Printed willpower would strip any point of using willpower instead of a fixed value.

As for Sam, I think they couldn't match the badassery of the original Sam hero or didn't even tried to. Do we have all spoilers for the player cards now, or there are yet some unrevealed?

The hobbit theme start finally to pay off. Pretty interesting to build around. Pretty disappointed that all they can imagine with this feminine character is to only have willpower and boost another one. So sexist. I'm used to more with harad, Amarthuil and more recently :/.

And on the same time a gandalf quote who recall that a noble man worth more than many common people. It is only missing a card who recall that all goblin are pure evil and must be eradicated and we definitely know that we aren't the good guys anymore.

7 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

The hobbit theme start finally to pay off. Pretty interesting to build around. Pretty disappointed that all they can imagine with this feminine character is to only have willpower and boost another one. So sexist. I'm used to more with harad, Amarthuil and more recently :/.

And on the same time a gandalf quote who recall that a noble man worth more than many common people. It is only missing a card who recall that all goblin are pure evil and must be eradicated and we definitely know that we aren't the good guys anymore.

Is this even unironic?

It is not ironic. Designing women (more than men) characters as support and non-fighter is sexist. Be obsessed by being noble is also against my humanism believe. Opposing race and describe some as evil is racist. All those are also on Tolkien original books, but LoTR designer are proved that they feel free to not follow all this and we get a good example as we can see on Harad cycle. Except for the noble thing, since even the only one noble who betray is is in fact not a noble.

If I count well there is only 10 cards spoiled for the moment. And there is 3 leadership for any others sphere so there is cards missing

Tom Cotton: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/41

Eomer: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/37

Elladan: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/36

Elorhir: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/38

Rosie: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/42

Raise the shire: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/44

Gutwhine: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/39

Captain: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/35

Orc disguise: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/43

Friends of friends: https://servimg.com/view/18124816/40

So what, you want to have a 3 attack Rosie Cotton? The developers respect Tolkien. They'll create and add new characters to the game that adapt his works to more modern times, which is great, but they will not change already established characters. Tolkien wrote Rosie as a secondary supporting character much like most female characters in LOTR. He also designed the orcs to be evil and irredeemable by nature. Likewise, he created royal characters that are superior by natural and divine law to lesser men, because that's what he legitimately believed in. Hence, a game that is based on such works will transmit some of Tolkien's original discourse. Deal with it.

It's like being a devout Catholic and complaining that a game based on Eastern cultures like L5R is too biased or too inspired by Eastern and Buddhist philosophy. It kinda comes with the territory.

48 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

I'm used to more with harad, Amarthuil and more recently :/.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Amarthiul is not a female.

5 minutes ago, GrandSpleen said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Amarthiul is not a female.

What's next, are you going to tell me Haldir isn't female either?

I think I'd rather have a Rosie Cotton with zero attack/defense than an imaginary female Hobbit warrior. Rosie's one of the very few female hobbits in the text, and having her as a combatant would certainly not fit her role in the book. If it were Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, then some attack would be justified. (I live in hope...)

While Eowyn was a shieldmaiden, in no other Middle Earth culture are females depicted as combatants, and even among the Rohirrim she felt it necessary to pose as male to accompany the Riders. FFG has provided us with a wealth of female warriors that do not exist in the source material including several whose primary role is combat. To pretend Rosie's effect is "all they can imagine" for a female character ignores their track record completely. And to pretend that warriors *should* be split evenly between male and females in a world of melee combat ignores both the source material and actual physical differences between the sexes.

And let's not kid ourselves, Rosie's action is going to be most useful for *combat*. Getting enough attack/defense out of those squishy little hobbits is a problem, and Rosie is going to be a big, big help. They just gave us the most useful hobbit ally we've ever seen and you respond by complaining that she doesn't directly crack heads?

35 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

It is not ironic. Designing women (more than men) characters as support and non-fighter is sexist. Be obsessed by being noble is also against my humanism believe. Opposing race and describe some as evil is racist. All those are also on Tolkien original books, but LoTR designer are proved that they feel free to not follow all this and we get a good example as we can see on Harad cycle. Except for the noble thing, since even the only one noble who betray is is in fact not a noble.

Yeah...is not like they designed Tactics Eowyn, a heroin with the highest attack boost of the entire card pool.

1 hour ago, Rouxxor said:

And on the same time a gandalf quote who recall that a noble man worth more than many common people. It is only missing a card who recall that all goblin are pure evil and must be eradicated and we definitely know that we aren't the good guys anymore.

The Goblins are evil in the source material and irredeemable. That's an inherent part of the mythos.

Is this the Gandalf quote you are thinking of?

"And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece."

The context is Gandalf speaking of Sauron's perception of their pitiful invasion of Mordor -- it has nothing to do with intrinsic worth as people. The word "noble" is not mentioned, and "mail-clad knights" are near the top, not bottom, of the social heirarchy. Further, Gandalf himself is certainly one of those names, and he at least really *is* worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights in battle.

I find this Gandalf quote more representative of his view towards the common people of Middle Earth:

"You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only. Yet there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I pity even his slaves."

56 minutes ago, Rouxxor said:

It is not ironic. Designing women (more than men) characters as support and non-fighter is sexist.

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Theodred-Core

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Glorfindel-Core

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Faramir-Core

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Denethor-FotS

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Na'asiyah-ASoCH

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Marksman-of-Lorien-TDRu

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Eowyn-TFotW

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/Idraen-TTT

I can look for more if you want to.

For all we may wish otherwise, Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings from the standpoint of a British man, and his works display some of the inherent bias that goes along with that standpoint.

We see this in the fact that most of the women characters in the books remain in the background, and are only ever seen through the eyes of the male characters, as is the case with Rosie who is portrayed mostly through Sam's thinking about her (and we never even hear about a Dwarf woman other than the brief mention of Dis and Gimli's random comment!). Fortunately, there are some strong female characters in Galadriel and Eowyn, and I think that the FFG designers have done a good job in building on that base with characters such as Rossiel, Na'asiyah, Idraen, and Lanwyn. Compared to one another, they actually represent a decent diversity of combat-oriented characters who don't all fit into the same trope for female warriors (e.g. "Amazon").

Likewise, Tolkien struggled to present a world rooted in a heroic mythos, in which generally the common people get squashed until some divine- or fate-appointed savior comes along to beat the big bad. Such mythologies also don't leave space for a lot of moral hand-wringing -- there are the heroes, and then there are the villains. The heroes win (violently), and the villains die. However, Tolkien did clearly learn some humanist lessons, likely as a result of his experience of WWII. Sam famously wonders, of course, about who the nameless Haradrim are that are slaughtered in the Ithilien ambush, and overhears some orc grunts gossiping and griping about their bosses in a way with which I think we can all sympathize to a certain extent. And Tolkien goes to great length in the appendices (and in the character of Denethor) to demonstrate that the Numenoreans are not so perfect or incorruptible as Aragorn might make them seem. The FFG designers have now created two whole cycles fleshing out and creatively exploring the implications of those counter-examples, and I think the world of Middle Earth is enriched accordingly. And the very fact that Sam is the hero of the story serves as a counterpoint to the whole fated heroic mythos. You don't get much more "common" -- nor heroic -- than Sam.

So The Lord of the Rings and the world of Middle Earth, like Tolkien the man, is complicated, confused, and not perfect, just like the world. I think there's plenty of space for critique, but also plenty of space for creative improvement, ways to play around with the source material to imagine new possibilities for characters and peoples that would seem to be denied by dominant tropes and stereotypes. FFG has, I think, done a remarkable job trying to walk the fine line between creatively doing greater justice to Middle Earth's varied peoples (and, by extension, to fans of the game!) while lovingly representing source material that is at times problematic. Rosie Cotton in the books is, for better or worse, a stereotypical domestic woman, notable mostly for her role in Sam's reminiscences and as a "reward" for him to return home for. As an individual character, there is nothing inherently wrong with this role, I believe. The problem is that this role has become a cage for many female characters, limiting the extent to which writers and game designers are able to imagine and create other sorts of roles and personalities for women. In other words, we see Rosie as problematic in the context of a widespread trope against women into which her character happens to fall. So I would argue that there's plenty of room and reason to critique the trope without necessarily critiquing the character of Rosie Cotton.

I thought the idea of the revealed cards having a xenophobic sexist elitist bent was amusing. Especially in today's political climate. In all seriousness, I think Tolkien was a little ahead of his time. There is Eowyn of course, but also Galadriel represents a powerful leadership figure. I think the orcs are humanized when you over hear them talking about the war effort and how they are gonna pay for their bosses mistakes. And as for classism in the end the nobles are just a diversion. The simplest folk, hobbits, are the real heroes. That's the main theme of the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. And the the lowest class hobbit of them all is the most heroic. Sams humility is what saves him from the ring at the border of Lord of. Keep in mind the story was written in the 40s and 50s and I think its progressiveness is kind of advanced.

2 hours ago, Gizlivadi said:

So what, you want to have a 3 attack Rosie Cotton? The developers respect Tolkien. They'll create and add new characters to the game that adapt his works to more modern times, which is great, but they will not change already established characters. Tolkien wrote Rosie as a secondary supporting character much like most female characters in LOTR. He also designed the orcs to be evil and irredeemable by nature. Likewise, he created royal characters that are superior by natural and divine law to lesser men, because that's what he legitimately believed in. Hence, a game that is based on such works will transmit some of Tolkien's original discourse. Deal with it.

It's like being a devout Catholic and complaining that a game based on Eastern cultures like L5R is too biased or too inspired by Eastern and Buddhist philosophy. It kinda comes with the territory.

They already choose to not apply Tolkien spirit for some of those things, deal with it. Therefore as one of the FFG customer it could be good to me to complain about some of this problem so they know it could make us loose some sells and think about doing it the next time.

2 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Amarthiul is not a female.

Now I remember that we never got to know what gender or sex Amarthuil is. So when we do our relook of heroes we play we do a male version and a female version of it. I presume you are right when you say Amarthuil is not female but since I got this version it will always stay also female to me ^^.

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

I think I'd rather have a Rosie Cotton with zero attack/defense than an imaginary female Hobbit warrior. Rosie's one of the very few female hobbits in the text, and having her as a combatant would certainly not fit her role in the book. If it were Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, then some attack would be justified. (I live in hope...)

While Eowyn was a shieldmaiden, in no other Middle Earth culture are females depicted as combatants, and even among the Rohirrim she felt it necessary to pose as male to accompany the Riders. FFG has provided us with a wealth of female warriors that do not exist in the source material including several whose primary role is combat. To pretend Rosie's effect is "all they can imagine" for a female character ignores their track record completely. And to pretend that warriors *should* be split evenly between male and females in a world of melee combat ignores both the source material and actual physical differences between the sexes.

And let's not kid ourselves, Rosie's action is going to be most useful for *combat*. Getting enough attack/defense out of those squishy little hobbits is a problem, and Rosie is going to be a big, big help. They just gave us the most useful hobbit ally we've ever seen and you respond by complaining that she doesn't directly crack heads?

I agree about the superiority of creating a new fighting hobbit than make a combatant with Rosie. So I rather have a new character. I would not agree on editing view that remind, and so support, an oppressive view of world.

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

The Goblins are evil in the source material and irredeemable. That's an inherent part of the mythos.

Is this the Gandalf quote you are thinking of?

"And there are names among us that are worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece."

The context is Gandalf speaking of Sauron's perception of their pitiful invasion of Mordor -- it has nothing to do with intrinsic worth as people. The word "noble" is not mentioned, and "mail-clad knights" are near the top, not bottom, of the social heirarchy. Further, Gandalf himself is certainly one of those names, and he at least really *is* worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights in battle.

I find this Gandalf quote more representative of his view towards the common people of Middle Earth:

"You think, as is your wont, my lord, of Gondor only. Yet there are other men and other lives, and time still to be. And for me, I pity even his slaves."

Yep this is an inherent part of the mythos. So I don't expect from the developers to editing some nice goblin that join us. But recall than the original mythos (so not Tolkien, mostly because we don't care about what Tolkien is, the important part is what he express by his books) is xenophobic for that is important to me.

Thanks for you explanation. My english is not good enough so it lead sometime to mistake. Gandalf is one of the most humanist figure on middle-earth, but he stills carry the legacy of this world: power is given by blood, the major part of valorous people are among the noble one. He never criticize monarchy and by some way help to maintain some.

1 hour ago, 987654321 said:

I can look for more if you want to.

That is exactly what I'm saying: there is a lot of work made since the beginning of the game (when we have a lot more of tropes). But this one in particular bring us back to the Arwen ally who is only here to support someone. And it is not giving him money or equipment, but being a reward. So yes I say this one is sexist.

51 minutes ago, Kjeld said:

For all we may wish otherwise, Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings from the standpoint of a British man, and his works display some of the inherent bias that goes along with that standpoint.

We see this in the fact that most of the women characters in the books remain in the background, and are only ever seen through the eyes of the male characters, as is the case with Rosie who is portrayed mostly through Sam's thinking about her (and we never even hear about a Dwarf woman other than the brief mention of Dis and Gimli's random comment!). Fortunately, there are some strong female characters in Galadriel and Eowyn, and I think that the FFG designers have done a good job in building on that base with characters such as Rossiel, Na'asiyah, Idraen, and Lanwyn. Compared to one another, they actually represent a decent diversity of combat-oriented characters who don't all fit into the same trope for female warriors (e.g. "Amazon").

Likewise, Tolkien struggled to present a world rooted in a heroic mythos, in which generally the common people get squashed until some divine- or fate-appointed savior comes along to beat the big bad. Such mythologies also don't leave space for a lot of moral hand-wringing -- there are the heroes, and then there are the villains. The heroes win (violently), and the villains die. However, Tolkien did clearly learn some humanist lessons, likely as a result of his experience of WWII. Sam famously wonders, of course, about who the nameless Haradrim are that are slaughtered in the Ithilien ambush, and overhears some orc grunts gossiping and griping about their bosses in a way with which I think we can all sympathize to a certain extent. And Tolkien goes to great length in the appendices (and in the character of Denethor) to demonstrate that the Numenoreans are not so perfect or incorruptible as Aragorn might make them seem. The FFG designers have now created two whole cycles fleshing out and creatively exploring the implications of those counter-examples, and I think the world of Middle Earth is enriched accordingly. And the very fact that Sam is the hero of the story serves as a counterpoint to the whole fated heroic mythos. You don't get much more "common" -- nor heroic -- than Sam.

So The Lord of the Rings and the world of Middle Earth, like Tolkien the man, is complicated, confused, and not perfect, just like the world. I think there's plenty of space for critique, but also plenty of space for creative improvement, ways to play around with the source material to imagine new possibilities for characters and peoples that would seem to be denied by dominant tropes and stereotypes. FFG has, I think, done a remarkable job trying to walk the fine line between creatively doing greater justice to Middle Earth's varied peoples (and, by extension, to fans of the game!) while lovingly representing source material that is at times problematic. Rosie Cotton in the books is, for better or worse, a stereotypical domestic woman, notable mostly for her role in Sam's reminiscences and as a "reward" for him to return home for. As an individual character, there is nothing inherently wrong with this role, I believe. The problem is that this role has become a cage for many female characters, limiting the extent to which writers and game designers are able to imagine and create other sorts of roles and personalities for women. In other words, we see Rosie as problematic in the context of a widespread trope against women into which her character happens to fall. So I would argue that there's plenty of room and reason to critique the trope without necessarily critiquing the character of Rosie Cotton.

You are right about all that. It is good to see that many female trope are avoided recently. It give us to interesting character and don't push stereotype, who lead to a lot of -ism (sexism, racism... ).

Hobbit are still an exception about the noble view of LoTR. We clearly see noble people acting bravely all book long. There is a lot of common people, who dies without being noticed for anything. The best fighters, the wiser, the leader, those who survive battle are always noble. Some noble fails but the one who take all the glory are also noble so who cares? Even the gods give power to some livings so they are superior. Everything act for a view of a majority who must only follow the move of a few. It is not even close to a humanist view of the world.

You were right when you say that trope are in fact what I criticize. It is only by extension that I criticize the character created following those trope. To me it is both an offensive and a pointless character

40 minutes ago, JusticeLizard said:

I thought the idea of the revealed cards having a xenophobic sexist elitist bent was amusing. Especially in today's political climate. In all seriousness, I think Tolkien was a little ahead of his time. There is Eowyn of course, but also Galadriel represents a powerful leadership figure. I think the orcs are humanized when you over hear them talking about the war effort and how they are gonna pay for their bosses mistakes. And as for classism in the end the nobles are just a diversion. The simplest folk, hobbits, are the real heroes. That's the main theme of the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. And the the lowest class hobbit of them all is the most heroic. Sams humility is what saves him from the ring at the border of Lord of. Keep in mind the story was written in the 40s and 50s and I think its progressiveness is kind of advanced.

It is probably true that Tolkien was a little ahead of his time. But I'm not here to judge about Tolkien. I have no personal grief against him. Just told to actual people what bother me, in his writing and even more in this game. When we use what he have done we should be free to choose what please us and what we don't need. There were never forced to print this Rosie, they choose do it and continue to spread sexism by this way. It is up to you to see if you are ok with that or not. They don't print cards for Tolkien, they print them for us, following OUR need.

No, Amarthiul's gender is not ambiguous. He is referred to as "he" in all the story text. I understand the art is ambiguous though. I played several times with a couple, and the woman in the couple always played with Amarthiul, believing that he was a "she." I never said otherwise, because why ruin it for her? Here I mention it because you were trying to use him as an example of strong female examples in the game, so it deserved pointing out.

Not only sexist, classist and xenophobic, it clearly discriminates culture and religion! All these cards showing warriors in plate armour is clearly leaning towards the crusades and hence towards Christinanism. The fact that we have so little Harad cards (and mostly evil) is telling us Islam is unimportant and evil.

Although I take Rouxxor's point, I also don't think that Rosie Cotton should have been designed as a Warrior type figure - it would have been wholly unrealistic and unthematic to do so bearing in mind her character in LoTR.

It must be stated that her action is really useful!

There are some great cards in this box. Up till now, I've never found pure hobbit decks that powerful. With these new ones that might just have changed.

Dudes, he's either somewhat deranged or simply trolling, in either way you should not dedicate him so much attention, unless the main topic of course already exhausted itself.

I never expected Tom Cotton. I was so sure we would have a Gwaihir or Meneldor Hero. Or at least an eagle ally in player cards.I hope we should have at least a couple of Eagles allies objectives... If not, it would be ununderstandable.

I like Tom Cotton. Merry Red, Sam Leadership and Tom Cotton will be a very nice combat deck.

Ring Mail

With 2 ring mails (you can put 2 on him, it's not thematic at all but it is legit nevertheless) he is a pretty nice defender ^^

Paired with a Spirit / Lore questing support deck, it can be nice to play. And yes, Rosie is amazing. A very nice designed card, and pretty useful.

Do people use Ring Mail these days? It's like straight up worse than, say, Gondorian Shield, yet costs 1 more.

53 minutes ago, Valiko33 said:

I like Tom Cotton. Merry Red, Sam Leadership and Tom Cotton will be a very nice combat deck.

Ring Mail

With 2 ring mails (you can put 2 on him, it's not thematic at all but it is legit nevertheless) he is a pretty nice defender ^^

Hobbit Cloak would be better under most circumstances - you really should be staying below engagement costs to get best use out of Sam anyway.

30 minutes ago, John Constantine said:

Do people use Ring Mail these days? It's like straight up worse than, say, Gondorian Shield, yet costs 1 more.

Gondorian Shiel is only better if played on a Gondor hero, otherwise Ring Mail is better. It's not a card that I use a lot, but 2 is still pretty cheap so it certainly can be useful. I use it more with Dwarves than Hobbits though.

Well, you'll obviously won't play Gondorian Shield unless you have a proper target. But then again, Ring Mail requires specificly Dwarf or Hobbit, while Gondorian Shield can be put on anyone to give +1 def for a 1 less cost, so outside of gondorian synergy, they are arguably of the same powerlevel given their difference in cost.

1 hour ago, John Constantine said:

Well, you'll obviously won't play Gondorian Shield unless you have a proper target. But then again, Ring Mail requires specificly Dwarf or Hobbit, while Gondorian Shield can be put on anyone to give +1 def for a 1 less cost, so outside of gondorian synergy, they are arguably of the same powerlevel given their difference in cost.

If you wish to argue that Gondorian Shield is a more useful card overall, you'd be correct. It's cheaper, and on a Gondor target the +2 defense is more useful than +1 hp and +1 defense. Plus it can be put on any hero.

If you wish to argue that Gondorian Shield is strictly better, you're wrong. On a Hobbit or Dwarf (the only two targets for ring mail) +1 defense and +1 hp is more useful than +1 defense (absent Gondor affiliation). You can put two Ring Mail on a hero -- you can't put two Gondorian Shields on a hero. Finally, Ring Mail can go on a *character*, while Gondorian Shield is restricted to heroes. All these are advantages for Ring Mail -- they aren't big enough advantages to make Ring Mail more widely used, but there are decks where Ring Mail is more useful and decks where both are present. (My Dori fellowships often have both.)

Sam with Rossie defensive boost, plus Fast Hitches and Shadow cancelation (via Staff) will seriously become the best defender in the game. Add Bill the Pony and some more attachments and he's gonna be a monster