It's not entirely about not obeying the rules. I'm following the rules strictly, but I don't use cards that I consider as overpowered. Also, it's about the direction that we're going if we start to use errata on cards that are not overpowered, but strong. Where does it end?

Arwen, Elrond's Counsel, Sneak Attack, Faramir (ally), Feint, Steward of Gondor etc

Evebtually there are still new players out there who have only a limited pool of cards. Not sure if they were happy about restricted versions of these cards.

Boris, your arguments are simply breath-taking. "I think they're fine." Point taken, end of discussion, well done!

Yet, your advanced vocabulary doesn't remind me of elementary school, so I am a bit lost there. Have you been around much? Errata is not fair? Maybe, but if you followed this game, you'd know it happens quite regularly, whether you find it fair or not.

What I find not fair is creating two cards that do the same thing, one being clearly better than the other. That is paying twice for one card basically. And that needs be fixed, in my opinion.

I have been around for quite a while and I understand why errata occurs - not just in this game, but in general. The errata that has occurred in this game has been based on issues where combos were broken. Beravor was not intended to be allowed to draw out half the deck in a single round for a big Protector quest play, nor was the zigil dwarf guy intended to rack up a ton of resources for a huge 1-turn trick win option. Errata was necessary on those cards due to the fact that the designers were unable to account for every possible manipulation.

What you are asking for is far different. You want older, better cards to be neutered to accomodate weaker design options. As someone who owns three core sets, I don't, and I resent the implication that it's necessary to punish people who want to use 3 copies just because Caleb made a weaker concept in an encounter pack.

If you plan on playing in tournaments things like card balance, the FAQ, and errata should concern you. You should want them to keep cards too far from average out of the environment. If you are going to a tournament, and you absolutely have to have 3 of a card in your deck no matter what sphere you are playing it probably needs a nerf. If you are going to a tournament and there is a hero that every single team shows up with that hero probably needs a nerf. If you go to a tournament and every team/individual is playing the same archetype it probably needs a nerf.

If you are playing at home your attitude should be more along these lines...

Hmm, one of the reasons, if not the reason for Beravor being able to draw so many cards, was Unexpected Courage. Now there are a few more options but most of them were not around when the errata happened.

Then for Zigil, I am not sure what the intention was when they made the card but people were mentioning him as broken the day he came out. I could even link my own thread - the weak it got previewed for the Khazad-dum announcement. This total lack of foresight on ffg part is quite beyond me, but it is a subject for different thread - or many in the past.

And no, if you read the above, errata didn't just happen for the so-called "broken" combos.

But finally, what you imply is not true. I do not want to punish anyone, I want to reward those who buy the game. I want them to have both Dwarven Tomb and Map of Eärnil as viable options, same as the Courage and the Steed; not just one of the two (and the other in case you don't find anything better for your decks than the fillers). It is the main reason, and I will not say it again, I feel every card should have its place, or at least a chance for it. I don't even mind Power of the Earth even though it is probably super weak - but there is no similar card that does the thing better - within the sphere.

Thanks Kassad, nicely put.

It's not entirely about not obeying the rules. I'm following the rules strictly, but I don't use cards that I consider as overpowered. Also, it's about the direction that we're going if we start to use errata on cards that are not overpowered, but strong. Where does it end?

Same here, I am confused. It really seems some people willingly disobey the rules, and then they are afraid for them to change because it would spoil it for them. Talking of paradox.

So I'm really confused as to everytime group of people express their want for something to change (with reasonable reasons) why another group of people wants to (or feel the need to) tell them off.

Arwen, Elrond's Counsel, Sneak Attack, Faramir (ally), Feint, Steward of Gondor etc

Evebtually there are still new players out there who have only a limited pool of cards. Not sure if they were happy about restricted versions of these cards.

I like your point about new or perhaps even struggling players... I generally play the erratas whether I like them or not... though took a while to accept the changes to Thror's map.

It was only when i had played the game enough and felt semi competent that I felt happy to play the errata'ed version of Thror's map.. which simply means, it came out of my deck(s) and joined master of Lore, power in the earth, keeping count, The favour of the lady, brok Ironfist etc...

I think any wholesales changes for balance, organised play etc (and I think there are some perfectly valid reasons for considering these) should look more like "Advanced" mode... as, especially for new players & people with limited card options this game is really challenging....

^{Errata is a 4-letter word. If you think something is too powerful, don't use it. Or house rule it. I could understand if we were talking about a game with a sanctioned tournament format, but asking the designers to solve your personal problems with certain cards - especially in a casual game like this one - really isn't fair to the hundreds of other players.}

^{That said, I'm sure the designers didn't expect that many people would own more than 1-2 core sets, so that is how they balanced the cards you say are too powerful. Personally, I think they are fine. The fact that the designers made inherently weaker versions of other cards doesn't mean they should retroactively do something to force people to try to use them.}

First we have a tournaments system already , second one we have quest log a well. And last balance in the game should be. It is not kind of weird if game mechanic have some crazy holes like this ? Sounds not serious for me……The game should be healthy no?

We must to have some kind of main stream of the game with fair rules to play with other players or not?

There is a tournament system but this is not a supported organized play game. At least, it wasn't listed in the OP article of games stores can host events for. I have a way to make the game competitive but it has never been tried.

Thanks Kassad, nicely put.

I've played quite a few card games competitively and a few card games professionally. Whenever you have a mix of casual and tournament environments you have to strike a balance. In general, the FAQ is for people who want to play at the tournament level, or at least at that level of intensity.

If you want to play at home you really need to view everything, including the rule book and FAQ, as a template. Make of it what you want to make of it.

MMOs, such as World of Warcraft, particularly have a problem with this balance since they don't have the luxury of a "home player". They have to build rules and a world where the serious player and casual can both have a good time. The great thing about playing a card game, or a board game, or any game at home is you can make up your own rules to make it more enjoyable for your play group.

Hell, without "house rules" we would be stuck with only regular poker instead of strip poker, and that would make the world a more depressing place...

I've got nothing against the downgraded versions of the most powerfull cards, because I don't think on this game as competitive. In my case is a good tactical choice to put in the deck 1 Unexpected Courage and 3 Steeds. I don't need to buy 2 other Core Sets.

About the errata, it should be used only to fix broken cards (like Blocking Wargs) and for clarification (like Feint or Narvi's Belt), not to make strong cards worse (like Protector of Lorien). The problem with this game seems to be in some step of the design process, where a card like Zigil Miner becomes one of the best resource generators in the game (not only the sphere), obviously unintended. But the interaction with Imladris Stargazer or Gildor is too obvious to consider it anything other than a mistake. The same goes for Beravor. Master of Lore was probably errated to avoid any future infinite loop. But once they are released, I shouldn't rush to change their text. If competitive play would ever grow strong (I think it will never happen), a simple banned or restricted list (as in A Game of Thrones) should be enough.

I don't agree with this.

First, Tomb is event, Map is attachment, their effects and using are different.

Second, they could be affect by different encounter card(discard players' event card or attachment), so the value of the two cards will change via different quest.

Finally, I can pick them both in deck: tomb and map, UC and SotM, Daughter of the Nimrodel

and Self Preservation...

However, I like to see various cards always to make various deck idea, that's what we want in LCGs.

I don't really care either way. I don't like errata because then you have to keep track of them, but in some cases it can be a necessary evil. If I ran tournaments I would probably make special limiting rules for them just to help encourage creativity. I really don't care if a card is powerful enough that just about every deck will want it in there, but I like people to try to be creative. The cards don't break the game, just railroad deck-building.

I don't really care either way. I don't like errata because then you have to keep track of them, but in some cases it can be a necessary evil. If I ran tournaments I would probably make special limiting rules for them just to help encourage creativity. I really don't care if a card is powerful enough that just about every deck will want it in there, but I like people to try to be creative. The cards don't break the game, just railroad deck-building.

I agree with you. Sure there are some cards that are stronger than others but if you tinker with deck and card combos for a while you will eventualy find a super-strong combo and because of this many cards get collateral damage, like Thror's Map i just hate that its action can only be done in the travel phase but the combo of it with Path of Need was the thing that got it errated. Master of Lore also suffered this with that crazy Erebor Hammersmith deck that came a while ago. But on general i don't have problems with super powerful combos because i like to make thematic decks (really thematic) and it is rare to find such combos with themwd decks (Dain is an exception but i don't use him and Outlands need the support of many other cards to make it work so it is not entirely thematic).

Why is Gleowine a minstrel but Rivendell Minstrel not? This keeps me up at night.

Exactly how I play!

I don't foresee myself ever playing in a LotR LCG tournament or competing at all for that matter. I play by myself or with a friend or two simply for the experience. However, I can see the point of this topic as well: to discuss cards that are just plain bad or ones we would never use (like Power in the Earth)

As far as errata go, I'll be honest... I do not follow any of the updates they send out on them. I play the game with the exact texts on the cards I have and don't bother updating the ones that have been altered. With that said, it's not my goal to make the most powerful or cheap decks possible. My chief source of enjoyment in this game is creating themed decks that I can tackle quests with. Whether that be eagles, Elves, Rohan, Gondor, Hobbits, or anything else, that's what I enjoy doing. Now, some themed decks are just naturally better than others, and it just so happens that Dwarves are both powerful and my favorite to play with. Anyways, sorry to get a bit off topic, but that's my viewpoint on that.

I really wouldn't mind if they made errata that are only used for tournaments. In that case they could errata every single card.

removed on account of not being able to use quoting properly.

will return... maybe

There is a tournament system but this is not a supported organized play game. At least, it wasn't listed in the OP article of games stores can host events for. I have a way to make the game competitive but it has never been tried.

I'm interested in this. The only idea I kept were using homemade objective cards.

Race against the shadow was a bad experience. I've never seen positives reviews, or reviews at all ?

What if the there was a collaborative forum based created set of additional rules/erratas? Would this be helpful, for people wanting changes? That it wasn't just your own house rules - Then people could choose to play easy mode, normal mode or forum mode?

This seems the best solution. If it needs to be official, a fan group can submit theirs to validation. It would simplify the job.

I really wouldn't mind if they made errata that are only used for tournaments. In that case they could errata every single card.

Also, this is why I love fancard. I'm making my own cards in an alternate universe, so I only reuse the mechanism.

This would be the list of leadership CS cards that I would change... imagine if I have to do that for everything... like power in the earth, favor of the lady, daughter of the nimrodel, gandalf's search, beorn hospitality..........

I think the best future for evolutive card game is print on demand cards. Where you can buy only the cards you want, and errata can be reprinted easilly.

I really wouldn't mind if they made errata that are only used for tournaments. In that case they could errata every single card.

That is the point. All errata is only for official play...

If you want to run tournaments, and you own a comic/card shop or setup events at conventions you will need to follow the FAQ and have some version of an "Oracle" text with you to help people with rulings. If you try to have special limitations in these tournaments you will probably fail miserably unless it is on a tiny scale because people playing at their local store that want to play in your store will want to play by a standard set of rules.

Tournament players will exploit every little opening they can in deck construction/rules to get an edge. That's just how it is in any competition, and that's why we have errata and updated rulings in the FAQ. I don't see LOTR LCG ever taking off as a competitive game, but if FFG wants it to be a possibility they have to try to keep the balance.

If you play at home do whatever you want.

I just wish that FFG would make reprints of errata'd cards. If they're going to change them, they should at least make it official by having them in print, and it's more money for them anyway! It just gets hard to memorize all of these erratas.

At least put the new versions of cards in reprinted packs. It was confusing to me that they changed the Nazgul card and a couple other encounter cards from the new prints of the core set but did not change Beravor or the other errata'd player cards.

What would be really cool is if they did an adventure pack with all the errata'd cards in it!

So I'm really confused as to everytime group of people express their want for something to change (with reasonable reasons) why another group of people wants to (or feel the need to) tell them off.

Same here, I am confused. It really seems some people willingly disobey the rules, and then they are afraid for them to change because it would spoil it for them. Talking of paradox.

1st (I don't know if this was directed at me but if it is then) I didn't mean to tell anybody off. If it feels like that through my writing it was not intended that way. I was just giving my opinion like you guys. (If not directed at me ignore this)

2nd I did not state I disobey the rules. I said you could if you'd like, and nobody would notice, or care.

For the record, we play by every rule, and follow every errata.

I only indicated that with our house rules we just restrict ourselves: power cards are limited 1 per deck at our table, and presented it here as an option for use, like GrandSpleen noted.

This from of house ruling is in no way bending the rules of the game itself. So there is no spoil or empty victory.

Now I know you are not calling for errata; but as I read the replies on the subject you did hit a sensitive spot.

And there are some very good points brought up I must say. Good discussion.

Yet, as always, if you (even seem to) endanger peoples freedom (even in something minor as in use of cards for example) you might get feedback you won't like; or understand even as other people think different.

As there's no paradox here

I really wouldn't mind if they made errata that are only used for tournaments. In that case they could errata every single card.

That is the point. All errata is only for official play...

If you want to run tournaments, and you own a comic/card shop or setup events at conventions you will need to follow the FAQ and have some version of an "Oracle" text with you to help people with rulings. If you try to have special limitations in these tournaments you will probably fail miserably unless it is on a tiny scale because people playing at their local store that want to play in your store will want to play by a standard set of rules.

Tournament players will exploit every little opening they can in deck construction/rules to get an edge. That's just how it is in any competition, and that's why we have errata and updated rulings in the FAQ. I don't see LOTR LCG ever taking off as a competitive game, but if FFG wants it to be a possibility they have to try to keep the balance.

If you play at home do whatever you want.

Well, like I said, i don't mind if they do special errata for tournament play in which special means that they're not official, but only to be used during official tournaments.

I have zero desire to play this game in tournament. If I want to play a tournament I'll play Magic, Game of Thrones, or any of the other competitive games. BUT.... I can see how some people would want to play this game in tournament and for them I think there needs to be a FAQ and errata. Which is exactly why FFG is doing that. They clearly have no plans to create a competitive scene for this game but are going the distance for those who want to do it on their own.

Personally I'll do whatever works best for me and my friends. For example, I totally ignore the errata on Master of Lore. It's fine as it is. I've put my own errata in place for Keeping Count and now it works like the Fili/Kili combo. I've also errataed Sleeping Sentry by removing it from the game and pretending it doesn't exist

I play this game to have fun and if something is broken I'll fix it. If it's not, I'll leave it alone. That's the greatest joy of a cooperative game, you have the flexibility to make it be whatever you want it to be.

I really wouldn't mind if they made errata that are only used for tournaments. In that case they could errata every single card.

That is the point. All errata is only for official play...

If you want to run tournaments, and you own a comic/card shop or setup events at conventions you will need to follow the FAQ and have some version of an "Oracle" text with you to help people with rulings. If you try to have special limitations in these tournaments you will probably fail miserably unless it is on a tiny scale because people playing at their local store that want to play in your store will want to play by a standard set of rules.

Tournament players will exploit every little opening they can in deck construction/rules to get an edge. That's just how it is in any competition, and that's why we have errata and updated rulings in the FAQ. I don't see LOTR LCG ever taking off as a competitive game, but if FFG wants it to be a possibility they have to try to keep the balance.

If you play at home do whatever you want.

Well, like I said, i don't mind if they do special errata for tournament play in which special means that they're not official, but only to be used during official tournaments.

The only errata and FAQ in existence are for official organized play. Unofficial errata is for when you want to ignore the FAQ at home or make home rules to make it more fun for yourself. You have the luxury of ignoring whatever you want at home. There will never be such a thing as rules for home play and rules for tournament play. There are rules, FAQ entries and errata, and if you aren't playing at a sanctioned event you can play however you like.

If you want to make a homemade Han Solo hero with all 20's for stats and 1 threat you are welcome to it...

But finally, what you imply is not true. I do not want to punish anyone, I want to reward those who buy the game. I want them to have both Dwarven Tomb and Map of Eärnil as viable options, same as the Courage and the Steed; not just one of the two (and the other in case you don't find anything better for your decks than the fillers). It is the main reason, and I will not say it again, I feel every card should have its place, or at least a chance for it. I don't even mind Power of the Earth even though it is probably super weak - but there is no similar card that does the thing better - within the sphere.

Yes it is true. You didn't ask that Steed or Map be made better; you want the other cards to be made worse. Where would it end? Warden of Healing is better than Daughter of Nimrodel; a number of cards are just staples in their respective spheres.

In a game with an ever-growing pool of cards, there are going to be great cards, there are going to be average cards, and there are going to be bad cards. It's just how it is. I would love for all of the cards made for this game to be viable options, but the truth is so few of the cards are really playable in a "best-deck" situation.

I apologize if I respond a little strong, but I've seen poor, knee-jerk reactions made off random message board posts in other games like this before because no one took what was happening or being complained about seriously.

I'm interested in this. The only idea I kept were using homemade objective cards.

Race against the shadow was a bad experience. I've never seen positives reviews, or reviews at all ?

There is a tournament system but this is not a supported organized play game. At least, it wasn't listed in the OP article of games stores can host events for. I have a way to make the game competitive but it has never been tried.

This is the tournament concept I have been working on. At the start of the event, the judge announces which scenario will be used. Two two-player teams sit down at each table. Each round is one hour, with the amount of time for each time evenly split at 30 minutes.

The teams roll off to see who will play their quest decks first. The other team is the "shadow team." Proceed with normal setup, have the first team draw six cards, and when they are ready to begin, the shadow team draws 3 cards off the top of the encounter deck. Once during the staging step, the shadow team may play one of the 3 cards instead of revealing an encounter card. The shadow team has 10 seconds to decide to play a card.

When Revealed effects trigger as though the card were revealed from the encounter deck. If an encounter card requires players to search for a card, the shadow team may replace 1 search with 1 card that matches the requirements of the search. During the combat phase, the shadow team may assign any of the cards in their hand as the shadow cards to eligible enemies. At the end of the combat phase, the shadow team puts all of the cards in their hand on the bottom of the encounter deck and draws 3 new cards.

Scoring is based on the following system:

Add up final threat totals, and subtract the result from 100. Then add 5 points for each damage token on a hero, and subtract 1 point for each ally in play. The team with the lowest score wins. Tie breakers are determined by which team took the least amount of time to complete the quest. If a team feels the shadow team is intentionally stalling the game to run them out of time, the quest players should immediately call for a judge to report a slow play concern.