Here are the custom rules we use....

Table Talk

The table talk rule is one of the worst written rules I have ever seen in a game. It is not only ill defined, but the wording is so loose that anyone can basically play around it.. This leads many people to ignore it completely and miss out on the true greatness of this game. This rule vastly improves this game.

The idea of this tweak is to bring the table talk rule back. Why is this good?

Well Co-Op games suffer from a syndrome I call "follow the leader", this is when one player basically plays the entire game and directs other other players. This rule prevents this from happening. You can see this in action on most CoTR YouTube vids (though they are doing a video so they can be excused (almost) as they need a narator in a way. One player is playing and the other is basically a card drawing robot. Most co-op games have this problem where if you have a forceful personality at the table it can in a way become a solo game where other players all play as one. This is not co-op in my eyes. People working together is co-op... not one person commanding others.

Also it brings back into the game one of the greatest things about deck building games, the surprise and wow factor of seeing combos go off. Now you partner can swoop in and do power moves that impress and leave stories that you remember for years.

It also adds a trust element to the game. You need to trust in your partner and they need to trust in you.. this fits the theme of this game perfectly. Relinquishing control is hard for people, anyone done that exercise were you fall backwards and are caught by your wife? Well, do it if you having and you will most likely feel a small rush.. as no matter how much you trust natural instinct to be on control kind of fights you... this feeling is now in the game. When things work it feels great.

You learn each others tactics. While the first few games might be a bit wonky, as time goes by you get a deeper understanding of how the other person plays. You become a true team where you can predict and anticipate your partner and this leads to better decisions on the battle field. Our group can nearly work as one. This leads to becoming much better players.

Rules
1) You may not talk about any card in your hand or deck, card counts in your deck, or deck abilities and combos.

2) You may not discuss any card name, effect or use any trick to make it clear what card you are talking about.
3) All visible cards can be discussed

Examples of Legal Table Talk
"You take those two mobs, I'll optionally engage this one. Why don't you defend with that dude, and then I'll help attack back with my range guy here... " etc etc
"Lets quest with these 3 here"
"Why not tap your UC now"

Examples of Illegal Talk
I think a wizard might turn up for a while and help us on this one.
If you defend with that guy you will not need to worry about the damage.

When Revealed

The revision to the When Revealed rules was a huge mistake. This brings is back to how it was originally.

When Revealed triggers as the card is moved to the staging area form any deck zone. Discard or Encounter deck. Drawing form encounter deck in ANY way, or form the discard pile in ANY way triggers when revealed, guarded, doomed and other keywords.

Character Commit Timing

All characters of all players commit at the same instant in time at response speed. This allows forced and response effects to occur as normal but this slight tweak means all players commit at once.. meaning the commit step of the quest phase is a simultaneous phase for all players. After all players are commuted.. they leave as a group to quest.. at the one instant.

Also there is no action window at the end of the commit step. The commit itself is the last thing before the game over and is a game interrupt (like the quest cards). So nothing can ever be chosen to happen before it.

Winning the Game

You can not win the game if there are still monsters in the staging area. You still play as normal but only ever add monsters equalling player count minus 1. Extra monsters drawn are discarded and not replaced. All other game rules continue. Once all monsters are dead the quest card can fully resolve.

So in a two player game you still reveal 2 cards a turn, but if you draw a monster and the 2nd is a monster it is discarded. Solo all mosters are discarded..

It always bugs us and leaves a feeling the quest is not done. Squeaking though a quest with a billion things ourt just feels wrong to us. This rule adds hardly any dificulty but gives the quests a feeling of reslution.

Deck Building / Uniques

Multiplayer hands are considered as a single deck, No hand may contain the same unique cards as the other hands. You can still have 3 of each in the hand.. but not the same named card among ALL the named hands.

So for example, in a 4 player game you can only have 3 gandalfs total among all 4 decks.

Once Per Game

This effect is limited to the deck.. (remeber multiplayer is considred a single deck). As well as limited to all copies of the card in the deck.

You can not move Agagorn around the table gaining threat reduction on each player, as the once per game effects that card for the entire game and all players. Landroval's effect can only be triggered once.

Card Resolution

• As much of a card must resolve as it can.
• It always resolves in order
• Failer of pats of the card do not effect the rest of the card unless the effects are linked in the sentence with a conjunction, and only then if the conjunction dose not refrence the start of the sentence.
• All full stops denote a new reolution "step" in the card that is isolated form any failes of other parts of the card.
• Non targeted effects can NEVER fail (all monsters gain +1 Will in staging area.. even if no monsters this still occours.. it just has no effect)

Blah blah AND blah is a linking. So if either fails the other can still occour.

Blah Blah THEN blah - If the 1st part fails THEN the 2nd part fails.. as in "I dropped the plates then they broke" If the plates are not dropped, they can not break.

Blah blah THEN Blah. Blah-d-blah. If Blah Blah fails, THEN also fails, but Blah-d-blah resolves.

Next, Last and First Player

All these terms apply to solo play. The solo player is simultaneously the 1st, last and next players anything that targets 1st, last or next targets the solo player at ALL times.

Also mechanically this means that "behind the scenes" the 1st player marker is considered to be transferring each round.

Good you have found a rule set that makes the game fun for you.

I like the examples of legal and illegal table talk!

Blah blah AND blah is a linking. So if either fails the other can still occour.

Blah Blah THEN blah - If the 1st part fails THEN the 2nd part fails.. as in "I dropped the plates then they broke" If the plates are not dropped, they can not break.

Blah blah THEN Blah. Blah-d-blah. If Blah Blah fails, THEN also fails, but Blah-d-blah resolves.

If all cards were written that way it would make it much easier to follow the table talk rules!

I like the examples of legal and illegal table talk!

Wait... reasonable answers were allowed?

I'm quite boooooored with the rest of these home brewed rules. I'm just kidding man. Cool that you and your group have settled on a type of play experience you enjoy! Cheers, and happy questing!

Added the 1st, Next and Last player rules to the OP

Next, Last and First Player

All these terms apply to solo play. The solo player is simultaneously the 1st, last and next players anything that targets 1st, last or next targets the solo player at ALL times.

Also mechanically this means that "behind the scenes" the 1st player marker is considered to be transferring each round.

I see why the original rules might pose problems and make one, particularly free-spoken player take over the game, but I think it really varies. I regularly play 3-4-player games where we occasionally reveal we can summon a Gandalf next turn or play a particular event, and no one in our group has so far tried to direct the other players.

That said, the people I play with have been my best friends for almost 10 years, so we know each other pretty well - everyone listens to the others. Sometimes we suggest a course of action to try and make it through a combat phase with as few casualties as possible, but in the end it's up to the defending player. And the suggestions usually go like "I can use my Sentinel if you like" rather than "Sacrifice your ally so your hero can attack". I guess it really depends on what people you play with.

New thought: you've heard the phrase "if you don't know anyone like that, it's probably you?" I guess I could be more authoritative than the other players - it's usually I who reveal the encounter cards and calculate threat. I guess I see it as part of my "job", as I am also the main quester while the others prefer to handle heavy combat.

that is exactly the other method we use as well. Each "1st player" is a temporary leader and has veto or the complete run of the game for that round.

The thing about the Table Talk is not about restriction it is about thematic gameplay. Having true trust in your partners, working as a team and a return of the "surprise" play that makes competitive card games so fun. These table talk rules are not about restriction but enhanc,ment. They make the game better.. mroe fun and exciting as well as giving all players a feeling of equal contributing at all time. Trust and teamwork also becomes so strong that the same decks or players with different players will fail.. as they have not become true team mates yet.

We feel this is much more thematic.

My rule: Have fun.

I don't sweat the table talk because I don't play this game competitively. It's my reason to meet with a friend and spend some time doing something enjoyable. Do whatever works for you. As a cooperative game, I think it matters more that the players agree on the rules rather than following whatever rule just because it's written down.

For competitive play though, I understand having the rules spelled out.

If I ever offered a variant, I'd probably start with a one-copy-per-deck limit on uniques. That seems more thematic to me and would help to limit the awkward "Uh-oh, Arwen just died... oh wait, she's back" kind of thing. Plus, it makes each of them more valued.

If I ever offered a variant, I'd probably start with a one-copy-per-deck limit on uniques. That seems more thematic to me and would help to limit the awkward "Uh-oh, Arwen just died... oh wait, she's back" kind of thing. Plus, it makes each of them more valued.

And makes sure you'll almost never see them. Good job.

I agree with most....only the rules for unique characters i think is to much....3 per deck as usual ok for me

I agree with most....only the rules for unique characters i think is to much....3 per deck as usual ok for me

The proposed, table talk rule and the proposed unique card rule are in conflict with each other. If you can't tell me that there are three Faramir's in your deck, how do I know if I can have a Faramir in my own?

If I ever offered a variant, I'd probably start with a one-copy-per-deck limit on uniques. That seems more thematic to me and would help to limit the awkward "Uh-oh, Arwen just died... oh wait, she's back" kind of thing. Plus, it makes each of them more valued.

I'm personally happy with the way uniques are, but one possible alternative is to use a method that some games use, which is to create a separate "dead pile" from the discard pile for uniques that are destroyed in combat, and if a copy of an ally is in that pile, then you can't play another copy. That lets you still have the 3 uniques to increase the probability, but limits the resurrection.

If I ever offered a variant, I'd probably start with a one-copy-per-deck limit on uniques. That seems more thematic to me and would help to limit the awkward "Uh-oh, Arwen just died... oh wait, she's back" kind of thing. Plus, it makes each of them more valued.

And makes sure you'll almost never see them. Good job.

I understand that, but honestly, I find some of the most interesting decks are those where they can play completely differently based on what cards come up during the game. When you're very likely to see at least one of each card in your deck, it lessens that variation. Obviously, variation is generally bad for power, but it sometimes makes the game more interesting to me. So, like I said, I would play this as a variant, not a proposed rule change.

That's cursed table-talk, and I'll stick you, if you don't shut it down, see?'

BTW, I also play a rule variant that no heroes can die and no players can be eliminated or the quest is failed. It's just generally more fun for us. I think so much of the interactions of the game come from the combination of hero's abilities, that I don't like to limp along without them just for a victory (though we've had to accept it a couple of times). Just my personal preference.

Caldara and Boromir look at you with disgust.

Caldara, sure. But Boromir is cool with it. He's relieved to be chosen for reasons other than his ability to die for his friends. Boromir is one of my MVPs. His discard ability is nice, but he's sooooooo awesome even without it.

Caldara is a decent spirit hero even without her ability. She's just exceedingly strong with it.

Caldara is a decent spirit hero even without her ability.

You kidding? Arwen is identical except for 1 less hitpoint.

You kidding? Arwen is identical except for 1 less hitpoint.

You kidding? Arwen has 1 less attack, 1 less defense, AND 1 less health.

You kidding? Arwen does not produces Spirit resources and is not affected by Gondor ****, like Wealth, Visionary Leadershit, Gondorian Shield and stuff.

You kidding? Arwen is identical except for 1 less hitpoint.

You kidding? Arwen has 1 less attack, 1 less defense, AND 1 less health.

1 less attack..... so what. Tell me when you use Caldara's 1 attack.

If Arwen is defending, she has 2 defense because of her ability.

Only difference is the resource generation. I'd rather have 8 less threat and run secrecy than have Caldara for just her stats and not ability.

Good point about the Attachment boost though Trololo. Its just when I build a gondor deck with all that gondor attachment stuff, I never use caldara so it doesnt matter anyways.

Its better to have 8 less threat and no caldara then to have her quest for 2 every round.