From: Tony.Lin@HSC.com Subject: Re: reviews? ONE FANATIC'S VARIANTS ON THE LORD OF THE RINGS BOARD GAME I'm not sure that I'd call myself a fanatic about Tolkien's wonderful trilogy; I mean, sure, I can quote passages from the book ("Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" etc., or "Pride and despair! Didst thou think the eyes of the White Tower were blind?"), but who can't? Okay, so I'm a little extreme, but that means that I am one of many who were somewhat nervous about the boardgame by Hasbro; and, like the majority of those people, I was pleasantly surprised: beautiful artwork, tense gameplay. Although the game is somewhat abstract, someone who is familiar with the books will have no difficulty "filling in the gaps" with a little imagination -- so it's not "I play the Gimli card to advance two spaces along the fighting track", it's that Gimli is hewing orcs left and right to help the hobbits proceed along their quest. However, after playing the game a couple of times and reading a few of the other reviews, I have a couple of tinkering ideas. (Those familiar with my previous works -- "The Hacker's Guide to UPV's in Legions of Steel", or the "Playing Aliens v. Marines in the Legions of Steel Universe" -- know what a tinkerer I can be!) So, without further ado, here are my ideas ... (1) It seems like FRODO should have Samwise's ability, and vice versa. One strategy is to try to get the ring to Samwise as quickly as possible, since he has the minimal effect of corruption. While this makes sense in game terms, this is obviously ahistorical (or whatever the right word is). I think it makes more sense for Frodo to be able to resist the ring best [similar to the +4 to corruption checks that Frodo and Bilbo get in the ICE CCG], whereas Samwise is able to keep the Quest moving in a variety of ways (including carrying Frodo up Mount Doom!). The only real effect that I can see that this rule would have is that it would make the "Preparations" event even more appealing; with Frodo as Ringbearer, the effect of a die roll with these new rules would be minimal] One comment people seem to have is that the 2-player game is tough, whereas the 5-player game is easy; speculation is that's because of how fewer cards are distributed in the 2-player game, and how in a multiplayer game the Ringbearer duty can be shared to even out the corruption(!). Again, this strikes me as ahistorical; toward the end, Frodo COULD NOT give up the Ring, and warned Sam he would go mad if Sam were to take the ring. So, in the interest of the Twin Gods of "Game Balance" and "Historical Accuracy" ... (2) In case of a tie, the current Ringbearer STAYS the current Ringbearer. (3) If the Ring changes hands, the former Ringbearer rolls the die. [Notice this further adds a tension to the cooperation; the Ringbearer is motivated to stay the Ringbearer rather than risk the die roll; trying to "spread around the corruption" is now a much more dangerous strategy!] (4) The number of cards given to each player at Rivendell and Lothlorien are equal to 7 minus the number of players; so in a two player game, each player gets five cards, not four, and in a five-player game each player only gets two cards. I'm sure I'm going to be tinkering continuously with this game, and I've seen some great ideas out there already (such as the six-player variant featuring Gollum), so I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments people have! -- Tony Lin (tony.h.lin@boeing.com) Alan Poulter on 03/30/2001 12:25:09 PM To: Tony.Lin@HSC.com cc: Subject: Re: reviews? Hi Tony, At 11:26 30/03/01 -0800, you wrote: >I'd like to write a review/potential game variant for the Lord of the Rings >board game by Hasbro. Would you be interested in such a piece? Yes, certainly! Please send it on. Alan Poulter Web-Grognards Home Page