Jump to content

PocketWraith

Members
  • Content Count

    851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PocketWraith

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

934 profile views
  1. 1. I think you're correct. Regardless of what happens to the enemy afterwards, it was revealed. 2. I see no reason why that wouldn't work, since Short Cut does say 'enters play' rather than 'is revealed'. 3. Lasting effects from player cards do not recalculate. So once you trigger Bilbo, his willpower boost will not change regardless of wht else happens to the targeted enemy.
  2. It's not that odd. We don't usually get every hero revealed in AP preview articles, the last cycle being an exception. Frodo and Smeagol are the deluxe heroes, Pippin is an ally.
  3. OK, so firstly I'm just going to tell you that the final quest of the cycle drops everyone's threat to 0 at the start, so that's a perfect environment for Secrecy even if you don't use it anywhere else. As to the possibility of using it elsewhere, Dwarrowdelf-era Secrecy can be done, but it pretty much requires you to go 2-hero and can be hard to pull off. This will probably be exacerbated by your additional conditions, trying to fit a bunch of other new cards into your decks at the same time. And add to that the fact that the Secrecy cards are spread throughout the cycle, so building a Secrecy deck for Redhorn Gate is going to mean expending a fair amount of effort in your deckbuilding just to get Timely Aid and Needful To Know. I mean, Timely Aid is a great card in Secrecy, but it's harder to justify building Secrecy just for that one card.
  4. 'Free if you use the ability solely for chumps' and 'always free even if you spawn ally Beorn every single time' are two very different situations. Regardless of your opinion on the precise power level, Imrahil's ability is supposed to be balanced by the cost ttached to it. Being able to entirely obviate that cost is clearly against the design of the card, which some would certainly define as broken.
  5. Off the top of my head, pre-errata Horn of Gondor would make Tactics Imrahil's ability free.
  6. True, it can. Fortunately no errata released for this game has done so, and I think we can be pretty confident Caleb does not intend for any future errata to do so. Also, re: your WANI/Record-keeper example, if you exhaust Nori or Ori instead you only lose out on 1 willpower and still get your 5 Dwarves. I'd do it.
  7. That's totally fair. I have a freakishly good memory for errata/rulings/card text, but for people who don't obviously it would be less frustrating if they could rely on their card text being correct. Since it doesn't exist, you have nothing to worry about. Even if it did exist, you wouldn't need to buy it, but other people would like to. And yes, it could be nice if they were to give positive errata on underpowered cards as well as negative on overpowered. In many cases cards are rehabilitated instead by their combination with later-released cards, but not all. I disagree. I personally will probably never play Caldara again, but that's not because she's vastly underpowered now, just because I no longer find her interesting. So lack of interest in playing a card is not necessarily down to power level, rather to playstyle. I have used Master of Lore and Horn of Gondor since the errata, and I still feel Hama is at least worthy of consideration. I don't think they're vastly underpowered. They just suit certain kinds of decks. I can appreciate the desire for Horn of Gondor to be more *universal* given its book significance, but divorced from that context, it's not a *bad* card, it's just a card suited to a particular type of deck and which really shouldn't have the Restricted keyword that it does. Yes. I read what you said, and responded to it. The post-errata versions of those cards are not vastly underpowered. Underpowered is measured in the general context of the game, not the errata history of a specific card. Many cards in their post-errata forms, while less powerful than they were pre-errata, are still noticeably *more* powerful than other comparable cards in the pool. They are most certainly not vastly underpowered.
  8. OK I have to object to this. While some cards may be rather dependent on the card pool you have available, that's the case whatever their errata status, so let's disregard that for the moment. The only errata'd card I might consider underpowered following its errata is Master of Lore, and even then not 'vastly' so. This is the thing that annoys me most when people start complaining about errata - a lot of the time they seem to only consider the card in relation to its pre-errata state rather than to other cards in the pool, the actually reasonable means of assessing whether something is over- or underpowered. Which again, they're not underpowered, certainly not vastly so.
  9. Losing is typically not enjoyable, especially when there was an easy path to not losing which was rejected. I mean, I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't like the game-breaking OP versions of cards, and therefore I generally avoided using them to beat those scenarios. So I would view it more as "Here are the same quite interesting scenarios but we've taken away some of the nonsense your longer-playing peers used to make them less interesting." Alo, I've never gotten much use out of Horn of Gondor, pre or post errata, but Master of Lore I still like when I can find a place for it. Defending loads of attacks easily with one character is boring, so we definitely will be using the Burning Brand change (Particularly since it can still be used quite easily to make Lore characters better defenders, just not so much to make super-defenders invulnerable). I feel excited for those players both new and old who are going to get the better balanced version and will be pushed to find more creative and interesting combat solutions.
  10. A while back I wrote a blog post about how I might redesign (Nightmare) Flight from Moria to fix some problems with it. The potential for New Devilry to appear partway through a slow victory condition was one of the things I particularly felt should be changed. https://wardenofarnor.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/what-might-have-been-flight-from-moria/
  11. Aside from agreeing with everything Seastan has been saying, I just want to point out that Beregond has 4 hit points, not 5. It's not a significant point but you keep bringing it up and it's bugging me.
  12. This is not even close to true. I can no longer find a PDF of the original rulebook, but the Learn to Play is 32 pages and the Rules Reference is 29. The FAQ is 19, and of that, only two and a half pages are actually taken up by errata. 1. Um, what? Staff of Lebethron was never a better choice than Burning Brand assuming either could be attached. With the errata it's a bit closer, but Burning Brand is still better (which is fair, it costs more). 2. The fact the essential function and common case haven't changed directly contradict your claim that 'all of that is now obsolete'. Some of it may be obsolete, the decks that stacked a Burning Brand hero with readying effects to ignore all shadows forever are obsolete (but that was a broken case which needed to be fixed), and some decks now have one Restricted attachment too many (but many of those can be reasonably tweaked to manage without one of those attachments). Very little has actually been made obsolete. 3. You say there was no broken combo which required errata, and then later go on to describe the case of stacking Burning Brand with readying effects and other defensive attachments - which is a broken combo that (imo) required errata. 4. From my own perspective, I don't think nerfing Burning Brand makes the game meaningfully harder, because any quest in the game could be beaten pretty reliably without using it. It *was* (part of) one method of making the game a lot easier and, notably, less interesting by removing the aforementioned drama - the game is designed on the assumption that shadow effects are something the players will have to deal with to some extent, and Burning Brand on the right target made it too easy to just excise that entire aspect of the game. To my mind, this Burning Brand errata is actually the perfect kind of errata, in that it blocks the broken case while leaving the common case untouched, as you yourself noted. From my own personal perspective it also rehabilitates the card to the point where as mentioned, I'm now much more likely to play it myself. I mean, he was absolutely right, the Dunedain mechanics are very cool. His friend was clearly wrong. And if your implication here is that you can't play Dunedain and keep a bunch of enemies engaged without pre-errata Burning Brand, I can tell you from substantial experience that you are also clearly wrong.
  13. Yes, but how often do you need to cancel more than one shadow effect while doing so? In my experience Beregond laughs off most shadow effects, and in the rare cases he does take damage we have healing.
  14. Yes please, those cards are super overpowered. To the people whining about Burning Brand, I have to ask: How often do you attach Burning Brand to a character with two other Restricted attachments, where you really couldn't manage without one of them? And how often do you need the same defender to cancel more than one shadow effect in the same round? Because those are the only times the errata will make a difference.
×
×
  • Create New...