It's a little troubling how many errata's this game has for being relatively new. A lot of them don't even seem that broken to me. I haven't played that much, but it still seems a bit unnecessary, unless one's really looking to break every card whenever possible. Broken cards aren't fun, but it's the player that ultimately breaks it.
Cards like that resource miner that could sometimes provide 3 resources don't seem that broken unless you manipulate your deck to pull a 5c or something. With the errata it just seems weak, with a decent chance to get, what, 1 resource out of it at the cost of a tap? There seem to be better cards, unless you do actually manage to make it so that it consistently taps for 2, but even then you have to build around it and it doesn't seem to be worth it imo.
'Nori' was indeed powerful sometimes in the sense that one could lose 7-8 threat over the course of a game. This is good but it's far from broken. Again, now it just seems less good than the alternatives and if I want to play right I'd probably have to remake the deck as this ruling will lead to more losses.
Some errata's are definately justified, like the Nazgul, who is meant to play like a "boss" character. It would be stupid if he was indeed 'snared' or 'pacified' by one sole card.
I'm not complaining or anything - besides, the player eventually has control over the rules he chooses to apply: this is no competitive game in its essence - but I'm just wondering why. Are there decklists that demonstrate the power of said cards? But again, it's up to the player to restrain himself a little.
Finally, I chose not to apply the new rules that score points according to the number of turns. First because I simply don't play with points, and second because it just doesn't matter that much unless one is set on grinding out points in an efford to maximise the number.