Totally agree with dalestephenson about the Horn. They make it sound like it was the theme but indeed it is always just the loop. And as for the theme, I really think it should be exhaust to do something, and that something shouldn't be little, because it was such a thing when that happened in the books, but it only happened a few times (you're not gonna be playing the horn for a symphony).

Rohan discard effects such as Ride to Ruin, Helm! Helm!, Háma and even Escort from Edoras are extremely thematic alongside Horn of Gondor, and now they don't work together. So yeah, theme was most definately not the main reason for the errata, IMO.

I never said the Horn change was prompted by theme considerations. I said it was nice that it fits the theme while addressing the loop.

The designers as well never said this either. Here's the exact words from the article:

"As for the other two errata included in this updated FAQ, both Horn of Gondor and Love of Tales were deemed too powerful in their current form because of the potential for abuse."

Seems pretty up front to me.

^ that is true. But doesn't make the decision (in its result) any better.

One question:

One time Horn of Gondor is faqqed, Master of Lore's faq makes sense?

Remember the old faq to avoid the first famous broken combo: Hammersmith, Born Aloft, Horn of Gondor and Master of Lore. The faq fell on Master of Lore, the combo then was dead.

Question now is: if Horn of Gondor changes, could Master of Lore return to original version? Interesting....!

PD: i know developers won't do it, but now Maste of Lore faq doesnt make sense, or... you know any other way to broke the game with MoL?

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...).

This is already happening (new cards revitalizing old cards), think about Erestor/Elven Light with Protector of Lorien

One question:

One time Horn of Gondor is faqqed, Master of Lore's faq makes sense?

Remember the old faq to avoid the first famous broken combo: Hammersmith, Born Aloft, Horn of Gondor and Master of Lore. The faq fell on Master of Lore, the combo then was dead.

Of course it doesn't I remember thinking then they took the weakest card in the combo (on par with Borne Aloft perhaps) and nerfed it.

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.

That's fair and I can totally understand that view even if I don't agree with it. I think a lot of us are just going to have to agree to disagree here since there really isn't a "correct" answer.

I do want to say this though since it's something that gets brought up a lot in relation to errata. While I do absolutely prescribe to the "if you don't like it, don't play it" philosophy, conflating that philosophy with the majority of player card erratas seems a little off-base to me.

Something like Dain or Steward or Sneak Attack+Gandalf or Glorfindel fits neatly into that "don't like, don't play" argument (very powerful cards/combos that can be easily used in any number of decks and that many feel are too powerful). But most of the erratas don't follow that pattern. As discussed, they are usually born from the intentional exploitation of the rules by certain players. And while I am fine with people doing either (since I will never have to compete against anyone with an unfair advantage in this game) I see them as clearly different things.

To use a video game analogy for a moment: it's the difference between playing a coop or single player game on Easy vs playing it with a mod to fundamentally change the game's rules or systems (turn off damage or infinite money or whatever).

I do kind of wonder if opinion on this issue is split by gaming tastes and history. I'm primarily a board gamer that plays this game as a coop game--not as a CCG. From that background errata is something you do only when you messed up and there is a conflict or a significant imbalance that needs to be fixed. But for CCG players I know that errata is a much more accepted part of life since in a competitive setting the designers simply have to make frequent changes to address the meta...

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.

For better or worse the designers seem less concerned with a card's overall power than they are with it being used for its intended purpose, within its intended limitations and without facilitating any exploit combos.

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.)

Agree with most of this.

Master of Lore isn't terrible but it takes so long to make back your cost that it just isn't worth it. At least Leaf Brooch pays for itself after the first use.

Thror's Map can still be really good but it's pretty quest specific. And it's Spirit so in a lot of cases it's easier just to snipe the location via other means.

Totally agree with dalestephenson about the Horn. They make it sound like it was the theme but indeed it is always just the loop. And as for the theme, I really think it should be exhaust to do something, and that something shouldn't be little, because it was such a thing when that happened in the books, but it only happened a few times (you're not gonna be playing the horn for a symphony).

Theme-wise it should be an exhaust ability. Something like: Attach to a Gondor hero. Action: Exhaust Horn of Gondor to do "something awesome". If attached to Boromir, do "something awesomer".

But the card has never really been big on theme. Nor was it errataed because of it's thematic inconsistency. But it does at least evoke the theme a little more now (by coincidence). That's something...I guess.

"Theme-wise it should be an exhaust ability. Something like: Attach to a Gondor hero. Action: Exhaust Horn of Gondor to do "something awesome". If attached to Boromir, do "something awesome""

Oh, how I wish that were true. And I think it would have been, had it been released a little later (cycle 3 onward). The design team has improved with player cards a lot, I think. Some of the core-set choices were (understandably, I guess) very poor.

And we can still hope for a new version of Horn of Gondor but I do not think that is very probable. They are still to make two versions of a non-character card, right? One thing they can hardly improve, I feel, would be the art on Horn of Gondor.

Thror's Map can still be really good but it's pretty quest specific. And it's Spirit so in a lot of cases it's easier just to snipe the location via other means.

*snip*

But the card has never really been big on theme. Nor was it errataed because of it's thematic inconsistency. But it does at least evoke the theme a little more now (by coincidence). That's something...I guess.

Thror's Map is Lore...

I feel like the whole theme thing may be coming partly from my comment back on page 3 about the errata being motivated by the original intent of the card, so I think I should clarify it (and remember this is merely my assumption not backed up by anything concrete) - I think the reason Horn of Gondor has been errata'd at all is because of its power level and its presence in some overpowered combos. I think the reason Horn of Gondor has been errata'd this specific way is because of the theme and the original intent of the card.

Thror's Map can still be really good but it's pretty quest specific. And it's Spirit so in a lot of cases it's easier just to snipe the location via other means.

*snip*

But the card has never really been big on theme. Nor was it errataed because of it's thematic inconsistency. But it does at least evoke the theme a little more now (by coincidence). That's something...I guess.

Thror's Map is Lore...

I feel like the whole theme thing may be coming partly from my comment back on page 3 about the errata being motivated by the original intent of the card, so I think I should clarify it (and remember this is merely my assumption not backed up by anything concrete) - I think the reason Horn of Gondor has been errata'd at all is because of its power level and its presence in some overpowered combos. I think the reason Horn of Gondor has been errata'd this specific way is because of the theme and the original intent of the card.

Bah--you're right. I was thinking of the key.

One question:

One time Horn of Gondor is faqqed, Master of Lore's faq makes sense?

Remember the old faq to avoid the first famous broken combo: Hammersmith, Born Aloft, Horn of Gondor and Master of Lore. The faq fell on Master of Lore, the combo then was dead.

Question now is: if Horn of Gondor changes, could Master of Lore return to original version? Interesting....!

PD: i know developers won't do it, but now Maste of Lore faq doesnt make sense, or... you know any other way to broke the game with MoL?

Master of Lore in his old version was, is and always will be highly exploitable.

Could the original version reduce to 0 cost, or was it always minimum 1? I would love for him to be minimum 1, but applied to all cards of a type instead of just one.

Okay.

So, I still hate the errata (really almost all errata) for all the reasons I’ve listed before. Chief among them my concern that it reduces the number of modern-quest viable, non-OP decks.

But you know what? I’ve been sold on it. I hate it. But I’ve been sold that the errata (and probably some more besides—looking at you Elrond+Vilya) are necessary from FFG’s perspective. Because I completely forgot about one of the worst, most needless and most underused aspects of this game (all my opinion, obviously)—the tournament format.

This game, technically has an official competitive format. Games are scored (on a frankly janky formula that skews towards certain types of decks over others) and players ranked in an official, FFG-sanctioned way that does not take into account deck archetype. And within that system it is completely necessary to treat this game like any other competitive LCG (because it is by that standard) and actively re-balance cards and combos that can be exploited (whether they are exploited by the majority of players or not).

And that sucks because people like me who want to play within the rules and framework of the game are having those rules and systems altered to accommodate a system that, frankly, is used by probably less than 10% of players (and I am being generous with that estimate). And the solution really could have been as simple as a Tournament-Scoring specific blacklist (or even Tournament-Scoring specific errata).

All of that being said though, as long as FFG continues to say that this is a game that you can and should play competitively rather than just offering it as an unsupported variant I do understand why FFG has to make these changes.

Guess now I just have to decide if the realization that FFG sees the game as something fundamentally different than the one I’m playing is enough of a push for me to not feel like I’m cheating by just ignoring all of the errata going forward…

Pretty sure they'd still do errata without the tournament format (is that the scoring stuff in the rulebook or the Against the Shadow one btw?). I've never gotten the impression they promoted that very heavily or really expected everyone to use it. I think I remember someone (either Matt / Caleb or maybe Nate French?) saying that the only reason it's there was to allow players used to competitive games a way of comparing themselves against each other.

Anyway, at least Horn of Gondor still triggers if you force Hero Treebeard to commit suicide. So there's that.

Success% should be the ultimate way to measure decks' strength. Honestly the score system promotes unsafe, risky plays just for the sake of scoring low, and that is not indicative of a well-played game imo

Pretty sure they'd still do errata without the tournament format (is that the scoring stuff in the rulebook or the Against the Shadow one btw?). I've never gotten the impression they promoted that very heavily or really expected everyone to use it. I think I remember someone (either Matt / Caleb or maybe Nate French?) saying that the only reason it's there was to allow players used to competitive games a way of comparing themselves against each other.

Anyway, at least Horn of Gondor still triggers if you force Hero Treebeard to commit suicide. So there's that.

Maybe.

But honestly the fact that there is that officially supported competitive variant is the only reasonable explanation I've heard for why FFG should care (as they clearly do) about balancing against abusive and exploitable cards and combos that aren't in general use outside of those that intentionally choose to build exploit decks to break the game's core balancing.

In the closed-system of a coop experience (ala any of FFG's coop board games) errata is used primarily to address misprints, oversights and--in extreme circumstances--game breaking and/or severely unbalancing factors that didn't appear during playtesting. But that's not how FFG erratas this game; they errata it for relative balance and to shut down potential exploit decks--just like they errata their other competitive LCGs. And the only conceivable reason to do that in a coop game is because they are assuming people are using the Scoring System they've put in place.

As for why they added the scoring system at all, my understanding was that it was primarily a Sales and Marketing strategy. When they released the game they assumed a very similar audience (and similar audience behavior) to their other core LCGs. But in practice they found that while the game sold well people weren't playing it in large numbers at Cons or FLGSs (probably because pickup games of this are hard). That led them to change the scoring system to the current, official "Tournament Format" scoring to try and encourage more play by those competitive player that FFG saw as their bread and butter (and as a huge potential revenue bump in they could entice them to play, advertise and evangelize the game in local stores).

Success% should be the ultimate way to measure decks' strength. Honestly the score system promotes unsafe, risky plays just for the sake of scoring low, and that is not indicative of a well-played game imo

Agree that the current system is messy.

But I would actually say that if you are trying to compare player vs player the most important variable is Deck Archetype.

Beating a given, hard Quest with Gandalf-Outlands ia a very different accomplishment than beating the same hard Quest with Mono-Tactics Eagles or Rohan.

I think it is quite right and proper that they issue errata to break ridiculous combos that for instance get huge numbers of resources. I just think they should try as much as possible to make these errata hit only these combos. (Edit: Obviously "only" is asking too much, but what I mean is that these errata should not greatly impact normal players very much)

Horn of Gondor doesn't even trigger off Tactics Boromir's sacrifice action any more. Sadface.

^ Exactly. Make the errata by any means, but not by making the card nigh useless, which for such an iconic artifact, Horn of Gondor, is a great shame.

Success% should be the ultimate way to measure decks' strength. Honestly the score system promotes unsafe, risky plays just for the sake of scoring low, and that is not indicative of a well-played game imo

Agree that the current system is messy.

But I would actually say that if you are trying to compare player vs player the most important variable is Deck Archetype.

Beating a given, hard Quest with Gandalf-Outlands ia a very different accomplishment than beating the same hard Quest with Mono-Tactics Eagles or Rohan.

I support this only in case of ties. Success% still comes first regardless of deck used

Also, saying which deck archetype is better is very subjective, and this is one of the reasons I created the other topic 'Log your quest' because I deeply believe in hard data rather than oppinions (no offense intended btw)

this has been a fascinating read (cards and strategy I am clueless about as well as those video links), but i must ask....

what is "nerfing" a card.

Peace

Roger

this has been a fascinating read (cards and strategy I am clueless about as well as those video links), but i must ask....

what is "nerfing" a card.

Peace

Roger

nerfing means "fixing" something but making it worse actually than before

what is "nerfing" a card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28video_gaming%29

this has been a fascinating read (cards and strategy I am clueless about as well as those video links), but i must ask....

what is "nerfing" a card.

Peace

Roger

nerfing means "fixing" something but making it worse actually than before

thanks! I play paper and counter wargames, while I did not know the term, I do know about issuing errata for things and making them worse

Peace

Roger

If you can make peace with yourself and ignore errata, life is good.