Dunharrow wrote: ↑1 year ago
I don't think I am being defensive Dirk. I am just saying that I like what I have seen and feel people, like always, are hating on the set before they play it. Sure, I wish some things were slightly different. I am not sure why you brought up WiKi and Balrog. You're right, they are not characters that had a lot of growth. But Sam sure did. So I don't know what to do with your point and decided not to argue it. Are you saying it makes sense to have 4 Gandalfs but not two balrogs? I doubt it, since you are very much against 4 Gandalfs.
I like your idea of having all the character-development-y characters get a double sided card. Gandalf the Grey transforms into Gandalf the White when he dies, Frodo Baggins transforms into Sauron's Bane when he deals combat damage to an opponent while the ringbearer, etc.
My joke about the witch king and balrog was just to demonstrate that I don't think the "multiple cards were necessary to show character progression" argument holds water, because they're doing it with characters which that doesn't hold true for. Witch king now has 3 cards, and none of them even have him on a horse pre-river-crossing. So it seems clear to me that the motivation was something else.
I think you are also being very cynical about the decisions Wizards made. You think they lacked confidence in a Lord of the Rings set?
Of all the sets they have ever made, this is the most guaranteed to do well. It is the most well-known fantasy IP in existence.
That's true, lacking confidence might be a bit strong. But I do think the decision to print many versions of each character was motivated by a desire to move packs over making a thematically cohesive set.
They wanted to have multiple versions of the main characters to show their growth. But also people like Sam the Gardener and people like Sam the Hero. So if you're going to make a LotR set, you may as well make as many people happy as you can.
So they made a decision to have multiple copies of the main characters. Once they started doing that, they made multiple versions of iconic characters.
There is only one Mouth of Sauron. Only one
Grishnåkht Brash Instigator. Only once Prince Imrahil. These are not well-known characters.
Exactly. They printed multiple versions of the main characters because they knew names would sell, even if it didn't really make thematic sense. Even for characters with character development that are somewhat justified, is it even clear which version is the further-developed character? Can you arrange the Frodos in chronological order with certainty? Sauron's bane last, sure, but tbf sauron's bane encapsulates the entire character in one card, why do we need the others? Honestly from a mechanical standpoint you could argue Sauron's Bane FIRST, since it depicts him from the start as a very weak character with no abilities.
Frodo, Determined Hero looks like he's in Moria, but the only context for that is the picture really - every version of Frodo depicts him with sting, so mechanically it says nothing unique about his character at that point. And
Frodo, Adventurous Hobbit looks like it could be pretty much anywhere. And
Frodo Baggins...I'll allow that mechanically it sorta follows that, as he's leaving Rivendell and acquiring the fellowship, it sooorta makes sense to have ring tempting triggers alongside legendary creatures? But why "must be blocked"? Obviously Sauron wants to acquire the ring from whoever has it, not particular to Frodo at all. The whole point was that he was unobtrusive and unimportant, so the flavor honestly feels upside down to me.
Imo
Frodo, Sauron's Bane is a great depiction of the entire character arc. The other versions don't really add anything except give players a way to make a Frodo Commander Deck if they don't like Sauron's Bane mechanically. Which feels very pandery to me. Commit to your depiction of the character. As-is it feels like "oh, you don't like how we designed Frodo? How about this one? No? This one? How about this one?" Have some confidence, imo, grow a backbone.
I also think they focused on the draft experience. To feel like you are part of the fellowship, you will have members of the fellowship in every deck you draft. To feel the forces of Evil, the iconic evil characters will show up in every game. If Gandalf is a mythic and you see him every 4-5 draft pods, it's not really feeling like Lord of the Rings.
I don't really think draft is a reasonable place to expect to play out the entire story of lord of the rings, - I think it's enough to thematically replicate perhaps a single battle involving some subset of the fellowship and/or Sauron's forces. I mean does it "feel" like lord of the rings when you're fighting your frodo+gandalf+gimli deck against your opponents frodo+sam+legolas deck, and both teams have their own simultaneous ringbearers? I just don't think limited can deliver these sorts of experiences.
You may disagree, but I am willing to draft this and see for myself how it feels to play it. I don't care if I am playing an uncommon Gollum, I am in it for the gameplay and for the flavour. Neither cares about constructed power level or rarity.
I do hope (and am open to) the limited format is good.
And I get it, this is the Commander forum. Power level matters. But if your focus is commander, stop paying attention to the uncommons.
I mean there are a lot of bad rares and mythics too.
Fewer in today's batch, though, tbf.
It bewilders me to see so many people hating this product. I guess people are passionate about lord of the rings and are upset that it isn't perfect in their eyes.
For me a big part of it is the inflated prices. If this was at standard prices I'd be a lot less bothered about cracking a junk rare.
The perfect lord of the rings set for me would have been entirely illustrated by Alan Lee. Dunharrow would be a Land card. Galadriel would be Golgari. The Maiar would be Angels, not Avatars. Sauron would punish opponents for being tempted by the ring. But I didn't expect perfection. I am just expecting to enjoy this.
Fair enough.
