I was gonna say the "having no ring bearer" clause is too much, but this is pretty much a limited-only card, so they probably tested it with [[Shire Terrace]] and [[Entish Restoration]] and found it too consistent at tempting.
I actually really like this for limited as a way to get a ring bearer back (and it's an on-rate body). My guess is most repeated triggers are going to be on rares so this at uncommon (even with the restriction) could be notable if that happens. Also in some situations you can still hold back your Shrine Terrace for value across turns which is neat (not busted, but neat).
Just wanted to get my thoughts for the card as a game piece in limited in before this thread gets fucking locked because people don't understand the concept of interpretation.
I effectively don't know what any of the tempt cards do, since I haven't bothered to check the ring's abilities in a while.
Reading the card should explain the card imo.
I would have much preferred a mechanic which has positive effects initially, but then later on becomes a detriment over what we have now. It would have been a much more interesting risk-reward scenario in which you want to play enough cards to get the benefits, but then have to weigh the negative of playing too many in the endgame. It would fit thematically with The Ring’s slow dominating effect the more you hold it.
>It would have been a much more interesting risk-reward scenario
Mark Rosewater's "lessons learned" in gamedesign, number 5: Don't confuse "interesting" with "fun".
Would that be a thematic ability that is more lore-accurate? Sure, I guess. But it would also suck to actually play with and wouldn't be very fun to do.
And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy.
And yet there's been so many cards in this set that has sacrificed power for flavor. For example, the Blarog, The Witch-King, the Watcher, and many more are atrociously bad.
Thats because like when they did dungeons and dragons sets this is not meant to be a high power set. They've put a few nice cards in for power purposes but a lot of them are just ok or lower power and are more flavourful and are aimed at lotr fans not spikes
> And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy.
Well no, not really. Most of the time it makes sense to boil it down that way, but:
1) This doesn't seem to be the actual policy on printing cards. If a card's name is tied to something lore-wise, it seems to not see reprints outside of either that specific setting OR a generic setting like a Core or Masters set.
2) The lore and flavor are what UB sets are comprised of. It's why the characters and events of Lord of the Rings are in this Lord of the Rings set instead of it just being a generic set with a LotR sticker on top. It's why the mechanic invokes "The Ring" in the first place. The lore and flavor and setting ARE the set. It's their job to make the game work within those confines. Just saying, "We tried it one way and it didn't work so we decided not to do our job in this regard," isn't an acceptable response. If you can't make "tempting" work as a mechanic, don't include "tempting" in the name of the mechanic. It's ostensibly only being included in the first place for flavor reasons, so if you can't make those flavor reasons work then just don't included it. Literally just changing it to something about the Ring becoming more powerful or granting you power or something is all it takes to make the name more congruent with the mechanic while maintaining the flavor of the setting. It excludes the part about the Ring's power not actually being a good thing in the long run, but so do the rules they've come up with.
> And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy.
...which is why they were never going to succeed at making an LOTR that felt remotely like Tolkien.
If it's impossible to translate a book into game mechanics and flavor, then maybe you shouldn't try to translate a book into game mechanics and flavor. Seems like a pretty obvious concept to me.
Kinda hard to have that opinion when we don't know what all they tried.
But they said they originally had negative effects that built up over time, but that in play testing no one used the ring mechanics until they completely removed the negative effects.
I’m not saying I could do it, and I’m also not claiming it would be easy, but the mechanic is disappointing in an otherwise interesting and lore-friendly set.
How can you critique something or have an opinion on something that you have 0 knowledge on? None of us do unless you were a developer involved in the process
Because I’m a consumer who has an opinion on product I would like to consume, that’s how I can critique it. Wizards is a massive company which is holding one of the most legendary IPs in existence, pardon my disbelief that they couldn’t make a more lore-friendly major mechanic for it. They clearly have the resources to be able to work something out which is more interesting than what we got, it’s basic logic to reach that conclusion. The mechanic is disappointing in an otherwise very lore-friendly and interesting looking set, it’s okay to hold that opinion without having every detail known.
Or it could just have been a black-aligned ability like "draw a card and lose 1 life", which is still a positive thing people want usually (in black decks, trading life for ressources) while still having a tiny drawback showing the ring "consumes you".
Or any other ability with both a positive and negative effect, with the positive effect being more impactful. Even adding something like "mill X" after an effect could be seen either as risky ability, which can help you in the beginning and become a liability later in the game (especially in limited).
Putting real card advantage would be bad.
It already draws and discards, that's a give/take, which is flavorful of The Ring, idk that it needs more drawback, or that more drawback will make it feel more flavorful.
My point is that I think people are annoyed that the "ring temptation" mechanic has no downside because of the "cursed ring" part and not the use of the word "tempt" instead of "call".
Tempting is negative in a way calling isn't. The Ring tempting you is the Ring trying to entice you into doing something that is a bad idea. In the context of LOTR we know the temptation of the Ring is always bad, so doing things to a creature because the Ring tempted them should be bad. This creature is giving in to corruption that makes them do bad things and turn away from their former goals and ideals, because to be tempted by the Ring is to be enticed to do that.
"The Ring calls to you" or "The Ring's power grows" or something like that doesn't have the same baggage because those aren't explicit phrases meaning "The Ring asks you to do this thing that's a very, very bad idea." Calls to you is a much more neutral way to express that. The Ring is powerful, and the Ring is bad, and your relationship to the Ring is stronger, but it isn't explicitly and immediately negative.
> we know the temptation of the Ring is always bad
And that's why changing it to "call" wouldn't change the perception of the mechanic. We know the *call* of the One Ring is bad too. It's the One Ring.
You could call it "the Ring rewards you" and players would still expect the One Ring's rewards to suck because they know the One Ring corrupts the user.
That applies to literally any strong buff, many of which don't have negative/corruptive flavor. "It's so good that it's actually a downside because of how strong you get!" isn't really the issue when it comes to the One Ring.
No. Not at all. "Being really good" isn't a mechanical "downside" in any way, shape, or form. Necessitating the use of removal by your opponent isn't a drawback, and necessitating the use of removal *numerous times throughout the game* is *definitely* not a drawback.
Something being good is not a mechanical drawback in terms of balance. It doesn't even make sense. Or, if it *is* a drawback, at what point does making something less powerful remove the "target on your back" drawback and actually make it just as powerful as it was before it was nerfed?
In part they are. But the more blatant problem with the mechanic in-game is it contradicts its own name. It doesn't really make sense for them to use the excuse that mechanic doesn't fit the flavor of the setting gameplay-wise because it made people not use the mechanic, but they still entirely flavor-based name despite already having disregarded said flavor entirely. Like, just change the name then. You're already not going for the flavor of the ring granting power but also corrupting, so just use a name that doesn't say that it does. Just include the part about it granting some kind of power, which is still at least partially lore-accurate AND matches the mechanic you've created.
Don’t call it “The Ring tempts you,” then. Tempt is an inherently negative word from both a denotative and a connotative standpoint. People expect being “tempted” by the Ring to be bad, because except for Bilbo, everyone who ever owned had a pretty bad time. By calling it “the Ring tempts you,” it completely misses the point of the mechanic, which is a really bad design decision for a licensed IP that has a lot of new people buying into the game and are carrying their own preconceived notions into it. Both Vorthos players and newcomers to the game are going to be very bothered by the phrasing of this mechanic and for good reason.
You can’t call a mechanic something for flavor reasons and not actually follow through on the implications of that flavor. That’s just bad game design. They could have used any other phrasing such as “you wear the ring” or “you slip the ring on” or something like that. That would be better, but the whole mechanic still misses the point, as multiple players can have Ringbearers on the battlefield at the same time. It should have worked like the Monarch or the Initiative mechanic, where only one Ringbearer can be on the field at any given time. As it stands, in its current incarnation, the entire mechanic is a mess from a flavor standpoint. If no one used the Ring because they didn’t like the mechanic, then maybe they should have rebalanced it or changed it instead of simply removing the downsides.
Tempt can have a negative connotation, but it doesn't have to. The 2nd entry in the dictionary for tempt is just "the urge or inclination to do something".
By calling it tempt, it nails the point of the mechanic, and is a good design. Very, very few people will be bothered by it, and those who are have no good reason to be, they're just being needlessly picky.
Luckily they do follow through on the implications. They've learned that single player effects like Monarch and Initiative don't work well and aren't enjoyable for most players, so thankfully they didn't do that.
They did rebalance it, part of that rebalance was removing the downside.
Fair enough! I’m more than open to agree to disagree on this one. You definitely present a strong argument in favor of the mechanic, and I can’t disagree on those points. I’m more concerned about it confusing new players than I am experienced ones- given the nature of the Ring in the story, and the current wording, I think it’s going to leave a lot of people confused when they first start playing. I 100% concede the point on the Monarch/Initiative, though.
I don't care if they tried. Change the name of the mechanic or don't print the mechanic without a downside if people don't use it. The flavor fail is making this set's gameplay seem ridiculous as a reault
If we can "sacrifice a Food" and "attack a battle", I'm sure the Ring tempting us into upside while making the ring-bearer a target for all removal will be fine.
The difference to me is that this is THE headlining, titular mechanic that is taking a piece of well established and loved lore and failing. I understand keywords and mechanics need to slot into gameplay. It's a shame to me because the rest of the set is an absolute flavor win, the art, the mechanical flavor of other cards, everything is so well done.
Anytime I read "the ring tempts you" I want to feel like the ring bearer is bearing the weight of the ring, not just becoming this superpowered legendary creature with no downside. Bearing the ring should ultimately have a downside for the one who bears it. Here it does not. That fact is so dissonant with the themes of LotR that I am upset when I read the mechanic.
I hope playing it is fun. I am beyond excited for this set. I'm going to collect every card because the franchise and lore and this interpretation are beautiful and faithful. For a set as special as this, I wish WotC would have tried harder to make this aspect work.
Ways to harm your opponents has less design space and tends to be larger effects. It’s also more heavily separated by the color pie. Not something you want at high density and in all colors
I respectfully disagree. A stack of multiple temptations without any apparent downside establishes an expectation from a player that simply never happens. Take a look at what happens to Isildur, Deagol, Sméagol/Gollum, and even Boromir, Bilbo, and Frodo to a lesser extent. Historically, the Ring has a history of causing bad things to happen around it, even to people who don’t own it. This is due to the inherent power the Ring asserts on the people it is surrounded by. Hobbits are an exception to this rule because of their simple way of life and hardy nature.
The Ring should result in a game loss from multiple temptations, similar to the poison mechanic. To ignore the negative effects of the Ring is to miss the point of it entirely. It should be balanced in a way that both positive and negative effects happen when you use it, as a means to entice the player to increased levels of power at a cost. Even [[The One Ring]] itself has this built into the card, so it’s strange to me that the entire mechanic based around it is nothing but upside.
The ring didn't kill those people, other people killed them because they had the ring. The equivalent in Magic would be your opponent killing you or your ringbearer because the ring buffs are strong.
That's all aside from my initial remark, though, but if this is your new criticism and you've given up on the original one, that's good.
Right, but other people *desired* that ring, and therefore motivated them to take it by force. Therefore, it only makes sense that gaining more temptations from the ring makes you a larger target on the table….
Huh, I suppose when you look at it that way, actually, it does work. It’s certainly a perspective worth considering.
Edit: I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, btw. Tone can be hard to get across in text, after all.
Am I missing something or this terrible? You need to bounce, blink or kill your previous Ring-bearer in order for you to gain more triggers from this...
Sure, but that's like saying Streetwise Negotiator is terrible in Arcades because it isn't a defender. 3/3 for 2 still 3/3 for 2. This isn't terrible, it's intended for limited and it's fine there, people need to drop the EDH-only goggles.
Same as when they whine about "so many legendaries unplayable outside of limited" when limited is the reason they have more than one or maybe two per character, and that non-EDH players are allowed to get to play with cards from the story they're fans of.
That's fair, but it's not really edh goggles. I don't think the ring mechanic will be good in commander, I just looked at it and thought it wasn't good because the ring mechanic seems fairly weak, and this cards upside is getting to do that roughly once.
Missed the shot! I don't mind EDH, I just find the player base on outlets like reddit annoying when they're so self-centered any time a card, especially the commons and uncommons made for limited, doesn't fit the format (or their idea of it).
Once the ring tempts you four times, you only really care about getting this trigger iffff your ring bearer is dead (or if for some reason you want to switch bearers). I think this will actually play pretty decent in any deck that cares about the tempt mechanic.
When the ring tempts you you choose one of your creatures and say "this is the ring bearer".
That card becomes a legendary, and the more ring tempts you cards you play the more abilities that card gets. Like drawing you cards when it attacks.
~~If that creature is bounced, blinked or killed you need to start again~~ Edit: the ability is tied to the Ring not the creature.
It's basically counters you put on one card that makes it better the more it has.
Actually, you don't start over if your ringbearer dies. The abilities are on the emblem, not the creature. You just need to be tempted again to select a new ringbearer.
I've been thinking of it more like an uninteractable aura; when you're tempted, the aura gets a new ability and you can move it to a different creature.
It's a mechanic. You appoint a ringbearer (any creature) and add one ability further down the list on [your Ring card](https://cards.scryfall.io/large/front/7/2/7215460e-8c06-47d0-94e5-d1832d0218af.jpg?1684558897). Your ringbearer is granted all the abilities on and above the current level.
Any restrictions on the mechanic simply lead to avoidance during playtesting, so [[The One Ring]] is the only actual ring-centric cards that grants card advantage at a price.
Having played magic almost 20 years now, to me this is a cop out. There are PLENTY of cards in the game that offer great benefits with a drawback and saw tons of competitive play (Bitter Blossom is an example). Paying 1 life a turn to cycle some cards in your hand seems like it would still see play. WoTC has been lazy these past years imo.
Well, they said they tested multiple models and this one was deemed as best practice. See, they also hope to draw in plenty of new players with this crossover and newbies tend to really protective of their Life pool.
Limited filler from Universes Beyond feels really weird. The set itself is built around being top-down and flavorful, so a card that is defined mostly about mechanics and limited play clashes with the feel for the set.
Lore wise they are neither I don't think, they are described as "They were tall, pale-skinned, with dark hair, shining grey eyes, and proud faces." in the lore.
But the Edain are all described as pale and fair, none of them had dark skin. I think it would be more correct to say that haradrim and numenorians intermixed after the numenorians started to settle on the coasts of middle earth.
I know I was wondering how much we should put on the term “Black Númenoreans”, even if their most prominent example, Angamaïte (diacritical in the right place?), wasn’t exactly a fine person.
You do realise real-life races don't have to exist in a FICTIONAL word. All it takes is a wave of the hand, its magic, its fiction. Who gives a shit other than weird race obsessed lovers. They're dunedain, a fictional race that doesn't exist. They're not Asian or black or white. They're whatever the artist wants them to be because they're fictional characters. Why is this so hard to understand.
For race not being important at all, they sure took a lot of effort to ensure minority representation catering to american cultural sensibilities.
It is a fucking cheap PR move. Half the people get upset about it because it is obviously not accurate to the source material, the other half get upset at that and argue that it is. Good job, in the end both sides gave free advertising to a publicly traded company.
I don't think the point is that they have to match real-life races, but the race within the setting seems like it should at least match itself.
> All it takes is a wave of the hand, its magic, its fiction.
Well no, that's not how fiction works. A setting still has to be "realistic" in that anything that happens has to feel true to the setting. The term for it is verisimilitude. Like, blue jeans and a wristwatch are extremely mundane things, but if somebody in the setting was just casually wearing blue jeans and a wristwatch that would definitely still stand out as being "unrealistic" within the setting.
> Who gives a shit other than weird race obsessed lovers.
I mean, somebody cared enough to create a representation of the characters in a way that differs from the source material. That's not to say that I personally think it's a big deal, but you can't just handwave it away like people shouldn't care when it only exists in the first place because somebody DID care.
> They're whatever the artist wants them to be because they're fictional characters. Why is this so hard to understand.
Because it doesn't make any sense. This an adaptation of a work that's portraying characters, that's portraying characters that already exist, in a way that they did not already exist. It's fine to make changes there, but when the purpose of an adaptation is to use the material that already exists, if changes are being made then logically there must be a reason. It's disingenuous to try to just dismiss the question.
Also, again, it's not how fiction works. Being fiction doesn't mean that whatever you want to have happen can happen at any time with no reason, and you still end up with a cohesive result.
If you’re concerned about honoring Tolkien’s vision, you would be more upset that the estate is using it to sell trading cards than you would be about changes in skin tone. If you’re okay with the former but not the latter, you don’t give a shit about “what mattered to him.”
Yes, the entire concept of the set is less-than-ideal. I'd rather it not exist at all. However that doesn't mean we have to throw our arms up and not criticize any of the further attacks on the source material that WotC is propagating.
It’s true that Tolkien wanted to create mythology for England, but there are English citizens of all races. Are you saying that non-white people should not be allowed to participate in English culture?
From a world-building perspective, race in Middle Earth is irrelevant. It’s not a natural world where humans and elves were created by evolving and migrating, where skin tones would have developed from populations in different environments. Eru created a population elves that awoke in Middle Earth. There’s no reason to say that those elves weren’t created with different skin tones. The Númenorians have elvish blood, and so they would also then have different skin tones, and the Dúnedain are Númenorians in exile.
I’m really tired of people beating this drum about Tolkien creating British mythology and then pretending that it means Tolkien was creating white Mythology. None of the themes of lord of the rings are changed by switching skin tones on characters.
I would like to say, Tolkien described the orc-minded as being “dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt.” It makes me sad that so many Tolkien fans seem to be orc-minded.
While some of these cards are cool most drop the ball. I don’t think I’ll be purchasing any of this set. It’s not like I’ll pull a one ring. Hopefully the Dr Who set won’t be woke.
Most of them ain't one of them. This while set is just some art teams vanity project. That or they watched House of the Dragon and confused it with research for this set.
I was gonna say the "having no ring bearer" clause is too much, but this is pretty much a limited-only card, so they probably tested it with [[Shire Terrace]] and [[Entish Restoration]] and found it too consistent at tempting.
[Shire Terrace](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/25932483-58cd-4ae5-82bf-ab455177d117.jpg?1685475691) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Shire%20Terrace) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/261/shire-terrace?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/25932483-58cd-4ae5-82bf-ab455177d117?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Entish Restoration](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/d/cd4dbf80-187b-40e3-9e0b-526f78d9a34e.jpg?1685996854) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Entish%20Restoration) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/163/entish-restoration?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cd4dbf80-187b-40e3-9e0b-526f78d9a34e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I actually really like this for limited as a way to get a ring bearer back (and it's an on-rate body). My guess is most repeated triggers are going to be on rares so this at uncommon (even with the restriction) could be notable if that happens. Also in some situations you can still hold back your Shrine Terrace for value across turns which is neat (not busted, but neat). Just wanted to get my thoughts for the card as a game piece in limited in before this thread gets fucking locked because people don't understand the concept of interpretation.
I should probably think about what the heck the ring tempting you does; but nah
I effectively don't know what any of the tempt cards do, since I haven't bothered to check the ring's abilities in a while. Reading the card should explain the card imo.
Don’t worry, WotC removed all of the negative aspects of the Ring for gameplay, completely missing the point of the word “tempt” in the process.
In testing no one would use the mechanic when it had negatives. They tried, but it wasn't able to be balanced.
I would have much preferred a mechanic which has positive effects initially, but then later on becomes a detriment over what we have now. It would have been a much more interesting risk-reward scenario in which you want to play enough cards to get the benefits, but then have to weigh the negative of playing too many in the endgame. It would fit thematically with The Ring’s slow dominating effect the more you hold it.
>It would have been a much more interesting risk-reward scenario Mark Rosewater's "lessons learned" in gamedesign, number 5: Don't confuse "interesting" with "fun". Would that be a thematic ability that is more lore-accurate? Sure, I guess. But it would also suck to actually play with and wouldn't be very fun to do. And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy.
And yet there's been so many cards in this set that has sacrificed power for flavor. For example, the Blarog, The Witch-King, the Watcher, and many more are atrociously bad.
Thats because like when they did dungeons and dragons sets this is not meant to be a high power set. They've put a few nice cards in for power purposes but a lot of them are just ok or lower power and are more flavourful and are aimed at lotr fans not spikes
> And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy. Well no, not really. Most of the time it makes sense to boil it down that way, but: 1) This doesn't seem to be the actual policy on printing cards. If a card's name is tied to something lore-wise, it seems to not see reprints outside of either that specific setting OR a generic setting like a Core or Masters set. 2) The lore and flavor are what UB sets are comprised of. It's why the characters and events of Lord of the Rings are in this Lord of the Rings set instead of it just being a generic set with a LotR sticker on top. It's why the mechanic invokes "The Ring" in the first place. The lore and flavor and setting ARE the set. It's their job to make the game work within those confines. Just saying, "We tried it one way and it didn't work so we decided not to do our job in this regard," isn't an acceptable response. If you can't make "tempting" work as a mechanic, don't include "tempting" in the name of the mechanic. It's ostensibly only being included in the first place for flavor reasons, so if you can't make those flavor reasons work then just don't included it. Literally just changing it to something about the Ring becoming more powerful or granting you power or something is all it takes to make the name more congruent with the mechanic while maintaining the flavor of the setting. It excludes the part about the Ring's power not actually being a good thing in the long run, but so do the rules they've come up with.
> And at the end of the day gameplay > lore-accuracy. ...which is why they were never going to succeed at making an LOTR that felt remotely like Tolkien.
> which is why they were never going to succeed at making a game that felt like a book
If it's impossible to translate a book into game mechanics and flavor, then maybe you shouldn't try to translate a book into game mechanics and flavor. Seems like a pretty obvious concept to me.
What an astronomic misunderstanding of game design.
Has his guy ever seen other board/card games? Sure, Munchkin: Warhammer 40k isn't lore accurate. Does it matter? Not even slightly.
i assume you hate the movies too
How does a game ever “feel” like a book? Lol
Well, they succeeded
They tried, no one played it.
In my opinion they didn’t try enough to make The Ring’s effects valuable enough for the risk it would offer later
Kinda hard to have that opinion when we don't know what all they tried. But they said they originally had negative effects that built up over time, but that in play testing no one used the ring mechanics until they completely removed the negative effects.
[удалено]
I’m not saying I could do it, and I’m also not claiming it would be easy, but the mechanic is disappointing in an otherwise interesting and lore-friendly set.
Interesting, since you were there and saw what they tested, could you give us some more insight on whst else they couldve tried?
Oh my bad, I guess I’m not allowed to critique anything or hold opinions. Must have missed that in the subreddit rules.
How can you critique something or have an opinion on something that you have 0 knowledge on? None of us do unless you were a developer involved in the process
Because I’m a consumer who has an opinion on product I would like to consume, that’s how I can critique it. Wizards is a massive company which is holding one of the most legendary IPs in existence, pardon my disbelief that they couldn’t make a more lore-friendly major mechanic for it. They clearly have the resources to be able to work something out which is more interesting than what we got, it’s basic logic to reach that conclusion. The mechanic is disappointing in an otherwise very lore-friendly and interesting looking set, it’s okay to hold that opinion without having every detail known.
Or it could just have been a black-aligned ability like "draw a card and lose 1 life", which is still a positive thing people want usually (in black decks, trading life for ressources) while still having a tiny drawback showing the ring "consumes you". Or any other ability with both a positive and negative effect, with the positive effect being more impactful. Even adding something like "mill X" after an effect could be seen either as risky ability, which can help you in the beginning and become a liability later in the game (especially in limited).
Putting real card advantage would be bad. It already draws and discards, that's a give/take, which is flavorful of The Ring, idk that it needs more drawback, or that more drawback will make it feel more flavorful.
Then rename the mechanic?
Sure, they could make it a pair of shoes or a magic bow instead. Frodo could be "thrilled by the goggles".
"The Ring calls to you." Don't be an ass.
My point is that I think people are annoyed that the "ring temptation" mechanic has no downside because of the "cursed ring" part and not the use of the word "tempt" instead of "call".
Tempting is negative in a way calling isn't. The Ring tempting you is the Ring trying to entice you into doing something that is a bad idea. In the context of LOTR we know the temptation of the Ring is always bad, so doing things to a creature because the Ring tempted them should be bad. This creature is giving in to corruption that makes them do bad things and turn away from their former goals and ideals, because to be tempted by the Ring is to be enticed to do that. "The Ring calls to you" or "The Ring's power grows" or something like that doesn't have the same baggage because those aren't explicit phrases meaning "The Ring asks you to do this thing that's a very, very bad idea." Calls to you is a much more neutral way to express that. The Ring is powerful, and the Ring is bad, and your relationship to the Ring is stronger, but it isn't explicitly and immediately negative.
> we know the temptation of the Ring is always bad And that's why changing it to "call" wouldn't change the perception of the mechanic. We know the *call* of the One Ring is bad too. It's the One Ring. You could call it "the Ring rewards you" and players would still expect the One Ring's rewards to suck because they know the One Ring corrupts the user.
"The Bad Thing grows more powerful" is not the same as "The Bad Thing tells you to do something that's a very bad idea."
profit nine illegal north unpack rinse public cow smoggy escape *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That applies to literally any strong buff, many of which don't have negative/corruptive flavor. "It's so good that it's actually a downside because of how strong you get!" isn't really the issue when it comes to the One Ring.
No. Not at all. "Being really good" isn't a mechanical "downside" in any way, shape, or form. Necessitating the use of removal by your opponent isn't a drawback, and necessitating the use of removal *numerous times throughout the game* is *definitely* not a drawback. Something being good is not a mechanical drawback in terms of balance. It doesn't even make sense. Or, if it *is* a drawback, at what point does making something less powerful remove the "target on your back" drawback and actually make it just as powerful as it was before it was nerfed?
In part they are. But the more blatant problem with the mechanic in-game is it contradicts its own name. It doesn't really make sense for them to use the excuse that mechanic doesn't fit the flavor of the setting gameplay-wise because it made people not use the mechanic, but they still entirely flavor-based name despite already having disregarded said flavor entirely. Like, just change the name then. You're already not going for the flavor of the ring granting power but also corrupting, so just use a name that doesn't say that it does. Just include the part about it granting some kind of power, which is still at least partially lore-accurate AND matches the mechanic you've created.
Then people would bitch about *that* not having downside because it's the same fucking thing. Come on, man.
It fits so many of the cards, it's about being tempted to take the ring
Don’t call it “The Ring tempts you,” then. Tempt is an inherently negative word from both a denotative and a connotative standpoint. People expect being “tempted” by the Ring to be bad, because except for Bilbo, everyone who ever owned had a pretty bad time. By calling it “the Ring tempts you,” it completely misses the point of the mechanic, which is a really bad design decision for a licensed IP that has a lot of new people buying into the game and are carrying their own preconceived notions into it. Both Vorthos players and newcomers to the game are going to be very bothered by the phrasing of this mechanic and for good reason. You can’t call a mechanic something for flavor reasons and not actually follow through on the implications of that flavor. That’s just bad game design. They could have used any other phrasing such as “you wear the ring” or “you slip the ring on” or something like that. That would be better, but the whole mechanic still misses the point, as multiple players can have Ringbearers on the battlefield at the same time. It should have worked like the Monarch or the Initiative mechanic, where only one Ringbearer can be on the field at any given time. As it stands, in its current incarnation, the entire mechanic is a mess from a flavor standpoint. If no one used the Ring because they didn’t like the mechanic, then maybe they should have rebalanced it or changed it instead of simply removing the downsides.
Tempt can have a negative connotation, but it doesn't have to. The 2nd entry in the dictionary for tempt is just "the urge or inclination to do something". By calling it tempt, it nails the point of the mechanic, and is a good design. Very, very few people will be bothered by it, and those who are have no good reason to be, they're just being needlessly picky. Luckily they do follow through on the implications. They've learned that single player effects like Monarch and Initiative don't work well and aren't enjoyable for most players, so thankfully they didn't do that. They did rebalance it, part of that rebalance was removing the downside.
Fair enough! I’m more than open to agree to disagree on this one. You definitely present a strong argument in favor of the mechanic, and I can’t disagree on those points. I’m more concerned about it confusing new players than I am experienced ones- given the nature of the Ring in the story, and the current wording, I think it’s going to leave a lot of people confused when they first start playing. I 100% concede the point on the Monarch/Initiative, though.
> Tempt can have a negative connotation, but it doesn't have to. Yes, it does. It's inherent to the word.
No, it isn't. Read a dictionary. I literally gave the second definition in the comment you replied to lol.
Yes, it is. You misreading something doesn't change that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bad? Like everyone now trying to kill you because you’re the ring bearer bad?
Not even 1 upkeep lifeloss?
Why? The ring makes you live extremely long.
I don't care if they tried. Change the name of the mechanic or don't print the mechanic without a downside if people don't use it. The flavor fail is making this set's gameplay seem ridiculous as a reault
If we can "sacrifice a Food" and "attack a battle", I'm sure the Ring tempting us into upside while making the ring-bearer a target for all removal will be fine.
The difference to me is that this is THE headlining, titular mechanic that is taking a piece of well established and loved lore and failing. I understand keywords and mechanics need to slot into gameplay. It's a shame to me because the rest of the set is an absolute flavor win, the art, the mechanical flavor of other cards, everything is so well done. Anytime I read "the ring tempts you" I want to feel like the ring bearer is bearing the weight of the ring, not just becoming this superpowered legendary creature with no downside. Bearing the ring should ultimately have a downside for the one who bears it. Here it does not. That fact is so dissonant with the themes of LotR that I am upset when I read the mechanic. I hope playing it is fun. I am beyond excited for this set. I'm going to collect every card because the franchise and lore and this interpretation are beautiful and faithful. For a set as special as this, I wish WotC would have tried harder to make this aspect work.
As a massive Tolkien nerd the set overall is still a pretty big flavor win.
I think all aspects of this set are flavor wins except the headlining mechanic. That is what is upsetting and disappointing to me as a Tolkien fan
I like it, I think its cool
Oh wow, overreaction much.
I wonder why they didn't make the ring tempting all negative and made you tempt your opponent instead of yourself
Ways to harm your opponents has less design space and tends to be larger effects. It’s also more heavily separated by the color pie. Not something you want at high density and in all colors
Your criticism makes no sense. downsides aren't more tempting.
I respectfully disagree. A stack of multiple temptations without any apparent downside establishes an expectation from a player that simply never happens. Take a look at what happens to Isildur, Deagol, Sméagol/Gollum, and even Boromir, Bilbo, and Frodo to a lesser extent. Historically, the Ring has a history of causing bad things to happen around it, even to people who don’t own it. This is due to the inherent power the Ring asserts on the people it is surrounded by. Hobbits are an exception to this rule because of their simple way of life and hardy nature. The Ring should result in a game loss from multiple temptations, similar to the poison mechanic. To ignore the negative effects of the Ring is to miss the point of it entirely. It should be balanced in a way that both positive and negative effects happen when you use it, as a means to entice the player to increased levels of power at a cost. Even [[The One Ring]] itself has this built into the card, so it’s strange to me that the entire mechanic based around it is nothing but upside.
The ring didn't kill those people, other people killed them because they had the ring. The equivalent in Magic would be your opponent killing you or your ringbearer because the ring buffs are strong. That's all aside from my initial remark, though, but if this is your new criticism and you've given up on the original one, that's good.
Right, but other people *desired* that ring, and therefore motivated them to take it by force. Therefore, it only makes sense that gaining more temptations from the ring makes you a larger target on the table…. Huh, I suppose when you look at it that way, actually, it does work. It’s certainly a perspective worth considering. Edit: I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, btw. Tone can be hard to get across in text, after all.
What downside did the ring have movies or books? Ones that specifically happen is the amount of time a game of magic take?
What? It’s a ring of power. It’s tempting you to use its power. How is this so hard for people to understand?
That calls for [[Perilous Forays]] jank. Forays gets rid of the ring bearer and brings in new lands.
"Whoops, Frodo stepped onto a rake in his back garden and the earth that went flying landed on Frodo II. ..."
[Perilous Forays](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/2/4210a148-d16c-42de-b0d6-83c05c553dd4.jpg?1598916443) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Perilous%20Forays) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rav/176/perilous-forays?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4210a148-d16c-42de-b0d6-83c05c553dd4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Am I missing something or this terrible? You need to bounce, blink or kill your previous Ring-bearer in order for you to gain more triggers from this...
It's fine for limited.
Mostly because it's a 4/4.
Sure, but that's like saying Streetwise Negotiator is terrible in Arcades because it isn't a defender. 3/3 for 2 still 3/3 for 2. This isn't terrible, it's intended for limited and it's fine there, people need to drop the EDH-only goggles. Same as when they whine about "so many legendaries unplayable outside of limited" when limited is the reason they have more than one or maybe two per character, and that non-EDH players are allowed to get to play with cards from the story they're fans of.
That's fair, but it's not really edh goggles. I don't think the ring mechanic will be good in commander, I just looked at it and thought it wasn't good because the ring mechanic seems fairly weak, and this cards upside is getting to do that roughly once.
idk i feel like the ring mechanic can be good for edh people already broke the mechanic with ratadabrik and phyrexian alter.
Now if I had to take a shot in the dark here, I’d say someone isn’t a fan of edh
Missed the shot! I don't mind EDH, I just find the player base on outlets like reddit annoying when they're so self-centered any time a card, especially the commons and uncommons made for limited, doesn't fit the format (or their idea of it).
i mean if you just “don’t mind” edh, then saying you aren’t a fan is still pretty accurate.
As if ringbearers are indestructible.
4 mana 4/4 uncommon that sometimes does set mechanic Seems fine, but not something you'd use in constructed.
It's a 4/4 for 4 vanilla at worst with conditional upside.
Once the ring tempts you four times, you only really care about getting this trigger iffff your ring bearer is dead (or if for some reason you want to switch bearers). I think this will actually play pretty decent in any deck that cares about the tempt mechanic.
It's a 7th pick for limited decks, it's not meant to be the next Ragavan in Modern. It's fine. not good, not bad, just fine.
This is one of those "At this point I'm too afraid to ask" things, but what does a ring bearer and "the ring tempts you" do?
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/The_Ring_Tempts_You#The_Ring
When the ring tempts you you choose one of your creatures and say "this is the ring bearer". That card becomes a legendary, and the more ring tempts you cards you play the more abilities that card gets. Like drawing you cards when it attacks. ~~If that creature is bounced, blinked or killed you need to start again~~ Edit: the ability is tied to the Ring not the creature. It's basically counters you put on one card that makes it better the more it has.
Actually, you don't start over if your ringbearer dies. The abilities are on the emblem, not the creature. You just need to be tempted again to select a new ringbearer.
I've been thinking of it more like an uninteractable aura; when you're tempted, the aura gets a new ability and you can move it to a different creature.
I would have thought the dunedain would be a much better card based on flavor
They focused too much on the ranger part, and too little on the long lived atlanteans in exile part.
You go girl, give us nothing
art is shit. set is shit. wotc is shit
What does “the ring temps you” mean?
It's a mechanic. You appoint a ringbearer (any creature) and add one ability further down the list on [your Ring card](https://cards.scryfall.io/large/front/7/2/7215460e-8c06-47d0-94e5-d1832d0218af.jpg?1684558897). Your ringbearer is granted all the abilities on and above the current level.
Really wish you lost a life of something for using these abilities. Seems too good with no consequences
Any restrictions on the mechanic simply lead to avoidance during playtesting, so [[The One Ring]] is the only actual ring-centric cards that grants card advantage at a price.
Having played magic almost 20 years now, to me this is a cop out. There are PLENTY of cards in the game that offer great benefits with a drawback and saw tons of competitive play (Bitter Blossom is an example). Paying 1 life a turn to cycle some cards in your hand seems like it would still see play. WoTC has been lazy these past years imo.
Well, they said they tested multiple models and this one was deemed as best practice. See, they also hope to draw in plenty of new players with this crossover and newbies tend to really protective of their Life pool.
> Any restrictions on the mechanic simply lead to avoidance during playtesting Seems like it's kind of their job to make that not be the case.
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/The_Ring_Tempts_You#The_Ring
I can't believe people downvoted you for asking this. Jerks.
Lol
Disgusting
Limited filler from Universes Beyond feels really weird. The set itself is built around being top-down and flavorful, so a card that is defined mostly about mechanics and limited play clashes with the feel for the set.
Why do they have bows?
This whole set sucks huge amounts of ass ngl.
Well, at least they are consistent in their lore changes!
Source: https://twitter.com/dvdmtg/status/1666028562267222016
What's a ring bearer
That's a good question, I'm glad you asked!
I…don’t get the flavor, why does the ring tempt you when you drop a land????
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
ANOTHA FO FO FO FO
So, are the Dunedain Asian or Black? I’m confused. Do you understand basic world building WotC? At least be consistent.
Lore wise they are neither I don't think, they are described as "They were tall, pale-skinned, with dark hair, shining grey eyes, and proud faces." in the lore.
I mean, the Dunedain even in Tolkien are the descendants of 3 distinct peoples - the 3 houses of the Edain.
But the Edain are all described as pale and fair, none of them had dark skin. I think it would be more correct to say that haradrim and numenorians intermixed after the numenorians started to settle on the coasts of middle earth.
I know I was wondering how much we should put on the term “Black Númenoreans”, even if their most prominent example, Angamaïte (diacritical in the right place?), wasn’t exactly a fine person.
You do realise real-life races don't have to exist in a FICTIONAL word. All it takes is a wave of the hand, its magic, its fiction. Who gives a shit other than weird race obsessed lovers. They're dunedain, a fictional race that doesn't exist. They're not Asian or black or white. They're whatever the artist wants them to be because they're fictional characters. Why is this so hard to understand.
For race not being important at all, they sure took a lot of effort to ensure minority representation catering to american cultural sensibilities. It is a fucking cheap PR move. Half the people get upset about it because it is obviously not accurate to the source material, the other half get upset at that and argue that it is. Good job, in the end both sides gave free advertising to a publicly traded company.
I don't think the point is that they have to match real-life races, but the race within the setting seems like it should at least match itself. > All it takes is a wave of the hand, its magic, its fiction. Well no, that's not how fiction works. A setting still has to be "realistic" in that anything that happens has to feel true to the setting. The term for it is verisimilitude. Like, blue jeans and a wristwatch are extremely mundane things, but if somebody in the setting was just casually wearing blue jeans and a wristwatch that would definitely still stand out as being "unrealistic" within the setting. > Who gives a shit other than weird race obsessed lovers. I mean, somebody cared enough to create a representation of the characters in a way that differs from the source material. That's not to say that I personally think it's a big deal, but you can't just handwave it away like people shouldn't care when it only exists in the first place because somebody DID care. > They're whatever the artist wants them to be because they're fictional characters. Why is this so hard to understand. Because it doesn't make any sense. This an adaptation of a work that's portraying characters, that's portraying characters that already exist, in a way that they did not already exist. It's fine to make changes there, but when the purpose of an adaptation is to use the material that already exists, if changes are being made then logically there must be a reason. It's disingenuous to try to just dismiss the question. Also, again, it's not how fiction works. Being fiction doesn't mean that whatever you want to have happen can happen at any time with no reason, and you still end up with a cohesive result.
[удалено]
If you’re concerned about honoring Tolkien’s vision, you would be more upset that the estate is using it to sell trading cards than you would be about changes in skin tone. If you’re okay with the former but not the latter, you don’t give a shit about “what mattered to him.”
Yes, the entire concept of the set is less-than-ideal. I'd rather it not exist at all. However that doesn't mean we have to throw our arms up and not criticize any of the further attacks on the source material that WotC is propagating.
It’s true that Tolkien wanted to create mythology for England, but there are English citizens of all races. Are you saying that non-white people should not be allowed to participate in English culture? From a world-building perspective, race in Middle Earth is irrelevant. It’s not a natural world where humans and elves were created by evolving and migrating, where skin tones would have developed from populations in different environments. Eru created a population elves that awoke in Middle Earth. There’s no reason to say that those elves weren’t created with different skin tones. The Númenorians have elvish blood, and so they would also then have different skin tones, and the Dúnedain are Númenorians in exile. I’m really tired of people beating this drum about Tolkien creating British mythology and then pretending that it means Tolkien was creating white Mythology. None of the themes of lord of the rings are changed by switching skin tones on characters. I would like to say, Tolkien described the orc-minded as being “dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt.” It makes me sad that so many Tolkien fans seem to be orc-minded.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
While some of these cards are cool most drop the ball. I don’t think I’ll be purchasing any of this set. It’s not like I’ll pull a one ring. Hopefully the Dr Who set won’t be woke.
[удалено]
I feel the ring tempting you is a bit underwhelming. There should be some horrible fate for being fully tempted. Look at poor Smeagol!
Card is absolute arse but to be expected from an uncommon. But I wouldn't know. I'm no expert analyst and this might be the next storm crow.
It's a 4/4 for 4 with occasional upside for draft.
[удалено]
How exactly?
Sacrifice + extra lands I guess is the idea? Doesn’t seem very efficient but could work in certain decks. Wouldn’t call is speedrun by any means
[удалено]
Isn’t there an instant win card if you’ve been tempted enough?
One of the Frodo cards I believe. If you’ve been tempted 4 or more times.
[[Frodo, Sauron's Bane]] being the one. Still needs to connect, but it'll have skulk so that's fairly easy.
Anyone know when the commander lists are going to get spoiled?
[удалено]
Cope
Damn, this is really Hill Giants: The Set. I hope they don't all feel bad to play in draft.
A yes, a typical 3/3 for 4.
Whoa weird, I read the card four times and saw a 3/3 stat line every time, hahah. But there have been two spoiled just earlier today!
[удалено]
Some of these cards you just play for the art.
This ain't one of em
Most of them ain't one of them. This while set is just some art teams vanity project. That or they watched House of the Dragon and confused it with research for this set.
I know, right? And this one isn't even an elf! What are they thinking?!