V1: Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor

[macheteman]

yeah, but i hate the "discard the rest" cards. plus there aren't enough tales to be sure you will have one in the top 3 cards.

[MR. Lurtzy]

I know I'm not allowed an opinion in this, but I would like to say that Ket's card is the best posted so far.

[Thranduil]

yeah, but i hate the "discard the rest" cards. plus there aren't enough tales to be sure you will have one in the top 3 cards.

Of course! It's not as good as tutoring, but that's what digging is like—you'll never know if you find something, and the rest of the time and earth is wasted. (NB, it also doesn't have to get discarded—nothing wrong with putting them on the bottom of the deck). Both that and recursion feel more to me than tutoring. But obviously tutoring will be much more likely to put a dedicated "tale deck" over the edge.

I know I'm not allowed an opinion in this...

What the #$&*@! is that supposed to mean? Of course you're allowed an opinion! Are you an LotR TCG player? Are you a member of TLHH? Obviously the answer to those questions is yes, so you can have an opinion! More to the point, we'd love to hear it.

Thran

[TheJord]

Could a member of the dream team collate all the ideas into one post?

[Thranduil]

I've collected a selection of versions about tales, and I've categorised, tweaked, templated and standardised them. Of course this is NOT an exhaustive list! We should try and use these ideas here to springboard onto a final card. Also, I think it's worth remembering that it no longer matters who designed what card or exactly how it was originally, and one of the most important lessons for designers is to break the attachment with a card.

Let's also remember some of our goals for this card:

• To increase the viability of a dedicated tale deck
• To fit the flavour of Gimli as he comes to Rivendell from the Lonely Mountain at the beginning of his character arc
• To make an appealing companion to help pre-Reflections decks
• To make a Gimli that doesn't feel too similar to printed Gimlis


COUNTING TALES...
•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1
Skirmish: Exert Gimli to make him strength +1 for each tale you can spot.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
While you can spot a tale, Gimli is damage +1.
While you can spot 3 tales, Gimli is strength +2.
While you can spot 5 tales, Gimli cannot take wounds (except during the archery phase).

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
While you can spot 2 tales, your other Dwarf companions are strength +1 and damage +1.


TALES AS A RESOURCE...
•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
Regroup: Exert Gimli and discard X tales to reveal the top X cards of your draw deck. Take all cards revealed into your hand, and place the rest beneath your draw deck in any order.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1
Your tales may not be discarded by shadow cards.
Maneuver: Exert Gimli and discard X tales from play to return a minion with twilight cost X or less to its owner's hand.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
Response: If a companion is about to take X wounds, you may exert Gimli and discard X tales from play to prevent those wounds.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1
Maneuver: Discard a tale to make Gimli strength +2 and defender +1 until the regroup phase.
Archery: Discard a tale to add 1 to the Fellowship archery total.
Skirmish: Discard a tale to cancel a skirmish involving Gimli.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1
Fellowship: Discard a tale from play to heal a companion.
Archery: Discard an tale from play to add 1 to the fellowship archery total.
Regroup: Discard a tale from play to wound a minion.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
Skirmish: Discard a tale from play to make a companion of that tale's culture strength +2.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
At the start of each skirmish involving Gimli, you may discard a tale from hand or from play to make Gimli strength +3 and lose all damage bonuses.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
Regroup: Exert Gimli and discard a tale from play to take a Free People's card into hand from your discard pile.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
Fellowship: Play a tale from your hand to heal a Dwarf or discard a condition.


MAKING TALES...
•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1.
While you can spot 3 tales, each Free Peoples condition is a tale.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
While you can spot Gandalf, all your conditions are tales.
Regroup: Exert Gimli twice to play a condition from your discard pile.


TALE ENABLER...
•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
Fellowship: Play a or character to take a tale into hand from your draw deck.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale condition or tale possession from your discard pile.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
At the start of each fellowship phase, you may discard the top card of your draw deck to play a tale condition from your draw deck.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Resistance: 6
Damage +1.
Each tale you play is twilight cost -1.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Gandalf
Damage +1
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale from your draw deck or take a card into hand from your discard pile.

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1.
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale from your discard pile.

[ket_the_jet]

Thanks a lot Thranduil. You forgot about this one:

  •Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale from your discard pile.

Just saying.
-wtk

[Thranduil]

Thanks a lot Thranduil. You forgot about this one:

  •Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale from your discard pile.

Just saying.
-wtk

No I didn't! 2nd Tale Enabler. I templated it a bit so that there was no confusion with events, but otherwise it's the same card.

[hrcho]

He didn't. He said he modified the options listed and he changed yours to:

•Gimli, Dwarf of Erebor (V)
Companion • Dwarf
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Signet: Aragorn
Damage +1
At the start of the regroup phase, you may exert Gimli to play a tale condition or possession from your discard pile.

He changed from tale to tale condition because playing tale events might a bit too confusing (although only NFFATROD and Might of Numenor would actually provide an effect) and he added a possession part for the ability to play Red Book of Westmarch and Book of Mazarbul.

[Thranduil]

But that's not what I had written.

As there is a rule against playing events out of phase, I have no problem with my original wording and would prefer it be kept as such.
-wtk

There is such a rule, but it's confusing because the rule would never be written on a card. Cards that don't do what they say should be avoided.

Thran

[FM]

Also, the wording would need to be "or tale possession", otherwise, you can play ANY possession.

[Thranduil]

I agree that cards should do what they say; however, I disagree that cards should be written less-simply than they need to in order to confirm something that is already a rule.

Who is to say that, in the future, someone won't want to create a Tale event that is playable in the regroup phase?

My point is, there was no confusion with events as it is meant to play any Tale in the regroup phase--even regroup events that are tales (of which none yet exist). There is already precedent to the card as I wrote it (Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled) which is written just fine and the CRD is a resource to confirm, "No, you can't play Nine-Fingered Frodo and the Ring of Doom in the regroup phase."
-wtk

Yes, and I would argue strongly that printing Bilbo, BotB as written was a mistake and he should have only been able to play conditions/possessions. It is not in any way obvious to explain to newer players that conditions can be played out of phase while events can't. One of the things we have an opportunity to do with the TLHH group is to make clearer wordings and templating, following the example of MTG for example.

I do think that you are right FM.

Thran

[Thranduil]

Frankly, I saw a card that was completely different than what I intended it to be.
-wtk

No—I changed a tiny bit of functionality (which I think at the moment is in fact no functionality) for a much clearer card that is in no way confusing. If you want to keep the identical functionality, then you could just add to the text "... to play a tale condition, tale possession or tale regroup event..." which is so much less cleaner that I didn't put it there, but it still works and it still does what it says and it still works.

Also, if this is an exhaustive list of ideas then who are you to "clean up" the text? When cards get nominated for further rounds, people can discuss the merits of the text as written or suggest improvements.

I wasn't trying to be authoritative, saying "these are the cards we're going to look at!" Far from it, I was summarising and categorising some of the approaches we've had so far using designs that I felt had the most promise. Of course, all the cards posted remain in this thread in their original for anyone at any point to look over. I certainly don't think we should lose any of the cards or discussion we've had so far.

In fact, there is a rule that says that events cannot be played out of phase and prior examples, such as Pass of Caradhras or Bilbo, Bearer of Things Burgled support the fact that, if you know the rules, simpler gametext isn't a problem.
-wtk

And the thing that all success in this enterprise rests on is bringing in new players, who don't necessarily know the rules. It's all very well for you and I, but try explaining that little subtlety to someone who doesn't know that rule. It's confusing and unnecessary.

Thran

[ket_the_jet]

Frankly, I saw a card that was completely different than what I intended it to be.
-wtk

No—I changed a tiny bit of functionality

Are you telling me what I saw? Because if I had identified my own submission, I wouldn't have posted that it wasn't there in the first place.

I still think that it is completely inappropriate to change a card as written--particularly in the summarizing phase--and then say, these are what we are looking at.

This is why this kind of thing is a bad idea. Everyone here claims to want more deck options and then you are narrowing those very options. The fact is, Decipher made the call on this one, phrased a card as such in the first set, then repeated it in a later set which, as far as I'm concerned, made my wording correct as to what I wanted the card to do.

Rather than being authoritative--which you were--leave the card as is and suggest that it is cleared up when things go into further discussion (which, I remind you, no one did to this point). It gives everyone a chance to discuss the values of a card being written one way versus another rather than a "I prefer it this way because I interpret it as being more clear" and moving on.

I don't think you have the high ground on this argument at all.
-wtk

[Thranduil]

I'm of course sorry if I upset you, and that was definitely not my intention.

I'm happy to continue this discussion by PM, but I don't think it's worth clogging up this thread any more.

Thran

[Ringbearer]

I'd like to see my card idea restored as well to the original state. I know its strong towards OP, but I rather see discussion about the old idea then forcing it into a certain option not even discussed.