20 hours ago, Kjeld said:

Most of my annoyance with errata would be erased if FFG simply made cheap POD update packs available so players could get the new physical version of the card.

That's totally fair. I have a freakishly good memory for errata/rulings/card text, but for people who don't obviously it would be less frustrating if they could rely on their card text being correct.

20 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

Paying money to get a bunch of nerfed player cards!? Over my dead body!

Include a playable version Brok, Fatty, SpPippin, Longbeard Orc Slayer, LoGlorfindel, Bombur, Power in the Earth... and we are talking 😂

Since it doesn't exist, you have nothing to worry about. Even if it did exist, you wouldn't need to buy it, but other people would like to.

And yes, it could be nice if they were to give positive errata on underpowered cards as well as negative on overpowered. In many cases cards are rehabilitated instead by their combination with later-released cards, but not all.

15 hours ago, Schrodinger's Hat said:

To me, if I would previously have used a card and now I will literally never include it in a deck, it has been nerfed too hard and saying it is now “vastly underpowered” seems reasonable (if not the specific words I would use). Master of Lore, Horn of Gondor, Hama, all fit into this category.

It’s different with the likes of Caldara and Boromir who had their power level reduced but are still very playable (they’re actually still powerful cards imo which shows the errata was probably needed).

HoG specifically is such an iconic part of the books and (now) such a bad card. I never even include it in mono-tactics decks. And that makes me a bit sad.

I disagree. I personally will probably never play Caldara again, but that's not because she's vastly underpowered now, just because I no longer find her interesting. So lack of interest in playing a card is not necessarily down to power level, rather to playstyle. I have used Master of Lore and Horn of Gondor since the errata, and I still feel Hama is at least worthy of consideration. I don't think they're vastly underpowered. They just suit certain kinds of decks.

I can appreciate the desire for Horn of Gondor to be more *universal* given its book significance, but divorced from that context, it's not a *bad* card, it's just a card suited to a particular type of deck and which really shouldn't have the Restricted keyword that it does.

5 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

But I literally said: "And newer players that buy a new pack will have no choice but to play vastly underpowered versions of those cards"

Yes. I read what you said, and responded to it. The post-errata versions of those cards are not vastly underpowered. Underpowered is measured in the general context of the game, not the errata history of a specific card. Many cards in their post-errata forms, while less powerful than they were pre-errata, are still noticeably *more* powerful than other comparable cards in the pool. They are most certainly not vastly underpowered.

5 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

For sure there are other cards out there, that are comparable to what the post errata cards are. But how many of the more senior players here had Boromir save their hides more than once by being able to ready more than a single time per phase? Or had the extra resources from Horn of Gondor to afford the key cards and pull off a win. Or just actually use Master of Lore in a deck? Hahaha.

I've never played Master of Lore in a deck, though I do have a deck I haven't played yet with 3x, just for fun. I never had the original version. I have used Horn of Gondor, but I don't remember if a non-destroyed resource generation was actually critical. I'm sure multiple readies have saved my bacon in the few TaBoromir decks I've played, and I'm absolutely positive I beat Carn Dum on the strength of multiple shadow cancellation with ABB. Those wins feel a bit tainted post-errata, since I could not have won them without the benefit of an "error" by the designers.

Thanks to the Limited Edition, I now have Horn of Gondor with two different wordings, I can't include 3x Horn of Gondor (in the unlikely case that I'd want to) without differing text. Nori, Feint, and Blue Mountain Trader are the other errataed cards in the Starter, but I have the errataed versions of Nori and Feint already, and BMT came as a 3x.

32 minutes ago, PocketWraith said:

I disagree. I personally will probably never play Caldara again, but that's not because she's vastly underpowered now, just because I no longer find her interesting. So lack of interest in playing a card is not necessarily down to power level, rather to playstyle. I have used Master of Lore and Horn of Gondor since the errata, and I still feel Hama is at least worthy of consideration. I don't think they're vastly underpowered. They just suit certain kinds of decks.

Master of Lore is certainly underpowered compared to other cost reducers -- it costs the most despite being (like others) limited to discounting one card and (unlike some others) prohibited from reducing cost below one.

46 minutes ago, PocketWraith said:

Yes. I read what you said, and responded to it. The post-errata versions of those cards are not vastly underpowered. Underpowered is measured in the general context of the game, not the errata history of a specific card. Many cards in their post-errata forms, while less powerful than they were pre-errata, are still noticeably *more* powerful than other comparable cards in the pool. They are most certainly not vastly underpowered.

I think we are just disagreeing on the comparison or perhaps definition of vastly underpowered. I'm comparing that card to that card as for newer players we don't have the whole card pool so we are limited to resource generation from things like Horn of Gondor and the like initially. You are comparing it to the pool as a whole. I stand by that Horn of Gondor is vastly underpowered compared to original Horn of Gondor. Likewise with the new versions compared with the original versions of Boromir, Hama, Caldara, and the other erratas. So if one only has the dead Marshes as a first expansion, then Horn of Gondor and Boromir for example are vastly underpowered compared to what they would have been for a new player. But power levels are subject to persona opinion so we can agree to disagree.

I definitely played somewhat progression style as we were getting started. Picking up the first cycle and playing through that with just those cards. We diverged to pick up and play through the Sagas but we have been fortunate to get things in order so far.

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

There must be some scenario-specific reason why Watchful Peace bringing back VP locations is problematic, because for the most part VP locations are obnoxious beasties you don't want to see again. I took a brief look at VP locations and nothing jumped out of me. Overall the errata preserves the common case, and it's a rarely used sideboard card in any case.

Black Rides has some friendly VP locations like Bag End, Woody End, Bamfurlong, Midgewater, The Troll's Camp etc. Returning those cards for the next staging step would make the game easier. And there is no thematic reason, Frodo should return to Bag End or any of the other locations several times in a row, when his goal is to reach Rivendell as soon as possible.

Quote

Did the original wording of Trained for War exclude keywords, making it a rare positive errata?

Yes, the original text was: Play only (...) Action: Until the end of the phase, if the current quest has no keyword, it gains battle. (Characters ...).

Quote

Blue Mountain Trader's errata was expected as soon as the card came out, and came in the form people expected, preserving a common case. BMT didn't allow free redistribution between players (a maximum net transfer of one no matter how many exchanges were made), but within each player was equivalent of a solo Errand Rider that didn't exhaust. I don't the effect was game-breaking (unlike Good Harvest, it couldn't be used to play a sphere you didn't have), and more importantly it required *cooperation* to work, so it could not affect anyone who didn't wish to be affected. But all the same, the form of the errata was well done. This was also a card that was errata-ed at the first opportunity after printing, I'm much more sympathetic to those ("Whoops, we didn't mean to do that") than to errata of long-standing cards--I think it's quite possible that the designers didn't realize its potential int he first place.

I might have worded my sentence ambiguosly, so I will try again: Blue Mountain Trader does not allow you to give your partner an arbitrary amount of ressources, you are right. But it allowed you to trade your tactics ressources into spirit ressources (when the trader returns back to you) and your partner could turn his leadership ressources into lore ones. This is the equivalent of having all songs of all spheres you control on all your heroes.

Quote

The key change for Love of Tales wasn't the 1 per hero (that's limiting, but since it's not unique you can still have multiple copies in play), but the exhaustion -- that nerfed the card/resource loop by restricting the resources. Really, *any* attachment that generates resources and doesn't exhaust (or have a hard per round limit) is just waiting for the right combination to break the game. This was not a surprise nerf, but the limit 1 per hero was not necessary after exhaustion was added. Post-nerf it's returned to obscurity, though it at least is a reliable (and free) generator in a song-heavy deck. It's a shame that the lesson about exhaustion wasn't followed for Horn of Gondor.

You are right, I remembered the errata wrong. Still, what would several copies of Love of Tales mean on a single hero? That he love songs even more than another hero? Thematicly I cannot see a justification. When you already use songs, most ressources can be spent as fit anyway, at least for playing cards, so you could just as well spread the Love for Tales over all your heroes (by making them lore beforehand).

Quote

Original WANI in conjunction with Lure of Moria works out to a net resource gain if you have more than 3 dwarves, and are willing to burn the powerful Lure of Moria event (or can easily recur it). WANI/Lure of Moria/Legacy of Durin could be used for a draw-your-deck loop, so some limitation on WANI and/or Legacy of Durin makes sense -- but aside from the novelty value, if you can make a massive amount of money because you have a massive amount of dwarves on the table, you *already* are in a winning place and are just doing "win more". My grief against the WANI errata isn't that it was limited, but that it was *changed* to be a much less useful card -- the common case was not preserved. Put "limit 3" on it instead and it can still be used to help you get five dwarves out quickly.

I am not sure, I can follow you. If you want five dwarves, you already have at least Thorin and Ori in play, and probably also a third dwarven hero. With two dwarven allies, or one ally and Bombur hero, you have already reached the magical number of five dwarves. So this only leaves the case of a single dwarven ally, so you are missing out on a single ressource. Granted, this might make a difference, but not as severe as you made it sound.

Quote

The original errata to Thicket of Spears shows clearly that the designers had no problem with Hama "trivializing combat" for a single player. The larger problem is that thanks to Mablung and TaAragorn, Hama-deck could steal other players' enemies as well and trivialize combat for *multiple* player. The problem with the errata is that it doesn't preserve the common case -- rather than focusing on preventing the recursion of powerful cards, it incents Hama to *only* recur powerful cards by giving him a per-game limit. Sending Thicket of Spears to the victory pile, or turning a Hama-recurred cards into an attachment which is removed or bottom-decked after play would've limited recursion of *specific* cards while still allowing Hama to do what he was designed to do. As it is, the nerf pretends that while Hama playing Thicket of Spears every turn cannot be born, even at the cost of using the only card drawn and all of the resources generated, playing Thicket of Spears nine times is just fine (3x + 3 Hama + 3 tome). I don't think the design space opened by allowing nine plays (or more in combination with other cards) but not every turn actually exists. Honestly, if there's an event that's problematic in *any* sphere to recur repeatedly, it needs to go to the victory display after playing.

As I already said, I cannot say whether this was the best way to nerf the situation.

Quote

Tactics Gimli takes issue with your claim that one dwarf should not be able to one-shot everything. The nerf to EBM capping at five preserves the common case, but strikes me as unnecessary -- if you have an obscene number of dwarves to generate obscene EBM attack values, you probably don't *need* EBM for obscene attack values. It's preventing a win-more that was fun, but pointless. At least EBM's cap doesn't leave him inferior to a same-cost card, like poor Leaflock. More concerning to me is that with the change to EBM *and* Legacy of Durin on the heels of the WANI nerf, there's the appearance of a concerted effort to nerf dwarf decks in particular, as if there weren't other archtypes just as powerful or even more powerful. Since dwarf deck is the first power deck progression-style, this hits new progression players hardest and I don't see that as a good thing.

Well, Gimli needs a lot of attachment to one-shot the Balrog or Smaug. Nevertheless, Gimli is a hero and thus unique, the Battle Master is not. You could nearly see it equivalent to a Battle Master giving +1 Attack to every dwarf ally you control, only concentrated on a single ally. Some say, Dáin is overpowered...

If you consider Leaflock in a poor shape, then what about Denethor? I am not concerned about nerfs to power decks. We still do not know, what Caleb is planning and what might be nerfed next time. He surely is not errataing cards out of boredom.

Quote

The most powerful archtype is Vilya, but I don't see nerfing Vilya as either necessary or desirable. A limit could be reasonably placed on the number of times Warden of Healing could be used per turn without impacting the common case, but I don't think the efficient healing provided by Elrond/Warden is a problem that needs fixed.

Tolkien describes Vilya as "the mightiest of the Three", thus second only to the One Ring. A powerful artifact justifies a powerful. But I was thinking of his unlimited healing bonus, which doubles the effect of the Warden of Healing. You say a limit is reasonable, but not needed. Sounds paradox to me. Regardless, I will disagree on this point.

16 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

The main objection to Horn of Gondor errata isn't that it was done *at all*, but that it changed and weakened the common case. Changing Horn of Gondor to exhaust could have, and should have been done to fix the Master of Lore loop instead of picking on the master, (and as was done with the Love of Tales loop). Horn of Gondor was in yet another loop before its errata IIRC, as was inevitable when it didn't exhaust.

It might have weakened the common case, but I do not see a need to make events like Sneak Attack for free, which is already powerful enough with Gandalf. On the other hand, chump blocking several attacks weakens your board state and Horn of Gondor helps you rebuild it.

Quote

But you're overstating the effect for Rohan and Silvan. Theoden can't make "many Rohan allies free" with HoG because he can only discount one ally per turn. With Gamling you could make Escort from Edoras free every turn, but everything else would have to be paid for, and Gamling + Horn for effectively a 4-wp quester isn't outrageous.

When you say, I am overstating the effect for Rohan and Silvan, this only leaves some events and Eagles (or is there another theme I am forgetting?). In my opinion Eagles are strong enough and buffing Eagles of the Misty Mountains is enough reward, there is no need to earn a ressource, as I already said before.

I did not mean many as in "many per turn", rather as in "more than just Snowbourn Scout, Escort from Edoras and the Riddermark's Finest". But Gamling, Horn, Théoden and Riddermark's Finest would allow you to put 4 progress per round for a single ressource, or 2 progress for free. It is said, with the existence of Asfaloth the number of progress needed to clear a location has been increased to at least three. The combination above would be a bit more work and if you are willing to pay something extra even more effective. And guess what happens, when you would use Grimbold instead of the Riddermark's Finest. Hint: Háma + Feint pales in comparison.

Quote

The original Horn can do well with Tree People, but O Lorien only discounts one card per turn, and once you play Tree People it's in the discard. Playing a Weaver gets it back in your deck, not your hand. Now with ElvenKing and Galion you could make money off the original Horn, but only one per turn because Elvenking exhausts. I'll agree Silvan shenanigans had potential for serious resource generation with the original Horn of Gondor (though most Silvan decks didn't use Tactics), but that could've been easily fixed with exhaustion.

I am aware of how O Lórien, The Tree People and Galadhrim Weaver work, thanks, and my example reflected that. But the point is, that the Horn would make one Silvan ally per turn free with O Lórien and one of the events. Of course you could argue that Heir of Valandil also makes an ally free per turn, but being engaged with three or more enemies is riskier. And King of Dale needs a lot of card draw, as Dale allies without their proper attachments are weak.

A Silvan solo deck might usually not use tactics, but someone else could.

19 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

1) You don't benefit from Horn of Gondor *when* you pay to retain a Winged Guardian after defense, but the resource you pay to retain a Winged Guardian could have been generated by Horn of Gondor. For example, needing two defenses and lacking resources, you can let one Winged Guardian go and use that resource to retain the other -- or chump with a Vassal and pay the Winged Guardian with that. And if you can't afford to keep a Winged Guardian, Horn of Gondor gets you an extra resource to help pay for a replacement next turn.

With the current Horn of Gondor, if you defend with Winged Guardian and intend to let it go (either because you're broke or trying to buff an Eagle of the Misty Mountain), you're actually hoping for a bad shadow to kill it outright. I find that a bit peverse.

As I said, buffing a Eagles of the Misty Mountains is already reward enough. I prefer my Winged Guardians alive, as they have something the Eagles or a Defender of Rammas have not: Sentinel. Anecdotal side note: This year at the Lure of Middle-earth, someone at my table had a mono tactics deck and pondered whether he should pay for the Guardian or let it buff the Eagles. I asked him to pay because of Sentinel, which saved our lives.

And when I chump with a Vassal I will get my ressource with the current Horn of Gondor, so I am not sure, what you wanted to say with that part. And if I cannot afford to keep my Guardian, I will chump with another ally anyway to get my ressource and not have to pay for a replacement.

Quote

2) Yes, if you keep a Winged Guardian around just to use his 4 defense for Support of the Eagles, there's no additional cost -- but you need 5 resources to get that combo, and once you get Misty out (another 4 resources) you'll want that to be the buff target. And you might need more defense than the Support of Eagles hero provides....

A Winged Guardian defends once per round, a supported hero can do so several times (Boromir, Unexpeted Courage). It takes two discarded eagles to get the Eagles to four defence, and then you still have only one defence without sentinel.

Quote

3) That Landroval is expensive (like other eagles) is the point of needing more resources. Yes, Fortune or Fate is expensive too. It's also a rarely-used sideboard card that was never popular outside of the brief heyday of pre-errata Caldara decks.

When Fortune or Fate is a sideboard, then Landroval is as well. If I do not plan on having a hero killed, I would rather play something cheaper like a Veteran Axehand.

Quote

4) Yes, Radagast provides 2 willpower, and willpower doesn't come cheap in Tactics. But as you point out, you don't use Tactics to provide willpower, so that hardly matters. Radagast's role in an early Eagles deck was to help pay for Eagles, and to a lesser extent heal eagles (the two cheap Eagles are unhealable). But with a 5 resource investment, he takes 5 turns to payoff, and that can be a hard sell. In the solo-capable Gwaihir edition of the Stereotypical Eagles Deck, Radagast drops out completely.

First you say "don't worry, Radagast will help you pay", now you say that he can be a hard sell. And he does not take 5 turns to pay off, as 3 ressources are already paid for the willpower, which leaves 2 turns.

Quote

5) What happens when you mix Horn of Gondor and Mablung? That actually *is* the case in the Gwaihir edition (cost 5) of the Stereotypical Eagles Deck. And you need all the help you can get, because the deck still has a lot of expensive cards. Nor do I think it makes sense that a resource generator in Tactics should be nerfed just because another resource generator is subsequently introduced, especially when it's a hero -- heroes constrain deck design far more than cards in the deck.

Even with both generators, Eagles decks were among the least popular and least powerful archetypes in the modern card pool, though I think hero Radagast and his staff will give the trait a much-needed boost.

13 cards in the deck cost 1 ressources, 15 cost 2, 5 cost 3, 10 cost 4 and 3 cost 5 ressources. This makes on average less than 2.5 ressources per card, which is less than you generate per round (up to 4 without the Horn). And I would not even waste my money on Landroval or Descendant in most cases.

Quote

6) "Games need to be balanced". In a cooperative game, neither decks nor cards *need* to be balanced, nor is it necessarily *desirable* that they be balanced. Vilya decks are far more powerful than Eagles decks, and that's OK! I've created and played a lot of Dori fellowships, nearly all of which would be more efficient if I subbed Beregond (either version) instead. But that wouldn't make it more enjoyable to me, so I don't -- I specifically started the Dori fellowships because of his bad reputation as one of the worst heroes in the game. Turns out he's actually fun and useful, just not in Beregond's class. But that's NOT a reason to nerf Beregond! It's not required that all hero defenders be "balanced", nor is it even desirable to do so. It's not required that hero defense, ally defense, and chump defense be "balanced", nor (IMO) is it even desirable to do so.

You keep saying this is a cooperative game, when the designers introduced competitive scenarios to the game. And if memory serves, you were the one to start the solo league which is competitive by design, even though restricted in deck building. I am not denying that Vilya or Beregond is more powerful than eagles or Dori respectively. But the game has a certain economy with ressources and card draw versus the encounter deck. If you hand out too much of them, the game becomes too easy.

Quote

7) Yes, I'm saying mono tactics isn't solo-viable until later in the history of the game (TaTheoden and *especially* TaEowyn). That means that Tactics is either going to be in a deck with other spheres or at the table with other spheres. Horn of Gondor was the only resource generation outside leadership for quite a while in the game's progression. It's true that you can play Steward of Gondor without leadership with Song of Kings or (more likely) Good Harvest, but again there's no reason that the existence of one generator should make the other generator be nerfed, *especially* when in the common case SoG is much better -- not restricted, 2 resources per turn, grants Gondor, and can give you the resources when you usually need them, in the planning phase.

There is a reason, as I said above: game economics.

Quote

8 ) It's true that IF you are at the table with multiple chump-blocking players, Horn of Gondor is more powerful in its current state than if it had retained its original form (or even downgraded to discard) and exhausted. But if your strategy isn't chump blocking, Horn of Gondor isn't going to be worth packing in its current form; the rare payoff isn't worth the deck space (and being Restricted doesn't help).

But if it exhausted, the common case would still be preserved while being totally unusable as part of an extreme card/resource loop. And it could then be a reasonable resource generator from the beginning of the game, where resource generators are certainly needed. Even if that generates a resource *every turn* in Silvan decks, so what? One resource per turn from a unique, restricted item is not remotely game-breaking. Nor is a single effectively free self-discarding 2-cost Rohan ally in a Rohan deck. Silvan and Rohan decks aren't as powerful as Vilya decks, nor would they be if Horn of Gondor had a saner errata (most Silvan decks don't even use Tactics).

You answered it yourself: If you deem Horn of Gondor unworthy, leave it out of the deck.

Quote

9) Boromir did not use his Horn because of disappearing Silvans. But he also did not use it because one of his compatriats died. He used it to *summon aid* and *intimidate the enemy*, both of which worked, just not quick enough to save him. Rewarding players for characters *dying* (or disappearing) isn't actually a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor. I also note that Boromir bore a long sword, a shield, *and* the Horn, so the Restricted is also not a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor.

But in that case the Horn should generate a ressource when an enemy is revealed or engaged (which is already done by Mablung). You are right, that Restricted makes no sense on the Horn, as the only other restriced ressource generators are Sword of Númenor and Orcrist, both require killing an enemy.

1 hour ago, Amicus Draconis said:

Black Rides has some friendly VP locations like Bag End, Woody End, Bamfurlong, Midgewater, The Troll's Camp etc. Returning those cards for the next staging step would make the game easier. And there is no thematic reason, Frodo should return to Bag End or any of the other locations several times in a row, when his goal is to reach Rivendell as soon as possible.

Yes, the original text was: Play only (...) Action: Until the end of the phase, if the current quest has no keyword, it gains battle. (Characters ...).

I might have worded my sentence ambiguosly, so I will try again: Blue Mountain Trader does not allow you to give your partner an arbitrary amount of ressources, you are right. But it allowed you to trade your tactics ressources into spirit ressources (when the trader returns back to you) and your partner could turn his leadership ressources into lore ones. This is the equivalent of having all songs of all spheres you control on all your heroes.

You are right, I remembered the errata wrong. Still, what would several copies of Love of Tales mean on a single hero? That he love songs even more than another hero? Thematicly I cannot see a justification. When you already use songs, most ressources can be spent as fit anyway, at least for playing cards, so you could just as well spread the Love for Tales over all your heroes (by making them lore beforehand).

I am not sure, I can follow you. If you want five dwarves, you already have at least Thorin and Ori in play, and probably also a third dwarven hero. With two dwarven allies, or one ally and Bombur hero, you have already reached the magical number of five dwarves. So this only leaves the case of a single dwarven ally, so you are missing out on a single ressource. Granted, this might make a difference, but not as severe as you made it sound.

As I already said, I cannot say whether this was the best way to nerf the situation.

Well, Gimli needs a lot of attachment to one-shot the Balrog or Smaug. Nevertheless, Gimli is a hero and thus unique, the Battle Master is not. You could nearly see it equivalent to a Battle Master giving +1 Attack to every dwarf ally you control, only concentrated on a single ally. Some say, Dáin is overpowered...

If you consider Leaflock in a poor shape, then what about Denethor? I am not concerned about nerfs to power decks. We still do not know, what Caleb is planning and what might be nerfed next time. He surely is not errataing cards out of boredom.

Tolkien describes Vilya as "the mightiest of the Three", thus second only to the One Ring. A powerful artifact justifies a powerful. But I was thinking of his unlimited healing bonus, which doubles the effect of the Warden of Healing. You say a limit is reasonable, but not needed. Sounds paradox to me. Regardless, I will disagree on this point.

1) Yes, I can see where recycling Bag End would be very profitable, between zero threat, card draw, and stalling in stage one. Of course, the designers could've made recycling Bag End less attractive for recycling by giving it high threat, since it starts as the active location. It's not immune, so you can still swap it out and stall on stage one as long as you like.

Thematically, Frodo could return to Bag End for any reason he likes -- he is not, at this point, intent on reaching Rivendell ASAP and he is still hoping that Gandalf will show up before he leaves the shire. He delayed leaving Bag End as long as possible and in fact left Bag End before returning for his final departure (that's when he overheard the Gaffer-half of the conversation with a Black Rider). Stalling on stage one and putting off leaving Bag End as long as possible would be *highly thematic* -- but I'll grant that exploring Bag End a few times would make the scenario much easier.

2) I'm not sure why you're still trying to reword the effect of BMT. It's unlimited resource redistribution within a player's heroes. This is not the same as Good Harvest, and it's also not exactly the same as having Songs of each sphere you control on each hero. For some cards/heroes, it matters *which* hero has the resources, and how many. The equivalent would be an Errand-Rider in solo play who doesn't exhaust for his action.

3) If you must have a thematic justification for the existence of multiple non-tangible attachments on the same character, I don't see what's wrong with someone loving Tales twice as much as someone else who also loves Tales. Sam probably fits that description well. Similarly, I don't think there's anything wrong with one hero having more Unexpected Courage than another hero -- Sam also fits that description well. I regretfully acknowledge that it's probably a good idea to break unlimited resource/card loops and that means resource-generating attachments *should* exhaust -- but I don't think there's any reason to go on to further nerf those cards based on arguable thematic arguments, especially when the card (like Love of Tales) isn't especially powerful in the common case anyway.

4) Five dwarves isn't useful just for Thorin, Ori, and to a lesser extent Oin, it's also useful for a number of allies. But let's take a hypothetical case with both Thorin and Ori -- Thorin/Ori/Nori, tri-sphere deck, want to get to 5 ASAP. There's two 1-cost allies (Sellsword and Record-Keeper), one of which will go away if you can't pay to keep them. There's a lot of potential 2-cost dwarves. In this case, the ability to use a 1-cost ally for WANI makes a huge difference on whether you can quest/fight and still have five dwarves at the beginning of the next round for Thorin and Ori. I've used WANI to exhaust *only* a single Record-Keeper so I can get Zigil Miner out for my five, leaving all heroes ready. That's not possible anymore, but it's worth burning WANI just to setup quickly on the most important turn -- the first. Yes, when I get a huge swarm of dwarves out I can use WANI for huge piles of resources, but who cares? If I've got a huge swarm of dwarves, I don't *need* lots of resources, I'm already in control. WANI's top end is win-more. It's using WANI for 1-2 allies at the beginning of the game that made the most difference, and that option is gone even though it wasn't overpowered.

5) Some do say that Dain is overpowered, though LeBoromir with Visionary Leadership does the same thing for Gondor. So what? If EBM is hitting for ten, you've still got ten dwarf allies and are very likely already in complete control. EBM only gets ridiculous when the outcome isn't in doubt. And when the outcome *isn't* in doubt, EBM isn't that powerful. That's why I think the EBM errata isn't necessary, even though the errata also doesn't do much harm for the same reason.

6) Yes, Denethor (ally) is also a lame card. Some people regret cards they consider overpowered -- I regret cards that are too weak. I don't know what Caleb has in mind, but errata that purely affects power level can make a playable card unplayable if nerfed too hard, while errata enhancing weak cards impacts practically no one attached to the current version while actually expanding the effective card pool. I think it's more elegant (and avoids the cost/annoyance of errata) to get new cards that synergize with old bad cards, but the few positive errata that have been made were uncontroversial and welcome.

7) *If* you were going to limit Warden of Healing, putting a limit on the readies would be the most reasonable errata -- it preserves the common case, while restricting a rare case (e.g. paying repeatedly for Gloin's healing so that he can take any number of undefended attacks -- with Elrond at the table and Song of Wisdom or Narvi's Belt on Gloin he can pay for his healing completely with Elrond + Warden of Healing, as long as he has sufficient hp). Does that edge case justify errata to Warden of Healing? It takes some setup, but can match Super Beregond *without* needing readies, and has the potential to monopolize defense in a pickup game. If it were deemed obnoxious enough to errata, restricting the ready on the Warden would be the least obnoxious way to do it IMO. But in no way do I consider the amazing efficiency of Elrond + Warden of Healing (the common case) to be a problem that requires fixing the *common* case.

9 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

But seriously we are finishing a saga campaign right now and the two brand new players pairing up with my wife and I are using strong Dwarf decks with all of these recently errata-ed cards. And now my whole play group loses out on what was helping us scrape through with our limited card pool because people couldn't regulate their playing experience and FFG didn't want to create a restricted list for the rare competitive game nights that they have.

I'm still confused as to why you think you need to adhere to the absolute latest errata when the final saga box game out 2 years ago. If you were playing through the campaign when it was released, you could have used these cards in their original form to achieve 100% legitimate wins. Many players did so, and their wins have not been invalidated by the errata.

3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

Those wins feel a bit tainted post-errata, since I could not have won them without the benefit of an "error" by the designers.

In 2015, the Netrunner card Wireless Net Pavilion received an errata making it unique, shortly after it was used as a key piece in the world champion's winning decklist. Should the champion have given up his trophy and title after seeing the errata? Of course not. Errata does not invalidate past wins in any way, shape, or form, nor does it "taint" them. Every other player at the tournament had a completely equal opportunity to use the card.

The same goes for a co-operative game. Past wins are wins. And if you want to rewind the clock and play old quests with a concurrent card pool, it's completely fair to rewind the clock on errata as well.

I mean, just imagine this contrived thought experiment where they print a hero with the following text:

Quote

Response: After a 'when revealed' effect is cancelled, add 1 resource to a hero's resource pool and return the top card of your discard pile to your hand.

An interesting effect in isolation, but obviously a completely broken ability in the same card pool as a Test of Will. So upon seeing players abusing this combo, they decide to errata Test of Will to cost 2 resources and remove itself from the game after use.

Now, would you feel like virtually every win in which you used Test of Will had suddenly been invalidated? I daresay you would not. The card only received an errata due to the potential abuse with a card that just got released. But you don't even own that card yet.

Of course, content going forward would start being designed around this new Test of Will, so it would make sense to follow that errata with new products. But it makes no sense to hold hostage all your past wins to the uncertainty of future game developments.

14 minutes ago, Seastan said:

In 2015, the Netrunner card Wireless Net Pavilion received an errata making it unique, shortly after it was used as a key piece in the world champion's winning decklist. Should the champion have given up his trophy and title after seeing the errata? Of course not. Errata does not invalidate past wins in any way, shape, or form, nor does it "taint" them. Every other player at the tournament had a completely equal opportunity to use the card.

That's the factor that makes the errata neutral -- everyone had an equal opportunity to use the card in question. If the game was asymetrical (wargames, for example, are usually asymetrical and often get post-release errata) or cooperative the errata is not neutral -- the errata is saying that the previous situation was not properly balanced and was in fact in error. And that does, subjectively, make me feel like my wins are tainted when errata is against me or that my losses were unfair when they are for me. Anyone who lost Into Ithilien due to a Blocking Warg loop is *entirely* justified in considering those losses unfair.

The Battle of Carn Dum didn't have the same opportunity I did to nerf my ABB as I had to nerf its plentiful and obnoxious shadows. Thaurdir is *entirely* justified in considering those victories of mine tainted by my abuse of a card so unbalanced and powerful that the designers chose to nerf it in two different ways.

41 minutes ago, Seastan said:

I mean, just imagine this contrived thought experiment where they print a hero with the following text:

Response: After a 'when revealed' effect is cancelled, add 1 resource to a hero's resource pool and return the top card of your discard pile to your han

An interesting effect in isolation, but obviously a completely broken ability in the same card pool as a Test of Will. So upon seeing players abusing this combo, they decide to errata Test of Will to cost 2 resources and remove itself from the game after use.

Now, would you feel like virtually every win in which you used Test of Will had suddenly been invalidated? I daresay you would not. The card only received an errata due to the potential abuse with a card that just got released. But you don't even own that card yet.

Of course, content going forward would start being designed around this new Test of Will, so it would make sense to follow that errata with new products. But it makes no sense to hold hostage all your past wins to the uncertainty of future game developments.

The fact that they chose to fix the combo *by errata to A Test of Will* shows that they *don't* think the only problem with AToW was the combo with the brand new hero -- otherwise they would've done the more logical and far less intrusive step of errata to the new hero.

Further, it's not just "content going forward" that would be affected. Reprints of the *core set* would have the new AToW in them, significantly less useful than the new one. It would not be just new content, but even Passage from Mirkwood that would be affected by the change.

ABB comes in a pack with the fifth quest ever published. I don't think it's a stretch to say that *going forward*, the designers expect those playing against Conflict at the Carrock to use the errata-ed ABB and no other. I think it is a stretch to say that quests 1-4 and 6-whatever-we're-at-now, unlike Conflict at the Carrock, are still meant to be played with the old ABB.

40 minutes ago, Seastan said:

I'm still confused as to why you think you need to adhere to the absolute latest errata when the final saga box game out 2 years ago. If you were playing through the campaign when it was released, you could have used these cards in their original form to achieve 100% legitimate wins. Many players did so, and their wins have not been invalidated by the errata.

It may be easy for you to say that and we will keep playing the old way because I won't tell the more casual players about the errata. It does make my wife and I feel bad and annoyed because as dale points out it's like the developers have stated "oh this card is too strong, even in its progression style, because they altered the cards in the packs that contain it. This is how the card should have always been." A new player that picks up burning brand and eventually progresses to Carn Dum is going to have a **** of a time trying to win against that scenerio without it being the old way. And why would someone want to make up different rules for their new card as it's printed? How would casual players even know they have the option to change the text on their cards to something more favorable that used to be? And would they want too? Or would it feel to much like cheating?

We experienced this in Star Wars Imperial Assault where on the second mission I was controlling the Imeprials and the Rebels could not get through this locked and reinforced door. They were attacking it with everything they had and could at most do 1-2 damage against it a round. They lost utterly. I was so perplexed as to why it was such a hard mission for them and then after looking into it later I discovered that they had errata-ed and toned down these rebel saboteur characters to no longer be able to pierce through the doors defenses. They had done it for the competitive scene and it worked for that. But for the mostly cooperative game it imbalances it to the point of being actually near impossible to achieve, and completely impossible if this specific mission was randomly selected as the second mission. There was no guide saying "oh by the way this is what this card used to say, feel free to change it for this mission" anywhere.

Back to LOTR: It took me many many many tries to beat Carn Dum and a sentinel multi-readying Song of Wisdom Burning Brand Boromir is what finally helped us get through it. And even then it was still not easy. Now officially those things are no longer allowed. And for newer players with the new text on Boromir and Burning Brand... God help them against that scenario when they get there progression-wise.

Yes I'm sure you or someone else will say you can build another tailored perfectly tuned deck to take on a particular scenario, but that's not fun for us. Part of the enjoyment of this fantastic game comes from playing who we want to and with whatever decks we want. We can control our own difficulty levels and can help balance out some of the much weaker hero choices through strong "OP" cards like Burning brand. And if that's too much for other players due to the rare competive versus events then add a restricted list to that rules set. That would be far far more easier then buggering up everyone else's game, taking away fun combos to help out newer or less hardcore players, and not adding mental fatigue to an already heavy game.

Seriously how clean would a simple "When constructing fellowships for competive mode, the following cards are not allowed to be chosen/have the following restrictions/have their cost increased by # : boom insert list here"

That way you guys going to play the competitive event could have the upgraded challenge but you wouldn't make my more casual group forced to make a choice between following the rules or feeling bad because we are making up our own rules and trying to justify it.

39 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Back to LOTR: It took me many many many tries to beat Carn Dum and a sentinel multi-readying Song of Wisdom Burning Brand Boromir is what finally helped us get through it. And even then it was still not easy. Now officially those things are no longer allowed. And for newer players with the new text on Boromir and Burning Brand... God help them against that scenario when they get there progression-wise.

I still think this sort of issue is more about Carn Dum itself rather than any errata. The community has generally been fine with saying "Skip Escape from Dol Guldur solo until you've got a lot more cards than the core"; maybe we should also go ahead and say "Skip Carn Dum unless you're ready for NM-level challenge. It's way up on the difficulty bell curve, no shame."

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

I don't know what Caleb has in mind, but errata that purely affects power level can make a playable card unplayable if nerfed too hard,

True, it can. Fortunately no errata released for this game has done so, and I think we can be pretty confident Caleb does not intend for any future errata to do so.

Also, re: your WANI/Record-keeper example, if you exhaust Nori or Ori instead you only lose out on 1 willpower and still get your 5 Dwarves. I'd do it.

36 minutes ago, PocketWraith said:

[on unplayable errata]

True, it can. Fortunately no errata released for this game has done so, and I think we can be pretty confident Caleb does not intend for any future errata to do so.

Also, re: your WANI/Record-keeper example, if you exhaust Nori or Ori instead you only lose out on 1 willpower and still get your 5 Dwarves. I'd do it.

"Unplayable" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. Master of Lore is an unpopular card, and in its original form would be a fairly popular card IMO.

You are correct that exhausting Nori in my specific example could help you get to five with little loss; Nori is almost certainly questing on turn 1, which is all Erebor Record Keeper can do if you're out of resources, and in that case it's just a loss of 1 willpower. Thorin/Dain/X with two Dwarven Sellswords would be different, but rare. My general point is that I've found WANI most impactful *early* when used for 1-2 resources, not late with a full-fledged swarm already on the table, and depending on which dwarf heroes you have in use that may be problematic.

My last deck using WANI built before errata was a Return to Mirkwood fellowship (using all the cards in that pack) with Theodred/Dain/Nori as the dwarf deck -- that can't get to 5 dwarves on turn one, but with 6 1-cost and 6 2-cost dwarves helped me get to five dwarves. Using WANI in the planning phase in its current form isn't nearly as compelling, since Dain needs to be ready to buff dwarves, and Nori needs to quest if I want Theodred to give him a resource. Had I built the same deck today, I don't think WANI makes the cut.

3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

the errata is saying that the previous situation was not properly balanced and was in fact in error. And that does, subjectively, make me feel like my wins are tainted when errata is against me or that my losses were unfair when they are for me. Anyone who lost Into Ithilien due to a Blocking Warg loop is *entirely* justified in considering those losses unfair.

No, the ABB errata is not saying that the original design was an error. I would break errata into two categories:

1. Errata that are released at the earliest opportunity. This applies to Blocking Wargs or Zigil Miner. The immediate rewrite of the card does suggest that the card's design was an error that snuck through playtesting. In this case, I would consider loses against Blocking Wargs and wins with broken Zigil Miner to be tainted.

2. Errata that come years after the release of the card. In this case it makes a lot more sense to assume that the card's design was fine at release, but became overpowered/broken by recent developments in the card pool.

2 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

The fact that they chose to fix the combo *by errata to A Test of Will* shows that they *don't* think the only problem with AToW was the combo with the brand new hero -- otherwise they would've done the more logical and far less intrusive step of errata to the new hero.

If it's not clear, I'm using a single hero in my example, but in the case of ABB it's not one single modern card that makes ABB problematic. It's the plethora of readying effects in general. The "logical and far less intrusive step" is definitely not to errata all readying effects around ABB.

Quote

Further, it's not just "content going forward" that would be affected. Reprints of the *core set* would have the new AToW in them, significantly less useful than the new one. It would not be just new content, but even Passage from Mirkwood that would be affected by the change.

ABB comes in a pack with the fifth quest ever published. I don't think it's a stretch to say that *going forward*, the designers expect those playing against Conflict at the Carrock to use the errata-ed ABB and no other. I think it is a stretch to say that quests 1-4 and 6-whatever-we're-at-now, unlike Conflict at the Carrock, are still meant to be played with the old ABB.

As I said before, it's a worse NPE (negative player experience) for a new player to find out their wins against new content are invalid because they are not using the updated text, than to find out they've been playing a weaker version of a card against older scenarios. This is why errata must be included in reprints.

2 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

it's like the developers have stated "oh this card is too strong, even in its progression style, because they altered the cards in the packs that contain it. This is how the card should have always been."

See above. The developers are not saying that. Look at Wandering Took, from the Core Set, which received an errata limiting it to once per round. The idea that his ability was too strong in progression style is laughable. I don't know if anyone even used his ability when we only had the core set available. The errata was obviously done to squash combos that developed later in the card pool.

In fact, it's a pretty low blow to the designer's intelligence to say that the card has been too strong from the beginning and they only just realized now.

To repeat what I said above, reprinting a card with new text is not necessarily an admission that the original design was wrong, or that any win with the old text are invalid. It is needed so that new players that buy that pack have the correct version of the card for modern content.

Quote

Back to LOTR: It took me many many many tries to beat Carn Dum and a sentinel multi-readying Song of Wisdom Burning Brand Boromir is what finally helped us get through it. And even then it was still not easy. Now officially those things are no longer allowed. And for newer players with the new text on Boromir and Burning Brand... God help them against that scenario when they get there progression-wise.

It seems like there's an inordinate amount of concern for Carn Dum in this thread. I never heard from the wave of new players that were unable to solo Shadow and Flame without Hama, or Three Trials without Boromir. If a new player is really hitting a wall beating Carn Dum without ABB, they will either skip it, like they probably did with Dol Guldur, or simply look online at one of the many published decks that have beaten Carn Dum without ABB.

I found it curious that they errated earlier cards in the life of the game now (if needed, really, it stings to see the errata but I can see why it was done. But seriously, Steward of Gondor errata please??). Then someone earlier in the thread made an interesting point about the custom scenarios which have competitive formats so now I can see why that might be the case. I've always felt the earliest cards in the game had wild swings of balance. So I guess it's not surprising that now with a competitive mode part of the LCG's roster that we see some way late errata for some old favorites. But then, I thought, if a competitive mode exists, why not also have a restricted and banned list too? I mean, Arkham Horror LCG has such lists in their most recent errata (largely for fun though) so I don't why we can't as well, especially considering we have a competitive mode and Arkham doesn't. I wonder if the new FAQ will have something like that? hmm...

4 hours ago, soullos said:

I found it curious that they errated earlier cards in the life of the game now (if needed, really, it stings to see the errata but I can see why it was done. But seriously, Steward of Gondor errata please??). Then someone earlier in the thread made an interesting point about the custom scenarios which have competitive formats so now I can see why that might be the case. I've always felt the earliest cards in the game had wild swings of balance. So I guess it's not surprising that now with a competitive mode part of the LCG's roster that we see some way late errata for some old favorites. But then, I thought, if a competitive mode exists, why not also have a restricted and banned list too? I mean, Arkham Horror LCG has such lists in their most recent errata (largely for fun though) so I don't why we can't as well, especially considering we have a competitive mode and Arkham doesn't. I wonder if the new FAQ will have something like that? hmm...

Errated cards and a forbidden card list? I would say is either one or the other no?

14 hours ago, Seastan said:

No, the ABB errata is not saying that the original design was an error. I would break errata into two categories:

1. Errata that are released at the earliest opportunity. This applies to Blocking Wargs or Zigil Miner. The immediate rewrite of the card does suggest that the card's design was an error that snuck through playtesting. In this case, I would consider loses against Blocking Wargs and wins with broken Zigil Miner to be tainted.

2. Errata that come years after the release of the card. In this case it makes a lot more sense to assume that the card's design was fine at release, but became overpowered/broken by recent developments in the card pool.

If it's not clear, I'm using a single hero in my example, but in the case of ABB it's not one single modern card that makes ABB problematic. It's the plethora of readying effects in general. The "logical and far less intrusive step" is definitely not to errata all readying effects around ABB.

I would break player card errata into four categories:

1. Errata that are released at the earliest opportunity. These are presumably errors that snuck through playtesting.

2. Errata that are released at the first opportunity after a quest or quests is released, because of a specific interaction seen with a player card and the mechanics/cards of that release. Whether the interaction was forseen or not discovered until after release, it was deemed better to change the player card rather than call out the interaction in the quest-specific rules.

3. Errata that are released to break a specific player card combination, in the first FAQ after that combination is discovered/publicized. These are presumably fixing something broken, but the newly discovered combo may or may not involve any newly released cards.

4. Errata that are released well after the original card without an obvious broken combination -- power nerfs presumably prompted either by increased strength in a larger pool or by a change in designer attitudes -- if memory serves, most of the errataed cards were not originally released by Caleb.

It's a bit of a judgement call where these lie -- was Beravor/Protector of Lorien nerfed in FAQ 1.3 because it was the first FAQ to actually use errata, because Beravor + 3x-per-player UC + Protector of Lorien generated massive willpower, or just as a power nerf? I'll leave those two out of the list, and A Elbereth Gilthoniel because I'm not sure of the context, but here's where the others would fit IMO :

1: Zigil Miner, Nori, Thror's Map, Master of Lore [combo piece], Ravens of the Mountains, Blue Mountain Trader

2: Feint, Thicket of Spears, Narvi's Belt , A Watchful Peace, Trained for War

3: Will of the West, Horn of Gondor, Love of Tales, Wandering Took, Out of the Wild, Wingfoot, We Are Not Idle

4: Erebor Battle Master, Expert Treasure Hunter, Boromir, Hama, Caldara, A Burning Brand, Legacy of Durin, Erebor Battle Master again.

The essence of the ABB superdefender is all present in the very first cycle -- Unexpected Courage, Song of Wisdom (if not Lore), A Burning Brand. The premise that 4 safe defenses are fine (up to 13 if players cooperate) but more than that is abusive is hard for me to swallow. Here's the repeatable readying attachments (that can ready after a defense) in release order:

Unexpected Courage (core)

Fast Hitch (Dead Marshes) [hobbit only]

Miruvor (Shadow and Flame) [requires putting back on deck and using your draw to repeat]

Spare Hood and Cloak (OHUH) [requires somebody else having and exhausting]

Heir of Mardil (Celebrimbor's Secret) [requires Noble and getting a resource, unique]

Shadowfax (Treason of Saruman) [requires Gandalf, unique]

Armored Destrier (Temple of the Deceived) [requires Sentinel or Leadership, takes a restricted slot]

Magic Ring (Crossings of Poros) [limit 1 per hero and 1 per deck, raises threat]

Elvenking (Fire in the Night) [requires Silvan and return to hand of Silvan ally, unique]

Ring of Thror (Ghost of Framsburg) [requires Dwarf, unique, guarded]

In the case of Mighty Beregond, the easy readies are UC, Armored Destrier (wastes a restricted slot), and Magic Ring (1 per deck, 1 per hero). There's a host of events or temporary attachments that ready, but there were plenty of those when Tactics Beregond came out. In the common case, the super defender is where he's always been. There's two exceptions that can dramatically increase the number of readies:

1) Erestor + Miruvor. Miruvor as repeatable ready has the unattractive feature of costing you your only draw for a single ready, and only Bilbo and Gleowine got you past that. But Erestor/Arwen/Defender guarantees you can draw all three Miruvor and pay for at least two -- guarantees all three if the defender has spirit. Looking at the decks using Beregond/ABB/UC (not that many), this is a reasonably popular combination. However, at this point it's not exactly a new combination, we're on the third cycle since Angmar and there's been two FAQs since this popped up.

2) Spare Hood and Cloak + Long Lake Trader. This isn't nearly as efficient as Erestor/Miruvor, since it requires a LLT for every cloak and also a suitable target to use it (likely the North Realm Lookout). Outside a Dale deck it's a three card combo to provide a single repeatable ready -- inside a Dale Deck the excellent Redwater Sentry really reduces the value of having a hero defender in the first place. I only saw one deck that bothered with this combo.

Indeed, looking at the ABB/Beregond/UC decks, except for the Erestor decks the norm for readying was Unexpected Courage supplemented by a handful of temporary readies depending on sphere (Behind Strong Walls or Desparate Defense). If readying too much is a problem, you don't have to fix all readying cards at all -- you would just have to put "limit 1 per hero" on the very few non-unique/restricted attachments that provide repeatable readying, all of which were released before Beregond. I'm not necessarily saying that the designers *should* do this, though it's the logical extension of TaBoromir's nerf. It'd be a much bigger hit to SuperBeregond in 4-player than nerfing ABB, I think. My point is rather that if the Miruvor/Erestor/UC combo providing up to seven defenses (and getting to key cards quickly) wasn't deemed "abusive" enough to fix in FAQ 1.8 and 1.9, I don't think the single ready from Magic Ring and the expensive setup of the Long Lake Trader combo remotely crosses the line for the next FAQ. In terms of the common case, most new players have only a single Unexpected Courage anyways.

Google tells me that way back when FAQ 1.3 nerfed Beravor, making UC limit 1 per hero was suggested as an alternative errata.

14 hours ago, Seastan said:

Look at Wandering Took, from the Core Set, which received an errata limiting it to once per round. The idea that his ability was too strong in progression style is laughable. I don't know if anyone even used his ability when we only had the core set available. The errata was obviously done to squash combos that developed later in the card pool.

In fact, it's a pretty low blow to the designer's intelligence to say that the card has been too strong from the beginning and they only just realized now.

It's known, because Caleb said as much when the combo was discovered, that the combo with Vanish from Sight was what triggered the Wandering Took errata. But that Wandering Took had the *potential* for massive threat reduction from its lack of limits was demonstrated, even if not forseen in the core set, by the Earendil/Took/LoAragorn combo discovered and publicized way back in 2012. I don't think it's a low blow to the designer's intelligence to suggest that *any* card released without limit should be assumed to be exercised in the future an arbitrary number of times in a single round or phase -- if that's deemed too strong, then it's too strong *at release*.

14 hours ago, Seastan said:

As I said before, it's a worse NPE (negative player experience) for a new player to find out their wins against new content are invalid because they are not using the updated text, than to find out they've been playing a weaker version of a card against older scenarios. This is why errata must be included in reprints.[...]

To repeat what I said above, reprinting a card with new text is not necessarily an admission that the original design was wrong, or that any win with the old text are invalid. It is needed so that new players that buy that pack have the correct version of the card for modern content.

I don't think there's the least bit of evidence that errata from the designers is only really intended to be used against *future* content. All errata is of form "X should read", and a large portion of it is obviously prompted by its strength in the *current* card pool against *existing* quests. I can't think of a single card released subsequent to an errata that made me say "Whoa, this couldn't have been released without the errata to X"--maybe something has slipped my mind?

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

I can't think of a single card released subsequent to an errata that made me say "Whoa, this couldn't have been released without the errata to X"--maybe something has slipped my mind?

Off the top of my head, pre-errata Horn of Gondor would make Tactics Imrahil's ability free.

19 hours ago, Amicus Draconis said:

[1 -- on Horn of Gondor's interaction with Winged Guardian/Vassal]

As I said, buffing a Eagles of the Misty Mountains is already reward enough. I prefer my Winged Guardians alive, as they have something the Eagles or a Defender of Rammas have not: Sentinel. Anecdotal side note: This year at the Lure of Middle-earth, someone at my table had a mono tactics deck and pondered whether he should pay for the Guardian or let it buff the Eagles. I asked him to pay because of Sentinel, which saved our lives.

And when I chump with a Vassal I will get my ressource with the current Horn of Gondor, so I am not sure, what you wanted to say with that part. And if I cannot afford to keep my Guardian, I will chump with another ally anyway to get my ressource and not have to pay for a replacement.

[2 -- Misty/Support and keeping Winged Guardians around]

A Winged Guardian defends once per round, a supported hero can do so several times (Boromir, Unexpeted Courage). It takes two discarded eagles to get the Eagles to four defence, and then you still have only one defence without sentinel.

[3 -- The expense of Landroval]

When Fortune or Fate is a sideboard, then Landroval is as well. If I do not plan on having a hero killed, I would rather play something cheaper like a Veteran Axehand.

[4 -- The expense of Radagast]

First you say "don't worry, Radagast will help you pay", now you say that he can be a hard sell. And he does not take 5 turns to pay off, as 3 ressources are already paid for the willpower, which leaves 2 turns.

[5 -- expensive cards in the Stereotypical Eagles Deck, Gwaihir edition]

13 cards in the deck cost 1 ressources, 15 cost 2, 5 cost 3, 10 cost 4 and 3 cost 5 ressources. This makes on average less than 2.5 ressources per card, which is less than you generate per round (up to 4 without the Horn). And I would not even waste my money on Landroval or Descendant in most cases.

[6 -- "balance" between decks/cards not only not needed, not even necessarily desirable]

You keep saying this is a cooperative game, when the designers introduced competitive scenarios to the game. And if memory serves, you were the one to start the solo league which is competitive by design, even though restricted in deck building. I am not denying that Vilya or Beregond is more powerful than eagles or Dori respectively. But the game has a certain economy with ressources and card draw versus the encounter deck. If you hand out too much of them, the game becomes too easy.

[7 -- existence of other resource generators don't justify nerfing a different generator]

There is a reason, as I said above: game economics.

[8 -- changing the common case makes Horn of Gondor less worthy of inclusion]

You answered it yourself: If you deem Horn of Gondor unworthy, leave it out of the deck.

[9 -- current trigger for Horn of Gondor isn't actually thematic]

But in that case the Horn should generate a ressource when an enemy is revealed or engaged (which is already done by Mablung). You are right, that Restricted makes no sense on the Horn, as the only other restriced ressource generators are Sword of Númenor and Orcrist, both require killing an enemy.

1) You are correct that *if* you need sentinel, because you're playing multiplayer (almost guaranteed, if you're mono-tactics) and need to defend cross-table, keeping your Winged Guardians around is preferable. In a solo deck the value of sentinel is extremely limited, and while mono-tactics Eagles decks had to wait for later cards to be solo-viable, Eagles in a tactics-dominant deck were solo-capable before then. Consider the Return to Mirkwood deck used for Beorn's Path, something I recommend *every* new player follow as far as possible. It has Eagles (3x Vassal, 3x Guardian, 2x Misty, 3x Eagles are Coming). I can tell you from experience, tactics resources were tight. It also has 3x Gandalf and 3x Escort from Edoras and (of course) the lone copy of Horn of Gondor from the core set. If it came up, it was very useful. If Beorn were redoing it now, I doubt it would make the cut.

Buffing Misty and getting a resource is obviously better than buffing Misty alone. It's not remotely game-breaking, though, and wasn't even powerful enough to make Eagles a popular archtype -- Vassal/Guardians account for a maximum of six buffs during the entire game, and it's usually much less. No effect in the game is "reward enough" to discourage looking for synergies with that effect.

It's true that if you chump block with Vassal you get a reward from Horn of Gondor in its current form. But in its original form you get a reward from Horn of Gondor whether he defends *or* attacks, so a hypothetical exhausting HoG with its original reward is worth including in an Eagles deck, and the current version is typically not.

2) My usual procedure with Support of the Eagles is to try to get a Vassal and/or Guardian out first, not using them, and then get out Support of Eagles on the real target -- as you might expect, also trying to get the real target to ready. Then I get Misty out, let the Vassal go (keeps attack at 3) then let the Guardian go (keeps defense at 4) -- any Eagles discarded after that just bump it higher. Misty is a backup combat action, if I've got readying on a hero with a Support of the Eagles (or better, three of them) it may end up being an expensive quester. It's an expensive setup, and without other cards leaving play doesn't provide a huge return on the original Horn -- but if that's all you have it's better than nothing.

3) Who plans on having a hero killed? Landroval's expensive insurance, but because he's an Eagle he shows up in Eagle decks for thematic reasons, while a Veteran Axehand does not. Landroval's strictly superior to Axehand, having more willpower, attack and hit points plus a useful-if-things-go-badly ability. He's also much more expensive. I don't view "Tactics players should just play cheaper cards instead" as a valid reason for nerfing a Tactics resource generator. Tactics has some expensive cards, why not give Tactics tools to help pay for them?

4) However useful 2 willpower may be (and in tactics, providing willpower usually *isn't* a big concern), it doesn't pay for cards. Radagast helps pay for Eagles, which are expensive, but he costs 5 up front and so takes 5 to break even. That's why he drops out of Eagles decks and isn't found at all outside them. Radagast's Staff coming in the next pack should make him much more attractive, as that is well worth the money to get in play.

5) I believe 2.5 per card is one of the most expensive per-card values in all my Stereotypical Decks. It has no cost reducers, but it does have a card (The Eagles are Coming) that can draw expensive Eagles into your hand. With Mablung the 3-4 resources covers the card you draw at the beginning of the turn, but you start with 7 cards and no resources. It will be one of the slowest decks in the series to empty its hand.

6) Yes, the designers have introduced a competitive mode into this cooperative game, and soon it may actually be available for purchase at a store near me -- that doesn't change the fact that it is designed and 99.9% played as a cooperative/solo game -- in fact, at last year's Fellowship event I ended up playing the quest *cooperatively* instead of competitively. Handling "balance" for the tiny share of play in competitive mode would be much better handled with a restricted list than errata that hampers the vastly larger pool of cooperative players.

Yes, the solo league does introduce a competitive element into cooperative play. But there aren't a lot of us playing in it, I think most who play do it for fun rather than trying to design the most efficient deck possible, we explicitly use an out-of-the-rules variant with the tokens to guarantee wins against each scenario (eventually) and use arbitrary tiebreakers in the common case where no tokens at all are needed. I am *totally* uninterested in any league rules (let alone errata) to ensure that the decks used in the league are of equivalent strength, and incoming errata *complicates* the league rather than improving it. It's possible someone in the league is using the new A Burning Brand already....

"Too easy" and "too hard" is purely subjective, and easily controlled by player decisions of what to put in their decks *and* what mode of a quest to play. With the exception of lone players ruining a pickup multiplayer game, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the designers to worry about a particular combination being "too strong", as cooperative players who think it too strong can just not play it -- it follows that when *fixing* the possibility of a lone player doing an extreme combo, the least damage would be done by preserving the common case and trying to errata to only affect the extreme case. Exhausting Horn of Gondor would've done that way back in the Hammersmith/Born Aloft combo, they didn't fix it and so it got exploited again. I'm not complaining that they errata-ed Horn of Gondor, I'm complaining about *how* they errata-ed Horn of Gondor.

7) I don't believe in a fixed "game economy", but if I did, the *usual* usage of Horn of Gondor did not break it even before errata. Certainly an exhausting Horn of Gondor that reacted to leaving play would not.

8 ) Yes, I am leaving Horn of Gondor out of decks. I used to use it -- now I don't. There are still circumstances where the card is useful to somebody, but they took a card that *was* useful to me and made it not useful to me. My effective card pool got smaller because of the errata.

9) I would love to see an actually thematic effect for Boromir's Horn, but it would have to be renamed to exist as a player card. Mablung generates when engaged -- a Horn that generates a resource when *revealed* would be kind of cool, and should exhaust when it does so.

15 minutes ago, PocketWraith said:

Off the top of my head, pre-errata Horn of Gondor would make Tactics Imrahil's ability free.

Good candidate, though it's still free if you chump what he grabs :).

Seriously, the synergy would be terrific, but not overpowering. It would make the ability effectively free *if* he found an ally, but it's a once per round ability and IMO wouldn't be "broken" under that circumstance.

Pre-erratum Horn of Gondor would help make Gaffer even more crazy, heh.