Anyone has sugestions for the following cards. If possible, make it simple.

Ever My Heart Rises: I actually really enjoy this type of card that is very powerful but only works in certain decks but it does suck that it only works in certain quests.. so I would never change it.

Spare Hood and Cloak: yeah this card only usually gets one use from me in a round as I'll put it on say Eleanor and then if I don't use her ability its nice being able to ready someone else but then it always stays on them. Recently however I've noticed this card is nice to have around to soak up treacheries or shadow effects so instead of having to discard your Gondorian Shield you can get rid of the cloak that you have no use for anymore. It would be cool if the ability gave plus one defense making you want to use the cloak to ready someone and give them a defense boost.

Ever My Heart Rises: after you travel to a location, if there are other locations in staging with the same trait, then.... as it follows ^^

Spare Hood and Cloak: even if you can give its only 1 use (the above example with Eleanor), it is good. It is like Cram at least then (Cram is for heroes, Cloak for everybody! Faramir, Gandalf, you wonder), and can be more efficient if you know how to play it. For example, with Strenght of Arms, and 1 chump ally has the cloak and he was exhasuted: so you can ready a hero after playing Strenght of Arms.

I find this topic to be a bit odd.

I would argue for an errata to the game for certain.

I feel that we would need to discuss the sort of design that we wanted though if you want to create a community errata with any value.

For instance a good point raised in this topic is that print errata isn't the same as in a computer game. If this was an online game we'd see a lot of errata on cards that didn't work quite right because it would cost the players nothing, and would only require a bit of time to fix.

Realistically though, you're just not going to see an errata to make Silverlode Archer slightly better to make it cost-effective compared to Ithilian Archer. In any case the argument that Ithilian Archer is just better isn't true - only the silverlode archer has the silvan trait.

The game has been moving towards increasing the importance of trait design since release (where it was clearly always intended to be) so when you look at cards you should keep that in mind.

This is why Lure of Moria is cheaper than Grim Resolve.

Grim Resolve at 5 is basically the value of "ready all the characters available to the heroes without restriction."

Now as it happens from a balance point of view, Dwarfs ended up being one of the most powerful traits, so a card that is limited by only targeting them isn't really limited. Dwarfs have more cards than any other trait right now. However eventually the other traits will catch up (they already are starting too) so eventually this will be a meaningful restriction on the other players you play with.

It's really hard for the community to come up with errata because of this, we have no knowledge of the future design. However I think it's fairly clear that at least some kind of design guidelines exist about the future of traits we don't yet see much of.

As a result I would argue that the only errata we as a community can really argue for are the cards that are so stupidly strong as to be a design problem (Which is why I argued for errata on Unexpected Courage) or else cards that are so systemically weak that they will never be good.

Power in the Earth is often cited as an example of such a weak card. However rather than changing it there are two properties of it that we can exploit in a way that's more conducive to how card games work.

First we could create player cards which interact with attachments on locations - Maybe discard all locations with player card attachments from play (very strong), how about a hero that gets +1 willpower for every location in the staging area with an attachment.

Now, Only four player cards exist which attach to locations, and only two of them aren't restricted in some way. However Power in the Earth is the only card which attaches to locations and which you then want to leave those locations in play. (Path of Need, and Ancient Mathom both want you to make the location active, thor's key is unique, you could argue you'd leave it's locaiton in play too I guess).

An alternative is to look at the locations in the encounter deck, Power in the Earth would be worth a slot if you had some locations that it could nullify that were also horrid to get rid of. Think of East Bight (core set) without the forced text. That would be worth using Power of the Earth for, 1 cost would allow you to ignore this card forever and not have to quest through 6 points.

Sadly it doesn't work in that case - and a quick look at the other threat 1 locations will find you a common theme, they're either beneficial to explore (e.g. Bee Pastures) or else have a horrible other effect to balance the low threat (e.g. Branching Paths). Which means that we still want to explore them.

However it wouldn't take a lot to design locations in future that power in the earth could deal with well - a 1 threat location that helped the player the more were in play would be ideal.

This kind of errata to weak cards is what you're more likely to see.

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Hi all,

I don't like the suggestions made of Blue Mountain Trader, despite I do agree this cards could need an errata.

Blue Mountain Trader:
By exhausting him he becomes very similar to errand-rider which isn't something that great. I'd prefer if they just put a limit on it. I think limit 1 per round should be fine. I like to a have a new flexible ally (like the wandering took) and just as the wandering took this one has it's downside. Namely, it will cost you 1 resource if you want him. Next to that he still can be used for some resource movement. but that has became harder now.

Power in the earth:

Main reason I'don't like it is the Gladden Marshlands. It shouldn't be possible to kill 10 staging threat for 2 cost. But the card has gotten old and therefore I think a new mechanism could revive him more than an errata. Errata's are only there for cards that entered the scene unbalanced, they are not for reviving rarely used cards. I think the group of rarely used cards is that small that we shouldn't worry about it. Nonetheless a new location mechanism could help the card a little.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example:

threat: 1

quest points: X , where X is the number of characters in play.

text: At the end of the refresh phase deal 4 damage to a single hero.

Action: If "Card" has 0 threat, then the first player can choose to add "Card" to the victory display.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maby little artificial but I think the idea is clear. 2 copies of this card in a quest could make it much more interesting.

Grtz

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Disagree!!!

How could we ever play this game if Aragorn couldn't become Gondor ???

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Disagree!!!

How could we ever play this game if Aragorn couldn't become Gondor ???

Well, I do make an exception for Aragorn. Attach to a Gondor hero or Aragorn.

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Disagree!!!

How could we ever play this game if Aragorn couldn't become Gondor ???

Well, I do make an exception for Aragorn. Attach to a Gondor hero or Aragorn.

And what about Pippin? He "became Gondor", didn't he?

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Disagree!!!

How could we ever play this game if Aragorn couldn't become Gondor ???

At this point gaining a trait (at least a supported one) is so strong that gaining the Gondor trait would be worth a card and 1 resource anyway. (It would be like Nor am I a stranger, for Gondor). Getting the best resource generation on top just makes the Gondor trait a trivial after thought, when it is good in its own right.

Resurrecting this thread a little bit, but I wanted to add that I houserule Steward of Gondor. Instead of "Attached hero gains the Gondor trait" I play it as "Attach to a Gondor hero". I find it to thematically build on the wealth of Gondor and it also removes one card from the list of cards that are auto-included in every deck.

Disagree!!!

How could we ever play this game if Aragorn couldn't become Gondor ???

Well, I do make an exception for Aragorn. Attach to a Gondor hero or Aragorn.

And what about Pippin? He "became Gondor", didn't he?

I think we'll get a card for that in 2017. (Saga 5)