We also play this card as unique.

I would prefer a tweaking of costs and numbers for Steward, I would prefer UC to be restricted in targeting (only willpower 1 characters for instance)

However I do agree it's more likely we'll get erratas of the following form:

Limit one per deck (Steward or UC)
Limit one per character (UC)

Is now Unique (UC)

Still any of those would do as a band aid fix.

Hmm looks like all that cards is still very powerful sibce core set times…. Designers dont make anymore so powerfull cards in last 2 cycles. Also they give us more recources generation cards , maybe SOG will get some errata now but that will be not so painful. I belive UC can be limit one per hero. That will be enough. Anyway there can be unique fix too. Will se what happen? Maybe we can make kind of bet?

I don't see how making UC unique would bring us to "new deckbuilding". Players will still include 2 or 3 copies of it in each deck, not much new deckbuilding there.

For example in 3 players game Beregond can defend 3 4 times with UC and Shield of Gondor. So that is cool but ca nbe a bit boring when 1 hero just keep all defences line. If UC will be unique or limit once per hero we start ti use cram and of example event Behind the strong walls..... Who wonna use other cards when is so easy put 3 UC in each player deck and make a crazy thinks... Like Beravur before errata's can draw 6 8 cards per round with 3 UC on him.

Im pretty sure UC in sigh of light of designers and they still think what to do with that card.

Well, I use stuff like Cram and Behind the Strong Walls even now, existance of UC haven't stopped me. Just having hte options is good. And they come from different spheres.

If they want to make changes on UC or Steward (which I still doubt they will do) they should make UC unique or 1 per hero. Restricted would be too much of a nerf to that card at least for me who often plays UC on Legolas for multiple attacks.

Play with only one coreset as a base and you will have only UC in your deck at maximum.

Thats a funny thing, btw. They buy several core sets to get the multiple copies of stewards/courages and then complain about how these cards break the game

Ok .. what cards next?

Play with only one coreset as a base and you will have only UC in your deck at maximum.

Indeed. I don't think Steward of Gondor, UC or Will of the West should be errated. If you want to house rule them into lesser cards, that's fine with me. But everybody plays in a different way/style and if you only have 1 Core Set, you would only have 2 WotW, 2 SoG and even just 1 UC. The chances of them showing up, especially the UC where everybody seems having problems with (everybody being the small minority of players who vocalize in the forums not to forget), are very small. So you guys here should just not complain about their strength if you yourself include multiple copies because they are so strong... That's just hypocritical. And even then, I for one don't mind strong cards. If you want a higher challenge, make up your own house rules. Now you want everyone to follow your rules via the FAQ, because you think it is an easy game.

My games haven't been that easy even with multiple copies of UC (OTCGN multiplies my Core Set ) and I think that many players (who are or are not on this forum) find this game to be hard too.

So, even though Saurons forces have been stronger all along, I think the Free Folk had some power up their sleeves too. And let's be honest, nobody plays that stupid 'draw your whole deck'-deck and even so, WHO CARES?! Let them be, it's their game too, so if they want to play that deck, then let them. It is a cooperative game, not competative..

Very well said.

Next card: Theoden! Give him a usefull ability that is worth to be on such a high power charakter (ducking my head and waiting for the hate to come ).

Agreed GandalfDK. I consider myself a "core" player (not hardcore, but I have almost everything printed for this game, I deckbuild, I play rather well and try NM mode) and I have a challenging time with the harder quests as it is (I avoid playing dwarves and outlands, admittedly). I can only imagine how tough things are for the vast majority of players who have nowhere near the dedication of this forum! Nerfing cards because of a small vocal minority would be at the expense of the majority. Just because you are good at something it doesn't mean its easy! Glaurung is not a good benchmark for difficulty. In the end would gameplay be healthier and less cheesy or toxic? I dont think so, this game doesn't mess around.

And besides, all these so called OP cards have been part of the game since its inception and the gameplay is balanced around them. Power level is high for both the player AND the encounter cards and I am fine with it. UC and Steward are BASELINE, they have always been and will probably always will, as new player cards are designed around them.

Also keep in mind the encounter deck has its own meta, that evolves over time to provide answers to player strategies (draw hate, discard attachments etc). I say trust the designers, the latest mechanics they have been introducing have been great.

I'd love to hear some reports on the new HoN NM quests with houseruled limitations on player cards. I bet the quests are near unwinnable since they are balanced around player staple cards.

Thedoen would be ok with 10 or 11 threat instead of 12

Thats a funny thing, btw. They buy several core sets to get the multiple copies of stewards/courages and then complain about how these cards break the game

I think people have different expectations about how often the player should be winning a given quest. A player that criest "nerf UC!" probably considers a 50% success chance too high for a NM quest, while someone like me considers it ideal. People have different views.

Thedoen would be ok with 10 or 11 threat instead of 12

Yeah, I think giving Theoden +1 starting threat because his ability gives him 1 wp too was a jerk move.

Agreed GandalfDK. I consider myself a "core" player (not hardcore, but I have almost everything printed for this game, I deckbuild, I play rather well and try NM mode) and I have a challenging time with the harder quests as it is (I avoid playing dwarves and outlands, admittedly). I can only imagine how tough things are for the vast majority of players who have nowhere near the dedication of this forum! Nerfing cards because of a small vocal minority would be at the expense of the majority. Just because you are good at something it doesn't mean its easy! Glaurung is not a good benchmark for difficulty. In the end would gameplay be healthier and less cheesy or toxic? I dont think so, this game doesn't mess around.

And besides, all these so called OP cards have been part of the game since its inception and the gameplay is balanced around them. Power level is high for both the player AND the encounter cards and I am fine with it. UC and Steward are BASELINE, they have always been and will probably always will, as new player cards are designed around them.

Also keep in mind the encounter deck has its own meta, that evolves over time to provide answers to player strategies (draw hate, discard attachments etc). I say trust the designers, the latest mechanics they have been introducing have been great.

I'd love to hear some reports on the new HoN NM quests with houseruled limitations on player cards. I bet the quests are near unwinnable since they are balanced around player staple cards.

You're totally highlighting the reason why these cards need to be changed. At least from my point of view.

it is nothing to do with having one powerful card - and everything to do with how they are negatively influencing the card designs. UC being 2 cost unrestricted hero ready means that any restricted hero ready has to fit into only cost 1 and cost 0. Which leads to a really small design space for a very important aspect of the game. It's difficult for them to make new cards that will actually compete with the good core set ones.

Steward of Gondor being 2 cost to get 2 resources instantly (and +2 a turn there after) and gaining another trait as a bonus - really hurts their ability to make new cards that give you resource acceleration . I don't think a card exists that's even close to this resource generation. (resourceful is 1 for +1 a turn in its ideal circumstances, though it isn't unique).

Yes you are right, the encounter cards and player cards have been taking account of the core set strong cards - however we now have more variety than we did and if these cards were nerfed (say they both just cost +1 each, no other changes) then new cards could be put into the game to help offset the balance in power you're concerned about, but they can't fit currently.

If we don't fix these glaring issues eventually they will ruin the future of the game. I mean it's a deck builder, but you're saying you can't beat nightmare reliably without power cards. I think that's true too - but I want them to make the power cards a better choice (rather than obvious) and then fill in the newly created design space with more alternatives.

The likelihood is that we will get a core set 2nd edition at some point as most of the best and worst cards are there, and I'm sure the current designers would take the opportunity to change many of the cards to better fit the direction that the traits went.

I wonder if 2nd Edition Core set (if it'll ever happen, ofc) will start a new line of game, rebooting the franchise, or will it support everything released already?

An updated starter box would be cool but there is no need to reboot Lotr LCg as the mechanics are pretty robust, if complicated. AGoT on the other hand was a mess of a game.

UC should be limited once per hero and Steward should enter play exhausted imo but I still hold its too late to change them without screwing over the majority of players and messing around with the game's difficulty. Imo, there is also enough unexplored design space left, like Oh Lorien/tighten our belts/zigil mimer compared to Steward. I'd rather see errata focusing on truely problematic cards like Dain Ironfoot tbh. (Edit: because stuff like Dain, Outlands etc make UC and Steward look OP or constrictive).

I am playing this game since 3 years ago. I like UC and Stewards, but if i don't want to get bored, i change the way of gainning resources. (Me and some friends do it, without problems).

But i think new players enjoy with UC and Stewards, so i wouldnt make faqs about them. I would 'leave' they leave those cards along the time.

And let's be honest, nobody plays that stupid 'draw your whole deck'-deck and even so, WHO CARES?! Let them be, it's their game too, so if they want to play that deck, then let them. It is a cooperative game, not competative..

A faq only purpose in a card game like this is for competition, even if they do not really exist yet (official with prize I mean). Someone who buy one coreset and never go on internet would never see such faq and errata (until reprint) and has a cooperative game, will play with his own houserules.

A faq should aim to balance the game in competitive play, or else whoever would care about it ?

So yes, it is indeed important to complain about UC and errata it in some way or change the rules of tournament with some restricted cards list and stuffs (wich would be better in my opinion). Not at all hypocritical. Competitive LotR is very far from being playable still, and all discussion on errata are meaningless in some way. We have it nonetheless because there are people organizing parties plays in store and it's better to have all players having fun and following the same rules with a healthy fake competition. We never saw absurd combo deck in those encounters, but success rate is still proportionnal to how many overpowered cards they have.

So while I agree with the last statement of GandalfDK, I disagree with the remaining. Also, if the card being discussed wasn't in the coreset, all his argument become invalid...

In my superhero attachment deck I have Steward and Courage, but the card that really breaks the deck is Burning Brand.

They could avoid having to do the super annoying "errata cards that have been the same for years" and just start throwing more attatchment hate into newer adventure packs. I'm all for keeping the game challenging and difficult, but the list of errata is pages long. Let's not make it so every time you play a card you're checking to see if it still does what you think it does.

UC should be limited once per hero and Steward should enter play exhausted imo but I still hold its too late to change them without screwing over the majority of players and messing around with the game's difficulty. Imo, there is also enough unexplored design space left, like Oh Lorien/tighten our belts/zigil mimer compared to Steward. I'd rather see errata focusing on truely problematic cards like Dain Ironfoot tbh. (Edit: because stuff like Dain, Outlands etc make UC and Steward look OP or constrictive).

I personally, don't think Outlands is as bad. It's easy to think of ways to completely shut outlands down (we have no remove all allies type cards in the encounter deck, or how about the encounter cards that remove this card and another card with the same name).

We could even potentially have some anti-trait encounter cards (all cards that share the most common trait receive blank text boxes would wreck them for example).

but more to the point Outlands and Dain and Glorfindel, aren't hurting the design space as badly. Dain is too powerful because he scales too well with multiple decks. It would be better if Dain was less strong or did less, yes. I would accept an errata on Dain.

However Dain is the top end of a power curve for heroes that boost decks (with Glorfindel the top end of the solo hero stat power house). While Dwarf cards do need to consider that Dain exists, he only hurts dwarf design. All heroes need to take account of UC. All cards need to be costed with the idea that resource acceleration can occur at the rate of Steward of Gondor.

Outlands itself is a powerful trait, but from a design perspective it only matters for cards with the Outlands trait. (It may be we never get any more if it's already too strong since the design builds on itself). These examples you give though, only effect a small amount of the game. UC and Steward effect a lot more of the design.

That's why they're worse. Your suggestion to just avoid using the power cards works for Dain (avoid dwarfs, or play weaker dwarfs, they're sitll good without him). but for UC, Fast hitch is costed because of UC, so are all ready effects. They all take account of UC's existence, even if you don't use it.

You have to avoid ready effects entirely, to not have UC effect your deck.