Fallow fields by night aren't brown. Shadowed leaves aren't green. Water under the stars is very dark. Dusk paints everything in shades of grey.

Next you'll be claiming that balrogs have real, flapping wings.

Magali's art on silvan characters is fantastic for capturing the effect Tolkien was evoking from the grey cloth.

1rst AP : Leadership Hero

2d AP : Spirit Hero (Hobbit maybe to go with Sam spirit ally and the Hobbit Event spoiled ?)

3d AP : Leadership Scout Hero (maybe Rohan?)

4th AP : Silvan Lore Hero

Missing 2 tactics heroes for having 2 Heroes of each sphere for the entire cycle. So i guess we will have 2 tactics heroes in a row !

There's also a chance Tactics will only get 1 hero this cycle and perhaps Spirit will get two. Ignoring saga expansions (which the designers might be treating a a self-contained card pool, and which would require 1 Leadership, 1 Spirit and 2 Tactics heroes in the last two expansions to balance out the spheres), we currently have 12 Leadership, 13 Tactics, 12 Spirit, and 13 Lore heroes. Every deluxe + cycle since Heirs of Númenor has given us 2 heroes of each sphere. Shadows of Mirkwood + Khazad-dûm also does this, but Dwarrowdelf created an imbalance in favour of Tactics and Lore. We might get two same-sphere heroes in a row, but the only time that happened before was in Shadows of Mirkwood (Brand and Boromir). So they might be changing the non-Saga hero sphere balance to favour Spirit instead of Tactics (I doubt we'll get three Leadership heroes in the same cycle, but we already have three same-sphere in a deluxe + cycle: Bifur, Aragorn and Elrond). Spirit also has several of the generally acknowledged weaker heroes (Dunhere, Dwalin, Pippin, Fatty), so that shift wouldn't surprise me.

For The Drowned Ruins hero, Legolas is also a distinct possibility. We've been waiting for another hero version of Legolas since Core set, and Lore would fit. I think the next deluxe expansion has a good chance of being somewhere around Erebor, and Gimli, Legolas, and Thranduil are all possibilities for sometime near then. Most of the Silvan allies are Lórien themed, and it might be slightly odd to get Thranduil in the same pack as Marksman of Lórien, rather than some Mirkwood themed allies.

Fallow fields by night aren't brown. Shadowed leaves aren't green. Water under the stars is very dark. Dusk paints everything in shades of grey.

Next you'll be claiming that balrogs have real, flapping wings.

Magali's art on silvan characters is fantastic for capturing the effect Tolkien was evoking from the grey cloth.

The elves of Middle-earth, I reckon, much like myself, only own clothing of one color and never change outfits.

Fallow fields by night aren't brown. Shadowed leaves aren't green. Water under the stars is very dark. Dusk paints everything in shades of grey.

In my experience, fallow fields by night are still brown, and shadowed green leaves are still green. Certainly the effect is to darken and dampen the color, but the colors are still. If motivated by adherence to the text, surely the fact that Tolkien explicitly used the words "brown" and "green" to describe things you say are not that color should have some weight? The entire point of the passage was to demonstrate how inconstant the color of the cloaks could be, not just think up fancy ways to say "it was gray".

Let us rewrite the passage to only include the color grey:

"It was hard to say of what colour they were: grey with the hue of twilight under the trees they seemed to be; and yet if they were moved, or set in another light, they were grey as shadowed leaves, or grey as fallow fields by night, dusk-grey as water under the stars."

Doesn't work, and is non-canonical.

Eomer also missed the three hunters upon grass, and then in conversation said "Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?" Evidently, green is among the cloak's possibilities, though given the time of year I would again guess it was at best a dull green.

It doesn't work because it's bad writing and it's non-canonical because you wrote it.

The point of the passage was to establish the ability of the cloaks to provide camouflage and blend into natural surroundings. Contrast directly with Saruman's cloak of many colours.

Fallow fields by night aren't brown. Shadowed leaves aren't green. Water under the stars is very dark. Dusk paints everything in shades of grey.

Next you'll be claiming that balrogs have real, flapping wings.

Magali's art on silvan characters is fantastic for capturing the effect Tolkien was evoking from the grey cloth.

The elves of Middle-earth, I reckon, much like myself, only own clothing of one color and never change outfits.

I guess the difference is whether you think of the lord of the rings as a living, breathing world where people live, or as a collection of stories with characters and themes.

Wow. I would think whatever way you look at it, you are bound to see the people actually change. The characters do in the books.

My painting of Lorien Elves. Enjoy!

My painting of Lorien Elves. Enjoy!

#nailedit

My painting of Lorien Elves. Enjoy!

I like the art in this one, but honestly, I still can't tell which are male and which are female elves.

Wow. I would think whatever way you look at it, you are bound to see the people actually change. The characters do in the books.

But not into that outfit. Apart from Legolas.

The thing that I really don't like about some of the designs of the elves and in general are not the colors, but just how obviously they are inspired from the movies. And I get some people atually like that, but it's just not for me at all. Not only from those weird shoulderpads on the jackets of many elves (I think they're supposed to be gambesons of some sort), and every elf needing a diadem with a swirling pattern or just a very John Howe-ish swirling pattern in general, but also the that corset-breastplate on Galadriel, the shield on Westfold Outrider (which looks exactly like a Weta prop), the movie-ish design on some of the baddies like the fin-like structures of Orthanc (Saruman's Orders) and Mordor (The Dark Lord's Summons), as well as the aforementioned painfully obvious Peter Jackson eye in the back of the cards. People forget those designs are all Jackson (or rather, John Howe.) Now those designs I think are effective and look good in the movies, but for a game that prides itself from distancing itself from the movies, they are just awkward. Looking at another LOTR card game made before the movies (MECCG), you can see the details on the clothing and design are very different. People in that game seem to wear much lighter clothes that are actually comfortable, like robes and tunics, as opposed to this where everyone wears lots of belts and buckles, which arguably are better for exploring or fighting, but why does Galadriel need a breastplate? Did they even read her description in the books?

...but for a game that prides itself from distancing itself from the movies...

where is that ever written/said/expressed/or even hinted at by anyone at FFG?

Many audio and video interviews with Caleb by Team Covenant and COTR. They explcitly said they gave Legolas dark hair for this reason, as well as mentioned that sometimes they have to ask the artist to "change it up a bit, dress it a little different" becuase it looks to much like the movies, and when asked about the influence of Peter Jackson's movies in general Caleb has said that "the books are the books, the movies are the movies, they're kind of two different things".

This is true sloth. They are specifically supposed to avoid the movies.

I could be wrong here but I think the whole point here is that they are supposed to avoid the movies because of their license, not because of any thematic preference for the books.

I imagine it kind of makes sense to allow the art direction to go as far towards the movies (lets face it--the most common vision people have of the IP is Jackson's) as they can get away with without angering The Saul Zaentz Company.

And some of the design choices frankly have less to do with being true to either the books or the movies and have much more to do with the artist thinking something looks cool/interesting (I would presume that is where we get the Galadriel outfit--which personally I like).

In general I would disagree that the artwork is inspired by the movies - at least directly. Indirectly, sure, because the artists have almost certainly seen the movies, and they have shaped those artists' mental images of elves, dwarves, and so on - just as the books in their time shaped how people thought of elves and dwarves and so on, which historically had much more diverse depictions than we tend to see today. In this case though it's stronger because there are actual visuals rather than just descriptions which different people could still interpret different ways. They're not intentionally depicting elves as they were in the movies, it's just that because of how prominent the movies were, they're a massive determiner of what elves look like in their heads.

I agree completely Pocketwraith. I am not saying that in general the artists are intentionally using the designs from the movies (except at least in the Westfold Outrider). I am aware of how influential the movies are, of how they pretty much shaped the modern depictions of elves and dwarves, and that the artists sometimes slip movie designs subconsciously into their art, but that's precisely the reason there should IMO be more control so as to not resemble the movies in any way. I get the feeling that if the Core Set were to come out say, today, many of the designs (particularly the encounter card back) would be different.

but that's precisely the reason there should IMO be more control so as to not resemble the movies in any way.

But why? What's wrong with some parts of the game resembling the movies? Especially the art, since while a lot of people (me included) will gripe about changes made to the story in the movies, the visual design has been very widely praised and provokes far fewer arguments (in the LotR movies at least, not so much The Hobbit). A huge number of people would say it's a very good visual representation of the things in the books, so why should another very good portrayal of those things from those books not use certain looks just because the movies did them first?

Because I want the game to look the least like the movies as possible. But as I said, it is just my opinion. It is totally possible for the players and even the art director to want the game to "flirt" with the aesthetic of the movies (as I said, the designs for the most part are effective), but I personally don't want that for the game. I came into this wanting a total artistic deviation from Jackson, as the whole premise of the game is to be based on the novels, not the movies. Yet I admit the influence of the movies is hard to overcome. Sometimes it is frustrating, but I'm not losing sleep over this. As a matter of fact, I like the art on these 2 silvan allies fine. The only real aesthetic problem I have is some exceptions (shield on the Outrider) and the Eye of Sauron. Other than that, the art of the game is still totally serviceable, even Galadriel and her breastplate, though I certainly wish the influence of the movies was less or none.

I don't see how the color of clothing indicates it's movie related. In most fantasy settings I've seen, elves and green go hand in hand. It's a fantasy trope.

Am I the only one here who hasn't seen the movies

It doesn't work because it's bad writing and it's non-canonical because you wrote it.

The point of the passage was to establish the ability of the cloaks to provide camouflage and blend into natural surroundings. Contrast directly with Saruman's cloak of many colours.

And the cloaks provide camouflage and blend into natural surroundings... even when the natural surroundings are GREEN.

It's a fair point that a silvan elf dressed in green and brown would be a better match for Mirkwood (Legolas is dressed in green and brown), than Lorien (Elves described there are in grey and white). But the text does explicitly say the grey cloaks can appear green (and brown), and it shows it hiding them from the rohirrim on green grass. Also, the few elves we see described in Lorien use two differing colors (grey and white) and nowhere does it prohibit them from wearing any colors beside these two. (Nimrodel actually adds gold to the color mix in Legolas' song, and Appendix A has Galadriel clothing Aragorn in silver and white, with a cloak of elven grey and a bright gem. At the wedding the fair folk of Lorien again have grey cloaks and white gems in their hair, but their clothes are not described.)

In the card in question, I think the green and brown appear muted enough and similar enough to the background to (I think) pass a basic plausibility test, though for an elf of Lorien a grey cloak would certainly be the best choice. But you know, we've got a lot of Lorien associated cards:

Silverlode Archer

Lorien Guide

Daughter of Nimrodel

Haldir of Lorien (ally)

Celeborn

Naith Guide

Rumil

Haldir of Lorien (hero)

Galadhrim Minstrel

Defender of the Naith

Galadhon Archer

Orophin

Galadriel's Handmaiden

Cloak of Lorien

Rossiel

Galadhrim Weaver

Galadhrim Healer

Celeborn should be dressed in white and isn't, and while the rest should in reality *most likely* be dressed in "elven grey", I don't think any of them really are, including the card for the actual Cloak of Lorien. Green and Brown appear frequently, but other colors also appear. (Galadriel, not listed, is at least depicted in white.) To the extent that there's a problem here, it neither began with this card nor is this card remarkable in any way as an offender.

I don't blame Peter Jackson for how Elves are depicted. The stereotypical high fantasy elvish "look" was established decades before Jackson's movies, and for better or worse that stereotypical elf was inspired directly by Tolkien.

Manchester United wore a grey kit once in the nineties. The players complained that they couldn't see each other against the green pitch.

They were 3-0 down at half time. Umbro hired Elves in their sweatshops.

Manchester United wore a grey kit once in the nineties. The players complained that they couldn't see each other against the green pitch.

They were 3-0 down at half time. Umbro hired Elves in their sweatshops.

Fascinating story, thank you. I goggled the event and found lots of hits, under titles like:

"6 bad football excuses"

"Top ten sporting excuses"

"Sir Alex Ferguson's top five excuses"

"The 10 lamest football excuses"

I looked at about fifteen different descriptions of the event, not one seemed to think the excuse was credible. No one, not even Ferguson, said the uniforms appeared green in the right light. And there were pictures, all of which showed a clear distinction between the grey-clad players and the green pitch. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that none of the paying spectators had trouble seeing the players.

None of the articles had a player quoted on the lack of visibility, only the coach.

Over here in American football, there are a number of teams using grey uniforms, none of which have a reputation for invisibility. To my knowledge, the only college team accused of invisible uniform is Boise State, who use blue home uniforms on blue artificial turf. Fortunately it's not a perfect match, and only at a distance does the background of the floor matter anyway. I've only seen one game where at a distance of 10-20 yards the players were partially invisible because of uniform, a 1985 visit to Utah State by BYU in a raging snowstorm, making the white jerseys disappear completely into the snow. Quarterback Robbie Bosco said after the game he looked for the blue pants, and aimed the ball above them.

The canon clearly states that the grey elven cloak could appear green or brown in the right light. I'm not sure why this is controversial, it's right in the text.