Jump to content



Photo

And a new FAQ!


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 645 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:35 PM

http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=4638

 

Poor Erebor Battle Master - but I do agree with the fix.


  • danpoage likes this

#2 Karlson

Karlson

    Member

  • Members
  • 215 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:40 PM

Ah man, not the Erebor Battle Master, or as I like to call him... the Angry Garden Gnome.  


  • Dwarf king Bronze beard and gandalfDK like this

#3 Raven1015

Raven1015

    Member

  • Members
  • 436 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 05:48 PM

Yeah, with 3 Dwarf heroes and Dain in play, you could get a 5 attack Battle Master as soon as it hit the table (with no other allies in play). It was too broken, so this is a fix I agree with.


  • klaymen_sk, danpoage and Dwarf king Bronze beard like this

Check out my LOTR LCG blog: talesfromthecards.wordpress.com

Listen to The Grey Company podcast: greycompanypodcast.wordpress.com


#4 OnkelZorni

OnkelZorni

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:00 PM

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.



#5 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:02 PM

Treasure Hunter Fix is also expected....

 

The Next Player rules should also tell use exactly how First and Last player works for solo... I have always played First and Last hits but Next returns Null?


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#6 Spurries

Spurries

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:04 PM

Does this change that card in Road to Rivendell where you choose either all engaged enemies attack or deal damage to everyone and gaining surge? If there are no enemies engaged would you have to deal damage?

#7 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:06 PM

I didn't notice that the designers "errata'd" their own point to being no more able to attach attachments to cards that are immune to player cards. That was quite surprising.

 

hasn't it always been like that... I mean a attachment is a player card ... so if it is immune.. how can you attach it?


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#8 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 645 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:08 PM

Treasure Hunter Fix is also expected....

 

The Next Player rules should also tell use exactly how First and Last player works for solo... I have always played First and Last hits but Next returns Null?

this was always the case (if I understand you correctly); from The Long Dark Rules Sheet:

 

Next Player

The next player is the player sitting directly to the left of the player referenced by the card effect. If there are no other players in the game, there is no next player.



#9 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:13 PM

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".


Edited by booored, 06 February 2014 - 06:13 PM.

"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#10 Dain Ironfoot

Dain Ironfoot

    Member

  • Members
  • 645 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 06:15 PM

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".

gotcha. and yes, that's how i interpret it, as well.


  • booored likes this

#11 Chris51261

Chris51261

    Member

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:08 PM

Sure wish they would release an "Errata Pack," with all of the cards that have had changes made to them in it. They're getting hard to keep track of!
  • Narsil0420, klaymen_sk, Mika Mika and 3 others like this

#12 Mndela

Mndela

    Member

  • Members
  • 829 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:08 PM

Oh! Nice idea! Grrrrr, too late to find out it: in 4 players, each player has 3 copies of Treasure Hunter, and always a player has any copy of it attach to the player who has 1 copy of NeedPath. In 2 or 3 rounds this powerfull attachment is in hand, of course! ((9 copies of Treasure Hunter in play by only one player: and he always say 'attachment', wow, drawing powerfull machine, in adittion to find NeedPath) Maybe this is the reason for TH is fixed?

 

Erebor Battle Master only miss 3 attack points, not so bad. When i saw his name in the announcement of the new errata i was hoping anything worse, lol.


Edited by Mndela, 06 February 2014 - 07:10 PM.

A wizard is never late..., he arrives precisely when it is the last round


#13 Spurries

Spurries

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:38 PM

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".


It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

#14 Glaurung

Glaurung

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,985 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:39 PM

Nothing really exiting and interesting……..Anyway most of the rules is already clear.  I didn like the idea Doom and surge guarded is doesn triggered any more if cards not revealed but is couse of Nightmare mode…..os actually I'm happy for now with all game current flow. 


Wizard is never late.......

 

Glaurung playtrough LOTR LCG on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/user/olegyd   


#15 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:46 PM

 

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".


It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next

 

 

No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.


  • Dain Ironfoot likes this
"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#16 Spurries

Spurries

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:59 PM

yeah.. exactly. It has just been put in the FAQ.. but they still haven't defined FIRST and LAST player for solo... I still play them as returning a target value.. not null like "Next Player".


It's in the Long Dark rules. Solo you are both First and Last, but not Next
 
No as Dain and I said.. there is no definition for First and Last players in regards to Solo. It is NOT in The Long Dark Rule Sheet.. that is where the Next Player rules were introduced. Still I think it is pretty clear.. yet it should be defined properly in the FAQ.

Yea on second thought looks like you are right, guess I've always just played it that way. Made most sense to me

#17 Glaurung

Glaurung

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,985 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:26 PM

Loragorn is also ok. So those dooms cards from VOI should be not so powerful then if they don't scare Loragorn.

Wizard is never late.......

 

Glaurung playtrough LOTR LCG on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/user/olegyd   


#18 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 09:44 PM

I don't see the logic in distinguishing Quick Strike (which is legal against Immune enemies) and Hands Upon the Bow (which is now illegal).  I can see maybe why they would want to do that from a balance standpoint, but I don't really follow their logic in establishing that balance.  

 

Quick Strike:

Action: Exhaust a character you control to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against any eligible enemy target.

 

Hands Upon the Bow:

Action: Exhaust a character you control with ranged to immediately declare it as an attacker (and resolve its attack) against an enemy in the staging area. It gets +1 Attack during this attack.

 

The text I highlighted red is identical between both cards.  "Any eligible enemy" and "an enemy in the staging area" are the only meaningful difference.  Somehow the phrase "any eligible enemy" does NOT force the player to "pick" an enemy, but "an enemy in the staging area" DOES force a player to "pick" an enemy.

 

I was really happy to see that they expanded on "immunity," as this is something we have sorely needed.  But all they have done is muddy the already murky waters.  If they wanted to exempt enemies from being targeted by Hands Upon the Bow, they should have just errata'd the card.  This messy explanation doesn't make anything clearer.  The next time a card comes out and we have a question about using it vs. immune enemies, we have NO new answers to look to from this passage.  The same debates will just recycle.  Does it make you pick an enemy, or doesn't it? Who knows, ask the devs!


Edited by GrandSpleen, 06 February 2014 - 09:46 PM.


#19 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,002 posts

Posted 06 February 2014 - 10:07 PM

One is a TARGET effect, the other triggers a non targeted COMBAT ACTION


Edited by booored, 06 February 2014 - 10:08 PM.

  • Dain Ironfoot, Raven1015 and danpoage like this
"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#20 GrandSpleen

GrandSpleen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 07 February 2014 - 12:12 AM

But but but.... which one is a "target" effect?  The one that uses the text "Target?"  Actually, that would be Quick Strike!

 

And neither are "Combat Actions," although maybe you just chose unfortunate wording there.  Feint is a Combat Action.  Quick Strike and Hands Upon the Bow are regular Actions.

 

Neither Quick Strike nor Hands Upon the Bow instruct the player to "chose a character"  or "target a character" (i.e., a PLAYER character).  That is why the ruling is ludicrous.  They use almost identical text.  A character is exhausted (cost) to allow an immediate attack (framework effect).  Hands Upon the Bow allows this attack to occur against an enemy in the staging area (this effect is different from the typical framework of the game).  If they want to differentiate the two cards, THAT is how they could do it.  But instead they are suggesting that one card targets a character and the other card targets an enemy-- so the text on the cards needs to be distinctly different.

 

So in the end the only thing we can compare between the two cards is :

 

"an enemy in the staging area"

 

vs.

 

"any eligible enemy target."

 

Which word in which clause means that Card A targets a character, while card B targets an enemy?


Edited by GrandSpleen, 07 February 2014 - 12:15 AM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS