I think the errata on the Nazgul of Dol Guldur makes many players feel a bit cheated out of an errataed card. Might it be a better idea to amend the rules to say that Cards with the Nazgul enemy race/keyword may not have attachments played on them. Again, just an idea because I have seen complaints and queries about errataed cards. An addition to the rules might make people feel less antsy about getting a new "complete" card.

I feel as though errata to the rulebook would be just as negative as errata to particular cards. Besides, maybe someday there will be a Nazgul that you can play attachments on.

My big problem is that I think it's bad rules practice to attach meaning to Traits. (Nazgul, Creature, Gondor, etc.) When learning the game, it's tough to say "Oh, those bolded words are just traits. They don't mean anything unless a card refers to them. Except Nazgul."

They did the same thing in the early days of Magic, where "Summon Creature - Wall" meant that the creature couldn't attack. For the sake of consistency, they made the creature type have no inherent meaning, and introduced the "Defender" keyword. I think this is the way to go. If traits aren't supposed to have any meaning on their own, then that should be true for ALL traits, IMHO.

Touche, well said. I was just referring to the new version of the Witch King from MAO. I figured that it would be awkward and probably wrong to make attachments in the encounter deck, but now FFG will probably make one, proving me wrong yet again.

radiskull said: