I was playing yesterday and someone did this 'trick' to lower both our threats to the starting level. I immediately took issue with him until he pointed out how the devs have ruled that this is valid.

What the hell is wrong with them? This is beyond stupid and ruins quests like Conflict at Carrock etc. How can you let them use Loargon to reset everyones threat like that. It should be once per game! Now you just pass him around and ignore threat for everyone.

I hope this is like the whole fiasco about attaching cards like Ancient Mathom to locations that are immune to card effects. One email from Caleb says its kosher (with a laughable explanation) that was then appropriately overturned in a FAQ.

Once again please overturn this stupidity.

It is a strange ruling, though one that has given Desperate Alliance great use, and made doomed Aragorn decks one of the most powerful out there for multiplayer (on level with Outlands and Dwarves in my opinion).

It will be interesting to see if they over-rule their previous statements...

Yeah, it makes little sense. There is only one Aragorn in play, no matter who controls it, and his ability can only be triggered once per game.

As for the Doomed decks, I am hugely surprised how little they seem to work, solo or coop. I thought the cards like Legacy of Númenor will be a smash hit but I have, so far, found them not that effective, especially against the VoI (or AtS). Deep Knowledge should be a no brainer, still, but card draw has been given some difficulties lately. And as for Strider, it is all nice when he can push the threat down but that does not help until he does, and you might be facing all the enemies in the meantime, together with other difficulties. And a single Burning and Pillaging can make things very un-predictable, especially in coop.

I fully expect this to get overruled in a future FAQ once it's proven how broken this can be. And it'll only get worse as more cards enter the game to allow these kind of shenanigans. A single card should not allow a fundamental pillar of the game (threat) to be a non-issue. I have to hope that the designers just didn't realize how the card would be exploited (like Beravor and Zigil Miner) and revise the rules.

How does everyone else feel about this combo? Have you played in really close game only to have threat become a non-issue using these tricks. I've seen this a few times now and I didn't find it very fun. It really felt like we were gaming the system and totally ruined my sense of immersion and narrative. In fact, I think it felt like cheating. Yuck.

I'm also hoping they bring in a hand limit. I've played a few multiplayer games lately where the other player drew their entire deck. It totally ruined the game for me. I know that the new AP cycle has hand size hate, but that's just a Dunland gimmick and they can't do that every cycle going forward. With so much card draw and so many ways to recycle events, a hand limit is necessary to create tension. Having your entire deck in your hand is fun at first until you realize just how trivial (and uninteresting) the game becomes at that point.

I really respect Caleb and Matthew and think they are doing wonderful things for this game, but there are some serious problems that need to be fixed properly (via errata and a new FAQ) and not through compensation using the encounter deck.

Rather than a hand limit, I think a draw limit would work well for this game. Simply limit how many cards can be drawn in a single turn and these broken combos will go away, while still allowing players to (slowly) stockpile cards in their hand if that's what they are interested in doing.

I feel pretty ok about the Aragorn combo and the drawing your whole deck combos mostly because I haven't actually tried them and don't intend to, just doesn't seem fun so I don't see the point in bothering. It's a co-op game, if drawing your whole hand ruins the experience for you or resetting everyone's threat, simply don't do it. Although I know people still take issue with it but that's how I personally feel when playing

I agree with Pharmboys2013 to a point... one of the great joys of a coop game is playing however you want to play it. The problem comes when I go to the game store to play a pick up game with whoever is there on game night. The last two times I've been paired up with people playing huge card draw decks or pass-the-Loragorn decks. I wasn't going to be a jerk so I didn't complain, but I have to admit that it really ruined the experience for me. The game was just un-fun playing that way. I've always been a big proponent of "play however you want to play" house rules, but standard rule sets do need to exist if there is to be any sort of organized play program, and those rules need to be solid. Furthermore, I worry that the designers are building in gimmick encounter deck mechanics to get around the broken combos (like the card draw hate of Dunland) rather than just dealing with the problem by adjusting the rules.

I think the designers need to sit down and try playing through a few scenarios with a partner who is playing one of these broken decks and get a feel for just how much it ruins the play experience.

I feel pretty ok about the Aragorn combo and the drawing your whole deck combos mostly because I haven't actually tried them and don't intend to, just doesn't seem fun so I don't see the point in bothering. It's a co-op game, if drawing your whole hand ruins the experience for you or resetting everyone's threat, simply don't do it. Although I know people still take issue with it but that's how I personally feel when playing

This comment only applies to if you play solo. I wasn't asking about that.

You can't stop others from making legal plays, no matter how broken they are. Since this is a co-op game most people are going to pay with others. Right now, Caleb's assinine ruling has pretty much forced me to avoid playing group games.

Rather than a hand limit, I think a draw limit would work well for this game. Simply limit how many cards can be drawn in a single turn and these broken combos will go away, while still allowing players to (slowly) stockpile cards in their hand if that's what they are interested in doing.

Really good idea, encounter card effects that make you draw cards should not be counted in the limit though.

If it didn't bug me so much, there's some rulings I'd love to ignore. I can't remember if it was Caleb or someone else, but the explanation on how surge still takes effect if you cancel the card drove me nuts.

I run Loragorn but not desperate alliance and also run Galahadrims Greeting and Gandalf as threat reduction for the other deck and Elronds Counsel as extra threat reduction for the deck using Loragorn (two handed).
Using Loragorn's threat reset for both players really does seem broken and against his one use per game rule. What's more you just don't have to run threat reduction at all pretty much if you use Loragorn/Desperate Alliance freeing up a whole handful of card slots and also completely removing one of the challenges and loss conditions of this game.

I gotta say I'm definitely of the opinion that the ruling should be overturned especially considering it does not need errata..... it clearly states on the card once per game, not once per player per game.
Even if it is a different player controlling him, it isn't like two players can both run Loragorn and each use the ability once as he is a unique hero in the first place....

To be completely honest I'm surprised it was even ruled the way it was in the first place..... it seems like it should be clear his use is one time only, the other player can use it if you give them Loragorn with Desperate Alliance but then you can't later on as well....

I used the combo regularly in a pair of decks that we made, to exploit Hobbits (who need to keep threat low, but several of them have threat-raising abilities) as well as tactics Boromir in a neighboring deck. And I do think this is overpowered.

it clearly states on the card once per game, not once per player per game..

Agreed, although they've previously ruled that the Landroval ability can be used by multiple players (also a "limit once per game" scenario). But in that case we are talking about multiple copies of a card. They could simply add to their explanation that "limit once per game" means total of once per player regardless of # of copies, and additionally that a single card with such a limit can only be trigger once (by any player). Only problem there is that, in a fancy-schmancy situation, you could indeed have to keep track of which copy of Landroval you used the ability on, should another player gain control of one of your copies of Landroval through a card effect. Sorry if I am not clear, just thinking as I type here.

Yes, as GrandSpleen points out, per-player limits have been in place since Landroval was released. Because Stand and Fight allows another player to bring Landroval back into play, it is possible for multiple players to trigger Landroval's hero-saving effect. I don't have a problem with per player limits. It is not a trivial cost to paying 5 resources to return Landroval from a discard pile then wait for the right moment to trigger his response.

My issue is with specifically with Desperate Alliance and Loragorn. This combo involves only a single card (Aragorn starts in play) and has 0 cost and no setup dependencies. This is too powerful of an effect for too low of a cost. This is all the more true now that Doomed player cards have truly commoditized threat. Tactics Boromir did this, to an extent, but Deep Knowledge and Legacy of Númenor have opened the flood gates. As was mentioned above, threat is a fundamental part of the game. Being able to circumvent this limit for multiple players, using a single card, is simply too powerful. I understand the "if you don't like it, don't play it" argument. The fact is, most players play strictly by the rules, so errata does matter.

Personally, I hope that Lore Aragorn gets errata so that his ability can only be triggered by his owner (not his controller). Resetting your threat is balanced (but very powerful) if this costs you a choice of starting hero. With Desperate Alliance, a threat reset violates the balance of the game because it benefits a player who didn't even start with Aragorn.

thank you everyone - Caleb please listen - change this ruling!

I've always wondered about how you define "starting threat" in the situation where you have an extra hero. Seems like Caleb and co. could say that Aragorn's 12 threat is included when you reset to your starting threat. So a 30 threat deck would only be able to reset to 42 if you use this combo. It twists the definition of "starting" a little bit, but at least you don't have to flip-flop or make exceptions to the per player, per game ruling.

Your starting threat is your starting threat, not the starting threat you would have if you had loragorn...

Well, maybe Caleb though it was working that way so he though it was not over broken...

Interisting question when you control mirlonde, if someone make an official question, please include this in your question.

Starting threat is a fixed number from set-up, so I don't think there should be room for Desperate Alliance to change that without changing the core rules:

Page 10 of the rulebook:

"2. Place Heroes and Set Initial Threat Levels

player’s starting threat level for the game ."

You are correct, entMoot. Starting threat is determined at setup for each player and cannot change for the rest of the game . This answers the question about how to handle Mirlonde, Lore Aragorn and Desperate Alliance. Even if I used two copies of Desperate Alliance to give you Mirlonde and Lore Aragorn, you will not get the benefit of Mirlonde for the threat reset, because your starting threat was set at the beginning of the game.

I am not advocating adding unnecessary complexity by changing the way starting threat works. The only thing this broken combo needs is the following errata to Lore Aragorn's ability:

Refresh Action: If you controlled Aragorn at the beginning of the game, reduce your threat to your starting threat level. (Limit once per game.)

This doesn't mess with per player limits and it doesn't mess with starting threat. It just closes the loop-hole for a combo that is too easy to perform, too powerful, and breaks the current meta game.

I don't know that this combo is so terribly problematic. In fact, I hear Aragorn was able to travel all over Middle-earth, lending his advice and aiding the cause of the Free Peoples against the Shadow. Rumor has it that he advised the Steward of Gondor and the King of Rohan. He wandered the north in disguise to avoid the gaze of Sauron.

In an ideal game Loragorn might -- over the course of four rounds -- lower four players' threat levels by a total of roughly 80 threat. That's very good, but it doesn't make up for players lowering their own threat levels consistently through the use of Gifts of the Galadhrim, Elrond's Counsel, and/or Sneak Attack Gandalf. Furthermore, late game threat reduction doesn't disengage enemies, heal wounds, clear locations, or cancel treachery effects. You have to manage everything else that you're trying to accomplish in the game, and you have to manage it for a minimum of four rounds, even with this combo, before the whole table can finish resetting its threat.

Yes, it might be strange that Loragorn has a different target of "you" when he's controlled by a different player (and can, therefore, lower that "you" player's threat), but that's how you roll when you're the King.

In 2 players is worse the combo earendil-took with loragorn

I don't know that this combo is so terribly problematic. In fact, I hear Aragorn was able to travel all over Middle-earth, lending his advice and aiding the cause of the Free Peoples against the Shadow. Rumor has it that he advised the Steward of Gondor and the King of Rohan. He wandered the north in disguise to avoid the gaze of Sauron.

In an ideal game Loragorn might -- over the course of four rounds -- lower four players' threat levels by a total of roughly 80 threat. That's very good, but it doesn't make up for players lowering their own threat levels consistently through the use of Gifts of the Galadhrim, Elrond's Counsel, and/or Sneak Attack Gandalf. Furthermore, late game threat reduction doesn't disengage enemies, heal wounds, clear locations, or cancel treachery effects. You have to manage everything else that you're trying to accomplish in the game, and you have to manage it for a minimum of four rounds, even with this combo, before the whole table can finish resetting its threat.

Yes, it might be strange that Loragorn has a different target of "you" when he's controlled by a different player (and can, therefore, lower that "you" player's threat), but that's how you roll when you're the King.

Th problem is deck thinning. With this combo everyone can just play powerful doomed cards and not include any threat reduction and pass him around when thy get high. It's very broken if you have seen it in action

I don't think it's that broken. Yes it will break some quests completely (the ones that are designed to really push your threat) - against most quests I don't find threat to really be the issue so being able to reset it wouldn't help all that much. It does allow someone to run a very powerful deck without any threat reduction (say starting with three 12 heroes) which does free up deck space - but at the same time I can't think of that many quests where it would really make a difference.

That said I also have no objections to errata and faq and wouldn't cry if it was changed. (I think Steward of Gondor and Unexpected courage both need an errata to be limit one per deck).

I think this would be a bigger issue for the earlier quests; which are frankly struggling to compete for the most part with the stronger decks we can now all make - however I'm not sure that this combo (or other equivalent power plays) might not be necessary for some 4 player games vs nightmare decks.

I agree with Rapier sounds like that combo is not really broken special in the case of Nmode…… In 4 players game is quite interesting strategy……

I have a chance to play Tournament in Paris Nmode 4 players game (we play Emyn Muil DMarshes and RTMirkwood) and we lost terrible even with that Combo n the end of the day…….

I also don't think it that much of a problem.

1st, you need to draw the copies of DA to pass him around.

That will not work out for all players who need a copy many a game.

We tried, and stopped after 2 games.

2nd, if you draw a copy in your opening hand, it will be a dead card for a long time.

It does take up deck slots like that.

And the most simple reason why it not a problem at all imo: if you don't like it, don't use it.

I try the combo to get better higscore, but i think it doesnt brake the game. Lets say: you dont win or lose depending of this combo.