Your taste is extremely egoistic. Your selfish desire is for one hero to consume the entire player card slot from a pack which contains around 10 of them, which are not released too frequently. Screw all those people who play the game but have no interest in this particular hero, right? Let them choke on the card they won't be able to use, but what could have been something they could have been able to use, would it not be restricted to one goddamn name from the entire roster of 65~ uniquely named heroes. The theme is more important, yeah. You advocate for the desires of few to be above the needs of many, while I do the opposite.

Now, before all the hate against me hits the fan: I do not consider the concept of the card being tied to specific name to be cancer on it's own. I consider it to be cancer in our terms - slow, infrequent releases that contain few card, and also take extremely long to arrive to plenty of people. Thing like that would be pretty cool in a digital game maybe. Not in the cardboard physical one.

That's the beauty of this game as I see it. Because it is cooperative and because it can play 1-4 players, the design space is much wider than in a competitive game.

A card can be only useful for solo play and it's fine. A card can be weaker and thematic, or verging on broken (I love Gandalf and all his toys).

By creating a wide variety of cards across the power spectrum it gives the players greater agency in finding their own perfect way to play the game.

Out of curiosity, are you also upset that Wingfoot isn't Aragorn only? Strider seems like the same situation to me. You could make the same arguments about Steward of Gondor, Heir of Mardil, Heir of Valandil, King Under the Mountain, and probably others.

Personally, I think we already have too many cards that can only be attached to specific heroes. It limits the deckbuilding space too much when they do that.

re: Wingfoot, a little. I'd be hesitant to use it in a thematic deck (if I owned it).

Wingfoot is hardly as iconic as Strider, though, is it? Strider is how the character is known for the first chunk of the book. It's not a title given him by another (as Wingfoot is), but a name chosen for himself, which goes on to become the name of his house.

I don't think the card should be restricted (beyond being Unique), it should just have a less limiting-sounding name.

After I posted this I wondered if the name Strider was actually given to him by the men of Bree but it was too late and I had already left the house. Anyone is welcome to correct me if that's the case.

Either way he took it as a core part of his identity. Unlike Wingfoot, which is embarrassingly bad as a title. Eomer should be ashamed of himself.

Personally, I am a HUGE fan of cards with name specific interaction. In my opinion it allows the designers to create weak heroes with the understanding that specific cards will improve said hero. Let's say there was a "Bilbo's Pipe" that only attached to Bilbo, or a "There and Back again" manuscript that would boost Bilbo's willpower. If that were true Bilbo would be a playable hero. That solution is best, IMO, because that high power attachment can exist without making other heroes potentially OP.

The problem with LOTR LCG right now is not name specific attachments. The problem is that they are using high power attachments to make high power heroes even more powerful. The one exception is Galadriel. In her case they nerfed her and then made a name specific ring in order to... cancel the nerf???? Totally lame IMO.

Bottom line, name specific attachments are great in theory, but have been poorly executed.

For me Glorfindel + Light of Valinor isn't particularly satisfying to use because as you say it just makes a powerful character more powerful, eliminating his drawback.

Had Light of Valinor given him the ability to quest without exhausting at a cost of raising your threat by one to commit, it would be a far less ubiquitous combination, and truer to the lore (Elrond's justification for not sending him with the Fellowship is that he'd draw too much attention, especially when revealed in wrath).

That's the beauty of this game as I see it. Because it is cooperative and because it can play 1-4 players, the design space is much wider than in a competitive game.

A card can be only useful for solo play and it's fine. A card can be weaker and thematic, or verging on broken (I love Gandalf and all his toys).

By creating a wide variety of cards across the power spectrum it gives the players greater agency in finding their own perfect way to play the game.

I'm fine with cards that fit specific niche. Few cards can be universal, and if they are, then they are probably too powerful. I'm not fine with cards can only be used with one specific hero, period. Taking your example, a card that is only useful for solo play in a game with 1-4 players has a 25% potential to be useful (and that's if we just take rough number of possible numbers of players, because something tells me solo play is the most popular play mode of this game). If we take a card that can only be used with specific hero, we're talking around 2%~ or less usage range.

Personally, I am a HUGE fan of cards with name specific interaction. In my opinion it allows the designers to create weak heroes with the understanding that specific cards will improve said hero. Let's say there was a "Bilbo's Pipe" that only attached to Bilbo, or a "There and Back again" manuscript that would boost Bilbo's willpower. If that were true Bilbo would be a playable hero. That solution is best, IMO, because that high power attachment can exist without making other heroes potentially OP.

The problem with LOTR LCG right now is not name specific attachments. The problem is that they are using high power attachments to make high power heroes even more powerful. The one exception is Galadriel. In her case they nerfed her and then made a name specific ring in order to... cancel the nerf???? Totally lame IMO.

Bottom line, name specific attachments are great in theory, but have been poorly executed.

While I agree that hero-specific attachments allow for more interesting design, my biggest issue is how this "pollutes" the card pool with a bunch of narrow cards. Because each (non-POD) release on has a fraction of player cards, the card pool grows slowly. In the sense of a game that grows more slowly than other LCGs, I want most cards to be generally useful, otherwise there is the risk of a new release not adding anything that is useful for the vast majority of decks. This is the same reason why too many different versions of the same unique characters can be a challenge for deck-building - an issue I wrote about recently. I wish that we had a large enough card poo, and one that grew fast enough, to support more niche cards. As it stands, I feel like the meta-game can only support a few of these in a given release or it risks becoming too fractured.

https://hallofbeorn.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/metagame-part-6-a-unique-challenge/

I wish that we had a large enough card poo

Sorry, I simply couldn't help it

Personally, I am a HUGE fan of cards with name specific interaction. In my opinion it allows the designers to create weak heroes with the understanding that specific cards will improve said hero. Let's say there was a "Bilbo's Pipe" that only attached to Bilbo, or a "There and Back again" manuscript that would boost Bilbo's willpower. If that were true Bilbo would be a playable hero. That solution is best, IMO, because that high power attachment can exist without making other heroes potentially OP.

The problem with LOTR LCG right now is not name specific attachments. The problem is that they are using high power attachments to make high power heroes even more powerful. The one exception is Galadriel. In her case they nerfed her and then made a name specific ring in order to... cancel the nerf???? Totally lame IMO.

Bottom line, name specific attachments are great in theory, but have been poorly executed.

While I agree that hero-specific attachments allow for more interesting design, my biggest issue is how this "pollutes" the card pool with a bunch of narrow cards. Because each (non-POD) release on has a fraction of player cards, the card pool grows slowly. In the sense of a game that grows more slowly than other LCGs, I want most cards to be generally useful, otherwise there is the risk of a new release not adding anything that is useful for the vast majority of decks. This is the same reason why too many different versions of the same unique characters can be a challenge for deck-building - an issue I wrote about recently. I wish that we had a large enough card poo, and one that grew fast enough, to support more niche cards. As it stands, I feel like the meta-game can only support a few of these in a given release or it risks becoming too fractured.

https://hallofbeorn.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/metagame-part-6-a-unique-challenge/

I don't disagree that these types of cards should be limited in their release.

JC - while you are attempting to take the "many over the few" approach, what you are lacking is an abundance of voices to account for what the "many" really want. If everyone wants Glorfindel with Light (an arguably OP attachment combination that is NOT name specific) or Galadriel with her ring, or Gandalf with is horse, staff, ring and (trait specific) pipe - or if everyone does NOT want that - how do you gather your information to know that is how people want to play the game? How many people does it take to be the majority?

If you look at people complaining about how often they see OP Gandalf/Glorfindel/Galadriel, etc are included in decks online, it would be hard for me to gauge who the majority is. Are the people using those combos the majority, or the people who don't like them? Are the people using them because they enjoy them or because they feel forced into? Are the people excluding them doing it because they dislike the combination or the OP nature of the combination or some other reason?

In the end, you and Duke are - more or less - taking your opinion for how the design should be handled and thinking that it is how "many" other people want it as well.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need to limit these types of cards for the very reasons that you and Dan point out. However, I also really like the "feel" in the game when you get the attachments for those people. I would like to see more balanced cards that are playable even if you aren't using the chosen hero (Sword that was Broken is a perfect example of a card that is fundamentally restricted to Aragorn by design). Your GoT card is a good example of a card that is trait and person specific and I'm not opposed to those types of cards. But I prefer cards that get stronger when they are attached to their thematically appropriate character.

While this card makes for good secrecy decks, it's just an amazing card in general. 2 willpower for 1 before you got your forces built up is super. Especially mono-tactics got a huge boost by this. And although it is creeping on Spirit's cheap-willpower, I think it's effect to expand possible deck archetypes makes up for it.

Ironically it doesn't do much in the only 2 hero deck I ever made: Frodo/Sam. I'd be interested to see if Tactics Theoden could work well, since he can use his willpower in double duty with his sword. Theoden-Theodred-Song of Travel deck?

As for the hero-specific discussion: for me it depends on the card. I think Sword that was Broken requiring a version of Aragorn is cool. Aragorn should be one of the most baddass heroes, and you SHOULD think to include him for nice global effects on top of his more suptle ones. And it makes for an interesing mechanic that some hero's special abilities only manifest later in the game through specific cards that have to be drawn. Then again, I also dislike that we have so many trait-specific cards that limit experimentation. Like ranger summons, isn't that card bad enough without needing a Dúnedain hero?

Your taste is extremely egoistic. Your selfish desire is for one hero to consume the entire player card slot from a pack which contains around 10 of them, which are not released too frequently. Screw all those people who play the game but have no interest in this particular hero, right? Let them choke on the card they won't be able to use, but what could have been something they could have been able to use, would it not be restricted to one goddamn name from the entire roster of 65~ uniquely named heroes. The theme is more important, yeah. You advocate for the desires of few to be above the needs of many, while I do the opposite.

Now, before all the hate against me hits the fan: I do not consider the concept of the card being tied to specific name to be cancer on it's own. I consider it to be cancer in our terms - slow, infrequent releases that contain few card, and also take extremely long to arrive to plenty of people. Thing like that would be pretty cool in a digital game maybe. Not in the cardboard physical one.

First of, I think you wouldn't have to fear hate, if you would use less harsh words than egoistic, goddamn etc. It makes people with a different opinion feel bad and creates an aggressive atmosphere, without being offensive.

Second, I don't think ANY card HAS to be limited to a hero. If FFG wanted they could have made it possible to Gandalf's staff to anyone (for example). If you want to Play thematic you can do that and all who want to go more of a fanfiction route can do that, too (obvious you can houserule, but it's alyways pleasanter to follow the offical rules I would say)

BUT, if they did, the Card would have to be designed completly different, the way it is at the moment, it would be way to strong if every hero (or even every hero of a more common type, like noble) could use it.

Limiting some attachments to a specific hero, is a way to balance a card and in a co-op game, you don't have to feel bad for not using this or that as you can win pretty much any quest without the NEED for a specific hero.

But FFG Chose the other Option and I'm fine with it.

Next, it's not like every hero get's his own cards. Heroes that have Cards that work only with them are the "big stars" of the books. Gandalf and Aragorn are so well known characters, I would say most, who got them, will play at least one game with them, if there is a new toy for them. You don't really get a dead Card. And I doubt, that we will ever see "Mirlonde's big great branch".

Finally, I feel Strider should have been the title of a Aragorn specific card. Only argument you could make in my opinion is, that the People of Bree don't know who Strider is and therefore it could be any "Hero".

The effect itself is awesome, but it could have any ("generic") title and leave "Strider" for Aragorn. You could have made such a cool attachment out of "Strider" where you put it literally on Aragorn and "replace" your Aragorn hero with Strider (what would solve the Problem of having Aragorn and Strider in Play at the same time!)

Anyway I am really hyped for this card, as I find it as inspiring for deckbuilding as Erestor

That's the beauty of this game as I see it. Because it is cooperative and because it can play 1-4 players, the design space is much wider than in a competitive game.

A card can be only useful for solo play and it's fine. A card can be weaker and thematic, or verging on broken (I love Gandalf and all his toys).

By creating a wide variety of cards across the power spectrum it gives the players greater agency in finding their own perfect way to play the game.

I'm fine with cards that fit specific niche. Few cards can be universal, and if they are, then they are probably too powerful. I'm not fine with cards can only be used with one specific hero, period. Taking your example, a card that is only useful for solo play in a game with 1-4 players has a 25% potential to be useful (and that's if we just take rough number of possible numbers of players, because something tells me solo play is the most popular play mode of this game). If we take a card that can only be used with specific hero, we're talking around 2%~ or less usage range.

Am I the only one who can't make any sense of this maths?

I don't mind name-linked attachments as long as they are still useful without the named hero, and I don't mind attachments that are particularly suited to a particular hero, as long as they aren't restricted to that particular hero. To give some concrete examples:

Light of Valinor -- while it negates SpGlorfindel's one drawback, it's an amazing attachment on any well-rounded Noldor or Silvan or Elf-friend (excepting Galadriel).

Herugrim and Snowmane -- while both have Theoden's name right on it and are well-suited to him, it'd be amazing on Eowyn as well, or any high-WP Rohan hero (or high-WP hero with Nor am I a Stranger on it). Theoden just gets Herugrim one cheaper, and Snowmane's not restricted. I like.

Spear of the Mark -- +1 attack, +2 in the staging area, restricted to Rohan. Although this attachment is just made for Dunhere, it isn't restricted to him and isn't even restricted to Heroes. Any future cards that would allow a Rohan character to sometimes attack staging would profit from this existing attachment, and vice versa.

Celebrian's Stone -- +2 willpower for any hero, spirit resource for Aragorn. While it has an extra minor power for Aragorn, it's generally useful (though takes a restricted spot and costs 2) for any hero. Like Theoden's toys, I like the useful-plus approach.

Sword that was Broken -- +1 willpower boost for everyone with Aragorn, but leadership resource for 3 on anyone. Would never, ever be played on anyone but Aragorn, so might as well say "attach to Aragorn". In this case the broadening usage is fake, because the general effect is way, way too expensive. I'd prefer that it was +1 willpower boost for any Dunedain hero, but grants a leadership icon if on Aragorn.

Asfaloth -- places one progress, two progress if on Glorfindel. In theory this is useful-plus, but the plus here doubles the utility of the attachment and ends up making the horse an auto-include on Glorfindel and ignored for any of the others who could have it. What would've been better here is the Snowmane approach -- two progress for everyone, but a "Restricted" tag for all but Glorfindel.

I don't much care for cards that are explicitly linked to other cards, but my favorite cards are new cards that make older, less-popular cards more useful -- by adding one card to the card pool it can increase the effective card pool by more than one. In the case of under-used heroes, I think a special effort should be made to release cards that are generally useful, but *particularly* useful to the hero in question.

I think the discussion of a card specifically for Bilbo hearkens back to the what-would-you-add-to-fix-the-game's-worst-cards discussion. In there, I suggested this:

---

Bilbo's strength is card draw. Bilbo's weakness is too high threat. So I think a natural fix would be something like this:

Bilbo's Pipe (neutral cost 1 attachment, pipe). Attach to a hobbit hero, limit 1 per hero. Action: Discard a card and exhaust Bilbo's Pipe to reduce threat by one (two if on Bilbo).

This would be generally useful for Hobbit secrecy decks, which don't often have Bilbo, but with Hero Bilbo you could have a deck that has threat actively declining without reducing effective hand size, useful for all sorts of shenanigans. It's unfortunate that the designated pipe fetcher is Bilbo ally, but I think the effect is strong enough to overcome it.

Your taste is extremely egoistic. Your selfish desire is for one hero to consume the entire player card slot from a pack which contains around 10 of them, which are not released too frequently. Screw all those people who play the game but have no interest in this particular hero, right? Let them choke on the card they won't be able to use, but what could have been something they could have been able to use, would it not be restricted to one goddamn name from the entire roster of 65~ uniquely named heroes. The theme is more important, yeah. You advocate for the desires of few to be above the needs of many, while I do the opposite.

Now, before all the hate against me hits the fan: I do not consider the concept of the card being tied to specific name to be cancer on it's own. I consider it to be cancer in our terms - slow, infrequent releases that contain few card, and also take extremely long to arrive to plenty of people. Thing like that would be pretty cool in a digital game maybe. Not in the cardboard physical one.

This thread just exploded. John, I can see you are a fighter, but your strong conviction does not invest your argument with persuading power. Basically what you say just doesn't make sense. If I like tactics does that mean that I selfishly want to punish all the people who have no interest in tactics by taking up precious expansion space?

No. All cards have restrictions. Cost is a restriction, color, copies per deck. Being unique is a restriction. The reason that restrictions are included is so that more powerful and interesting effects can be included without breaking the game. If every card could be used everytime then people would just choose the 16 or so best cards and put 3 copies in their deck and go with it. Then all those other cards that don't make the top 16 would be basically unplayable cardboard, a waste of money. By putting restrictions on cards the decks have to focus on synergies to overcome the restrictions. They have to use the best red cards (for example) or use other colors in combination with color fixers.

If restrictions are valid as a species, the name specific restrictions are just one member of that species, and are also valid. Tell me how you have made any argument against name specific attachments only?

Don't get me wrong. People can have their opinion. If you don't like name specific attachments, then fine. That is a personal preference, but there is nothing about them that is fundamentally different then any other restriction. If you are against them on principle then consistency would require you to be opposed to all restrictions, which is dumb.

Probably my favorite example of how a name specific attament makes the game better is A Sword that was Broken on Lore Aragorn. Lore Aragorn is one of the best heroes in the game, but it takes a bit to figure it out. One of the reasons he is so powerful is because of StwB. It a lows him to pay for leadership and boosts all wp. It is a difficult card to get and play. You need 3 purple. It is unique, so you often only want 1 copy in your deck (or you draw dead cards). The restrictions and cost are what make the card good (as in fun, good for the game).

So the fact that I really like that card means I selfishly deprive all people who don't want to play with Aragorn a precious card slot? It doesn't make sense.

Welp, I just stopped reading right after you said that my argument has no sense. If it doesn't makes sense to you, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss. Take care.

I'm glad the card isn't Aragorn only. That guy has enough toys already. Character specific cards are like traits on steroids. They're far more restricting and niche when it comes to deckbuilding. It's fine on occasion, but I'm glad to see Strider not fall into that trap.

More posts about this card than the recently released quests. :/

Welp, I just stopped reading right after you said that my argument has no sense. If it doesn't makes sense to you, then I don't think we have anything else to discuss. Take care.

Really? You must be a joy at parties. I didn't dismiss your comments; I responded to them. I guess you are not used to adult conversation. Sometimes you have to defend your ideas in a prolonged back and forth exchange. Who is it that you have meaningful and challenging discussions with? You might want to try it sometime, instead of just blustering about.

Man, you just said that my opinion didn't mattered. Do you really expect me to continue conversation with you on this matter after that? I was arguing with you, yes, but because we simply had different opinions. I have never insulted your intelligence or questioned your ability to perceive the matter at hand. What you just did is simple: you claimed I'm incapable of the judgement on this question. Especially after several of people had agreed with me. Why should I even bother talking to you after that?

Can you please provide the quote in which I asserted that you are incapable of judgement? If it is so simple then there should be a quote. I deny that I did any such thing.

Basically what you say just doesn't make sense.

There you go, big boy.

I have to say I disagree with anyone who says that we need more cards for this strategy to work...

If you really look at Strider and what the card does its pretty **** powerful and in a way can completely negate certain drawbacks of only running 2 heroes. So the +2 willpower replaces a questing hero considering the average (sort of) is around 2 willpower for heroes. The not exhausting to quest replaces a defensive or offensive action you would have from that other hero.

So really it is like you sort of are running a third hero with 2 willpower and the same defense or attack as the character with Strider attached. What's more because you get that bonus willpower but still have a defensive or offensive action on top of that it is like you are getting two uses out of a third hero as well.... this is bananas.

You can essentially perform more hero actions with two heroes than you could with 3 with this attachment out.....

Yes you no longer have a third hero to put undefended damage or archery damage on, yes you have one less hero generating resources (resourceful quickly fixes this however), yes you will have one less sphere match you can make with your heroes (as in you can only have dual sphere or mono sphere with two heroes and not tri sphere, this is obviously not taking into account songs etc) and finally you will have one less unique hero ability BUT you will have FAR LOWER starting threat, access to all secrecy cards for a few rounds (unless you are using two power heroes and so don't have 20 or less starting threat) and in the long run could actually have a far more powerful deck this way.

Just imagine Glorfindel and Elrond. First turn you play resourceful and Strider on Elrond. You have a total of 8 willpower (the same as if you had a third hero with 2 will) during the first turn and only Glorfindel exhausts to quest. Second turn onwards Elrond is generating 2 resources so is generating that lost resource from a third hero. You can play leaf brooch and Lov on the second turn and still have a resource left or you could even get a second copy of resourceful out. If you play leaf brooch you could play something like test of will for free during that turn. Light of Valinor will allow BOTH your heroes to quest without exhausting and you will now have four actions split between two heroes.

This obviously takes a few turns to set up and the start of the game is usually the hardest but so long as you can get this set up by the third turn you have the potential to have two heroes that consistently quest without exhausting giving you 4 actions between 2 heroes, 3 to 4 (or max of 5 if you somehow draw all 3 copies of resourceful) resources generated per turn, one hero gets +2 willpower and you can play secrecy cards... this can snowball and with some card draw you could easily smash through your deck quite quickly.

I think that as a solo deck a two hero deck may struggle a little but playing two handed or two player you can have the second deck hold the fort for the first few turns and then the drawback is even further negated and the two hero deck will be given the support and time it needs to take off and dominate. More cards supporting this strategy will obviously only strengthen it but honestly I think a two hero deck could be run right now with the addition of Strider and would be quite powerful.

Leadership Aragorn and Sam could play first turn steward into strider and resourceful or even into strider and sneak attack gandalf. Bomb an enemy or drop threat by 5 to stay in secrecy longer. Gives you breathing space to set up even more so...

Heaps of possibilities with this card and I am only scratching the surface.

That's the beauty of this game as I see it. Because it is cooperative and because it can play 1-4 players, the design space is much wider than in a competitive game.

A card can be only useful for solo play and it's fine. A card can be weaker and thematic, or verging on broken (I love Gandalf and all his toys).

By creating a wide variety of cards across the power spectrum it gives the players greater agency in finding their own perfect way to play the game.

I'm fine with cards that fit specific niche. Few cards can be universal, and if they are, then they are probably too powerful. I'm not fine with cards can only be used with one specific hero, period. Taking your example, a card that is only useful for solo play in a game with 1-4 players has a 25% potential to be useful (and that's if we just take rough number of possible numbers of players, because something tells me solo play is the most popular play mode of this game). If we take a card that can only be used with specific hero, we're talking around 2%~ or less usage range.

Am I the only one who can't make any sense of this maths?

Let me break down that for ya a bit.

There are currently 72 released heroes. I won't be taking different versions of a single hero into account for the simplicity. If a card only interacts with a single specific hero, it means it can only be used in 100/72=1.38% situations that are available to you in terms of heroes you're running. Simply put it: you don't use said hero = you got yourself a dead card, congrats.

Just as something to compare, if a card interacts with a Warrior hero, then we got (100/72)*20=27.77% cases where that card can be used within current hero pool. Do you feel the difference?

So "Your argument doesn't make sense"="You are incapable of judgement"??

Overstate things much? I gotta say... it doesn't make sense.

However, on a positive note we have some agreement. I think it is clear that we not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion.