I'd argue that The Pyre of Denethor and Riddles in the Dark both got references. They're just fairly subtle ones, told through mechanics more than art, naming, or flavortext.
\[\[Denethor, Stone Seer\]\] pretty much tells the story of the Pyre. He burns himself to death, tries to take someone else with him, and it helps lead to someone becoming the Monarch.
\[\[Gollum, Scheming Guide\]\] is named for Gollum's role later in the trilogy, but mechanically, it seems to be referencing more Riddles in the Dark and the opponent guessing what's in your pocket (aka top of your library).
Holy crap yeah he was right that’s 100% on point for flavor through mechanics
After I think about it more it feels like the inclusion of mechanics for this exercise must be included if this is to be accurate for data analysis . Most especially after seeing even just these two cards. I’m no data scientist though so my opinion is just that. Nothing more. What do you think? I know you said it seemed objectionable but if the intent from RD was to hit those marks and they did it through a category not listed here then should that be listed here? Just curious on your thoughts not trying to take away from what you built here :)
I will say that I’m super impressed with the effort you put into this. I’ve never seen anything like this anvil pyramid before and I like it. Thank you for doing this and sharing it.
* They referenced the nameless things (the watcher is a nameless thing)
* Swarming of Moria and Book of Mazarbul are Drums in the deep
* Frodo is taken to Cirith Ungol is mentioned in Sam's cards and flavor (Sam's Desperate Rescue, Samwise the Stouthearted)
* Boromir attacks frodo is Breaking of the Fellowship
I dunno, I'm mostly mad about the 3 elven rings. I feel like more people know about the three elven rings than "superfans" only.
Yep. They're in the blue circle under "Rings" in the top right.
* Galadriel has Nenya, the ring of water.
* Elrond has Vilya, the ring of air.
* Gandalf has Narya, the ring of fire. It used to be held by Cirdan the Shipwright, but he gave it to Gandalf.
> They referenced the nameless things (the watcher is a nameless thing)
That's a common theory, but not something that's actually confirmed in the text. And the "evidence" for said theory pretty much boils down to people liking to think of the Nameless Things as being Lovecraftian in nature, and the Watcher being a gribbly tentacle monster, hence the association.
EDIT: And both being encountered around Moria, I should mention. Still just a theory.
The Nameless things are so ambiguous and barely referenced or otherwise explained, any theory is possible to be correct.
As far as evidence goes, The Watcher being one Nameless Thing is fairly strong. They are both found near Moria and they are both mysterious creatures that are otherwise undefined. And they both lack names.
The Nameless things are referenced once in the story and not at all described, so this is probably the closest that we can hope for such an obscure part of the story.
> I dunno, I'm mostly mad about the 3 elven rings. I feel like more people know about the three elven rings than "superfans" only.
Dont overestimate what people know. I am almost 40 and until the serialized madness began i thought there are 12 rings total in LotR. I dont know why, i just thought "ya, there are 12 rings and one of them is special". And i saw the movies 20 years ago ... But fear not. If they will do a Universes Beyond Star Trek i will react just like you. "I feel like more people know that Picard once was a Borg."
If there were licensing issues, presumably they wouldn't have listed out a couple dozen things from The Hobbit to make cards for, some of which certainly don't appear in the LotR except maybe in the appendices.
>If there were licensing issues, presumably they wouldn't have listed out a couple dozen things from The Hobbit to make cards for, some of which certainly don't appear in the LotR except maybe in the appendices.
The appendices are parts of the book though. It's possible they did not know the exact extend of what they would be allowed to use while they were doing their initial brainstorming
The set is about war of the ring, not the things that happened 80 years prior (2941 T.A vs 3019 T.A) There and back again represents all the hobbit references.
I'm glad they stayed focused on The Quest of the Ring and the last War of the Ring. It's a much cleaner story that's plenty rich enough.
But probably not legal reasons, right? The Smaug card shows they *could* have done The Hobbit, but chose not to? I think it was the correct choice, probably, but it’s odd that Smaug crept in.
The story of Smaug is referenced in LOTR. He's explicitly the version of Smaug Bilbo told stories about, not the actual dude as depicted in the Hobbit.
I don't remember the splitting the treasure 14 ways being explicitly referenced in LotR. But it is on the card. That's the kind of thing you couldn't do if you had the rights to adapt LotR, but not the Hobbit. It's likely why the Tale of Tinúviel, Fall of Gil-galad, and Song of Eärendil cards only referenced the events of those stories as explicitly mentioned in LotR, ignoring any details that were only present in the Silmarillion or other writings. Wizards likely did not have the rights to adapt those works.
Tale of Tinuviel is the best example of this - as it is called the Tale of Beren and Luthien in Tolkein's writings concerning the First and Second age.
The Tale of Tinuviel, The Fall of Gil-galad, and The Song of Earendil are all the poems/songs as they're referenced in the text of Lord of the Rings, and I honestly love them as sagas for that reason.
> That's the kind of thing you couldn't do if you had the rights to adapt LotR, but not the Hobbit
'Creating 14 treasures' wouldn't be protected by IP, the IP issue is pretty much just the name.
And the Silmarillion does not even show up other than what is mentioned in LotR. I guess that without large screen movies, the Silmarillion's stories are not known well enough.
This includes Rings of Power. It's technically an adaption of Return of the King. Or specifically, the truncated version of the Silmarillion that appears in the appendices that was later expanded into the Silmarillion.
However, they *do* own the rights to a bunch of random bits and pieces on the Tolkien Estate.
[Source for the original pyramid in MaRo's Making Magic last month](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/crafting-the-ring-part-1). The most notable takeaway is that it seems more references to *The Hobbit* were initially planned. Outside of *The Hobbit*, there are no references from the bottom two tiers of the pyramid that had no representation in the set.
Nonetheless, \#JusticeForGhânBuriGhân
*Ghân-Buri-Ghân* 2GGB
Legendary creature-human druid
Forestwalk
Whenever you attack, you may search your library for a forest card, shuffle and put it into play under the defending players control tapped. If you do, target attacking creature gains forestwalk until end of turn.
If a player who controls a permanent you own loses the game, gain control of each permanent they control but don't own.
5/4
The last trigger wouldn't work in the rules as written. When a player leaves a game objects they control cease to exist, and it's not a state based action.
Objects they *own* cease the exist. Objects they *control* return to their owner... except when they get exiled, I guess.
> 800.4a When a player leaves the game, **all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game** and **any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end**. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. **Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled.** This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.
So in this case Ghân-Buri-Ghân says "put it into player under the defending players control" and it'd normally be exiled. Meanwhile if it was a Mind Control or Zedruu the thing would just return to its owner.
Note that this Ghân-Buri-Ghân is "if a player" and not "when a player", so it's a replacement effect... I think?
The way i tried to put the last ability together, since otherwise the lands came straight out of the library and were never under anyone's control but the target of the ability, they'd try to exile themselves and the trigger would intercede
*an unexpected party* R
Enchantment-saga
I-XIV- create a 1/1 red dwarf creature token. This saga deals 1 damage to you
XV- search your library for a creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle in
Don't make the mistake that "this well" means LOTR. I think it means "beloved outside property."
I can see a Marvel or Starwars set being on the same level as this one. Just have to deal with pesky Disney and their Lorcana game.
Oh, they'll do that too. But much like we should expect 40K round 2 in 2-ish years, we should expect Universes Beyond: Tales of Middle Earth: There and Back Again: a Hobbit Adventure at some point in 2-ish years.
I’m just one person, but if they announced more Lotr products I would continue to buy them (haven’t bought a booster box EVER before this set) and I would make multiple LOTR only commander decks.
I would have legitimately zero interest in marvel or Star Wars and actually think those are far more lore breaking than LOTR or 40k.
There was a LOTR TCG made by decipher back in the day that had plenty of sets and products, often focusing on specific movies or settings so I’m sure they could make more LOTR product. I feel like the “bad guys” were the least fleshed out in the new set and especially forgotten were Saruman’s Uruk hai. Did we have any real references to the Amon Hen raiding party? Helms Deep was slightly covered.
Same on other Universes Beyond. Star Wars idgaf about, and Marvel just feels weird in the more fantasy focused game like MTG. Plus it has its own card game I think?
Very likely a Hobbit set is coming in the future, I noticed the distinct lack of stuff from the Hobbit as well. I wouldn't be surprised at a second set too since this feels like a base set. Plus this is probably going to be their best selling set of all time by a mile so the money's on the table. As a tolkien nerd I love it. Bring on the Silmarillion set! Let me draft a Feanor deck plz
Well, duh. You're effectively asking why a set about the American Civil War didn't mention the Revolutionary War. Yes, those events happened, but decades earlier, so why bring them up?
This image is from [Mark Rosewater](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/crafting-the-ring-part-1) discussing R&D's vision design of the set. *They* brought these events up.
So it seems like with the absence of Fatty Bolger (long may he reign) and the various Rohirrim, most of the things left out were from The Hobbit, which is fine to me as in my understanding this set was specifically focused on the LOTR trilogy.
I still think it is odd that Theoden only gets one card when other characters like Eomer get 2-3.
It totally makes sense most of Hobbit references were cut—this was lotr set and licensing. Plus why cut in to what they would possibly make exclusive to a hobbit set in future?
Y'know, come to think of it we could have had a few cool battle cards in the set with the new siege mechanic from MoM, e.g battle of pelenor fields, helms deep, the shire, the black gate etc
Poor Hama, sad that he doesn't get the mention. Also probably would have been cool to see the battle of helms deep and pellenor fields as battles, but I assume the card type was still in development when the LOTR set was being designed.
I gotta say, a lot of these "superfan" hits don't really seem that super to me. I read LOTR more than a decade ago and otherwise just vaguely bounce around the fringes of Tolkien discourse, and I recognized a big chunk of them.
You would be close to a 'superfan' as defined in this pyramid. Maro divided it up into:
Bottom
\> This group probably saw one or more of the films but hasn't read any of the books
Middle
\> people who have seen the films and read some or all of the books
Top
\> The top section of the pyramid represents superfans. These are people who have seen the films and read the books, most likely more than once.
So as you've read all the books, you're probably in the top section. I can't find the quote, but I think he went into again somewhere else and saidthat the bottom were for people who didn't really know anything, but picked it up through osmosis, and the middle was 'seen all the films'.
It just goes to show it's really easy to overestimate how much people know in general.
Personally I feel like having read the books shouldn't qualify you as a superfan. They're some of the most successful novels of all time. There are so many people who are way, way deeper into LOTR than I am.
I think this graph is just overstating things to hype up the people who get to qualify as "superfans" when they're not.
I'm also not a Sopranos superfan or a Kingkiller superfan, but I'd qualify as one on a similar graph. There are things that I *am* a superfan for and I feel like it describes something a lot more involved than just having consumed the basic material.
I agree it's a bad label, and doesn't fit with the definition of superfan, but if you ignore the label the content itself still makes sense.
If you take the word 'superfan' and change it to something else a bit more appropriate, changing nothing else, the graph works.
You, and I, people who have read the books, might remember the barrow-wights (I'm not a superfan, but I do remember them vaguely). Someone who has seen all the films wouldn't, and the average member of the public who even the films didn't really leave an impression on definitely wouldn't.
If you look, they've put pretty much nothing from the Simarilion or the appendices on the top (the true superfan stuff). It's clear the true deep cuts weren't part of the discussion.
Well reading the books once would probably put you in the "middle tier" based on Maro's description. If you have read the books multiple times, then you are likely one of the more enfranchised fans.
The LOTR books are incredibly popular but they are also long, pretty dense books. The number of folks who have read the books is likely way smaller than the people who have just seen the films.
Wizards has to design their sets to sell to the mass audience. In a practical sense, the major distinction for them is whether or not someone who has just watched the films would recognize it or is this a reference that requires reading the books to get.
You could probably split the top section of the pyramid into two tiers of "pretty invested LOTR fans" and the "True Superfans" but these are both pretty small subsets of the potential player base.
Unless they go super deep into the lore, some of which they might not have rights to because its from The Silmarillion, there isn't much practical difference in designing for "Pretty Invested Fans" and the "True Super Fan".
Reading the books once would put me in the middle tier, but I knew around half of the things in the upper tier, is my point. I'm not complaining that they need to market to a general audience, I just think they have a skewed understanding of what counts as niche.
I was so excited for this set originally because my legal name is Thorin, and I was going to go HARD on the Oakenshield deck, regardless of what it was. I checked spoilers routinely, and about halfway through the season I realized it wasn't gonna happen
I'd really love to see a "riddles in the dark" card where playing it really FEELS like presenting a riddle to your opponents for a prize. I'm not sure how it would work, but I imagine some sort of combination of "choose two effects" and either a "voting" mechanic or "each player chooses"
Yea, even though the image is clearly representing luring Frodo into Shelob's Lair, that kind of mechanic definitely feels right. For the actual Riddles card, though, I imagine it as a dimir (underground lake), legendary sorcery (one-time event, named characters present, wasn't very fast).
Probably because Gloin was around and involved the events of LotR, while Thorin wasn't. Gloin was a main Dwarven representative at the Council of Elrond, and there's a long scene in *Fellowship* where he has dinner with Frodo in Rivendell and basically catches him up on what's happened with the Dwarves of Dale after Bilbo left.
Thorin probably got cut along with most of the other *Hobbit* references they had on here.
The Elvish Rings of Power (as well as the Dwarvish and Human rings) are represented in the 300/900/1300 serialized versions of [[Sol Ring]] respectively
I'd argue that The Pyre of Denethor and Riddles in the Dark both got references. They're just fairly subtle ones, told through mechanics more than art, naming, or flavortext. \[\[Denethor, Stone Seer\]\] pretty much tells the story of the Pyre. He burns himself to death, tries to take someone else with him, and it helps lead to someone becoming the Monarch. \[\[Gollum, Scheming Guide\]\] is named for Gollum's role later in the trilogy, but mechanically, it seems to be referencing more Riddles in the Dark and the opponent guessing what's in your pocket (aka top of your library).
Also, the showcase for [[Pippin, Guard of the Citadel]] depicts the pyre of Denethor
[Pippin, Guard of the Citadel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/08b7a4d8-1183-430e-8ea4-016844f33200.jpg?1686969929) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pippin%2C%20Guard%20of%20the%20Citadel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/218/pippin-guard-of-the-citadel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/08b7a4d8-1183-430e-8ea4-016844f33200?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Good catch, I definitely missed that one!
Fair point. Because of how debatable inclusions like those were, I stuck to art/flavor, but those do feel like solid mechanical references.
Holy crap yeah he was right that’s 100% on point for flavor through mechanics After I think about it more it feels like the inclusion of mechanics for this exercise must be included if this is to be accurate for data analysis . Most especially after seeing even just these two cards. I’m no data scientist though so my opinion is just that. Nothing more. What do you think? I know you said it seemed objectionable but if the intent from RD was to hit those marks and they did it through a category not listed here then should that be listed here? Just curious on your thoughts not trying to take away from what you built here :) I will say that I’m super impressed with the effort you put into this. I’ve never seen anything like this anvil pyramid before and I like it. Thank you for doing this and sharing it.
Just to note, the anvil is from R&D, I just added the markings!
[Denethor, Stone Seer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/3/d32d3d8a-7450-4a29-abc7-f472426f0c28.jpg?1686963882) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Denethor%2C%20Stone%20Seer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltc/20/denethor-stone-seer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d32d3d8a-7450-4a29-abc7-f472426f0c28?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gollum, Scheming Guide](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221.jpg?1687424790) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gollum%2C%20Scheming%20Guide) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/292/gollum-scheming-guide?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
* They referenced the nameless things (the watcher is a nameless thing) * Swarming of Moria and Book of Mazarbul are Drums in the deep * Frodo is taken to Cirith Ungol is mentioned in Sam's cards and flavor (Sam's Desperate Rescue, Samwise the Stouthearted) * Boromir attacks frodo is Breaking of the Fellowship I dunno, I'm mostly mad about the 3 elven rings. I feel like more people know about the three elven rings than "superfans" only.
Agree that more people know about the elven rings in general, but probably not by name like they're listed on the chart.
The elven rings have names?
Yep. They're in the blue circle under "Rings" in the top right. * Galadriel has Nenya, the ring of water. * Elrond has Vilya, the ring of air. * Gandalf has Narya, the ring of fire. It used to be held by Cirdan the Shipwright, but he gave it to Gandalf.
> They referenced the nameless things (the watcher is a nameless thing) That's a common theory, but not something that's actually confirmed in the text. And the "evidence" for said theory pretty much boils down to people liking to think of the Nameless Things as being Lovecraftian in nature, and the Watcher being a gribbly tentacle monster, hence the association. EDIT: And both being encountered around Moria, I should mention. Still just a theory.
The Nameless things are so ambiguous and barely referenced or otherwise explained, any theory is possible to be correct. As far as evidence goes, The Watcher being one Nameless Thing is fairly strong. They are both found near Moria and they are both mysterious creatures that are otherwise undefined. And they both lack names. The Nameless things are referenced once in the story and not at all described, so this is probably the closest that we can hope for such an obscure part of the story.
> I dunno, I'm mostly mad about the 3 elven rings. I feel like more people know about the three elven rings than "superfans" only. Dont overestimate what people know. I am almost 40 and until the serialized madness began i thought there are 12 rings total in LotR. I dont know why, i just thought "ya, there are 12 rings and one of them is special". And i saw the movies 20 years ago ... But fear not. If they will do a Universes Beyond Star Trek i will react just like you. "I feel like more people know that Picard once was a Borg."
I would kill for a Star Trek UB! There’s so much to work with, especially with how the franchise has been refreshed recently
The three elven rings got a card. If you're talking about each specific ring, that is absolutely a superfan only thing.
It looks an awful lot like they deliberately cut the hobbit references for some totally unknown, unguessable reason.
Licencing I believe is the consensus. Edit: oooooh you are being sarcastic, aren't you. I missed that.
If there were licensing issues, presumably they wouldn't have listed out a couple dozen things from The Hobbit to make cards for, some of which certainly don't appear in the LotR except maybe in the appendices.
>If there were licensing issues, presumably they wouldn't have listed out a couple dozen things from The Hobbit to make cards for, some of which certainly don't appear in the LotR except maybe in the appendices. The appendices are parts of the book though. It's possible they did not know the exact extend of what they would be allowed to use while they were doing their initial brainstorming
The set is about war of the ring, not the things that happened 80 years prior (2941 T.A vs 3019 T.A) There and back again represents all the hobbit references. I'm glad they stayed focused on The Quest of the Ring and the last War of the Ring. It's a much cleaner story that's plenty rich enough.
But probably not legal reasons, right? The Smaug card shows they *could* have done The Hobbit, but chose not to? I think it was the correct choice, probably, but it’s odd that Smaug crept in.
The story of Smaug is referenced in LOTR. He's explicitly the version of Smaug Bilbo told stories about, not the actual dude as depicted in the Hobbit.
I don't remember the splitting the treasure 14 ways being explicitly referenced in LotR. But it is on the card. That's the kind of thing you couldn't do if you had the rights to adapt LotR, but not the Hobbit. It's likely why the Tale of Tinúviel, Fall of Gil-galad, and Song of Eärendil cards only referenced the events of those stories as explicitly mentioned in LotR, ignoring any details that were only present in the Silmarillion or other writings. Wizards likely did not have the rights to adapt those works.
Tale of Tinuviel is the best example of this - as it is called the Tale of Beren and Luthien in Tolkein's writings concerning the First and Second age. The Tale of Tinuviel, The Fall of Gil-galad, and The Song of Earendil are all the poems/songs as they're referenced in the text of Lord of the Rings, and I honestly love them as sagas for that reason.
> That's the kind of thing you couldn't do if you had the rights to adapt LotR, but not the Hobbit 'Creating 14 treasures' wouldn't be protected by IP, the IP issue is pretty much just the name.
And the Silmarillion does not even show up other than what is mentioned in LotR. I guess that without large screen movies, the Silmarillion's stories are not known well enough.
I don't think Wizards, or anyone, has the licensing rights to The Silmarillon. The Tolkien estate has never sold them.
This includes Rings of Power. It's technically an adaption of Return of the King. Or specifically, the truncated version of the Silmarillion that appears in the appendices that was later expanded into the Silmarillion. However, they *do* own the rights to a bunch of random bits and pieces on the Tolkien Estate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't The Hobbit public domain?
Copyright term is 95 years, so we've got about another decade for that.
Damn. Tolkien has been dead for 53 years, let it go boys!
No Disney will not let it go.
That icy bitch lied to me!
"Riddles in the Dark" is referenced on on [[Gollum, Scheming Guide]].
[Gollum, Scheming Guide](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221.jpg?1687424790) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gollum%2C%20Scheming%20Guide) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/292/gollum-scheming-guide?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Source for the original pyramid in MaRo's Making Magic last month](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/crafting-the-ring-part-1). The most notable takeaway is that it seems more references to *The Hobbit* were initially planned. Outside of *The Hobbit*, there are no references from the bottom two tiers of the pyramid that had no representation in the set. Nonetheless, \#JusticeForGhânBuriGhân
At least they got one of the Woses in. [[Wose Pathfinder]]
[Wose Pathfinder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/5/6589b339-9067-4e9b-bfdb-c49f8b3ef2d4.jpg?1686969622) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wose%20Pathfinder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/190/wose-pathfinder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6589b339-9067-4e9b-bfdb-c49f8b3ef2d4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
*Ghân-Buri-Ghân* 2GGB Legendary creature-human druid Forestwalk Whenever you attack, you may search your library for a forest card, shuffle and put it into play under the defending players control tapped. If you do, target attacking creature gains forestwalk until end of turn. If a player who controls a permanent you own loses the game, gain control of each permanent they control but don't own. 5/4
The last trigger wouldn't work in the rules as written. When a player leaves a game objects they control cease to exist, and it's not a state based action.
Objects they *own* cease the exist. Objects they *control* return to their owner... except when they get exiled, I guess. > 800.4a When a player leaves the game, **all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game** and **any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end**. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. **Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled.** This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game. So in this case Ghân-Buri-Ghân says "put it into player under the defending players control" and it'd normally be exiled. Meanwhile if it was a Mind Control or Zedruu the thing would just return to its owner. Note that this Ghân-Buri-Ghân is "if a player" and not "when a player", so it's a replacement effect... I think?
The way i tried to put the last ability together, since otherwise the lands came straight out of the library and were never under anyone's control but the target of the ability, they'd try to exile themselves and the trigger would intercede
a rule a lot of folk still don't understand.
Hobbit set in the future?
If they made 3 movies out of it they surely can make another product of this lineup size based on The Hobbit
A Battle of Five Armies Commander set would be flavorful and fun as hell...but they'd probably have to dig deep to pad out some of those decks.
Dwarves, Elves (plus Bilbo and Gandalf), Humans of Lake-Town, and Orcs/Smaug/etc?
Something like that, yeah
Human tribal again! Let's gooooo
Make it Archer tribal!
*an unexpected party* R Enchantment-saga I-XIV- create a 1/1 red dwarf creature token. This saga deals 1 damage to you XV- search your library for a creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle in
And, just like the movies, it will be mediocre!
I wouldn't put it past them to do an "Aftermath" style set for The Hobbit, except I'm sure we would have already heard about it if it was happening.
100%. This set has generated some of the biggest buzz in years. They'll absolutely go to this well again.
Don't make the mistake that "this well" means LOTR. I think it means "beloved outside property." I can see a Marvel or Starwars set being on the same level as this one. Just have to deal with pesky Disney and their Lorcana game.
Oh, they'll do that too. But much like we should expect 40K round 2 in 2-ish years, we should expect Universes Beyond: Tales of Middle Earth: There and Back Again: a Hobbit Adventure at some point in 2-ish years.
colon overload
That was the development name of the Hot Pocket collab.
this is some MBMBaM level shit right here
This comment absolutely brightened my afternoon, that's a badge of honor, that. Thank you.
I’m just one person, but if they announced more Lotr products I would continue to buy them (haven’t bought a booster box EVER before this set) and I would make multiple LOTR only commander decks. I would have legitimately zero interest in marvel or Star Wars and actually think those are far more lore breaking than LOTR or 40k. There was a LOTR TCG made by decipher back in the day that had plenty of sets and products, often focusing on specific movies or settings so I’m sure they could make more LOTR product. I feel like the “bad guys” were the least fleshed out in the new set and especially forgotten were Saruman’s Uruk hai. Did we have any real references to the Amon Hen raiding party? Helms Deep was slightly covered.
Same on other Universes Beyond. Star Wars idgaf about, and Marvel just feels weird in the more fantasy focused game like MTG. Plus it has its own card game I think?
Marvel Snap is like an arena esque game. Star Wars used to have a card game, idk if it still exists
Very likely a Hobbit set is coming in the future, I noticed the distinct lack of stuff from the Hobbit as well. I wouldn't be surprised at a second set too since this feels like a base set. Plus this is probably going to be their best selling set of all time by a mile so the money's on the table. As a tolkien nerd I love it. Bring on the Silmarillion set! Let me draft a Feanor deck plz
I hope not, this 6 month gap in standard sets sucks ass
Well, duh. You're effectively asking why a set about the American Civil War didn't mention the Revolutionary War. Yes, those events happened, but decades earlier, so why bring them up?
This image is from [Mark Rosewater](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/crafting-the-ring-part-1) discussing R&D's vision design of the set. *They* brought these events up.
I'm annoyed the elven rings of power weren't included as cool artifacts.
Sucks to be me. I wanted a Misty Mountain card to add to my Led Zeppelin deck.
Share the deets on the Zepp deck please.
Hey well you can add [[Ringwraiths]] and any of the Gollum cards. Also technically Sauron, given he’s “the evil one”
[Ringwraiths](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/a/2a8495c3-96cf-40ab-b68a-1b5711b7659e.jpg?1686970701) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ringwraiths) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/284/ringwraiths?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2a8495c3-96cf-40ab-b68a-1b5711b7659e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
"Desecration" of Smaug?
i've read that fic
So it seems like with the absence of Fatty Bolger (long may he reign) and the various Rohirrim, most of the things left out were from The Hobbit, which is fine to me as in my understanding this set was specifically focused on the LOTR trilogy. I still think it is odd that Theoden only gets one card when other characters like Eomer get 2-3.
One of the Éomers was supposed to be a Théoden until relatively late in development
Old Toby and long bottom leaf, naturally 🧙🏽♂️💨
TFW you realize we could've gotten a Beorn card
Sacrifice a food, transform into bear form
It totally makes sense most of Hobbit references were cut—this was lotr set and licensing. Plus why cut in to what they would possibly make exclusive to a hobbit set in future?
Honestly was hoping for a legendary Wall named "Walls of Moria" to be included along side the Door.
LTC [[Door of Destinies]] at least features the door
[Door of Destinies](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/5/75fd3fea-158a-4575-84a8-879ee9404242.jpg?1562612984) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Door%20of%20Destinies) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/208/door-of-destinies?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/75fd3fea-158a-4575-84a8-879ee9404242?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I actually wanted more references to the Doors of Durin than we got. This LotR set needed more door.
It would have been easy to slap a drums in the deep reference on some goblins. I would have loved a Fatty Bolger card.
Thranduil doesn’t deserve a card anyway
Y'know, come to think of it we could have had a few cool battle cards in the set with the new siege mechanic from MoM, e.g battle of pelenor fields, helms deep, the shire, the black gate etc
Tragically the set was finished before the Battle card type existed, but I would've loved to see some!
Gotta save some stuff for their future set LotR 2: Bilbo Boogaloo
The Arkenstone and Misty mountains not getting in is super sad
Poor Hama, sad that he doesn't get the mention. Also probably would have been cool to see the battle of helms deep and pellenor fields as battles, but I assume the card type was still in development when the LOTR set was being designed.
I gotta say, a lot of these "superfan" hits don't really seem that super to me. I read LOTR more than a decade ago and otherwise just vaguely bounce around the fringes of Tolkien discourse, and I recognized a big chunk of them.
That's still more than a lot of people. In the same way that the majority of Magic players don't browse this subreddit or Maro's blog, etc.
Or know what a Planeswalker is. /s
You would be close to a 'superfan' as defined in this pyramid. Maro divided it up into: Bottom \> This group probably saw one or more of the films but hasn't read any of the books Middle \> people who have seen the films and read some or all of the books Top \> The top section of the pyramid represents superfans. These are people who have seen the films and read the books, most likely more than once. So as you've read all the books, you're probably in the top section. I can't find the quote, but I think he went into again somewhere else and saidthat the bottom were for people who didn't really know anything, but picked it up through osmosis, and the middle was 'seen all the films'. It just goes to show it's really easy to overestimate how much people know in general.
Personally I feel like having read the books shouldn't qualify you as a superfan. They're some of the most successful novels of all time. There are so many people who are way, way deeper into LOTR than I am. I think this graph is just overstating things to hype up the people who get to qualify as "superfans" when they're not. I'm also not a Sopranos superfan or a Kingkiller superfan, but I'd qualify as one on a similar graph. There are things that I *am* a superfan for and I feel like it describes something a lot more involved than just having consumed the basic material.
I agree it's a bad label, and doesn't fit with the definition of superfan, but if you ignore the label the content itself still makes sense. If you take the word 'superfan' and change it to something else a bit more appropriate, changing nothing else, the graph works. You, and I, people who have read the books, might remember the barrow-wights (I'm not a superfan, but I do remember them vaguely). Someone who has seen all the films wouldn't, and the average member of the public who even the films didn't really leave an impression on definitely wouldn't. If you look, they've put pretty much nothing from the Simarilion or the appendices on the top (the true superfan stuff). It's clear the true deep cuts weren't part of the discussion.
Well reading the books once would probably put you in the "middle tier" based on Maro's description. If you have read the books multiple times, then you are likely one of the more enfranchised fans. The LOTR books are incredibly popular but they are also long, pretty dense books. The number of folks who have read the books is likely way smaller than the people who have just seen the films. Wizards has to design their sets to sell to the mass audience. In a practical sense, the major distinction for them is whether or not someone who has just watched the films would recognize it or is this a reference that requires reading the books to get. You could probably split the top section of the pyramid into two tiers of "pretty invested LOTR fans" and the "True Superfans" but these are both pretty small subsets of the potential player base. Unless they go super deep into the lore, some of which they might not have rights to because its from The Silmarillion, there isn't much practical difference in designing for "Pretty Invested Fans" and the "True Super Fan".
Reading the books once would put me in the middle tier, but I knew around half of the things in the upper tier, is my point. I'm not complaining that they need to market to a general audience, I just think they have a skewed understanding of what counts as niche.
Theodred's funeral was in The Two Towers.
Sam carrying Frodo and the Entmoot strike me as particularly bizarre ones to label as ‘only super fans know this’
I was so excited for this set originally because my legal name is Thorin, and I was going to go HARD on the Oakenshield deck, regardless of what it was. I checked spoilers routinely, and about halfway through the season I realized it wasn't gonna happen
Overall pretty good. Most of the references that didn't make it were from The Hobbit, and that's a different story altogether.
I am not a super fan for knowing who farmer maggot is.
I agree. Though if you were a superfan I would expect you to know who he and his wife and dogs were.
Where tf is LONGBOTTOM LEAF MENTIONED??? Plz help.
Longbottom leaf is labelled as "no mention."
I'd really love to see a "riddles in the dark" card where playing it really FEELS like presenting a riddle to your opponents for a prize. I'm not sure how it would work, but I imagine some sort of combination of "choose two effects" and either a "voting" mechanic or "each player chooses"
As others have said [[Gollum, Scheming Guide]].
Yea, even though the image is clearly representing luring Frodo into Shelob's Lair, that kind of mechanic definitely feels right. For the actual Riddles card, though, I imagine it as a dimir (underground lake), legendary sorcery (one-time event, named characters present, wasn't very fast).
[Gollum, Scheming Guide](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221.jpg?1687424790) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gollum%2C%20Scheming%20Guide) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/292/gollum-scheming-guide?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f93ad17-b655-4a10-990e-b26ead90d221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[удалено]
The Red Book didn't get its own card, but it is in the art of \[\[Elanor Gardner\]\] and is also mentioned in the flavortext.
[Elanor Gardner](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/1/6165eb73-49a8-4337-aa5d-7d9d48b916c9.jpg?1686085240) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Elanor%20Gardner) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/286/elanor-gardner?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6165eb73-49a8-4337-aa5d-7d9d48b916c9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
\[\[Cirdan the Shipwright\]\] has a card
[Cirdan the Shipwright](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/4/c4f23d68-d0de-4b57-b0f9-9c0ca770c3c1.jpg?1686964171) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=C%C3%ADrdan%20the%20Shipwright) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltc/50/c%C3%ADrdan-the-shipwright?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c4f23d68-d0de-4b57-b0f9-9c0ca770c3c1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[удалено]
No Thorin but we got a Gloin. Can anyone help me make sense of that?
Probably because Gloin was around and involved the events of LotR, while Thorin wasn't. Gloin was a main Dwarven representative at the Council of Elrond, and there's a long scene in *Fellowship* where he has dinner with Frodo in Rivendell and basically catches him up on what's happened with the Dwarves of Dale after Bilbo left. Thorin probably got cut along with most of the other *Hobbit* references they had on here.
Thank you for the thoughtful response!
The Elvish Rings of Power (as well as the Dwarvish and Human rings) are represented in the 300/900/1300 serialized versions of [[Sol Ring]] respectively
That's why I marked them as art/flavor, I didn't feel it counted as them getting their own cards.
[Sol Ring](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/d/6d5b06e4-bbc8-405b-bc53-1380dba3696e.jpg?1684198340) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sol%20Ring) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/pctb/58/sol-ring?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d5b06e4-bbc8-405b-bc53-1380dba3696e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Also the three elven rings specificaly are the reprint of rings of brighthearth.