Just started to play the game, and I love it. Only thing that bothers me is the lack of female Hero's. Its 3 out of 22 Hero cards. If the world would be divided in these numbers we would be in decline for a world population..... Or atleast the Female's don't need to worry about a lack of attention.....

Even in the books of Tolkien these numbers are prity bad, there are loads of references to female hero's or mentioned (especially the elves and the horse tribes).

How you guys think about it?

Laiyna

tolkien's work is male heavy-just the way it is.....it isnt sexist, or anything like that, it just is. i certainly wouldnt say that tolkein has many references to female heros/characters, the silmarillion being the exception

i mean dont think i havnt thought about it, but FFG do have to keep to tolkiens work, which means they cant create too much of their own work

plus remember alot of the cards are soldiers- in middle earth women didnt go to war, with a few specific exeptions.....i dont know what else to say without starting to sound offensive, which im not intending to be....

prepare for it to not get any better- weve already seen the two main female from the trilogy - eowyn are arwen, and there really isnt many more....i think arwen will be at least an ally at some point, given the text of redhorn rule sheet

PS- also remember when tolkien wrote.....it was many decades ago.....the worlds changed....its the same (and dare i say this???) about saying there isnt many (insert colour of skin here) characters.....it was a different century (and millenia!!)

over the years ive seen many forum threads discussing the lack of variant in race/sex in tolkiens work, and i dont agree with any of them (not that im saying your saying any of this...its just a related point)

WELCOME TO THE GAME BY THE WAY

rich

I think a lot of this is due to the time the original stories were written. While he is not sexist or racist, he is a product of him time and the entire time was sexist and racist. He dose have some meaty roles for girls. Ewoyn and Galadriel.. but that is pretty much it. Arwen doesn't count

As for the game in 2012.. well there is no excuse for not having female characters and heroes it is something my wife complains about every time we make a new deck. Making up Elenore had no ill effects... so make up some more.

I also think it might have something to do with the fact that Dwarfs are in a way androgynous construct. They are nearly entirely perceived as shortish men with beards. So much so that Terry Pratchett makes an entire run of jokes by having dwarf girls have full beards and look exactly like men. So when people see a fantasy female dwarf there just isn't the same resonance as we get from art form a male dwarf, because there is a lack of historical context of that image we can draw from. I'm not saying female dwarf images do not work or that we shouldn't see them.. I am just saying that in the vast majority of fantasy they are nvr even mentioned let alone have a collective image that people form different parts of the world will instantly recognise as a dwarf.

Still, I agree.. more chicks please.

As boored just said, they can create them. They did it with Beravor and Eleanor. Why not do it with other heroes?

As for characters in the generic sense, there are still a few female characters we may see further down the line: Galadriel, the lady of Tom Bombadil, the old lady that recognizes Aragorn as the king because he has the hands of a healer (sorry, I'm not too good remembering the names). I'm sure they can make up a number of Dale female characters. There's also Rosie Cotton and a few hobbit females referred to explicitely in the books. Maybe even an Entwife at some point? They could also use female art to represent non-gender specific allies

the main point here i think is that FFG have plenty of work taking characters from tolkiens creations- and if they forsook them just to be politically correct then i dont think that a good thing at all....i dont think they PURPOSELY stay away from females- its just theres so many offical characters to do- and they should come first - NO MATTER WHAT SEX (there see....im not being sexist)...and as ive said the official characters are mostly all male.....just the way it is

sorry to be controversial....but theres a hundred and more characters (as stated several female!!) that are in middle earth that FFG havnt touched on, why forget about them?

All in good time............

though.....given that the majority of FFG's audience are male (thats correct right??) im surprised (and pleased) that they havnt cashed in on that and made lots of nice looking female characters that have nothing to do with the game

I agree with richsabre. Let's have real characters before adding any more fake ones. You can already play a deck with all female heroes if you want.

As to the era in which Tolkien wrote, people had different levels of respect and honor for women then they do now. Women were seen as the better nurturers, and thus the idea of them participating in wars made their stomachs turn.

Tolkien's friend, C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia series, wrote "Wars are ugly when women fight."

I don't know if he means they are ugly because the idea of a violent woman was ugly to him, or if he meant that seeing violence done to a woman was ugly to him. It may have been both. But even Lewis knew the value of arming the women of his stories with bows and arrows and daggers for self defense.

indeed - good points byron- and remember how horrifyed everyone was when derhelm/eowyn was revealed to be in the pelennor? it would be rather un-tolkienist to change that fact

the key role of women in the trilogy at least is one of protecting the children, healers, ruling in the stead of men who have gone to war, and (after the last march on mordor) the utter last defence of middle earth....yes theres galadriel, but she is sort of one of the most powerful beings in middle earth, wilder of a ring of power, so is an expeption to this rule

ive noticed that two of the female characters are dunedain, and with their nature that is probably the safest bet that they can make, however there are no women in the grey company, they are all men.......so yeah....take that to be whatever you want it to be

the flip side is now of course theres nothing to stop female characters having other roles but soldiers- plenty of other things out there, i mean these are quests not wars....

yes things are different in this age, but so are a lot of things- this game's greatness is in its level of accuracy, which so far has been pretty good

anyways, my main points remains about the sheer amount of official characters there are to get through

ps....im looking forward to goldberry...she'll be an interesting character if we see her.....the entwives however were never found....still may not stop ffg..

pps....i have a bad feeling about this thread......

booored said:

Interesting. My wife really dislikes playing with any made-up characters, so whenever possible avoids using Eleanor or Beravor.

Given some of the comments above, about other potential characters, I think we need to be careful about drawing on tenuous amount of information to "find" existing characters that could be used. The woman who talks about the hands of the king being healing - fair enough for a low-cost ally, but a bit poor for a hero.

Galadriel as a hero or Goldberry as a powerful ally, would definitely be good at some point tho (Tom Bombadil or Goldberry as heroes would involve them wandering too far from home.)

the woman (IORETH) who is about when aragorn is healing is a bit of a daft creation of tolkien in my opinion (i found her to be rather funny in her ways and especially gandalfs words about her), and the way i read it, meant to be a bit of a nuisance, not any help, so i agree no hero material there (well i guess in her defense she is a healer, and gives good advice---ok so an ally)

goldberry as you state along with tom shouldnt leave their bounds, maybe an objective card?

weve always got lobellia sackville-baggins- should be fun to see how they put her in (again not hero material)

-im sorry. im really trying to be of more help to the OP. but you cant get what isnt there

richsabre said:

Middle-Earth CCG had Ioreth as a character you could have in your party, though she usually just hung around Rivendell with Halbarad. ICE also added their own characters, there were at least two female elves for the hero player, few more Agents for Sauron. Goldberry and Lobelia were both allies, with Lobelia also having an Agent (hazard) version.

booored said:

Warhammer: Invasion gives us their dwarf queen, so why can't we have something similar here..?

spalanzani said:

the warhammer world can make up whatever they like...they have much more creative freedom...ffg have to stick to certain bounds that have been set by a creation that has already happened

Morbid666 said:

that is what i was trying not to say as i can really see this thread kicking off troll stlye soon- depsite this i agree with your point...what you say is true

---things you should not discuss on forums - sex religion politics--- (yes im as guilty as any here)

if not for the sake of the game, but for the sake of middle earth...

i refer you back to my original point.....tolkiens creations are what they are...and FFG have enough to go on

The 3 female hero's in this game are often used in many decks and I would argue that Eowyn is the best, well-rounded hero in the game against any quest deck. They may not be getting much love from FFG, but LOTR is rich in powerful and epic female characters. Evetually we will see Arwyn, Galadriel and maybe even Rosey Cotton. Although the Lady of the Wood may not be a playable hero, but probably an ally, similar to Gandalf with powerful effects for a round. But like I said, Eowyn rocks, she gets a lot of attention from me, I keep her exhausted as often as I can to score some progress.

Morbid666 said:

This has nothing to do with political correctness. I just like women and they look better than men. I enjoy looking at them and want to see more of them.. that simple.

Arathorn299 said:

I couldn't disagree more.. she is one of the worst heroes in the game... ... .

booored said:

well at least your honest......

Sweet. Theres more people on this forum that couldn't disagree with you more. If you experimented with her in a few decks, against multiple encounter decks and quests, you would probably see the value of the card. If you need any tips or deck constructs with her, let me know.

trust me - booored will have experimented with her in decks, as we all have who've been here since core-infact me and booored had this discussion months ago which i started regarding her usefulness...i was back then experiementing with other combos and was beginning to break out of my eowyn phase

she isnt that great when it comes down to it, her 1 good point (and yes i used to think she was the sh*t too) is her 4 willpower, but there are far better ways now to quest, perhaps not until you have a few quests packs under you, but still more reliable ways

i used to use her in EVERY **** deck i made, and only now ive stopped do i win more

she is sort of the easy way to make a questing deck without using any combos- and yes combos can be used on her to effect, but it just is missing that juice that really makes a good deck

naaa, i just think a lot of you guys have a grudge against women because they have rejected you throghout your lives lol, j/k Eowyn ftw, until I say so.

ok im not here to push my thoughts....though wait until booored sees this (cue Jaws theme.....du dum.....du dum du dum...)

heard that, kinda like waiting for a turd to drop into the toilet.

Arathorn299 said:

Man, out of context, that's sure some...

oh snap, lol...good call sir.

Arathorn299 said:

thats an aweful lot of confindence there from a relative newcomer- not judging you, just pointing out no matter how much you may dislike booored do not be too swift to dismiss his advice on things that have been around for a year

spalanzani said: