Virtual Card Discussion

Ever thought up cards of your own, or written a cool scenario? This is the place to share your ideas.

Moderators: Jambo, Tegarend, Moderators

Nariam
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:30 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by Nariam » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:00 pm

It would be great to see someone playing a Virtual Morannon One Ring deck... but wouldn't that actually be harder to pull off than a normal Dunker?

Also, true to the books, what about adding the following text to the virtual Morannon:

Alternatively, playable if one of the above mentioned characters is at Morannon and the bearer of the One Ring is at, or travelling to, Mount Doom. The hazard limit for the ringbearer's company is lowered by three (to a minimum of one).

Vastor Peredhil
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: Kempen Germany

Post by Vastor Peredhil » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:16 pm

I did playtest Legolas, and I guess he is not overpowered as he died twice in 3 games (Once CVCC vs Balrog) and a Werewolf creature of my own making.

mfg Nicolai

Thorsten the Traveller
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Tilburg, The Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:05 am

Finally got the time to delve into this, must say that it's a great pleasure viewing these cards, kudos to people involved! (there should be an emoticon for enthausiastic applause btw :wink: )
Here some comments perhaps you find useful. No room to discuss all cards unfortunately, so just the highlights here and only comments on technicalities.

general comment on virtual cards using same cardtitles, imho this should be avoided if possible because of risk of confusion. In mentioned event, can you still play the old versions or are they banned? Having different versions of a card around obviously sucks, better to invent new names, moreover since some cards do not have appropiate title (grond, vanishment, open to summons). I agree it's nice if you can just slip a new text on the original card, but the drawbacks are too many, better print a whole new card

Even I as non-native speaker of English can see that some cards are a bit carelessly phrased, if you plan to use them at tourneys (even more applause!  :D ) then pay more attention to that.

Anduril: wow! even if it still takes too long to build in competitive games, this is a major upgrade! no need to get Narsil, 7 mp in 2 turns, and on Aragorn its effect is possibly devastating to a casual game. Probably too much, I'd say for the discarding ability, tap gorn together with/in stead of sword.

Ent-draughts: "Permanently" ? so that means cumulative and no limits here? so Elrond drinking this 4 turns might become let's say a 14 mind 11/13 char? that must be a joke, better rephrase/clarify.

Fate-o'-Ithil: devastating, thought is nice, but it ruins the game, too easy to pull off (Elrond/beard + palantir = automatic), what's the counter to this for minions? on what/who is it played? at least make minion version then also. Anyway, handsize -3!? why not increase hazard limits against minions (you know what he's up to after all) permanently by 1, creates nice interplay of hazards and resource.

Horns 3x: this can easily be a 8-10 MP bonus card!? (highest in game) I propose a maximum. really cool card though. Also it involves keeping score of mp value, have to be prepared for that to avoid later fuss....

Rebuild town: make it 'men cost one less influence to control.' seems strange their minds decrease just by being in a place.

Vanishment: Possibly devastating card, all decided with a roll, can kill a game, kind of obligates you to add loads of spells in deck. no, pretty worthless this way. make it for example: opponent may do nothing his turn. Witch-king didn't die, he just was delayed. This way you can keep your opponent in deadlock but alive.
Card title doesn't make sense if played on wizard. +2 against Rada is unfair, he's only no sage because all wizards have 4 skills, I'm sure he can cast cool spells.

Usriev: can it still be stored? you get negative mp when you kill your own character? make perhaps cc at end of every turn?

Really liked what you did with fair travels, Snaga (interesting new game-mechanism), Usriev and Umbarean Corsairs!
'Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

User avatar
Sly Southerner
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:19 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Sly Southerner » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:57 am

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:general comment on virtual cards using same cardtitles, imho this should be avoided if possible because of risk of confusion. In mentioned event, can you still play the old versions or are they banned? Having different versions of a card around obviously sucks, better to invent new names, moreover since some cards do not have appropiate title (grond, vanishment, open to summons). I agree it's nice if you can just slip a new text on the original card, but the drawbacks are too many, better print a whole new card
I've been thinking about this and I couldnt agree more with Thorsten's comments. I think that the idea of virtual cards is the kind of compromise that is not going to make anyone happy. Why not just make new cards?  I'm no lawyer but I dont see how the legal/copyright position could be any different to slapping a new text on an old card so I dont see the logic behind virtual cards. I'd rather see 'CoE endorsed' dream cards, and why not also consult with the guys who are posting whole dream expansions?

Also what about CoE endorsement for some UEPs? The changes there are much more minor than these virtual cards and they have gone through a strong community consultation process.
So that's where that southerner is hiding...He looks more than half like a goblin.

User avatar
Ringbearer
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:24 pm

Post by Ringbearer » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:37 am

The idea about virtual cards is that the cards exist already. No legal issues with images, the gametext is just different. I know from the Star Wars game that virtual cards help a lot, and people dont mix cards up, even when both the non-v and the V are playable. And if they can do that normally, so should a ME player. ;)
Player of killer hazards no-one else ever dares to play :D

Peter
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by Peter » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:13 am

What might be wise is to not use parts of the background image but instead make a silhouette and fill it with a somewhat different color than is normally on the cards. That would make the virtual cards easier to see and would allow for a better blending with the normal card (current virtual cards use a low resolution generic background image which leads to rather ugly situations).

As an added benefit it would also reduce the amount of normal card image in the image of a virtual card, which is most likely a good thing from a copyright perspective.

Of course if you want to change the prowess and body you would need to make that clear in the text, but that seems a small price to pay for nicer looking cards :).

User avatar
Sly Southerner
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:19 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Sly Southerner » Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:27 am

One problem is using rare cards for virtual cards. Even though I love the text of virtual The Nazgul are Abroad, I'm not going to stick it onto my only 2 copies and ruin them. Th eother issue is that the new version might actually make the old version useful but they are mutually exclusive.

In any case I dont mean to sound too negative as I think the CoE is moving in the right direction by trying something new, so please take this as an attempt at constructive criticism.
So that's where that southerner is hiding...He looks more than half like a goblin.

User avatar
Ringbearer
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:24 pm

Post by Ringbearer » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:02 am

Sly Southerner wrote:One problem is using rare cards for virtual cards. Even though I love the text of virtual The Nazgul are Abroad, I'm not going to stick it onto my only 2 copies and ruin them. Th eother issue is that the new version might actually make the old version useful but they are mutually exclusive.
Well, I believe you can slip them beore the card, not glue them... at least, thats what I would say.

I agree a bit though on the rare cards, but more that I wouldnt virtualise Balrog cards as they are usually too rare to find, especially for beginning players.
Player of killer hazards no-one else ever dares to play :D

Thorsten the Traveller
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Tilburg, The Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:14 am

Ringbearer wrote:
The idea about virtual cards is that the cards exist already. No legal issues with images
I don't understand the fuss about rights here, we are playing with a home-baked cookie...I have several large prints of Ted Nashmith paintings hanging on the wall at home and never had the police storming in (they would go straight for the other stuff anyway :wink: ), you saying I should send Ted a check of 50 cents? Besides, the artists have indeed been payed for the millions of commons lying around unused. Things would be different if cards were put into mass production or be sold.

Printing just the cardtext is easier of course and saves money on ink, but you can also print a cardtitle and glue it on a common. Of course I wouldn't recommend using rares. I think having different cards with same title is confusing and possibly just wrong in terms of rules. Can I play in my deck 3x virtual horns 3x and 3x normal horns 3x? (Bilbo would be proud of me  :lol: ). Or what if opponent plays virtual Corsairs and I have the normal one in deck (note that it doesn't say unique)? can I play it, can I influence it away?

Often you play cards under other cards and you only see the title, having different versions of same cardtitle could be very confusing then. I don't know how things worked in SWccg, as I learned from a friend, everybody was playing with the virtual cards in tourneys. As long as everybody plays the same cards there is no problem obviously (except for newbies or people that haven't been playing for a while).

The answer then is to outlaw the normal versions when playing with virtual cards? that can't be right.

armory: cardidea is fine, but as it is now you can just play it for 1 MP and not put any minors in it....

also some more thoughts on Horns 3x:
I redid my math, the max is 8 MP (for some reason I thought Wild Horses was 2 mp?  :oops: ). Still higher than any other card in the game. And, you can also gain 5 MP from Witch-king...
I personally don't like the idea of gaining MP from your own hazards, it's just unfair to the opponent, because you are the only one prepared for it. Imagine playing Balrog in your turn and next turn move to Moria to kill it.

The idea that the MP value decreases prowess is nice, but once again there should be a max. because trolls 3@6 nazgul 1@12 is a bit rediculous.
Perhaps the answer should just be that Rohan sources of MP should be in company you play Horns on. It doesn't say so now, so I could go with Galadriel (+nenya) and Hama and stay alive while not having any risk to my Rohan items/allies/chars. In fact, you don't even have to stay alive to play this card? In that sense this card is just a bonus card and not a mission card....

Looking foreward to hear more from the playtesters at the NACC. I understand Horns didn't wield more than 4 mp and didn't kill the witch, but I believe that was more up to bad luck, right?
'Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

User avatar
Frodo
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:53 am

Post by Frodo » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:33 am

COMMENTS FROM ME TO POST

Hello to everyone from Joe Bisz, one of two of the Virtual Card designers. I’m really happy to see so many posts about these cards. Yes, your comments are highly desired! In fact, I strongly hope that some of you will begin inserting some of these card texts into your friendly games, including in your gccg play, and posting here your thoughts and comments about how the cards worked (or didn’t work). My suggestion for GCCG is to let the opponent know at the beginning of the game which card titles are Virtual, and to make sure he or she has access to the Virtual Card file during or before the game so that everyone knows what the cards do.

This post is going to address many concerns posted here, including comments on the specific cards, establish some of the ground rules for how these cards work, post a “Clarifications Document” for the Virtual Cards to clear up ambiguous wordings, etc. thanks to your attentive eyes, and finally give you one or two new Virtual Cards to comment on.

Ground Rules for Virtual Cards
TAPE AND ADHESIVE: When cutting out Virtual Card text boxes and replacing them over your original card, it is not necessary to use adhesive, but the piece of paper must not stick out and be seen in the sleeve or the tournament director may interpret that as cheating. If you prefer adhesive, I would recommend Scotch “Poster” Tape, which is a soft, double-sided cotton-like tape that is very gentle and comes off the card easily. I have put this tape on many of my expensive rares from other games that use Virtual Cards.

GAME TEXT REPLACED: When using Virtual Cards, only text boxes are replaced on the original card. This means a virtual card keeps any of its old skills and event types. An exception to this rule is if the Virtual Card’s text box is the large kind that actually lists a new event type and/or skills, such as the Virtual Card boxes for Legolas and Waiting Shadow.

UNIQUENESS AND NUMBER IN DECK: Of course you are allowed to use the original card titles in your deck even with the Virtual versions. The old versions are not banned at all! However, as always you must obey uniqueness rules. For example, Black Numenoreans (V) is a non-unique faction as a Virtual Card. I can put up to three of it in my deck. However, if I have even one copy of the original Black Numenoreans in my deck, which is unique, I cannot have any copies of the virtual version in my deck. The reason why is because the uniqueness looks for the same card title. This is an important ground rule to understand. If the original version of a cards said “cannot be duplicated,” but the Virtual version does not, such as Nazgul Are Abroad (V), then once I put into play a copy of Nazgul Are Abroad (original) I cannot play the virtual version. Again, the “cannot be duplicated” phrase prohibits the same card title from being played. If I already had a copy or two of Nazgul Are Abroad (V) (virtual) in play, then I could not play Nazgul Are Abroad (original), and neither could my opponent.

REFERRING TO VIRTUAL CARDS: When referring to the virtual version of a card, the preferred and easy way to do so is to put a (V) after the card title, as in “The Nazgul Are Abroad (V).”

SUGGESTING NEW VIRTUAL CARDS TO THE DESIGNERS: Nariam, thanks for your Drugu suggestion. Are we looking for suggestions? Absolutely. The best way to do it is to open a NEW TOPIC (don’t just post it here, unless you’re brainstorming for ideas from people) with the card title and the mark (V) after the card title, or the word (Virtual). Then, in addition to giving the text, please explain how you see the card working: strategies it will enhance or hinder, etc. This way the designers don’t have to spend a lot of time figuring out what kinds of decks would benefit from having a region symbol removed.

Concerns
Why are we even bothering to make these cards? Why can’t we just make brand-new cards with new titles and art? Won’t Virtual Cards be confusing, with all these new texts on the table for a player to read?

Good questions! As far as making new middle-earth cards, it’s nice to dream and hope, but I’m sure you all read Wim’s post at the beginning of this Dream Cards thread. IT IS ILLEGAL for us to publish new cards, artwork, and (I think) card titles at this point. That’s not to say things might not change, and we’ll do what we can to explore the matter, but it would be an expensive and difficult proposition to regain the license.

Virtual Cards would not be illegal. The difference may seem slight to players, but to copyright people, we are not *inventing anything new that was copyrighted*, such as new card art, new templates, etc. Now I must appeal to another game that went through something quite similar. The company Decipher lost the license to the The Star Wars CCG and was prohibited from making new cards. Thousands of players left the game. A dedicated player’s committee sprung up to take control of the game, like with us, and they introduced “Virtual Cards” into the game to satisfy the player’s desires for new cards. When they were designing the first expansion, I had my doubts. I was thinking that real, new cards would be so much cooler. But quickly I realized that to a large degree Virtual Cards *are* new cards; yes the art and title are the same, but it’s a completely different interpretation of Tolkien’s story, new card effects on the game, etc. We have to stop lamenting for what we can’t have, and be happy for what we can have.

These Virtual cards became enormously successful with the Star Wars game, and all of the tournment players embraced it, and probably most of the casual players as well. They were declared fully legal and official in all tournament formats. Were these new cards that had different texts than the original annoying? Not at all. It doesn’t take much effort to lean over and read an opponent’s card, as you might do with any card normally. You could argue that since it’s a card with new text, that means it’s one more card you’ll have to remember about what it does, but you could make the same argument about a new physical expansion with new titles and art, right? And how many of us can see a card title in GCCG or real life and instantly recall all of its card text without having to reread it? Now if we were going to make many alternate texts for each card title, I think we’d have cause for complaint. But there will only ever be one virtual version of a particular card title. That’s really not very hard to keep track of.

There will be some challenges on GCCG for a while since, as was pointed out, GCCG plays card titles underneath cards so people might not know a virtual version is being played, even after the text itself becomes changed on GCCG. But there are easy ways around this, such as not stacking your virtual permanent events. Peter had some interesting visual suggestions that we’ll keep in mind if it becomes a problem.

The only problem the Star Wars game ran into was that they were releasing so many virtual cards without full playtesting that some of the game’s mechanics and deck types kept ‘swinging’ back and forth between being overpowered and underpowered. They also rewrote a lot of cards that probably could have been better served by just making one new card that enhanced a whole class of cards, e.g. like our Nazgul Are Abroad (V) which enhances many Nazgul hazards, rather than virtualizing each of the Nazgul hazards themselves. But the designers realized a unique way to remedy their mistake. They remembered that these expansions were “Virtual”, so rather than creating heavy lists of Errata, they simply recalled some of the Virtual Cards already published and instantly put up a new version of that card on the internet. That card became the official legal version. So you see, even if we make mistakes with cards, the fact that they are virtual is a *great* advantage, because it allows us to do something that could never really be done with MECCG cards before—just rewrite the text to fix it.

This is something new we are introducing, so I understand the alarm and worry. But remember that even though Star Wars is a different game, the concept has been done before, and the Council is going to be very careful about how we introduce it into our game.

Which brings me to another point: our plans for these cards, and why we’re even bothering.

Someone posted that he always has new middle-earth decks to make and never runs out of ideas so virtual cards seem unnecessary to him. Well, I can’t argue with that—that he doesn’t need the cards. I guess he doesn’t need new expansions, either. But there are two large problems the COE wants to fix with these cards. The first is to satisfy the lust of some players (we know you’re out there!) for new cards and strategies, *especially* given the fact that so many cards in the middle-earth game rarely see the light of play, so the game is not being used to its full potential. The second, perhaps more serious problem is that we are losing players—players who are fed up with the tournament scene or even the GCCG scene of certain deck types that will always dominate again and again. And even players who remain, even very good players (like myself) who are in love with this game, dearly wish that somebody could give us a reason to play a deck that is a bit more… creative. Fun. Just, different. So the COE would, ideally, like to increase the threshold of decks that are considered “strong,” partly by directly bolstering certain resource strategies, and partly by directly attacking certain deck types (such as squatters). You could argue, Well why don’t you just make a fun deck and not play to win? but you have to understand that many players would like at least a fighting chance in their games, and it’s a rare player who can get continually crushed and still feel like he or she is having a good time.

So does that mean we really want these Virtual Cards to become completely tournament-legal? Sort of. We plan to work very hard playtesting these Virtual Cards until a first set can be agreed upon, then we’ll “release” it officially. At this point, depending on the set’s reception and player interest, we would hope to introduce a new tournament format called “Virtual Format” or “Second Age” or something like that. Similar to Type 2 or Extended format in Magic, and the various formats of other CCGs, there would then be two ways to play two-deck games of Middle-earth: a way that involves only pre-Virtual Cards and a way that involves ALL cards. Again, this is what many other CCGs have done.

It would then be our dream to see this format take off and to have players excited by this new, hopefully more balanced tournament environment. I don’t think this is just a dream. At North American Nationals, I was surprised by the enthusiasm and delight the players had in playing in the first ever Virtual Cards tournament. As I hope some of the upcoming tournament reports show, a great deal of fun was had, and it’s not an exaggeration for me to personally say that that was the most fun tournament I played in all weekend; and tied for the most fun in my life!

Why are we aiming for this Virtual Format as opposed to just making the new expansion completely legal? Because, we’re playing it safe. We want to make sure the players and the players’ countries’ councils have the final say. After all, the COE only exists for you. It is possible, it is even likely, that if enough players embrace the format, more and more players will become uninterested in playing the “pre-virtual cards” format, because they will see that format as the weaker, more unbalanced environment. At that point, after much consideration and polling, we would probably eliminate that format, and the Virtual Cards would essentially be completely legal for all gameplay.

Specific Card Comments

Nazgul Are Abroad (V): We realize the original version cannot be duplicated, but we thought that this card would be too powerful if you could use the original version as well. Perhaps we were wrong about that. We’re open to comments.

Crowned With Storm (V):
Someone wrote: “The magic duel cards and Sacrifice of Form are really interesting ways to revitalise some avatar dueling and balance a little against squatting Balrog and LE/Sauron.  The only downside I can see is maybe the increased strength this would give to a fell Akhorahil deck against a wizard.  Maybe the duel would have to replace CvCC or influencing?” I thought about the Ankhorahil thing, but then I realized that since you must *discard* the spell cards to add to your duel roll, it forces the Ank player to save up much less cards in hand for a needed Malady strategy, and thereby weakens the Malady strategy. I don’t think Ank gets more powerful, only more flexible in the sense that not every Ank deck will be a Malady deck. That’s a good thing, right? J

BALROG cards: We will try not to use too many Balrog cards in the future for Virtual Sets. Sometimes the art and the card title fits well, though.

UEPs: We’re monitoring the UEP-suggested texts. However, many of these changes are small and aesthetic in nature, even if they are well thought-out. It seems silly to issue errata for cards when only a minor change is suggested to them; this only increases the number of cards players must look up the text for when playing them, as opposed to having the text right in front of them on a Virtual Card. We’re glad that the UEP poll process exists thought, and if we see suggestions here that we think would make a good and significant Virtual Card we will definitely use them!

Vanishment: To me this card title makes sense. It’s the Wizard casting a spell trying to cause the other avatar to be defeated, disembodied, or made to “vanish” in some way. In fact, it was the original version of this card never made much sense to me. Also, you’re not “killing” the opponent’s avatar—that’s why the avatar is only returned to hand. You can just play him next turn. Also, especially now that you must tap to play the card, I don’t see how it obligates you to add loads of spells to your deck—you just need to be prepared to defend the site your Fallen-wizard is at if you choose to squat! (or be far away from the opponent, or have a deck that isn’t ruined by your fallen-wizard specific resources being discarded).

Rebuild the Town: Our thought was that the men’s mind decrease because they are living a different life now; i.e. instead of adventuring, they are busy farming and living simple lives in their little town.

Armory:  It was commented that “the card idea is fine, but as it is now you can just play it for 1 MP and not put any minors in it....” but this is not true at all. Neither version is playable immediately for 1 MP. The (V) version requires at least 2 minors.

Horns: Someone made a very good point that this card doesn’t really push you to make the Minas Tirith run with a large company. That could be okay, except that, as we noticed in NA Nationals in Jon Yost’s deck, it could be better to run with no one but Eowyn or another nazgul killer, alone. This seems a bit strange and un-thematic. We might adopt the suggestion on getting points only from allies, characters, and items in the company that’s moving. But let’s keep playtesting the original text for now. We will probably also add the 6 MP maximum just to be consistent with other rares, but I should point out that NOBODY got more than 4 points on this card in our tourney games, and three people were playing this deck!

Legolas: Hmm, is the lack of Fallen wizard play a big deal? Some optional text to consider: make him 6 mind, but write “+1 mind in a company with Gimli.”

Fate of the Ithil-Stone: In the new version you cannot use this card more than once. I added some new effects to still make it worth playing.

NEW VIRTUAL CARD SPOILERS

THEY RIDE TOGETHER
During your organization phase (or immediately after opponent plays a ring), you may place a Black Rider or Black Horse from your sideboard on this card. You may play such cards as if they were in your hand and you may play any number of Ringwraith followers in a turn. If the only characters in a company are Ringwraiths and Ringwraith followers, there is no limit to the size of the company. If all nine Ringwraiths are in a company together, you may tap this card (or discard it) at the end of their movement/hazard phase to allow the company to move to an additional site this turn. Another site card may be played and another movement/hazard phase immediately follows. You may start the game with this card in lieu of a minor item.

[With a fifth-turn exhaust, and the resource player drawing up his last copy of the black horses he actually shoved in his deck, the nine could theoretically ride out on the 6th turn. My reasoning is 1) you will need to exhaust your deck to guarantee drawing up all the RW followers 2) if you decide to use the method of putting Black Horses on all your Rws, you’ll need to draw up all of these horses too (since the perm event will only give you one horse per turn). Of course, you could just use one copy of Black Rider to move your company, too. I was also thinking of adding the text “If you have 9 Black Horses in play on your RW’s company, this card gives 2 MP” to encourage the thematic factor of playing these horses.]

REFORGING
Sage only at a site where information is playable. Tap sage and the site. If you have an item in any company that can be ‘restored,’ you may place Reforging with that item during your organization phase as if Reforging was already stored. This card gives 1 MP if on a restored item.

[We might make this playable on Anduril (V) virtual card too. Remember that the German Promos are legal in the Virtual Card format, so this card is for them.]
CLARIFICATIONS for Virtual Cards 0.5
Clarifications Document 1.0

The following is a list of additions, rewrites, or clarifications to the Virtual Cards. Clarifications will continue to be made as the Virtual cards are playtested and their strengths, weaknesses, and loopholes are discovered. Your comments to the Virtual Card Discussion forum are always appreciated and valued for this purpose. Be sure to see the latest Clarifications document posted.

Alliance of Free Peoples
Add: “During your end-of-turn phase, all of your factions in same region may battle…”
Add: “Winner makes body checks for loser’s factions and if successful receives factions as kill points. Otherwise loser’s factions are dispersed…”

Cup of Farewell
Add: “the resource player may choose for that female character to tap (Galadriel or Arwen do not tap) and place a minor item…”

Ent-Draughts
Add: “+1 prowess (maximum 8)

Fate of the Ithil-Stone
Add: “If result is > 14, invert this card and opponent must reveal hand. If inverted, opponent receives -1 hand size if a Ringwraith (-3 if Lidless Eye or Sauron), +1 hazard limit against all his companies, and this card gives you 1 MP.”

In other words, you can’t target the opponent’s hand twice, although if you attempt to use this card and you fail the roll, you can try again after the card untaps next turn.

Nazgul Are Abroad
Add: “…and once per turn, a card played this way does not count against the hazard limit.”

Morannon
Add: “… or Galadriel is at Barad-dur and bearing the One Ring, s/he faces an attack as if s/he were a one-character company: Maia 1@24; otherwise, discard this card.”

Vanishment
Add: “Wizard only during site phase at same site as opponent’s Fallen-wizard, or same free-hold as a Ringwraith. Your Wizard may tap to initiate a magic duel.”

Black Horse
Add: “Playable by a character in a covert company at a tapped or untapped: border-hold in Rohan, Southern Rhovanion, Khand, Dorwinion, Horse Plains, or Harondor; or at opponent’s site if he has a Noble Steed (discard Noble Steed in that case and do not tap the site).”

This ally is still a warrior, since the virtual card is only replacing the card text.
Grond
Add: “During your end-of-turn phase, all of your factions in same region may battle…”
Add: “Winner makes body checks for loser’s factions and if successful receives factions as kill points. Otherwise loser’s factions are dispersed…”

Crowned With Storm
Add: “Your Ringwraith may tap to initiate a magic duel.”

Black Numenoreans
Add: “Alternatively, during your turn you may reveal and discard this card from hand…”

Usriev of Treachery
Add: “This card gives 1 MP to the card’s owner, 3 if it is stored.”
Add: “If Usriev of Treachery is inverted, it cannot be transferred, and its bearer attacks his own company as if he were a 1-character company initiating company versus company combat under the control of the hazard player at the end of each of his untap phases.”

If transferred to a hero company, its game text is not cancelled as per Lidless Eye Rules, since the item was never played by the hero company. If the person with Ursiev is split off into their own company, they will not attack themselves, because a company cannot initiate CVCC against itself. If the item is stored, it will go to its owner’s marshalling point pile.

Umbarean Corsairs
Add: “Unique.”
Add: “…automatic-attacks here against opponent’s hero companies attack as non-detainment.”
Remove: “Cannot be duplicated by a given player. Alternatively, during your turn you may reveal and discard this faction from your hand to search your deck for one Dunedain character.”

Shameful Deeds
Add: “Player with lowest roll must place his Wizard prisoner at opponent’s nearest Wizardhaven (or Isengard if opponent is a hero player)…”
Add: “The imprisoned Wizard may be freed if his player reveals and discards 9 MP or more of resources from hand simultaneously.”

The discarded marshalling point cards must be cards that are worth points immediately when played; in other words, they cannot have only a MP value in parentheses.

Waiting Shadow
Add: “…the highest-mind untapped character…”

Bandobras Took
Moderator
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:03 am

SUGGESTING NEW VIRTUAL CARDS TO THE DESIGNERS: Nariam, thanks for your Drugu suggestion. Are we looking for suggestions? Absolutely. The best way to do it is to open a NEW TOPIC (don’t just post it here, unless you’re brainstorming for ideas from people) with the card title and the mark (V) after the card title, or the word (Virtual). Then, in addition to giving the text, please explain how you see the card working: strategies it will enhance or hinder, etc. This way the designers don’t have to spend a lot of time figuring out what kinds of decks would benefit from having a region symbol removed.
Hmmm . . . I may put a couple of my (serious) dream cards up for this, but will simply changing the topic title be enough or should I repost?

User avatar
Frodo
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:53 am

Post by Frodo » Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:28 am

Good question. You mean because they're already posted, and you're wondering if just changing the title is enough, right?

Well, if they're buried on page 2 or more, repost. If you got a lot of feedback and you can summarize that feedback into a new and superior card text, repost.

But otherwise, if they're on page 1 of the Dream Cards forums, just a retitling would be fine. If you can't think of a good card to retitle/virtualize, just pick something close, and mention that you're still thinking it over in the post.

Frodo

Thorsten the Traveller
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Tilburg, The Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:29 am

Major post, thanks for insights, here are some replies to post from Frodo.

The eventual goal is to create an official CoE approved format of tourneys with virtual cards. This is music to my ears. I would be very (very very) interested to know how you think this should come about. And it might be a good idea to include accepted UEP''s in the same format  :wink: .
Everybody's got some ideas on virtual cards, how do you think we should come to agree on an official set?

About legal issues, I still don't quite get it, perhaps I should take it up with Wim, but here's my view.
1 We play with cards we payed for. If it's forbidden to mess with the cards, then the virtuals are also off limit. If it's forbidden to introduce new mechanisms with concepts that belong to ICE (or some heir), than virtuals are also off limit. And what about the cards of the Drinking Game? If it's forbidden to use concepts/names of Tolkien without permission, then what about the tons of fanfic that are on the net? Again, rights on each cards, wether common or rare, have been payed for, we just use the cards with some alterations.

2 We use the cards for ourselves, we don't (re)produce or have any commercial intent. We share ideas with our friends.

3 About new art for dreamcards. You can ask kindly permission from artists. Hey, I've seen people use pictures of naked women on Eowyn or Arwen because they felt these needed a boost :lol:  (mostly on Peath though :wink: ). You saying this is illegal? well it shouldn't be!

Why is the legal part important? Well I still think using same cardtitles should be avoided if possible. True, unclarities can be clarified, conflicting card-mechanisms can be resolved, but if arguments of introducing confusion don't impress you, then think of this: there is virtually no end to the amount of virtual cards you can make. We could end up with 2 (or more?) versions of every card in the game. Using same card title I think is second best option, ICE didn't do it either for the different manifestations.

now the cards mentioned in this thread. Either they have changed recently, or you (Frodo) don't know each of them very well, because this is what I see in the file posted at the site of the NAcc:

Armory: When armory comes into play, you may place between two and four.....if there are no items under armory you gain 1 MP.
Now in my book that means, you can play armory, place no items, gain 1 mp.

Vanishment: ....player with lowest roll must discard his wizard.
So nothing about back to hand, not in clarification/errata in this post either. You are an experienced FW player, so you know how devastating loosing FW specific stage can be, especially late in the game. It amazes me moreover, because in thread on Smaug the Golden you say that even badbeards miss personality, well then, having to possibly discard your stage specifics is not exactly 'an encouraging thought.'
Even for normal wizard, if I can't play my beard again next turn for some reason, I loose massive influence, possibly chars, what about allies on beard, and I can be open to even more influencing. In short, this card has potentially devastating effects and I just don't like that.

Likewise Crowned with Storm. Loosing Ringwraith isn't nearly as bad as loosing wizard. If it's to be back to hand btw, that also creates nasty interplay with Black Rain.

Ent-draughts: no thoughts about the mind or tapping ability? Also come to think of it, if it's an item a character can use every turn, give it some CP.

Horns: So you think it strange that when three out of four people play the horns deck, nobody gained more then 4 MP?  :wink:
good thing you gave it a max. I still don't agree with the Witch-king thing, it's just not right to gain mp's from your own hazards. Playing Eowyn in Anorien with HofS should be enough reward I reckon. Also, I still feel the Rohan chars/allies/items should be in company that plays horns, I mean, what good is a steed going to do me if I blow the horn and he's sitting back at dunharrow? O damn, I forgot my shield at Edoras....oh well, don't really need it to defend myself against that Nazgul...

some minor things:
open to summons: the plural of Man faction is Men factions?
black numenorians/corsairs: add some bonus to one another, like on original cards?
'Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Zarathustra
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: NY

Post by Zarathustra » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:52 pm

We realized that you don't need to get points from your own WK, since if you can at least manage to beat his prowess you can play 3x Mount Slain at any point in the game....

Jambo
Moderator
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:58 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Post by Jambo » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:43 pm

Hi Joe, thanks for the full resumé on virtual cards.

First, I'd just like to say I love the idea of virtual cards and with the current legal situation on what we can't and can do, this to me seems like the ideal way to take the game forward. Right now I'm thinking of one for arguably one of the words cards of the game - Gift of Comprehension... :)

On to the current cards and some comments raised by Thorsten regarding the duel cards:
Here's Vanishment and Shameful Deeds:
Spell. Wizard only during site phase at same site as opponent’s Fallen-wizard. You may initiate   a magic duel. You and opponent roll. Add 2 if a Sage. Also add 2 for each spell or magic card discarded from hand. Player with lowest roll must discard his Wizard (both if tie). Your Wizard makes a corruption check at –3. Cannot be duplicated.
Playable on a Fallen-wizard during site phase at same site as opponent’s Wizard or Fallen-wizard if you have more than 6 SP. You may initiate a magic duel. You and opponent roll. Add 2 if a Sage. Also add 2 for each spell or magic card discarded from hand. Player with lowest roll must place his Wizard prisoner at the nearest Wizardhaven, and your Fallen-wizard’s company is considered overt. Fallen-Wizard makes a corruption check at –3. The imprisoned Wizard may be freed if his player discards 9 MP or more of resources from hand. Cannot be duplicated.
My opinion is these cards are just too powerful and game changing in their current form. I assume these are to try to curb squatting avatars, but with an avatar able to move 4 regions there's very little one can do to escape an opponent hell-bent on achieving this duel with a handful of spells. Not only that but the ramifications of losing a duel is massive, particularly for the Shameful Deeds card where the losing avatar is taken prisoner until they can shed 9 MPs!  A player can't even circumvent this using MT or VoM. It's funny, I never thought I'd be arguing for protecting FW, but I think this has to be revisited.

Maybe make the avatar have to tap to initiate a duel? (Edit: this is in clarification). This way the defender can take steps to prevent this, either by tapping the avatar during the m/h phase or positoning their own avatar at a site with a nasty automatic attack. In addition, what about making the punishment for losing a duel less severe, e.g. what about not losing a FW's FW specific cards?  They could be placed off to the side for instance.  Also, the prisoner aspect of Shameful Deeds, whilst thematic and interesting, needs to be lessened. Currently losing this battle is game ending imo. 9 MPs is a staggering amount and even if you do have 9 MPs, that'll mean there's little chance of then winning the game...

The faction battling cards:
Each player places their factions with a region on the map (or with a region card) containing the site where they were played. Factions may move to another region up to four regions away during their controller’s organization phase. During your end-of-turn phase, your factions may battle against all of opponent’s minion or Fallen-wizard factions at same region. You and opponent roll, doubling your faction MPs battling and adding this value to your rolls (side with Army of the Dead automatically wins). Winner makes body checks: if successful, receive factions as kill points. Otherwise faction is dispersed (return to owner’s hand). Faction bodies—Eagles: 11, Hobbits/Ents/Animals: 10, Elves/Dunedain: 9, Dwarves: 8, Men/Orcs/Trolls/Dragon: 7, Other: 6.
...in my opinion also have the same problems.  They seems to be too game deciding.  Get a couple of high MP factions and the other player will never be able to play a faction, without subsequently losing them in a faction duel..  Like above, the penalty for losing a duel should be less game deciding.  Maybe remove the "otherwise the faction is dispersed (return to owner's hand)"?

On to the positives and there are plenty, notwithstanding the idea of vcs in general.  The boosters to Nazgul and Dragon hazard strategies through Half and Eye Open and The Nazgul are Abroad are my pick of the bunch as is the proposed new They Ride Together.  I'm planning on thinking up  a few vcs and I'll be sure to post them in the dream cards section.  

Keep up the good work lads. :D

Over and out. J
Visit the Optional Rules forum and try out the community accepted Unofficial Errata.

Post Reply