So, I've been doing some thinking.

From the announcement article: "Its 165 new cards (three copies of each of player card) transport players to the realm of Gondor, where new heroes and allies stand firm against the armies of Mordor in thrilling battles, sieges, and three new scenarios!"

"Heirs of Númenor gives you the opportunity to command some of Middle-earth’s greatest heroes in a region at war against the forces of evil."

"As with the game’s first deluxe expansion, Khazad-dûm, Heirs of Númenor transports The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game to a new region..."

I've been wondering if cycles really focus on traits or if they are simply a region to play in. In other words, the Dwarrowdelf cycle didn't give us a single Dwarf hero and many of the cards weren't Dwarf specfic (though, of course, some were)...

Similarly, Mirkwood, if anything, should have been elves but it was more eagles than anything.

But, then there is this from The Steward's Fear announcement article...

"That leads us to one of the other design goals for the cycle: to give players the cards they need to build strong Gondor decks. In the same way that the Dwarrowdelf cycle focused around Dwarves, the player cards in the Against the Shadow cycle center around Gondor and her allies. Each of the other traits in the game receives some attention, but most of the player cards are meant to bolster the Gondor trait."

So, I am somewhat confused. I was beginning to believe cycles are simply representing regions and aren't meant to build up a particular trait from that region - but this blurb from Caleb seems to suggest otherwise.

With the 4th AP now spoiled, however, there is next to no Gondor synergy in the game and I doubt the final two APs can really deliver.

I don't know if it's a bad thing, per se, but the previous quote really did set expectations that - at this point with 2 APs to go - hasn't really been met.

Thoughts?

It's exactly what I posted 5 minutes ago in other thread. I am very disappointed about this and hard to understand...

In addition: Why should we use Boromir Leadership when are not even 3 (!) Gondor allys with more than one (!) attack = Damrod + Ithilien-Archer? I use him in a deck nevertheless but he could become a lot more interesting if we had more Gondor allys with >1 attack. :-(

I'd never complain about not getting enough Dwarves though, we've gotten crazy enough of them (I'll upload the hero count in a minute). The lack of Gondor synergies is more and more striking. Exactly, Leadership Boromir seems like a laugh, whilst we're getting more and more ways to improve the Outlands. At least we got Morthond's Sword this time - to boost a single Gondorian ally into an Outlands status (not that it makes much sense).

So yeah, good thread, don't know what else to say. I hope we still see some before the cycle's over but one attachment giving Gondor characters +1 willpower is not going to be enough.

i think this is something that is due to the games young age. from the core set and in the first cycle or two it appears as if we got a vast range of traits, characters and races.

as we run out of those traits, characters and races i think cycles will focus ever more specifically upon the regions in which they are set....this makes sense to me as the designers will need to do this to squeeze every last drop out of the game..which i hope they do

rich

I'd never complain about not getting enough Dwarves though, we've gotten crazy enough of them (I'll upload the hero count in a minute).

what i am saying is that Dwarrowdelf cycle didn't give us many dwarves (the hobbit boxes really did that). it's not the the dwarrowdelf cycle didn't develop the dwarves - it did - but i think the hobbit boxes, khazad dum, and Dain really did that more than the cycle proper.

But this cycle's supposed to give us plenty of Gondor. I think Outlands have had enough; what I want is good, potent Leadership gondor allies to make Leadership a viable sphere for this trait (unlike Lore and the rangers, which I think have been developing really good, and now with faramir and anborn I can see ithilien rangers decks)

But this cycle's supposed to give us plenty of Gondor.

sure, but what i'm pointing out is: were we all assuming this to be the case? it's clearly not been in the first four packs. are the final two APs really enough to develop the Gondor trait when we only get 4 more cards per sphere and we know Theoden is still one of the heroes to go?

that's why I'm posing the question as to whether we shouldn't expect cycles to focus on the traits most likely associated with them (i.e. we are simply visiting a place on a map - not getting characters from that region) - we certainly haven't this cycle.

It certainly would not surprise me if we didn't get enough Gondor this cycle, but it would surely dissapoint me. Well, at least you have to keep in mind that outlands became one of the best archetypes with only one pack, and they could be saving the best stuff for Gondor for the last packs (I hope so).

Don't forget, though, that anyone who gets the Steward of Gondor gains the Gondor trait--probably may help some of the synergy problems with Gondor cards.

But this cycle's supposed to give us plenty of Gondor. I think Outlands have had enough; what I want is good, potent Leadership gondor allies to make Leadership a viable sphere for this trait (unlike Lore and the rangers, which I think have been developing really good, and now with faramir and anborn I can see ithilien rangers decks)

I agree. There is a great trait that everyone wants and expects to be developed in Gondor, but it seems they went off on a tangent with the Outlanders. That was all well and good, but it is now time to get down to business.

But maybe they are saving stuff for the Saga expansions...

So far, the Gondor-cycle is a disappointment for me. Unfortunately. Not the quests, but the playercards.

I, too, have been disappointed in the progress of developing the Gondor-trait. I mainly play solo now and, in my opinion, Gondor is completely unplayable solo. Their quest power is weak and I died by threat in my first attempt to play them in a solo game. On the other hand, the deck did really well in attack and defense. I wish the designers would do something about the willpower of the Gondor heroes.

Agreed.

Thematically being Outlanders are same as being Gondorian, just like you may live outside of Ontario or Quebec but still be Canadian if you live in prairies or Rockies or East Coasts.

But at the same time, they have chosen to divide up Outlands trait from Gondor trait to a point there are more synergies between Rohan&Gondor or Dunedain&Gondor than Outlands&Gondor at this point. I was really hoping for cards that would make Gondor hero based decks to become powerhouse, but so far that wasn't the case; Denethor ally and spoiled Palantir cards are perhaps biggest let down for me.

Having said that, Outlands went from nobody to powerhouse in a single pack.

Gondor already have some synergies, so hopefully 2 packs are indeed enough to interact with existing card pools and make Gondor a powerful trait.

...... although I'm starting to get a feel that Gondor decks are not meant for solo plays but for defending against enemies and siege questing during multiplayer games.

Holding out a lot of hope in these last two APs. There's been decent enough cards for Gondor but nothing that really helps glue the trait together aside from Boromir's thus far mediocre ability and visionary leadership which isn't released yet. A few more cards that actually assist the Gondor trait rather than just having it will go a long way

Hoping the same here too- not just wimpy splashy gondor allies but some SYNERGY within the trait.

I'm also hoping for more interesting synergy. Let's have a look at what we know from the last packs (bold = Gondor-related):

Heroes: UNKNOWN, Theoden (Tactics booster)

Lore: Scroll of Isildur (same as the other 'former Kings of Gondor' attachments), Anborn (ally, Ranger), TWO UNKNOWN

Leadership: Book of Atanatar (see above; sorry Glaurung ), Visionary Leadership (boost to Gondor allies), TWO UNKNOWN

Spirit: unknown ally (cost 3, female, 1 WP), Steed of the Mark (Gondor synergy), TWO UNKNOWN

Tactics: The Hammer-stroke (event, not related to Gondor trait), THREE UNKNOWN

Neutral: TWO UNKNOWN

That means two attachments will come into play that have a nice synergy. One is a flat stat booster, but the Steed of the Mark looks interesting - at least in multiplayer games. Solo players may find it difficult to find access to Spirit and sufficient resources with Gondor decks.

There are still plenty of unspoiled cards, and all it takes are two or three cards focussing on interaction between Gondor cards, so I haven't lost hope, yet.

As for speculation, I have no idea whom to expect for the final hero. I'm hoping for a Spirit Gondor Hero, so that I have an option to non- Tolkien Eleanor. Whatever it is, please no Outlands.

I think that one card will be Mablung (wouldn't mind a Spirit Ranger Hero but expect an ally). Others? No idea. What I hope from Tactics is one Weapon and one Armour piece (a sword and a helmet, perhaps).

No matter what, I'm incredibly happy with this cycle so far since I wouldn't have dreamt of being able to assemble a Ranger deck under Faramir's lead when I first purchased Heirs of Numenor from my FLGS.

Good point on the last hero, prior to today's Faramir spoiler I would have bet money it would have been a spirit mono booster but now all bets are off the table, in regards to sphere or effect....which is exciting

Yup, I'm saying the whole time - we were supposed to get Gondor, we got Outlands instead. But at least we have a crapload of Dwarves, right?

I find the best development for a trait is by card draw. It was just when Ori and Legacy of Durin (and later with King Under the Mountain) were out that Dwarves got really strong. Gondor doesn't have card draw, it has resource acceleration, but the best can be attached to anyone. So it's not going to get almost any advantage over other factions in that. I'm afraid the strongest Gondor decks (at least when this cycle is over) will be those with Outlands. Now we have a card to make a Gondor ally strong, it is just one card. If we get a card that makes Outlands (all of them) Gondor, then at least Boromir can boost them all, which would be a help. But it's taking a long way round. And I'm sorry to bring the theme into it but Gondor (the high blood) should have the upper hand - at least in some areas - over her fiefs.

I agree that the differentiation between Gondor and Outlands is very weird. What is Gondor supposed to represent if it includes the Outlands? But the worst is that Outlands are so much better than the "mainland".

Pehaps the developers realized that they overpowered the dwarves and didn't want to make the same mistake again? I am ok with what they have done with the Gondor trait so far. We got more resource generating cards, Gondor has a wide variety of defense synergies and the new Boromir solves any problems that one player should have when attacking enemies. I hope we will get some more cards during the remaining adventure sets.

If we get a card that makes Outlands (all of them) Gondor, then at least Boromir can boost them all, which would be a help. But it's taking a long way round.

In that case, the Outlanders (who are unexplainably strong anyway) would be unbeatable, that would be no fun, it would make no sense. I thought it too but that would make them stornger than the Vala themselves

And I'm sorry to bring the theme into it but Gondor (the high blood) should have the upper hand - at least in some areas - over her fiefs.

I could not agree more

While the current lack of a decent Gondor synergy is a bit of a letdown for this cycle, it will get better. Really, a lot of the dwarven "finishing touches" really came in the Hobbit boxed sets (although the Dwarrodelf did have shome potent choice cards).

I'm not so bothered by the current lack of synergy for Gondor (like I said, it will come) as I am that there was an EXPECTATION created by some of the published comments that led to us believing we would be getting more Gondorian love than what we have so far.

"Expectations are resentments waiting to happen."

Here are some quick numbers:

a player card word search of "gondor" at lotrlcg.com yielded 32 results

The five gondor cards from the newest AP make it 37

a player card word search of "dwarf" yielded 50 results

That's a 13 card difference with gondor synergy being two APs and two saga expansions behind. If we can expect 8 or so cards helping gondor in the last two APs, that's only a five card difference. Not too bad

Of course there are a lot of good cards that don't have the word 'dwarf' or 'gondor' written on them that have good synergy:

spear of the citadel, all traps, ranger bow, cram, a very good tale, etc. This makes the direct number comparison a little tricky.

It might also be a matter of timing. I didn't start playing until almost the end of dwarrowdelf, but I imagine that Dain was sort of the flagship dwarf that everyone used and then more dwarves just kept coming. For gondor, there is no such flagship hero, maybe leadership boromir, but he is not as obvious a choice as Dain is. The synergy for gondor will most likely not be known until the end of the cycle while the synergy for dwarves was established early on by Dain

It might also be a matter of timing. I didn't start playing until almost the end of dwarrowdelf, but I imagine that Dain was sort of the flagship dwarf that everyone used and then more dwarves just kept coming. For gondor, there is no such flagship hero, maybe leadership boromir, but he is not as obvious a choice as Dain is. The synergy for gondor will most likely not be known until the end of the cycle while the synergy for dwarves was established early on by Dain

I think this is the issue. There isn't that "glue" card yet for Gondor. There are a couple of cards that play off the Gondor keyword, but nothing like the myriad ways that Dwarves or Outlands do. In my opinion, we are going to have to wait for the Return of the King Saga Expansion to finally see some sort of cohesion. I know this has been mentioned before, but I think it still warrants saying that this game is relatively young, and the card pool is still relatively small compared to other games.