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.

Not that I feel this is very productive any more, but you never ONCE explained what makes Beravor ante errata broken if Courage is not. Because Courage was the only reliable way to use Beravor repeatedly in one round (Common Cause and the likes are really not that great, I think we both know that).

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.

Not that I feel this is very productive any more, but you never ONCE explained what makes Beravor ante errata broken if Courage is not. Because Courage was the only reliable way to use Beravor repeatedly in one round (Common Cause and the likes are really not that great, I think we both know that).

Uhm, I think I explained that? (but apparently not very well )

1. Beravor was broken because one could exploit her ability with the help of Unexpected Courage. I think at that time we didn't have any other cards to play that fiddle.

2. Unexpected Courage is not broken because it exploits Beravor ability. Otherwise cards like Miruvor would also be broken.

3. In conclusion, both Beravor and UC have been fine all alone, as it didn't matter if you could use Beravor's ability multiple times if there was no way to ready her.

4. However, the combo of these two cards was definitely broken, One card had to be errataed. And that had to be Beravor herself, as every other readying attachment had to be designed in a way that it couldn't ready heroes starting with a B.

In conclusion, it was Beravor's ability that was broken. Yes , UC and others cards were involved in the exploit, but they were not the cause of it. Restricting Beravor's ability was by far the easiest way to correct that design error.

I agree....

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.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can see the issue with this - but at the same time I feel that the game (beyond the obviously entry designed products like the saga quests and core set) really needs to assume that players have access to all the cards.

At the same time maybe this further reinforces my argument for banning the card or rather - make it an "easy mode" card. If you're playing easy mode then play UC but if you're not then you should be playing at the "tournament" standard.

The idea of an easy mode and tournmant standard is quite good for keeping all the cards playable but also opening up the ability for the game to be more accessible to all players and allowing tighter design (and design experimentation).

I have to disagree that UC is breaking the design of the game. Maybe it is limiting an influx of exhaust to use effects, but if you look at MtG design as an example, many of the best or most creative cards have nothing to do with tapping of cards. I would argue that by forcing the designers to be more clever than just designing a glut of heroes with "exhaust to ___" effects, UC has only helped the direction of recent designs. The Silvan cards are a good example. I am more excited about these cards than I was about Outlands, Doomed, or even Gondor because the mechanic of bouncing into and out of play leaves more freedom in design than just stacking benefits (Outlands) or adding/moving resources (Gondor, for the most part), and Celeborn's effect is more interesting than "exhaust to add 2/2/2 to a Silvan ally" or something along those lines. There are many cards that will need to be flat out retired at some point. Vilya for example will only get more and more powerful as high cost cards are added to the pool. Perhaps UC is one of those cards but it is certainly not the only one. Here is one solution to the problem: a 2nd edition core set. Include new cards to replace ones that are too powerful and add a few new heroes. They could also have 2 scenarios and fix the ridiculous situation of not having 3 of each player card in the base set, which always seemed foolish to me (at least have two of each player card).

I will say that they were wise to choose spirit as the sphere for UC during the initial game design as if it was in lore with all that card draw and no need to include spirit or songs, it would then be absolutely broken.

I have to disagree that UC is breaking the design of the game. Maybe it is limiting an influx of exhaust to use effects, but if you look at MtG design as an example, many of the best or most creative cards have nothing to do with tapping of cards. I would argue that by forcing the designers to be more clever than just designing a glut of heroes with "exhaust to ___" effects, UC has only helped the direction of recent designs. The Silvan cards are a good example. I am more excited about these cards than I was about Outlands, Doomed, or even Gondor because the mechanic of bouncing into and out of play leaves more freedom in design than just stacking benefits (Outlands) or adding/moving resources (Gondor, for the most part), and Celeborn's effect is more interesting than "exhaust to add 2/2/2 to a Silvan ally" or something along those lines. There are many cards that will need to be flat out retired at some point. Vilya for example will only get more and more powerful as high cost cards are added to the pool. Perhaps UC is one of those cards but it is certainly not the only one. Here is one solution to the problem: a 2nd edition core set. Include new cards to replace ones that are too powerful and add a few new heroes. They could also have 2 scenarios and fix the ridiculous situation of not having 3 of each player card in the base set, which always seemed foolish to me (at least have two of each player card).

I don't understand the relevance of a comparison to Magic the Gathering. Apart from the fact that tap and exhaust are mechanically the same. Relatively speaking they're totally different in weighting between the two games.

A creature card in MtG has some passive traits/abilities, maybe a special rule and an attack and defence. Most cards in that game can only ever attack or defend. You also only get one attack step so you cannot re-attack with the same character. (Although you can use untap effects to multiple block).

As a result an untap effect in MtG is worthless on the attack step for most cards. Most cards cannot do anything except attack or defend so untapping would be mostly pointless for them.

A character in Lotr has some passive traits/abilities can quest, attack and defend and maybe have a special rule that needs to be exhausted for. Even if you ignore the fact that every card in this game can multiple attack and defend if you can ready it you can still see that the cards in this game are needed to cover more ground so ready effects are obviously more powerful.

Additionally the penalty for failing to quest or failing to defend is much harsher than in MtG. In MtG you can continue to fight at full strength until you have 0 life. In Lotr failing to quest increases threat (which is like losing life as a countdown to losing) except that threat also goes up every turn - so unlike MtG you cannot stall for a better future game-state if you get to the position where you can prevent life loss.

Additionally in Lotr failing to defend means having your best (and mainly irreplaceable cards) potentially destroyed - which not only cripple your chances of fighting back immediately, they also permanently reduce your resource generation - meaning you cannot fight back as well later. This is because as the player takes incremental damage in this game they become less able to fight back.

Your other point is completely unfair to the designers of this game. If they could design ready effects of more varied types they could create more variety, not less. You're looking at an entirely different layer of the design than what we're talking about and then arguing that if the designers could get away with using only one layer they would - which is clearly and completely untrue.

The design of the different races and factions (to have a different play style and feel) is a different level of design from the design of the more basic features such as ready effects. I'm glad that you think their Sylvan mechanic is going to interest you more than the Gondor/Outlands ones did becuase htat's cool. (I also think it's cool what they're doing with the sylvan).

However it's got nothing to do with ready effects which exist as a more basic mechanic. We won't be seeing a race that is just different because it has access to ready effects or more +1s or something of that ilk because the differences in the races are a bit more subtle than that.

I'd be quite happy to discuss those subtleties in another thread and I agree that some of the races are simpler than others (The Gondor and Dwarf themes are a bit uninteiresting, the eagle theme needs some serous development despite a decent number of cards) but those simpler mechanics for some races are necessary, firstly because they still add value in variety of play, but also because some players really like playing them. Another point about the races is that (apart from the Eagles) the races all really have more than one theme to them.

But really that doesn't change the fact that UC is ruining the ability to design ready effects - more restricted and situation ready effects would be a lot more interesting, instead we got UC which is exactly what you're complaining about, boring and supreme.

Although I am curious about your belief that many cards would have to be retired - it seems to me that for the most part future cards will take awareness of the current card pool - so only cards that limit design would be a problem in the future. (However any card that does limit design should be addressed as quickly as possible to prevent them bleeding into the card pool).

Now in the case of UC I think we could just weaken UC and not have to worry about the other cards because UC as it exists is also the least interesting ready effect imaginable. We don't want them to have more cards like UC we want them to make more cards that are worse than UC but have the flexibility to spread the weaker ready effects across more costs.

Your comment about Vilya is a bit more difficult to evaluate.

In theory a deck which ran Vilya and 49 6 cost allies could be built (when 49 different 6 cost allies exist) and providing you drew Vilya as one of the 13 cards you get to see first you could play one six cost ally a turn. Which sounds pretty good - maybe you're right and Vilya will need to be errated.

On the other hand when we reach a point like that we might have found that all the adventures are also more difficult - by that point the ability to run a full 50 card themed deck that is also strong will be the case. So while I think Vilya is a card that potentially will always need to be watched - I think from a design point of view it won't be terribly worse or better than it is now (unless mistakes are made).

Vilya already does have some built in limitations though - you have to use Elrond, and you have to exhaust Elrond to use Vilya (getting rid of UC would instantly nerf Elrond/Vilya for this reason). Even with only Light of Valinor, Elrond and Vilya become less flexible (you lose out on 3 defence).

In any case I would like to see Light of Valinor at the 2 cost it clearly should be, but that can only happen if UC is changed first (as it is clearly superior).

I also agree with many that the best fix would be to make it a limit 1 per deck. This not only makes the card more balanced but it makes sense thematically as it is unexpected so it should come up unexpectedly. Unexpected Courage is not only boring, but is unlimited making it way too powerful for its cost and definitely then harms any future cards that would be made with readying effects. I think readying effects should be cheap, at 2 or less cost but be limited to traits or readying with specific Responses as many readying cards are made now. Simply being able to ready at any time can easily be abused especially if people have 3 of these badies in their decks. Would this errata (limit 1 per deck) be enough to help the future health of readying effects for this game? Also why would they errata a card especially one from the core set after it has been out for so long? Do you think they would actually ever errata it??

Only allowing one copy per deck is a terrible balancing mechanism, and is currently only printed on cards for thematic reasons.

Basically, making it so you could only have one copy in each deck vastly increases the variance. In some games, you'll have it in your opening hand, and get that useful ability right away.

In others, it will be the last card in your deck and you'll never see it.

In which case, your deck will have to be solid enough to perform without UC, so why would you bother to have the single copy?

I don't think they'll ever restrict Unexpected Courage in this way. It's a very good card, but it's not an auto-include. Rohan Warhorse is very niche, it's true, and Miruvor is just weird in general. But Light of Valinor, Fast Hitch, and Cram are all very good, and fit better in a lot of decks than Unexpected Courage. And they're cheaper. And they don't require you to be playing Spirit.

I dont like include single copies in my deck. It becomes a question of lucky, not of technic.

Only i use once: Needpath, and including 3 copies of Word of Command to search for it.

Only allowing one copy per deck is a terrible balancing mechanism, and is currently only printed on cards for thematic reasons.

Basically, making it so you could only have one copy in each deck vastly increases the variance. In some games, you'll have it in your opening hand, and get that useful ability right away.

In others, it will be the last card in your deck and you'll never see it.

In which case, your deck will have to be solid enough to perform without UC, so why would you bother to have the single copy?

I don't think they'll ever restrict Unexpected Courage in this way. It's a very good card, but it's not an auto-include. Rohan Warhorse is very niche, it's true, and Miruvor is just weird in general. But Light of Valinor, Fast Hitch, and Cram are all very good, and fit better in a lot of decks than Unexpected Courage. And they're cheaper. And they don't require you to be playing Spirit.

I disagree completely. There are many ways to come around this problem -- if you really want to. Master of the Forge, for instance, with him I only get a single copy of each attachment, expect those I want in play multiple times. It actually improves your deck, not otherwise, having a unique attachment in there only once. And there are other ways, and there will be more, the search mechanic is expanding at the very moment (or cycle, I should say).

Overall, this is has been up-and-down discussion. And I think we can see two ways of looking at it. The OP had a main point being UC is better than any other readying tool in the game. And it is hard to argue against it. It is why I fully support errata, and I even believe we might get it one day because the current designers are much more careful in making over-powered cards (Outlands aside).

Outlands are not overpowered, they are just straightforward, as the Unexpected Courage is.

Overall, this is has been up-and-down discussion. And I think we can see two ways of looking at it. The OP had a main point being UC is better than any other readying tool in the game. And it is hard to argue against it. It is why I fully support errata, and I even believe we might get it one day because the current designers are much more careful in making over-powered cards (Outlands aside).

I don't think Outlands are overpowered in general. Although I do think the outlands card that adds HP was a mistake (the deck should have been weak to 1 or 2 damage to all ally cards - and if you get those hp increasing allies out it's very unlikely you'll get chipped down again.

The deck would also be weak to wrath effects (from MtG) but we don't have any of those in this game. They are the main counter to Slivers though (The MtG version of Outlands).

From a design point of view in any case UC is clearly in a worse position in terms of dictating design than the Outlands cards - the main problem of the outlands cards is that you have to be very careful when adding any new ones, because of the additive effect. However you can very easily modulate the power of Outlands by only adding one or two new cards every couple of cycles which makes them a good way of keeping a simple power curve and letting new players always have a deck that's competitive.

Any card at the top of the power curve for a given type is going to dictate design. At a fundamental level any new card needs to either be better than the old card (setting a new power level) or worse (filling a new niche). UC is supremely powerful for very low cost - meaning that all other ready effects have to try to fill new niches with very limited design variation.

This is why all the ready effects follow a similar pattern; cost 0 and discard or cost 1 with limited triggers on the actions that can be taken and when the ready effect can occur.

UC hurts the design so much because all effects can be replaced by UC if they want them to cost 2.

As an example - The silvan design of characters entering and leaving play would mean that a ready effect for silvan characters tied to entering and leaving play would be pretty good. The same card for hobbits only would be comparatively worse and should therefore be cheaper. This is because the hobbit play style wouldn't support the ready effect nearly as well.

The hobbit ready effect for characters leaving play being cheaper would be quite powerful only in circumstances where you combined Silvan and hobbits - now that allows us to create a card that encourages cross racial deck instead of a single racial design.

Additionally we can see that ready effects on hobbits are generally less valuable (they have worse stats so add less on every action) so we can cost the ready effects for them with that in mind.

On the other hand their really isn't the flexibility in only two costs (0 and 1), and we're quite limited in what we can do by the fact that UC can target any hero. While that made sense at the start of the design (because we didn't have the card pool to run strategies that were based on traits).

At this point UC is doing more damage than good - although I do think that the point that UC is still useful in the core set and for those with reduced card pools is a very valid one.

Which is why rather than banning the card I now favour a new idea. Which is extending the idea of normal and easy modes from the adventure decks into the player card pool.

By having some of the important cards that make the core set playable still available we won't disadvantage people that play with the early card pool.

However by allowing the designers to set the new player cards as being designed for the "tournament" (maybe "collectors") standard - we would be able to have cards that are just worse than UC added into the card pool (because the later cycles would be expected to be played by collectors or people that are quite devoted to the game).

These worse cards however would better fit the design of an expanding card pool and I feel this is an essential adjustment that needs to be made if we want this game to have a long life.

I support the idea of errating the card text to include "Limit 1 per deck", but expanding the scope of "Easy Mode" to include the lifting of this restriction. I understand that it sounds like a lot of unnecessary back-and-forth, particularly on a game that is not inherently competitive. However, such a measure would do two things. First, it would provide players the challenge they want from the encounter decks. I think most would agree that consistently steamrolling an encounter deck is not much fun. The fun comes (IMHO) from overcoming a deck that, under different conditions, could easily beat you. Limiting cards that are at least perceived as OP contributes to this definition of "fun". Second, it allows for the use of multiple copies when a different, established format is used (Easy Mode). I admit, I like this aspect for purely selfish reasons. I already play Easy Mode encounter decks, due to the restrictions I have placed on myself. Could I afford to buy all the LotR content FFG produces? Sure. But I have decided to invest my resources elsewhere. This is a choice, and I accept whatever consequences this choice carries (including more difficulty completing recently-released quests). However, a lot of players make different choices, and this ruling would, I believe, cater to both camps.

There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, and I think the TC really hit on something that members of this community feel strongly about. I hope the discussion continues.

My solution:

Start including a new treachery card in all future scenarios and nightmare packs:

"False Courage"

When Revealed: Deal 3 damage to each hero for each copy of Unexpected Courage attached to that hero. This effect cannot be canceled.

I do not think Unexpected Courage will ever receive errata. With that said I still think there is much room for making cards with readying abilities despite UC seeming to be "the best" readying ability. Remember that it is restricted to heroes only and it is in the Spirit sphere meaning some decks may not want or be able to use it. I can imagine many more cards with readying abilities being made for the future showing that Unexpected Courage maybe really isn't that bad for the health of the game...

1) Currently some of the newer cards such as Rohan Warhorse and Wingfoot show a cheap (1 cost) attachment with restrictions as to who can equip it and how it actually readies that character. I like these because they are cheap, thematic and seem balanced but are maybe a little difficult to use hence costing only 1 resource. For only one more resource one could have UC to ready at any time so it does seem superior but I am still perfectly fine with restricted 1 cost readying attachments.

2) How about readying attachments that can go on characters (or even allies only) that cost more, 3 or even 4 resources but also have a little bonus making them better than UC:

Tactics attachments- Attach to a Tactics character, that character gets +1 attack when (card name) is exhausted. Exhaust (card name) to ready character.

Lore attachment- Attach to a Lore character. Draw one card when (card name) enters play. Exhuast (card name) to ready character.

Spirit attachment- Attach to a Spirit character. Attached character gets +1 willpower when (card name) is exhausted. Exhaust (card name) to ready character

Leadership attachment- Attach to a Leadership character. When (card name) enters play add 1 resource to a hero you control. Exhaust (card name) to ready character.

All of these rough examples I would happily include in whatever sphere deck I am playing and I would be perfectly happy paying more for an attachment that can be put on characters or also if it gives a little boost to something and especially if it is in a sphere that I am using.

So... does the Unexpected Courage card being a 2 cost Spirit attachment restricted to heroes still seem bad for the health of the game pertaining to readying abilities?? I think not so much.. there still seems to be so many options!

Last game, i had Glorfindel with valinor, Bilbo with fast switch, and Grima. One friend put in table a copy of UC and he said: who wants? I said: me not, i dont need.

I disliked to say: ok, good for me. Of course it is good, for Glorfindel 2 attacks, Bilbo defend another time (he had Brand attached, Protector Lorien, etc)..., but: i disliked pay 2 resources (from a friend) for one ready effect that you dont know if you would need. Better to play another card with another advantatges.

PD: we were 3 players. It was attached finally on Eleanor (you wonder, for cancel and defend -without any attachments-, unexpecte became totally useless), and we did higscore in 3 players: 99 score (in Journey Anduin).

Verdict: UC is not overpowered, in fact, if you know how to use another cards it can even become useless

I do not think Unexpected Courage will ever receive errata. With that said I still think there is much room for making cards with readying abilities despite UC seeming to be "the best" readying ability. Remember that it is restricted to heroes only and it is in the Spirit sphere meaning some decks may not want or be able to use it. I can imagine many more cards with readying abilities being made for the future showing that Unexpected Courage maybe really isn't that bad for the health of the game...

1) Currently some of the newer cards such as Rohan Warhorse and Wingfoot show a cheap (1 cost) attachment with restrictions as to who can equip it and how it actually readies that character. I like these because they are cheap, thematic and seem balanced but are maybe a little difficult to use hence costing only 1 resource. For only one more resource one could have UC to ready at any time so it does seem superior but I am still perfectly fine with restricted 1 cost readying attachments.

2) How about readying attachments that can go on characters (or even allies only) that cost more, 3 or even 4 resources but also have a little bonus making them better than UC:

Tactics attachments- Attach to a Tactics character, that character gets +1 attack when (card name) is exhausted. Exhaust (card name) to ready character.

Lore attachment- Attach to a Lore character. Draw one card when (card name) enters play. Exhuast (card name) to ready character.

Spirit attachment- Attach to a Spirit character. Attached character gets +1 willpower when (card name) is exhausted. Exhaust (card name) to ready character

Leadership attachment- Attach to a Leadership character. When (card name) enters play add 1 resource to a hero you control. Exhaust (card name) to ready character.

All of these rough examples I would happily include in whatever sphere deck I am playing and I would be perfectly happy paying more for an attachment that can be put on characters or also if it gives a little boost to something and especially if it is in a sphere that I am using.

So... does the Unexpected Courage card being a 2 cost Spirit attachment restricted to heroes still seem bad for the health of the game pertaining to readying abilities?? I think not so much.. there still seems to be so many options!

1) The issue is the question of whether all these new ready effects should be cost 1 or 0. Rohan Warhorses is undeniably cost 1 in power and I feel that Wingfoot is also. However compare to some of the better alternative cards (Light of Valinor, Steed of the Mark) - the problem is not with the cards you listed but with the fact that the stronger ready effects all need to be cost 1 as well.

2) This is possible card design direction. We certainly will get these cards eventually (we have them in event form now). However the point at issue is not that I could invent a better card - I can already tell you some more expensive cards with stronger effects exist. How about Light The Beacons (cost 5, all characters get +2 defence and do not exhaust to defend this round) or We Do Not Sleep (cost 5, rohan characters do not exhaust to quest this round).

Both of these cards are stronger because they effect many characters, they also provide additional effects. They also illustrate my rebuttal of your point 1 nicely. Being able to not exhaust to quest is much better than being able to not exhaust to defend (because not all readies are equal, questing is clearly stronger than other stages). So to make these cards both cost 5 the first one has no restrictions and a bonus +2 to stats, the second has restricted targeting and no bonuses.

You could theoretically make a Super UC that is cost 3 or 4 with no target restrictions or has effects like you describe (ready and get + other stats). However at cost 3 or 4 you're almost never going to want to play that card on an ally because they're too vulnerable and paying extra for the other bonus, while an acceptable card design - doesn't effect the basic cost of readying in terms of card costing.

As a final point I would argue that having off-sphere versions of cards is itself bad for the game. I don't want to see Unexpected style (the tactics UC) Unexpected Orders (the Leadership UC) and Unexpected Insight (the lore UC) - even if each of these cards had to cost 3 or 4. That's not really good for the design of the game or it's future.

You need to have layers of interaction in your design to maintain interest and a long life - as an example I want "Rohan" to have a certain style of play and currently it does. I further want "Spirit Rohan" and "Tactics Rohan" to also be distinct from each other - because I want spheres and traits to be different I don't want to accept sphere-swapped cards too often.

Also you're still only talking about having a single aspect of design in each direction (down for basic ready effects, or adding new extra bits on if you go up), you really lack the nuances that you could have just by removing UC. (We could have had ready effects in the quest phase costed at +1 for example, you could have more easily modulated ready effects in off-sphere or with restricted targeting).

I'm not of the opinion that Unexpected Courage is the most overpowered thing in the game (it isn't). I'm of the opinion that it's the most overpowered thing in the game that's doing as much damage to potential design.

Last game, i had Glorfindel with valinor, Bilbo with fast switch, and Grima. One friend put in table a copy of UC and he said: who wants? I said: me not, i dont need.

I disliked to say: ok, good for me. Of course it is good, for Glorfindel 2 attacks, Bilbo defend another time (he had Brand attached, Protector Lorien, etc)..., but: i disliked pay 2 resources (from a friend) for one ready effect that you dont know if you would need. Better to play another card with another advantatges.

PD: we were 3 players. It was attached finally on Eleanor (you wonder, for cancel and defend -without any attachments-, unexpecte became totally useless), and we did higscore in 3 players: 99 score (in Journey Anduin).

Verdict: UC is not overpowered, in fact, if you know how to use another cards it can even become useless

Last game you had two ready effects that have to be cost 1 because UC existed when those cards were designed (and if they were cost 2 they would 'almost' be just worse - Valinor not having the exhaust effect at all is sometimes better). So you're basically saying in your example that because UC has 'already' made Valinor too cheap you now don't need UC (and don't even try to pretend that card should be cost 1).

Also having already drawn into 2 ready effects it's a bit different to say "hey I don't need UC" - you almost certainly would have wanted it if you didn't already have multiple actions. Most characters get diminishing returns on multiple actions after all (defence and attack don't diminish if you're fighting a swarm, but in most scenarios they do).

I agree with you that UC might not have been needed at all if your friends had similar board states. However I don't think your argument shows UC is not too good in it's design - I actually think it shows exactly what I'm talking about. Other cards are forced into cost 1 when they shouldn't be (Valinor, maybe fast hitch - although hobbits are stats weak).

Ok so basically as you mentioned in the OP, Unexpected Courage should have only ever been a test card representing the power of readying abilities, but the fact that it became an actual card at the low cost of 2 is a huge problem for obvious design reasons for future cards. Then being limited with readying ability attachments Light of Valinor should have cost 2 for how powerful it is but it doesn't because UC cost 2 and UC would then be the obvious superior choice (beside Spirit Glorfindels ridiculous synergy with LoV).

I see two main problems: 1) early cards from the core such as UC and Steward of Gondor are more powerful than they should be for their cost simply because it was early in the game and the designers weren't as good as they are now with making balanced cards (not that we can blame them, they are doing amazing) but there really should be some errata for many cards- too many cards and that's why I think many won't receive errata. and...

2) a lot of powerful cards came out during the Dwarrowdelf cycle, Light of Valinor, Spirit Glorfindel, Lore Aragorn, Warden of Healing, and Lure of Moria to name a few. and I think all of these powerful cards were dangerous for the game because now suddenly scenarios needed to be made more difficult to combat powerful player cards and future player cards can only be stronger otherwise players will be mad buying packs with weak cards in comparison to what they have. I think they overdid many player cards from the Dwarrowdelf cycle (yes they are awesome and powerful, I enjoy them) but the developers had to ease up and stop making such powerful cards and that seems pretty clear from the Against the Shadow cycle. A natural part of this game is the power creep but the balance was sped up a bit too much from the Dwarrowdelf cycle.

So basically from the beginning of the game and at times (Dwarrowdelf cycle) many cards were made too powerful harming future options for card developing but there are so many of these cards doing an errata for them all would be way too much, after all errata is only reserved for cards that truly break the current game, not to help future development because the designers are just going to design around current cards and they are good at doing that.

Few, I'm done rambling and this has been an interesting discussion. I think I understand why you see UC as a problem but I don't think it will receive errata just because it's not game breaking and too many other power cards should receive errata along with UC if it were to. Therefore we'll just have the problem of 1 cost readying attachments not all being equal but whatever this game can't be perfect, UC does cramp development but the developers will do the best they can with what they have.

My friend and I often save all copies of UC for just one hero - Beregond. It feels cheap, but considering all the Gondor synergy available, stacking up Beregond is just always better than spreading things around.

I don't think UC is a big deal.

Most games only last 10 turns so you rarely see more than one UC in a game.

It's definitely a powerful card, but not game breaking or as game design limiting as some people are making out.

Since I don't think there will ever be a real tournament scene I don't think anything needs to be done.

I don't think UC is a big deal.

Most games only last 10 turns so you rarely see more than one UC in a game.

It's definitely a powerful card, but not game breaking or as game design limiting as some people are making out.

All cards are rarely seen because of games only lasting 10 turns? I mean I don't understand how this supports your final point. This applies equally to every card in the game?

As for not having a tournament scene - this argument is that we can self-select what cards we use or don't use so it doesn't matter?

That entirely disregards the design point of view - that would only make sense if I was complaining that UC was too good from the point of view of making quests too easy. (From that point of view it is a valid argument) but I'm much more concerned with the game's future than it's present.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince you to believe UC is not overpowered, that ship has sailed. I just like to be pragmatic, and I think what this thread is waiting on is an idea that the whole community can/would embrace for how to deal with the design issue. Personnaly I think a reboot of sorts could do wonders for this game and encourage people to buy a new/updated core set. The problem is those that invested in two or three cores will have alot of useless cardboard if cards are errata'd across the board. My suggestion? Use this as an opportunity to take out weak core set cards that don't see use anyway (there are numerous threads about these, Power in the Earth, Brok Ironfist just to name two) and replace with the errata'd versions of overpowered cards outside of the original core set (Dain Ironfoot, anyone?). I would rather pay for one more core set (since 3 copies of all player cards should be included) than see the game design stagnate, and this could help new players build their collections up with more useful cards right out of the shoot. Another idea would be to call it a starter set or something similar and just take out the encounter cards altogether, thus encouraging new players to start with newer APs/boxes.

Just my two cents.