Although this interpretation would make her ability actually useful. But I agree that the second card should still be considered as "revealed", which makes her ability still suck. Worst hero in the game so far.

I agree with Radiskull - the FAQ rule 1.22 is pretty strict. Only when a form of "reveal" is used, a card is revealed. And just replacing a card is not the same as revealing it.

I'm not sure if the designers intended this, perhaps we will see an errata where "replace" is replaced by "reveal" ;-) But it definitely makes her more useful at the moment.

For the record, I don't think Eleanor is supposed to work this way. However, the FAQ says what it says, and hopefully if we keep coming up with strange cases like this, the designers will take note and introduce a higher degree of precision into both the FAQ/errata as well as the card text.

You don't owe me an apology I think what you're describing is certainly the intent of the rules. However, the rules as written don't support that interpretation.

I am not just talking about intent, I think that you taking liberties with the rules as written. You are focusing entirely on the word "reveal" and assigning absolutely no meaning at all to the word “replace.” The rules cover the situation quite well, and we should require designers to provide a lexicon which defines every word used in the instruction manual.

I am assigning meaning to the word "replace." It just doesn't mean the same thing as "reveal" in the context of the game rules.

Rules for a game like this should NOT require a judgment call - they should be explicit in every respect. I know you are joking when you ask for a lexicon, but I think that would be a good idea. Especially once organized play starts, everyone in a tournament event needs to be playing by the exact same rules.

The fact that there is disagreement about this means that the designers need to clarify their intent, the card text, or both.

The mere fact that players disagree does not mean that we need additional clarification. Players always find issues with which they will disagree. Tournaments don't function solely because of crystal clear rules which create unanimity. They function because they have judges and arbiters. And if you think those judges never make judgment calls, I would urge you to spend more time at CCG tournaments.

Also, we have yet to see any indication that the game is remotly viable in a tournament setting, because it lacks meaningful metrics for evaluating performance across games. (Personally, I don't think it should even try to bea tournament game, but that's another debate) So, arguing on the need for rules califications for a tournament setting strikes me as odd.

Bohemond said:

Bohemond said:

But I would like it this way. I am not trying to make the game easier on players but I often though her ability was pretty weak, and that it could just cancel without replacing. If it does replace and the possible new "when revealed" effect is not applied, it not only makes sense to me thematically but also makes Eleanor just about good enough, I think.

Initially, I shared your opinion that Elanor was an underwhelming hero. However, the more I play (especially with the Mirkwood cycle), the more I encounter specific treachery cards that potentially devastate you. All encounter cards are not created equal. Hunt for Gollum has flooding and Old Wives Tale. Carrock has Roasted Slowly and A Frightened Beast. Rhosgobel has... well a ton of cards. But her ability to cycle through cards is essential in that scenario. Her ability to avoid these specific calamitous cards makes her quite valuable.

In addition, she becomes easier to field with more people. She may not excel in solo games, but is a stronger character in three and four person games in which you can afford to have her not commit to other activities and her ability to ward of disastrous treachery cards will come up more regularly. If treachery cards did not trigger when she used her ability, she would be, far and away, the best hero in the game.
r abaility to cycle throgh cards is essential in that scenario.

Bohemond said:

I would have to agree with this comment here. I think in solo games you are better off putting in three copies of A Test of Will when running the spirit sphere. This has the added benefit of just ignoring the 'when revealed' text and not having to draw another card off the encounter deck. Solo you really need heroes that can pull double duty and without any buffing Elanor just isn't a good choice for attacking or defending.

There was actually a situation a friend and I happened into where a treachery card was revealed that was going to kill several allies and potentially 1-2 heroes as well. My friend was playing Elanor and was able to cancel this effect, essentially saving our game. I don't remember the replacement card, but as bad as it was it didn't end up killing stuff like the other one would have. That would have been enough to fail the quest for us as we were just barely questing enough anyway.

Puzzle said:

Totally agree. In the solo game she is ok but stil to weak as a hero. But in 2 or 3 players game she is really shining and can save the game for sure.

Titan said:

Are you kidding? The ability to dictate, at least to a degree, what treacheries will hit you is invaluable, especially in quests like J2Rhogobel. She might not fit your playstyle, but worst hero? C'mon.

The guys posting above hit the nail right on the head. For a solo player, like me, she has next to no value. Weak quester, bad fighter, so-so defender, so-so ability. There's just no room for a hero that has such little flexibility in the solo game. Perhaps she is better in the multiple game. And I don't find her ability to be that useful anywhere because you have to get another card from the encounter deck. You aren't really controlling anything, because there's no telling what will come up. Her ability is a gamble and you are hoping for the best. Since she doesn't do anything else well, she is simply not worth it.

Interesting posts and opinions. As I mentioned earlier I dropped Eowyn for her when I play two fisted. She is just simply more versatile in these newer quests.

I tend to add extra shields to her also to make her quite a valuable defender.

Titan said:

I agree, partly. That is why it would only make things more interesting if the next "when revealed" did not resolve. Surely Eleanor still would not be overpowered, just compare her then to Éowyn or Legolas if you think so, but it would make the ability quite interesting, possibly getting rid of two nasty treacheries for one exhaustion. I will certainly play it so since the new FAQ suggests it strongly. I hope to get an official confirmation though.

I've been using Elanor in my hero since the start. As people have already mentioned, her ability is quite situational, so it doesn't seem as good up front; however, cancelling exceptionally bad treachery cards has kept my heroes and allies time and again. She as a low threat cost, and a solid 2 armor. I usually put some Dunedain warnings on her so she can tank in her spare time , and sometimes my spare unexpected courage finds its way on her.

While I can see why people aren't too fond of her, I son't see myself faring near as well as I have without her.

We've recently played a couple of games with three and two players. I was playing Lore and initially used Frodo until we failed the Anduin scenario the first time. I then replaced Frodo with Eleanor as a way to 'dodge' all of the nasty 'Necromancer's Reach' cards which had basically been the reason for losing the game. This worked very well for us, resulting in an easy victory.