V1: The One Ring (alpha playtests)

[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.