Defending loads of attacks easily with one character is fun, so we'll definitely not be using the Burning Brand change (particularly since we mostly use it as a "make Lore character better defenders" card rather than "make a super-defender Lore"). I feel sorry for those newer to the game who are going to get the inferior version and not be able to have all the fun we had.

Don't get the grumbling about combat monopolization at all. If your team-mate has the powerful combat characters that doesn't stop you from joining in the calculations of the best engagement and combat strategy. The person who gets to turn their card sideways at the end isn't really a big deal.

On 5/11/2019 at 10:24 AM, dalestephenson said:

That's a shame -- surely the point of playing a game is for enjoyment, not to maximize the chances of victory. Is it considered impolite not to bring a power deck to a pickup game?

Losing is typically not enjoyable, especially when there was an easy path to not losing which was rejected.

13 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

What is a bit annoying about all this is also that the errata is taking place after so many cycles have been released and most of you veteran long time players have already got to use the "game-breaking OP awesomeness" or conversely used heroes during their normal progression release before certain attachments or combos made those cards stronger.

So for new players it's like "here are these same quite difficult scenarios but we are taking away the tools your longer-playing peers used to beat them or just straight up bypassing a particular cards moment in the light. Like when I opened and first looked at the new version, as well as the only version (since it's printed on the cards) of Horn of Gondor or Master of Lore. And they are kind of lame and not great instead of being able to try to experiment and have awesome shenanigans with said cards.

I mean, I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't like the game-breaking OP versions of cards, and therefore I generally avoided using them to beat those scenarios. So I would view it more as "Here are the same quite interesting scenarios but we've taken away some of the nonsense your longer-playing peers used to make them less interesting."

Alo, I've never gotten much use out of Horn of Gondor, pre or post errata, but Master of Lore I still like when I can find a place for it.

4 hours ago, NathanH said:

Defending loads of attacks easily with one character is fun, so we'll definitely not be using the Burning Brand change (particularly since we mostly use it as a "make Lore character better defenders" card rather than "make a super-defender Lore"). I feel sorry for those newer to the game who are going to get the inferior version and not be able to have all the fun we had.

Defending loads of attacks easily with one character is boring, so we definitely will be using the Burning Brand change (Particularly since it can still be used quite easily to make Lore characters better defenders, just not so much to make super-defenders invulnerable). I feel excited for those players both new and old who are going to get the better balanced version and will be pushed to find more creative and interesting combat solutions.

18 hours ago, PocketWraith said:

Losing is typically not enjoyable, especially when there was an easy path to not losing which was rejected.

This is a very personal opinion, which definitively nor me or my friends who play LotR lcg share. If you have difficulties enjoying the game when you lose, that is your own thing.

Statement 1: A player that dislikes an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

Statement 2: A player that likes an errata and chooses to use it receives a benefit to their enjoyment.

Support for Statement 1: This is a co-op game, and as such no one is forcing anyone to play a particular way.*

Support for Statement 2: True by definition.

By the above, I conclude that errata has at worst a neutral effect, and at best a positive effect. So bring on the errata. Can't have too much, I say. Concerns about having too much errata to keep track of can be handled with:

Statement 3: A player that is unaware of an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

*Outside of organized play.

6 hours ago, Seastan said:

Statement 1: A player that dislikes an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

Statement 2: A player that likes an errata and chooses to use it receives a benefit to their enjoyment.

Support for Statement 1: This is a co-op game, and as such no one is forcing anyone to play a particular way.*

Support for Statement 2: True by definition.

By the above, I conclude that errata has at worst a neutral effect, and at best a positive effect. So bring on the errata. Can't have too much, I say. Concerns about having too much errata to keep track of can be handled with:

Statement 3: A player that is unaware of an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

*Outside of organized play.

I disagree with your statement 1 as a statement 1 guy. I would counter that if a player has a card that is printed with an errata it's harder to play it a different earlier pre-errata way. It feels almost like you are cheating. And if you are playing in things like the solo league then you feel dishonest playing it that way. And it's similar and even worse if it's an unprinted change.

In another game, X-Wing, which my wife and I used to play before this game, my wife's favorite build was Palpatine in a Shuttle with two wingman. She played it dozens of times against me. And we almost always played just the two of us. Beat me many times and I beat her a few back. But she was still getting into the heavier games at that time.

Then one year they nerfed Palpatine and changed his effect to be "more balanced", we could still play the old way and we tried to but it ruined it for her and she eventually lost interest in the game. It felt like we were cheating or playing it wrong or making up your own rules to make it easier. And destroyed her favourite squad while at it.

This has the same effect on us. My favourite character is Boromir and when I read they changed his to once per phase I felt similar and he became less fun for me because I felt like I was again making up my own rules. We didn't and still don't have even half of the card pool so threat reduction isn't really possible so he wasn't abused. And even if I had everything and could make him raise his threat forever and the game gets too easy then I just change it up and play something else, it's a cooperative friendly game. But still when I play him now either I'm looking at his card and mentally attaching restrictions to him which is lame. Or I'm playing him with my "made-up" rules of no limit and feel bad. Kind of ruined the entire card for me.

So do we keep playing him the old way? Sure but it's definitley become less fun using him and I feel like I have to play him a different way if I want to be legit. So = less fun to do as you said and be statement 1.

I don't want my wife and friends to lose interest in a game as their favorite combos are altered. That's not enjoyable to any of us and actually detracts from and ruins parts of the game because it's more to keep track of and you feel bad when you play it the old way.

Also how many erratas do you really want? If they changed every single card in the game would that actually be ideal? How is one supposed to keep track of all of that and wouldn't you feel bad if you won with a certain card or cards and afterwards realized/remembered it doesn't play like it has been changed to? I know we would.

What would be far far better in our opinion is just coming out with OPTIONAL restricted card pool/hero lists or specific erratas for an event. It lets guys that for some reason need help balancing a cooperative game be able to have alternate worse cards. And keeps things simpler and more fun for the casual players like us that help grow the gamer base instead of getting overwhelmed with extra text to remember or have to feel bad because we aren't playing it right, or not come out to larger events because the way we play is different then the way it's supposed to be now.

Either way we reject erratas on player cards and hope they stop with them or change it to optional perhaps rotating lists and leave our physical cards and games alone. And we'll keep playing the old way while trying to not become disenfranchised with the game because of these changes.

8 hours ago, Seastan said:

Statement 1: A player that dislikes an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

Statement 2: A player that likes an errata and chooses to use it receives a benefit to their enjoyment.

Support for Statement 1: This is a co-op game, and as such no one is forcing anyone to play a particular way.*

Support for Statement 2: True by definition.

By the above, I conclude that errata has at worst a neutral effect, and at best a positive effect. So bring on the errata. Can't have too much, I say. Concerns about having too much errata to keep track of can be handled with:

Statement 3: A player that is unaware of an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

*Outside of organized play.

I fully agree with @ GILLIES291 .

What you say Seastan would be 100% true and I would fully agree if they would not include the erratas in the reprints. Reprinting cards including erratas invalidates statement 1.

For example, I never had the choice to play Master of Lore the old way, because my copies are all already errated. It always looked to me a poor car so I never used it (I still do not and I have several lore decks). Then one day I learnt that the card had originally been errated. I looked at the errata and thought that it had been actually a cool card in its original form. Nevertheless, I never played it in its original form, contradicting the printed text. If I would do so, I might as well design and print my own cards with strange eons.

24 minutes ago, Yepesnopes said:

I might as well design and print my own cards with strange eons.

Do it!

7 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

How is o  ne supposed to keep track of all of that and wouldn't you feel bad if you won with a certain card or cards and afterwards realized/remembered it doesn't play like it has been changed to? I know we would. 

Even as a pro-errata guy, I sympathize with many of the points in your latest post. Errata do have a kind of psychic cost to them. (But I'd say that the contribution of errata to misbegotten wins is pretty minimal, compared to the hairball of rules that make up this game at this point, heh)

I guess I subscribe to an auteur perspective on this game: I want to play the game that the designer intends, since Caleb, though imperfect like all of us humans, has almost always earned my trust in him. He shapes the game with every new release—essentially all of us (who are not playtesters) have no idea what ends up on the cutting room floor, after all. To me, errata are just another way in which he shapes it, albeit one that he prudently does not use often.

9 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

How is one supposed to keep track of all of that and wouldn't you feel bad if you won with a certain card or cards and afterwards realized/remembered it doesn't play like it has been changed to?

I have printed all errata with strange eons, that way I will not forget to use them. But the bigger problem is, that there are so many translation errors in the older cycles of German version, especially in Heirs of Númenor, that you would never be able to play the game properly without knowing. E.g. Ithilien Road reduces the attack value to zero instead of the engagement cost, this totally alters the quest and makes the first rounds trivial in Into Ithilien. And there are a lot of similar errors.

14 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

You have some good points here regarding Statement 1.

From my understanding, the main counterargument is this kind of "guilt" you feel if you play a card that has been errata'd the original way. And I sympathize with this. By nerfing a card, the designers have deemed it too powerful, so by playing with the original text makes it seem like you are playing on easy mode.

To be clear, I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings or anyone else's. You feel the way you feel. But maybe I can help by framing errata a bit differently.

I would suggest rather to interpret errata this way: That the designers have deemed the card too powerful given the current state of the card pool, going forward. You should feel 0 guilt playing with original text against any of the previous 100 quests that have come out so far. Why? Because they let the card stand as is for all those years. If they made the past quests too easy, they would have errata'd it long before. By waiting until now to do it, they are effectively saying that the rest of the card pool is developed to the point where we have so many readying effects, with likely many more to come, that A Burning Brand can be too easily abused.

Thousands of players have been playing the original text of A Burining Brand against the current collection of quests for years. The errata doesn't invalidate any of those wins any more than an errata in a competitive game invalidates the last year's tournament champion who happened to use the card. If players want to copy the old championship decklists in a competitive game and play them against each other, one could argue that they should in fact use the original text rather than the ettata'd text. Why not apply the same logic to old quests?

Now yes, the cards are going to be reprinted with the updated text. They need to be, because the game is still alive, and future content is going to be balanced around the errata'd text. For a new player entering the game, picking up both old content and new, it would be a negative experience for them to complete some new content only to realize they were playing incorrectly because they did not have the updated text. I honestly think this would be a worse feeling for a new player than the slightly increased difficulty in not having the original Burning Brand when playing old scenarios.

So I really feel that nobody should feel any guilt at all when playing old content with the original text.

As for future content, you might say that your enjoyment of those scenarios will not be as high as it would have been, because you will feel guilty about playing with the original text. That's fair. I would feel guilty too. But keep in mind there would be nothing to prevent a designer from loading up every quest insert with a bunch of extra rules to counter all the overpowered decks. Errata is simply a lot cleaner way of ensuring that their new scenarios don't get immediately stomped. We saw this when the Boromir deck rose to power and the designers countered with new scenarios all having shadow effects that prevented the defender from readying (which ended up harming other archetypes even more). Then Boromir was ettata'd, and now hopefully we will start seeing these effects die out.

Now, future content does not exist yet. So it's not possible for our enjoyment of it to go down from where it currently stands. This is where Statement 1 is coming from. If you won't find enjoyment from new content when playing either version of ABB, you are free to avoid purchasing it. The designers do not owe us new content that can be well handled by ABB. They don't owe us anything at all.

Nevertheless, despite having these discussions every time a new FAQ is published, many of them containing plenty of errata that I myself wish was done differently, it's easy for me to say that the game is in the best state it's ever been, and my enjoyment continues to go up every year. Boromir was my favorite card in the game. But I'm now enjoying newer cards more than I ever did Boromir. It's a living card game. Let it live.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain it a different way. And while I still don't like erratas in this game, I get where you are coming from.

I personally will keep playing the old way and continue trying to grow my collection. I just hope I can keep my wife and friends interested as their staples get nerfed down and we have to try to ignore rules changes, and not get too affected by it myself. It really does suck to have to feel like you are making up rules to play the game and use things you enjoy especially as newer players who don't have everything and/or are the target audience for these aggressive erratas.

Contrary to @sappidus, I am obviously not a pro-errata guy, but the same as him, Caleb has all my trust in terms of game design, or at least, in terms of scenario design 😛 . For me, the last cycles (Dream Chaser, Harad and Rhovanion) are among the very best of this game, with a special mention to Mountain of Fire. Although it is a very tough end for the campaign, I have to admit the mechanics evoke perfectly the theme and tone of the books.

On 5/11/2019 at 7:36 PM, Seastan said:

"Power nerfs to long-released cards is a recent development" is almost a tautology. You couldn't have nerfs to long-released cards early in the game life, because it was early in the game's life. But anyway, I'll grant whatever point you're trying to make here because I don't think it matters. "The developers have never done X before, so they should not do X now" is not a convincing argument, in my view.

The time that elapses between release and errata impacts the cost of errata. But it's got me curious about how long has elapsed for errata over history. Unfortunately the pre-errata text is not given, so some of my descriptions may be off.

4/20/2011 core released

FAQ 1.1 (6/24/2011) -- no player cards

FAQ 1.2 (10/28/2011) -- no player cards

11/20/2011 Dead Marshes released

1/6/2012 Khazad Dum released

3/12/2012 Road to Rivendell released

5/16/2012 Long Dark released

FAQ 1.3 (8/1/2012)

Beravor (core) -- once per round

Protector of Lorien (core) -- capped at 3.

Zigil Miner (KD) -- only 1 resource per match

This is the first errata, and these can all be considered "power nerfs". Beravor/Protector had been around for a bit over a year, but this is the first FAQ after the release of Zigil Miner. Beravor/Protector both preserve the common case.

8/8/2012 Shadow and Flame released

8/17/2012 OHUH released

11/26/2012 HoN released

2/22/2013 OtDS released

FAQ 1.4 (2/27/2013)

Feint (core) -- protect one player

Thicket of Spears (core) -- protect one player?

Narvi's Belt (KD) -- not sure what changed here. Exhaustion? Phase instead of round?

Out of Sight (Long Dark) -- protect one player?

Nori (OHUH) -- add from your hand?

Thror's Map (OHUH) -- make Travel Action.

Master of Lore (HoN) -- only discounts one card

This FAQ is the first since Shadow and Flame, which I think prompted the changes to the two core cards. Master of Lore was victimized by an extreme combo and was poorly done IMO. This was the first chance to fix Nori/Thror's Map, both of which affected power though Thror's Map was *extremely* powerful in its original form.

5/31/2013 Druadan Forest released

FAQ 1.5 (7/26/2013?)

Ravens of the Mountains (OTDS) -- look at instead of "reveal" (positive errata)

OTDS was released so close to the last FAQ that this is probably the first chance to fix what was an unusable card.

October 2013 Blood of Gondor released

FAQ 1.6 (2/6/2014)

Erebor Battle Master (Long Dark) -- +1 attack per ally

Expert Treasure Hunter (OtDS) -- limit 1 per hero

These can both be looked at power nerfs, especially for EBM. ETH had been out for close to a year, EBM for over 20 months.

June 2014 Dunland Trap released

October 2014 Nin-in-Eleph released

FAQ 1.7 (1/20/2015)

Will of the West (Core) -- remove from game when used

O Elbereth Gilthoniel (Shadow and Flame) -- title fixed

A Watchful Peace (HoN) -- ??

Trained for War (Druadan Forest) -- ??

Blue Mountain Trader (Dunland Trap) -- limit once per round

Will of the West was part of an extreme combo and the change preserved the common case. This was the first chance to fix Blue Mountain Trader, and the change preserved the common case. I don't remember the original form for the other three, but I don't remember them generating discussion.

FAQ 1.8 (1/26/2016)

Horn of Gondor (Core) -- character destroyed instead of leaves play

Love of Tales (Long Dark) -- make exhaust, restricted

Both cards were part of an extreme combo, and Love of Tales preserved the common case. Horn of Gondor changed *the common case* instead of exhausting and IMO a very poorly down errata. Horn of Gondor had been out over four years.

FAQ 1.9 (10/16/2017)

Wandering Took (core) -- limit once per round

Boromir (Dead Marshes) -- ability limited to once per phase

Out of the Wild (Road to Rivendell) -- add to victory display

Hama (Long Dark) -- ability limited to three times per game for group

We Are Not Idle (Shadow and Flame) -- exhaust heroes instead of dwarves

Caldara (Blood of Gondor) -- ability limited to once per game

Wingfoot (Nin-in-Eleph) -- exhaust

Wandering Took, WANI, Out of the Wild, Wingfoot were all part of extreme combos, all changes preserved the common case except for WANI, which was dramatically weakened after over five years in wide use.

Hama was part of a combo with Thicket of Spears, which was errated over four years ago (with Feint) so that Hama could continue to use it without breaking multiplayer. Hama had been out for over five years.

Caldara had been out for four years, but had more recently become popular because of a couple new cards (one specifically designed to work well with Caldara) and a favorable ruling. It was a straight power nerf and changed her archtype.

Boromir had been out for almost six years and was very popular, and it was a straight power nerf.

FAQ 1.10 (2019)

A Burning Brand, Legacy of Durin, Erebor Battle Master, who knows what else. Legacy of Durin has been involved in previous extreme combos, the other two not.

Poor Long Dark, receiving errata in five different FAQs.

It's true that you couldn't nerf "long-released cards" early in the game because nothing had been out long, but it's striking that *only* long-released cards are receiving errata. Blue Mountain Trader appears to be the *only* card after 2013 to be fixed in the next available FAQ. Beravor was errata-ed in the *first* FAQ that errata-ed player cards, that's not the same sort of thing that was done to Boromir.

On 5/11/2019 at 7:36 PM, Seastan said:

It is considered impolite to make pointlessly risky decisions in a game with strangers, yes.

Player 1: "Ok I need to defend this attack."

Player 2: "I've got a Beregond with ABB and extra readies."

Player 1: "No thanks, I'm running a Dunedain deck and part of the fun is defending. Oops, it's Sleeping Sentry. All my guys just died, and my 4 engaged enemies now get pushed back to the staging area. Looks like you guys are going to fail questing next round and threat out."

Players 3&4: ....

Is it considered impolite to monopolize defense in a game with strangers?

Yes, I'd agree it would be impolite to risk unprotected defense in Road to Rivendell with four enemies engaged, since it has the single most powerful and obnoxious shadow in the game. But in a pickup game, Beregond has enough readies to cover a Dunedain's deck 4 engaged enemies *plus* the other three players as well? And a Dunedain deck of all decks would *welcome* Beregond's shadow-free defense because it would allow them to engage more enemies then they can handle on their own.

But suppose instead it's a Dale deck with 1-2 enemies engaged. Is it "impolite" for him to use his Redwater Sentries for something other than questing or attacking for 1? In most quests, he's just risking a Sentry, which isn't near the table impact of losing Beregond. Even in Return to Rivendell returning an enemy or two to the staging area isn't going to kill the other three players, so if he has more fun risking death than watching you play, what's the problem? When possible, I think it's preferable for *players* to come to an arrangement than it is for the *designers* to fix something the players are able, but unwilling, to do.

On 5/12/2019 at 5:25 PM, Seastan said:

Statement 1: A player that dislikes an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

Statement 2: A player that likes an errata and chooses to use it receives a benefit to their enjoyment.

Support for Statement 1: This is a co-op game, and as such no one is forcing anyone to play a particular way.*

Support for Statement 2: True by definition.

By the above, I conclude that errata has at worst a neutral effect, and at best a positive effect. So bring on the errata. Can't have too much, I say. Concerns about having too much errata to keep track of can be handled with:

Statement 3: A player that is unaware of an errata and plays without it suffers no harm to their enjoyment.

*Outside of organized play.

This logic would hold for player variants and optional rules. A player who *chooses* to play a variant or an optional rule knows they are playing a variant, and is content with that choice. Some enjoy variants, others prefer to "play by the rules"

Errata changes the rules -- now you have a player who *was* playing by the rules, and if they continue playing in the fashion they are *not* playing by the rules. So while a player isn't "forced" to play a particular way, they are "forced" to change the way they play or not follow the rules. When WANI is nerfed, my enjoyment is affected whether I play by the rules (in which case WANI may not make the cut), or whether I ignore the errata (in which case my win feels "tainted" if I used WANI to get to five dwarves quicker.)

You are also ignoring the cost in fracturing player base or affecting past discussion and decks -- this is also a cost to variants/optional rules, but it is especially acute with errata.

If "errata has at worst a neutral effect" you would not see errata-hating players in threads like these.

32 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

Narvi's Belt (KD) -- not sure what changed here. Exhaustion? Phase instead of round?

The Narvi's Belt errata was a sensible change to remove the interpretation that it could provide a Baggins Sphere Resource Icon.

Based on your post I think the only one of those cards that is 100% ruined for me is Master of Lore. I just cannot imagine a scenario where it would be worthwhile to include it in a deck.

For all of the others I would at least still consider including them in a deck, even Horn of Gondor, which was a happy realisation for me. I suppose it helps to not have spent many years using the cards the old way.

I'll give ABB a try with the new wording. I have a feeling that if it was printed this way originally it would have been pretty good still, we are just used to the extreme power level of the original printing.

6 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

Contrary to @sappidus, I am obviously not a pro-errata guy, but the same as him, Caleb has all my trust in terms of game design, or at least, in terms of scenario design 😛 . For me, the last cycles (Dream Chaser, Harad and Rhovanion) are among the very best of this game, with a special mention to Mountain of Fire. Although it is a very tough end for the campaign, I have to admit the mechanics evoke perfectly the theme and tone of the books.

I'm pleased with the game design in general, and I'm especially pleased with how the latest cycle has synergized with lesser cards from past cycles. If you squint hard, you can even now justify playing Power in the Earth and Beorning Beekeeper!

2 minutes ago, rees263 said:

I'll give ABB a try with the new wording. I have a feeling that if it was printed this way originally it would have been pretty good still, we are just used to the extreme power level of the original printing.

Agreed that it's still a powerful and useful card in the new form, though I'd be a lot happier if it hadn't had Restricted slapped on it. With Silver Lamp out I don't think it will impede even 4-player super defenders much.

3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

[Errata history]

Nice. You know I was granting you the point right? Still, thanks for all that work.

2 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

Errata changes the rules -- now you have a player who *was* playing by the rules, and if they continue playing in the fashion they are *not* playing by the rules. So while a player isn't "forced" to play a particular way, they are "forced" to change the way they play or not follow the rules. When WANI is nerfed, my enjoyment is affected whether I play by the rules (in which case WANI may not make the cut), or whether I ignore the errata (in which case my win feels "tainted" if I used  WANI to get to five dwarves quicker.)

See my reply to GILLIES291. In summary, playing with original text against any scenario released before the errata should not really be considered "against the rules", since it was allowed at the time. It should only be considered against the rules for future content. But in that case, it is up to the individual to decide if they will get enjoyment out of it. If they decide to stop collecting more content and just play with what they have, then their enjoyment hasn't gone down.

And yes, I believe everyone in the thread saying that it still will. I am trying to help them reconsider. Just as a thought experiment, suppose the developers themselves came out and said "When playing progression style, feel free to use the original text of a card for quests released before that card's errata." If they said this, then would you agree with me that errata should cause no loss of enjoyment for anyone?

Errata by its very nature will often cause someone to lose enjoyment. It's changing the rules, dethroning common favourite cards, and presenting the option to either play with our own made up rules (which we see as the old and original way) or lose out on favorite heroes and key player cards.

Sure I could use heroes other than Boromir, and I have. But he is my favourite hero and thematically raising your threat to try to help multiple times in a round was always great fun. Then when I found out he had been changed it dimminished and spoiled a lot of that fun. For those of us that want to play by the rules and updates, it's hard when thing we enjoy get the nerf bat. Especially when often it's because one player just made a super powerful combo and was abusing it and publicizing it. You can break a lot of heroes and cards in the current game with the right set ups. But now it almost makes you not want to publish powerful and interesting new decks for fear that your design will inspire a future errata.

And it all boils back down to a cooperative versus a competitive game. Comepetive games needs it more because of large group events and LOTR is recently been straddling the line especially with the latest POD packs being versus ones. Which is why I think those events or scenarios would benefit from a banned list rather than physically altering the vast majority of everyone else's games and enjoyment.

So you can't please everyone and erratas targeting old cards, when most of us New players only have a few and older cards, really just ramps up the difficulty and hurts our gameplay. Yes I know you said we shouldn't feel bad playing by the old way, but we do. And newer players that buy a new pack will have no choice but to play vastly underpowered versions of those cards.

I can say that the Horn of Gondor errata made trying to play a pure tactics fellowship with just the core set that much harder. My first adventure pack I picked up was Dead Marshes to get Boromir and thankfully I didn't know about his errata and the version I have doesn't have those changes so I was able to enjoy the fighting chance he gave my tactics groups with the limited card pool against difficult scenarios. Same with Hama who was just being a fun option that is difficult to abuse going to "well he is pretty much garbage now, it's not like he could really do anything other than getting feint or eagle searching back". Caldera doesn't actually make sense for us to play even written the old way because we hardly have any high cost spirit allies, limiting her to once per game just made us laugh and put her in the will never play anytime soon pile. Which is unfortunate. So those three heroes are borderline unusable to us average new players unless you had tons of adventure packs and could try to build something still semi-good but limited and specific.

23 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

I can say that the Horn of Gondor errata made trying to play a pure tactics fellowship with just the core set that much harder.

What do you mean with that? From the core set tactic cards this would only affect Beorn when you use his response and I highly doubt this one ressource you save over a game makes much of a difference. The only other card from the core set would be Sneak Attack which cannot be use in a pure tactics deck. And for chump blocking there is no difference in the function of the card.

11 minutes ago, Amicus Draconis said:

What do you mean with that? From the core set tactic cards this would only affect Beorn when you use his response and I highly doubt this one ressource you save over a game makes much of a difference. The only other card from the core set would be Sneak Attack which cannot be use in a pure tactics deck. And for chump blocking there is no difference in the function of the card.

There's also Gandalf in the core set that can trigger it, and when the tactics deck is in a fellowship the other deck might have Sneak Attack.

The real hit from the Horn change comes right away in the Mirkwood cycle when the Eagles come online -- they're expensive and they leave play by design. Mirkwood also introduces Rohan's discard mechanic, if tactics is playing with spirit. Progression style, Mirkwood was probably peak Horn of Gondor usefulness until Silvan becomes a thing.

The mechanic of Horn of Gondor does (and did) not represent the theme of the item as it is depicted in the books. In my opinion they missed a golden chance with tne errata to fix this.

But hey! Erebor battle master has been errated twice, so who knows!? We may be lucky and see a second errata of those cards that the first errata did a poor job 😂

I will answer your question marks as well as voice my opinion about some errata.

4 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

Thicket of Spears (core) -- protect one player?

Narvi's Belt (KD) -- not sure what changed here. Exhaustion? Phase instead of round?

Out of Sight (Long Dark) -- protect one player?

Nori (OHUH) -- add from your hand?

Thror's Map (OHUH) -- make Travel Action.

Master of Lore (HoN) -- only discounts one card

This FAQ is the first since Shadow and Flame, which I think prompted the changes to the two core cards. Master of Lore was victimized by an extreme combo and was poorly done IMO. This was the first chance to fix Nori/Thror's Map, both of which affected power though Thror's Map was *extremely* powerful in its original form.

Thicket of Spears and Out of Sight used to be a multi-target Feint, they used to prevent all attacks from engaged enemies against any player. I wonder why Hobbit-sense has not gotten an errata yet as it also prevent enemies from attacking. Narvi's Belt could be used to generate Baggins ressources as rees263 already pointed out. Nori reduced your threat after a dwarf character entered play under your control. Combine this with Sneak Attack or A very good Tale und you got some crazy threat reduction. I am not familiar with the old combo of Master of Lore, so I cannot comment this card. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Quote

A Watchful Peace (HoN) -- ??

Trained for War (Druadan Forest) -- ??

Blue Mountain Trader (Dunland Trap) -- limit once per round

Will of the West was part of an extreme combo and the change preserved the common case. This was the first chance to fix Blue Mountain Trader, and the change preserved the common case. I don't remember the original form for the other three, but I don't remember them generating discussion.

A Watchful peace allowed to bring a location back to the encounter deck that had victory points, potentially abusing some cards. Trained for War was changed so it could be used on quests that had key-words other than Siege like Dire or Defense. Blue Mountain Trader allowed free ressource trading between players (and heroes of different spheres) thus trivializing the planning phase. Imagine like A Good Harvest in ally form for all players.

Quote

Horn of Gondor (Core) -- character destroyed instead of leaves play

Love of Tales (Long Dark) -- make exhaust, restricted

Both cards were part of an extreme combo, and Love of Tales preserved the common case. Horn of Gondor changed *the common case* instead of exhausting and IMO a very poorly down errata. Horn of Gondor had been out over four years.

Love of Tales is limited once per hero instead of restricted, but you surely meant that. Sure, you can no longer generate three ressourcs on a single hero when playing a song, most of which can be paid by any hero. I never tried this combo, so I cannot say, whether it was extreme or not.

I never had a problem with the Errata for Horn of Gondor, seeing as it was intended to fascilitate chump blocking. This way it would no longer combo with the silvan events, which it was not designed for as this was too powerful. Normally by chumping you sacrifice an ally to save a hero, silvan events only give you benefits from the event itself and replaying the returned ally. Seeing that most silvans only cost 2 ressources, HoG paid for half your cards already.
It also no longer synergizes with Sneak Attack, which used to be clearly intented by the developers (look at some older news, back when they still wrote other articles that just announcements), but in my opinion this is not bad. After all Boromir used his horn when he was in dire need and not because Legolas went scouting into the woods.

Quote

Wandering Took (core) -- limit once per round

Boromir (Dead Marshes) -- ability limited to once per phase

Out of the Wild (Road to Rivendell) -- add to victory display

Hama (Long Dark) -- ability limited to three times per game for group

We Are Not Idle (Shadow and Flame) -- exhaust heroes instead of dwarves

Caldara (Blood of Gondor) -- ability limited to once per game

Wingfoot (Nin-in-Eleph) -- exhaust

Wandering Took, WANI, Out of the Wild, Wingfoot were all part of extreme combos, all changes preserved the common case except for WANI, which was dramatically weakened after over five years in wide use.

Hama was part of a combo with Thicket of Spears, which was errated over four years ago (with Feint) so that Hama could continue to use it without breaking multiplayer. Hama had been out for over five years.

Caldara had been out for four years, but had more recently become popular because of a couple new cards (one specifically designed to work well with Caldara) and a favorable ruling. It was a straight power nerf and changed her archtype.

Boromir had been out for almost six years and was very popular, and it was a straight power nerf.

WANI was a power nerf, but a needed one, as generating a dozen ressources with a single card (and potential readying with Lure of Moria) is just plain overpowered. Traffic from Dale is a similar card, but at least it is limited to once per round and having allies with attachments is more difficult to achieve than spamming dwarves.

Háma and Thicket of Spears just trivialized combat for a single player, as you no longer needed to defend non-immune enemies. You just engaged everything and let them rot. I cannot say whether this was the best way to nerf the situation but at least it no longer restricted Caleb in the invention of new tactics events. Not even spirit can play a single event for the rest of the game.

Quote

A Burning Brand, Legacy of Durin, Erebor Battle Master, who knows what else. Legacy of Durin has been involved in previous extreme combos, the other two not.

Poor Long Dark, receiving errata in five different FAQs.

It's true that you couldn't nerf "long-released cards" early in the game because nothing had been out long, but it's striking that *only* long-released cards are receiving errata. Blue Mountain Trader appears to be the *only* card after 2013 to be fixed in the next available FAQ. Beravor was errata-ed in the *first* FAQ that errata-ed player cards, that's not the same sort of thing that was done to Boromir.

I am fine with errata to Legacy of Durin and Erebor Battle Master. Five attack for a single ally (with Dáin) is enough, I see no justification why a dwarf should be able to one-hit everything in the game. Granted you need some work to achieve such a power level, but it is not as if you had to exhaust all other dwarves to use his ability or something. The nerf to Legacy is similar to the one of Nori.

Burning Brand again is one of those cards trivializing the game, which I should be fine with nerfing, though I will have to adjust my deck-building and approach on shadow effects. I wonder why Elrond or Warden of Healing have not received an errata.

35 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

There's also Gandalf in the core set that can trigger it, and when the tactics deck is in a fellowship the other deck might have Sneak Attack.

The real hit from the Horn change comes right away in the Mirkwood cycle when the Eagles come online -- they're expensive and they leave play by design. Mirkwood also introduces Rohan's discard mechanic, if tactics is playing with spirit. Progression style, Mirkwood was probably peak Horn of Gondor usefulness until Silvan becomes a thing.

Well, Gillie mentioned core set only, so Eagles and Rohirrim would not count, though I somehow forgot about Gandalf, who is similar to Beorn. And you might save maybe three ressources by playing Gandalf, while the Horn itself costs one. Sure, it is weakened, but not so much that I would complain about it.

Winged Guardian and Vassal of the Windlord cost two and one ressource respectively, not what I would call expensive. Of course I like paying to keep the Guardian around, but in this case the Horn will not trigger. And when I have Eagles of the Misty Mountains on the table, I pay one ressource for a chump or attack boost and then get a permanent boost to the Eagles. There is no need to generate an extra ressource on top of it.

Also neither Lore nor Spirit have ressource acceleration in the core set or Mirkwood cycle. Now spirit could really use some extra ressources when discarding all those Rohan allies, and Lore allies tend to become more expensive, but the Horn is a tactics card, where I do not see a need for extra ressources.