any "win-more" cards in my Deck, as if you're ahead, you don't really need more to do, as you're ahead and fine, right? and when you're behind and would need help, you can't really use the card, or at worst, it hinders you.

PLaytested it against discard, and decked out at 5. Yeah... that isn't too good, but fortunately, I still managed to win with my good old Twilight Nazzies Deck (LotN on Fell Beast is winning games for me ever since.) Then, I'm actually pretty happy how my Ring is performing, he's good, that's true, but not OP. I once had a pretty bad reconcicle at Site 3, but by discarding al the useless stuff, I won.

And I faced a problem with the Ring: Youcan use the ""Response:" action as often as you like, right? So you can basically ditch any number of cards from your hand to put the Ring.

Eventually, the RIng seems to have two Sides. One is having to discard cards, even good cards you'd actually prefer to keep in your hand and ther other is nearly free cycling, which I found a bit scary. What do you think?

[hyvee_doughboy]

Regarding the burden ring, I think it's OK that bit wont fit in a lot of decks...it will fit in a lot of others. I don't think our goal needs to be to have cards that fit into every deck ( or even most decks for that matter).  IMHO, any card that fits in every/most decks are usually a sign of a card that is too powerful, making previous cards obsolete.  I agree that after a few games it'll probably come easier.

Regarding the discard ring, I think modifying the text a little bit to say "Response: If The One Ring is not on...." to prevent the infinite discard. Seems a little more reasonable.

[hrcho]

After several games using this ring:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
Vitality: -1
Resistance: +1
Game Text: Response: If bearer is about to take a wound, bearer wears The One Ring until the regroup phase. While wearing The One Ring, each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.

I've come to the conclusion that this ring is quite powerful. Much like The Ring of Rings and I'm not that sure we should be making such a ring with Sam, SoH around. The Ring of Rings is mainly played in Standard and Expanded and as far as I know there are no burden removals there as effective and universal as Sam, SoH. This ring maybe even works better with ARBs than with Frodo because I think SAWTC is a better option for Frodo with almost the same effect. It's even good on Boromir, BoC (especially if you play Narsil on him) because you can always choose to wound him twice and take burdens instead of wounds as necessary.

I'll test it some more, but so far, my advice is not to create this ring.

Note that I have tested it only within Movie Block and lower. I am not that familiar with post-MD cards and I'm still not that convinced I want to be.

[Tbiesty]

Note that I have tested it only within Movie Block and lower. I am not that familiar with post-MD cards and I'm still not that convinced I want to be.

I'd venture to say that Movie block and lower is our focus.  So if the ring is a bad fit for Movie block, that's not a good sign.

[Tbiesty]

I'm starting to lean towards preferring the "Discarding Ring" at this point, so I'll do some more playtesting with it.  But so far, my impression that the discarding of a single is to small a price to pay for the flexibility.  Perhaps discard 3 cards, so it is on par with other special abilities (Arwen, Elven Rider, etc.) and a smaller possibility you can meet the requirements.

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound and not wearing The One Ring, discard 3 cards from hand to wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.

I'll try out how this works.

[hrcho]

I was also considering that ring and also thought that one card is insufficient a cost. I'll test it a bit and see whether three cards (as Tbiesty suggested) would be better or if we should take the middle ground and make that two cards. I also think that the text would sound better like this:

Each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, you may discard 3(2) cards from hand to wear The One Ring.

It kinda sounds better, bonus benefit is the ability to cycle your hand, but you have to discard 3 cards and not just 1 which makes it a bit tougher.

[Thranduil]

The issue of discarding cards ad infinitum I think ought to be addressed before we go with that ring. I don't think a Ring should let you dump your hand whenever you want.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

The issue of discarding cards ad infinitum I think ought to be addressed before we go with that ring. I don't think a Ring should let you dump your hand whenever you want.

Agreed.  That's why I think the "...if bearer is not wearing The One Ring..." is needed.

By the way, I have tried out this ring (discard 3 cards) against a couple decks (Sauron Trackers, Worry Uruks).  The ability/decisions/tradeoffs are pretty solid. I like the fact that often when deciding to put on The One Ring that you need to consider that discarding the cards in most cases will cause you to lean towards not moving again.  You have to decide which is more important.

Here's another thing that I liked as a decision it forced me to make: Do I have the Ring-bearer take the archery wounds (as burdens) and therefore have to discard a couple of key skirmish events, etc., or do I have my main fighters take the archery wounds and keep the skirmish events to help them win their skirmishes?

All in all.  I like this one.

[FM]

I'm not sure I'm following the discussion right, I might have gotten lost, but are you actually changing The Ruling Ring by design? Meaning, every Ruling Ring would be this one on the PC set? Or you're making a NEW Ruling Ring for a new set, and the old one still goes? Because... I think you need to be reminded this ruling ring is the default, what folks get to learn the game with. If you pack a bunch of decisions within it, you kill newer players. Perhaps you should simply design a new ring rather than replace the Ruling Ring? It might be too late to suggest this, but I kind of got carried away with work stuff, which is why I'm kinda lost in this discussion.

[Tbiesty]

All this virtual set stuff would be treated as "new" cards (i.e. a NEW Ruling Ring).  Nothing is being replaced/changed as far as the original cards go.

[FM]

So we would have 2 different Ruling Rings? I guess the name thing might get confusing...

[Tbiesty]

The idea is that the "(V)" lets you know the difference.  Just like in Star Wars.

Original card:   The One Ring, The Ruling Ring
Virtual card:     The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)

[Thranduil]

So we would have 2 different Ruling Rings? I guess the name thing might get confusing...

The new card would be called The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V). It would be, for most intents and purposes, a new card. You would print out a slip that would cover its text and attribute bonuses and such when using it in your decks. It is a way of adding cards to the game without actually making new cards with images, templates etc. Like for SWCCG.

Thran

[FM]

But it DOES replace The Ruling Ring, then.

[hrcho]

But it DOES replace The Ruling Ring, then.

No. The Ruling Ring remains as it was with the ability to be played by anyone (although, they are few), but a new ring comes to the stage with the same name, but different text.

[FM]

Ah. Thanks. Then it IS as confusing as I thought. Still, can be worked around, though. Thanks for the clarification, guys.

[leokula]

I don't see how it is confusing... there will be two cards: The One Ring, the Ruling Ring and The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (v). That's the formula that worked for SW:CCG and this is working in world championships and all.

[FM]

It's still confusing to have two cards having basically the same name. As I said, it can be worked around, and it won't cripple the process in the end (I think) but it's way more confusing than if the card simply had a new name, specially if someone randomly decides to, say, pick up the game right after that set is out.

[Kralik]

FM, I think the point is that we are patterning the virtual cards after a successful PC, the SWCCG PC. It apparently does work for them and gives us the ability to come up with new ideas without infringing on Decipher's/New Line's/Tolkien's intellectual property by actually creating new card images.

[FM]

NOW I get it. As I said before, I don't think it WON'T work like this, it just seemed unnecessarily confusing, but now that I see the legal side of it, it explains a lot. Also, I'm a bit ashamed I didn't realize this legal aspect myself.

[Elessar's Socks]

That said, it'll be confusing when players leave the "V" off their deck lists when it's "obvious" which version to use.

Come to think, auto-link could help with the transition.

[FM]

I like design a lot, and I usually design based on 2 things: flavor and playability. I like that you guys are addresssing a MAJOR issue: design space. Decipher lacked a lot on this. I'd also like to throw some things out there, as far as Ring design is concerned:

I like the idea of a discarding Ring, depicting the MAJOR amount of resources that went into destroying it (they waged WAR as a DISTRACTION!). To fix minor problems and make the wording easier, you could make the discarding a maneuver action (limit once per turn), since Shadow cards won't wound the RB and exertion gets around wearing the Ring. Also, a different aspect of the Ring, also depicting the effort from everyone into taking it to Mount Doom, would be to make a Ring that demanded wounding (twice?) companions to wear (not tied to the RB specifically). Also, to depict the increased danger, you could also make a GOOD ring (only good statuses) that, whenever you moved, it demanded that you shuffle cards (shadow cards?) from the Shadow player's discard pile into his decks (it gets dangerous because they get more resources to kill you). Anyway, just random ideas to show more design space you could use.

[Kralik]

How about you decide on a ring to test and then publicly ask GCCG players to test it on the ... *ahem* Playtesting Table?

[hyvee_doughboy]

Not to sound too pessimistic, but at this rate, it'll almost a year to get 12 cards out.  I understand that we want to take time to think through and play test cards.  However, don't think it needs to be done 1 card at a time.  Really, we can play test ALL of the V cards simultaneously.

I'm suggesting that we open threads on all cards and let everyone weigh in on their opinions.  Give a week or so for people to respond, and then play test with all cards.  I don't see any reason why someone can't play test a ring, gimli, another FP card AND at least one shadow card in the same deck.  It'll certainly speed up the process and keep people interested. Otherwise, we're wasting a lot of play testing time.

Just my 2 cents, though I doubt I'm the only person that feels this way..

[TheJord]

I have to agree. Calls for this process to slow down have in fact killed it off.

[Ringbearer]

I suggested it before but apparently people wanted to do 1 card at a time.

[hyvee_doughboy]

I suggested it before but apparently people wanted to do 1 card at a time.

I think it's time to reevaluate that decision :-)

For those people who wanted to go through one at a time, I'd like tom hear their opinions on how this process is working.  If they believe it's going well and at the right pace, then that's one thing.  However, if they agree that this is just painfully slow, then we can adjust things.

I'm not trying to run things, be a boss, or anything like that, I simply want to see things moving.  At the beginning, therenseemed to be a lo tof excitement, but I don't see any of that any more.

If things don't keep moving, people are going to stop caring and well lose a lot of valuable opinions.

[Tbiesty]

I think it's time to reevaluate that decision :-)

I completely agree.  We are well capable of discussing multiple ideas at one time.  Let's get this thing moving again.

I think we have a solid version of The One Ring here:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound and not wearing The One Ring, discard 3 cards from hand to wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.

Let's open up some more topics, etc. and talk about ideas for the other cards for this set.

[TheJord]

So how do we start using it?

[Tbiesty]

I can't do anything for GCCG, since I don't control the updates.
However, for those of us that play with real cards, here are "card slips".

Click here to download the playtesting card inserts.

[Kralik]

Updates for GCCG are a bit involved, but I don't think it needs to be updated for all of the playtesting. Just announce your intention to test the new ring and go with the new text as you play! If you really want to you can edit the XML file yourself and drop the text in there so you can see it with CTRL-H.

[Ringbearer]

If I am not mistaken, the size for a set needs to be fixed. So when we have set a goal for all cards, they could be implemented in GCCG. Afterwards is just re-editing images and adjusting the xml file.

[FM]

And as far as I'm concerned, you could simply go with Kralik's solution. Announce you're playtesting cards X, Y and Z, with texts A, B and C, as shown on the following URL (and post the url). Simple as that.

[FM]

I think we have a solid version of The One Ring here:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound and not wearing The One Ring, discard 3 cards from hand to wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.

You think this wording is actually cleaner than what I suggested a while before (next to Kralik's second-to-last post so far)? Or it wasn't even considered/read?

[hyvee_doughboy]

I think we have a solid version of The One Ring here:

The One Ring, The Ruling Ring (V)
Strength: +1
While wearing The One Ring, each time the Ring-bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead.
Response: If bearer is about to take a wound and not wearing The One Ring, discard 3 cards from hand to wear The One Ring until the regroup phase.

You think this wording is actually cleaner than what I suggested a while before (next to Kralik's second-to-last post so far)? Or it wasn't even considered/read?

I think the main thing is that the other idea came in after the deadline for submitting ideas.  If we kept entertaining new ideas forever, we'd never finish :-)

That point aside, maneuver rings play a lot differently than response rings... have to play way ahead, and a lot of things can go wrong when the unexpected hits.  Also, if we allowed the discard during maneuver, it would mean a free 3 card discard every maneuver. Note that the response version actually requires that you're about to take a wound before you can discard.   

Regarding how "clean" the text is, I think it is pretty clean. The infinite discard abuse is now prevented, and I think the wording makes sense.

[Elessar's Socks]

Is the "and not wearing The One Ring" part necessary? Since the "While" line is a required action, the "about to take a wound" situation will be changed (if the Ring is on) before the optional response can be used.

[Tbiesty]

Is the "and not wearing The One Ring" part necessary? Since the "While" line is a required action, the "about to take a wound" situation will be changed (if the Ring is on) before the optional response can be used.

Yes, I agree that's how it works. (There can be a "clarification" written somewhere if player's find it confusing.)  We can remove the unnecessary text before we finalize the V-set (unless people think it is needed).

Speaking of the V-set, can a moderator please open/unlock another discussion so we can continue discussing other card ideas, please.

[Ringbearer]

I want to wait what Thranduil says about this version of the ring, and I havent spoken either. Lets not push things trough too quickly. There is a discussion on how much we should do at once and I want to await what others have to say about it.

[Tbiesty]

If people don't speak up, we can assume they have no input to provide.  Opening up and starting discussions for the other cards does not mean this discussion is closed.  Again, we are well capable of discussing more than one card at a time.

[TheJord]

I think it has been shown that delaying one is delaying everything. As its been said, if there are issues, the development process will not end with a couple of playtests, it will be continuous.

I say let it continue. Let people comment on what they want to.

[Thranduil]

Sorry, been busy. A few points:

@hyvee_doughboy: I think the progress is going well and working to a reasonable timetable. There's no reason to rush at all. But that said, I think we've had a good enough look at The One Ring for now and should start to look at something else (which, thought I haven't checked the forums closely enough yet, I believe we have!). We will probably come back to this.

@Playtesting: I like Kralik's suggestion! But I'm not sure we should do it now. Let's continue with some designer playtests for a few cards yet, then open out the Ring to the community.

@ES: Good point on the clarification text—I had missed that.

@The Ring: I love it! Looks great, clean and fun. And FM had some great ideas for the flavour and some great ideas for other rings (which I'm glad are now on the record, even if we don't use them now—as I said, we will come back to this at some point I'm sure). It's particularly interesting to me how discarding cards is not always a bad thing.


I think I've said what I wanted to say... Sorry for being slightly AWOL—once again the forum decided to stop sending me email notifications.

Thran

[hrcho]

Sorry for being slightly AWOL—once again the forum decided to stop sending me email notifications.

Thran

Off topic: Whenever you receive a notification or two about new posts and you ignore them, the forum stops sending you notifications until you check those first posts out.

[Thranduil]

Sorry for being slightly AWOL—once again the forum decided to stop sending me email notifications.

Thran

Off topic: Whenever you receive a notification or two about new posts and you ignore them, the forum stops sending you notifications until you check those first posts out.

Aha! That might explain a certain amount then!

[Hobbiton Lad]

Because The Ruling Ring appears in every block, I'm assuming this errata would apply to all of those versions? Meaning we wouldn't see a different text for the ring in TTT or RotK versions? This seems implied, but I wanted to ask for sure.

[TheJord]

Because The Ruling Ring appears in every block, I'm assuming this errata would apply to all of those versions? Meaning we wouldn't see a different text for the ring in TTT or RotK versions? This seems implied, but I wanted to ask for sure.

This is not an errata. It is a virtual version of The Ruling Ring

[Hobbiton Lad]

Because The Ruling Ring appears in every block, I'm assuming this errata would apply to all of those versions? Meaning we wouldn't see a different text for the ring in TTT or RotK versions? This seems implied, but I wanted to ask for sure.

This is not an errata. It is a virtual version of The Ruling Ring

Sorry. Yes. Virtual version. I got mixed up with the concept for a moment there.

But there will only be one virtual version? I can see where developing a comprehensive virtual version that can be used in all blocks may be tough. Since the card appears in every block, you have to design one that can be used in comprehensive formats (movie, standard, expanded, etc.) and block formats (FotR, TTT, King, etc.) without referencing abilities that are block specific (hunter, threats, initiative, etc.) in the game text.

[Thranduil]

Yes, there will only be 1 Ruling Ring (V), because each Ruling Ring in each set has the same card title, so it is only 1 card as far as the game is concerned.

Rings are the easiest to deal with the problems you raised, as they are so fundamental to the game to be fundamentally universal already. If you see our current version, it has no particular block themes (apart from the fact that it happens to work quite well with initiative).

Thran

[Hobbiton Lad]

Yes, there will only be 1 Ruling Ring (V), because each Ruling Ring in each set has the same card title, so it is only 1 card as far as the game is concerned.

Rings are the easiest to deal with the problems you raised, as they are so fundamental to the game to be fundamentally universal already. If you see our current version, it has no particular block themes (apart from the fact that it happens to work quite well with initiative).

Thran

Ah yes. I see it now. Seems solid.