What I would love to see in the next FAQ:

1. a comprehensive timing chart, with a better granularity than what we have. This would definitely (or greatly help) solve issues like this one: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/127028-official-answer-the-ring-draws-them-frodos-cancellation/
2. this is related to (1): a better description of in play/not in play status of cards during the sequence of play (as normal or shadow cards, i.e. the status of active/inactive text), this would solve questions related such as http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/125830-goblin-sniper-triggers-for-itself/ and http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94570-troll-purse-and-troll-key-drawn-as-shadow-cards/

GoT and CoC have had their rules clarified precisely because of timing ambiguity, and LOTR would benefit of this too.

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.

That idea has gone through my mind too, but no one wants that. Everyone want the repeatable effect. They just don't want it to get out of hand.

That idea has gone through my mind too, but no one wants that. Everyone want the repeatable effect. They just don't want it to get out of hand.

Really? I thought they want it to get out of hand as soon as they draw it.

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.

That idea has gone through my mind too, but no one wants that. Everyone want the repeatable effect. They just don't want it to get out of hand.

I think we should have a repeatable effect ready. It just shouldn't be:

2 cost.

Any hero.

Most of the ready effects that people are talking about in the game that have their place have multiple extra costs to them, like restricted or conditional ready (so you can't do any two actions, you have one of them dictated by the cards).

I do think the name is unfortunate, and would have been better on an event, but I can live with that.

Also people seem to be mistakenly believing that arguing that UC needs changing is to assume that it must be the worst card in the game. I do want UC changed, I want Steward Changed, I want Dain and Glorfindel changed (all weaker). I'm talking about UC in this thread because that's the topic in this thread right now.

Limit 1 per deck itself is a good addition to the game. Some players will never accept the unreliability. On the other and it opens up new card designs that are useful. Rivendell Minstrel can now fetch you Fall of Gil-Galad as well as a resource fixer in your deck for instance. So even though you might have only 1, you can fetch it with 3 other cards. Is it worth 4 slots for just fall? I don't think so myself, but the design potential is fairly clear.

Path of Need is far too powerful to include as a card design without a strong limitation though. In a 4 player game Path of need allows you to quest with 12 heroes and all of them remain ready. Alternatively it could let 12 heroes defend and then attack, (and then do something else if they can). This card just couldn't exist without a limitation as strong as one per deck.

There's a difference between a player being willing to use a card as a player preference, and the design having value to the game as a whole.

Also nerfing UC makes future ready effects easier to design not harder - that means more of them. It wouldn't destroy the strategy of having heroes you ready multiple times. It would just make it more varied and interesting (and therefore more different cards, and strategies, more emergent deck designs). UC is too basic a design to allow much room.

Dam, that clincge on UC and willful ignorance of all other flaws of the game. Dam.

Dam, that clincge on UC and willful ignorance of all other flaws of the game. Dam.

One thing after the other.

One thing after the other.

Would be true if UC would be connected to the other stuff somehow. But it's not.

Hands Upon the Bow should read:

Exhaust a character you control with ranged to immediately declare a ranged attack (and resolve this attack) against an enemy in the staging area. It gets +1 during this attack.

I mean you have your hands upon a bow? What will you do with it? Drop it and run with your sword into the staging area?
It would be a minor change but for example Bard would benefit from this because he would get his -2 defense bonus if this card would read like that.

I would like some revisions to the keywords on core set cards. The 'archer' keyword seems obsolete and should be replaced with 'ranger' or 'warrior' on horseback archer and silverlode archer (the horseback archer is probably not a ranger).

Edit: Nevermind, the "What if: Core Set Revisited" thread already raises that point.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/123002-what-if-core-set-revised/

Dam, that clincge on UC and willful ignorance of all other flaws of the game. Dam.

Is this about my post? Did you read it?

I know you struggle with long posts, here's the bit that's relevant.

Also people seem to be mistakenly believing that arguing that UC needs changing is to assume that it must be the worst card in the game. ... I'm talking about UC in this thread because that's the topic in this thread right now.

UC isn't the worst thing in the game at all. Wanting to change it is a recognition of a problem. Not the denial of all other problems.

Yep, it's just it's not the first time you talk about the UC, and when I try to recollect anything you've talked about before - it's either Unexpected Courage or the Steward of Gondor. Mainly Courage, of coure. Yep, we have a pile of hardly usable cards across the board, but the root of evil are those two. And I do not struggle with long posts, I'm just getting tired and bored of reading War and Peace each time I drop a short sentence your way.

I personally think unusable cards are less in need of looking at. If a card is weak now it can be made better with changes to the encounter deck or the addition of other player cards to work with it.

Word of Command became more popular when more people wanted to run limit 1 per deck cards for instance.

I think the entire Dwarf trait needs some fixing as well, but unfortunately that's a lot more complicated. I actually think multiple dwarf traits would have been the way to go. The chance of that now is zero.

Variety of viable deck candidates creates a competition in the card pool, effectively lessening the amount by which stuff like UC shines among all else. For example, UC is the only Spirit core set attachment that is worth of any attention at all.

I personally think unusable cards are less in need of looking at. If a card is weak now it can be made better with changes to the encounter deck or the addition of other player cards to work with it.

*COFF**COFF*guard of the citadel*COFF**COFF*

( and other ...)

*COFF**COFF*guard of the citadel*COFF**COFF*

( and other ...)

Yea, Guard of the Citadel has the same stats, same cost, same sphere, and largely the same traits as Pelargir Ship Captain, who has a generally useful ability (and still isn't played much). Guard of the Citadel and generally any card that has nothing but a quote in the text box should be given something so that they are actually useful. The only way to make him useful is for a quest to specifically target allies with special abilities, which just seems silly to me.

What about Guard of the Citadel?

Yes he's probably the weakest gondor ally. However all you really need to fix him would be a gondor themed leadership card that wanted warrior allies.

(There's 3, but Guard is the only one in leadership).

He's possibly the most contentious card for you to choose though.

Pelagir ship captain being identical except it loses the warrior trait, and gains a very nice resource fixer action.

So to increase the value of Guard of the Citadel requires a tie in card to the warrior trait and leadership. Alternatively you could just accept that Guard is always second best to Pelagir but have a card that makes you want multiple 2 cost leadership gondor allies.

Edit: Joezim007 posted before me but I started writing my post first! (I just left it for 40 minutes to eat )

You gave me an idea:

Love that image MNT. The ability is cool... though it doesn't really synergize with anything. That's not a deal breaker, but if we're going back to fix cards, we should try to make them fit.

That image is of a Feint

The point of ability was to ensure the card's long lasting usefulness regardless of anything. Being viable in and out of the core set, in and out of the gondor deck.

That image is of a Feint

I thought it looked familiar! It looks so much better on an ally ... especially zoomed in to show just the good guy... darn ugly bad guys.

The point of ability was to ensure the card's long lasting usefulness regardless of anything. Being viable in and out of the core set, in and out of the gondor deck.

Good point. 4 defense MAY be a bit high... but it's so hard to judge the power of a one-time effect.

I wouldn't call that Harad(?) fellow ugly. Just a different culture.

The point is that he comes out, defends something and lives to tell the tale. He's a guard after all. Let him do some real guarding.

You gave me an idea:

Sorry for the temporary thread derailment, but… where do you find the art and templates to make your own cards, MNT?

I search the web. Deviant art usually, but it's helluva hard to find something specific on that site.

I wouldn't call that Harad(?) fellow ugly. Just a different culture.

The point is that he comes out, defends something and lives to tell the tale. He's a guard after all. Let him do some real guarding.

He had 4 def, until he took an arrow to the knee and become a guard... so cliché...

You gave me an idea:

Sorry for the temporary thread derailment, but… where do you find the art and templates to make your own cards, MNT?

For the templates, you can find the Photoshop templates on BoardGameGeek.com. They were made by GeckoTH. I don't have the direct link right now or I would give it to you.

You can also try the Strange Eons buider.