Unreleased and New Card Discussion

[NZB2323]

With the popularity of this set, I wonder if we'll ever get another UB : LOTR set in the future.

Overall the set was good, but I was hoping for a Naya legend, Gimli and Legolas as partners(or partner with), a mechanic similar to party for having a human, a dwarf, and a elf(and maybe a wizard and hobbit?), and a card about the Riders of Rohan arriving to save the day at the Battle of Helmsdeep. And who knows? Maybe next time they can make Aragorn Asian.

[toctheyounger]

And who knows? Maybe next time they can make Aragorn Asian

Sigh....let's not with these comments. I get it, but they don't look great for the person saying them. We all know it's weird and a bit performative, let's just leave it at that.

I'll admit, while the flavor is generally great, there's precious little I'm interested in acquiring here personally. From a deck inclusion standpoint, I want Lotho, Corrupt Shirriff, Orcish Bowmasters, Boromir, Warden of the Tower, Delighted Halfling, Reprieve and Display of Power. I haven't checked for any Delina, Wild Mage inclusions, but I don't remember seeing anything that breaks the mold so that's kinda it. That said power was never the focus here, so my sweatiness is in conflict with the main goals of the set.

I'd like to see more Middle Earth: there's plenty of lore to go around, and there's enough Tolkien fanatics they could reasonably go way back to the First Age for some cool stuff.

Honestly the biggest turnoff for me for the set is the 1 of 1. I just wish it didn't exist. The set didn't need such a gross gimmick, and everyone clambering to offer the highest bid really makes me not want to spend any money on it at all.

[NZB2323]

And who knows? Maybe next time they can make Aragorn Asian

Sigh....let's not with these comments. I get it, but they don't look great for the person saying them. We all know it's weird and a bit performative, let's just leave it at that.

I'll admit, while the flavor is generally great, there's precious little I'm interested in acquiring here personally. From a deck inclusion standpoint, I want Lotho, Corrupt Shirriff, Orcish Bowmasters, Boromir, Warden of the Tower, Delighted Halfling, Reprieve and Display of Power. I haven't checked for any Delina, Wild Mage inclusions, but I don't remember seeing anything that breaks the mold so that's kinda it. That said power was never the focus here, so my sweatiness is in conflict with the main goals of the set.

I'd like to see more Middle Earth: there's plenty of lore to go around, and there's enough Tolkien fanatics they could reasonably go way back to the First Age for some cool stuff.

Honestly the biggest turnoff for me for the set is the 1 of 1. I just wish it didn't exist. The set didn't need such a gross gimmick, and everyone clambering to offer the highest bid really makes me not want to spend any money on it at all.

What's wrong with Aragorn being Asian? He's a Christ-like figure, and different cultures around the world have different depictions of Christ as different races.

[toctheyounger]

What's wrong with Aragorn being Asian? He's a Christ-like figure, and different cultures around the world have different depictions of Christ as different races.

Well, fwiw, Tolkien despised allegory on any basis, so if you're seeing Christ it ain't cause JRR put it there.

At any rate, I think the whole color talk around the characters is just a slippery slope of critiquing WotC's performative inclusion. The more it comes up the more likely you are to make racist comments in retort. It's best to just agree that they're just doing it for social justice points and leave it at that.

[NZB2323]

What's wrong with Aragorn being Asian? He's a Christ-like figure, and different cultures around the world have different depictions of Christ as different races.

Well, fwiw, Tolkien despised allegory on any basis, so if you're seeing Christ it ain't cause JRR put it there.

At any rate, I think the whole color talk around the characters is just a slippery slope of critiquing WotC's performative inclusion. The more it comes up the more likely you are to make racist comments in retort. It's best to just agree that they're just doing it for social justice points and leave it at that.

Well Tolkien must have been affected by his subconscious a lot…The return of the King who initially claimed not to be King and was only successful after confronting the dead and was a champion of all races and was able to defeat sin/the ring, who let the smallest people be heroes…(the meek shall inherit the earth.)

And no matter what you said I wouldn't retort with racist comments. I fail to see how speculating that Wizards could print an Asian Aragorn makes you think that I'm a racist.

[pokken]

Dude if you can't see that positing a slippery slope of more race changes in the future sniffs a little racist I don't know what to tell ya.

It's because framing it as a slope to continue sliding down is implicitly framing it as a bad thing.

(Which it definitely isn't and if you're upset about inclusion you are wrong).

It's okay to recognize that it's pandering but let's also recognize that corporations pandering is often the first step toward normalizing things (e.g. inclusivity)

[DirkGently]

Well Tolkien must have been affected by his subconscious a lot…The return of the King who initially claimed not to be King and was only successful after confronting the dead and was a champion of all races and was able to defeat sin/the ring, who let the smallest people be heroes…(the meek shall inherit the earth.)

Apparently Aragorn as an allegory for Jeezy is a thing that people claim, but man does this justification feel weak to me. Jeezy's main thing was dying to save humanity - why people say Neo is a christ figure for example - and Aragorn doesn't do that? The wikipedia article for christ allegories justifies it by saying that Jeezy was "a descendent of a long line of royalty" which...I guess that's a thing that the bible claims about him, but it's definitely not what I think most people think of. Who cares about his earthly lineage, that's not really the point is it? If he's a king it's because god says he's a king, not because of his great grandfather or whatever. Plus I mean family trees being what they are, just because your ancestor was royal doesn't mean much, there could be thousands of descendants of that person, you need to follow (whatever system, presumably male primogeniture) to figure out who the actual king is. If, ofc, that mattered, which it shouldn't because royalty is dumb.

Anyway, I think doing another LotR set would be pretty absurd. We already have five gandalfs, how many do we need? If they do another middle earth thing, at least do the hobbit. I'm sure there's plenty of cool stuff elsewhere in the lore but let's be honest, nobody enjoyed the Silmarillion so you're basically eliminating the nostalgia this set is counting on.

[toctheyounger]

Well Tolkien must have been affected by his subconscious a lot…The return of the King who initially claimed not to be King and was only successful after confronting the dead and was a champion of all races and was able to defeat sin/the ring, who let the smallest people be heroes…(the meek shall inherit the earth.)

And no matter what you said I wouldn't retort with racist comments. I fail to see how speculating that Wizards could print an Asian Aragorn makes you think that I'm a racist.

He drew from his experiences in WW1. That's about it. There are multiple instances of him going on the record to say that he does not write one thing to say another. He did not like to read or write allegory in any fashion.

Fwiw I didn't call you racist, I just don't think it's a good idea to get into the weeds about how right or wrong their interpretation was. It is what it is, and any dialogue about it is 2 years too late minimum, based on the WotC release schedule.

[NZB2323]

Dude if you can't see that positing a slippery slope of more race changes in the future sniffs a little racist I don't know what to tell ya.

It's because framing it as a slope to continue sliding down is implicitly framing it as a bad thing.

(Which it definitely isn't and if you're upset about inclusion you are wrong).

It's okay to recognize that it's pandering but let's also recognize that corporations pandering is often the first step toward normalizing things (e.g. inclusivity)

So me speculating that Wizards could print other versions of Aragorn as different races makes me racist? And me saying that different cultures have different representations of Christ so Wizards could have different representations of Aragorn is a bad thing? And how does that make me against inclusion?

Does me pointing out that Wizards has made different races of Snapcaster Mage make me racist? He's been Asian, Black and White.

[pokken]

All I can tell ya is how it reads.

Lemme ask you: what were you trying to communicate by phrasing it the way you did?

When you say something like this:

And who knows? Maybe next time they can make Aragorn Asian.

What're you trying to get across?

Because it reads dog whistley. Like drawing attention to the race shifting without explicitly saying you did or didn't like it.

It's exactly the kinda %$#% people say when they're trying to pick a fight about something.

If that's not what you meant maybe say what you mean "and maybe next time they can include some other minority groups. That would be cool."

Re: snapcaster mage - if you said something like "and maybe next time snapcaster could be Arabic" I would probably read it the same way. Like you're calling attention to the race shifting in a subtle dig that you don't like it or it bothers you.

[5colorsrainbow]

There is a discussion to be had about race-swapping characters when adapting one medium to another, but I don't think gaming forums is often the best place for it. As someone whose not fully white there has been some vile comments I've ended up seeing when I just wanna talk about how best to use the new food cards in my Gyome deck and how I wanna build humans in Saskia after this set, Ikoria and the Innistrads and its been a really a drain.

Anyways, I'm not a huge UB fan but I've been loving some of the design space we have seen come out of them in. Not sure I'll play it but I love the update to Amass and love to see it rift more on the future and as said I think some of the new food cards and pay offs have been fun. UG scry also looking really fun and something I had thought on before. Glad to see some colors getting new deck types (UG scry, Jeskai humans/monarch and finally WBG life gain commanders) to open up those decks too and the BUR getting more Amass cards.

EDIT: I'm not sure if there is really enough left to do another LOTR set, unless they add stuff from the Hobbit, Silmarillion and/or The Rings of Power show. And then you digging into stuff the casuals fans don't know much about and stuff like the original Hobbit might not be enough stuff to make a whole set off. I think maybe more commander decks or secret lairs would work though.

[duducrash]

Legolas looks like some of east asia, right?

I was thinking of building him actually but pokens thread about unfun strategies got me thinking about how fight decks are similar to CMK

[pokken]

Legolas looks like some of east asia, right?

I was thinking of building him actually but pokens thread about unfun strategies got me thinking about how fight decks are similar to CMK

It's all about your meta but I can say my experience against a kogla deck was not great lol

[Lifeless]

I appreciate when Wizards prints Beyond products because I simply cannot bring myself to give a single %$#% about them no matter what their topic is. There's something about them that my brain refuses to process. This saves me a good deal of time and money.

[duducrash]

Legolas looks like some of east asia, right?

I was thinking of building him actually but pokens thread about unfun strategies got me thinking about how fight decks are similar to CMK

It's all about your meta but I can say my experience against a kogla deck was not great lol

I already have 1 deck with like 15 wipes, I gotta watch out for the amount of not great games im giving out

[toctheyounger]

I appreciate when Wizards prints Beyond products because I simply cannot bring myself to give a single %$#% about them no matter what their topic is. There's something about them that my brain refuses to process. This saves me a good deal of time and money.

How I felt about WH40k. I kind of feel this way about these too; I'm glad they exist for the most part, but they also mostly don't really scratch any kind of brewer's itch or similar for me, so I'm pretty happy to grab singles for existing decks as money allows and think no more of it.

It's partly why I've aimed more for a pseudo-cedh (read - cedh for poor folk) level for most of my new brews, too - the list of cards I consider per release is now infinitesimally smaller. Saves on money, time and mental bandwidth.

[Dunharrow]

Really enjoyed Toc's posts on Tolkien's views on metaphor. He hated metaphor. So although CS Lewis was one of his best friends he was quite public about how much he hated Narnia.

Aragorn does not represent Jesus. At least... not like it was described. Tolkien wanted to created a 'mythology' for England, and in doing so repeated many tropes that are present in mythology.

Aragorn is a classic hero. Think Beowfulf, King Arthur, Theseus, Perseus, etc. He leads the fight, rallies the men behind him, and overthrows evil. And becomes king. He leads with his sword and his courage. Jesus certainly shares some aspects with the classical hero.
Frodo is a modern hero. He isn't a fighter. He carries a huge burden to protect those he loves. He is a thinker, and leads with his heart. This is not the type of hero you see in Classical Mythology. I see a lot of the modern hero coming from Jesus.
Gandalf is a derivative of the Merlin archetype. Not a metaphor for Merlin.. just following the archetypes of classical myths, he is like Merlin, Odin, or even Athena. The magical and eternal person who guides the hero on the journey. There is something here that I am having trouble pinning down... Jesus was certainly a guide... but not for heroes? For average Joes?

What's interesting about these three characters is that they all have resurrections in Lord of the Rings.
Aragorn goes to the land of the dead and returns.
Gandalf dies and is resurrected.
Frodo is stung by Shelob and seems dead, only to come back in Return.

So while these characters are not at all metaphors for Jesus, you can say that Tolkien took Aragorn and Gandalf from classical mythology and folklore, and that Frodo was a bit more like a more modern hero born out of the 20th century. And, you can also say that Tolkien, devout catholic that he was, wove in Christian values in his story. As much as this is a fictional mythology, he tries to make it align with Christianity. There is one God in this story. There are powerful servants of the God that seem to be like Angels (why I wish Gandalf was an Angel and not an Avatar). There is a fallen 'archangel' Vala, Melkor (Morgoth). There are minor angel (Maiar) who are also fallen.
the first kinkilling was a moment where elves first killed other elves, a very direct reference to Cain and Abel.

So Tolkien would have been fine with people seeing a bit of Jesus in his characters. Certainly, the way that his main three characters have resurrections of sorts is not accidental. But there is a difference between metaphor and intentionally making his story have thematic relations to myths and religion. He wanted the story to feel like it was a part of our history, so we see familiar motifs.

His issue with metaphor was the way stories like Narnia or Animal Farm kind of jam in a reflection on the real world in their fictional story. Lord of the Rings does not intend to pass on any statement on politics or religion. You cannot call it a metaphor.
But he did want his story to have applicability. That you can see in Frodo or Sam or any character the challenges of our real lives. Burden. Love, Friendship. Sacrifice.

You are far more likely in your life to be a Sam or a Frodo, or maybe a Ringwraith... than you are an Aragorn or a Gandalf.

Hrm... not sure how much of this long post will stick. Happy to talk about it more in PM.

[Sporegorger_Dragon]

I don't understand the flavor of Relentless Rohirrim or Rohirrim Lancer at all.

Relentless Rohirrim shows that the situation is dire and tries to talk you into using the Ring. Rohirrim Lancer death reminds you of the death of so many young recruits, which moves you so much you're tempted to use the Ring to prevent further tragedy.

EDIT: I, uh, may have mistakenly overlooked a whole page of comments and replied to something quite a while back.

[TheGildedGoose]

Aragorn may not be Jesus, but Jesus do I love Aragorn, King of Gondor.

[DirkGently]

Aragorn may not be Jesus, but Jesus do I love Aragorn, King of Gondor.

Really? Why? He's so vanilla and predictable.

[TheGildedGoose]

Aragorn may not be Jesus, but Jesus do I love Aragorn, King of Gondor.

Really? Why? He's so vanilla and predictable.

Elegant design and a fun play style. Monarch encourages the red zone and vigilance helps you keep the crown.

[DirkGently]

Elegant design and a fun play style. Monarch encourages the red zone and vigilance helps you keep the crown.

With how strong they make draw engines these days I've had plenty of games where people forget about the monarch/initiative. And then 5 turn cycles later everyone's like "wait, who was the monarch again?"

You also liked Thalia and The Gitrog Monster, another 3c 4-mana 4/4 that I found very boring, but Aragorn seems extra super boring. His big upside is a telegraphed and preventable Falter? How is that interesting in the context of commander? Plus it doesn't happen when you want it the most, i.e. when someone else takes the crown away. He'd be a lot more effective if he did a full falter when you lost the monarchy rather than when you kept it - still pretty boring in the context of commander though. Like how do you even build around him? He's got so few strong synergies, if any.

[pokken]

I really like it when there are combat enablers outside of green that can actually get the job done in commander but also are vulnerable to removal. Jeskai Aragorn is a solid b+ from me at least.

[TheGildedGoose]

I envision Aragorn, King of Gondor as a control deck, actually. Then again, most commanders I interpret through a lens of, "Can I make this a control deck?"

EDIT: Hypothetical Aragorn list:

1 Aragorn
40 Lands
10 Cantrips
7 Card Draw/Engines
11 Counterspells
8 Wraths
12 Spot Removal
7 Protection/Sustain
4 Tutors

Speaking of which, the only other commander that caught my eye was Saruman, the White Hand. I've always enjoyed Shark Typhoon and Metallurgic Summonings so having this effect in the command zone that isn't Kykar, Wind's Fury might be cool. Giving him Amass instead of raw token creation is a good balancing choice, and having a big booty helps with preserving your life total.

[pokken]

Aragorn is a pretty solid stoneblade deck for sure.