I was musing on deck building in LOTR compared to AGOT and the first obvious difference was that in AGOT you want to have locations in your deck which bring small positive effects to your board state, but are much more indestructible than characters. As it stands now, the encounter deck contains all the locations and only rarely do they have positive effects. So I wondered what would be the best way to implement locations in LOTR in the players’ decks? I basically saw two options:

Option one is that the players could add locations to the staging area (hopefully they won’t have positive threat) and then make the choice to travel to them reaping a benefit in the process of travel or exploration. In this case, once explored, the player card is discarded just as if an event had been played or an ally died. One could imagine a location played into the staging area which had a standing -2 to the threat of the staging area.

Option two is that the beneficial locations are played into the players’ board like an ally, and then provided a standing effect for the rest of the game. I never played MECCG, but I understand that it had havens that sort of worked like this?

Just random musings, but I’m sure there are better ideas out there.

There is another option. A card like ranger summons comes with out of play copies of location encounter cards which are then shuffled into the encounter deck when the card is played. I believe this is the best option. In fact, I am a bit surprised it hasn't happened yet. Flavor seems problematic, since it disrupts the sense of place, but you can make generic type locations like "hiding place" work.

Locations in a player area that give buffs are just unnecessary because we have attachments. You can even have attachments on player threat dials. I don't think locations would add anything new or unique in that way.

It also seems to me that player card side quests essentially achieve much of what you are looking for in locations already.

The one thing that I would like player added locations (as described above) to do is allow players to travel to more than one location as in some scenarios like Battle for Laketown. Having multiple active locations is probably the most neglected aspect of the game and it could make effects that put progress on the active location meaningful.

Introducing a new card type (player locations) will be hard, as no encounter deck has a way to remove/handle player locations, if they are not in the staging area. Therefore I would go with your option one.

You could let players directly play locations into the area (like traps) or Shuffle them into the Encounter deck and have them Pop up randomly. The first way is stronger, but ballance will be a huge Problem anyway...

What effect should/could a Player Location have? Negative threat doesn't seem a good idea (even if the Location is unique). Usually the encounterdeck wouldn't remove Locations for you and if you have a benefit from it you wouldn't either so it will stay there for ever. In other words ist 2 willpower the encounterdeck can't do anything against (exept it boosts the threat of all Locations, but that doesn't happen to often). Any Lasting effect will have the same Problem (for example: +1 to a stat or ressource boosting etc.). As this new Locations are very likely to not leave the game they would have to cost very much or have very litle of an effect, both not that great. So I agree a Player Location should give a benefi when explored.

So if a Player Location only gives benefits when explored i isn't to different from Player sidequests! Sidequests are more or less what your first Option proposed. Obviously side quests delay your game by a turn where Locations wouldn't nessecarly, so Locations would have a lower power Level, but in the end the difference doesn't seem great enough to justify their creation for me.

Last Note: If you create Player Locations you surely wouldn't want to leave out unqiue Locations like rivendell for example. In Terms of Story it seems odd that heroes might go from cair andros to rivendell and back in 2 turns^^ And yes I know that a Party of Eowyn, Elrond and Thorin questing through Gondor is as odd as my the rivendell-journey.

TL;DR: Playerquests are more or less what you suggest

Edit: Looks like DukeWellington shares many of my thoughts, but writes a little faster

Hate to be a hater, but I've always disliked how in this game we never actually see the most important (i.e. good) locations of the books like Rivendell, Minas Tirith, etc. MECCG, in my opinion had a much better grasp at representing locations than this game ever did and probably ever will, thanks to the basal structure of the game (that is, locations are encounter and thus "bad" cards)

A while back I created a sort of variant similar to your second idea. They were actually called Havens, and they started out in play and you could put allies there for free to get benefits (most are very outdated now). Here's a couple:

What are the green numbers on the cards?

That number is the maximum amount of allies that haven can hold at any one time. The idea is that you can put allies in the haven for free, and while they're there they're considered to be out of play except for the haven itself (so you can't block or attack with them, but I'm not sure whether you can use their abilities or not). During your planning phase, you can pay the cost of an ally in the haven to put it facedown for a round. While facedown, that ally is "in the wilderness", and at the beginning of your next planning phase it enters play again along with your heroes.

That's the basics of Havens, but as I said the mechanics are rather outdated and need tweaking.

I like the idea of player locations, it's an intriguing concept, and the Havens seems like a pretty good template as well to go about it. But I feel we need less new player card types/options and more time devoted to fleshing out some keywords and traits that haven't had much love, like Encounter keyword on player cards, Doomed cards, Sidequests, Valour, and even some more secrecy.

Why not both though?

But yeah, I agree. The Encounter keyword was so shamelessly botched it's not even funny. I always thought that if they ever make Tom Bombadil and Goldberry player cards, they should have the Encounter keyword and some song events to shuffle them in. Can't believe they didn't do that in the Eriador cycle.

Doomed is a similar case. A deluxe/cycle centered around Isengard with a storyline about the craft of ring-making, with the theme completely absent from the player cards and Doomed ending up ina bunch of random allies and events? Boo.

At least Secrecy is getting there. It took 3 cycles, but with Strider and whatnot it really looks like it can be an actual top tier archetype. Here's hoping.

I feel like player locations would be too similar to player side quests...

I agree with Duke and Calvadur.

If we were going to get player locations I also agree that it should be similar to ranger summons and we should be able to shuffle copies of a beneficial location into the encounter deck (0 or only 1 threat and does something beneficial either when explored or when it is the current location).

Perhaps something cool that this sort of player location card could do would be that when it appears from the encounter deck it replaces a location already in the staging area (but has surge or something to counter how beneficial this could be...). Alternatively you could look at say the top 5 cards of the encounter deck and put a non unique location in the victory display or remove it from the game. Either way I feel like you should get to replace a location..

Scout the Wilderness

Lore Event

2 Cost
Look at the top 5 cards of the encounter deck, choose a non-unique location and add it to the victory display.

Then take one of your set aside Tamed Wilds location cards and shuffle it into the encounter deck.

Tamed Wilds

1 Threat

4 Quest Points

While Tamed Wilds is the active location Treachery effects cannot damage characters.

or

Tamed WIlds

1 Threat

4 Quest Points

While Tamed Wilds is the active location whenever an enemy engages a player deal 1 damage to that enemy.

It represents that the Dunedain (or anyone really) have been sent through this particular area on a scouting mission and they have already set up say a small shelter with reserves or a perfect spot for an ambush on patrolling/marching enemies.

Thematically it makes sense and it doesn't really create a new type of location card (as it is still an encounter card and functions in the exact same way) either and keeps things simple by using the encounter keyword which as others have mentioned we have not seen again since ranger summons.

Secrecy is getting another big boost and 2 hero decks will almost always be secrecy decks so the new cards that just power 2 hero decks in general are more or less secrecy cards as well.

Couldn't agree more re the encounter keyword.. they just completely abandoned the concept and we haven't seen it since that one original card. I doubt it but I really hope we get at least 1 new card with the encounter keyword in this new cycle.

Would love to see some more support for Valour as well....

Hate to be a hater, but I've always disliked how in this game we never actually see the most important (i.e. good) locations of the books like Rivendell, Minas Tirith, etc. MECCG, in my opinion had a much better grasp at representing locations than this game ever did and probably ever will, thanks to the basal structure of the game (that is, locations are encounter and thus "bad" cards)

A while back I created a sort of variant similar to your second idea. They were actually called Havens, and they started out in play and you could put allies there for free to get benefits (most are very outdated now). Here's a couple:

Hm, something like this could work. The Location itself is useless, unless you use your allies to "activate" it. Some rules that should be applied I think:

1. Putting an ally at a Location is free (as you said), what leads to...

2. The cardtext (except traits) is concidered blank and allies at Locations can not quest, defend, attack or be targeted by any other playercard effect than that od the Location they are at (read: you can only use them to trigger the Location). Obviously the allies are in Play (so you can not have 2 Arwens; one in Rivendell and one in your Party)

3. You may pay the cost of an ally at a Locationand remove him from that location. If you do so consider, him being played from your Hand. Exhaust that ally. (I think you should have the Option to move an ally to your Party. To symbolize the journey it takes from a Player Location to your questparty he has to exhaust, so you have to consider if you want to use an ally you can only Play next turn now for your Location and then wait a turn for him or pass up on your Location for a next turn Play.

4. Any Encounter Card effect that Targets allies, also Targets allies at Locations. (I think this is important. This way the encounterdeck still can screw your Locations without the Need of Encounter Cards directly designed fot that matter! Example: If you exhaust allies at a Location and reveal necromancer's reach during staging they will take damage)

This way there would be many Things that make Player Locations unique (so they look less like sidequests), while not being immune to the Encounter deck. It is thematic, too! The Location gives you a benefit, if you leave allies their you could Need on your quest, so they can Train soldiers, produce Food they sent to you etc.

Some Things I am unsure about: Should Player Locations be in Play at the start of the game? How many Locations are you allowed to Control? May other Players put allies at your Location(s)? If you have to draw the Locations, how many copies should you be allowed to use?

I'm really glad you posted the idea!

I feel like player locations would be too similar to player side quests...

I agree with Duke and Calvadur.

If we were going to get player locations I also agree that it should be similar to ranger summons and we should be able to shuffle copies of a beneficial location into the encounter deck (0 or only 1 threat and does something beneficial either when explored or when it is the current location).

Perhaps something cool that this sort of player location card could do would be that when it appears from the encounter deck it replaces a location already in the staging area (but has surge or something to counter how beneficial this could be...). Alternatively you could look at say the top 5 cards of the encounter deck and put a non unique location in the victory display or remove it from the game. Either way I feel like you should get to replace a location..

Scout the Wilderness

Lore Event

2 Cost

Look at the top 5 cards of the encounter deck, choose a non-unique location and add it to the victory display.

Then take one of your set aside Tamed Wilds location cards and shuffle it into the encounter deck.

Tamed Wilds

1 Threat

4 Quest Points

While Tamed Wilds is the active location Treachery effects cannot damage characters.

or

Tamed WIlds

1 Threat

4 Quest Points

While Tamed Wilds is the active location whenever an enemy engages a player deal 1 damage to that enemy.

It represents that the Dunedain (or anyone really) have been sent through this particular area on a scouting mission and they have already set up say a small shelter with reserves or a perfect spot for an ambush on patrolling/marching enemies.

Thematically it makes sense and it doesn't really create a new type of location card (as it is still an encounter card and functions in the exact same way) either and keeps things simple by using the encounter keyword which as others have mentioned we have not seen again since ranger summons.

Yes the Encounter Keyword Needs more love! Shuffeling in "nice" Locations could be a way to bring it back to life.

I think it works perfectly with the havens Gizlivadi posted. While havens are These famous unqiue Locations (Lorien etc.), your way could use a little more "generic" Locations like: Save Cave, A Ranger camp or well-staffed watchtower (Locations that you can find during any quest)

I have to go back a Little and say, that I defenetly see potential for Player Locations and hope FFG will bring them in (hopefully even in the next cycle ), as much of my criticism for the idea is disproved by the ideas of Gizlivadi and PsychoRocka!

If I remember correctly we had a contest for your favorite quest a while ago and through the ettenmoors had quite a lot of fans. Doesn't it Show that many Players like the concept of benefical Locations you more or less decide when to use and when not?

Hate to be a hater, but I've always disliked how in this game we never actually see the most important (i.e. good) locations of the books like Rivendell, Minas Tirith, etc. MECCG, in my opinion had a much better grasp at representing locations than this game ever did and probably ever will, thanks to the basal structure of the game (that is, locations are encounter and thus "bad" cards)

A while back I created a sort of variant similar to your second idea. They were actually called Havens, and they started out in play and you could put allies there for free to get benefits (most are very outdated now). Here's a couple:

Hm, something like this could work. The Location itself is useless, unless you use your allies to "activate" it. Some rules that should be applied I think:

1. Putting an ally at a Location is free (as you said), what leads to...

2. The cardtext (except traits) is concidered blank and allies at Locations can not quest, defend, attack or be targeted by any other playercard effect than that od the Location they are at (read: you can only use them to trigger the Location). Obviously the allies are in Play (so you can not have 2 Arwens; one in Rivendell and one in your Party)

3. You may pay the cost of an ally at a Locationand remove him from that location. If you do so consider, him being played from your Hand. Exhaust that ally. (I think you should have the Option to move an ally to your Party. To symbolize the journey it takes from a Player Location to your questparty he has to exhaust, so you have to consider if you want to use an ally you can only Play next turn now for your Location and then wait a turn for him or pass up on your Location for a next turn Play.

4. Any Encounter Card effect that Targets allies, also Targets allies at Locations. (I think this is important. This way the encounterdeck still can screw your Locations without the Need of Encounter Cards directly designed fot that matter! Example: If you exhaust allies at a Location and reveal necromancer's reach during staging they will take damage)

This way there would be many Things that make Player Locations unique (so they look less like sidequests), while not being immune to the Encounter deck. It is thematic, too! The Location gives you a benefit, if you leave allies their you could Need on your quest, so they can Train soldiers, produce Food they sent to you etc.

Some Things I am unsure about: Should Player Locations be in Play at the start of the game? How many Locations are you allowed to Control? May other Players put allies at your Location(s)? If you have to draw the Locations, how many copies should you be allowed to use?

I'm really glad you posted the idea!

Thanks! As I said, the main point of these is to have actual cards representing the good places in Middle Earth, something really lacking in the game right now.

The idea is that you start with them in play and can only control 1 Haven. They represent your base of operations, basically. And since you start with them in play, I think allies played there should not be able to be affected by encounter cards. It's too much of a safety net. Imagine putting Beorn there first round and getting some damage dealing treachery. You could just put 5 damage on Beorn, saving all of your party. I think they should be immune to everything but the Haven itself.

Not sure if players should be able to put allies in your Haven. Since most of the effects require to exhaust 2 allies and each player can only play 1 ally in a Haven per turn, it could lead to abuse, but I'm not sure.

Also, read above, I DID put some rules for making allies in a Haven travel to your party. You have to pay their cost to do that, so I think it's rather balanced (so no Beorn turn 2 for free).

What if you had to reveal(or discard) an extra card to each player controled haven, and if its an enemy it would engage with the allies at the haven?

Thanks! As I said, the main point of these is to have actual cards representing the good places in Middle Earth, something really lacking in the game right now.

The idea is that you start with them in play and can only control 1 Haven. They represent your base of operations, basically. And since you start with them in play, I think allies played there should not be able to be affected by encounter cards. It's too much of a safety net. Imagine putting Beorn there first round and getting some damage dealing treachery. You could just put 5 damage on Beorn, saving all of your party. I think they should be immune to everything but the Haven itself.

Not sure if players should be able to put allies in your Haven. Since most of the effects require to exhaust 2 allies and each player can only play 1 ally in a Haven per turn, it could lead to abuse, but I'm not sure.

Also, read above, I DID put some rules for making allies in a Haven travel to your party. You have to pay their cost to do that, so I think it's rather balanced (so no Beorn turn 2 for free).

Edited by Gizlivadi, Today, 05:47 PM.

Oops I missed the travel part, sorry.

Starting with 1 and being limited to it seems fair and makes up for an interesting choice which one to use. Allowing only yourself to put allies at alocation is reasonable, too.

Immunity to encountercard effects or not is a tricky question. Getting Beorn first turn to soak up damage is an Overall boon for you, but it can backfire too! All treacheries that scale with the amount of allies you Control also get worse. I just have the Feeling, that you shouldn't be able to be 100% sure an effect won't be punished by the Encounter deck (attachment/allie hate, loosing ressources etc.). Te only way I see to give every quest the possibility to do something against your haven is to destroy/discard the allies you have there.Imagine you are forced to discard an ally, but except for boern at your haven you just played attachments and saved your other ressources, you would get nothing from Beorn!

Keep in mind, that you loose all effects expensive/high health allies may offer (at least what I think should be the case) if you put them at a haven and you can't "cheat" them into Play (sneak attack/elfstone etc.). I would say pros and cons are at the same Level.