http://www.magali-villeneuve.blogspot.co.uk/ EDIT- aparently from the long dark

as an offtopic point its interesting to note the way artisits depict gandalf- same hat, face etc…the hat is actually based all from john howe (i believe) and that the actual original description of gandalf- the hat had a much smaller rim…funny how most people picture him that way now….. im pleased that the general depection is used as thats how i pictured him (and this was before an films came out)

You mean the artwork for Word of Command?

Titan said:

ohh…..i havnt seen an spoilers for that…so is it?

The one in the snow is the Word of Command, I believe. I have not got the Long Dark but I have seen it somewhere. The other Gandalf art is the Tactics card from the Over Hill and Under Hill preview… not sure exactly what it does but it may draw cards.

well…that baby's going in my deck…..she never fails to impress me

Whilst I was typing, you made two posts…haha.

Interesting point about the hats.

To side-track the thread still further, I find it interesting how some artists like MV or BZ get to do tons of pics and others only one or two, in a way I understand this but it can cause some inconsistencies, the four trolls in the Carrock are quite inconsistent for example, the two look very similar, the other two completely different (even from each other).

richsabre said:

richsabre said:

If it's the one with him leaning over, yes. It's already out in The Long Dark. Lore event, 1 cost. Exhaust an Istari character to search your deck for 1 card and add it to your hand. Shuffle your deck.

The other one with him holding a sword, as was mentioned, is a tactics event from The Hobbit expansion.

yes ive always thought about the variantion- i actually love what theure doing….admitedly there have been a few 'misses' but there are far more hits than misses

as for the inconsistencies, i guess the forum may be split on that one- it doesnt actually bother me (which is strange given my stubborn tolkien pureist side)

its also interesting to note quite a few strong similarities between new line's film and the art…not alot, but enough to slightly annoy me……still seeing as john howe was a conept artist for the film i guess im being a bit of a hypocrit here…in any case i prefer ted naismiths to howe's or lee's

Titan said:

i actually am really looking forward to this card- has anyone got any success out of it….?

Don't know that it will see much use right away. Radagast isn't in a lot of decks and Gandalf is a bit too valuable when played to be exhausted for this. Maybe down the line.

true….though i guess we've only got (at the very best) 3 more istari to go….depending on how they deal with saruman and whether they are allowed to go for 'blue' or not

Titan said:

True, but still, there have been instance when I Sneaked Gandalf in because I needed to kill an enemy to survive and afterwards I had nothing to do with him, this way he could use the card to pull another Sneak Attack for instance just to be played again. But that is surely situational.

We discussed Radagast and Word of Command, Lore just doesn't go well with Creatures at the moment, however I believe one day we are getting Ents and they should be Lore.

ps: I really enjoy Nasmith's art, but I also began to dig Lee (after some time getting used to all that hue and unusual perspective)

yes thats what i was thinking of …. i was also thinking of putting it in just for the artwork (which i often do)

i agree…..ents should be lore….in fact i would have not put eagles as tactics but as lore too….

i mean firsly - they rarely fight as we know from their leaving-it-to-the-last-minute-to-show-up habit, they are one of the oldest and wisest creatures, descentdants of the servant of Manwe….so i would have put them as lore….but perhaps they did tactics to free lore up for another race such as ents

richsabre said:

Didn't the eagles fight the flying snake things at the wall in the end of the war of the ring.. like massive sky battles and stuff?

yes, there is only a limited amount of time the eagles fought major battles (in the third age at least) - at the battle of five armies at the end of the hobbit, and at the end of the war of the ring at the battle of the morannon

both times they just come in the nick of time, they arent around for most of the war of the ring, and are known for their proud stubborness ie. they dont like to be asked to do anything for people (this is one of the reasons why that age old question tolkien fans get asked is wrong….the council of elrond couldnt just have asked the eagles for a ride to mount doom to drop the ring in…1. the chamber was in a different area so it wasnt as simple as just dropping it down there and 2.as i say eagles are peoples mounts….unless you're with gandalf of course)

so i guess my point is that out of the creatures of middle earth they do not fight all that often, and were especially difficult to ask for aid

i suppose their power could justify their tactics position…but the same could be said of ent once they get going…i wouldnt like to be on the end of an ents foot in a mood

….but i suppose someones got to be tactics…and it shouldnt really be ents, and it definatly shouldnt be any type of horse etc…so your left with eagles as the best choice

swoop in, kick but, or defend and then swoop away… sounds like how teh cards work… .. .

ahh true…never really thought of it that way before…in that case they are indeed quite thematic