Very excited about this preview. I was a little disappointed about Thorin's art too, although I do like the Gandalf. I'm still a new player (Core + 4 SoM), so I won't get to OHaUH for a little while, but I'm looking forward to catching up. I hope that IF FFG continues to release "saga" expansions they will be more faithful to Tolkien's work than PJ's movies were.
NEW PREVIEW
John85 said:
Very excited about this preview. I was a little disappointed about Thorin's art too, although I do like the Gandalf. I'm still a new player (Core + 4 SoM), so I won't get to OHaUH for a little while, but I'm looking forward to catching up. I hope that IF FFG continues to release "saga" expansions they will be more faithful to Tolkien's work than PJ's movies were.
this game is very faithful to tolkiens work and even if ffg do go down the road of once again releasing packs to coincide with movie releases, i dont see it as much of a problem as they are based on the books (which is the best part of this game),still it doesnt change much, and i fully expect that ffg will continue to do a top standard job with the lore of middle earth
as for the art i actually like it - we have had WAY to many magali pieces in the last cycle- and yes she is amazing and many of my favourite characters are illustrated by her, i just like the variation, its nice to see different takes on people. also i dont mean to pick here, but sometimes i find magali's art a tiny bit too digital….just a matter of taste
rich
Edited by richsabrerichsabre said:
John85 said:
Very excited about this preview. I was a little disappointed about Thorin's art too, although I do like the Gandalf. I'm still a new player (Core + 4 SoM), so I won't get to OHaUH for a little while, but I'm looking forward to catching up. I hope that IF FFG continues to release "saga" expansions they will be more faithful to Tolkien's work than PJ's movies were.
this game is very faithful to tolkiens work and even if ffg do go down the road of once again releasing packs to coincide with movie releases, i dont see it as much of a problem as they are based on the books (which is the best part of this game), its just a pain the world of midle earth has to bow down to jackson- still he brings the rest of the people more exposure and money blah blah….still it doesnt change much, and i fully expect that ffg will continue to do a top standard job with the lore of middle earth
I completely agree with this comment Rich (and have enjoyed your posts on the forum in my limited time here so far; really like the blog you have going, great for folks who have questions/haven't done the heavy reading). FFG has done an excellent job (from what I've seen), and I hope they'll keep their standard high.
I'm not familiar enough with the artists yet to comment on your second point.
John85 said:
Very excited about this preview. I was a little disappointed about Thorin's art too, although I do like the Gandalf. I'm still a new player (Core + 4 SoM), so I won't get to OHaUH for a little while, but I'm looking forward to catching up. I hope that IF FFG continues to release "saga" expansions they will be more faithful to Tolkien's work than PJ's movies were.
I guess my only complaint is that it doesn't scream "I'm a dwarf!" The hood is a nice touch (I actually didn't fully appreciate it when I wrote the quoted post), and obviously the beard is dwarvish, but it seems like something is missing…
starhawk77 said:
I'm particularly intrigued by Caleb's revelation that treasures are immune to effects that target attachments. From the FAQ, we know that treasures should count as attachments (as any card that attaches to another card is considered an attachment in addition to its other types). So, there must be an explicit rule granting treasures this special protection.
This bothered me as well. I wonder if Caleb just misremembered when he typed that up? Or if there really will be special extra rules for the treasures. I guess it'd make sense since they're special cards and it would suck to earn one only to have it discarded to some lowly encounter card, but still, kinda goes against all other similar rulings up to this point. Though I guess that shouldn't surprise me either…
John85 said:
richsabre said:
John85 said:
Very excited about this preview. I was a little disappointed about Thorin's art too, although I do like the Gandalf. I'm still a new player (Core + 4 SoM), so I won't get to OHaUH for a little while, but I'm looking forward to catching up. I hope that IF FFG continues to release "saga" expansions they will be more faithful to Tolkien's work than PJ's movies were.
this game is very faithful to tolkiens work and even if ffg do go down the road of once again releasing packs to coincide with movie releases, i dont see it as much of a problem as they are based on the books (which is the best part of this game), its just a pain the world of midle earth has to bow down to jackson- still he brings the rest of the people more exposure and money blah blah….still it doesnt change much, and i fully expect that ffg will continue to do a top standard job with the lore of middle earth
I completely agree with this comment Rich (and have enjoyed your posts on the forum in my limited time here so far; really like the blog you have going, great for folks who have questions/haven't done the heavy reading). FFG has done an excellent job (from what I've seen), and I hope they'll keep their standard high.
I'm not familiar enough with the artists yet to comment on your second point.
thank you kindly 
Mattr0polis said:
starhawk77 said:
I'm particularly intrigued by Caleb's revelation that treasures are immune to effects that target attachments. From the FAQ, we know that treasures should count as attachments (as any card that attaches to another card is considered an attachment in addition to its other types). So, there must be an explicit rule granting treasures this special protection.
This bothered me as well. I wonder if Caleb just misremembered when he typed that up? Or if there really will be special extra rules for the treasures. I guess it'd make sense since they're special cards and it would suck to earn one only to have it discarded to some lowly encounter card, but still, kinda goes against all other similar rulings up to this point. Though I guess that shouldn't surprise me either…
the designers just do not put as much work into the rules systems as they do in say CoC or aGoT. The focus in this game as it is not competitive is to make each quest or expansion function , be fun and play well in isolation. It wouldn't surprise me if this inconsistency is simply nvr discussed ..
well, the card type is treasure instead of attachment…that seems to me to be enough of a difference (without having the rule book in front of me at the moment). cards that remove attachments would be removing cards that have the attachment type. the treasures are the treasure card type.
My guess is that the Hobbit edition will be released at GenCon. It's mid August this year.
Dain Ironfoot said:
well, the card type is treasure instead of attachment…that seems to me to be enough of a difference (without having the rule book in front of me at the moment). cards that remove attachments would be removing cards that have the attachment type. the treasures are the treasure card type.
Except that's not how they ruled it for other non-attachment card types before treasures…
you are right…they also just updated the FAQ and clarified some additional stuff re: attachments.
you are right…they also just updated the FAQ and clarified some additional stuff re: attachments.