I know a lot of folks here hate it when other players try to defend FFG. Nevertheless I thought it might be fruitful to note that even with playtesting it's quite natural for errata to show up. While I'm sure that FFG has a group of playtesters that aren't involved in game design, etc., I also imagine that a good deal of the playtesting is done by Caleb, et al.

When a person works intimately (yeah I used that word, get over it) with any particular work (book, article, etc.) or project (game design, etc.), tunnel vision can occur, by which I mean that sometimes one couldn't even imagine a card, after the hours of design that go into each, would interact with this card, or combo with that card, or create an infinite loop here, or break this enemy, etc. Things get overlooked, it happens, are you over it? Furthermore it's simply not possible to look down the road at EVERY SINGLE FUTURE CARD to predict interactions there. I presume there's a plan, but I don't think the entire lifespan of the game is mapped out and hanging on Christian Peterson's office wall.

Yes, errata correct mistakes, but they also keep the game functioning at a reasonable level without letting unintended consequences slip through.

In any case, I know some folks just like to complain about this, that, or whatever (all three of which are sometimes cards erraverunt (that's the real word, for more than one card, that should be used in place of "errata'd")), and this post won't change that, I just wanted to put my feelings about all of the negative commentary.

I don't think anyone is complaining that we have errata & FAQ update.

Nothing can be perfect and having these updates shows us the designers are contineously working to improve any flaws they come across.

But it is just not right when card that was legally fine (but strategically would never be played) recieves an errata, and suddenly becomes incoherent with itself (says to look at top card, but then says place progress tokens equal to revealed card) is just... meh.

I agree Ellareth, I was more talking about the frequent:

Why don't they playtest/They obviously don't playtest
They screwed my favorite card (earlier FAQs)

etc.

hence the thread title.

I'm not familiar enough with the cards FAQ1.5 addresses to talk about those changes, but the revised mechanics sure seem to be mind-boggling.

Regardless complaining about the designers at FFG when they are simply trying to produce a quality game that remains balanced throughout its life seems unproductive and disrespectful as they're just trying to improve our experience. Maybe this pisses us off sometimes, or ruins this combo or this aspect of my deck, or is occassionally incomprehensible, but I think it's fair to assumed that the team is generally well-intentioned. I won't deny anyone their ability to complain behind the face of their avatar on this forum (semi-anonymously), why should I bother with that? I just think if we all gave the crew the benefit of the doubt it would make for generally more pleasant reading at the forum. Alternatively I suppose I could just breeze past negativity.

Definitely agree with you there. I work for the civil service, where we basically administer the law, and a lot of the time the phrase 'policy intention' is bandied about, meaning that the law may appear silly on interpretation, but it was created for a specific purpose. I think the same thing can be applied here, as well. I like to use the Zigil Miner example because that happened back when I was a bit more - well, not necessarily involved with the community here, but certainly came here daily. Just because the card allows you to do something doesn't mean you must do it every time and abuse the hell out of it. When the errata came out, there was quite a bit of hoopla about playtesting and designer short-sightedness etc, but I don't think designers should be blamed for a card's abuse during play. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. More recently, I seem to remember a deck/strategy posted here that allowed you to draw your entire deck into your hand by turn two, or something ridiculous. How is that fun to play? Just because you can... The job of the designer, from my perspective, is to give an enjoyable, playable game that is fun to play. They are not there to nanny us all into how to play the game, giving very precise instructions the way you would talk to a petulant child who will use any loophole and argue semantics into doing whatever he **** well pleases. The situation does become slightly more different with the tournament scene, I will allow, where there is often a point to playing this game, but otherwise, I don't see an issue with errata for old cards in an ever-expanding cardpool. As John85 says, it keeps the living card game living. But for casual games between friends, the minute one person starts abusing his ziggie (that sounds so wrong...) he spoils it for the rest of the table. The original text for the Zigil Miner was fine, the card was playable, but then abusive strategies devolved into chaos. For most card games, that would be annoying, but for as thematic a game as Lord of the Rings is, it's just stupid. There, I've said it. I've played this game since Hunt for Gollum, and can honestly say it is my opinion that if you are more concerned with defeating enemies than the story of the quest, then you're missing the point of this game. The object of this game is the adventure, the story, the quest, whatever you want to call it, and not merely defeating the bad guys "to win". I have never "won" a quest, but I have often managed to "complete" them.

Okay, now I'm rambling.

I think it is important to remember policy intention, though. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Was this rant all that necessary? I mean, do you believe that there is actually a large, relevant group of people that are actively and constantly complaining about the lack of playtesting, errata, etc? I know there are a couple that have suggested the idea, but there are already threads discussing this, so why not posting all this in those threads? Does this really warrant a new thread for the "counter-argument" to something two or three people have said in other threads?

There always people who are trying to ''break'' any game and i believe that game disigners shouldn't care about them because there is no ''perfect'' game, but, situations like, Beravor+Unexpected Courage=draw 6 cards in 1 round ...whaaaat ?!?!?! in the same box (no excuse there) and cards like the Ravens of the Mountain (a dead card before the errata) are just mistakes, that wouldn't have happened if there was some playtesting

P.S. I said it many times in this forum that i'm a huge fan of this game, but i believe that with well intentioned criticism we can help and make it even better