Increasing Unexpected Courage cost to 3 would kill it.

I actually tend to agree in a way, I would think hard before playing it for 3 resources, the difference between two and three is substantial. I do not think it would be a bad card by any means, but I prefer the "uniqueness" of sorts, either 1 per deck or similar. It is strange that cards like Unexpected Courage have no requirement whilst inferior cards (in power) do. I think it comes from the early mistakes in the design. And it is exactly these mistakes that need to be corrected. I mean Beravor did, Protector of Lórien did, even Expert Treasure-hunter. I believe UC is much more obvious target because it has so many "peers".

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.

I too prefer other options, just as you provided. I play Miruvor, Horse-breaker, even the Steed, and I am looking forward to new options like Naith Guide or The White Council. But all that does not take away the argument in the first place...

I think I totally understood the intention of the OP and I disagree. I agree that it could have been made unique, but then I think that it is somewhat ridiculous to buy three core sets to get three copies of UC and then call "let's make it unique".

This had been said a zillion times now, but this game is cooperative, so if you think a card is overpowered, just don't use it. UC isn't broken, so it doesn't need an errata. If you play with only one copy, this card is a nice extra that sometimes pops up out of your deck. But even then I found myself not playing it because I needed these two resources for other, more important stuff.

And if you think this game is too hard (and I believe there is a solid mass of players that struggle with the game), you can use all three copies to make sthings a bit easier for you.

I think I totally understood the intention of the OP and I disagree. I agree that it could have been made unique, but then I think that it is somewhat ridiculous to buy three core sets to get three copies of UC and then call "let's make it unique".

This had been said a zillion times now, but this game is cooperative, so if you think a card is overpowered, just don't use it. UC isn't broken, so it doesn't need an errata. If you play with only one copy, this card is a nice extra that sometimes pops up out of your deck. But even then I found myself not playing it because I needed these two resources for other, more important stuff.

And if you think this game is too hard (and I believe there is a solid mass of players that struggle with the game), you can use all three copies to make sthings a bit easier for you.

I don't think you have (sorry to be directly confrontational about it). I intentionally said I didn't want to discuss the only 1 copy in core aspect because it's an entirely different complaint, that a lot of people feel strongly about. If they made the unique or limit one per deck erratas I was suggesting some people who bought multiple cores might be annoyed (if they did it just for UC). That might mean we never get the errata that I'm arguing would improve the game design for other reasons, but from a game design perspective they should change it and sooner rather than later.

Equally saying that it's a co-op game I can just ignore the card also misses the major point I'm making - which is that the problem is this card is hurting the design of the game. It's hurting the balance and design of new cards that we're getting in the future. The designers don't have the ability to ignore the card when they make new cards and new encounters.

I'm absolutely certain that they would never make a card like UC now if it hadn't already been made - just look at how much better it is than every ready effect in the game besides it.

UC is the only card that has all of the following features:

Usable every turn

Requires nothing to maintain it after the initial cost

Will grant any two actions you want

Has only a hero restriction for targeting

It's just supremely better than the alternatives, not just "a bit better" not even better but on the same scale - we're talking about a card that is designed an order of magnitude better.

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.

The problem with this idea is that for the most part UC will always fit into any deck because it's so much less restricted than other cards - Other readying effects exist that are more specific in their targeting (only Noldor, only rohan, only tactics heroes) or have restrictions that mean you need to build around them to use them more (discard after use, pay resources).

I'm sure plenty of people will want to play with the specific ready effect that matches what they want (mounts in a rohan deck for instance), and will choose to leave out unexpected courage because it's thematically less appealing.

And when I say that UC is overpowered I don't mean to the extent that others seem to think (to the extent that you have to play it to win). I'm talking about the fact that actually it's just better than alternatives that people might prefer to play. You can make do (and plan around) the other ready effects instead and still win.

You can't objectively argue that UC isn't the 'best' though - you can argue that it isn't 100% the best (others may be better in some circumstances, cram, fast hitch, light of valinor all have stronger situations), but in terms of cost to power, flexibility for readying, UC also lacking any restrictions will fit into any deck that runs spirit and can combo with any other hero readying effects in the game - every turn.

Well, we can play the ball back and forth forever. Seems like some players don't have a problem with the design of UC, while some want to have an errata and some think the design could have done better, but that it doesn't need an errata.

IMO errata should only be done if the card is broken (like Beravor) and a vast majority of players want to have that errata. I don't see any of these two points fullfilled ATM.

Btw, just because I don't agree with the OPs reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand the point he's trying to make. If the main point is to make UC unique, than there is no need for an errata, as each player can do that by himself.

And just because the OP says that the numer of core sets doesn't play a role in this discussion doesn't make it any more true. Because that's what the problem is mainly about. If you have only one copy, guess what: you have no problem! Steed of the Mark is totally playable for me and in no way influenced by UC. That's mainly because I can rely on getting that card in my hand. So if you have three copies and UC is a problem for you, take two copies and put them somewhere out of reach. Problem solved.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that UC should have been designed as a unique card from the start. However, that's not enough to errata the card now. We already have enough errataed cards and should only call for them if that's really neccessary. Especially as this special problem can be easily solved without an errata.

Well, we can play the ball back and forth forever. Seems like some players don't have a problem with the design of UC, while some want to have an errata and some think the design could have done better, but that it doesn't need an errata.

IMO errata should only be done if the card is broken (like Beravor) and a vast majority of players want to have that errata. I don't see any of these two points fullfilled ATM.

Btw, just because I don't agree with the OPs reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand the point he's trying to make. If the main point is to make UC unique, than there is no need for an errata, as each player can do that by himself.

And just because the OP says that the numer of core sets doesn't play a role in this discussion doesn't make it any more true. Because that's what the problem is mainly about. If you have only one copy, guess what: you have no problem! Steed of the Mark is totally playable for me and in no way influenced by UC. That's mainly because I can rely on getting that card in my hand. So if you have three copies and UC is a problem for you, take two copies and put them somewhere out of reach. Problem solved.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that UC should have been designed as a unique card from the start. However, that's not enough to errata the card now. We already have enough errataed cards and should only call for them if that's really neccessary. Especially as this special problem can be easily solved without an errata.

The main point is not something that effects players now. Nor is it something that players can impact at all by just asserting self control.

The main point is that UC is bad from the point of view of designing new cards - trying to fit all single target ready effects into only cost 0 and 1 or coming up with something even better than UC to be cost 3 (how about exhaust Super Unexpected Courage to ready 3 heroes in play).

UC is an archatypeal card in this game - it sets the predecent and power of similar effects. The problem is that it does it not just as the top end (I would argue Steward of Gondor is the top end of power for it's card type), but above what actually works for the game.

Fast Hitch is the closest too it - it shares almost every property except that it has to target hobbits. However - so far no hobbit has an exhaust to do something ability and all hobbits have the feature of having poor stats (so that extra actions from them are less valuable). So the card is significantly less good while still good.

I'm not sure exactly what your position is though? I get the feeling you think UC is too good really - and that it should have been designed out of the gate to be different and weaker but that you don't want an errata even if it would be better for the game because you don't think UC is so bad as a play experience that it breaks the game? The way that Berevor card draw did. I mean her card draw being so good is mainly exacerbated by UC - if she could only ready after using Rohan Warhorses it probably wouldn't have needed an errata.

My position is the opposite, I think that UC was a design mistake (for which I don't fault the designers as complicated new games are bound to have mistakes like this), the fault with UC is not in itself but in the direction it forces the game to expand. Which is fine if the game has a limited life, but I want to be getting new content 5 years from now personally.

For the record I am the OP and I only have one core set - my problem with UC is not how it breaks my games (it doesn't - I either don't play it or play only one) the problem is how it breaks the design of new cards.

Equally saying that it's a co-op game I can just ignore the card also misses the major point I'm making - which is that the problem is this card is hurting the design of the game. It's hurting the balance and design of new cards that we're getting in the future. The designers don't have the ability to ignore the card when they make new cards and new encounters.

I'm absolutely certain that they would never make a card like UC now if it hadn't already been made - just look at how much better it is than every ready effect in the game besides it.

UC is the only card that has all of the following features:

Usable every turn

Requires nothing to maintain it after the initial cost

Will grant any two actions you want

Has only a hero restriction for targeting

It's just supremely better than the alternatives, not just "a bit better" not even better but on the same scale - we're talking about a card that is designed an order of magnitude better.

These are, again, excellent points.

I would just add this, some of the other attachments might see a sort of advantage in terms of traits, like the Mount attachments. To give an example, in my Rohan deck I run three copies of Westfold Horse-breeder and three copies of Rohan Warhorse (together with a copy of Steed of the Mark). I usually keep the opening hand when I have the ally and more often than not he also brings the horse if did I not have him already (one could do the math to see the probabilities). So it is already definitelly easier to get Rohan Warhorse in play on Round 1 than to get Unexpected Courage, but this doesn't make the above points less valid.

Well, we can play the ball back and forth forever. Seems like some players don't have a problem with the design of UC, while some want to have an errata and some think the design could have done better, but that it doesn't need an errata.

IMO errata should only be done if the card is broken (like Beravor) and a vast majority of players want to have that errata. I don't see any of these two points fullfilled ATM.

Btw, just because I don't agree with the OPs reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand the point he's trying to make. If the main point is to make UC unique, than there is no need for an errata, as each player can do that by himself.

Well, this is really not a valid argument in my opinion, that every player can do it for himself. It is like if someone argues the speed limit should not be 70 miles but only 50 and you say it is no problem because everyone can only drive 50 anyways. To be less abstract, we are not arguing what one can do on his own table, we are arguing if the design is wrong or not. And finally, as the OP says, the problem is that the designers cannot ignore existing cards when making new ones.

Now, for Beravor, I would not doubt it for one second that Unexpected Courage was a better card than Beravor before the errata. And I actually remember the polls and I would not be in a minority on that one. Actually, it was only Unexpected Courage that was making Beravor so good, there was no other way to give her action advantage so easily - and little altogether. So it would have been so much more easier to errata UC instead of Beravor in the first place (though I see both deserve it). Even now, with all the card pool, what cards would you be using to use Beravor's ability again and again in one round? Cram? Miruvor? Brand? Not so easy...

Well, we can play the ball back and forth forever. Seems like some players don't have a problem with the design of UC, while some want to have an errata and some think the design could have done better, but that it doesn't need an errata.

IMO errata should only be done if the card is broken (like Beravor) and a vast majority of players want to have that errata. I don't see any of these two points fullfilled ATM.

Btw, just because I don't agree with the OPs reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand the point he's trying to make. If the main point is to make UC unique, than there is no need for an errata, as each player can do that by himself.

Well, this is really not a valid argument in my opinion, that every player can do it for himself. It is like if someone argues the speed limit should not be 70 miles but only 50 and you say it is no problem because everyone can only drive 50 anyways. To be less abstract, we are not arguing what one can do on his own table, we are arguing if the design is wrong or not. And finally, as the OP says, the problem is that the designers cannot ignore existing cards when making new ones.

Now, for Beravor, I would not doubt it for one second that Unexpected Courage was a better card than Beravor before the errata. And I actually remember the polls and I would not be in a minority on that one. Actually, it was only Unexpected Courage that was making Beravor so good, there was no other way to give her action advantage so easily - and little altogether. So it would have been so much more easier to errata UC instead of Beravor in the first place (though I see both deserve it). Even now, with all the card pool, what cards would you be using to use Beravor's ability again and again in one round? Cram? Miruvor? Brand? Not so easy...

To compare a cooperative game with traffic is not really helping your point. I say this after almost being pushed from the street by some rowdy today.

And we are not argueing if the design is wrong or not, we argue if the card should get an errata. That's two different points and my opinion is that UC doesn't need an errata.

Wrong design: I tend to agree. Errata: no, sir!

the problem of uc

is combo card. with some other cards it can be broken. like it was before with Beravur. so to avoid it just make it unique. it will be still very powerful card but there will be no problem with some crazy powerful combos

For me it is not broken. UC + Beravor only give to players +2wp (or +2 def or attack). So it becomes like Celebrian Stone (or Gondorian Shield, or Dagger, even they are cheaper than UC).

PD: yesterday, playing a nightmare hard quest, the first card i discarded by Eowyn was UC.

It's not about UC being broken, but about how the design affects the making of future cards with readying effects, as one would always prefer UC to any of the possible new cards.

I think it is just stubborness to call Beravor broken and not Unexpected Courage, especially without providing single argument. I did not expect something like that from someone as intelligent. You can laugh about my traffic example but it is at least an argument, just stating things as facts is not discussion. How was Beravor broken if not for Unexpected Courage (being able to land on her from every player in multiple copies)?

Yesterday i played Beravor and 2 spirit heroes more. I played on Beravor 2 Miruvors. In 3 rounds we won the game. Each round i used Miruvor on Beravor for ready her and get 1 resource. The 3rd round we didnt need ready her, the game was very good and we were going to win anyway. Thanks to Miruvor i could play good lore cards; if only i played Unexpected Courage, i couldn't play almost nothing with lore sphere in only 3 rounds.

So, in this example, Miruvor is better than Unexpected Courage.

I think it is just stubborness to call Beravor broken and not Unexpected Courage, especially without providing single argument. I did not expect something like that from someone as intelligent. You can laugh about my traffic example but it is at least an argument, just stating things as facts is not discussion. How was Beravor broken if not for Unexpected Courage (being able to land on her from every player in multiple copies)?

The Beravor/UC combo was broken. Both card are fine on their own, I hope we agree about that.

The main difference between Beravor and UC is that you can use Beravor's ability right from the statt, while you cannot rely on using UC. I think we also agree that UC is no way broken if you use only one copy of it. I think we disgaree about the rest. And for that we don't need an errata, but only a place to store the copies of UC that you won't use anymore. Nobody forbids you to that. You don't need the designers to tell you to do that.

The need of errata is something that has been discussed hee long ago, and a arge majority of players opted for keeping the errata to an absolute minimum, to do an errata only if a card was breaking the game mechanics. UC is probably not the best card design, but it doesn't break the game. All it does is to give one of your heroes one additional action. Compare UC to Erebor Hammersmith - this guy costs 2 resources and gives you an additional action, fuels the power of many dwarf characters, adds 3 HP in case you have to deal some damage, brings an attachment back to your hand and he receives a bonus from Dain. And there are even two copies of him in the core set!

Yesterday i played Beravor and 2 spirit heroes more. I played on Beravor 2 Miruvors. In 3 rounds we won the game. Each round i used Miruvor on Beravor for ready her and get 1 resource. The 3rd round we didnt need ready her, the game was very good and we were going to win anyway. Thanks to Miruvor i could play good lore cards; if only i played Unexpected Courage, i couldn't play almost nothing with lore sphere in only 3 rounds.

So, in this example, Miruvor is better than Unexpected Courage.

This isn't really a good example because you're talking about the resource fixing element that's needed for the smaller sphere as the main advantage. You're getting resource advantage in lore at the cost of resource loss in spirit. Yes it's something that Miruvor can do that UC can't but it's because Miruvor is a very flexible card that's it's better in some circumstances.

To fully stat out your example;

You have 2 spirit and 1 lore resource you trade 1 spirit for 1 lore so that you can play a 2 cost lore card turn 1 and get to use Beravor to quest and draw.

You do the same thing again on turn two (swapping a spirit resource for a lore and getting to ready). This combination for mana fixing as you describe is only better if you're talking about a game that's going to take you 2 rounds to win, or if you desperately need the 2 cost lore card on turn 1.

If you did it the other way around you could have done UC on Beravor turn 1; this would have got you 3 ready effects instead of two in your three round game - you could then have played one miruvor on Beravor turn 2 and gotten +1 resource, put it back on your deck - and then draw Miruvor + one other card for ever for the rest of the game using the UC at the cost of swapping one resource from spirit to lore. This is a much better combo to set up than you can ever do with just miruvor and allows you any turn you want to swap spirit resource for 1 lore resource + 1 card, in a game that's 4 rounds or more this would 'always' be better than just Miruvors. The Unexpected Courageous obviously pay off more the longer the game goes.

Miruvor's also a very good card, I'm not going to dispute that and because it can also be +willpower + resources it is situationally better than UC; but not as a ready effect unless your game lasts 2 rounds or less. (In a 2 round game, Miruvor is pretty much just better because it potentially can be 2 ready effects for cost 0 - although even then you need to draw two of them).

Do you mind if I ask how you're getting quests that are so short? It's pretty rare for me to play a game that's only 3 rounds or less. In such a short game the discard cards (Cram, Miruvor - various eagle and noldor cards) would gain a lot of relative power, but I almost never get to play such short games.

Edit: 3 rounds or less is the minimum possible for most quests.

Sounds like Massing at Osgiliath to me:

"Let's storm this walls Gondor style!"

"Yeah!"

"Yeaaaahhhhh!"

...

...

"Hey, wehere is everyone?"

"Helloooo?"

*shakes fist at empty wall*

I think it is just stubborness to call Beravor broken and not Unexpected Courage, especially without providing single argument. I did not expect something like that from someone as intelligent. You can laugh about my traffic example but it is at least an argument, just stating things as facts is not discussion. How was Beravor broken if not for Unexpected Courage (being able to land on her from every player in multiple copies)?

The Beravor/UC combo was broken. Both card are fine on their own, I hope we agree about that.

The main difference between Beravor and UC is that you can use Beravor's ability right from the statt, while you cannot rely on using UC. I think we also agree that UC is no way broken if you use only one copy of it. I think we disgaree about the rest. And for that we don't need an errata, but only a place to store the copies of UC that you won't use anymore. Nobody forbids you to that. You don't need the designers to tell you to do that.

The need of errata is something that has been discussed hee long ago, and a arge majority of players opted for keeping the errata to an absolute minimum, to do an errata only if a card was breaking the game mechanics. UC is probably not the best card design, but it doesn't break the game. All it does is to give one of your heroes one additional action. Compare UC to Erebor Hammersmith - this guy costs 2 resources and gives you an additional action, fuels the power of many dwarf characters, adds 3 HP in case you have to deal some damage, brings an attachment back to your hand and he receives a bonus from Dain. And there are even two copies of him in the core set!

Well, now I am a bit confused, are you saying that Beravor is broken even with the errata? Because you say you can use her right away? I thought you meant she "was" broken before the errata because you could use her more than once per round. But the only way to achieve that repeatedly is pretty much by having UC on her. What else is there? I repeat, Miruvor, Cram? Yet, the card got fixed and you said there you understood the errata. But you do not understand it with UC. That makes no sense because the problem was UC in the first place, or really, enlighten me, how were you readying Beravor?

We certainly agree Beravor/UC is a wrong combo but we do not agree which of the two causes the problem.

Erebor Hammersmith is an ecellent ally. We agree about that for sure. The only problem I see in the list, however, is Dain, another totally lazy design in my opinion, but a topic for another thread.

No, I mean Beravor ante errata. She was a bad girl.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I take the lack of answer to the rest of the post as a capitulation. But of course, this is no game, or is it? Anyway, thanks for the exchange and "see" you later.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I take the lack of answer to the rest of the post as a capitulation. But of course, this is no game, or is it? Anyway, thanks for the exchange and "see" you later.

lol, bastard!

Y'know, when I realize that i start to repeat myself for the third time I usually think it's time to stop the discussion.

As a player that pulls resources from a limited card pool, I appreciate the fact that I can play 3 copies of UC. The power creep exhibited by encounter decks is obvious, and expected. This is less of an issue for the players who are also collectors, with access to the latest and greatest wizz-bang cards. However, for those who rarely buy adventure packs, and even less frequently buy expansions (like myself), the presence of OP cards are essential to fielding a deck that has any reasonable chance against any of the current encounters.

I understand that most of the folks reading this thread care enough about the game that they probably buy everything released, and I think that is great. It is the financial support of those players that allows FFG to keep producing this great game, and I am happy making my strategic purchase here and there.

It is my opinion that any action towards the TC's argument would cripple the ability of players in my position to compete with current encounters. I was disappointed when Beravor got her nerf precisly for this reason. However, I also realize that I am probably in the minority.

As a player that pulls resources from a limited card pool, I appreciate the fact that I can play 3 copies of UC. The power creep exhibited by encounter decks is obvious, and expected. This is less of an issue for the players who are also collectors, with access to the latest and greatest wizz-bang cards. However, for those who rarely buy adventure packs, and even less frequently buy expansions (like myself), the presence of OP cards are essential to fielding a deck that has any reasonable chance against any of the current encounters.

I understand that most of the folks reading this thread care enough about the game that they probably buy everything released, and I think that is great. It is the financial support of those players that allows FFG to keep producing this great game, and I am happy making my strategic purchase here and there.

It is my opinion that any action towards the TC's argument would cripple the ability of players in my position to compete with current encounters. I was disappointed when Beravor got her nerf precisly for this reason. However, I also realize that I am probably in the minority.

I hear you man, I also have a limited card pool, (no Dain, Spirfindel, or Elrond) so being able to include three copies of power cards like, SoG, celebrians stone, or UC can help me beat quests I otherwise would not be able to.

As a player that pulls resources from a limited card pool, I appreciate the fact that I can play 3 copies of UC. The power creep exhibited by encounter decks is obvious, and expected. This is less of an issue for the players who are also collectors, with access to the latest and greatest wizz-bang cards. However, for those who rarely buy adventure packs, and even less frequently buy expansions (like myself), the presence of OP cards are essential to fielding a deck that has any reasonable chance against any of the current encounters.

I understand that most of the folks reading this thread care enough about the game that they probably buy everything released, and I think that is great. It is the financial support of those players that allows FFG to keep producing this great game, and I am happy making my strategic purchase here and there.

It is my opinion that any action towards the TC's argument would cripple the ability of players in my position to compete with current encounters. I was disappointed when Beravor got her nerf precisly for this reason. However, I also realize that I am probably in the minority.

This is an interesting perspective, thanks for that. I would understand that just as there is the easy-mode, also the cards before errata could be used by players in the same way: to achieve an easier mode of sorts. It would be perfectly logical with the limited card pool.