[MECCG] Inquest #33 expansion rumours
Trevor...@acml.com
In the rumours column in InQuest#33 they mention that
the next MECCG expansion (after The White Hand) will allo player to
play non-ringwraith/non-wizard characters (they specifically
mention that it will allow you to play the Balrog). Anyone
heard more about this? I thought the next expansion was
supposed to be War Hosts which allowed Factions to be used
as, well War Hosts, as opposed to Marshalling POint cards.
[ The idea sounds quite interesting, but, personally,
I much rather play Frodo or Aragorn then the Balrog ]
Anyone willing to offer some small hint as to what is
really happening next year with MECCG ?
Cheers,
Trevor
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ohtar, Bearer of the Shards of Narsil
On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:33:28 -0600, in rec.games.trading-cards.misc you
stated:
> In the rumours column in InQuest#33 they mention that
>the next MECCG expansion (after The White Hand) will allo player to
>play non-ringwraith/non-wizard characters (they specifically
>mention that it will allow you to play the Balrog). Anyone
>heard more about this? I thought the next expansion was
>supposed to be War Hosts which allowed Factions to be used
>as, well War Hosts, as opposed to Marshalling POint cards.
>
> [ The idea sounds quite interesting, but, personally,
>I much rather play Frodo or Aragorn then the Balrog ]
>
> Anyone willing to offer some small hint as to what is
>really happening next year with MECCG ?
>
Bob Mohney of ICE posted the following:
5/98
ICE ST #3080 / Middle-earth: The Balrog(TM) / $117.00 / 1-55806-354-4
Gandalf just got lucky--this Balrog is ready to rumble! This is an
expansion set of over 100 cards for the Middle-earth Collectible Card Game.
While it is fully compatible with both Middle-earth: The Wizards and
Middle-earth: The Lidless Eye, Middle-earth: The Balrog focuses on a
player using resources from The Lidless Eye. The Balrog is supremely
confident of his own immense personal power. After all, just like Sauron,
he was one of Morgoth's chief lieutenants. The Balrog tends to rely on
brute force and direct confrontation rather than more subtle approaches
often used by Ringwraiths and Wizards. His goals are basic and
simple--accumlate power and destroy his enemies. If he can do this, he can
be come a mover and shaker in Middle-earth--a factor to which both the Dark
Lord and the Free Peoples will be forced react.
Yours,
--
Charles E. Bouldin, Esq. <--Curious what Esquire means?
cbou...@cts.com Check out the explanation.
http://www.users.cts.com/crash/c/cbouldin/esquire.html
mickel ernst knight
I've heard that War-Host will not happen because some feel it will make ME
too much like a board game.
I've also heard that being able to play the(a?) Balrog is in the works, as
are Dwarves and Elves (even further down the road).
BTW, what I've heard 'bout The White Hand seems realllllly cool. The
Corruput Wizards will be unlike anything we've seen so far. Some tidbits
(most likely not 100% correct).
- Corrupt Wizards will create their own Havens
- They'll have radically different stats. One may be something
like 18 direct influence, but all other characters controlled by
that player will have to be a follower of the wizard.
- They'll have new winning conditions.
- You'll have 'stage' cards to you can play (or will be played
upon) your wizards reflecting his descent into corruption.
These will modify the Wizards in various ways.
- The Corrupt Wizards will be reflections on their current selves
toaken to the nth degree (i.e. Alatar the HUNTER, or Radagast
the NATURE boy).
Boy, I'm really look'n forward to this set.
- Mickel Knight
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997
Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:33:28 -0600
> From: Trevor...@acml.com
> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
> Subject: [MECCG] Inquest #33 expansion rumours
>
>
>
> In the rumours column in InQuest#33 they mention that
> the next MECCG expansion (after The White Hand) will allo player to
> play non-ringwraith/non-wizard characters (they specifically
> mention that it will allow you to play the Balrog). Anyone
> heard more about this? I thought the next expansion was
> supposed to be War Hosts which allowed Factions to be used
> as, well War Hosts, as opposed to Marshalling POint cards.
>
> [ The idea sounds quite interesting, but, personally,
> I much rather play Frodo or Aragorn then the Balrog ]
>
> Anyone willing to offer some small hint as to what is
> really happening next year with MECCG ?
>
mart...@tc.umn.edu
Yes. Middle Earth: The Balrog is the expansion after ME:WH. The
Balrog will be out next spring. The only real thing I've heard about
ME:WH is that corrupt wizards will be able to use both minion and hero
resources. All this info comes straight from Bob Mahoney, events
director at ICE.
> - Mickel Knight
Chad Martin
mart...@tc.umn.edu
chad...@dnrc.org
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mart0312/
O-
Visit my web page for any of the past NetMETW soundpacks in Win 3.1x
format.
Soundpacks courtesy of John Coble
<http://users.vnet.net/jcoble/orthanc.html>
NetMETW courtesy of Mike Collins
<http://er4www.eng.ohio-state.edu/~mcollins/netmetw.html>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Stronger than dirt." - MST3K
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jba...@clemson.edu
my understanding (and this may be wrong) is that ice plans 3 expansions
per year, and next year's expansions will allow players to take various
"positions" such as a corrupt wizard in the white hand. i believe that
the spring expansion will feature the balrog, the summer will let you
play an elf-lord, and the winter lets you play a big dwarf.
they may do hobbits after that, but maybe not, or maybe a mass market
jnon-ccg hobbit card game to coincide with the movie. i would think that
a hobbit "position" set would be against the spirit of the novels (after
all, "hobbits are plain, quiet folks" who are more concerned about
dinner than adventure). i'm sure players will want this, but you can you
imagine making Bag End a center of power? but it would be nice to see an
aragorn/beorn expansion.
--john
Todd Banister
What?!?!? I thought War Hosts was coming soon. Seeing that it has been
pushed back is very disappointing for me. Ever since I bought my first
packs of TW, I had a vision seeing armies being sent across the land to
fight the shadows. Don't get me wrong, playing corrupt wizards and the
Balrog sounds great but I was looking to War host sooooo much. :( War hosts
making the game feel like a board game? Sorry, I just do not see this.
TB
mart...@tc.umn.edu wrote in article <66hm1t$h...@epx.cis.umn.edu>...
> >> In the rumours column in InQuest#33 they mention that
> >> the next MECCG expansion (after The White Hand) will allo player to
> >> play non-ringwraith/non-wizard characters (they specifically
> >> mention that it will allow you to play the Balrog). Anyone
> >> heard more about this? I thought the next expansion was
> >> supposed to be War Hosts which allowed Factions to be used
> >> as, well War Hosts, as opposed to Marshalling POint cards.
> >>
> >> [ The idea sounds quite interesting, but, personally,
> >> I much rather play Frodo or Aragorn then the Balrog ]
> >>
> >> Anyone willing to offer some small hint as to what is
> >> really happening next year with MECCG ?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Trevor
> >>
> >> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News
====-----------------------
> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
> >>
> >>
>
>
Trevor...@acml.com
In article <348C7...@clemson.edu>,
jba...@clemson.edu wrote:
>
> my understanding (and this may be wrong) is that ice plans 3 expansions
> per year, and next year's expansions will allow players to take various
> "positions" such as a corrupt wizard in the white hand. i believe that
> the spring expansion will feature the balrog, the summer will let you
> play an elf-lord, and the winter lets you play a big dwarf.
>
> they may do hobbits after that, but maybe not, or maybe a mass market
> jnon-ccg hobbit card game to coincide with the movie. i would think that
> a hobbit "position" set would be against the spirit of the novels (after
> all, "hobbits are plain, quiet folks" who are more concerned about
> dinner than adventure). i'm sure players will want this, but you can you
> imagine making Bag End a center of power? but it would be nice to see an
> aragorn/beorn expansion.
> --john
Heh. I don't know about making Bag End a center of power Rather I
envision an expansion that concentrates solely on expanding The Shire
(and Buckland and Bree ) with hobbit-centric sites, items, characters
resources and events. One of my favorite chapters in LotR is of course
the raising of the shire (hmm. can't remember the chapter title exactly
and the book is not near at hand but I'm sure you all know what I mean)
in RotK. I'd like it to be possible to build a hobbit raising of the
shire deck (full of places like the Green Dragon Inn, Bagshot Row,
stuffed with Sherrifs, The Old Took, Longbottom Leaf, the Thain and the
Mayor of Michel Delving). Of course Sharkey lurks in the background. One
can see pipes, items worth say a 1/4 of a marshalling point ;> ICE has
concentrated, IMHO, on the "big picture" of LotR stuffed with Nazgul,
Rings, Aragorn and all those Elves. The point of presenting the books
from (ostensibly) the hobbits point of view was to bring that big picture
home. Frodo and Sam were as much (if not more) upset over the
destruction of their beloved Shire as all the earlier actions of Sauron
and Saruman. But The Shire, like hobbits in general (save the big two F +
B ) get short shrift in MECCG.
Playing as a hobbit (as your "avatar") would have little or
nothing to do with power (unless of course you were playing Otho...).
Hobbits certainly wouldn't have the strength, direct influcence or
general influence of the Istarl/Wraiths/Sauron/etc/etc/etc. But they
wouldn't need such influcence, Ideally hobbits would have different
victory conditions then the other characters. For example: lets say we're
playing Frodo the Ringbearer (manifestation of Frodo) Frodo has (Like the
Istari) "infinite/0 mind" and a DI of 4 ( chosen because clearly Frodo
was capable of controling Sam Gamgee ). As a hobbit avatar we get a
measly 8 GI less then half that of the Istari. which is enough to control
Pippin and Merry through GI. As a hobbit we have different goals than
other avatars: we may attempt to do one of the following: Dunk the Ring,
be elected Mayor of Michel Delving or Travel there and back again. Being
elected the mayor of MD is essentially the same as winning the Audience
w/ Sauron or Free Council.. The exception is of course the the election
allows for Hobbit Marshalling Points (with such factions as Sherrifs of
West-Farthing, Brandybucks, items like Southern Star (and even perhaps
silver spoons..) and hazards like the Best Beer in East Farthing (a
detainment attack of course!), Dunking the Ring likewise needs little
explination, certainly a hobbit expansion would have some hobbit specific
resources that allow for a hobbit to find the one ring with better then
90% probability. Traveling therea and back again would give a win to
adventoursome hobbits that managed to head off into the wild blue younder
and return with appropriate (greater/hoard) items.
Of course if the Warhost expansion ever does see the light of
day, one can easily see the development of a MELE hobbit expansion
that gives us Otho, Sharkey and of course conflict between the two.
Certainly not all the above ideas are good (or even interesting)
but I do think that I've shown that a hobbit expansion can be done
that would appeal to the rpg-er who plays MECCG. It just requires
a lowering of the current power level in MECCG. I wouldn't expect anyone
to play such a deck in tournemanets (where it would be munched by
a ring/sauron/istari/etc deck, but it seems ideal for the casual
play with friends.
Raymond Grönblad-Larsson
Todd Banister skrev i meddelandet <01bd04e2$9262a420$1ef071ce@doctor>...
>What?!?!? I thought War Hosts was coming soon. Seeing that it has been
>pushed back is very disappointing for me. Ever since I bought my first
>packs of TW, I had a vision seeing armies being sent across the land to
>fight the shadows. Don't get me wrong, playing corrupt wizards and the
>Balrog sounds great but I was looking to War host sooooo much. :( War hosts
>making the game feel like a board game? Sorry, I just do not see this.
>
>TB
I agree. Pushing War Hosts back (or even cancelling it) would be a mistake.
I'm looking forward to this expansion. LoTR is about the WAR of the ring and
so far MECCG misses this element as well as some important battlefield sites
like Helms Deep and Pelennor Field.
Playing the Balrog, or an elf/dwarf-lord? This seems to me like ICE is
running out of ideas for how to develop MECCG further. The idea of having
the Balrog taking an active role in Middle-Earth during the 3rd age is far
from the Tolkien spirit of LoTR or the Hobbit.
I would suggest another standalone set for the 1st age instead, that would
create several new options for this game, or expansions focusing more on
supporting specific scenarios from LoTR or the Hobbit.
/Raymond
Michael Urban
In article <66pgg4$6...@news.telia.se>,
I think that ICE is overkilling the franchise; there have
been quite a lot of expansions in the last twelvemonth, haven't there?
Doing a First Age game would be quite interesting, but ICE would
have to cut a new licensing deal (this is why Noble Hound isn't Huan,
for example), and they may not be able to do this satisfactorily.
Trevor...@acml.com
In article <urbanEL...@netcom.com>,
ur...@netcom.com (Michael Urban) wrote:
>
> In article <66pgg4$6...@news.telia.se>,
> Raymond Grönblad-Larsson <raymond....@osteraker.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree. Pushing War Hosts back (or even cancelling it) would be a mistake.
> >I'm looking forward to this expansion. LoTR is about the WAR of the ring and
> >so far MECCG misses this element as well as some important battlefield sites
> >like Helms Deep and Pelennor Field.
> >
> >Playing the Balrog, or an elf/dwarf-lord? This seems to me like ICE is
> >running out of ideas for how to develop MECCG further. The idea of having
> >the Balrog taking an active role in Middle-Earth during the 3rd age is far
> >from the Tolkien spirit of LoTR or the Hobbit.
I agree completely. Who cares about playing the Balrog? As I
stated in my other post on this subject; ICE appears to be far to
preoccupied with "Power" card play. What it should be working on is
enhancing the playability and role playing aspects of the game.
Specifically it needs to complete the WarHosts supplement; the War of the
Ring was a war not a quest for marshalling points. Then it needs to
concentrate on developing expansions that deepen the games connection to
the books: again specifically the Shire, why do we have minions named
Luitprand but neither the Old Took or Thain? Why can one be elected
leader of the Free Council but not the Mayor of Michel Delving? As
others have mentioned where is the Pipeweed, Buckland and Bagshot Row? By
concentrating on "low" power but high playability expansions I think ICE
will find the franchise can last a while. If they try to concentrate on
"power" they'll end up adding lord knows what to the Lord of the Rings.
> >I would suggest another standalone set for the 1st age instead, that would
> >create several new options for this game, or expansions focusing more on
> >supporting specific scenarios from LoTR or the Hobbit.
> >
>
> I think that ICE is overkilling the franchise; there have
> been quite a lot of expansions in the last twelvemonth, haven't there?
> Doing a First Age game would be quite interesting, but ICE would
> have to cut a new licensing deal (this is why Noble Hound isn't Huan,
> for example), and they may not be able to do this satisfactorily.
I'm not in favor of a first or second age expansion until ICE finishes
its work on the third age. Give me Hobbits, or give me ?
Andrew Markiel
Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> I agree completely. Who cares about playing the Balrog? As I
> stated in my other post on this subject; ICE appears to be far to
> preoccupied with "Power" card play. What it should be working on is
> enhancing the playability and role playing aspects of the game.
> Specifically it needs to complete the WarHosts supplement; the War of the
> Ring was a war not a quest for marshalling points. Then it needs to
> concentrate on developing expansions that deepen the games connection to
> the books: again specifically the Shire, why do we have minions named
> Luitprand but neither the Old Took or Thain? Why can one be elected
> leader of the Free Council but not the Mayor of Michel Delving? As
> others have mentioned where is the Pipeweed, Buckland and Bagshot Row?
I would take the alternate game philosophy - that ME is a game first,
based on the LotR. Obviously they want to capture some of the flavor
and essence of the books, but the primary reason to play the game is
that the mechanics lead to interesting play. If the play itself isn't
fun, then no one will play it just for the names and pictures.
Why is ME based on collecting marshalling points? Because it works!
I strongly suspect that they came up with the MP idea first, and the
whole council bit was a way to weasel a good idea into something
remotely Tolkienish.
I would much rather see ICE give us whatever well balanced expansion
they can produce rather than trying to pound out any particular
scenario. If they have a good, workable idea for a Balrog expansion,
but haven't quite figured out how to make War Hosts work, then give us
the Balrog and we'll wait on WH until they get it right. This is
especially true since every expansion affects the balance of all the
other cards previously printed. Game design is tricky stuff.
Bob Mohney
..What?!?!? I thought War Hosts was coming soon. Seeing that it has been
pushed back is very disappointing for me. Ever since I bought my first
packs of TW, I had a vision seeing armies being sent across the land to
fight the shadows. Don't get me wrong, playing corrupt wizards and the
Balrog sounds great but I was looking to War host sooooo much. :( War hosts
making the game feel like a board game? Sorry, I just do not see this.
TB<<
TB,
We removed Warhosts from the 1998 schedual for a good reason; we have yet to
come up with a good set of mechanics to make it workable. Trying to mix a game
about small companies moveing around Middle-earth with control of armies is no
simple thing. So far, the attempts have been very clunky. Once we can get this
issue straightened out, we will concider putting it back on the schedual.
Bob Mohney
ICE
Todd Banister
>
> We removed Warhosts from the 1998 schedual for a good reason; we have yet
to
> come up with a good set of mechanics to make it workable. Trying to mix a
game
> about small companies moveing around Middle-earth with control of armies
is no
> simple thing. So far, the attempts have been very clunky. Once we can get
this
> issue straightened out, we will concider putting it back on the schedual.
>
> Bob Mohney
> ICE
First off, thanks for the response. Its very nice to know that companies do
listen to their customers. :) As far as War Hosts goes, please do not kill
the idea! I can understand completely that it is difficult to get the
mechanics in line with the small companies as the game is now. I do not
think any player of ME would want an expansion that would throw the game
balance off. But I beg of you, please do not scrap the idea! War Hosts
could be the gem in the world that brings together all aspects of the "War
of the Ring". If you all have had so many problems with game mechanics in
the armies, would you ever be open to players trying to come up with a
system for the War hosts? Just think, you could get all of these brains to
work for you for free! You just have to like our ideas an publish them for
us. ;)
Thanks again for the info,
TB
Bob Mohney
>>First off, thanks for the response. Its very nice to know that companies do
listen to their customers. :) As far as War Hosts goes, please do not kill
the idea! I can understand completely that it is difficult to get the
mechanics in line with the small companies as the game is now. I do not
think any player of ME would want an expansion that would throw the game
balance off. But I beg of you, please do not scrap the idea! War Hosts
could be the gem in the world that brings together all aspects of the "War
of the Ring". If you all have had so many problems with game mechanics in
the armies, would you ever be open to players trying to come up with a
system for the War hosts? Just think, you could get all of these brains to
work for you for free! You just have to like our ideas an publish them for
us. ;)
Thanks again for the info,
TB<<
You would have to talk to Mike Reynolds here at ICE about that. He is the MECCG
series editor. He can be reached at Met...@aol.com.
Bob Mohney
Iron Crown Enterprises
Events Director
Trevor...@acml.com
In article <19971216002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bobm...@aol.com (Bob Mohney) wrote:
>
> We removed Warhosts from the 1998 schedual for a good reason; we have yet to
> come up with a good set of mechanics to make it workable. Trying to mix a game
> about small companies moveing around Middle-earth with control of armies is no
> simple thing. So far, the attempts have been very clunky. Once we can get this
> issue straightened out, we will concider putting it back on the schedual.
>
Seems to me the biggest hurdle is the company site-to-site
movement--so do away with it for Armies.
Hmm. Army strength==MP Point value. Armies move region to region
(as opposed to site to site) Characters may use "company" movement (site
to site) or be "attached" to armies and move region to region (starting,
of course, in the region their home site is in). Various resource cards
allow players with characters at a related site or attached to an army to
add their influence to a combat. (e.g. Rage of Eomer, etc. ) Various
other resource cards allow a site in a region to add some bonuses to the
army to army combat (e.g. "Retreat to the Gate" playable if Border-Hold
in region...etc ). Add in army specific items (Grom comes to mind) and
you've got a set.
Throw in hazards to affect armies (Heads of the Fallen, Wind from
the West) and come up with a simple army combat system. Add and compare
strengths (resolving whatever cards that have been played), Roll two dice
high roll wins.
Roll for a morale check for the loser on say one die, if more
than the MP value the army breaks (discard). If a losing army doesn't
break rotate the army 180 degrees. It will be at -1 power and -1 morale
check for the next turn. A rotated cards that loses is automatically
"dispersed". Any characters attached in a losing army must roll body
checks, attached to a just dispersed army they roll body checks at -1.
And there you have it, a grossly oversimplified warhosts (notice
how I avoided the topic of attached character to attached character combat
during army to army combat...)
Cheers,
T
Andy
Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> Hmm. Army strength==MP Point value.
So, the hero version of the Southrons is more powerful than the Ents of
Fangorn? Unlikely. It's worth more marshalling points, because in the novel
they had allied with Sauron, and mustering them to your side takes them
away from the enemy, so to speak.
>Armies move region to region (as opposed to site to site) Characters may
use "company" movement (site
> to site) or be "attached" to armies and move region to region (starting,
> of course, in the region their home site is in). Various resource cards
> allow players with characters at a related site or attached to an army to
> add their influence to a combat. (e.g. Rage of Eomer, etc. ) Various
> other resource cards allow a site in a region to add some bonuses to the
> army to army combat (e.g. "Retreat to the Gate" playable if Border-Hold
> in region...etc ). Add in army specific items (Grom comes to mind) and
> you've got a set.
I think that, while this may oversimplify things, the basic ideas here are
very sound. Plus, another mention of Eomer in an event card would just be
too cool, and I would need to build a deck around it.
>
> Throw in hazards to affect armies (Heads of the Fallen, Wind from
> the West) and come up with a simple army combat system. Add and compare
> strengths (resolving whatever cards that have been played), Roll two
dice
> high roll wins.
Hmm...one difficulty here is the fact that hazards, when played against
hero companies, are intended to reflect the influence of Sauron 'behind the
scenes' so to speak. Thus, the detainment value against minion companies
when travelling in lands dominated by Sauron's influence. But Sauron would
not traditionally hinder his own armies!
In addition take cars currently in the set which are indicative of the
actions of large armies (Tower Raided, Rank upon Rank, Scimitars of Steel,
Orc Quarrels). Shall they still continue to affect armies as well? If so,
sign me up for 3 Orc Quarrels in every deck. (Well, you see, Adunaphel,
it's not *my* fault.......Rogrog started it!)
<snip>
I think there are a lot of good ideas here, but I for one would like to
note that even in the series, it is not the actions of armies or the clash
of battles which brought triumph for the Free Peoples. Rather, it is the
will, the actions, and the interactions between individuals which is the
focus of every major event in the story. While I can give numerous examples
to support this, I'll stick with one -- the whole focus of the
counter-attack into Mordor was to draw attention away from the Ringbearer,
and it was his success, aided time and time again by individuals, not by
armed companies, which brought down Sauron and his Nine.
Glad to expound further through e-mail. Sorry if I got too preachy.
<Getting down off his soap box>
Eomer
Peredur Glyn
In article <19971216002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Bob Mohney
<bobm...@aol.com> writes
>..What?!?!? I thought War Hosts was coming soon. Seeing that it has been
>pushed back is very disappointing for me. Ever since I bought my first
>packs of TW, I had a vision seeing armies being sent across the land to
>fight the shadows. Don't get me wrong, playing corrupt wizards and the
>Balrog sounds great but I was looking to War host sooooo much. :( War hosts
>making the game feel like a board game? Sorry, I just do not see this.
... and ...
>We removed Warhosts from the 1998 schedual for a good reason; we have yet to
>come up with a good set of mechanics to make it workable. Trying to mix a game
>about small companies moveing around Middle-earth with control of armies is no
>simple thing. So far, the attempts have been very clunky. Once we can get this
>issue straightened out, we will concider putting it back on the schedual.
>
>Bob Mohney
>ICE
[Warning: this message may be considered longer than the average
posting.]
I have been thinking long and hard about this subject (well, *hard*
anyway...), and, even though it's a cool idea, moving actual *factions*
around the table on their own is not practical *nor* realistic. Let me
explain...
Let's take it as granted that ME:CCG is based completely and utterly on
LotR and Hob. If we take the parts of these stories that involve
diplomats mustering factions to their sides, then we see that the actual
important character to do with the faction do not come "bundled" with
the faction. I am not making sense, am I? Okay, I'll show an example:
The Riders of Rohan. Gandalf went to Edoras (with Aragorn, Legolas and
Gimli) to ask Theoden to join his cause. He succeeded, but if Theoden
had not seen the cause was good enough, then he would have stayed at
"home". Eomer, having been naughty, had been grounded. So, although they
are techinically the RoR, they have neither Theoden nor Eomer at their
fore.
Imagine this scenario in a game of ME:CCG, imagining that Middle Earth:
War Hosts has come out. Your "faction", The Riders of Rohan, is
galloping around the place doing whatever it should do. *Meanwhile* A
company containing Aragorn and Eomer is at Rivendell healing after going
on a mission to Moria. At the same time, Theoden with Hama by his side
is at Minas Tirith, trying to muster the Men of Anorien. *Who* is
leading the Riders of Rohan? Eothain? Ceorl? Eowyn? No, because the
Riders would not go out if their leaders were all out having fun killing
orcs.
What I am semi-driving at, therefore, is this point: Factions won't be
going around Middle Earth without a character leading them. The obvious
answer would therefore be, keeping with the mechanics of the game, would
be that every moving faction should have at least one character with
them, to signify the leader. It doesn't (I guess) matter who their
leader is, as you can sorta imagine Glorfindel leading the Men of Lake-
Town into battle. Maybe. But *what* does this remind you of?
Now *this* is what I am driving at: Allies! Or "Hosts" as I have decided
to call them (Hosts are exactly the same as allies, the name-change is
merely to stop cards like Stay Her Appetite causing the Host to turn
unrealistically on their bosses).
Allies signify people that are convinced by some person of import in
Middle Earth that they should go and fight against the Dark Lord. This
is *exactly* what is represented (or should be represented) by the
character influencing the Host. The character goes up to the palace,
says: "Please come and fight wi' me against 'im in the East", and the
guys at the palace say: "Yeah, anything for a laugh." - or *something*.
So, the Host joins the character - in the form of an ally. This is the
mechanism I have devised:
A Host is a different card (resource) to the Faction of the same type,
because it represents the fact that there are two types of "factions" -
armies and groupies. The latter are a bunch of layabouts who stay at
home and support the cause, but don't do anything about it. These are
represented by the Faction Resources that we all know and love. The
former would be the army - the Host. The ones, like the Riders of Rohan,
that were fired up so much by the idea that they charged out and went
into battle. So you can have both in play at the same time. Lemme give
you an example of the Host manifestation of Riders of Rohan:-
# # # # # # #
THE EORLINGAS - Hero Resource Ally
4 Mind // Warrior/Host // 2 (ally) MP
Playable at Edoras if you already have the Riders of Rohan faction in
play. Riders of Rohan is worth 1 less MP. If The Eorlingas is wounded,
place it in a tapped position instead. If the character controlling The
Eorlingas is Theoden or Eomer then the Mind of the Eorlingas is
increased by 2. The Eorlingas increased the Hazard Limit of its company
by one. Cards that affect Allies in general affects The Eorlingas but
cards that target a specific Ally cannot target The Eorlingas. Cards
that target Hosts target Hosts only and not Allies.
Prowess: 6 Body: 8
# # # # # # #
So. to sum up (yes I am drawing to a close, thanks for listening), a
Host is influenced at a sensible site if the relevant faction is in play
having been previously influenced by you, thus explaining why the ally
has good stats. Also, Hosts, unlike Allies, mostly count against the
Hazard Limit, for obvious reasons (size, noise etc.). Finally, the MP
offered by Hosts are purposefully small since you are already receiving
MP for the faction, and your characters are not making much more effort
by urging the army to ride forth into battle. In this example, your RoR
and Eorlingas total would come to 4MP (I think), which is not
phenomenal, but then, hey.
I would thus like reactions to this extremely long (and tedious?) spurt
of jabbering. Does this make it look like huge armies marching across
the map? Are the stats too weak? Should the hazard limit be raised?
I have already started to spout out the theoretical cards for the set
that I have baptised Middle Earth: Ring War (MERW - Middle Earth: War
Hosts was a curious choice since its initials were identical to White
Hand), and anybody who is interested are welcome to beg a spoiler, but
they may not get one...
There, I've finished. And if you thought you hadn't seen a smiley
anywhere in this message then you were right.
:)
There :) Just so that you don't think I'm angry - I just think they
clutter up an essay, that's all...
Farewell;
Yours,
--
****** Peredur Glyn ******
per...@llonnod.demon.co.uk
www.llonnod.demon.co.uk
Cymru Am Byth! #
# No chain-letters :)
"Return to the abyss prepared for you!
Fall into the nothingness that awaits you
and your Master! Go!"
- *Bad* thing to say to your in-laws
when you meet them for the first
time...
mickel ernst knight
I'll add a few comments to this post to make it even longer.
Well following someone into the next region to rough up some hooligans is
one thing (sign me up!), getting a group of people/dwarves/ents/whatever
to travel great distances (most likely to their doom) is another. For me
to sign on to an idea like this, there would have to be some limit on what
you could ask of these hosts.
> A Host is a different card (resource) to the Faction of the same type,
> because it represents the fact that there are two types of "factions" -
> armies and groupies. The latter are a bunch of layabouts who stay at
> home and support the cause, but don't do anything about it. These are
> represented by the Faction Resources that we all know and love. The
> former would be the army - the Host. The ones, like the Riders of Rohan,
> that were fired up so much by the idea that they charged out and went
> into battle. So you can have both in play at the same time. Lemme give
> you an example of the Host manifestation of Riders of Rohan:-
>
> # # # # # # #
> THE EORLINGAS - Hero Resource Ally
> 4 Mind // Warrior/Host // 2 (ally) MP
>
> Playable at Edoras if you already have the Riders of Rohan faction in
> play. Riders of Rohan is worth 1 less MP. If The Eorlingas is wounded,
> place it in a tapped position instead. If the character controlling The
> Eorlingas is Theoden or Eomer then the Mind of the Eorlingas is
> increased by 2. The Eorlingas increased the Hazard Limit of its company
> by one. Cards that affect Allies in general affects The Eorlingas but
> cards that target a specific Ally cannot target The Eorlingas. Cards
> that target Hosts target Hosts only and not Allies.
>
> Prowess: 6 Body: 8
> # # # # # # #
I like the general idea, but I don't like the idea of the Riders of Rohan
getting injured by a few lawless men, or bowed by Neeker Breekers, the
Riders aren't a few guys on horses, there's a bunch-o-them.
To be realistic, if I'm cruise'n middle earth with a few Hundred horsemen,
an Orc Patrol is not going to try and stop me. There's a matter of scale
here.
> So. to sum up (yes I am drawing to a close, thanks for listening), a
> Host is influenced at a sensible site if the relevant faction is in play
> having been previously influenced by you, thus explaining why the ally
> has good stats. Also, Hosts, unlike Allies, mostly count against the
> Hazard Limit, for obvious reasons (size, noise etc.). Finally, the MP
> offered by Hosts are purposefully small since you are already receiving
> MP for the faction, and your characters are not making much more effort
> by urging the army to ride forth into battle. In this example, your RoR
> and Eorlingas total would come to 4MP (I think), which is not
> phenomenal, but then, hey.
>
> I would thus like reactions to this extremely long (and tedious?) spurt
> of jabbering. Does this make it look like huge armies marching across
> the map? Are the stats too weak? Should the hazard limit be raised?
Making a 'host' card to reflect a faction you have in play sounds
promising to me, but I still have problems with scale. A company
containing a few characters can be overwhelmed by some Orc Guards, an army
cannot. I don't think a 'host' should be vulnerable to common hazzards.
> I have already started to spout out the theoretical cards for the set
> that I have baptised Middle Earth: Ring War (MERW - Middle Earth: War
> Hosts was a curious choice since its initials were identical to White
> Hand), and anybody who is interested are welcome to beg a spoiler, but
> they may not get one...
>
> There, I've finished. And if you thought you hadn't seen a smiley
> anywhere in this message then you were right.
Host movement and actions should be seperate from the company. You may
well require the character who influenced the faction to be at the
faction's site to allow these 'hosts' to do things.
What comes to mind is what ICE has done with Warlords. Having a faction
go 'on patrol' or 'on campaign' seems realistic. To reflect the fact you
cannot ask just anything of people, each addition action/movement you
order a host to do may require and additional influence check to see if
your still 'large and in charge.'
There are already resource and hazard cards which generate attacks based
on factions which are in play. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to
allow these attacks to be moved to different regions as a 'host' moves
around middle earth. One problem I see though is what are opposing these
hosts? If you're playing Ringwraith v. Wizard each play may well have
opposing hosts running around. But, in the event that the game is Wizard
v. Wizard there would need to me some game mechanics or hazards to reflect
the fact that the Riders of Rohan cannot just cruise around Modor
unhindered. Heck, having the RoR cruise around Gondor could rankle some
folks.
Adding armies to MECGG is pretty tough. For each problem you address, two
more seem to pop up. Perhaps just having Resource cards and hazards which
key off of factions in play is the best thing to do (and something which
is already being done).
What if there were Tower Raided type cards for Factions? For instance, a
resource card which provided a negative modifier, but was worth a few MP,
and if the influence attempt were successful, allowed you to make a
Shadowhold or Dark Domain a ruins & lairs.
Off the top of my head, perhaps a 2MP card which provided a negative
modifier equal to prowess of the automatic attack of the site to be
ransacked? If the site had two automatic attacks the influence check
would have to be made twice. Once sucessful, an additional roll(s) would
be required to see if the attack on the Shadowhold (or whatever) was
sucessful.
Did that make any sense?
Anyway, I reallly need to get back to work. I apoligize if this didn't
make a whole lot of sense, it was very stream of conciousness.
- Mike
Tim Elf
>> Hmm. Army strength==MP Point value.
>
>So, the hero version of the Southrons is more powerful than the Ents of
>Fangorn? Unlikely. It's worth more marshalling points, because in the novel
>they had allied with Sauron, and mustering them to your side takes them
>away from the enemy, so to speak.
It can still make sense. The Southrons, because of their knowledge of the
territory and Sauron's tactics, etc., would be worth far more in combat to the
heroes than the slow-moving Ents.
A friend and I came up with what we believe to be a very viable War Hosts
mechanics set (including text for around 50 cards). We submitted it to ICE,
but haven't received a response in months, so if anyone else would like to see
it, let me know and I'll e-mail you the text.
Tim
(Finrod on bungie.net)
- - - - -
For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,
the MIGHTY GOD, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
Merry Christmas!!!!
Trevor...@acml.com
In article <01bd0b2f$566267a0$2137fed0@andy>,
"Andy" <andyl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
>
> > Army strength==MP Point value.
>
> So, the hero version of the Southrons is more powerful than the Ents of
> Fangorn? Unlikely. It's worth more marshalling points, because in the novel
> they had allied with Sauron, and mustering them to your side takes them
> away from the enemy, so to speak.
Makes sense to me. You can argue it a couple of ways.
Hero Southrons MP: 5
Minion Southrons MP: 2
Ents of Fangorn MP: 3
The Southrons fighting as a Free People (Hero Version) are much
happier (and thus better fighters) then fighting as Slaves of Sauron.
(One would of course expect Minion Faction Booster: The Eye of
their Master is upon them: +2 to Minion Faction Power/ Perm Event.
Discard if Ithil Stone leaves Barad-Dur for any reason or some such)
The Ents powerful as they were in the book, were primarily
concenered with the Saruman's willfull destruction of their forest. (
Perhaps an appropriate Hero faction booster: Ire of the Ents: +2 to power
of Ent faction for remainder of turn against Fallen Wizards. Strength of
the Ents: Destruction of a WizardHaven). The thought of the Ents and
their Hurons (and other awakened plants) heading down south to Mordor
seems a bit far feteched.
Anyhow keeping base powress=current marshalling points is the
most absurdly simple way to go, so it must be right ;>
>
> >Armies move region to region (as opposed to site to site) Characters may
> use "company" movement (site
> > to site) or be "attached" to armies and move region to region (all of
> > whom start
> > of course, in the region their home site is in). Various resource cards
> > allow players with characters at a related site or attached to an army to
> > add their influence to a combat. (e.g. Rage of Eomer, etc. ) Various
> > other resource cards allow a site in a region to add some bonuses to the
> > army to army combat (e.g. "Retreat to the Gate" playable if Border-Hold
> > in region...etc ). Add in army specific items (Grom comes to mind) and
> > you've got a set.
>
> I think that, while this may oversimplify things, the basic ideas here are
> very sound. Plus, another mention of Eomer in an event card would just be
> too cool, and I would need to build a deck around it.
Yes it is oversimplified but IMHO the germ of a good idea is there
(somewhere). As a side note with this scheme all those region cards from
METW will finally be useful again, you'll need them to locate your
armies (sure they'll have jewels on the map as well, but it could
theoritically get quite crowded...).
Again, the key thing is to use region-to-region vs. site-to-site
movement. And (if you need a reason) this is reasonably "historically"
accurate. After the battle of the Pellannor Fields the armies camped
outside Minas Tirith.
However, as I mentioned, site-specific resource cards can lend
a slightly more "realistic" feel allowing say an army faction to retreat
to Minas Tirith (or Minas Morgul for you MELE players) giving some sort
of defensive bonus and requiring another resource card (say Grom) to
overcome. Allowing factions to move via sites allows strange things
like Ents in the Under-Grottos....
ICE has done a similar thing with Wraith movement (limiting
them to starter movement w/o special cards.) So its not a far streach
to use special movement for factions.
>
> > Throw in hazards to affect armies (Heads of the Fallen, Wind from
> > the West) and come up with a simple army combat system. Add and compare
> > strengths (resolving whatever cards that have been played), Roll two
> dice
> > high roll wins.
>
> Hmm...one difficulty here is the fact that hazards, when played against
> hero companies, are intended to reflect the influence of Sauron 'behind the
> scenes' so to speak. Thus, the detainment value against minion companies
> when travelling in lands dominated by Sauron's influence. But Sauron would
> not traditionally hinder his own armies!
Similar to MELE vs METW. MELE hazards can reflect the influence
of the West versus Sauron (i.e. Wind from the West ) METW hazards reflect
influence/nastiness of Sauron as you mention (i.e. Heads of the Fallen ).
Again all faction hazards/resources would be faction only. Non faction
hazards/resources would have little or no influence on factions and
faction combat.
>
> In addition take cars currently in the set which are indicative of the
> actions of large armies (Tower Raided, Rank upon Rank, Scimitars of Steel,
> Orc Quarrels). Shall they still continue to affect armies as well? If so,
> sign me up for 3 Orc Quarrels in every deck. (Well, you see, Adunaphel,
> it's not *my* fault.......Rogrog started it!)
> <snip>
Resource/Hazard cards would have to be designed just for
factions (specific and general). You have to distinguish between
company/character and army.
>
> I think there are a lot of good ideas here, but I for one would like to
> note that even in the series, it is not the actions of armies or the clash
> of battles which brought triumph for the Free Peoples. Rather, it is the
> will, the actions, and the interactions between individuals which is the
> focus of every major event in the story. While I can give numerous examples
> to support this, I'll stick with one -- the whole focus of the
> counter-attack into Mordor was to draw attention away from the Ringbearer,
> and it was his success, aided time and time again by individuals, not by
> armed companies, which brought down Sauron and his Nine.
>
> Glad to expound further through e-mail. Sorry if I got too preachy.
no more than I was...
I agree with the last paragraph (to an extant), I think gamewise
it should be slightly easier for the MELE (Sauron/Wraith) player to
win via waging a successful war campaign, sllightly easier for the METW
player to win via dunking the ring, and difficult the Fallen Wizard
to win through either method.
Cheers,
Trevor
mickel ernst knight
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> In article <01bd0b2f$566267a0$2137fed0@andy>,
> "Andy" <andyl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> >
> > > Army strength==MP Point value.
> >
> > So, the hero version of the Southrons is more powerful than the Ents of
> > Fangorn? Unlikely. It's worth more marshalling points, because in the novel
> > they had allied with Sauron, and mustering them to your side takes them
> > away from the enemy, so to speak.
>
> Makes sense to me. You can argue it a couple of ways.
>
> Hero Southrons MP: 5
> Minion Southrons MP: 2
> Ents of Fangorn MP: 3
>
> The Southrons fighting as a Free People (Hero Version) are much
> happier (and thus better fighters) then fighting as Slaves of Sauron.
Errr? What about the Hillmen? Does this mean they really want to be
enslaved in an evil empire?
- Mickel Knight
Andy
mickel ernst knight <mek...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.97121...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > The Southrons fighting as a Free People (Hero Version) are much
> > happier (and thus better fighters) then fighting as Slaves of Sauron.
>
> Errr? What about the Hillmen? Does this mean they really want to be
> enslaved in an evil empire?
>
>
> - Mickel Knight
Good point about the Hillmen. Additionally, why is an army universally more
effective simply because they're happier? Sure, morale plays a part in it,
but is not all encompassing. If that's the argument, you could just as
easily note that the armies at Minas Tirth weren't very happy when the
stench of Mordor came upon them. Are they worth less MP's because of it?
Additionally, some factions are already represented as warbands and
hazards. I.E. Dunlendings and Dunlending raiders, Umbarean Corsairs and
Corsairs of Umbar.
Still, this thread has raised a lot of cool ideas. Long live creative
brainstorming! Here's my positive input on War Hosts :
How about resource cards that act as a hazard creature attack within a
certain range of areas, similar to the Dragon Roused cards? Consider them
manifestations of the factions, and if defeated, the faction is removed
from play and an associated automatic attack is removed. Maybe for the Auto
attacks at Dark or shadow holds, two or three manifestations would need to
be defeated in order to remove the auto attack. An example:
The Golden Knights; War Host;Manifestation of the Knights of Dol Amroth,
Playable only if Knights of Dol Amroth is in Play. Any war host moving in
the current region of The Golden Knights faces a war host attack -- 1
strike at 12/8. If The Golden Knights is defeated, discard all
manifestations of the Knights of Dol Amroth, and all versions of Dol Amroth
have their automatic attack removed. Knights of Dol Amroth is now worth 1
MP. The Golden Knights may not move without an attached commander whose
home site is Dol Amroth.
Treat war host attacks similar to company vs company combat, but including
only War Hosts in the battle. War host movement should be one region per
turn. You can have cards which increase or decrease strikes, prowess, and
body, or cancel the attack. There can be cards which allow the attachment
of a leader as if they had the apporpriate home site, cards which increase
the number of regions a host can move, cards which allow the attacking war
host (the one moving) to assign first. Cards which allow individual
companies to hinder or attack warhosts would be possible as well. Another
victory condition could be added.
I have some more ideas to add here, but I'm out of time for the moment.
Comments are welcomed, flames can go to Orodruin.
Eomer
<off to design a Riders of Rohan War Host Card>
mickel ernst knight
I'm glad there're still ME discussions on the misc. list.
On 18 Dec 1997, Andy wrote:
> mickel ernst knight <mek...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.SOL.3.96.97121...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > > The Southrons fighting as a Free People (Hero Version) are much
> > > happier (and thus better fighters) then fighting as Slaves of Sauron.
> >
> > Errr? What about the Hillmen? Does this mean they really want to be
> > enslaved in an evil empire?
>
> Good point about the Hillmen. Additionally, why is an army universally more
> effective simply because they're happier? Sure, morale plays a part in it,
> but is not all encompassing. If that's the argument, you could just as
> easily note that the armies at Minas Tirth weren't very happy when the
> stench of Mordor came upon them. Are they worth less MP's because of it?
To some extent differences in MP for host prowess can be explained by
noting their tactical position. For Sauron to have the Hillmen is of
great tactical advantage, he has a large force which is behind enemy
lines. Likewise, a wandering bunch 'o ill bathed hillmen will not do the
forces of good much good when their miles from the action.
It's not perfect, nor can I claim credit for this idea, but it can be a
way to explain MP=prowess (though I think a better solution can be
achieved).
So Warhost combat would be different (i.e. seperate) from company v.
company combat? I like that.
Something which may be cool... As you mentioned there are hazards which
represent factions. Many of these hazards can only target certain regions
by name. If a host is running around, the appropriate hazard should be
playable in the region the faction is currently residing.
So, a bunch of Orcs could not defeat the Knights of Dol Amroth, but they
could defeat a small patrol of them.
- Mickel Knight
Anders Gabrielsson
Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
>
> In article <01bd0b2f$566267a0$2137fed0@andy>,
> "Andy" <andyl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Trevor...@acml.com wrote:
> >
> > > Army strength==MP Point value.
> >
> > So, the hero version of the Southrons is more powerful than the Ents of
> > Fangorn? Unlikely. It's worth more marshalling points, because in the novel
> > they had allied with Sauron, and mustering them to your side takes them
> > away from the enemy, so to speak.
>
> Makes sense to me. You can argue it a couple of ways.
>
> Hero Southrons MP: 5
> Minion Southrons MP: 2
> Ents of Fangorn MP: 3
>
> The Southrons fighting as a Free People (Hero Version) are much
> happier (and thus better fighters) then fighting as Slaves of Sauron.
Ummm... And the Dunlendings and Hillmen are much happier when they're
slaves? Not likely...
--
Anders Gabrielsson
and...@stp.ling.uu.se
The contents of this message belongs to me and nobody else. So there!
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!
Tim Elf
Here's the war hosts rules as envisioned by myself and a friend:
War Hosts
Designed by John Hart and Tim Frankovich (tim...@aol.com)
War Hosts is an expansion set for the Middle-Earth Collectible Card Game which
allows mobilized factions to move and engage in combat. It is now possible for
Sauron or the Free Peoples to win a military victory. A hero player can win an
instant victory by moving factions totaling 14 or more Marshalling Points to
the region of Gorgoroth. A minion player can win an instant victory by moving
factions totaling 4 or more to each of the following regions: Rhudaur, Wold &
Foothills, Lindon and Anfalas.
Faction Movement
Factions do not move to specific sites. Their movement involves only regions.
When a faction is first brought into play, it is considered to be in its home
region. For example: the Wood-elves, if mustered, are considered to be in the
region Woodland Realm.
No faction may move until the card Ready to War is in play. Once Ready to War
is in play, each faction (or group of factions) may move to one adjacent region
during the owning player's Movement/Hazard phase. Each faction (or group of
factions) has a hazard limit of two. Only hazards that specifically affect
factions may be played against factions.
To keep track of where each faction is located, place the faction card with the
region card identifying its location (or use markers on a large map). When the
faction moves, replace the region card with its new region.
Certain resource cards may affect faction movement.
Stacked Factions
Allied factions may be stacked together and moved together. Exception: elf,
dwarf, and orc factions may not be stacked together or moved together.
Hero factions and minion factions that end the Movement/Hazard phase in the
same region must engage in combat.
Dragon Factions
Dragon factions normally create automatic-attacks in the surrounding regions.
If the dragon ever moves from its home region, it forfeits those auto-attacks
and instead creates an auto-attack in its new region.
Faction Combat
There is no limit to the number of factions that can engage in combat. Faction
combat is simultaneous and takes place during the Site Phase. Each player
rolls a number of dice equal to the Marshalling Point total of the factions he
controls. All resource cards that affect the dice roll must be played before
the roll. Add the totals. The winning side (the one who rolled the highest)
chooses one of the opposing factions to remove from play. Only one round of
combat takes place each turn. If, at the end of the next Movement/Hazard
phase, opposing factions are still present, another round of combat takes place
and so on until all opposing factions have either withdrawn or been destroyed.
A faction in its home region receives an additional bonus of +1 die.
Battle Items
Certain minion resource cards are defined as battle items. These may only be
used when the controlling minion faction is the "attacking" faction. A faction
is considered attacking if it has moved into a region containing another
faction that has not moved that turn.
Commanders
Even the smallest faction can benefit from a strong leader. Any character that
has a bonus toward a specific faction or factions may be a commander (other
characters may only be a commander through the use of specific resource cards).
Each commander may normally command only one faction. A commander may be
assigned to a faction at the beginning of the site phase, before combat takes
place (and before any other actions at the character's current site). Place
the commander character with the faction (a commander may carry items, but may
not have any followers). During combat, add the commander's marshalling bonus
to the total dice roll. (Example: Dain II has a +2 bonus toward the Iron Hill
Dwarves. As a commander, he gives that +2 to the four dice the Iron Hill
Dwarves roll.)
A minion leader who brings 3 factions into play at one site (see specific
faction cards) may apply his bonus to all 3 factions. (If a player attempts to
bring all 3 factions into play with the special rules printed on the cards,
none of those factions may move until all 3 factions have been mustered.) The
extra marshalling point for getting all 3 factions does not apply to combat.
(Example: the Lieutenant of Angmar has mustered 3 1-point factions at
Barad-dur. He may now move with those factions and apply his bonus [+3] to
each one in combat. In combat, the player would roll 3 dice and apply the +3
to each one.)
Clemens Schmitz
Tim Elf wrote:
>
> Here's the war hosts rules as envisioned by myself and a friend:
>
> War Hosts
>
> Designed by John Hart and Tim Frankovich (tim...@aol.com)
>
> War Hosts is an expansion set for the Middle-Earth Collectible Card Game which
> allows mobilized factions to move and engage in combat. It is now possible for
> Sauron or the Free Peoples to win a military victory. A hero player can win an
> instant victory by moving factions totaling 14 or more Marshalling Points to
> the region of Gorgoroth. A minion player can win an instant victory by moving
> factions totaling 4 or more to each of the following regions: Rhudaur, Wold &
> Foothills, Lindon and Anfalas.
Would your set contain hazards to make it fesible for Wizard or minion
only play, or would it be restricted to minion vs. Wizard? Or, in other
words, what is there to stop the hero player from moving all his
factions to Gorgoroth?
> - - - - -
> For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,
> and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,
> the MIGHTY GOD, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
>
> Merry Christmas!!!!
Thanks!
Clemens
--
SAULOT: So the older one - Cain, I think - killed Abel, the younger one,
and was cursed by God for the very first murder.
HASSAM:Innovative man, this Cain.
-from the REAL words of the Clan Founders
Tim Elf
Clemens wrote:
>Would your set contain hazards to make it fesible for Wizard or minion
>only play, or would it be restricted to minion vs. Wizard? Or, in other
>words, what is there to stop the hero player from moving all his
>factions to Gorgoroth?
This was primarily envisioned for wizard vs minion play. I think Fallen
Wizards would work in fine, although we didn't know about the White Hand when
we designed it. There are several hazards playable against mobilized factions
(such as Hunger), but in a wizard only or minion only game, winning a military
victory would be unfeasible in anything less than a two-deck game, simply
because of the time involved. I think by the time someone was able to get
anywhere close to a military victory, his opponent would have already called
the Council or dunked the Ring. Basically, if you're going to play a game
involving War Hosts, you have to agree beforehand to include that aspect.
Tim
(Finrod on bungie.net)
Clemens Schmitz
Tim Elf wrote:
>
> Clemens wrote:
>
> >Would your set contain hazards to make it fesible for Wizard or minion
> >only play, or would it be restricted to minion vs. Wizard? Or, in other
> >words, what is there to stop the hero player from moving all his
> >factions to Gorgoroth?
>
> This was primarily envisioned for wizard vs minion play. I think Fallen
> Wizards would work in fine, although we didn't know about the White Hand when
> we designed it. There are several hazards playable against mobilized factions
> (such as Hunger), but in a wizard only or minion only game, winning a military
> victory would be unfeasible in anything less than a two-deck game, simply
> because of the time involved. I think by the time someone was able to get
> anywhere close to a military victory, his opponent would have already called
> the Council or dunked the Ring. Basically, if you're going to play a game
> involving War Hosts, you have to agree beforehand to include that aspect.
So campaigning is slow? Gathering all those faction, playing that ready
to march card etc.
But there is nothing to keep you out of Mordor except the Dark Lord's
armies?
Tim Elf
>So campaigning is slow? Gathering all those faction, playing that ready
>to march card etc.
>But there is nothing to keep you out of Mordor except the Dark Lord's
>armies?
Unless you've tuned your deck specifically to go for it, campaigning can be
slow, which is as it should be, to be honest. Armies don't just sweep across
Middle-earth in a matter of days, you know. :)
Nope, there's nothing to keep you out of Mordor except minion armies, but they
have a tremendous advantage being there. Armies get a bonus for being in their
home region, and then there's other defense cards, such as Entrenchment or
Fortifications, that provide other bonuses. One good-sized faction sitting in
Gorgoroth with a Fortification card provides protection enough against all but
the largest armies. The heroes can use these defenses, as well, but the minion
armies have Battle Items, such as the Blasting Fire of Orthanc or Grond, which
can help to overcome those defenses. The heroes don't have items since they
(for the most part) are on the defensive.
Clemens Schmitz
Tim Elf wrote:
>
> >So campaigning is slow? Gathering all those faction, playing that ready
> >to march card etc.
> >But there is nothing to keep you out of Mordor except the Dark Lord's
> >armies?
>
> Unless you've tuned your deck specifically to go for it, campaigning can be
> slow, which is as it should be, to be honest. Armies don't just sweep across
> Middle-earth in a matter of days, you know. :)
Huh? The Rohirrim took several days to muster and several days to cross
one region to get to Minas Tirith.
> Nope, there's nothing to keep you out of Mordor except minion armies, but they
> have a tremendous advantage being there. Armies get a bonus for being in their
> home region, and then there's other defense cards, such as Entrenchment or
> Fortifications, that provide other bonuses. One good-sized faction sitting in
> Gorgoroth with a Fortification card provides protection enough against all but
> the largest armies. The heroes can use these defenses, as well, but the minion
> armies have Battle Items, such as the Blasting Fire of Orthanc or Grond, which
> can help to overcome those defenses. The heroes don't have items since they
> (for the most part) are on the defensive.
Starts to sound better and better.
Tim Elf
> Armies don't just sweep across
>> Middle-earth in a matter of days, you know. :)
>
>Huh? The Rohirrim took several days to muster and several days to cross
>one region to get to Minas Tirith.
Yes, one region. But the Elves of Lindon, for example, won't be showing up in
Gorgoroth very quickly.
>> Nope, there's nothing to keep you out of Mordor except minion armies, but
>they
>> have a tremendous advantage being there. Armies get a bonus for being in
>their
>> home region, and then there's other defense cards, such as Entrenchment or
>> Fortifications, that provide other bonuses. One good-sized faction sitting
>in
>> Gorgoroth with a Fortification card provides protection enough against all
>but
>> the largest armies. The heroes can use these defenses, as well, but the
>minion
>> armies have Battle Items, such as the Blasting Fire of Orthanc or Grond,
>which
>> can help to overcome those defenses. The heroes don't have items since
>they
>> (for the most part) are on the defensive.
>
>Starts to sound better and better.
Okay, I'll post the card text next.
Tim Elf
War Hosts suggested cards: (feel free to copy this and make your own proxy
cards to try it out!)
General:
Ready to War
Resource Permanent Event (two versions, hero & minion)
All factions in play are considered mobilized and may move one region per turn
in the War phase. Faction combat is now possible. Cannot be duplicated.
Discard Ready to War if the number of factions in play is less than two.
Scouts Abroad
Resource Permanent Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable only on a mobilized faction. The faction now creates an
automatic-attack (detainment vs. hero companies) in its current region,
consisting of strikes equal to the faction's Marshalling Points and prowess
equal to its influence check number. This automatic-attack takes place at the
end of the Movement/Hazard phase on any company that moves through the region
or ends the phase at a site in the region. May not be duplicated on a given
faction. May not be played on Army of the Dead or Dragon factions.
Double Time
Resource Short Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable on a mobilized faction. The faction may move one extra region in the
War phase.
Encamped
Resource Permanent Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable on a mobilized faction not in its home region. The faction is
considered to be in its home region. Discard if the faction moves.
Entrenched
Resource Permanent Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable on a mobilized faction. All combat rolls against the faction are
modified by -1. Discard if the faction moves. May not be duplicated on a given
faction.
Fortification
Resource Permanent Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable on a mobilized faction or group of factions that did not move this
turn. Double the Marshalling Points of the faction(s) for purposes of combat.
Discard if a target faction moves. May not be duplicated on a given region.
Retreat
Resource Short Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable after combat rolls have been made but before resolution. Player may
retreat one faction from combat into an adjacent region.
Join the Fray
Resource Short Event (two versions, hero & minion)
Playable on a company in the same region as a faction combat at the beginning
of the War phase. The company may join the battle. Divide the total prowess
of the company by nine (round down) and add it to the faction's combat total.
The company may not take any action during the Site Phase.
Hazards:
Suffered Losses
Hazard Permanent Event or Short Event
When played as a Permanent Event, may only be played on a mobilized faction
that has just won a battle. -1 Marshalling Points to the faction. While in
its home region, a faction may attempt to remove this card with a roll of seven
or greater.
When played as a Short Event, may only be played against a character that took
part in a faction battle. Character makes a body check -1 (if on the winning
side) or -3 (if on the losing side).
Up to six copies of this card may be included in the play deck and sideboard
combined.
Hunger
Hazard Short Event
Playable on a mobilized faction not in its home region. Make a roll and discard
the faction if the result is less than 4. Modify the roll by -1 for every
region between it and its home region.
Seized with Bewilderment
Hazard Short Event
Playable on a mobilized faction or group of factions. Target player makes a
roll. If the result is equal to or less than the total Marshalling Point value
of the target faction(s), the Marshalling Points of the faction(s) are divided
by two (round up) for the purposes of combat.
Hero Resources:
[High Ground]
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized faction prior to combat. +1 to dice roll (+2 if Gates
of Morning is in play).
Foes of All
Resource Permanent Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized elf or dwarf faction. Allows combined battles with all
races.
Feint of Resistance
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a faction or group of factions in combat. The faction makes two
combat rolls, choosing which one to use. May not be duplicated for a given
battle.
Hatred Cold and Bitter
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized elf faction. +1 per die vs. orc attacks. May not be
duplicated on a given faction.
Gleam of Chill Flame
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized elf faction. +3 to combat roll.
Red Light in their Eyes
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized dwarf faction. +1 per die on combat roll. May not be
duplicated on a given faction.
The Eagles are Coming!
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on The Great Eagles (mobilized). The eagles may move three regions to
join a battle.
Storm Upon the Plain
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a mobilized men faction. +1 per die on combat roll. May not be
duplicated on a given faction.
More Skilled was their Knighthood
Resource Short Event (hero)
Cancel one faction enhancement in play on a minion faction facing combat with a
men faction.
Huorns' Revenge
Resource Short Event (hero)
Remove from play one mobilized orc faction in the Gap of Isen, Rohan or
Fangorn.
Minion Resources:
[High Ground]
Resource Short Event (minion)
Playable on a mobilized faction prior to combat. +1 to dice roll (+3 if Doors
of Night is in play).
With Dreadful Swiftness
Resource Short Event (minion)
Playable on a mobilized orc faction and wolf faction in the same region. The
two factions may move together up to two regions to attack.
Gathered by Hill and Valley
Resource Short Event (minion)
Playable on a mobilized orc faction. The faction may move two regions to join
another orc faction.
In Fury and Disorder
Resource Short Event (minion)
Playable on a mobilized orc faction or group of factions. -2 to combat roll
for each orc faction, but add a number of dice equal to the Marshalling Point
total of the orc faction(s). May not be duplicated on a given turn.
Mumakil
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Playable only on the mobilized Southrons faction. +1 die to combat roll. May
not be duplicated.
Catapult
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Battle Item. Playable on a mobilized faction in its home region. Negates
Entrenchment bonuses in an attack against a hero faction or group of factions.
Discard when any such attack is defeated or when Suffered Losses is played on
the owning faction. May not be duplicated on a given faction.
Siege Tower
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Battle Item. Playable on a mobilized faction in its home region. Negates
Fortification bonuses in an attack against a hero faction or group of factions.
Discard when any such attack is defeated or when Suffered Losses is played on
the owning faction. May not be duplicated on a given faction.
Blasting-fire of Orthanc
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Unique. Battle Item. Playable on a mobilized faction in the Gap of Isen.
Negates Entrenchment and Fortification bonuses in an attack against a hero
faction or group of factions. Discard when any such attack is defeated.
Grond
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Unique. Battle Item. Playable on a mobilized faction in Imlad Morgul or
Gorgoroth. Negates all Fortification and home region bonuses in an attack
against a hero faction or group of factions. Discard when any such attack is
defeated.
Spells of Ruin
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Sorcery. Playable on a Battle Item in the same region as the sorcery-using
character. Place this card with the Battle Item and its controlling faction.
The faction receives one extra die during an attack. Discard when the Battle
Item is discarded. May not be duplicated on a given Battle Item. Character
makes a corruption check -4 unless he is a Ringwraith.
Commander-Related Cards:
Battle-fury of his Fathers
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a man commander. +1 to his faction combat bonus. May not be
duplicated on a given character.
Not Return without Battle
Resource Short Event (hero)
Playable on a commander. +1 to faction combat bonus, -1 to body. May not be
duplicated on a given character.
Matters of Battle and Command
Resource Permanent Event (hero)
Playable on a warrior with a mind of 5 or greater. Allows that character to
command a mobilized group of factions with a commander bonus equal to his
direct influence divided by two (rounded down).
In Wisdom or Great Folly
Resource Permanent Event (hero)
Playable on a revealed Wizard. Allows that Wizard to command a mobilized
faction or group of factions with a commander bonus of +3.
[For the Glory of All]
Resource Permanent Event (hero)
Playable on a character acting as a commander. The character's mind is halved
(round down). Remove this card if the character stops being a commander.
No Brigand or Orc-chieftain
Resource Permanent Event (minion)
Playable on a revealed Ringwraith. Allows that Ringwraith to command a
mobilized faction or group of factions with a commander bonus of +4 (+5 for the
Witch-king).
Fallen in the Midst of Glory
Hazard Short Event
Playable at the end of the War phase on a commander who took part in a battle.
The commander makes a body check minus his commanding bonus.
Created by John Hart and Tim Frankovich