Eagles decks were just dealt a bitter blow.

How many eagles were you discarding a turn anyway? I don't think it will be that be an effect.

There's some spread between discarding multiple eagles per turn and having no effect. Horn of Gondor was cost-effective in an Eagles deck, because the Vassals go away when used (barring battle questing), the Winged Guardians go away if you don't pay, and Eagles of the Misty Mountains likes other Eagles to go away. Over the course of a game that's likely less than one resource per turn, though it's augmented by other allies leaving play. Not at all broken, but certainly useful, especially since Eagles are expensive. If you're running the full Eagles, Landroval, Thorondor's Descendant and Gwaihir have abilities involving something leaving play, and Meneldor's Flight specifically calls an Eagle out of play.

Now Eagles are too limited and expensive to use all this discarding to break the game by generating massive amount of resources. It was just a nice bonus that made an Eagles deck work better, either by providing a few extra resources for expensive Eagles or a non-tactics splash heroes. Totally non-broken, and fully expected when Eagles were introduced and the Horn of Gondor was one of a limited number of tactics cards in the pool. But now, Eagles only trigger Horn of Gondor when one is destroyed, and not a single Eagle is designed to be a chump blocker.

The funny thing is that Tactics really *shouldn't* be the chump blocker sphere in the first place. There's only two 1-cost allies, one is Outlands, so chumping goes against its trait strategy, and the other is a one-shot attacker. Leadership has three one-cost allies, one of which is specifically designed to chump block and another has only an enter-plays ability. An army of disposable allies is really Leadership's thing, not Tactics. Eagles were the one tactics synergy with Horn of Gondor, and now that's gone.

I've used the Eagles with the horn and I agree you might be losing a couple of resources over the course of the game, but not more than that. Certainly not a resource per turn.

Anyway, I am now wondering if this change wasn't made because of a coming card.

They forgot the Bilbo hero errata (7 threat cost, 2 will power)!!

Lol--I just spent 5 minutes looking for a supposed positive errata to Bilbo in the FAQ before I realized this was a joke.

...

I'm sad now and only a reasonable threat Bilbo will make it better. Make it happen, FFG!!!

Sorry I made you look! I don,t think they've ever erated heroes, but I might play Bilbo like I want him to be.

Didn't Seastan make a pretty ridiculous deck that did NOT rely on Love of Tales? I seem to remember seeing all the Doomed cards in that one.

edit: This one I think.

Didn't Seastan make a pretty ridiculous deck that did NOT rely on Love of Tales? I seem to remember seeing all the Doomed cards in that one.

Shhh! You'll make them errata Bilbo!

Something that slipped in: no "guarding" for Guarded objectives that are "added" to the staging area rather than being "revealed."

Q: Does the Guarded keyword trigger when the encounter card it’s on is “added” to the staging area (and not “revealed”)? A: No. In order for the Guarded keyword to trigger, the encounter card it appears on must be “revealed” from the encounter deck.

This is just a concrete example of something that has been in place since the basic ruling 1.01 regarding Surge, Doom, and Guarded was updated in FAQ 1.4 to included "when revealed from the encounter deck" back in 2013. Later that year someone asked about the special case for The Forest Grove in JtR and received an answer similar to that given in the current FAQ. (Ref: unofficial FAQ page 11). Nice to see it finally addressed in the official FAQ.

My disappointment is that the lasting effects clarification reverses an unofficial ruling from Caleb. I was hoping to make thematic non-combat deck for A Shadow of the Past (still needs a bit more support), and Out of Sight ("Enemies engaged with you cannot attack you this phase.") is a key card in that deck because it can be played in the hide test action window, before all the Black Riders engage you. In response to a question I sent, Caleb said: "Any enemy that ends up engaged with you that phase will not attack, regardless of whether or not it was engaged with you at the time you played it." (Then I would return them to the staging area with Spirit Pippin to avoid attacks in the combat phase or, if I had enough willpower, race to finish the quest while avoiding combat with Hobbit-sense; I didn't say it was a good deck.) I'm handicapping myself enough for this quest that I think I might stick with Caleb's unofficial ruling.

Didn't Seastan make a pretty ridiculous deck that did NOT rely on Love of Tales? I seem to remember seeing all the Doomed cards in that one.

The Beravor's Path deck is also pretty ridiculous and wasn't impacted by the errata. But, nothing on the level that could be done with Love of Tales or Horn of Gondor.

Didn't Seastan make a pretty ridiculous deck that did NOT rely on Love of Tales? I seem to remember seeing all the Doomed cards in that one.

edit: This one I think.

(deleted, double post)

Quite the contrary. The whole point was to draw your deck for Songs; stack Steward, Gondorian Fire, and Blood of Numenor with Fast Hitches; quest through each phase, tank a hit, and drive his enemies before him.

Right, but, no Love of Tales in that deck.

(sorry for problems with the quote feature)

Hmm, perhaps not this version. I recently watched the version with Love of Tales during the Carn Dum Marathon.

I abuse SOG like a boss in Elrohir/Elladan decks.

ohhhhhhh yes. I too abuse the **** out of this and love every second of it. I would be utterly crushed if they errata'd SOG. I really don't think they ever will though, its just really strong not broken and also doesn't allow any endless combos or crazy loops like almost every card that ever has been errata'd

I love the erratas of the player cards !

Horn Of Gondor was too strong in 4 players a was broken with a lot of decks.

The new version is much more thematic, and still pretty strong in a 4 players game.

The problem is that this errata weakens Rohan decks. I loved playing Horn on Eomer for a lot of generation resources with the Rohan Mecanic.

I think this errata will lead to new cards and especially to a new Leadership Mount.

For instance, something like that will be awesome :

Rohirrim Steed

Leadership

1 cost Attachment:

Mount Rohan

Attach to a Hero. Restricted.

After a Rohan character is discarded by a player card effect, add one resource to attached Hero resource pool. (limit once per phase)

Horn of Gondor:

I wished they make it not restricted but good catch to the theme .. some decks with high character-frequency like rohan, eagle or silvan now needs a new ressource generation.

For rohan spirit Theoden && Gamling ally (does his response trigger by destroyed rohan allies?) do a great job of ally recycling and cost reduction.

For silvans .. there are many benefits for leaving/entering play, OLorien gives cost reduction so there is no need for an extra resource benefit via HOG.

For eagles .. bad .. very bad. Old Radagst is the only help for them.. he must get errated! And some keycards for the eagles are needed.

Something that slipped in: no "guarding" for Guarded objectives that are "added" to the staging area rather than being "revealed."

Q: Does the Guarded keyword trigger when the encounter card it’s on is “added” to the staging area (and not “revealed”)? A: No. In order for the Guarded keyword to trigger, the encounter card it appears on must be “revealed” from the encounter deck.

This is just a concrete example of something that has been in place since the basic ruling 1.01 regarding Surge, Doom, and Guarded was updated in FAQ 1.4 to included "when revealed from the encounter deck" back in 2013. Later that year someone asked about the special case for The Forest Grove in JtR and received an answer similar to that given in the current FAQ. (Ref: unofficial FAQ page 11). Nice to see it finally addressed in the official FAQ.

Hm. I went looking for a ruling on that a while ago and couldn't find one. I had initially assumed it'd be like Doomed and Surge but then as I recall in the Progression Series Mitch and Matthew revealed guards for Athelas brought in via Forest Grove, and since I couldn't find anything to support my version, I assumed they must have it right and played it that way ever since. The fact this didn't go in the FAQ sooner seems like a pretty big oversight.

One of my partners doesn't like the Horn of Gondor change and wants to use the old version. As a compromise I have suggested

Response: After a character is destroyed, add 1 resource to attached hero's pool

Response: After a character is discarded without being destroyed, exhaust Horn of Gondor to add 1 resource to attached hero's pool.

What do people think about that?

Another possibility might be

Response: After a character is discarded by an encounter card effect or is destroyed, add 1 resource to attached hero's pool.

I share her concern that a card that is good without being OP in most cases is being nerfed to deal with OP decks and strategies that we will never use.

Why not just limit it to 2 or 3 times per turn ?

Combo deck oblitered !

Rohan deck will use it normally.

With a limit on the use, no abuse possible.

I'm a fan of both erratas. I think you have to protect the integrity of the game, and allowing an effect to exist that can allow the encounter deck to be removed from the game or allow a player to play out their entire deck meets the definition of game-breaking in my opinion.

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

I don’t want to speak for either of you, but I feel like you are coming from a fairly similar place so I’ll reply to you together.

I totally get where you're coming from and don't think it's an unreasonable position. The lines are fuzzy when it comes to what is considered "broken", which is why such things become controversial in the first place. I don't think a card that is just really, really powerful should receive errata. This is why I didn't support a Dain errata when there was talk of such things at the height of Dwarf decks, for example. This is because such cards may make the game really, really easy, but they don't "break the game" in the sense of making the actual game a moot point. When you can remove the entire encounter deck using Love of Tales (in combination with other cards), the game ceases to be a game and just becomes an exercise. Same with Horn of Gondor and playing out your entire deck.

As to your point that errata should not address cases where exploits are sought out and found, I think that is where our core disagreement lies. I think those are actually the primary cases where errata should be issued. I personally don't like the philosophy of "don't play it if you don't want to exploit it". Just knowing that the game can be exploited lessens its standing as a game in my eyes. That's what I mean by damaging its integrity. A game system that can be undermined in that way loses its credibility as a cohesive set of rules. I also think it's just natural to how these kinds of card games develop. There are too many cards and interactions for designers of any expandable card game to avoid any exploits. This is true of competitive games just as much. And errata allows for fixing this.

The issue seems to be that you are concerned that the errata punishes "regular" players because some players go off and find the exploits. Again, I can see the concern. Does the errata make Horn of Gondor less powerful? Undoubtedly. But I think as a couple of others have pointed out in this thread, I like the errata to Horn of Gondor because it not only addresses the exploit, but does so in a way that also enhances the theme of the card and opens up further design space in the future. The Horn, Boromir's Horn, should be keying off of the sacrifice of characters, not just them leaving play. And now there can be a card in the future that does provide resources for characters leaving. I don't see the impact for most players in regards to Love of Tales. Pretty much it was either being used in super exploit decks or not at all. For those who want to explore it as a way to facilitate song decks, I don't think it loses a ton of value in that regard, and allows for more songs to come out in the future without worrying about breaking the game.

Again, I don't think my perspective is necessarily the only valid one, and I suspect that this disagreement will always exist because it reflects different ways of approaching the game or thinking about the game. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I hate when they nerf stuff, they can just make it so much worse. Why not give Horn of Gondor response: after a character is destroyed, exhaust Horn of Gondor to add 2 resources to…" That way it is still inferior to Steward but you only need one chump a round to make it worth it.

I think Love of Tales errata is good.

I then wonder to see Faramir in the same article as an example, not an errata. In my opinion such cards need it more, though I see it is not part of loops.

I abuse SOG like a boss in Elrohir/Elladan decks.

ohhhhhhh yes. I too abuse the **** out of this and love every second of it. I would be utterly crushed if they errata'd SOG. I really don't think they ever will though, its just really strong not broken and also doesn't allow any endless combos or crazy loops like almost every card that ever has been errata'd

Lol--maybe but Nori was way less powerful (even with Bofur and Sneak Attack) and they errataed him.

I do agree with you, though. It seems like if they haven't made a change to Steward yet, they won't. I guess they want Steward to be powerful while having problems with Horn growing in power? But I guess Steward hasn't grown in power (unless we concede that there are just more good cards to use the resources on) so much as it has always been godly.

Horn of Gondor:

I wished they make it not restricted but good catch to the theme .. some decks with high character-frequency like rohan, eagle or silvan now needs a new ressource generation.

For rohan spirit Theoden && Gamling ally (does his response trigger by destroyed rohan allies?) do a great job of ally recycling and cost reduction.

For silvans .. there are many benefits for leaving/entering play, OLorien gives cost reduction so there is no need for an extra resource benefit via HOG.

For eagles .. bad .. very bad. Old Radagst is the only help for them.. he must get errated! And some keycards for the eagles are needed.

But Radagast and the Eagels won't get errataed because we simply do not get positive errata (except maybe Thalin, but that was more of a clarification to how he works). I think in FFG's eyes it would hurt sales of newer, more powerful cards to go back and help old ones be more viable in the current cardpool (pure supposition on my part, of course, but it makes sense...).

And as for the need to errata either Horn or Love of Tales...I just don't see it but we can agree to disagree. I think that you may be undervaluing the need for resource generation in high-discard decks though. Especially Rohan. So people will fall back to using Steward...again (unless a partner deck needs it more). Or they'll just have to scrap the deck-type for use in the harder modern quests until better cards come out. There just isn't another viable option for some decks...

One of my partners doesn't like the Horn of Gondor change and wants to use the old version. As a compromise I have suggested

Response: After a character is destroyed, add 1 resource to attached hero's pool

Response: After a character is discarded without being destroyed, exhaust Horn of Gondor to add 1 resource to attached hero's pool.

What do people think about that?

Another possibility might be

Response: After a character is discarded by an encounter card effect or is destroyed, add 1 resource to attached hero's pool.

I share her concern that a card that is good without being OP in most cases is being nerfed to deal with OP decks and strategies that we will never use.

I don't like House Ruling cards personally because I feel like the designers are counting on the errata when they balance the quests.

That being said I have disagreed with basically all of the nerfs on the various player cards--pretty much all of them having been made to combat quirky exploit decks I don't run.

I'm kind of getting to the point where I'm considering just ignoring the erratas all together but...that feels like cheating...

I don't know.

The issue seems to be that you are concerned that the errata punishes "regular" players because some players go off and find the exploits. Again, I can see the concern. Does the errata make Horn of Gondor less powerful? Undoubtedly. But I think as a couple of others have pointed out in this thread, I like the errata to Horn of Gondor because it not only addresses the exploit, but does so in a way that also enhances the theme of the card and opens up further design space in the future. The Horn, Boromir's Horn, should be keying off of the sacrifice of characters, not just them leaving play. And now there can be a card in the future that does provide resources for characters leaving.

I'll grant the thematic improvement. I'm a little dubious on opening the design space -- after nerfing Horn of Gondor for characters leaving play, I can't imagine they'll recreate it elsewhere, even with a limit. It's true that it opens up the design space for subsets of leaving play (e.g. resources for discarding from play), but that space was already there, outside of Tactics -- and never would've been in tactics in the first place, for thematic reasons.

But if Horn of Gondor errata was prompted by the thematic disconnect of rewards for destruction instead of leaving play, it would've been done long, long, before now. Eagles decks had synergy with Horn of Gondor in the very first cycle, and I can't imagine that offended the designers' sensibilities then. Why now? Valiant Sacrifice and Grave Cairn have the same thematic disconnect and didn't get errata. I think it's clearly not the theme that's driving this, but rather the power. And the power could have been addressed by a limit without changing the way the card works.

Why does this matter? It's a popular card, it's included in all manner of decks available online, including those promoted for new players or even sample decklists provided by FFG. And suddenly its inclusion may no longer make sense in those decks -- unless it is multiplayer or employs chump blocking, it probably doesn't. In a survey of 100 decks at cardgamedb, I found Horn of Gondor in 22 of 50 possible decks (tactics access). Some of those may no longer make sense. This wouldn't have happened if a limit was imposed instead of fundamentally changing its function.

At least the errata didn't completely coaster it. The same survey showed Master of Lore in just one of 42 possible decks (Lore access, HoN or later cycles used). Thror's Map was in just one of 41 possible decks (Lore access, OHUH or later saga used). In my mind, an underpowered card is a greater tragedy than an overpowered one, and certainly when an errata is deemed necessary I think extra effort should be made to make sure the card is still interesting and usable for its cost.

(Love of Tales was in zero of 49 possible decks, showing it's possible for a card to be both abusive *and* still a coaster.)

-

At least the errata didn't completely coaster it. The same survey showed Master of Lore in just one of 42 possible decks (Lore access, HoN or later cycles used). Thror's Map was in just one of 41 possible decks (Lore access, OHUH or later saga used). In my mind, an underpowered card is a greater tragedy than an overpowered one, and certainly when an errata is deemed necessary I think extra effort should be made to make sure the card is still interesting and usable for its cost.

Thror's Map is an amazing card, even with the errata.

(Love of Tales was in zero of 49 possible decks, showing it's possible for a card to be both abusive *and* still a coaster.)

I don't really care for the LoT errata either because it was already a coaster card for me. I've constantly wanted to make a few decks that utilize it as a means of lore resource generation, but I just find - without trying to make a solo exploit deck - that it's unlikely to be worth the effort. Horn is an interesting change, but it is sad to see how much it effects the Rohan trait. I would have preferred if it was just limited to 3 times per round or once per phase, or even just characters you control to temper it in multiplayer decks.