The problem of Unexpected Courage

By Rapier1, in The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

Posted at
I want to discuss unexpected courage and how it is bad for the game and limiting design (also my suggestions for fixing it). I personally think this is the most broken card in the game and would like to explain why.
Firstly though I want to say that this is not about whether you can have 3 unexpected courage but only have 1 in the core set and I would appreciate it if that derailment can be avoided as much as possible.
I assume everyone is familiar with unexpected courage but just in case you’re not:
Cost: 2 Spirit
Condition
Attach to hero.
Action: Exhaust Unexpected courage to ready attached hero.
Attachment
Readying a hero is one of the most important aspects of the game – you pay in threat for every stat point that a hero has and being able to ready is essential for utilising all that you’ve paid for. Many heroes also have useful abilities that being able to do twice or once along with using some of their stat points is highly valuable.
Readying is absolutely essential for any deck that wants to run few allies as you need to maintain action economy (that is; number of actions) that matches the enemies in play or beats them as much as possible.
Readying is better than allies though because it allows you to make much better risk free decisions. You essentially can get the willpower for questing and then still have the defence if it’s needed, or have some other effect if the defence isn’t needed – where as if you commit allies to the quest but then find you quested too well but lack defenders, you can’t fix this mistake as easily. Additionally some of the most threatening effects can be negated (undefended attacks having to go on heroes – it’s almost always better to be able to defend with a hero).
Essentially readying effects are no brain choices – you always want them. I personally think they’re the best type of card to have. I think they’re important to the game though because they help to solidify the value of the core cards (heroes) and also allow for interesting plays that can’t be created with each card only being allowed one use a turn. Extra levels of complexity like readying are necessary to build a card pool and deck building game. So they have an important role to play.
So far so good; what’s wrong with Unexpected courage then?
“Action: Exhaust Unexpected courage to ready attached hero.”
This is essentially the ultimate basic form of this rule for an attachment. (If we discount the obviously broken, ready attached hero with no drawback or cost at all). The exhaust cost is the most basic because the exhaust mechanic is the standard way to pay for any action with a card in play. Being able to ready with no other conditions at all makes it the most basic solution for readying.
We can see that Unexpected courage is amazing because it’s hard to see how to improve it with any finesse – we can only make a better version of it by replacing it with a superior in every way card. (For instance, attach to character, cost 1, remove the exhaust requirement – or some special rule like, if this is discarded return it to the owners hand), or a duplicate of a different sphere (tactics but otherwise identical).
Now the real problem is that we’ve created the superior readying card and assigned it a very low cost of only 2 resources. The secondary problem is that this card (I think uniquely of all the readying effects) can be paid for three times and have 3 readies per turn for a hero if you wish (all later readying effects cannot be chained so well or easily multiple turns in a row).
This means that all the other readying cards we would like to add to the game need to better than the superior version (and mostly they would require much higher costs) or we need to limit them in some way and fit them all into only cost 1 and cost 0 – which is leading to some very skewed card design.
The following is a list of two other readying cards to illustrate my point.
Rohan Warhorse
Cost: 1 Tactics
Mount
Attach to a tactics or Rohan hero. Restricted.
Response: after attached hero participates in an attack that destroys an enemy, exhaust Rohan Warhorse to ready attached hero
Attachment
Light of Valinor (Unique)
Cost: 1 Spirit
Condition
Attach to a Noldor or Silvan hero.
Attached hero does not exhaust to commit to a quest.
Attachment
Okay so what do we have here; firstly they’re both cost 1. (All readying in the game that targets a single hero have to be cost 1 or 0).
Both of them contain restricted targeting; which is interesting for balance (it lets you limit deck-building, and increase theme), but is ultimately weaker than no restrictions.
Both of them are limited to only working for one single effect. (You can quest + 1 other action, or attack + 1 other action).
One of them is a mount which lets it be fetched by different cards than conditions (Although it pays for that with the restricted rule – which means that unexpected courage is even better than it is for 2 attacks – because you can have two restricted attachments with it).
The significant detail however, is that these two cards are not even equally valuable; Light of Valinor is better. Being able to quest + any other action is more valuable than attacking (which comes after questing and defence); not having to exhaust in the first place is better for a few card effects. The unique modifier makes it a bit less flexible if you run multiple copies but on the other hand not being restricted is a huge advantage.
The problem is that Rohan Warhorses is not enough worse to be cost 0, but is clearly inferior enough that it should be cheaper than Light of Valinor. This is because Light of Valinor should probably be cost 2 (especially as to prevent it being a first turn play on an included Glorfindel as the only spirit hero).
However because Unexpected courage is so much better and we can’t really have a card that’s superior to it and remain balanced, all the other cards we might want to design have to fit into cost 0 or 1. I would argue that in design terms making Unexpected courage exist at all was a mistake – it should have been designed as a card not for release but as an example of what the power version of readying looks like to help with the design of new cards.
I hope that my two examples are sufficient to show what I’m talking about you may like to argue that Rohan warhorses is a weak card and that other examples would have shown my argument less well – however most of the other single hero ready effects either have associated resource costs to use (Miravor, Steed of the Mark) or else have to be discarded (Event cards, Cram, Westfold Horse-breaker).
Having established that Unexpected Courage has set the superior mark too low for readying effects I’d like to look at some solutions;
The best solution that involves the least changes in my mind is to ban the card. A banned card could of course still be used for casual play, but not in a formal setting. This would free up card designs that are better and more varied (2 cost readying effects, 3 cost readying effects), without invalidating any cards we currently have.
The big problem with this is people don’t like to have banned cards – people want to use what they paid for. A second problem is that all the cards have been designed with Unexpected Courage as a comparison would then seem a bit out of place. If we remove unexpected courage now, after a year or two all the current readying effects will probably seem a bit poor (except valinor which is too good for other reasons). It may be that even if we remove it now it’s impact will already be felt because all new cards still need to balance against the cards in existence.
When looking at changing individual cards, a second edition of the game would allow many of the problem cards (I think this is the worst but there are others, like valinor) to be looked at – I however doubt that many of us would be willing to invalidate all are cards and start over. I can’t see enough changes occurring to justify the second edition.
This would be a reset to the whole card pool and might be nice, but I can’t see it happening and would resent it personally.
Finally we can look at what errata we could make to Unexpected courage, this is the route I would expect to see, though I favour banning the card myself.
Make it limit one per deck – this would solve the problem of a hero getting unexpected courage, 3 times, it would also mean that you can justify its low cost because of the 1 in 50 card effect. You could then have other readying effects that were cost 2 or cost 3 which didn’t have the limitation. This also prevents the chaining of the courage. – This is the most similar to the kind of errata we’ve had so far (adding limit once per round).
You could make it a unique card – this would be adopting the light of Valinor balancing technique. Personally I don’t think it works as well as limit one per deck for making a rare but amazing card; however it would also prevent the courage chaining and allow other cost 2 or cost 3 readying effects to be made which were not unique (but had other limitations). This effect has gone some way towards making Steward of Gondor not the most broken card.
These two solutions are similar in feel and it depends if you need to balance more for multiplayer or single player I feel (limit one per deck = one copy per player, whereas unique is one copy in play per game). I think the first is better because I think that unexpected courage has less impact on bigger games. Either of these two errata would have minimal impact compared with my other suggestions.
You could errata the cost. I think unexpected courage is so good it could be cost 5; on the other hand I think at cost 5 people wouldn’t play it – I think at cost 3 it’s still too cheap so I would argue for the errata to cost being at 4. Cost 4 would allow you to have all the room for cost 2 and 3 readying effects as suggested before; would not invalidate anyone that did own many copies of the card. I think 4 is best because it guarantees needing to play it on turn two (without resource acceleration), even in a mono-sphere deck, while still allowing you to play it turn two if you had spirit as the major sphere in a dual deck. We’ve never had an errata to a card cost, however 4 is clearly closer to the cost it should be than 2. I’d be happy with this change.
You could errata the targeting. For example – make it so that only willpower 1 heroes can receive it (that’s why it’s unexpected). This would instantly free up the design of the readying effects – remove the superior form of the card from the game. You could maintain some of the uniqueness of the card (it still has the freedom of any two actions; it still has the ability to stack with itself much better than any of the more restricted versions). I like this idea, but I think it’s not enough. On the other hand low willpower heroes are generally less good to have multiple actions on (Beregond getting multiple defences would still be amazing but that’s still reducing the viability of the card a lot).
You could add a new type of condition we haven’t seen before (we’re getting into the realms of fantasy here so this is my last suggestion) for instance, if attached hero takes damage discard this card – this type of change would do all the stuff I’ve said before and also help the card to be powerful but more easily lost. I believe this also matches the theme the card was going for – it’s always made me think of Merry vs the Witch-king.

My last two suggestions are such fundamental departures from the current card design that they would in effect be new cards. I feel that the new cards would be better than keeping Unexpected Courage as is, in the card pool, but then we may as well just ban the card.
In conclusion; Unexpected courage in its current form is an overpowered card. Not just because it’s very very good, but because it is starting to show cracks in the card designs. While other power cards exist (Light of Valinor and Steward of Gondor both listed in this post, but there are others). Each of them have limitations which ‘at least’ mean you can imagine better cards than them while still following the balance and card design rules in place. Unexpected courage is basically so good you don’t need new cards – and can’t make new cards that work better than it.
It would be healthier for the game to address this problem now, rather than later after another full cycle of card designs. AS a result I would like them to change the card (or officially ban it) so that a fuller range of card designs options which are the life of the game can be explored.
Edited by Rapier
Posted at

Good thoughts. I agree it is over-powered, perhaps on par with Steward of Gondor, but maybe not more powerful.

I think errata would be ok if they either made it unique or limit one per deck. Simple fix. I only have one core set and do not proxy, so I just use one per deck and it feels balanced for me. (it certainly is unexpected when it comes up, and not vital to winning every game, but very happy to see it up).

Posted at

yes uc is a broken a bit. I think unique is a solution....

Posted at

If I had to choose a solution I would go limit 1 per deck. It never really becomes game breaking at that point

Posted at

I think steward of gondor is more powerful, no?

I only have two core sets so only include 2 copies of UC. The reason I don't think it's that broken is that:

A) LOV is better in some cases (ie spirit glorfindel)

B ) some heroes are only good at one thing (ie eowyn)

C) you don't need multiple options ever turn

In fact using cram is better at times (recycling is possible with the lore dwarf card as well).

You often only need th excess options a few times a game and cram can be enough for most quests.

UC also costs two - same as arwen. If I have two resources floating around I tend to put arwen out first as she gives two quest points and a big defense boost.

I think perhaps making UC unique would be resonable(like arwen and SOG and LOV), or even one per player. But since most people i play with only have one or two core sets we rarely see more then one copy anyways.

Posted at

I had an article about Unexpected Courage a few months ago, I believe. I think reactions were divided. I fully support the above (or what I wrote before), Unexpected Courage is a problem. I see no problem between Light of Valinor and Rohan Warhorse, they are different sphere, and the Mount keyword will get more support than Condition, probably.

Also, after I began trying to avoid Courage, just because I thought it was a bad design (too powerful), I re-discovered Miruvor, which is great in certain decks, especially in one Spirit hero decks as you can play it on round 1. Also it is an item. But this is totally off the point.

My solution would be as mentioned above: Unexpected Courage, limit one per deck. I think that is much better than making it unique. Also unique makes little sense for such a title.

Posted at

In fact, for me, Unexpected Courage is not broken. It begins to become over powered when you start piling attachments to one hero and start creating what I call the “Super Heros” (for instance, Legolas with a Rivendell Blade, and a Rivendell Bow and a Dagger of Westernessee and 3 marks of Dunedain and 3 unexpected courage).

A good way to diminish this “super Heros” aspect (especially of the solo game) is to consider all attachment to be restricted. Thus, Unexpected Courage will not be overpowered.

Edited by Courchevel
Posted at

I think it is not over-powered. Novice players always want to play it, like stewards of gondor, and feint, etc. But after, when you have more experience, you prefer other options, first of all, for fun. But there are other reasons, for exemple, i prefer miruvor or cram, when you know good games only need 3 rounds to win, more or less, and unexpected becomes expensive for it. Miruvor or cram are enough for it.

PD: i remember lots of moments that one player put in table a copy of UC and say 'who wants?' and nobody answer :) . Finally one says: myself... but only for not lossing the card, lol.

Edited by Mndela
Posted at

The fact is the card is not needed to win by any means. And actually within the Spirit sphere, not many heroes absolutely crave for it, far from it. But I think the OP has the same point I do: it is a problem when compared to other cards, and that is not only a problem for players but for designers also, it restricts their development. I agree it would be best to "correct" this before it is too late. 1 per deck cannot hurt anything. The errata is there already, so why not here?

Posted at
I hate these forums for formatting sometimes. The post below managed to turn out right :P
I'll use this post to respond to some other suggestions, even though I wrote it after the post below.
Courchevel if you make every attachment restricted you don't actually solve the problem of UC being better than competitors, I actually think you make it worse. If every hero can only have two attachments then you want more than ever to make sure it's the best two, apart from when you desperately need to stack attack or defence to deal with big hits you're much better off with a ready effect.

Mndela - the number of better options for readying are very specific (and limited in many ways) You suggest that Miruvor or Cram would be better. They do have the advantage of an initial cost being cheaper (you can play down more right at the start). In a really short quest them being one use may not be a problem and they might edge out UC but it's quest specific.

Miruvor costs you one resource a turn to maintain 'and' prevents you drawing anything else without other card draw. That means that it maintains your boardstate while the quest progresses. Sometimes that's okay sometimes it isn't. You can fetch these attachments back with other cards, but that's devoting more cards and effort than UC requires.

I'm afraid I don't believe you when you say no one wants UC (except that you want to avoid it for fun). UC is almost always better than any of the cost 1 options because of increased flexibility, and better than the cost 0 options because it will be maintained round after round, as long as readying is what you want the card for.

In fact the only real times that UC is worse are:
You only have 1 spirit resource turn 1, and you need the ready effect turn 1. (In which case Miruvor edges it out).
You're playing Spirit Glorfindel and you have Valinor available, and you wany Glorfindel to be questing.
You're expecting a random attachment destruction effect and so don't want to potentially waste 2 resources. (Although in this case any attachment would be better in hand unless you have no non attachment options).
You expect the game to last 3 rounds at most AND can't play UC turn 1 but could play a 1 cost alternative turn 1, but you still need the ready effect turn 1 - otherwise you're better waiting for turn 2 to get UC.

Obviously Miruvor has other options for flexibility that make it desirable: it can be a cost 0, +1 willpower effect instead, it can be a quest at +1 willpower and ready effect, It can even be a cost 0 put this on top of your deck irreverent card that stalls gamestate for the player and no one else (I've never seen it used for this purpose - but maybe if you knew the top card of your deck was going to be turned into poison it might be nice).

UC is just better for readying though.
Edited by Rapier
Posted at

Thanks to everyone that took the time to read. It looks like it belongs on a blog rather than a post.

I think steward of gondor is more powerful, no?

I only have two core sets so only include 2 copies of UC. The reason I don't think it's that broken is that:

A) LOV is better in some cases (ie spirit glorfindel)
B ) some heroes are only good at one thing (ie eowyn)
C) you don't need multiple options ever turn

In fact using cram is better at times (recycling is possible with the lore dwarf card as well).
You often only need th excess options a few times a game and cram can be enough for most quests.

UC also costs two - same as arwen. If I have two resources floating around I tend to put arwen out first as she gives two quest points and a big defense boost.

I think perhaps making UC unique would be resonable(like arwen and SOG and LOV), or even one per player. But since most people i play with only have one or two core sets we rarely see more then one copy anyways.

You need to be careful when you start comparing cards with wildly different effects. Steward of Gondor is more powerful early (you can play steward and then unexpected courage turn 1, you can't play unexpected courage then steward turn 1). On the other hand resource acceleration effects are not in fact very valuable by themselves - Unexpected courage could save a hero, or over two turns double your quest output.
Resource acceleration requires other cards to work with it. This is more notable later in the game, you can't draw UC and say, hey this is useless, but if you're out of cards and draw steward of Gondor you may wish you had something that could actually do something - since just getting more resources by itself is not a winning strategy.
Light of Valinor is 'only' better because of Spirit Glorifindel and then - you have another problem with the argument. Spirit Glorfidndel himself is stupidly overpowered (He should have had forced: raise your threat by one at the end of the round - instead of the mechanic they gave him). It's not really a strong argument for LOV that it's better than unexpected courage in exactly one instance (also the two together is still better - much better in fact).
Not needing multiple options every turn is sort of against the idea of planning against the encounter deck - the game is primarily risk management, and more options is always better risk management. Making Elrond able to quest and defend is a better play than having an ally that can only quest most of the time.
Arwen is a good card - she has 2 willpower for 2 with a bonus effect which is pretty nice. If you need the +1 defence and the willpower she may be better turn 1 than UC - in most cases they'll be even (it depends what you draw from the encounter deck to determine the better choice). Even then you have the same problem here, you're comparing different effects and choosing some of the best cards in the game - which mainly goes to show how highly valued UC is.
Many games like this (CCG, LCG, early war games) have big balance issues that become apparent and need correcting. Some of the power cards that are created for this game are clearly going to limit the design if allowed to continue unchecked - it's more for the design and longevity of the game than the issue of the individual cards that I want errata (or a ban).
Both Steward and UC are too good in their current form but UC is the bigger problem because it's a step above the copetition in terms of lack of restrictions and enabling freedom of play.
Lleimmoen; I didn't know you'd posted about this before - though it comes as no surprise to find that others feel the same way :)
Posted at

Rapier, I am only happy you did now. And you give some great points. I was basically comparing UC in the light of the (then) new Steed of the Mark. The horse paled badly in comparison, especially as it came in the same sphere. Warhorse is Tactics where there are no readying attachments, so that is less of a problem, I feel.

I like your example of the Steward in the latter game, you need cards to work with it, though the accumulated wealth can be now more useful than before thanks to Gondorian Fire, Blood of Númenor and Lay of Nimrodel (we had had Map-maker before but these new ones work much better in that regard).

Posted at

Unexpected Courage is perfectly fine.

Posted at

Rapier, I am only happy you did now. And you give some great points. I was basically comparing UC in the light of the (then) new Steed of the Mark. The horse paled badly in comparison, especially as it came in the same sphere. Warhorse is Tactics where there are no readying attachments, so that is less of a problem, I feel.

I like your example of the Steward in the latter game, you need cards to work with it, though the accumulated wealth can be now more useful than before thanks to Gondorian Fire, Blood of Númenor and Lay of Nimrodel (we had had Map-maker before but these new ones work much better in that regard).

Those cards make resource acceleration a lot more useful - potentially making Steward too good in itself (It allows you to get resource acceleration at no cost turn 1 and then benefit forever after) - more of a problem even is that steward of Gondor allows Blood of Numenor and Gondorian Fire to be used every round and still get better every round.

Even then however without readying effects you can only get your big attack or defense once per turn - which is an alternative way of say, just stacking gondorian shields. Lay of Nimrodel is probably the best but that's an event so to keep using that you need to cycle events out of the discard as well.

If I was in charge of doing the errata - I would be looking at UC and Steward, but I think UC is superior in more situations and also far more superior in terms of relative card design.

Posted at

Wow there is a lot thoughts about this card.

I don't have any problems with unexpected courage the way that it is. I don't mind that some cards are more 'powerful' or cheaper or easier to use than other cards - especially cards that are included in the core set... such as unexpected courage or Steward of Gondor etc...

This card i s no longer an auto include for me, or others by the sounds of things. There are many different fun ways to build decks without it or Steward of Gondor or [enter name of 'overpowered' card here]. I would hope UC remains unchanged.

Posted at

Wow there is a lot thoughts about this card.

I don't have any problems with unexpected courage the way that it is. I don't mind that some cards are more 'powerful' or cheaper or easier to use than other cards - especially cards that are included in the core set... such as unexpected courage or Steward of Gondor etc...

This card i s no longer an auto include for me, or others by the sounds of things. There are many different fun ways to build decks without it or Steward of Gondor or [enter name of 'overpowered' card here]. I would hope UC remains unchanged.

Can I ask why it isn't an auto include? Mndela implies that is isn't because it just isn't fun.

I also recognize that it isn't an autoinclude if you don't want ready effects on heroes (ally dwarf build for instance).

Being able to build without it does not mean it isn't overpowered.

And more importantly, doesn't mean it isn't making the design alot harder and narrower for the game designers.

Edited by Rapier
Posted at

Unexpected Courage is perfectly fine.

Wonderful argument...

Posted at

Unexpected Courage is perfectly fine.

Wonderful argument...

Why thank you.

Posted at

UC is an ok card. It's definitely not overpowered, as it can be removed by shadow effects (which happens more often lately). Allies are more important, and I'd always prefer to play Arwen or Westroad Traveller to UC. Especially early in the game you want to have some allies out in the game.

Most heroes don't need UC, as their stats are weak (Hobbits) or onesided in their abilities (Eowyn). However, there are some heroes that beg for this card - Gimli, Faramir, Aragorn etc. Heroes that are good in all departments, and who are not that awesome because you can only use one of their abilities. The other abilities are still neat, but you cannot use them. Instead ypu have a deck with a high starting threat and you think "well, if I'd wanted a 2 WP hero, I could have taken a Hobbit". With UC though, you have a hero that has 2 WP and 3 ATT. Sounds a lot better. Ok, not so much if you only have one copy like me (LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE :ph34r: ).

Posted at

I get the impression a lot of people are misconstruing Rapier's insights and missing the point. He's not just talking about UC, but the bad precedent UC has set in later card design, which I agree with.

I like the two ideas of increasing its cost to 3 and making it unique with a twist; Unique per player.

Posted at

I get the impression a lot of people are misconstruing Rapier's insights and missing the point. He's not just talking about UC, but the bad precedent UC has set in later card design, which I agree with.

I like the two ideas of increasing its cost to 3 and making it unique with a twist; Unique per player.

You say in one sentence what I took 3 pages to write :)

This is exactly what I'm concerned about. If UC was just a good card, I would accept that some cards have to be better. UC is more than just a good card; it's a design breaking card. (The design being the hero readying attachment).

Posted at

Wow there is a lot thoughts about this card.

I don't have any problems with unexpected courage the way that it is. I don't mind that some cards are more 'powerful' or cheaper or easier to use than other cards - especially cards that are included in the core set... such as unexpected courage or Steward of Gondor etc...

This card i s no longer an auto include for me, or others by the sounds of things. There are many different fun ways to build decks without it or Steward of Gondor or [enter name of 'overpowered' card here]. I would hope UC remains unchanged.

Can I ask why it isn't an auto include? Mndela implies that is isn't because it just isn't fun.

I also recognize that it isn't an autoinclude if you don't want ready effects on heroes (ally dwarf build for instance).

Being able to build without it does not mean it isn't overpowered.

And more importantly, doesn't mean it isn't making the design alot harder and narrower for the game designers.

For lots of reasons:

1) Many different event, attachment and even ally cards that ready heroes - Miruvor, fast Hitch, Cram, Naith Scout, Rider of the mark, Rohan/Dwarven/Leadership events (new 'Aragorn' attachment) etc..

2) Heroes with reading actions; Prince Imrahil, Sam, Tactics Boromir, Aragon, Elledan, Elrohir, Merry, Brand...

3) Ally focus rather than heroes doing everything.

4) One d imensional heroes like Eowyn who doesn't warrant readying (in most cases)

5) Soloing with the ability to strike into the staging area, negating most defending and reducing readiness requirements. ie Dunhere + weapons or Rangers/Traps/scrying

6) Mono Tactics, Leadership, Lore deck... or Mono Spirit with using Tracker styled Caldara deck; ie Eowyn doesn't warrant it, Glori has LoV & Caldara keeps running away to get help dying)

7) Boring to use the same toys all the time.

8) Cost... there are times when 2 spirit resources are better spent else where

I agree that being able to exclude this card doesn't therefore make it not 'overpowered'. I s imply don't think of it as overpowered. The variety of different options available is one of the main reason don't think of it like this.

Posted at

I get the impression a lot of people are misconstruing Rapier's insights and missing the point. He's not just talking about UC, but the bad precedent UC has set in later card design, which I agree with.

I like the two ideas of increasing its cost to 3 and making it unique with a twist; Unique per player.

You say in one sentence what I took 3 pages to write :)

This is exactly what I'm concerned about. If UC was just a good card, I would accept that some cards have to be better. UC is more than just a good card; it's a design breaking card. (The design being the hero readying attachment).

I agree that this could have become a problem and in isolation UC could appear overpowered or on face value make some of the newer cards seem a little lacking (and does in some instances). Probably does make subsequent cards challenging too However I think this can and (hopefully) will be revolved though card synergies. (I really like the direction of the current dev team)
Ie Naith Scout, Children of the woods & Celeborn... (tried this with proxies and it worked really well). Or Westfold horse-breeder; search for a mount/readying card, provides a chump/and or readying card for Prince Imrahil and or attack bonus for Eomer... etc. I’m sure that other people have better examples.
UC styled cards are simple to use and powerful great for a core set. Going forward I reckon that we'll continue to have lots of great combos to play with that are as strong (actually stronger) and more fun.
Edited by chuckles
Posted at

Increasing Unexpected Courage cost to 3 would kill it.

Posted at

I get the impression a lot of people are misconstruing Rapier's insights and missing the point. He's not just talking about UC, but the bad precedent UC has set in later card design, which I agree with.

I like the two ideas of increasing its cost to 3 and making it unique with a twist; Unique per player.

Yes. I think that is the misunderstanding here. The main point of the thread, as I see it, is in future (or even current) design development. Action advantage is one of the main aspects of the game, and Unexpected Courage messes up other similar cards, like Steed of the Mark.