I wrote this idea into a thread, but it was too fast imo, and the topic deserves more attention.

(faq adds: 'the next lore card' before wasn't)

This question is: one time horn of gondor is faqqed, could Master of Lore return to its original own text?

I tell it:

Master of Lore was faqqed when there was a combo that brokes the game with the next cards: hammersmith + born aloft and master of lore + horn of gondor in game.

The card faqqed by developers was Master of Lore, and the combo couldn't work anymore.

Since las 1.8 faq, with Horn of Gondor faqqed, i return to think about MoL.

What do you think? Could work now in its original text, or still is a broken card that needs faq? Someone knows any combination of it displaying that MoL is so?

Another question is: could it happen that in the next faq, the point of the MoL could be deleted?

If they've released the errata'd MoL in a reprint run (which I think they have by now, it changed in February 2013) then they can't just remove the entry.

I think it'll be left as is, would get too confusing otherwise.

My copy of Master of Lore has the errata text.

I haven't used it.

I'd throw him in a trap deck if he removes his errata...

My copy of Master of Lore has the errata text.

I haven't used it.

Ah yes. Great point. After a card receives errata FFG starts to print the new version which makes it difficult to "un-errata" the card.

First of all, FFG doesn't do positve errata on player cards. We can debate whether that's good or bad but it does seem clear either way. It has never happened. I don't think they see a lot of incentive to go back and improve old cards via errata--only nerf cards they feel are exploitable to effect broken combos. I think they want people focused on buying new, more powerful cards rather than looking back to reuse old ones.

Beyond that, @blinky's right. If they've shipped a print-run of the card with the errata already included then there's no way they'll change it again so theirs three version floating around.

Also--FFG seems to care about keeping this game balanced in such a way as to make sure players can't legally use any exploitive combos (presumably to keep competitive scoring equitable because otherwise who cares in a coop game). In that environment, Master of Lore is never getting changed back. It is probably the most exploitable card they've ever printed in it's original format. Without limits that effect is so powerful.

No cardgame EVER receives positive errata. Errata is bad, causes confusion among players and inconsistency amongst player's printed cards. But sometimes it has to be done to prevent exploits. But buffing a card? It's better for a game to simply print a new improved version than errata an old one. You can make a big deal out of being 'cheated' one measily card, but it's just better for the game to minimize errata.

Master of Lore has always felt like it was flirting with broken combo's because there was no limit to how many resources he could theoretically produce in 1 turn. The Born aloft combo was just one combo that was possible with him. If he was re-introduced it would be easy to accidentily break the game with him again, or fun cards the designers think of in the future might not be made because they would break the Master of Lore again.

Good idea.

As this is not a competitive game we can make our own rules up, so in this case I will just cancel the errata.

Since my copies of the card are pre-errata I can leave them as is, rather than having to insert errata into the card covers.

Since I don't make combo decks there is no issue with breaking the game.

Having said that I have never used the master of lore, 3 cost never seemed worth it, especially with being only ablt to reduce to 1, and not 0..

Has anyone actually used master of lore? (outside of a breaking the game combo deck?)

No cardgame EVER receives positive errata. Errata is bad, causes confusion among players and inconsistency amongst player's printed cards. But sometimes it has to be done to prevent exploits. But buffing a card? It's better for a game to simply print a new improved version than errata an old one. You can make a big deal out of being 'cheated' one measily card, but it's just better for the game to minimize errata.

Master of Lore has always felt like it was flirting with broken combo's because there was no limit to how many resources he could theoretically produce in 1 turn. The Born aloft combo was just one combo that was possible with him. If he was re-introduced it would be easy to accidentily break the game with him again, or fun cards the designers think of in the future might not be made because they would break the Master of Lore again.

I don't get references to Master of Lore as "resource generation". Didn't the errata just add "first card" to his text? A discount, to a minimum of one, means that every card Master Lore affects is spending resources, not generating them.

Accidently breaking the game would be Blocking Wargs, or the Bilbo/Galadriel combo that generated infinite willpower. Those both break the game, and could happen to anyone. No one ever accidently constructed an exploitive Master of Lore combo, did they? It required creativity and intent.

In the broken combo itself, Master of Lore's only role was reducing the cost of Hammersmith to one. The key to a broken resource/cards engine is always going to be the intersection of cards that generate resources from cards *without limit*, and cards that generate cards from resources *without limit*. Master of Lore does neither. Horn of Gondor did. Love of Tales did. Legacy of Durin still does. The errata moral should be (and for newly designed cards as well):

Any attachment or ally that generates cards or resources either needs to exhaust or have a limit.

I think the Master of Lore errata was unnecessary because it targeted the wrong card of the combo, and a powerful card got turned into a coaster. I think the Horn of Gondor errata was done incorrectly because it fixed the problem the wrong way, by weakening instead of limiting.

Positive errata won't happen, and the only hope for coasters is that some future card will have synergy that allows it to shine. Master of Lore can never be as good as he was, but his big problem in his current form is taking too long to pay back. If there were a Gondorian equivalent of Spirit Theoden, I think Master of Lore would live happily in his deck.

Except it would not be positive errata. Just reverting to an original state it never should have been changed in the first place (errating the wrong card out of a 3-cards combo where Horn of Gondor was obviously the broken card)

Never try this combo actually ..

According to new FAQ designer make a player cards more weak , nothing more. Sounds like players decks become really powerful!

Good to here from you again!

Did you like Battle of Carn Dum?

I don't get references to Master of Lore as "resource generation". Didn't the errata just add "first card" to his text? A discount, to a minimum of one, means that every card Master Lore affects is spending resources, not generating them.

They call it resource generation because he is saving you resources, which has the same net effect on the resource pool. After all, a penny saved is a penny earned, though in this case the pennies are generic resources.

But if we stay true to the terms, resource generation and cost reduction are two different things, which while have their common qualities, are pretty different.

But if we stay true to the terms, resource generation and cost reduction are two different things, which while have their common qualities, are pretty different.

How are they so much different? Adding a resource to a Lore hero is pretty much the exact same as reducing the cost of a Lore card by 1.

But if we stay true to the terms, resource generation and cost reduction are two different things, which while have their common qualities, are pretty different.

How are they so much different? Adding a resource to a Lore hero is pretty much the exact same as reducing the cost of a Lore card by 1.

Resource generation and cost reduction may end up at the same place but they both took different paths to get there. Same could be said for -1 Def or +1 Atk, or healing damage or canceling damage. Same outcome, sure, but still different approaches to the problem.

Good to here from you again!

I was always here watching but not play much.. Was a bit busy with my job. Now I have more time to play more again.

But if we stay true to the terms, resource generation and cost reduction are two different things, which while have their common qualities, are pretty different.

How are they so much different? Adding a resource to a Lore hero is pretty much the exact same as reducing the cost of a Lore card by 1.

A quick example. Event "Gaining Strength". Reduce all you want, but you need to have 2 actual resources in a hero's resource pool to trigger this event. And there are plenty of resource related effects not only in player cards, but in encounter ones too, all indifferent to the cost reduction mechanics.

But if we stay true to the terms, resource generation and cost reduction are two different things, which while have their common qualities, are pretty different.

How are they so much different? Adding a resource to a Lore hero is pretty much the exact same as reducing the cost of a Lore card by 1.

It's only pretty much the exact same thing if you're going to immediately play a Lore card. If your hero is Elrond, or you need resources for a neutral card, or you are using a card that buffs based on resources, or you're saving up for a lore card you can't afford (or haven't drawn yet), getting the resource is superior.

It's also superior in another way -- most of the cost reducing cards reduce "to a minimum of one", which means that's it's only useful if you're playing a Lore card of 2-cost or higher, and if you have no resources you can play nothing at all. A lone Lore Hero with one resource and three Masters of Lore can play one Lore card, cost 1-4. A lone Lore Hero with four resources can do more.

Unconvinced? Compare the worth of these two cards:

1) Steward of Gondor -- exhaust to generate two resources

2) Steward of Ithilien -- exhaust to make the next card matching the sphere of the attached hero cost two less, to a minimum of one.

Pretty much the same thing?

(Note -- I would totally put Steward of Ithilien in my deck, because it'd be awesome. Just not as awesome as Steward of Gondor.)

I play what's on the card and otherwise ignore errata. Less painful that way!

I think it, you can play Master of Lore without errata, and you can't do nothing so much broken neither extraordinary, if Horn of Gondor is faqqed.

Even if there is no loop now that the Horn has errata, any effect with unlimited uses limits the design scope of the game. The designers would need to think about this card when designing any other card to make sure it's not broken. It limits what kind of other cards we can have.

Master of Lore, pre-FAQ, was already limited -- specifically, the cost reduction was limited to a minimum of one. That means it's simply not possible for any sort of unlimited exploit of Master of Lore *without* an unlimited resource regeneration exploit. And any unlimited resource regeneration exploit is subject to abuse, with or without Master of Lore.

Because of the hard cost floor, I don't see the errata really changing the design space, either. Anything Lore that's useful at 2, not game-breaking to play once at 1, but game-breaking if played thrice at 1 is in a very narrow design window (and could be produced, if not as easily, with three Masters of Lore).

Further, while the errata Master of Lore conceivably leaves room in Lore for a more effective cost reducer to be designed, that might have precluded if Master of Lore was still an effective cost reducer, it does so only by removing Master of Lore from the effective card pool. Removing a card now to allow a different card to *maybe* be designed later is not a good trade off for expanding the pool. In practical terms, the existence of Master of Lore as a cost-reducer, even a poor one, is likely to discourage anything similar-but-better from being done in the sphere, I think.

In practical terms, the existence of Master of Lore as a cost-reducer, even a poor one, is likely to discourage anything similar-but-better from being done in the sphere, I think.

I actually think the existence of Grima does more to limit design space than Master of Lore. Obviously the Doomed mechanic is a big deterrent in the multiplayer setting, but the fact that it can be mitigated so well in solo probably does make it hard to design any additional Lore cost-lowering effects.