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.

For the 1000000th time I CANT CONTROL

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!!!!!

Stop saying don't use it if I don't like it. Not all of us sit around like morons double fisting. We like to play with others bc the game is a co-op game (not a solo game) and you can't control others from playing a legal play.

For the 1000000th time I CANT CONTROL

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!!!!!

Stop saying don't use it if I don't like it. Not all of us sit around like morons double fisting. We like to play with others bc the game is a co-op game (not a solo game) and you can't control others from playing a legal play.

Ok, did you blow off some steam? Good. Now relax, take a deep breath & count to ten.

Feel better now?

Now see here, your argument is not just a bit rude; it is also a quite silly.

1st, I play multi-player with other people, but that doesn't give you the right to call everyone who plays solo-2handed a moron.

2nd, if you do play with other people, like I do, you play as a TEAM. Which means you decide together what is the best course of action. I don't know how you guys play, but if I don't want my buddies to give me control of Aragorn, they won't.

3rd, even if your stubborn buddy gives you control of Aragorn when you don't want it, it doesn't mean you have to use his ability.

So next time, do respect other peoples opinions please.

Having a point of view does not make it the right one for everyone.

Not everyone has a luxury to play with other living person. And LotR is extremely different with more than 1 player, so I would refrain from calling two-handed people morons.

Stop saying don't use it if I don't like it. Not all of us sit around like morons double fisting. We like to play with others bc the game is a co-op game (not a solo game) and you can't control others from playing a legal play.

2-way street. You can say "don't say that!" 10,000 times but it won't change what other people are saying.

Alright. I'm sorry. It's just the constant comments about don't do it if you don't want to don't apply to those of us who play the game it was meant to be played.

The game is a co-op game - it isn't a two handed solo game. That's something people made up. It actually violates the table talk rule so is technical illegal. But to each his own.

I can't control in a 4 player game is the other guys do this. It totally ruined a game we played as no one included threat reduction and basically used this to murder the board to death.

The ruling as it stands just seems stupid. Aragorn has an ability that should be once per game. And we know caleb has gone back on his work more times then Gollum. Do you remember the whole locations immune to player card effects fiasco?or in blood of gondor where it seems that you should have a choice as to what to do with turning over hidden cards or taking a new one, but he says you do?

I just don't see how this makes any sense and others seem to agree. It should be changed to once per game. Just waiting for them to smarten up again and do it.

Table talk rule is idiotic and would be ignored by any sane person.

I dont know nobody that respect 100% the talk rule. It is a good theme to open an exclusive post about it.

The ruling as it stands just seems stupid. Aragorn has an ability that should be once per game. And we know caleb has gone back on his work more times then Gollum. Do you remember the whole locations immune to player card effects fiasco?or in blood of gondor where it seems that you should have a choice as to what to do with turning over hidden cards or taking a new one, but he says you do?

I just don't see how this makes any sense and others seem to agree. It should be changed to once per game. Just waiting for them to smarten up again and do it.

The ruling comes from Landraval which was FAQ'd to be once per game per player. As a result once per game now means (once per game per player) as this is an FAQ on what the wording means (and not an Errata on Landraval).

To get the solution you want (if you feel this is a broken combo) You should suggest to Caleb or another developer that once per game should be once per game (irrespective of players) and ask for Landraval to be errated to once per game per player.

This 'would' be valuable to clear up as it would enable them to make cards in future which are either once per game (truly amazing effects) and once per game per player (effects that are amazing but need to scale with players to effect the game equally viably in bigger and smaller games).

On the other hand practically every effect they would want to make would be once per game per player really - since most cards need to scale with more players. So it may be better to just Errata Lore Aragorn perhaps too: One use per game, once this effect is used treat this text as blank. Or something like that.

Edit: For the record I completely see the importance of having it addressed in an FAQ or rules and understand why you don't want to accept "just don't use it if you don't like it". However It has in fact been addressed in the FAQ (under Landraval and by Caleb directly) - it's just you don't like the decision.

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.

For the 1000000th time I CANT CONTROL

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!!!!!

Stop saying don't use it if I don't like it. Not all of us sit around like morons double fisting. We like to play with others bc the game is a co-op game (not a solo game) and you can't control others from playing a legal play.

"Not all of us sit around like morons double fisting"? Alot of people play two handed and it is not moronic, easier or illegal. I would like to play with others but have no one to do so with, I play solo because I must but I prefer playing two handed as I like the way the quests play with two player decks involved.

Have some respect for others or get off the forums.

edit: posted in wrong thread and cant see that I can delete this..

Thinking about it more - once per game being actually once per game might be useful for quest design. You could (for instance) have a mechanic to represent a single unique use of an item that you otherwise want to have another game effect.

For example the horn of gondor in the saga quest - you could have it give a bonus like (+1 willpower) all the time and once per game blow the horn to have all enemies engage with you.

Now if the horn was played on the ring-bearer (which would be an odd choice thematically) it could arguably be triggered again by another player under the current rules. However the horn being one use (because the result of it's use was death) seems like something we would want to make exactly one use.

I know we could design around it in other ways (for instance having the horn be discarded) but the fact that the horn is passed on seems thematically relevant to me - You could even design items which have a goond one use and then an ongoing passive effect.

For example: Horn of Gondor: "Gondor, attach to a hero" Action: once per game engage all enemies in play, dealing one damage to each enemy engaged in this way. Discard the hero this is attactched to from play. Attach the horn to another hero for the rest of the game the horn of gondor grants +1 willpower"

Now this is definitely interesting and the concept opens up a new line of attachments - however being able to transfer the horn between players and keep reusing the main effect would spoil the whole design in multiplayer.

I admit the ruling stating that "once per game" really means "once per game per player" seems weird. But hey, there has been so many suprising rule judgments that this now seems passable. And once I accept it then I do not personally have any mental or moral problems with passing around Loragorn to trigger his exceptional threat lowering ability with each player.

The argument that this combo takes care of one of the key aspects of the game (threat management) does not persuade me at all. Because, yes, it does take care of it (to extent), But then you could well say e.g. that defending, which is another key game aspect, is perfectly taken care by Beregond + Gondorian Shield or by Beorn backed up with Landroval or that 5 cost spirit card that resurrects heores. Should we frown upon that?

So yes, indeed with Loragorn/Alliance we do not have to worry that much about threat, but first you need to invest in it properly:

- it takes a hero spot,

- you need to play a lore/spirit deck (Lorgaorn being lore and Alliance being spirit; and the alliance trick can be trigerred only by the one who controls given hero, so another player cannot play alliance on your Loragorn),

- you are likely to put three copies of DA in your deck (or commit to other card investment, such as three Words of Command plus Istaris, etc.)

I am just saying that in my book it is a fair trade-off. You invest a bit and get a strong effect.

Also, it seems very thematic for me: Aragaorn being the ultimate ranger, helping around everyone etc. But I understand that many people do not really care about theme (which is perfectly fine as well).

BTW: hi everyone, this is my first post here.

^{Hello, new person!}

I can't imagine the hassle of trying to fetch three copies of DA in a 4 player game with my card drawing luck.

a single player wouldn't need to draw all the copies, though, right? If I pass Aragorn to another player, they now control him, so could play their own copy of DA to pass him on to another teammate.

a single player wouldn't need to draw all the copies, though, right? If I pass Aragorn to another player, they now control him, so could play their own copy of DA to pass him on to another teammate.

That´s alot of deck space in the collective pool to dedicate to DA.

a single player wouldn't need to draw all the copies, though, right? If I pass Aragorn to another player, they now control him, so could play their own copy of DA to pass him on to another teammate.

That´s alot of deck space in the collective pool to dedicate to DA.

Also, effect of DA expires at the end of the round so the player controlling Aragorn needs to have his DA in hand. So, either way you structure it (one player with few DAs or each player with their own DA), the "multiplayer threatwalking of Loragorn" might not be that smooth. Which is fine, beacuse it is a very strong combo.

a single player wouldn't need to draw all the copies, though, right? If I pass Aragorn to another player, they now control him, so could play their own copy of DA to pass him on to another teammate.

Just to refresh:

Action: Choose a hero you control. Until the end of the phase, give control of that hero and all resources in that hero's resource pool to another player. (Limit 1 per phase.)

So DA gives control only until the end of the phase and not the round...

So the best way is have one player have all copies of DA...

a single player wouldn't need to draw all the copies, though, right? If I pass Aragorn to another player, they now control him, so could play their own copy of DA to pass him on to another teammate.

Just to refresh:

Action: Choose a hero you control. Until the end of the phase, give control of that hero and all resources in that hero's resource pool to another player. (Limit 1 per phase.)

So DA gives control only until the end of the phase and not the round...

So the best way is have one player have all copies of DA...

I think the idea was to play all the DAs in the refresh phase when Aragorn can activate his ability.

Miss that Nerdmeister. In that case, better all have one copy of DA

I was thinkin during the whole game.

Miss that Nerdmeister. In that case, better all have one copy of DA

I was thinkin during the whole game.

Yeah but if everyone has "only" one copy of DA then the combo is nigh impossible to set up like that because at least 3 players, including the person with Aragorn, would have to have one specific card from their deck in hand (not to mention the need for all players to be able to play spirit). On the other hand if you dedicate more deck space in each players deck then it suddenly takes up a whole lot of slots for other cards.

All in all this does not feel like a very elegant solution to me.