Merry-Theoden mono-tactics!

For some reason, this card looks like a custom made one to me. perhaps the square corners.

Is this from the upcoming saga set?

The layout of the text looks wrong to me, like a custom card.

For some reason, this card looks like a custom made one to me. perhaps the square corners.

Is this from the upcoming saga set?

The layout of the text looks wrong to me, like a custom card.

Matt Newman on the COTR Discord channel: "FYI the Strider card shown is the correct card, it's just a low-res screencap of my PDF version of the card, so that's why it looks a little wonky. Rest assured that is the real card."

For some reason, this card looks like a custom made one to me. perhaps the square corners.

Is this from the upcoming saga set?

No, it's apparently in The Drowned Ruins (the 4th pack). Mr. Newman also let on that there will be at least one other card this cycle supporting this kind of archetype; I think it was the preview article for Flight of the Storm-chaser that explicitly mentioned this, so probably there...?

If it is from 4th pack of Dream chaser cycle, the symbol on bottom isn't equal to those shown on previewed cards on articles....

I like the motion. It is like 'if you are weak then you get more power' and 'when you are strong, then no get that power' (refering the +2wp when no more than 5 characters)

Glorfindel/Haldir!

Wouldn't Strider be quite good for dain? I know dwarves work best with loads of them but you still qualify for the 5 or more dwarves effect while still keeping to strider.

An interesting idea for sure. Though with any global boosting effect you want to get maximum value by fielding as many allies as possible. So restricting yourself to 5 characters wouldn't be playing to Dains strength. That said, any of those heroes, such as Thorin, that key off having 5 dwarves could be viable. The main issue I forsee here is that a lot of dwarf cards are designed specifically with a large ally count in mind. Cards like Erebor battle master and legacy of Durin.

I really like how this card supports 2 heroes but not necessarily secrecy. So you could still have a power couple team, Elrond and Gandalf for arguments sake, and still gain the benefits. I hope there are plenty more cards like this to come.

Merry-Theoden mono-tactics!

Me likey! Even if you have three heroes, that +2 Willpower would be useful early game, especially for solo, mono tactics. hmm... *strokes chin inquisitively*

Cool card for a couple of specific scenarios as well. Escape from Dol Guldur, Escape from Mount Gram, The Uruk-hai. Also a 'counter' card for the Lost and Alone treachery in Foundations of Stone.

How about shenanigans? This card on the table will transform Desperate Alliance into a card which lets you quest a hero without exhausting and give that hero +2 willpower (if under 5 characters). Without even sacrificing a hero action.

Glorfindel/Haldir!

An intriguing line up. You just need access to Tactics for the weapons, right? Or are you going to boost the attack only via Fair and Perilous?

And yeah, I think we shall get three or four more cards to support the strategy. I believe it was mentioned in more than one preview already.

Another new trend is expensive allies, perhaps some will get a discount if you have fewer characters?

The lack of appropriate allies had been the problem of the early secrecy decks -- the Ring-maker cycle made a few good ones (two cycles later).

One more thought. I feel the doom for this strategy might be the quests that have enemies suddenly engage you and/or attack you from the staging area. Of course Tactics Boromir can handle this well, though...

Cool card for a couple of specific scenarios as well. Escape from Dol Guldur, Escape from Mount Gram, The Uruk-hai. Also a 'counter' card for the Lost and Alone treachery in Foundations of Stone.

How about shenanigans? This card on the table will transform Desperate Alliance into a card which lets you quest a hero without exhausting and give that hero +2 willpower (if under 5 characters). Without even sacrificing a hero action.

Is the hero imprisoned in Escape from Dol Guldur considered "uncontrolled" though?

Seems bizarre to attach the Strider title to such a general use card, rather than something specific to Aragorn.

Cool card mechanically, but not a fan of the feminine pose of the art, or how it fits with the lore.

Seems bizarre to attach the Strider title to such a general use card, rather than something specific to Aragorn. Cool card mechanically, but not a fan of the feminine pose of the art, or how it fits with the lore.

The "not-Aragorn only" decision was addressed by Matt in the podcast, saying that he wanted to expand the deckbuilding possibilities and thus Strider is not restricted to Aragorn.

Or use it in any three hero deck that uses Beorn. Defend and attack with him until he is destroyed, while you setup the rest of your board, then reap the benefits of a two hero deck. Bring him back at the very end before scoring.

Seems bizarre to attach the Strider title to such a general use card, rather than something specific to Aragorn. Cool card mechanically, but not a fan of the feminine pose of the art, or how it fits with the lore.

The "not-Aragorn only" decision was addressed by Matt in the podcast, saying that he wanted to expand the deckbuilding possibilities and thus Strider is not restricted to Aragorn.

Then why call it 'Strider'? Mechanically I've got no complaints, it's a cool card. Shame to waste the name on it.

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.

Cards that interact with specific names are bane of this game and should be eradicated with extreme prejudice.

Cards that interact with specific names are bane of this game and should be eradicated with extreme prejudice.

I like attachments that are better on certain heroes due to thematic reasons - but I'd agree that attachments that only interact with specific names are definitely limiting. Though I am honestly really fond of the rings of power and Gandalf's equipment. As long as it doesn't happen very often, I think it is fine.

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.

Cards that interact with specific names are bane of this game and should be eradicated with extreme prejudice.

I like attachments that are better on certain heroes due to thematic reasons - but I'd agree that attachments that only interact with specific names are definitely limiting. Though I am honestly really fond of the rings of power and Gandalf's equipment. As long as it doesn't happen very often, I think it is fine.

Gameplay should trump theme when they clash. Having a card that is only good (or only interacts) with a single name from the whole card pool is a not a good thing to have around for more reasons than one.

The true art is to create a card that is both thematic and versatile without being tied to a specific name. Here is what I find a good card concept:

It has a name restriction, but it also interacts with a whole faciton trait outside of that name.

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.

The thing you described would be a disaster. Why create a weak hero and an attachment that attaches to that speific hero to make him viable if you can just create a freaking viable on it's own hero and then devote that now free card slot to something that can be used not just with one hero from the entire game, but with many other things in various other decks?

Well John, this may shock you, but I don't agree with your taste in game design. I actually like the idea of making a weaker hero that is made strong by specific items. I think it sounds cool. I continue to hold that opinion despite your condescending mockery. I guess you'll just have to live with it and move on.

Anyway, as I was saying in the example I gave with Galadriel, I do think it is dumb to handicap a hero and then use an item to make the hero normal. What I am talking about is making a hero slightly below average and then making the hero stronger with items. Another hero--one without specific items--can be viable right out of the gate, but would have a lower power cieling. The first is better potentially, but you have to see the right cards. The second is more consistent, but has less total potential. The ideal is to have both types available so that people with different tastes can enjoy a hero and deck that fits their preference.