Reading this topic, pretty thouroughly, I realise many commenters miss a very important fact : This game is new.

Yes, card games have existed since more than 20 years now, but the way LOTR LCG works is totally unique (and remains the only one in its category).

When you design a whole new game, there obviously will be some flaws and OP interactions that occur and were not intended.

If you've played MtG, you know what I'm talking about when I say Mox, Lotus, Tolarian Academy...

Early mistakes are normal and are being corrected on quaterly basis (more or less), this is more that we can hope for, other designers wouldn't be so active.

When it comes to the topic of bad single card designs, I don't agree Maps and Tomb are badly designed. They don't do the same thing at all and can even work together.

I think of ally Denethor or the new Ship Captain of Pelargir when I think of bad design. In a LCG, unplayable cards are sad since the pool is more restricted than in TCGs and there's no real draft or limited system to give them some kind of use. Iconics characters on very bad cards is even sadder I believe.

I agree with most of the above. I find it natural that mistakes happen.

I do not agree that Map and Tomb are different enough so that the Map has any chance of challenging the Tomb. But maybe it will come.

I was also sad to see Denethor as bad as he turned out in his ally form. I might still try and implement him nonetheless, but it is definitely a shame when such an icon comes up short. As for the Ship Captain, I see no point there: the card is quite good, certainly on the better side of the cycle in terms of power (just compare it to Guard of the Citadel from the core set, same stats but the Captain has a possibly quite useful ability).

The Map encourages mono-Spirit, it then becomes way more powerful and makes expensive Events really cheap. It also targets only events while Tomb can target any Spirit card.

You're quite right when saying that it's one of the most powerful card in the cycle for Leadership, and that's a big problem for this sphere: any new ally is utter crap. It's true that this sphere has the edge on attachment and other awesome cards, but it's getty annoying to see no playable ally. The Ship Captain is basically a worse Envoy of Pelargir (so many heroes are Noble...), and, well, this one is colorless. How can you justify a Leadership ally is worse than a colorless one?

Have you tried a Gondor Leadership deck? I suggest you do. Boromir, Imrahil, Théodred. Then Leadership allies from HoN and AtS (no Outlands of course), Gandalf, perhaps Dúnedain Watcher - works nice with Imrahil, Sneak, Tale, Sacrifice, Wealth, Strength of Arms, even For Gondor! It is a very, very good deck once you insert Visionary Leadership. With Boromir and 1 resource on him, Envoy of Pelargir is just super good (2 attack 2 willpower for one resource basically) and you've got other cheap guys like Errand-rider or the Squire. The Captain, too, he's very decent then. Just try it - especially once you pair it up with another mono-deck, you're going to have a blast against HoN and AtS.

How does the Map of Earnil make events cheaper? The card text reads "as if the card were played from your hand", which means that you have to pay the cost of the card. What is good about those event recycling cards is that you get to play the event again and the event goes back into your deck, potentially letting you draw and play that event one more time. I think it is useful. And you get three copies from the AP it came in. There is only one copy of Dwarven Tomb in the Core Set.

The other comparison, Unexpected Courage and Steed of the Mark. This one may be even more extreme. Steed is cheaper by 1 but to use it, you already lose the resource advantage the first time you use it. Then, the use is way more limited, with the Courage a hero can do any two actions, be it quest, combat or ability. With the Steed he can only quest and do one more thing (afterwards). This is already a huge difference but it goes far further. For some reason the much more able card, the Courage, has no restrictions, and can be played on any hero, whilst the Steed can only be attached to Gondor or Rohan heroes.

Now, is the Steed good enough? Well it is not an obvious winner but I feel it can be super useful. As they say in the preview, for one resource you make any Gondor or Rohan hero a Core Aragorn, not bad. Plus, soon we might see some Mount synergies coming from the partly Rohan cycle. So where's the problem, you see it, the Courage.

There is some interesting discussion about this topic in Team Covenant's video review of The Morgul Vale - right from the horse's mouth, as it were

http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2013/11/20/16955/

For the impatient, Steed of the Mark discussion starts around the 9:10 mark.

There is some interesting discussion about this topic in Team Covenant's video review of The Morgul Vale - right from the horse's mouth, as it were

http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2013/11/20/16955/

For the impatient, Steed of the Mark discussion starts around the 9:10 mark.

Neat! Mount up!

The other comparison, Unexpected Courage and Steed of the Mark. This one may be even more extreme. Steed is cheaper by 1 but to use it, you already lose the resource advantage the first time you use it. Then, the use is way more limited, with the Courage a hero can do any two actions, be it quest, combat or ability. With the Steed he can only quest and do one more thing (afterwards). This is already a huge difference but it goes far further. For some reason the much more able card, the Courage, has no restrictions, and can be played on any hero, whilst the Steed can only be attached to Gondor or Rohan heroes.

Now, is the Steed good enough? Well it is not an obvious winner but I feel it can be super useful. As they say in the preview, for one resource you make any Gondor or Rohan hero a Core Aragorn, not bad. Plus, soon we might see some Mount synergies coming from the partly Rohan cycle. So where's the problem, you see it, the Courage.

There is some interesting discussion about this topic in Team Covenant's video review of The Morgul Vale - right from the horse's mouth, as it were

http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2013/11/20/16955/

For the impatient, Steed of the Mark discussion starts around the 9:10 mark.

that is really cool... unless there really is a horse thief card!!

Yeah, I saw it. It was funny. After the initial "Wow, this is incredible" - the ever reaction to seeing a new card, there came the not so oft "Well, how does this actually...?"

And I was glad to hear there will be Mount synergies. They can really make such a card even better. But as I was saying, I do not think the Steed is actually bad - just that Courage is so good. Now, to advocate against myself - I can imagine running two Rohan Tactics heroes (such as Théoden and Éomer) and Dúnhere of Spirit. Well, the Steed can be attached to Théoden on round 1, and be used on round 1 - something which would hardly be possible with the Courage. And yes, the round 1 can change the whole thing with Théoden's extra action available. And surely in such a deck, Tactics resources might be more plentiful than Spirit ones.

How does the Map of Earnil make events cheaper? The card text reads "as if the card were played from your hand", which means that you have to pay the cost of the card. What is good about those event recycling cards is that you get to play the event again and the event goes back into your deck, potentially letting you draw and play that event one more time. I think it is useful. And you get three copies from the AP it came in. There is only one copy of Dwarven Tomb in the Core Set.

Yeah totally misread the card, I thought maps made the event free to play. Anyway, the fact that there's a blue one makes sense because it's a cycle. It would've been strange to skip it.

How does the Map of Earnil make events cheaper? The card text reads "as if the card were played from your hand", which means that you have to pay the cost of the card. What is good about those event recycling cards is that you get to play the event again and the event goes back into your deck, potentially letting you draw and play that event one more time. I think it is useful. And you get three copies from the AP it came in. There is only one copy of Dwarven Tomb in the Core Set.

Yeah totally misread the card, I thought maps made the event free to play. Anyway, the fact that there's a blue one makes sense because it's a cycle. It would've been strange to skip it.

Yeah, it is why I was not arguing against the Map, but against the Courage.

This is a great topic, and there's a lot of thoughtful discussion here. I definitely think a case could be made for certain early cards being so powerful that they restricted the future design space in a significant way. With the design teams changing several times and with this game being so new, I think some messiness is inevitable. On the one hand, with so few player cards being released each cycle, we probably don't want to see card space wasted on weaker versions of older cards. On the other hand, I like that certain cards from the Core Set are truly "core", in the sense of providing a base that players of all levels can build from. I don't like the idea of them nerfing older cards, but would prefer just very carefully considered design of future cards.

Thanks Raven, I actually agree with much of that. When I think about it though, I would really like the strongest cards to be associated with a single faction only - that way the card doesn't appear in every deck of the sphere. Like Elrond's Counsel, it is a very powerful card but you cannot just splash it anywhere. Same with King Under the Mountain. These are very clever designs, I find.

This is a great topic, and there's a lot of thoughtful discussion here. I definitely think a case could be made for certain early cards being so powerful that they restricted the future design space in a significant way. With the design teams changing several times and with this game being so new, I think some messiness is inevitable. On the one hand, with so few player cards being released each cycle, we probably don't want to see card space wasted on weaker versions of older cards. On the other hand, I like that certain cards from the Core Set are truly "core", in the sense of providing a base that players of all levels can build from. I don't like the idea of them nerfing older cards, but would prefer just very carefully considered design of future cards.

I've been thinking more about this since first reading this topic. It's not just early design that restricted design space. Every time we get something that is tier 1, it locks out other similar creations if they don't measure up. One example that stands out for me is the Warden of Healing. I have gone back and forth over buying a second copy of the encounter pack it's in so that my partner can run 3 of them alongside mine. I would have little use for any of the other cards in the set so I can't justify it. I don't really know what the solution is. You either play theme and take your chances that you aren't just going through the motions before you lose, or you play strategically and focus on solid deckbuilding to handle each quest based on its specific challenges. Low threat, card draw, good mix of quest and combat - those are all at the core of each good deck, obviously. From there you either cancel everything you can or accept what the encounter deck throws at you and hope for the best.

I'm not really sure what the solution is in a game like this, where power creep is handled at a slow rate overall because it sells more packs. But I do believe that - as was demonstrated for the first time with Warhammer Invasion - that the LCG format is a self-defeating one due to the fact that getting the good cards is quite cost-prohibitive. You have the choice of buying everythng in each pack multiple times or limiting yourself to what you need for your own deck and nothing else. When you play this game with family members, you have to divide your card pool if you can't or won't buy more. I bought 3 cores for this reason, as the three-player deck relies on 3 Test of Wills and Hasty Strokes, but that's as far as I've been willing to go with it.

I agree that this is an very interesting and important topic. I especially like lleimmoen's observation about cards like Elrond's Counsel and King Under the Mountain. I think that trait-specific cards are definitely the way to go - both in terms of avoiding over-powered cards, as well as keeping a good separation between the various factions/traits.

Gondorian Shield is an example of a newer card that embodies these concepts. I like that it can be used by anyone, but it truly becomes a game-changing card when paired with one specific trait. This strikes not only a balance from a game-mechanics standpoint, but from a thematic one as well.

Conversely, Steward of Gondor should cost at least 3 resources, and probably require the Gondor trait rather than give it. I would like to see other, less powerful resource generation effects be introduced for other traits, but the existence of Steward of Gondor as an attachment open to all heroes definitely seems to discourage this.

Gondorian Spear is an example of a newer card that embodies these concepts. I like that it can be used by anyone, but it truly becomes a game-changing card when paired with one specific trait. This strikes not only a balance from a game-mechanics standpoint, but from a thematic one as well.

Spear of the Mark?

Conversely, Steward of Gondor should cost at least 3 resources, and probably require the Gondor trait rather than give it. I would like to see other, less powerful resource generation effects be introduced for other traits, but the existence of Steward of Gondor as an attachment open to all heroes definitely seems to discourage this.

I see your point, and agree with it, but would still like emphasize the fact that is in unique after all.

This is a great topic, and there's a lot of thoughtful discussion here. I definitely think a case could be made for certain early cards being so powerful that they restricted the future design space in a significant way. With the design teams changing several times and with this game being so new, I think some messiness is inevitable. On the one hand, with so few player cards being released each cycle, we probably don't want to see card space wasted on weaker versions of older cards. On the other hand, I like that certain cards from the Core Set are truly "core", in the sense of providing a base that players of all levels can build from. I don't like the idea of them nerfing older cards, but would prefer just very carefully considered design of future cards.

I've been thinking more about this since first reading this topic. It's not just early design that restricted design space. Every time we get something that is tier 1, it locks out other similar creations if they don't measure up. One example that stands out for me is the Warden of Healing. I have gone back and forth over buying a second copy of the encounter pack it's in so that my partner can run 3 of them alongside mine. I would have little use for any of the other cards in the set so I can't justify it. I don't really know what the solution is. You either play theme and take your chances that you aren't just going through the motions before you lose, or you play strategically and focus on solid deckbuilding to handle each quest based on its specific challenges. Low threat, card draw, good mix of quest and combat - those are all at the core of each good deck, obviously. From there you either cancel everything you can or accept what the encounter deck throws at you and hope for the best.

I'm not really sure what the solution is in a game like this, where power creep is handled at a slow rate overall because it sells more packs. But I do believe that - as was demonstrated for the first time with Warhammer Invasion - that the LCG format is a self-defeating one due to the fact that getting the good cards is quite cost-prohibitive. You have the choice of buying everythng in each pack multiple times or limiting yourself to what you need for your own deck and nothing else. When you play this game with family members, you have to divide your card pool if you can't or won't buy more. I bought 3 cores for this reason, as the three-player deck relies on 3 Test of Wills and Hasty Strokes, but that's as far as I've been willing to go with it.

I agree with you, but the reason I singled out the early cards is because I expect us to get at last some tier 1 cards today with the inevitability of power creep. But getting such strong cards in the core set is a whole different beast, restricting design space from the get go. I'm not sure if I would agree about the LCG model. Warhammer had a good run but all things must come to an end at some point, LCG or no, and the old CCG model still takes the cake in terms of cost prohibitive. I can empathize in terms of needing more copies of those essential cards though, and maybe the problem is we just dont get that many player cards, and could use more options.

Gondorian Spear is an example of a newer card that embodies these concepts. I like that it can be used by anyone, but it truly becomes a game-changing card when paired with one specific trait. This strikes not only a balance from a game-mechanics standpoint, but from a thematic one as well.

Spear of the Mark?

Conversely, Steward of Gondor should cost at least 3 resources, and probably require the Gondor trait rather than give it. I would like to see other, less powerful resource generation effects be introduced for other traits, but the existence of Steward of Gondor as an attachment open to all heroes definitely seems to discourage this.

I see your point, and agree with it, but would still like emphasize the fact that is in unique after all.

Sorry, my fingers were working faster than my brain. I meant to say "Gondorian Shield", but "Spear of the Mark" is a good example as well. While it is true that Steward of Gondor is unique, it is so powerful, and has zero drawback, so it seems to be putting a serious downward pressure on any repeatable or attachment-based resource generation for other traits. I can definitely see limiting resource generation to the Leadership sphere, that makes thematic and mechanical sense. At the same time, I would prefer a metagame where Steward of Gondor was not quite so powerful, and there were other Leadership options for Dunedain and Noldor - just as there are for Dwarves with Thorin, Gloin (both versions) and We are Not Idle.

I think the easiest fix, indeed, would be if Steward of Gondor required the Gondor trait (instead of giving it). It has been said many times, and it would be a very nice thematic way to prevent it from appearing in every deck. Gondor would have then been quite unique already (not that it isn't in a way, but it would be more).

Another point I would like to make for Steward of Gondor is that in multiplayer it can be beneficial if you build your decks in a specialised manner.

For leadership, in our group, that means you are the one responsible for all other players having enough ressources to play around with. In that regard, leadership has some abilities to move ressources away from their own heroes and onto the heroes of other players.

By having SoG be unique that means that, even though it produces +2 ressources every round, those ressources have to be split among other 1-3 other players.

Just a small point that I think bears mentioning

This is the perspective of a casual player that plays the game for fun at home, but that follows every rule and every errata to the letter. House ruling would kind of ruin the gaming experience for me. I find this thread really interesting and I like the ideas that are being discussed. It convinced me to sign to the site to give my 2 cents hehe.

I think we should wait to see what the traits of Map of Eärnil and Steed of the Mark will have to offer with the new cycle before jumping to the conclusion that these cards are weaker version of Dwarven Tomb and Unexpected Courage. Imagine if you had an ally that would allow you to search your deck for any Record card when played from you hand (like the Rivendell Minstrel for songs), that would be an added advantage of Map of Eärnil over Dwarven Tomb. Of course, this is just an example. What I mean is that Unexpected Courage and Dwarven Tomb are great Core cards, but their power is somewhat set in stone, while Map of Eärnil and Steed of the Mark, with their traits, still have a potential to become great cards in the future.

As it is now, I run with both Map of Eärnil and Dwarven Tomb and kind of like the combo to be honest. Being able to use Map of Eärnil to use a discarded Dwarven Tomb to put any Spirit card into my hand, and put back Dwarven Tomb into my deck is kind of sweet I think. And I am not even mentioning that I could fetch back my Map of Eärnil with Second Breakfast if needed since it is an attachment.

Here's one major difference between the Map and the Tomb...

With the Map, I believe you can grab and use a Response event from your discard pile - like a cancel card - in response to a just-triggered effect. The Tomb is an action, so you would need to have used it before the event you need to cancel. This came up in a game for me and cost us a victory.

It may be costlier, but the Tomb has its uses. This assumes that the Tomb can in fact be played that way.

Another point I'd like to make is that "weaker" versions of existing effects are not useless because they provide additional opportunities to use these great effects. Imagine a 3 cost "Steward of Gondor" variant. Who wouldn't pack those in their deck along with the original - just sayin.

With the Map, I believe you can grab and use a Response event from your discard pile - like a cancel card - in response to a just-triggered effect. The Tomb is an action, so you would need to have used it before the event you need to cancel. This came up in a game for me and cost us a victory.

I think it is an Action to discard the Map and use it. So I believe you can't use it to play a Response event like Test of Will.

It may be costlier, but the Tomb has its uses. This assumes that the Tomb can in fact be played that way.

I think you meant Map instead of Tomb? Also, the Map is not costlier than the Tomb when in a mono sphere deck, which is a thing the developers wanted to promote in this cycle.

Also, they kind of had to add a Record card of that type for Spirit since they did it for all other spheres...that would have been awkward if only spirit was left out because of the Tomb...

Correct you are. I meant Map.

As for the playing of the Map's effect, you have a good point, but I figured the text on the card to be played would certainly need to dictate the timing or it is a severely limited card - you could never use it to recycle a response effect. I may try to get a designer decision on that one.

You are correct, the "Book" attachments cannot be used to play "Response" events in your discard pile as though they were in your hand. The reason is simple: the trigger has already passed. For example, take A Test of Will. Because the Map of Earnil is an Action, the window for responses to the When Revealed effect of a treachery has already passed. If you trigger the action on the map, the response window has closed for the When Revealed effect on the treachery.

Actions start a new effect chain (which may or may not then have subsequent response), whereas responses are always made in reaction to the appropriate trigger. When a trigger happens, you have to perform any and all Responses immediately. Once any player performs an action (assuming actions are even allowed at that step in the phase), the window for responses to that particular trigger is closed.