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.

I like the idea of a second edition core set immensely (I feel many of the most poorly designed cards can be found in the core set, with only a handful of bad cards elsewhere).

I felt that it would be even harder to sell that concept than to sell a straight errata .

I'm not sure that you should take cards from the AP's though (even though I think Dain and Spirit Glorfidendel could definitely do with being looked at in a reboot). The problem with that is that you discourge those packs from being bought or breed resentment.

It might be better if a new core was created that had new cards in place of some of the old ones - but you're still ultimately looking at banning old cards in the reboot.

Well that's why the idea appeals to me of doing the reboot, you can just replace cards with new versions that would otherwise just be banned and gone forever.

As for discouraging people from buying the packs, that would be a tough problem to overcome, although if only the heroes were replaced in the reboot, I think it would soften this blow as people would stil likely want the other player cards. Another benefit of a reboot would be to beef up cards if needed to make them more playable (Bilbo!!!). Probably a pipe dream but I for one would shell out some cash for it and I think the people I play the game with would as well.

Shortly after I started playing the game, I bought a 2nd and 3rd copy of the core set, to have full sets of the player cards. Unexpected Courage was a big incentive to do that. I'd be really quite annoyed if it was now erratad to be unique, or restricted, or cost more, or one of the other variations people are suggesting. I'd been even more annoyed if that happened after i'd just started playing the game.

meh. don't get me wrong, i hate that the card exists (moreso because it's in Spirit than anything else though), but honestly, IIRC it's the only singleton in the Core Set that made me think about getting more than one. i haven't, but I think it's sensible that there are a few "chase rares" in the core set.

Shortly after I started playing the game, I bought a 2nd and 3rd copy of the core set, to have full sets of the player cards. Unexpected Courage was a big incentive to do that. I'd be really quite annoyed if it was now erratad to be unique, or restricted, or cost more, or one of the other variations people are suggesting. I'd been even more annoyed if that happened after i'd just started playing the game.

Agreed.

I just bought a core set but... having a reboot core set wouldn't sound too bad. I only bought the core set after watching some video reviews and reading the rulebook. I never bothered looking at what cards came with it, only knowing that it came with 4 starter decks and 3 scenarios and its encounter decks.

I like what Beorn wrote under "For the Future":

http://hallofbeorn.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/metagame-part-1-current-state-and-future-direction-of-lord-of-the-rings-lcg/

So far, every single thread about the newly revealed Galadriel and Nenya have referred to Unexpected Courage.

Typically it has been refereed to as an obvious power combo on her (which it is). Some people have commented on how it reduces the decision value when you get Nenya on her.

I have seen references to Miruvor as an alternative (which does combo nicely with her card draw - but still using Miruvor to ready and put it back on your deck at a cost of 1 resource a turn is reducing the value of the card draw by half and costing you 1 resource a turn).

I guess what I'm saying is that the response to a new cool spirit hero and combo is to instantly have people saying, Wow can't wait for Unexpected Courage! Which is exaclty what I'm talking about with reguard to it's relative power and influence on the card pool.

I feel this actual example we've just had may be better at convincing people than any of my mere theorizing.

I'd also like to thank everyone that's contributed to this discussion so far, discussing changing cards we already have is always a contentious topic but everyone has handled it with respect. So thanks for that

Don't give yourself too much credit, unexpected courage is most famous and straightforward readying effect, and it's obvious that people will speak about it when a hero with two different exhausting actions comes up. And let's not forget that unlike most other readiers, every LotR LCG player owns Unexpected Courage (because, like, it's in the core set).

Don't give yourself too much credit, unexpected courage is most famous and straightforward readying effect, and it's obvious that people will speak about it when a hero with two different exhausting actions comes up. And let's not forget that unlike most other readiers, every LotR LCG player owns Unexpected Courage (because, like, it's in the core set).

What are you talking about, give myself credit for what?

The point I'm making is that everyone instantly sees the value of UC as soon as any new hero with an exhaust effect turns up. People didn't think of that because I made a thread about UC - they thought about it because it's obvious.

It's obvious and powerful and uninteresting.

More obvious and powerful than any of the more limited and interesting options.

UC was always valuable asset, from the very first days of LotR LCG.

Lets not talk about interesting or not. Powerful? Yes. Overpowered? Hell no.

Those options still persists and have place to be. UC is not going to solve every problem.

UC was always valuable asset, from the very first days of LotR LCG.

Lets not talk about interesting or not. Powerful? Yes. Overpowered? Hell no.

Those options still persists and have place to be. UC is not going to solve every problem.

UC is more valuable than every other card to come after it that has a single target ready effect - which is the problem.

Which is not, because UC is not neutral.

I do not see why is UC a good match for Galadriel. As I see it Galadriel is one of the least meaningful heroes to get enCouraged. Unless you get Nenya, it is completely wasted. And even if you do, you can only do two given things -- and never more unless there is some strange mechanic like the hide test. Plus, the powerful ally boost of Celeborn and Galadriel should be enough to keep Nenya as only the last resort. Since I proxied the card, I played dozen games with Galadriel, and in those I used Nenya for the willpower boost only four times, once in three games exactly. Ok, maybe harder quests will be a different story but as it is, this would make UC pretty much a wasted inclusion for Galadriel.

That said, I still totally support the errata. Elrond and Denethor are the two that really prove the point for me. With Elrond, you get Vilya and Courage and you go shopping for free. In a right deck, Courage is giving you incredible advantage of resources, action and power.

That said, I still totally support the errata. Elrond and Denethor are the two that really prove the point for me. With Elrond, you get Vilya and Courage and you go shopping for free. In a right deck, Courage is giving you incredible advantage of resources, action and power.

Which is what game is about: Building right deck. Lets errata Imladris Stargazer so you wouldn't be able to stage what you're going to play with Vilya, because it will give you incredible advantage of resources, action and power.

That said, I still totally support the errata. Elrond and Denethor are the two that really prove the point for me. With Elrond, you get Vilya and Courage and you go shopping for free. In a right deck, Courage is giving you incredible advantage of resources, action and power.

Which is what game is about: Building right deck. Lets errata Imladris Stargazer so you wouldn't be able to stage what you're going to play with Vilya, because it will give you incredible advantage of resources, action and power.

Based on this argument it's impossible for any card to be overpowered because it's all about building the right deck.

You seem to be willfully not acknowledging that some cards are more powerful than others - or that some cards might reach a level of power where they harm the game. (Despite the fact you made a thread about cards that you think are woefully under-powered).

UC is a single card - it works with absolutely any deck that runs any spirit at all. It's going to work regardless of traits, hero choices or any other restrictions that are in play on other cards to enhance deck building and make the game more interesting.

Yes you can build decks that don't need UC - however you cannot build a deck that doesn't want hero ready effects and not conclude that UC is the best 'unless' your game is going to last 1 or 2 turns.

The issue isn't that ready effects are a problem (they're not) The issue is that UC is so much better than all other single target ready effects that it's too powerful. The card design in fact is just too powerful in a game that's meant to be about deck building because it will fit into any spirit deck.

Why being sarcastic now? Or is it? Hard to tell. But no, Stargazer is not a very universally powerful card, without Vilya or Zigil or Treasure-hunter, it does very little actually. And once you use it once, the next time you get a much more limited effect. Courage, on the other hand, is universally useful, for many heroes, and worst of all, none of the other reading effects challenge its superiority.

It is possible. Example: Gandalf. Because of his "enters play" text. How many competitve leadership decks do not feature him with sneak attack? None. And now this new event-replaying tome of leadership.

The UC is non-arguably more powerful than, say, Steed of the Mark. Yet, it's not overpowered and needs no errata. Mount can be fetched (and something tells me, this is not the last mount-utility we shall see), you need less resources to attach it, so if you're playing it on another player, you're effectively spending 1.

Actually, you can. A deck that does not has spirit.

lleimmien, you underestimate the power to choose the next card you're going to draw too much.

Let us not just call things out. You can but you may end up sounding like a fool. I do not underestimate Stargazer's ability in any way. I have clearly argued that Courage is much more universal in its use. I have played Stargazer for two years now in many a deck but she has fallen out of each that did not have either of the three cards I mentioned above, actually, she seems really only worth it with Vilya. Without it, the utility is still not bad, I am not saying that, but with the current card pool, there are more useful cards than one trick ponies allies of 1hp. To compare it to Courage that is hard not to justify in a majority of Spirit decks, that makes no sense to me.

You seem to have missed my point, but I'm too lazy to explain it in depth to you.

You seem to have missed my point, but I'm too lazy to explain it in depth to you.

This kind of dismissive one line response seems to be something you eventually fall back to in every thread.

I don't see evidence that people have missed your point. Yes it's possible for us to reach different conclusions, you think that UC is better than every other single target ready effect but that it has an acceptable power level - ultimately if you think the power level of the card is okay you must think that all the other ready effects are therefore worse.

Which means you're either happy with many worse options proliferating in the game - or else you don't mind wasted cards (which goes against another thread of yours entirely).

In all the cases you've ever listed in this thread multiple cards are required for the effect - stargazer + other cards, mount + mount fetch cards.

Even with the mount fetch cards you're still talking about a two card combo that helps you to get a worse effect into play, none of the mounts are comparable to UC in power.

Sneak attack + Gandalf is a powerful combo to mention. However this still requires more cards - has a totally different effect (for threat reduction it probably is in the overpowered region) but primiarily all these examples don't make any difference to your argument.

I never claimed that UC was the strongest effect in the game, I merely claimed that it's so much better than all other ready effects as to be overpowered (or we could assume instead that all the other card ready effects are too weak, but that seems like the stupid way round to think when all those other effects are also good and all fill the ready role just as well)

That's the thing - you don't play stead of the mark and think, hey this card is awful, you think, hey this is going to help (ready effects are good after all). That's why UC is overpowered - it's just better than cards that are perfectly good.

This one line was not addressed to you.

If you don't see the evidence, then you have missed the point yourself. And you have a bad habit of answering with walls of text to a simple statements, while you can easily boil down everything to one paragraph. It would be easier to communicate verbally. But writing walls of text in response to walls of text on regular basis is something I consider not worth it.

This one line was not addressed to you.

If you don't see the evidence, then you have missed the point yourself. And you have a bad habit of answering with walls of text to a simple statements, while you can easily boil down everything to one paragraph. It would be easier to communicate verbally. But writing walls of text in response to walls of text on regular basis is something I consider not worth it.

I find walls of text are more precise than single paragraphs. They're not always as easy to read (especially for those with English as a second language), however they often contain more than a single paragraph could.

You may find that writing precisely is more worthwhile if you were less interested in dismissing other people's points of view and more interested in making your own clear. Instead you just insist that you are being clear when you just repeat yourself over and over, and maybe it's my fault for not getting something that you find obvious - but that's why you should take the time to write it out more clearly for me, or if you feel it isn't of worth, just stop I guess.

I am happy to keep discussing points with you, if you want to continue to make them instead of just being insulting like your one paragraph here.