They could have created a trechery attachment cards instead of creaing those messy and hard to refer descriptions like "counts as Conditon attachment with text bla bla bla"?

I can understand this decision on something like bats which then become attachment to someone damaged by them, but trecheries...

It could be as simple as player attachment, and it'll be a lot easier to read:

Example from the core set:

Caught in the Web

Attachment. Condition.

When Revealed: Attach to a hero controlled by the player with highest threat level.

Attached hero does not ready during the refresh phase unless you pay 2 resources from that hero's pool.

Yes, it's minor and it's just usability, but hey - why not?

It has to be a condition so that Miner of the Iron Hills can remove it. Otherwise I totally agree with you.

Caught in the Web

Attachment. Condition.

When Revealed: Attach to a hero controlled by the player with highest threat level.

Attached hero does not ready during the refresh phase unless you pay 2 resources from that hero's pool.

It is.

Caught in the Web

Attachment. Condition.

When Revealed: Attach to a hero controlled by the player with highest threat level.

Attached hero does not ready during the refresh phase unless you pay 2 resources from that hero's pool.

It is.

Oh yeah, I missed that bit in the middle. In that case I agree 99,9* percent with you. Well, but I'm at war with LCG rules, so I'm probably not the best choice.

* my lawyer told me never to agree with 100 percent to something

What do you mean by war with LCG rules?

Palantir would become impossible, eleanor and test of will would be useless, and a long etc, etc

Palantir would become impossible, eleanor and test of will would be useless, and a long etc, etc

How about you read the thread before responding, mate?

Palantir would become impossible, eleanor and test of will would be useless, and a long etc, etc

How about you read the thread before responding, mate?

no, he's right (to a degree).

they are probably left as treacheries so that treachery cancellation can cancel them, if able. having a 4th type of encounter card would just necessitate another type of removal/cancellation.

it think they are fine, as is.

What do you mean by war with LCG rules?

I mean that most of the times I interpret these rules, if they're ambigious, differently than they're handled by the designers. That's because I like to use common sense to interpret a rule.

I guess what mndela means is that your suggestion lacks the "when revealed" keyword and the fact that Eleanor is not able to cancel treachery attachment cards (which is because they don't exist).

I don't see how the text is confusing as is. It's a round about description but it keeps the encounter deck to three types of cards.

Palantir would become impossible, eleanor and test of will would be useless, and a long etc, etc

How about you read the thread before responding, mate?

no, he's right (to a degree).

they are probably left as treacheries so that treachery cancellation can cancel them, if able. having a 4th type of encounter card would just necessitate another type of removal/cancellation.

it think they are fine, as is.

No, he is not, because in my "variant", attachment is just a trait of trechery and trechery is still a trechery for all game purposes. If you'll read my suggestion, you'll even find the "When Revealed" wording which is used for test of will, Eleanor and etc.

To further prove my point, I'll add rough implementation of what I have suggested(yeah, I missed the "cannot be canceled part)":

See? It's still a treachery, it can be interacted as a trachery by all existing means, and it's not a bloody mess of hard-navigable text, easy to read and clear to understand.

And here is original. For the reference.

But this isn't any simpler than the original card, it just out right states the traits.

I see no way to interpret the card differently as is, why change it?

Palantir would become impossible, eleanor and test of will would be useless, and a long etc, etc

How about you read the thread before responding, mate?

no, he's right (to a degree).

they are probably left as treacheries so that treachery cancellation can cancel them, if able. having a 4th type of encounter card would just necessitate another type of removal/cancellation.

it think they are fine, as is.

No, he is not, because in my "variant", attachment is just a trait of trechery and trechery is still a trechery for all game purposes. If you'll read my suggestion, you'll even find the "When Revealed" wording which is used for test of will, Eleanor and etc.

To further prove my point, I'll add rough implementation of what I have suggested(yeah, I missed the "cannot be canceled part)":

See? It's still a treachery, it can be interacted as a trachery by all existing means, and it's not a bloody mess of hard-navigable text, easy to read and clear to understand.

And here is original. For the reference.

ah, your original post was unclear then (at least to me).

i see what you are saying, but it's probably not going to happen (the designers are going to want to keep card layout/language consistent to previous cards doing similar things). it would play fine either way for me.

But this isn't any simpler than the original card, it just out right states the traits.

I see no way to interpret the card differently as is, why change it?

It is simplies because it looks like an actual attachment and you don't need to search middtext to find it's effects and traits if you need to.

Dain, I'm not saying they will or it is going to happen, I'm just wasking why wasnt it that way from the very beginning?

But this isn't any simpler than the original card, it just out right states the traits.

I see no way to interpret the card differently as is, why change it?

It is simplies because it looks like an actual attachment and you don't need to search middtext to find it's effects and traits if you need to.

Dain, I'm not saying they will or it is going to happen, I'm just wasking why wasnt it that way from the very beginning?

who can say? none of us are nate french. haha.

they didn't think of it?

But this isn't any simpler than the original card, it just out right states the traits.

I see no way to interpret the card differently as is, why change it?

It is simplies because it looks like an actual attachment and you don't need to search middtext to find it's effects and traits if you need to.

Dain, I'm not saying they will or it is going to happen, I'm just wasking why wasnt it that way from the very beginning?

who can say? none of us are nate french. haha.

they didn't think of it?

It always amazes me at how much effort it takes to create a really good design space. Game mechanics, with enough play testing and experience, probably fall together pretty easily by comparison. But, having the forethought to anticipate where the game could go over the course of its years of life, that is a tough gig.

In hindsight, I'm sure Nate may consider this change. But, at the time he created the LotR design space, he thought it was the best approach going forward.

I don't think it's going to be good - changing the encounter attachments now, when everyone is used to old ones. I just fail to understand - why it was so hard to do then, when game started? It's not so hard to come by, if somebody like me came up with it.

I will add that the reason they add the "counts as a Condition attachment with the text..." is because when a card changes type (e.g. from a Treachery to an Attachment) it loses all of its old game text, unless the card effect specifically says otherwise. This means that after Caught in a Web becomes an attachment, all it has is the trait "Condition" and the text "Attached hero does not ready during the refresh phase...". All of the LCGs work the same in this regard. Nate French came up with this pattern long before Lord of the Rings: The Card Game ever existed so it was logical that they would reuse it in this game.

I agree with your initial opinion, by the way, the template that they use for these type of effects is overly verbose. It is worth pointing out that, in the case of Lord of the Rings, this decision was not made arbitrarily as the basic LCG rules framework had already been established. To be honest, if we're going to talk about issues with the rules of this game, Treachery Attachments are low on my list of complaints. As just one example: Framework effects vs. Targeted player card effects (Quick Strike vs. Hands Upon the Bow) is so much messier and less intuitive. I have never once had a problem understanding Treachery Attachments, so although they are wordy, at least they are intuitive enough to get right on the first try.

I think the original idea was about Caught in web and Miner of Iron hills. The text of Caught in the Web able the hability of Miner of Iron Hills, if not, the hability of dwarfs is totally useless.

If you don't say the card becomes a Condition attachment...., there is a problem

PD: Lotr-LCG is my first game of cards. When i started i wondered why the reason about a lot of many texts, and during along the time, i was understanding some of answers. Each word have a reason to be in his place.

I will add that the reason they add the "counts as a Condition attachment with the text..." is because when a card changes type (e.g. from a Treachery to an Attachment) it loses all of its old game text, unless the card effect specifically says otherwise. This means that after Caught in a Web becomes an attachment, all it has is the trait "Condition" and the text "Attached hero does not ready during the refresh phase...". All of the LCGs work the same in this regard. Nate French came up with this pattern long before Lord of the Rings: The Card Game ever existed so it was logical that they would reuse it in this game.

I agree with your initial opinion, by the way, the template that they use for these type of effects is overly verbose. It is worth pointing out that, in the case of Lord of the Rings, this decision was not made arbitrarily as the basic LCG rules framework had already been established. To be honest, if we're going to talk about issues with the rules of this game, Treachery Attachments are low on my list of complaints. As just one example: Framework effects vs. Targeted player card effects (Quick Strike vs. Hands Upon the Bow) is so much messier and less intuitive. I have never once had a problem understanding Treachery Attachments, so although they are wordy, at least they are intuitive enough to get right on the first try.

You're partially right.

If you don't say the card becomes a Condition attachment...., there is a problem

This is the issue with the idea that MyNeighbourTrololo came up with: Attachment is a card type, not a trait. So either the encounter cards need a new Attachment card type, or it needs to transform from a Treachery to an Attachment, as it currently does. If we give them an attachment card type, then Eleanor doesn't work to stop them because she explicitly targets treacheries. I totally understand the disgust for the long complicated card text of transforming a Treachery to an attachment, but I like keeping the number of card types small, too. I could go either way.

danpoage, my complaint is about clearness of card text. In current state it's very hard to nagivate and read.

joezim007, would they do like I suggested from the very beginning - there'll be no problem.

joezim007, would they do like I suggested from the very beginning - there'll be no problem.

Why not? Just because they've done it from the beginning, doesn't mean it's an attachment. I guess you might mean that you could have the cards (like Miner of the Iron Hills) say "choose and discard 1 Condition card from play." instead of specifying attachment, but mechanically, it seems better that cards that get attached should be attachments.

My point is that they should either go beyond what you are doing and make the encounter cards be of the attachment type - instead of transforming from a treachery to an attachment - or do what they are already doing. I don't feel like your solution works because attachment is a card type, not a trait.

My "solution" is for card text readability, stop dragging rules into this.

And if you will, here's an easy solution to everything:

In the card type box, add a sub-type "attachment". So, simple treacheries are treacheries and treacheries with attachment effect are "Attachment Treacheries" by type.

And a simple rule: While Attachment Treachery card is being revealed it's treated as trechery, when it get's attached, it stops being treated as trechery and is treated as attachment from now on. As simple as that.

As a side note I want to say that I really like how MNT is putting a lot of thoughts on how to make this game better, even if I don't agree with everything he(?)'s suggesting.

Let's not forget that it's always easier to criticize someone's opinion than to start a discussion by offering a unique PoV.

danpoage, my complaint is about clearness of card text. In current state it's very hard to nagivate and read.

joezim007, would they do like I suggested from the very beginning - there'll be no problem.

Yes, and I agree with your complaint. I was simply pointing out that the reason for the awkward text is because they had already established this "becomes an attachment" template in previous LCGs.