╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ you are a beautiful strong readying attachment ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no nerf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝

Haters gonna hate. UC for life.

So made me laugh out loud when I read this

How about this?

The image will probably be broken, so:

Sacrificial Leader (unique)

1 Cost Leadership Attachment

Skill (trait)

Attach to a Leadership hero.

Action: Exhaust Sacrificial Leader and attached hero to ready 2 other characters.

See? If you put your mind to it you can come up with plenty of unique readying abilities. If I can come up with this, imagine what the guys who are getting paid can think of.

I feel like you are getting hung up on specifics here. I didn't claim it was impossible to create new and interesting effects even given the constraints that we have. I claimed that the scope for the design is a lot narrower than it should be, because of mistakes made in the early card designs (in the core set).

This game is certainly not alone in having over and under-powered cards in the core design that are improved on over time.

Nor do I claim that we have reached the point, now, where we can't make any more good ready effects with what's available. We can.

But when we have double the card pool we have now (which realistically would only be beginning to fill out all the minor traits like Beorning). Will you still be able too come up with good ready effects then? Even Trololo claiming 10 designs would still not have enough to double the card pool. (We have more than 10 ready effects now).

My argument is that it's harder to fix the issue the more cards you make. FetaCheese rightly said that the encounter decks are designed with the player cards in mind. New player cards are also designed based on what already exists.

We should make the change sooner (and so have better cards designed from now) rather than when we have no choice - otherwise we'll end up with a second edition.

Had to sign in one more time for this. Rapier is so right. UC needs errata, long before others, save Dain perhaps. And both seem actually very easy to me. UC limit one per deck. One per hero is not nearly enough, it still compares terribly to Steed of the Mark then. And I do want to play the Steed and not feel like an idiot. One per deck is simple. One-core-set players will be happy, too.

Plus, even the errata may be optional. I do not want to make it hard on new players. Play without errata of the strong cards like Beravor or UC (in the future, we hope) till you get better at it and your card pool grows.

Dain, another easy fix, it seems. Make it only work for allies, just like the Battle Master. The card then remains very strong but it comes with an important drawback in the early game.

Well, I am off again. Enjoy everyone!

Leave UC alone.

Limit 1 per deck suggestion is stupid. Limit 1 per deck is for borderline strong cards, not "simply strong ones that somehow limit the design space".

Limit 1 per deck cards are essentially unplayable since you will rarely draw them. Completely unreliable.

Generally speaking we need less armchair designers in this forum.

Limit 1 per deck cards are essentially unplayable since you will rarely draw them. Completely unreliable.

Generally speaking we need less armchair designers in this forum.

This seems a bit harsh on the actual designers.

You seem to be implying that limit 1 per deck is such an awful design that only fan designers would come up with it.

But the actual designers have put this in the game three times now. I don't think a single "armchair designer" came up with or suggested the limit one per deck concept until it was already in the game.

I also think that it's not bad design at all, as a limiter on a card of strong power. It makes the powerful effect require additional cards to become reliable (fetch cards, card draw).

I'm not implying it, facts are facts.

2 of the 3 cards are essentially unplayable and Black Arrow is a nifty little gimmick but not much else. There are a nice little experiment but are weak overall. There is also evidence for the limited impact of these cards. UC cant be 1 per deck...Readying effects form the basis of most decks. They are just too important. One in 50 UC would be unplayable except for fringe decks like that Istari card that exhausts gandalf to search for 1 card..and it still wouldn't be worth it.

Since readying is vital to the game and all future ready effects would be weaker (since UC was nerfed), half the decks would include Boromir. Then everone would complain about Boromir they way we (I ) do about Glorfindel and we'd have more armchair designers asking for Boromir errata.... a devious cycle thatd never end, I can see it already. Player power level would grow so much weaker we'd be forced to dwarf our way out of the outlands (Funny how little UC Iis used in those decks but UC is the one to be called imbalanced). One core (foundational) card fixed to destabilise the whole game? No thanks. The developers know best.

I think limit 1 per deck isn't a bad idea. I use Fall of Gil-Galad all the time, it's a great card when you are building a deck with Fortune of Fate or Landroval.

Personally, I think it is very bad idea. I'm not fan of any of the 1 per deck cards - auto excludes.

I think limit 1 per deck isn't a bad idea. I use Fall of Gil-Galad all the time, it's a great card when you are building a deck with Fortune of Fate or Landroval.

Meh. Fall only works on destroyed heroes, not discarded ones, so no nifty Caldara or Boromir combos can be triggered that'd make it worthwhile. In a spirit heavy deck its not worth it because Fortune or Fate is expensive and FoGG isnt drawn consistently enough. Better threat reduction options here and even as a 1-of spirit has better options.

In tactics it cant be attached to Beorn hero, it doesn't work on Boromir and you are not guaranteed to have it when you need it. And if you need it you are doing it wrong, since you probably lost your decked out defender AND had to have a 5 cost Landroval in play or else the attacker will kill another hero next turn. I dare say expecting a hero to die is not a winning strategy in general at this moment (might change with a wider card pool). Besides, it really is a question of timing, which 1 per deck cards dont have. Readying shouldn't be that random.

Right now, FoGG works better in theory than in practice.

1 per deck is not that bad of design by iteself (though we would be much better off without it), but slapping it on a regular quality card is just insane. If you wan't UC to become 1 per deck, then it should cost 0 and give +1 to all stats to attached hero.

Plus, even the errata may be optional. I do not want to make it hard on new players. Play without errata of the strong cards like Beravor or UC (in the future, we hope) till you get better at it and your card pool grows.

Given that new players generally do not buy two core sets right away, UC already is limited to 1 per deck implicitly. This whole discussion really only affects those people that have more than one (ideally, three) core sets. This might be the majority of people on this forum but probably just a small fraction of all people who own this LCG in the real world.

I'm not implying it, facts are facts.

2 of the 3 cards are essentially unplayable and Black Arrow is a nifty little gimmick but not much else. There are a nice little experiment but are weak overall. There is also evidence for the limited impact of these cards. UC cant be 1 per deck...Readying effects form the basis of most decks. They are just too important. One in 50 UC would be unplayable except for fringe decks like that Istari card that exhausts gandalf to search for 1 card..and it still wouldn't be worth it.

Some armchair players around here? Who are you actually kidding Fetta? I think there are quite a few players who insert certain cards into a deck just once. I can speak for myself, I do this very often and it works. Card draw, search, deck-building? Fetching attachments have becomes especially easy. I do have Black Arrow in my Silvan deck with Master of the Forge in there. I think I have the card out in at least 67% of the games. And the card makes a difference almost every time it is in play.

I think you're being quite too hasty with the keyboard.

1 per deck is not that bad of design by iteself (though we would be much better off without it), but slapping it on a regular quality card is just insane. If you wan't UC to become 1 per deck, then it should cost 0 and give +1 to all stats to attached hero.

Just silly, really. Hard to believe you play this game at all.

1 per deck is not that bad of design by iteself (though we would be much better off without it), but slapping it on a regular quality card is just insane. If you wan't UC to become 1 per deck, then it should cost 0 and give +1 to all stats to attached hero.

I agree. In fact, i dont see UC overpowered. A lot of times one player put in table one copy of them saying 'who wants?' and nobody ask for it.

I think UC likes a lot the new players with his first CORE set, and some Adventure Pack of 1st cycle

And, of course, nerfing UC won't hurt anything. Except the very inexperienced players, maybe, as I said above. Fetta, you completely contradict your two arguments. In one you state that the broken decks do not use Courage, in the other you say that nerfing it would destroy the game. One can make a great deck without Courgage, no problem. No need for the Tactics Boromir either. Just browse the strategy sections here and there a little. I have not been using it -- at all -- because it seems like cheating. But I would like to use it legitimately, following the rules. The game would only gain for it as the designing space would gain breath.

1 per deck is not that bad of design by iteself (though we would be much better off without it), but slapping it on a regular quality card is just insane. If you wan't UC to become 1 per deck, then it should cost 0 and give +1 to all stats to attached hero.

I agree. In fact, i dont see UC overpowered. A lot of times one player put in table one copy of them saying 'who wants?' and nobody ask for it.

I think UC likes a lot the new players with his first CORE set, and some Adventure Pack of 1st cycle

Wow, how do you people play the game? So here we have another point of view, this one claiming it is actually a useless card. Interesting. But it supports my argument that the card is not essential to win games, yes. The point remains, it is ridiculous in comparison with other readying attachments, especially Steed of the Mark. But others, including events, too, even though they do not come off the same sphere.

For example, yesterday in Dunland Trap 4 players. All of us at the limit, in 3b, with a lot of Dunland enemies...

Players had the next heroes:

1. (me) Glorfindel spirit · Denethor · Idraen

2. Beorn · Eowyn · Frodo

3. Elladan · Elrohir · Eleanor

4. Balin · Dain · Sam

The player with twins + eleanor put into play the UC saying 'who wants?' , and the other players reply 'don't you have something tactics?', lol. We prefered something that increases our attack or tactics events with direct damage instead UC. Of course, we had plenty of enemies. And he was the only player with tactic cards (we wanted tactics cards, no UC), and the player with Beorn didnt have any tactic card (for example, he play Emery hability) in deck.

Reasons: Glorfindel had Valinor, Idraen always can be ready (a lot of ways to explore locations during the game), Denethor..., ok it could be good, but we needed kill enemies just now!

Beorn, can't be attached, Eowyn (are you kidding me?), Frodo...poor player, he had 40 threat atm

Elladan, useless... he had not weapons, Eleanor...pfffffffff, Elrohir..., it was the better option, but he could get one miruvor of mine, and parting gifts from balin (he had 7 resources on him)

Balin... for?, Sam... what? Dain ..., finally we attached UC on him cause of his high defense and hitpoints, but only because the player with UC hadn't any tactics card in hand (and true, in fact, Dain didnt need UC for the rest of the game).

This is good example how UC is worse than other cards:

Miruvor on Elrohir : for 1 cost you can ready the hero 2 times (using his ability of paying because miruvor also gives you a res)

UC: for 2 cost you can ready the hero only 1 time

...yes ok, Miruvor only is for 1 ocassional use, and UC if for all the game..., but the games usually are of 4 or 5 rounds, no more. And you dont need ready the same hero each round.

In some moments, the hero hurry be ready just this round, and sometimes UC is too expensive to put into play so fast..., Miruvor then is more better.

And, of course, nerfing UC won't hurt anything. Except the very inexperienced players, maybe, as I said above. Fetta, you completely contradict your two arguments. In one ythat the broken decks do not use Courage, in the other you say that nerfing it would destroy the game. One can make a great deck without Courgage, no problem. No need for the Tactics Boromir either. Just browse the strategy sections here and there a little. I have not been using it -- at all -- because it seems like cheating. But I would like to use it legitimately, following the rules. The game would only gain for it as the designing space would gain breath.

I do not see the contradiction here because UC to me isnt just about power levels but rather the variety in deckbuilding that'd be lost if it got nerfed.

What I meant was that UC allows decks that aren't Dwarves and Outlands to bridge the gap with those tier 1 decks that rarely use UC themselves (since UC isn't as gamebreaking as you make it sound). Players would have to come up with alternatives due to UC being 1 per deck, so other reading effects would become much more precious, Boromir being king among them and one of the most played heroes already. UC being nerfed ruins the game because its VITAL to the game's variety with the current card pool being limited as it is. Gandalf/Elrind decks, outlands and dwarves would be unchanged practically, while everytning else would suffer. Whole deck archetypes could potentially be erased, like superhero attachment ones.

UC restricting design space is mostly a myth. All readying attachements except for steed of the mark have found their place in decks and there is more mount support incoming for rohan decks. Afterall not all cards can be equal. Changing UC now is to the game's detriment at this point in time. The game is balanced around it.

UC feels like cheating? Really? Then what does Dain and Outlands feel like? Why does noone argue against Test of Will, a much more powerful card that is essential in the majority of decks and which is still to this day UNIQUE while UC is not? What about Blue Mountain Trader?

Edit: I assure you I play this game a lot. A LOT. And I have never felt UC broke the game. Powerful yes but not broken. Hell sometimes, I dont even bother putting all 3 copies in a deck, I often use just 1 or 2 and its more than enough, so my experience says its not in need of errata. But I am not a spike type of player. I dont combo it with Dain.

Plus, even the errata may be optional. I do not want to make it hard on new players. Play without errata of the strong cards like Beravor or UC (in the future, we hope) till you get better at it and your card pool grows.

If the designers make the UC limitation errata optional (as in the FAQ saying: "you can apply this rule if you want") then what is the point of the whole operation?

Obviously, the co-op nature renders all the erratas and rulings de facto optional, but the whole point of the official updates is to keep a unified framework for the community and for the designers. If we explicitly adopt the "use this rule if you want" into the official rules then what will the default position for future design, rulings etc be? Seems unnecessarily confusing.

Perhaps the idea is to create an expanded easy mode which does or does not incorporate certain erratas. But then the easy mode gets less streamlined, which is to the detriment of beginner players.

Just silly, really. Hard to believe you play this game at all.

Lol!

Try harder, kiddo.

UC is pretty valuable in attachment decks. If you want to get rid of that archetype you are entitled to your opinion.

The more I think about it (and knowing full well this can never happen), the more I think that UC really should be an event. I'd probably like to see it as a 0 cost event that readies a hero you control. Here's why:

It is probably most comparable to Cram and Swift And Silent. Swift and silent trades a resource cost for the added secrecy effect of keeping the card, potentially making it the better card in that type of deck. Cram can be put onto any hero in play, but must be played in the planning phase onto a pre-chosen target. The drawback of only targeting heroes you control allows Cram and other Leadership effects to reign in multiplayer situations, giving Leadership a bit more ownership over the readying mechanic - which I actually think would be good for the spheres. This version of UC may still turn out to be a shoe-in for Spirit, but far less game-changing and taking up a card slot which might be better used by more specialized cards, especially in other spheres (Cram, Swift&Silent, Behind Strong Walls, etc.).

Thematically, I think it makes more sense to play UC as an event, since it would be more unexpected to play directly from the hand to aid a specific situation and in multiplayer could "unexpectedly" turn the tide of a battle or quest from the perspective of other players.

If 0 cost turns out to be too cheap, and 1 is too much, I'd look at adding either "... and raise your threat by 1" or "... then add UC to your victory display". UC is still an iconic effect and I'd hate to over complicate it unnecessarily.

That's my say. Let the flaming commence.