Let me know how your "ultimate, all-powerful, it breaks the game" deck does against The Master's Malice, then we can talk about errata.

http://hallofbeorn.com/Cards/Details/The-Master's-Malice-HoN

Seriously?

Well danpoage, if you have readen anything in this threat I'd suppose you would understand that this topic has arisen because by the introduction of Tactics Aragorn the combat part of the game has become 'trivial'. Since Master's Malice has nothing to do with combat, It might be more useful to not reply on the topic if you are not able to contribute anything to the discussion,

Back to the topic, I've been thinking some more about the complete issue and the major issue is the engaging part of Aragorn. Since Merry and Brand always were in trouble on the engaging/defending part it didn't tend to be broken. Now Tactics Aragorn is introduced, this part has been solved and by consequence we are left with some deck mechanic that is too strong for the game. My first thoughts were solving it by just Aragorn, since changing Merry would allow the same combo with Brand, and changing Brand would allow the combo with Merry. So changing Aragorn would definitely be an improvement for the game, but like joezim007 suggested it might be even necessary that all 3 get a change.

Greetings Jban

Errata for this game is a super tough call without any clear guidelines or answers to be had. In general, I'm in favor of most repeatable abilities being limited to at least once per phase as a general rule just to prevent any opportunity for abuse. But then once they're printed, I tend to be much more reluctant to want them errata'd in order to limit the errata as much as possible. Having dozens of cards whose text doesn't match what is printed is not ideal.

I think we can all generally agree that errata should be applied to those card effects that are "broken", but that's where the problem lies. What do we define as "broken"? Some things are easier to define as broken, like endless loop effects (i.e. Blue Mountain Trader) that ruin the integrity of the game. But other effects are simply super powerful. Are they broken? Hard to say. Again, it depends on if you define a super powerful effect as being broken or not. It's possible, for example, to construct a dedicated location control deck that renders locations essentially trivial, and the same is nearly true for treacheries. The ridiculousness possible with top-tier Dwarf decks is still quite insane and many players have stopped playing those decks not because they are not as overpowered as ever, but because it got boring.

I guess what I'll say in closing is that the biggest room for abuse lies in card draw and readying effects. For example, I still believe that Legacy of Durin should have been a once per round draw, so perhaps I shouldn't be too contrary to other limitations. Still, perhaps it's best to wait a bit. Lost Realm is fresh out and I think any errata should only be applied after time has passed and there's been a chance to really flesh out the implications.

I see this deck like thicket-hama. Strong, interesting...but if you play a lot of games with same deck, you will feel booring.

Can any treachery break this combo (for example, when revealed: discard your resources?) yes, but also the combo merry-aragorn (for example, each enemy gets 0 engagement cost).

I'm curious how this deck would do against the recently announced Across the Ettenmoors scenario where there are 10+ trolls that all have 10+ HP/DEF. They tend to have high engagement, but it'll be hard to kill them in one attack.

Master's Malice Kills Pippin dead, reducing the effectiveness of Merry and removing your best source of repeatable card draw. This was just one card, off the top of my head, but there are many other encounter cards that would cause serious issues with your deck. I have been reading this thread, and I understand the argument that you are trying to make. I agree that the deck will be very powerful against some scenarios, like many decks. It will also struggle mightily against some quests. I disagree that the deck trivializes combat for all quests, which is the generalization that you are implying when you lobby for errata. Master's Malice is just one example of a card that will completely cripple your deck. That point IS absolutely relevant to whether or not Tactics Aragorn needs errata, because you are using this deck list to make your argument.

3-4 players games are part of the LOTR LCG: not the only aspect of it, but surely not one that can be ignored.

That is one of your main point in the argument... and it is strongly faillable.

All quest are, indeed, printed so 4 players can play this game. But too many quest are insanely boring or impossible in 4-players and even few of them can failed miserably.

The rest, we all exchanged our point of view and are currently locked in quoting ourself all over again...

"What do we define as "broken"?"



This definetly is a good question, and one I think deserves its own thread. Maybe we should open a new one?





"It's possible, for example, to construct a dedicated location control deck that renders locations essentially trivial, and the same is nearly true for treacheries."



Interesting point, even if I don't think it's accurate. You can build decks that make locations trivial (mainly by using trackers and Asfaloth, since other effects are not so powerful to the point of allowing you to clear all locations in a 4p game on your own) but they rely upon a few specialised cards and take time to setup - and you also need to draw those cards.
On the other hand, for treacheries, you have only 3 cards in a deck + Eleanor (who cannot be said to nullify treacheries, since she forces you to reveal a new card if you you cancel one) and 3 cards to fetch them from discard (Dwarven Tomb). Not enough to nullify treacheries, by a long shot.
For example, Hama + Thicket + Hammerstroke + Merry (+ Rohan Warhorse) more or less makes combat trivial when it is setup but the need for setup (and a long one, for that matter) is what I think prevents it from being broken.


"The ridiculousness possible with top-tier Dwarf decks is still quite insane and many players have stopped playing those decks not because they are not as overpowered as ever, but because it got boring. "

True, but we're again talking about another kind of deck(s) that is (supposed?) to be broken. However, this doesn't help in determining whether Merry+Tactagorn is: I think you're arguing "if thing x, that was so strong, was not errata'd I see no point in errata-ing this one". I know it's an interesting point to consider, but it's not the main point now.

Allow me to explain: I think by calling dwarf decks overpowered you're clearly putting them aside from most other decks, as far as power level goes; however, what I'm missing is: do you agree that this deck is super-powerful, much more than most of the other (combat) decks? So much that it can be called "overpowered"?

As soon as we reach an agreement on this we can talk about how it compares to other broken/almost-broken decks etc. etc. but, as of now, a lot of people is arguing that this is not powerful to the point of being overpowered, thus not deserving being considered for errata (see Danpoage, for example).

"I guess what I'll say in closing is that the biggest room for abuse lies in card draw and readying effects."

Completely agree on this one.

"Still, perhaps it's best to wait a bit. Lost Realm is fresh out and I think any errata should only be applied after time has passed and there's been a chance to really flesh out the implications."

A fair point.

Still, beginning to consider errata as an option is surely a good thing, so that we can focus on how this (and other similiar decks) perform.

@Teamjimby

"I'm curious how this deck would do against the recently announced Across the Ettenmoors scenario where there are 10+ trolls that all have 10+ HP/DEF. They tend to have high engagement, but it'll be hard to kill them in one attack."

Pretty well I think: all it takes is 2 weapons and/or mighty prowess and/or unseen strike. One Dagger + Merry means you already have 8 attack, reaching 10 is not so hard.

@alogos

"That is one of your main point in the argument... and it is strongly faillable.

All quest are, indeed, printed so 4 players can play this game. But too many quest are insanely boring or impossible in 4-players and even few of them can failed miserably."

We start from very different positions then, so I agree we will not reach commong ground on this matter. However, this has nothing to with Tactagorn's issue, it relates to our different way of seeing 4p games in LOTR LCG instead.

Last but not least..

@Danpoage

"Master's Malice Kills Pippin dead, reducing the effectiveness of Merry and removing your best source of repeatable card draw."

True.

However, this argument is completely off the mark because:

1) This is a weakness shared by many decks (namely, all decks that have two 3hp(or less) heroes in different spheres.

2) Another copy of this treachery will kill most decks right away and at that point is game over. You can say that drawing two is not likely, I'm saying that it can happen. Using the same kind of reasoning you used (namely, one that doesn't take into account treachery cancellation and chance - also see point 4), every deck will fail when pitted against Siege of Cair Andros, Assault on Osgiliath and The Morgul's Vale (the 3 quests featuring MM, unless I'm wrong).

3) Even a single copy of master's malice will cripple a lot of decks, ally-wise. Again, not a specific Tactagorn+Merry weakness.

4) Treachery cancellation exists and is pretty much needed when playing against the aforementioned quests, since otherwise you'll have almost no hope of victory. Considered this, it's only a matter of prioritizing cancelling MM rather than something else - not a big issue, since MM is a treachery you actually need to cancel, whether playing with this deck or not.

5) The core of this deck is formed by Tactagorn + Merry. This deck easily works even without Pippin, even if it will surely run slower. Unless Master Malice is revealed in the first round and not canceled, you'll have time to draw some ards and possibly playing a Fast Hitch, so that he will have completed his main taks.

6) Going quest-specific: if you want to pick another hero knowing you'll play against this quest it will slow the deck down but it surely will not deprive it of its main strengths (for example, I have a deck with Frodo instead of Pippin: it doesn't run as well as the one with Pippin but it is sturdier and would not be hurt by MM, while still benefitting from the core mechanics). Since we're talking about 3 specific quests, I think I'm allowed to take into account that in all those quests enemies tend to have very high engagement costs, so losing Pippin's bonus and Take no Notice would not be a huge blow. Alternatively, I can play Boots from Erebor and Ring Mail to boost Pippin's health.

Finally, you have to consider how other decks will cope with all the difficulties these quests present: sure, things won't run as smoothly for Tactagorn as if you were playing Journey along the Anduin, but for what deck they will, playing such quests?

"This was just one card, off the top of my head, but there are many other encounter cards that would cause serious issues with your deck."

In a game with tons of cards making up the various encounters decks I'm not surprised one comes off the top of your head. If you can find another 15-20 all in different quests then it will be interesting, so far it's not so helpful.

However, the points I made above make this approach quite sterile, unless you can prove that they are flawed or that those cards target specifically Tactagorn's or Merry's ability.

"I have been reading this thread, and I understand the argument that you are trying to make. I agree that the deck will be very powerful against some scenarios, like many decks."

If you're stating this, it either means you've misread my and Jban's posts in this thread or that you haven't tried the deck for yourself - likely both. This deck fares way better than any deck aspiring to fulfill the same role in most quests (my statement was at most 8 out of over 40, that is more than 80%, and it hasn't been challenged so far). So, either prove us wrong or recognise we're right. I'm fine with either, but please refrain from making arbitrary statements.

"It will also struggle mightily against some quests. I disagree that the deck trivializes combat for all quests, which is the generalization that you are implying when you lobby for errata."

See point above, with the exception we never made the claim it does so for all quest but rather for the vast majority of them, and as far as combat is concerned .

"Master's Malice is just one example of a card that will completely cripple your deck. That point IS absolutely relevant to whether or not Tactics Aragorn needs errata, because you are using this deck list to make your argument. "

This is a fair point. In fact I don't think the problem with your "Master's Malice argument" is the fact that it targets this specific deck (even though it doesn't target its core mechanisms, so it's not completely accurate either): instead, I think it's a non-relevant objection because of all the points I listed above.

Bottom line: to use this - forgive me for this, but I cannot find better words - ridiculous statement to discredit our position with a lapidary sentence, after we performed the task of proving what we were saying by providing many reasons - whether you agree with us or not, I think you cannot deny we provided material for debate - felt rude and surely not in line with what I expected from such an experienced player and blogger.

Eu8L1ch :

If you read carefully all the posts in this thread, you must have somehow faced mines. There is just one argument that you still seem to ignore. Of course the deck is powerful, specific and powerful. Nobody, I think, denies it. However, trying to assess a kind of hierarchy in power between decks is a bit futile as linked to subjective considerations. And this (being powerful) is not for me a reason for errata.

The point that you seem to avoid is that the encounter cards difficulty is getting higher and higher (what I call powercreep). There is now tons of surge effect or shadow that brings additionnal shadow. There is normally a minimum of 3 treachery or when reveled effect in each quest that should for sure destroy 80% of the decks strategies if not cancelled. I recognize that I do not have figures and facts to prove what I say. But to be honnest, you are happy to see a shadow card "only" giving +1 att nowadays.

The fact that the new player cards are improving the power of player decks is, therefore, totaly natural for me. I will not try to compare Merry + Tactigorn vs Hama + Thicket of Spear, what I think is important to compare is Hama + Thicket of Spear vs Encounter most powerful cards at the time the cards (Hama+thicket) were released and now Merry +Tactigorn vs Encounter most powerful cards at the present time. Do you think the balance changed ? Really ?

Imagine next year, we will be discussing about the new Elrond Hero that can ready at the end of each phase, heal one point of damage each time he is readying and reducing threat by one each time an enemy is revealed.

The balance is important, and as good as the deck listed here is, it still does not suppress the happiness and the difficulty of playing the game (except may be for some early quests that can already be trivial with other decks). So I do not see any errata needed as I have seen one with blue mountain trader (it is not a question of power but of happiness to answer the question of what really deserve errata).

I am sure that you understand my point now (if you can understand my frenglish).

By the way, I am not sure I said it already, but good work in building this deck . We surely, in France, argued that the new dunedain Heroes would be hobbit friends, but we did not reach this build (just having the cards available today).

I think it is quite rude the way that both you and Jban responded and reacted to Danpoage's post and he deserves quite a bit of respect on these forums. His argument is perfectly valid and you both responded with very aggressive posts, you simply posted "seriously?" and Jban said that he should not post anything on the topic as nothing he said was helpful and he had clearly not read anything in this thread. You guys need to be a lot less aggressive with this whole errata for tactics aragorn campaign you're on, many people disagree even WITH all the facts and experience you guys are apparently presenting so just deal with it.

*Warning, this is totaly out of topic*

I think it is quite rude the way that both you and Jban responded and reacted to Danpoage's post and he deserves quite a bit of respect on these forums. His argument is perfectly valid and you both responded with very aggressive posts, you simply posted "seriously?" and Jban said that he should not post anything on the topic as nothing he said was helpful and he had clearly not read anything in this thread. You guys need to be a lot less aggressive with this whole errata for tactics aragorn campaign you're on, many people disagree even WITH all the facts and experience you guys are apparently presenting so just deal with it.

Seriously? /kidding.

In it's defense (Eu8L1ch), we don't all know who is Danpoage and what he has done. I do, because I follow the forum, but it is not attached and known fact for all humanity.

Moreover, his post (Danpoage) was quite acid, he is one of the few that just come and drop a "ah! let's see that!" kind of post. I don't find it perfectly valid, and quite undirect, and in fact, if he had read, Pippin is quite optionnal and out of the main problem. I was quite surprise it was actualy him saying this kind of comment.

I can't see how we can desagree on «the facts and experience» they (Eu8L1ch and Jban) had... are you trying to say because your will is stronger, their reality was distorted?

@Courchevel

"Of course the deck is powerful, specific and powerful. Nobody, I think, denies it. However, trying to assess a kind of hierarchy in power between decks is a bit futile as linked to subjective considerations . And this (being powerful) is not for me a reason for errata."

Courchevel, to be honest I appreciated you took care of building the deck and trying it, and appreciated most of your posts as well. Even if I don't agree with you since you think it doesn't deserve errata but I think it does, I think you provided some meaningful content.

However, this is the first time I read the bolded statement. Maybe I was unable to read between the lines of what you were saying, I'm not being ironic: it can happen. I re-read all of your posts in this thread but could not find any reference to this concept, so if I ignored this argument it was not on purpose.

However, I'll answer now: I think it is more objective than subjective since there are some criteria that, when met, make a deck more powerful than others. The fact that a given deck might be weaker against specific quests (at which other decks are more successful) is more a matter of a rock-paper-scissors balance, so kind of a circular hierarchy. But since this deck is weaker only against a few quests, it's not really a case of circular hierarchy IMO.

Can I prove the deck is stronger than others in a non-subjective way? I think I did, or at least attempted to and was not presented with strong arguments against what I was stating - again I'm talking about power level of the deck, not what should or shouldn't be errata'd: that is a much more subjective and complex matter.

"The point that you seem to avoid is that the encounter cards difficulty is getting higher and higher (what I call powercreep).[..]and reducing threat by one each time an enemy is revealed"

Same as above, I'll answer now: maybe in the future we'll have cards that will target this specific strategy, but so far this deck was able to trvialize combat even against recent or NM quests, that are not so "outdated" (this is the list provided by Jban: Breaking the Fellowship, Road to Rivendell Nightmare, Jouney along the Anduin, Journey along the Anduin Nightmare, Hunt for Gollum Nightmare, Massing at Osgiliath, Fog on the Barrow Downs, Foundations of Stone Nightmare; I haven't tried it yet with this specifc deck but only with similiar one, but I'm pretty confident this deck works wonders even against Dunland Trap, which is renowed for being one of the hardest non-NM quests for 4p).

I obviously agree with you there is power creep, even though I think it should be limited as much as possible - material for another thread though.

"I am sure that you understand my point now (if you can understand my frenglish)."

I think I did now, if not feel free to point me what I left out.

" good work in building this deck"

Credit goes to Jban, as he almost immediately realised this would be the best combo.

@PsychoRocka

"I think it is quite rude the way that both you and Jban responded and reacted to Danpoage's post and he deserves quite a bit of respect on these forums. His argument is perfectly valid and you both responded with very aggressive posts, you simply posted "seriously?""

What was wrong with Danpoage's post, as far as my perception of the issue goes, was both the content (the argument was not perfectly valid, and if you don't agree with my statement, just reply to the points I provided above - otherwise it's just your opinion, to which of course you're fully entitled but that doesn't help very much when trying to prove something ) and the tone. He didn't care to elaborate on what he said, he just threw down a single line pretending to dismiss the whole thread. If you don't think this is being rude, maybe I don't get the full meaning of the word since I'm not a native-speaker. Maybe disrespectful is more appropriate? I don't know, but I hope my point is clear.

BTW, while I was writing this, I had the chance to read alogos post: I think he nailed it. Thank you for being a gentleman, since despite the fact we don't agree you had it in you to write this.

@Raven

I'll answer later, have to go now.

We've established the deck's strength is more due to easy readying than to Aragorn. So it seems to me that the real problem is Merry. Sure there are other readying cards available, but his is built in and easily repeatable on the first turn. He also already has another broken combo with Brand, so if you are so set on errata, why not limit Merry's ability to once per phase? Why does it need to be Aragorn?

(Note that I don't think either should be errata'd. Dain, Glorfindel, and Gandalf would need to be nerfed before I would nerf either Aragorn or Merry.)

I like that you spend time to answer my post Eu8L1ch

So allow me to retort (retorque ?).

The linked subjective considerations I mentionned :

-you cannot claim the success for 4 players games just on 1 deck. Of course, the other decks are playing a role (even though less important), but we did not even have a clue of which decks you matched it with in your various tests (gandalf elrond glorfindel - galadriel legolas celeborn - Eowyn caldara frodo ?)

-beating a quest once or twice given the probability of different encounter and player deck shuffling (order ?), is not a proof of anything. Almost any quests can beat any decks (as good as they are) if you are not lucky. If you are not convinced, try it, let's your friends play the four decks and let's you play the encountered deck (chosing what is worst for them )

-selection of quests will also put the emphasis on some aspects that a precise deck can be well designed for (rhosgobel/healing, anduin/location, etc.)

-there will always be precise situations where a combination will be better than an other

So, I think the deck is strong, don't forget that !

But I think that going down the road of arguments of "this is a bit better than this in this situation" is vain as you can always find other type of situation and relative factors to ponderate your allegations. So basically, yes the deck is strong, but what the point in saying that it is better than other at handling an aspect of the game, you will only face tons of counter-arguments as this will rely on your feelings and the dozen or may be hundred of games you had with.

That said, it was just a note to avoid you spending time in producing convincing arguments to every one trying to say that it is facts that the deck is better. It is an impossible battle.

Though I do love Dom Quichotte : it is so beautiful when it is meaningless

The second part of the first paragraph that you quoted was the most meaningful of my comments though : power is not a reason for errata. But it seems that we disagree on that. It is though the most important aspect to discuss in order to determine wether errata material is reached.

Your second point regarding the powercreep was to (again) state that the deck is so strong against very difficult quests. So yes, the deck is strong against the most difficult quests as was Hama + thicket of spear in defeating durin's bane quest (and others) at its time which was one of the hardest quests.

So again, as long as we discuss the deck is strong : yes, I played it in various situations that gives me this feeling (I, though, do not have facts to assert it and prove it).

Please feel free to continue "proving" that this deck is so better than the others (I think you will waste your time though as everybody seems to agree that the deck is strong).

PS : did I forget to mention that the deck is strong

Edit : for the master malice discussion : all my consideration goes to the bear . Do not let us stop at the form of our discussion, it is so easy to mis-interprate or to take a word for an aggression.

Always look at the bright side of life

Edit2 : I manage to quote in a single post, Pulp Fiction, Cyrano de Bergerac and Monthy Pithon

I have little to add here (okay, nothing) but I've not visited the forums in ages and man...is this thread a doozy!

"What do we define as "broken"?"

This definetly is a good question, and one I think deserves its own thread. Maybe we should open a new one?

"It's possible, for example, to construct a dedicated location control deck that renders locations essentially trivial, and the same is nearly true for treacheries."

Interesting point, even if I don't think it's accurate. You can build decks that make locations trivial (mainly by using trackers and Asfaloth, since other effects are not so powerful to the point of allowing you to clear all locations in a 4p game on your own) but they rely upon a few specialised cards and take time to setup - and you also need to draw those cards.

On the other hand, for treacheries, you have only 3 cards in a deck + Eleanor (who cannot be said to nullify treacheries, since she forces you to reveal a new card if you you cancel one) and 3 cards to fetch them from discard (Dwarven Tomb). Not enough to nullify treacheries, by a long shot.

For example, Hama + Thicket + Hammerstroke + Merry (+ Rohan Warhorse) more or less makes combat trivial when it is setup but the need for setup (and a long one, for that matter) is what I think prevents it from being broken.

"The ridiculousness possible with top-tier Dwarf decks is still quite insane and many players have stopped playing those decks not because they are not as overpowered as ever, but because it got boring. "

True, but we're again talking about another kind of deck(s) that is (supposed?) to be broken. However, this doesn't help in determining whether Merry+Tactagorn is: I think you're arguing "if thing x, that was so strong, was not errata'd I see no point in errata-ing this one". I know it's an interesting point to consider, but it's not the main point now.

Allow me to explain: I think by calling dwarf decks overpowered you're clearly putting them aside from most other decks, as far as power level goes; however, what I'm missing is: do you agree that this deck is super-powerful, much more than most of the other (combat) decks? So much that it can be called "overpowered"?

As soon as we reach an agreement on this we can talk about how it compares to other broken/almost-broken decks etc. etc. but, as of now, a lot of people is arguing that this is not powerful to the point of being overpowered, thus not deserving being considered for errata (see Danpoage, for example).

"I guess what I'll say in closing is that the biggest room for abuse lies in card draw and readying effects."

Completely agree on this one.

"Still, perhaps it's best to wait a bit. Lost Realm is fresh out and I think any errata should only be applied after time has passed and there's been a chance to really flesh out the implications."

A fair point.

Still, beginning to consider errata as an option is surely a good thing, so that we can focus on how this (and other similiar decks) perform.

@Teamjimby

"I'm curious how this deck would do against the recently announced Across the Ettenmoors scenario where there are 10+ trolls that all have 10+ HP/DEF. They tend to have high engagement, but it'll be hard to kill them in one attack."

Pretty well I think: all it takes is 2 weapons and/or mighty prowess and/or unseen strike. One Dagger + Merry means you already have 8 attack, reaching 10 is not so hard.

@alogos

"That is one of your main point in the argument... and it is strongly faillable.

All quest are, indeed, printed so 4 players can play this game. But too many quest are insanely boring or impossible in 4-players and even few of them can failed miserably."

We start from very different positions then, so I agree we will not reach commong ground on this matter. However, this has nothing to with Tactagorn's issue, it relates to our different way of seeing 4p games in LOTR LCG instead.

Last but not least..

@Danpoage

"Master's Malice Kills Pippin dead, reducing the effectiveness of Merry and removing your best source of repeatable card draw."

True.

However, this argument is completely off the mark because:

1) This is a weakness shared by many decks (namely, all decks that have two 3hp(or less) heroes in different spheres.

2) Another copy of this treachery will kill most decks right away and at that point is game over. You can say that drawing two is not likely, I'm saying that it can happen. Using the same kind of reasoning you used (namely, one that doesn't take into account treachery cancellation and chance - also see point 4), every deck will fail when pitted against Siege of Cair Andros, Assault on Osgiliath and The Morgul's Vale (the 3 quests featuring MM, unless I'm wrong).

3) Even a single copy of master's malice will cripple a lot of decks, ally-wise. Again, not a specific Tactagorn+Merry weakness.

4) Treachery cancellation exists and is pretty much needed when playing against the aforementioned quests, since otherwise you'll have almost no hope of victory. Considered this, it's only a matter of prioritizing cancelling MM rather than something else - not a big issue, since MM is a treachery you actually need to cancel, whether playing with this deck or not.

5) The core of this deck is formed by Tactagorn + Merry. This deck easily works even without Pippin, even if it will surely run slower. Unless Master Malice is revealed in the first round and not canceled, you'll have time to draw some ards and possibly playing a Fast Hitch, so that he will have completed his main taks.

6) Going quest-specific: if you want to pick another hero knowing you'll play against this quest it will slow the deck down but it surely will not deprive it of its main strengths (for example, I have a deck with Frodo instead of Pippin: it doesn't run as well as the one with Pippin but it is sturdier and would not be hurt by MM, while still benefitting from the core mechanics). Since we're talking about 3 specific quests, I think I'm allowed to take into account that in all those quests enemies tend to have very high engagement costs, so losing Pippin's bonus and Take no Notice would not be a huge blow. Alternatively, I can play Boots from Erebor and Ring Mail to boost Pippin's health.

Finally, you have to consider how other decks will cope with all the difficulties these quests present: sure, things won't run as smoothly for Tactagorn as if you were playing Journey along the Anduin, but for what deck they will, playing such quests?

"This was just one card, off the top of my head, but there are many other encounter cards that would cause serious issues with your deck."

In a game with tons of cards making up the various encounters decks I'm not surprised one comes off the top of your head. If you can find another 15-20 all in different quests then it will be interesting, so far it's not so helpful.

However, the points I made above make this approach quite sterile, unless you can prove that they are flawed or that those cards target specifically Tactagorn's or Merry's ability.

"I have been reading this thread, and I understand the argument that you are trying to make. I agree that the deck will be very powerful against some scenarios, like many decks."

If you're stating this, it either means you've misread my and Jban's posts in this thread or that you haven't tried the deck for yourself - likely both. This deck fares way better than any deck aspiring to fulfill the same role in most quests (my statement was at most 8 out of over 40, that is more than 80%, and it hasn't been challenged so far). So, either prove us wrong or recognise we're right. I'm fine with either, but please refrain from making arbitrary statements.

"It will also struggle mightily against some quests. I disagree that the deck trivializes combat for all quests, which is the generalization that you are implying when you lobby for errata."

See point above, with the exception we never made the claim it does so for all quest but rather for the vast majority of them, and as far as combat is concerned .

"Master's Malice is just one example of a card that will completely cripple your deck. That point IS absolutely relevant to whether or not Tactics Aragorn needs errata, because you are using this deck list to make your argument. "

This is a fair point. In fact I don't think the problem with your "Master's Malice argument" is the fact that it targets this specific deck (even though it doesn't target its core mechanisms, so it's not completely accurate either): instead, I think it's a non-relevant objection because of all the points I listed above.

Bottom line: to use this - forgive me for this, but I cannot find better words - ridiculous statement to discredit our position with a lapidary sentence, after we performed the task of proving what we were saying by providing many reasons - whether you agree with us or not, I think you cannot deny we provided material for debate - felt rude and surely not in line with what I expected from such an experienced player and blogger.

At no point in my comments was I trying to be rude. If it came across that way, I apologize. I enjoy a healthy debate - the last thing I want is to talk with a bunch of people who only agree with me, and the forums never disappoint me in that regard. If anyone takes my comments on this thread as more than just friendly debate, then they are reading into a subtext which is quite simply not present. As for your counter-arguments, it is all well and good to say that Master's Malice wrecks many decks (it does). That was not my point. Let me try to make my point crystal clear, since we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. Nothing in this game can be judged in a vacuum. You say that Tactics Aragorn can make combat in multi-player trivial and you provide a deck list. Without the deck list there can be no real argument, as talking about a card in isolation is meaningless. Using the deck list that you provided as your argument, I gave you a single card that would cause serious problems to your "trivializing combat" strategy. I am NOT arguing about whether Master's Malice hurts other decks - that is besides the point. I am arguing that it is an example of a card (Local Trouble is another) that will cause serious problems for your deck. If you don't believe my argument is valid until I have a dozen more examples of cards that wreck your deck, so be it, I may find the time to come up with a list. The broader point to me is this: every deck has weaknesses, some decks have more than others. For a card to be broken to the point of needing errata it would have to be shown to consistently break the fun/difficulty balance of the game. I HAVE played a deck in four player which is similar (though not identical) to your list in multi-player against The Lost Realm. I am not ready to declare Tactics Aragorn (or Merry, Brand, Rohan Warhorse, etc.) in need of errata until I have played it against more scenarios. My intuition tells me that your deck (or mine, or some as-yet unknown derivation) is always going to struggle against a certain class of scenarios. The engagement effects of some enemies in Heirs of Numenor represent an entire class of problem for this deck as Aragorn's effect does not count as optional engagement, so you get the worse of the enemy's forced effect.

I honestly don't know how productive this discussion is going to be, as you seem to be very emotional in your responses and are taking comments that I made in good faith as some kind of trolling. I am not trolling, and if it offends you that some of my comments are short, it is because I don't always have time to leave a lengthy response like this one. I do hope that you take my comments at face value and do not try to read any maliciousness into them. As for Tactics Aragorn, I really do feel that errata is an extreme measure, and that it would take many more games, against many different kinds of scenarios, with different numbers of players, before it would be prudent to make such a claim. It is amusing that you would accuse me of not having played your deck. I was playing a proxied version of the "Tactics Aragorn kills everything" deck long before the Lost Realm was even released. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean that they are ignorant. I respect your opinion in this matter. I happen to disagree with you, but I absolutely understand where you are coming from. Time will tell if Tactics Aragorn is indeed too strong, but issuing errata for a hero is something that has to be done with the utmost care, and only when absolutely necessary. Tactics Aragorn has not been part of the metagame long enough to adequately judge him in this regard and it would be a shame to jump to conclusions and cripple him so hastily.

I agree that designers should be using the "Limit X per round." more often on characters, but I'd issue an errata correction on a card only when it brokes the game in 1 of 2 ways:

1. regarding rules (ex. A Elbereth Gilthoniel, Feint)
2. breaks the game experience with any kind of infinite loop (ex. Will of the West, Blocking Wargs)

This leaves Taragorn out of the FAQs. And Terry. And should have left some cards that have received errata corrections too (Zigil Miner).

We have plenty of powerfull decks in the game already, specially in 3 and 4 player games where you can "absorb" more wrong decissions and bad draws from the Encounter, but all of them are vulnerable in both solo and two player modes. This deck is another one, a step above, but at the cost of building other decks complimenting it. I don't know what would happen in your game group, but in mine, this kind of game would be played once. A "de facto" ban.

Edit: correct the "erratas"

I agree that designers should be using the "Limit X per round." more often on characters, but I'd issue an errata correction on a card only when it brokes the game in 1 of 2 ways:

1. regarding rules (ex. A Elbereth Gilthoniel, Feint)
2. breaks the game experience with any kind of infinite loop (ex. Will of the West, Blocking Wargs)

This leaves Taragorn out of the FAQs. And Terry. And should have left some cards that have received errata corrections too (Zigil Miner).

We have plenty of powerfull decks in the game already, specially in 3 and 4 player games where you can "absorb" more wrong decissions and bad draws from the Encounter, but all of them are vulnerable in both solo and two player modes. This deck is another one, a step above, but at the cost of building other decks complimenting it. I don't know what would happen in your game group, but in mine, this kind of game would be played once. A "de facto" ban.

Edit: correct the "erratas"

I just wanted to add that I completely agree with Karagh on this point about more triggers having limits. As I see it, if any cards in the posted deck need errata it would be Merry and Brand son of Bain (played by another deck, obviously). This is especially true because Aragorn is only hitting for 4 (with his passive) on his own, which is not nearly enough to kill most enemies. The game's best weapons (other than Support of the Eagles and Gondorian Fire) don't really work on Aragorn so he needs the help of Merry and/or Brand to finish off enemies, trigger his ability and ready. It really is an ingenious strategy, and one that I quite enjoyed maximizing in my own version of the deck. However, if you were to limit the number of times that Merry and/or Brand could trigger their ability, the whole "engage everything" aspect of the combo completely breaks. I don't know if a limit of once per round would be overkill, but it seems worth considering. The fact that they can be used together to attack every enemy in play (assuming the right engagement tricks and all enemies are within their kill threshold) really highlights the need for limits on these abilities. Without built-in readying Tactics Aragorn's ability just doesn't seem problematic, as it does not avoid the attacks themselves (unless you can somehow leave all enemies in staging) and it still requires him to actually defeat the enemies (which requires other cards in support). For those arguing for Tactics Aragorn to receive errata, my question is this: why not Merry/Brand instead?

It seems to me the deck has amazing synergy and raises the issue of ANY card that has unlimited effect to use its action, and should this be a thing that FFG keep a very close eye on in the future. "Exhausting" does not limit this ability to once per round, and this is an important lesson that should have been learnt by now many times over, as the player base's ability to fully utilise/abuse these mechanics has been shown time and time again, thus if any erata was to happen, imo Merry is the target and nobody else.

With that being said

As strong as this deck is, I have had the pleasure of trying it, as a friend of mine was putting together almost exactly the same thing, both this and a spirit variant so it could run test of will. the net result is, its okay but it does have limits, as said any deck that is location heavy (so thats basicly the first 18 quests in the game then) anything with big enemies it cant one shot, anything with a very small number of enemies, anything that force engages, when the other players are not running with this deck in mind. I mention this because in my main 4 man play group the role this deck would take we run Elves, i say this because Elves do not care, Elves quest when there is little combat, Elves like other decks to engage, it makes them more powerful, but can also run as the main and only combat deck, they say no to all forms of combat, blow stuff up in the planning, questing, engagement and before attacking, to say nothing of their ability to swat things everywhere after the enemies have had their opportunity to fight, and to date we have not found a quest they have failed against. perhaps i should repeat that last part, there is NO quest we have played where not only have we lost with an elf deck but that it has also usually propped up many other failing decks.

imo a combat based elf deck is WAY more powerful than this deck, yet there is zero conversation about if or how an elf deck should be erata'd.

This game of ours that i think we are all passionate about is unique in many ways, but also carries over from other games some things inherent in card games. One of these things is "power creep". In order to encourage players to play new cards the designers need to use "power creep", what makes lotr different is unlike competitive games there is nobody your playing against to encourage you to use these new cards because they are not, therefore also to encourage players to use new cards "power creep" must also be designed on the encounter side of the board. I praise FFG for making this more than a simple numbers game and continuously introducing interesting mechanics but ultimately a numbers game it must become and we have seen enemies progressively both hit harder and survive harder hits. I mention all this because i think Aragorn is simply where attacking is concerned "at the top of this curve". But that is today, an erata for this game has never been undone (something i question in the light of the recent will of the west errata). We will get new hero's that will catch this up and the encounter deck will produce all the "natural counters" to this deck and then you will wonder what you were getting all het up about.

It feels to me this is a knee jerk reaction to what is quite a powerful deck idea but i dont belive it is at the top of the power curve for combat personally, or at least the "making enemies dead" power curve (elves dont do combat they just make things dead), in my personal experience of all the "making things dead" decks we have been trying out, elves hold that top slot and im yet to see any deck do it so consistently or so out of sequence saving every other deck in the process, so as said if your errataing this because of that, then you need to errata everything at or above its power level, and at that point we need to have a very VERY long conversation about exactly that namely power level.

To me Aragorn introduce a new way to play, such there is a lot yet.

At least this deck tactagorn-merry. Players focus his game around killing enemies from the back. There are other ways to kill enemies: for example, traps with rangers, direct combat like chump-gondors + eomer, imrahil, ranged shots by legolas,haldir, putting massive characters like dwarfs, hidding and defense like hobbits, .... with tactagorn, there is a new way to do it: attaking by back, like the good dunedains.

But each technic force to you and other players to load specific decks. Tactagorn+merry force other players to increase his wp, keep low threat and defense the enemies which scapes to the 'hidden siege' of tactagorn.

I agree that designers should be using the "Limit X per round." more often on characters, but I'd issue an errata correction on a card only when it brokes the game in 1 of 2 ways:

1. regarding rules (ex. A Elbereth Gilthoniel, Feint)
2. breaks the game experience with any kind of infinite loop (ex. Will of the West, Blocking Wargs)

This leaves Taragorn out of the FAQs. And Terry. And should have left some cards that have received errata corrections too (Zigil Miner).

We have plenty of powerfull decks in the game already, specially in 3 and 4 player games where you can "absorb" more wrong decissions and bad draws from the Encounter, but all of them are vulnerable in both solo and two player modes. This deck is another one, a step above, but at the cost of building other decks complimenting it. I don't know what would happen in your game group, but in mine, this kind of game would be played once. A "de facto" ban.

Edit: correct the "erratas"

I just wanted to add that I completely agree with Karagh on this point about more triggers having limits. As I see it, if any cards in the posted deck need errata it would be Merry and Brand son of Bain (played by another deck, obviously). This is especially true because Aragorn is only hitting for 4 (with his passive) on his own, which is not nearly enough to kill most enemies. The game's best weapons (other than Support of the Eagles and Gondorian Fire) don't really work on Aragorn so he needs the help of Merry and/or Brand to finish off enemies, trigger his ability and ready. It really is an ingenious strategy, and one that I quite enjoyed maximizing in my own version of the deck. However, if you were to limit the number of times that Merry and/or Brand could trigger their ability, the whole "engage everything" aspect of the combo completely breaks. I don't know if a limit of once per round would be overkill, but it seems worth considering. The fact that they can be used together to attack every enemy in play (assuming the right engagement tricks and all enemies are within their kill threshold) really highlights the need for limits on these abilities. Without built-in readying Tactics Aragorn's ability just doesn't seem problematic, as it does not avoid the attacks themselves (unless you can somehow leave all enemies in staging) and it still requires him to actually defeat the enemies (which requires other cards in support). For those arguing for Tactics Aragorn to receive errata, my question is this: why not Merry/Brand instead?

I agree completely here - even if you think errata is necessary (I'm not entirely convinced myself) - hasn't there already been a similar combo possible with Merry and Brand for quite a while, which hasn't warranted an errata yet? It seems pretty clear to me that the common denominator here is small, red and has a threat cost of 6.

I don't really get the mentality that demands errata instead of just self-regulating in a co-op game like this, but I know that for some people it matters. Limiting Merry and/or Brand to X times per phase would be fine with me as it solves the problem for those who have an issue with the combos, and has little or no impact on anyone who isn't actively trying to make them happen.

Game of Thrones recently added a blanket rule in an FAQ to limit any triggered ability to 3 times per phase. At this point I think I'd be happy for them to just do the same for LotR and be done with it - I think this would fix and prevent virtually every combo that certain players have found problematic.

I agree that designers should be using the "Limit X per round." more often on characters, but I'd issue an errata correction on a card only when it brokes the game in 1 of 2 ways:

1. regarding rules (ex. A Elbereth Gilthoniel, Feint)
2. breaks the game experience with any kind of infinite loop (ex. Will of the West, Blocking Wargs)

This leaves Taragorn out of the FAQs. And Terry. And should have left some cards that have received errata corrections too (Zigil Miner).

We have plenty of powerfull decks in the game already, specially in 3 and 4 player games where you can "absorb" more wrong decissions and bad draws from the Encounter, but all of them are vulnerable in both solo and two player modes. This deck is another one, a step above, but at the cost of building other decks complimenting it. I don't know what would happen in your game group, but in mine, this kind of game would be played once. A "de facto" ban.

Edit: correct the "erratas"

I just wanted to add that I completely agree with Karagh on this point about more triggers having limits. As I see it, if any cards in the posted deck need errata it would be Merry and Brand son of Bain (played by another deck, obviously). This is especially true because Aragorn is only hitting for 4 (with his passive) on his own, which is not nearly enough to kill most enemies. The game's best weapons (other than Support of the Eagles and Gondorian Fire) don't really work on Aragorn so he needs the help of Merry and/or Brand to finish off enemies, trigger his ability and ready. It really is an ingenious strategy, and one that I quite enjoyed maximizing in my own version of the deck. However, if you were to limit the number of times that Merry and/or Brand could trigger their ability, the whole "engage everything" aspect of the combo completely breaks. I don't know if a limit of once per round would be overkill, but it seems worth considering. The fact that they can be used together to attack every enemy in play (assuming the right engagement tricks and all enemies are within their kill threshold) really highlights the need for limits on these abilities. Without built-in readying Tactics Aragorn's ability just doesn't seem problematic, as it does not avoid the attacks themselves (unless you can somehow leave all enemies in staging) and it still requires him to actually defeat the enemies (which requires other cards in support). For those arguing for Tactics Aragorn to receive errata, my question is this: why not Merry/Brand instead?

I agree completely here - even if you think errata is necessary (I'm not entirely convinced myself) - hasn't there already been a similar combo possible with Merry and Brand for quite a while, which hasn't warranted an errata yet? It seems pretty clear to me that the common denominator here is small, red and has a threat cost of 6.

I don't really get the mentality that demands errata instead of just self-regulating in a co-op game like this, but I know that for some people it matters. Limiting Merry and/or Brand to X times per phase would be fine with me as it solves the problem for those who have an issue with the combos, and has little or no impact on anyone who isn't actively trying to make them happen.

Game of Thrones recently added a blanket rule in an FAQ to limit any triggered ability to 3 times per phase. At this point I think I'd be happy for them to just do the same for LotR and be done with it - I think this would fix and prevent virtually every combo that certain players have found problematic.

This would shut down so many useful heroes, Boromir (T), Elladan and Elrohir would be next to worthless. I see where you are coming from but this would not work for the LOTR LCG game.. I think rather than fixing combos that players find problematic it would shut down many viable and not overly powerful combos or abilities that already exist. Not to mention this is directly conflicting with the new Treebeard hero who can use his ability a max of five times in one phase (turn? I forget).

Each card should just have its own limit (if it has one) printed rather than a blanket limit of 3.

I also do not understand the mentality that demands errata instead of just self regulating. I for example just pretend the Gandalf hero doesn't exist rather than constantly complaining and campaigning to have him changed because I think he is broken, overpowered or whatever. I've also never used Dain or Hirluin as I have no interest in them or the overpowered strength they can provide.

Really not sure why these guys can't do the same with Tactics Aragorn or Merry or whoever they want really and yeah the problem (if you want to say there is one) clearly results from Merry and nothing else so even if errata was necessary it should be for Merry and no one else.

Ok, catching up with answers..

@Raven

"A decent Caldara deck can get multiple Northern Trackers going fairly quickly. A Spirit/Lore deck with card draw and loaded up with every possible location control effect possible could make locations trivial. Note that I'm not saying that I think such decks are common or all that likely to be used, as only in 4 player would you probably have the flexibility to have one deck focused on locations to that degree. The big difference also here is that we don't have a hero with an in-built ability to deal with locations."

I think a Caldara deck needs to find 2-3 Trackers very quickly to make locations trivial. Sometimes it will happen, more often it will not (laws of chance, nothing else, since trackers are 3 cards out of 50, and even with discards from Miner/Emery it takes time).

On Spirit/Lore deck I'm not sure as I think there's not much very good location control effects for 4p beyond trackers (general effect) and Asfaloth (just awesome, the equivalent of Riddermark's Finest ability every turn). Strider's Path is a good card, but not many others spring to my mind: Riddermark's Finest is costly for what it does, Short Cut is random etc. Secret Paths is not location control, but more a wp-boosting effect, since it doesn't help you avoid the risk of a location lock by clearing harmful locations from staging.
I think we all agree that encounter-powercreep as far as location are concerned is blatant, especially if you play newer or NM scenarios: 6 point locations with awful effects when left in staging or in play are not uncommon at all, so at this point you need much stronger effects to trivialize locations (and also a lot of them in recent scenarios punish you for trying to explore them from staging).
What I think was really close to making locations trivial in old quests is Asfaloth (for 2p games, mostly), but as of now it's far from being so.
Agree fully on the point you make about not having hero with that in-built ability.

"Actually, it's not just A Test of Will + Dwarven Tomb. You can also add in Map of Earnil to play Dwarven Tombs in the discard pile to bring back A Test of Will again. With 3 copies of each of those cards, you can get tons of treachery cancellation. Add in Eleanor and it gets even crazier"

Sure, there's also Map of Earnil but didn't mention it since it basically requires you to play monospirit (otherwise you're spending 4 or more resources for a cancel), and, more importantly, because it is a 3-card combo. When it happens is nice, but it's not reliable.

More important than everything else, since you have 3 Tests in your whole deck and Tomb requires at least a copy of Test to work, if you don't draw any you have no treachery cancellation, aside from Eleanor. I cannot recall how often it happened to me that despite having 3x Test 3x Tomb 3x Map in monospirit I was not able to cancel a Treachery in the crucial first 2-3 rounds.

But you still have Eleanor, one might argue. True, but even in 2p she can cancel a bad Treachery only to be exhausted if another one is revealed the same turn (2 bad treacheries out of 3 cards + surges? Not that unlikely at all in some scenarios); Eleanor is an amazing Hero to avoid specific treacheries (Sleeping Sentry and the likes) but she is far from neutralizing them, even when coupled with Tests + Tomb + Map.

"Obviously, this gets less effective as you add more players, but it has been argued that negating an area of play in just one player mode is enough to bring down errata."

Since there's no negation, there's no issue.
Also, I think combat and questing are the areas of play; things like direct damage, shadow control, location control etc. tend to fall in one of these areas - treachery control is an exception since it doesn't fall in either of them but I don't think it's enough to say it's an area of play on its own.

"That's not what I'm arguing. Otherwise I would have argued that. I'm trying to help delineate what actually constitutes a broken deck vs an overpowered one vs a merely powerful one, etc."

Ok, I'll explain why I interpreted your words in that way: what I am arguing is that an overpowered deck [to be more precise, one that more or less shuts down a part of the game, even more so if the next best deck doesn't come close to doing so] needs errata; your reference seemed to imply that since it seems like you think Tactagorn+Merry can be at most OP there was no errata needed because a deck being OP in the past was not errata'd but simply left out by the players because boring.

So I don't think it was a stretch on my part to assume what I wrote, even if I now understand it was not what you were trying to say: I just made an attempt at linking what you were saying with the main topic that was being discussed (that is, Tactagorn+Merry decks) - but I want to make clear I appreciated what you wrote about the issues with errata.

The question from your post that is meaningful and remains open is: were dwarves OP or they were OP to the point of being broken?

I think that if the players feel the need to stay away from dwarves, it is the rough equivalent of them being errata'd, with the added penalty that we lost a bunch of potentially playable cards or at least we lost a nice deckbuilding option for a dwarf deck. A tragedy? Surely not, many other decks can be built, but I would have preferred to see things go another way.

@Raven

" I think for multiplayer (probably specifically 3/4 player), it could be considered to be overpowered. "

Ok, so we agree on this, at least in a generic way until we specify exactly what OP means, right?

"I think for multiplayer (probably specifically 3/4 player), it could be considered to be overpowered. But my broader point is how we use these terms. How powerful does a deck have to be to go from powerful to overpowered? How powerful does it have to be to go from overpowered to broken? Does a card have to be overpowered in every player mode and situation to be considered broken? How many quests/player modes does it have to be effective in before its considered to be broken? Does an overpowered card automatically justify errata? If not, when does it do so?"

All very good questions, and fundamental in deciding whether something needs errata or not. You deserve credit for pointing these issues out so clearly.

I think maybe I need to make what I think and what I'm arguing for clearer:

1) Tactagorn + Merry is OP - this is the very first step I'm making and most of my posts want to prove this: it is not just very strong, it is OP. If we agree on this, and only if we do, it makes sense to proceed further ->

2) This deck being OP means there are 3 options:

a) it needs errata.

b) it needs new encounter cards that will regularly appear in quests that target specifically this strategy.

c) there's going to be a powercreep so huge that this deck will not be OP anymore (since I think we can agree OP is relative to the challenges a deck is faced with). But then, 95%-99% of the other decks built with old cards will be inept at facing the new challenges - this may be partially fixed adding some very powerful cards for the stronger archetypes already existing, but it will still push aside the vast majority of the old decks.

Why is powercreep to be avoided? What is it that makes Tactagorn+Merry OP? Readying? Engagement?

Both very good questions, IMO, and there are many others.

But point is many still don't agree this deck is OP, this is why my efforts has been directed mainly elsewhere, not because I don't consider the aforementioned issues worthy of debate.

So, in case you're going to ask me: why thread title is "Tactagorn, Ready for errata?" if you think debate on errata is needed?

(it was not me who chose the title but I think it is nice and fitting).

Because I think that the option of an errata should be considered, and the best way to achieve this was sparkling a debate on that issue. In this regard, I think none can say this thread was not successful.

"I like that you spend time to answer my post Eu8L1ch"

You spent yours to post in this thread, so I thought it was only right to give you the feeling that you were answered, if you hadn't felt so before.

"The linked subjective considerations [..] better than an other etc."

Those are not subjective for many good reasons, but it's all already written as well as I can, so no point in repeating myself.

If you say you don't agree but do not reply in detail and only state it's not a problem of what I'm trying to say, but more with the kind of statement I can make (that is, a methodological objection) we either start debating about methodological questions or "agree to disagree". Since the former would be out of topic (and not too short, even if not too long either), I think I'll just agree to disagree with you.

"The second part of the first paragraph that you quoted was the most meaningful of my comments though : power is not a reason for errata. But it seems that we disagree on that. It is though the most important aspect to discuss in order to determine wether errata material is reached."

Completely agree on this; that is, we disagree but it's useful to discuss.

"for the master malice discussion : all my consideration goes to the bear . Do not let us stop at the form of our discussion, it is so easy to mis-interprate or to take a word for an aggression.
Always look at the bright side of life"

I never referred to him as being rude or aggressive. What I stated is that I felt his statement was rude. He, in a comment to which I'm going to reply now, stated it was not his intention to be rude so for me everything is 100% OK. No offense meant, no offense taken.

To be crystal clear, it wouldn't have been a huge issue for me even if he didn't explain his thought as well as he did, since it was not a serious slight by any means.

Saying what I felt was a way to make things as clear as possible ( I still think the content of his statement was not worthy of the debate, but this has nothing to do with what I think of danpoage ) and possibly have a way to remove our misunderstanding.

What I perceive as inappropriate, is this comment from PsychoRocka:

"I think it is quite rude the way that both you and Jban responded and reacted to Danpoage's post and he deserves quite a bit of respect on these forums. His argument is perfectly valid and you both responded with very aggressive posts, you simply posted "seriously?" and Jban said that he should not post anything on the topic as nothing he said was helpful and he had clearly not read anything in this thread. You guys need to be a lot less aggressive with this whole errata for tactics aragorn campaign you're on, many people disagree even WITH all the facts and experience you guys are apparently presenting so just deal with it."

Who felt the urgency to reply labeling an ironic comment ("seriously?") as a form of aggression, and coming very close to letting it spill over to our persons rather than keeping it to our comments.

PsychoRocka, if you think I/we are aggressive because we reply to other people and just don't limit ourselves to recognising that most people don't agree with us I think you are misinterpreting mine/our behaviour: it is not being aggressive, it is trying to put up a debate. When everyone agrees or agrees to disagree there's no debate to be had.

By the way, what do you mean with this: "he deserves quite a bit of respect on these forums." ? That if I did the same to you or a new member I had the right of it, but I don't since instead it's danpoage I criticised?

(to be clear again - danpoage has nothing to do with this)

Am I terribly angry with PsychoRocka? Not at all. Do I think I he needs to apologise? Not really. But, Courchevel, just don't say I was to first to talk about aggression, since otherwise you (and PsychoRocka) are doing exactly what you advised me against: "mis-interprate or to take a word for an aggression."

@danpoage

"At no point in my comments was I trying to be rude. If it came across that way, I apologize. I enjoy a healthy debate - the last thing I want is to talk with a bunch of people who only agree with me, and the forums never disappoint me in that regard. If anyone takes my comments on this thread as more than just friendly debate, then they are reading into a subtext which is quite simply not present."

It's more than enough for me, no need to apologise. As I said above, no offense meant no offense taken. So, if you're ok with it, let us leave this behind.

Ok, many interesting points raised by your reply:

."I am NOT arguing about whether Master's Malice hurts other decks - that is besides the point."

One of the main causes of our misunderstanding in my opinion seems to be that we disagree on this, since I'm considering the deck for what it should do (combat) and neglecting other arguments that bear influence on most other decks since I'm also considering it in a relative/comparative way: not capable of withstanding everything but by far (this is what justifies errata in my eyes) stronger than every other deck that should perform the same key function.

"If you don't believe my argument is valid until I have a dozen more examples of cards that wreck your deck, so be it, I may find the time to come up with a list."

This would actually be very interesting. Again, if it targets one weakness that is specific to Tactagorn+Merry it provides a good argument against the deck being stronger than others, otherwise it is just a killer card (as Master's Malice is, unless you're playing monosphere).

Nonetheless I'd like to see which quests have those "killer cards", and how many of them are around.

This would actually be very interesting, despite the fact that, as I said above, an argument that can be made against most decks is not a good argument.

As an additional note, I think I outlined the reasons why I think your "Master's Malice" argument doesn't work as clearly as I can in my post on page 3 and I still think they're sound.

"For a card to be broken to the point of needing errata it would have to be shown to consistently break the fun/difficulty balance of the game."

This is a generic criterium on which I fully agree.

However, from seeing both this deck in action and playing a similiar, less powerful deck, I can say I feel like this is precisely the case.

One of the guys in our gaming group has a very powerful Legolas-Merry-Bard deck that was considered the top-notch deck for attacking. After this deck was built, that deck felt subpar and I can easily precognize we'll always have Tactagorn+Merry for combat when attempting a new nightmare scenario in the future: picking another one would simply give us considerably lower chances of success. For example, it already happened against Encounter at Amon-Din nightmare yesterday night: we played 4p with Tactagorn+Merry and that basically handed all combat on its own. It was paired with a Legolas+Brand deck but it just felt overkill: just so you might get an idea, we got the treachery "Save us!", which for 4p is brutal, and they asked me not to Test it (I was playing monospirit) because we could easily deal with 4 additional enemies - and, before you ask me, no, Brand was not key, since Merry alone provided 5 additional attacks (2 hitches 2 horses). We won in round 5 only because rules were misinterpreted, otherwise would've been a round 4 victory (3 completed).

"My intuition tells me that your deck (or mine, or some as-yet unknown derivation) is always going to struggle against a certain class of scenarios."

Might be more will appear in the future, as of now I'm rather sure it's just a handful.

"I honestly don't know how productive this discussion is going to be, as you seem to be very emotional in your responses and are taking comments that I made in good faith as some kind of trolling. I am not trolling, and if it offends you that some of my comments are short, it is because I don't always have time to leave a lengthy response like this one."

I hope this question is closed, so hopefully no need to reply again. About me being emotional, I think this should be clear now that it has been explained (completely OT: emotional isn't a bad thing in itself, so I find it strange you use it as such \OT ).

I do have to say I prefer when you take the time to write long posts, since I find it hard to find some content in short ones: I cannot read your thought, so if you don't explain what you think I have no other way of knowing it.

"Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean that they are ignorant."

True, I agree with you. My apologies if it felt like I was implying that, it was not meant that way.

Finally, I think I said what I had to say so this thread for me will turn to read-only mode, unless something new happens or a few additional clarifications are needed from me.

My opinion on this matter is yes, Tactics Aragorn is OP, but I don't think being OP qualifies a hero for errata. Look at Spirit Glorfindel and Steward of Gondor. In my opinion, both of these cards are more powerful than Tactics Aragorn, and they haven't been errata-d.

My opinion on this matter is yes, Tactics Aragorn is OP, but I don't think being OP qualifies a hero for errata. Look at Spirit Glorfindel and Steward of Gondor. In my opinion, both of these cards are more powerful than Tactics Aragorn, and they haven't been errata-d.

Post makes no sense. (Please add 1000 words.)