Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kakita Shiro

Counsel From The Loremaster

Recommended Posts

I'm a fan of both erratas. I think you have to protect the integrity of the game, and allowing an effect to exist that can allow the encounter deck to be removed from the game or allow a player to play out their entire deck meets the definition of game-breaking in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they missed on bringing errata to the wrong Gondor attachment. "O" cost attachments that give 2 free resources every successive turn and open any character in the game up to Gondor synergy is OP in every deck, not just ones successfully built to abuse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, so encounter card 'lasting effects' are re-calculated as the game state changes, while player card effects are not.  This clears up some issues.

 

How about some older cards that say something like "each card currently in the staging area...?"  Should we now just apply that to all cards, regardless of whether or not they were currently in the staging area at the time that the treachery in question was revealed? It would seem that the intent is yes, and I'm fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that slipped in: no "guarding" for Guarded objectives that are "added" to the staging area rather than being "revealed."

 

Q: Does the Guarded keyword trigger when the encounter card it’s on is “added” to the staging area (and not “revealed”)? A: No. In order for the Guarded keyword to trigger, the encounter card it appears on must be “revealed” from the encounter deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions are split on wether broken combos should be allowed to exist or be removed eh? No surprise there.

 

Love of Tales errata was needed and doesn't bother that many people I'd think. Horn of Gondor certainly shakes the core of this game! It makes thematic sense if nothing else (please don't errata Valiant Sacrifice as well for this reason and break my deck!). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, so encounter card 'lasting effects' are re-calculated as the game state changes, while player card effects are not.  This clears up some issues.

 

How about some older cards that say something like "each card currently in the staging area...?"  Should we now just apply that to all cards, regardless of whether or not they were currently in the staging area at the time that the treachery in question was revealed? It would seem that the intent is yes, and I'm fine with that.

I would say no, because in that case the "currently" eliminates any ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

It all depends on what your definition of "broken" is.  Love of Tales and Horn of Gondor are "broken" in a small number of decks, and not broken at all in a much larger number of decks.  The Love of Tales nerf makes Love of Tales about as useful as it ever was in a deck not designed to specifically exploit it.  The Horn of Gondor nerf makes Horn of Gondor *noticeably weaker* in plenty of decks not designed to specifically exploit it.

 

It's a fair argument that staple cards, of which Horn of Gondor arguably was one, make the game weaker by taking up deck space that could be filled by a wide variety of cards.  But I think a nerf that turns a "broken" (in a few decks) card into a coaster is a tragic event in the game.  Master of Lore can't be used to break the game any more, but it's hardly used at all.  Is that an improvement?

 

Eagles decks were just dealt a bitter blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

It all depends on what your definition of "broken" is.  Love of Tales and Horn of Gondor are "broken" in a small number of decks, and not broken at all in a much larger number of decks.  The Love of Tales nerf makes Love of Tales about as useful as it ever was in a deck not designed to specifically exploit it.  The Horn of Gondor nerf makes Horn of Gondor *noticeably weaker* in plenty of decks not designed to specifically exploit it.

 

It's a fair argument that staple cards, of which Horn of Gondor arguably was one, make the game weaker by taking up deck space that could be filled by a wide variety of cards.  But I think a nerf that turns a "broken" (in a few decks) card into a coaster is a tragic event in the game.  Master of Lore can't be used to break the game any more, but it's hardly used at all.  Is that an improvement?

 

Eagles decks were just dealt a bitter blow.

 

Maybe it was a subtle suggestion to use Radagast in eagle decks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Love-Tales is that this card only works so, as broken. Otherway it is useless.

Is this really true? Is it still possible to make an amusing Songs-LoT deck, or is the card COMPLETELY pointless now? The death of Seastan's shenanigans, wonderful as they were, might have distracted from the fact that the card pool might actually be at the point that nerfed LoT might actually be just barely playable. I'd work on this myself, but I'm currently still up against Carn Dum, and that doesn't seem like the right setting for jank experiments. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of both erratas. I think you have to protect the integrity of the game, and allowing an effect to exist that can allow the encounter deck to be removed from the game or allow a player to play out their entire deck meets the definition of game-breaking in my opinion.

 

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

 

I don’t want to speak for either of you, but I feel like you are coming from a fairly similar place so I’ll reply to you together.

 

First of all, I can completely respect your opinion here. I actually agree, to an extent, that the designers should protect the integrity of the game up-to-and-including errataing previously released cards if they are inherently broken. I think where we disagree is how we define what a broken card is.

 

First, I think we can all agree that any card (player or encounter) that somehow creates a game-ending situation spontaneously or due to rules conflicts is, by definition, broken.

 

Beyond that, though, things get more fuzzy and subjective. Does a card being powerful make it broken? And if so, how powerful does it have to be to meet that criteria—remembering that cards like Glorfindel, Dain, Steward of Gondor, etc. do not meet that standard? And should we judge that card’s power by its intended use? Common use? Or uncommon but possible exploit use?

 

Let’s use Horn of Gondor as an example as the designers have clearly decided that this card, as written, was in some way destructive to the game’s balance or mechanisms and, so, in need of errata. The Horn’s intended use is pretty clear—it was designed to give decks that will lose allies often a way to recoup some of that loss. But is that how it’s commonly used? Well, yes and no.

 

It is definitely used for that reason in a lot of decks. But as the cardpool has expanded there has been more and more benefit to discarding and chumping characters (also some additional downsides including some chump-hate, which I would argue is a better way to balance this kind of thing, but we’ll ignore that for the moment) so in general I think it’s fair to say that the Horn has gotten more powerful over time and has become more commonly used. But is it now overpowered in common use? I would say no.

 

Certainly in a deck designed to take advantage of discarding and chumping characters it can represent a very real, decent economy boost. But that kind of deck needs that boost to be viable and competitive (vs the current difficulty of the Quests). And that deck-type is hardly without other mitigating factors, including a need for steady card draw. And in no common, general use deck is Horn ever the kind of consistent resource generation provided by—the again, not OP—Steward of Gondor.

 

So then we come to uncommon, or what I would prefer to call exploit use. Can a deck be purpose-built to exploit Horn of Gondor for everything it’s worth in order to essentially break the resource curve of the game? Yes, with the addition of certain other purpose-built combos.

 

But, and here is where we get into the fuzzy subjective side, does that make it broken? I think it depends.

 

If someone could conceivably drop this card into any number of decks and achieve that same game-changing resource acceleration then yes it would absolutely be broken. Why? Because that would mean that any number of common deck archetypes would have access to this and so the designers would have to account for that when balancing Quest difficulty. Which, in turn, would force players to play a narrower and more restrictive set of decks. Which would suck.

 

But in this example, and in most of the cards they choose to errata, this isn’t the case. Rather than a card simply being “too good” in common usage (whatever that entails, considering players—at least in part—have to be responsible for the cards they ultimately decide to play) cards are errataed because someone found a way to exploit them outside not only of their intended usage, but outside of their common and general usage as well. A process that almost always requires finely tuning a purpose-built deck to exploit the quirks of multiple cards and the game’s mechanics. And in that case—a case where someone has intentionally tried to break the game…why should we then use that as evidence that a given card, because of it’s potential to be exploited intentionally, is flawed or broken or over-powered?

 

Like I said in my earlier post, there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking up or designing some crazy exploit deck designed to break the game. I just do not understand why FFG treats the intentional decision to custom-build something like that as something they need to address—either via errata of the constituent components of said exploits or through rebalancing of Quest difficulty. Not unless there is evidence that people are stumbling upon those game-breaking combo decks by accident as part of the organic deck-building process and not understanding why the game suddenly got so much easier.

 

For the record—I want to play inside the rules of the game to, I just don’t want those rules changed because someone else is choosing to break the game for their own enjoyment, with no negative consequences to anyone else. I’m not saying that truly broken cards should just be left alone because, as I stated above, that can have bad consequences. But I think FFG needs to have a much more rigorous standard to what they consider a broken card. Especially in a games that is—yes—coop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The errata is mainly for new players and reprints. It is a good idea. The reasoning for avoiding the errata is that this is a coop game so broken cards can be ignored. Well then why not just make all the cards broken? Anyway, by the same exact reasoning you can just ignore the official errata and play all the broken combo decks you want. Nothing is stopping you. You cacan play with fan made cards, etc. The official cards are still important for those who, like me, want to play within the confines of the official rules.

It all depends on what your definition of "broken" is.  Love of Tales and Horn of Gondor are "broken" in a small number of decks, and not broken at all in a much larger number of decks.  The Love of Tales nerf makes Love of Tales about as useful as it ever was in a deck not designed to specifically exploit it.  The Horn of Gondor nerf makes Horn of Gondor *noticeably weaker* in plenty of decks not designed to specifically exploit it.

 

It's a fair argument that staple cards, of which Horn of Gondor arguably was one, make the game weaker by taking up deck space that could be filled by a wide variety of cards.  But I think a nerf that turns a "broken" (in a few decks) card into a coaster is a tragic event in the game.  Master of Lore can't be used to break the game any more, but it's hardly used at all.  Is that an improvement?

 

Eagles decks were just dealt a bitter blow.

 

 

^ This. 

 

You basically made my point but in, like, 1/5 as many words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that slipped in: no "guarding" for Guarded objectives that are "added" to the staging area rather than being "revealed."

 

Q: Does the Guarded keyword trigger when the encounter card it’s on is “added” to the staging area (and not “revealed”)? A: No. In order for the Guarded keyword to trigger, the encounter card it appears on must be “revealed” from the encounter deck.

Whaaaat. That's crazy, I've been doing that wrong for years.

 

On the Horn of Gondor thing - balance-wise I think a better solution would've been to give it a "limit once per phase", but I'm somewhat inclined to think that this choice of errata is more motivated by the intent of what the card is supposed to be doing than game balance (though it may have been initially motivated by the existence of a broken combo deck).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the nerf to Love of Tales is to open up design space for future song cards that will cost 0? So far we only have one 0 cost song and it's very recent one too, Hope Rekindled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Something that slipped in: no "guarding" for Guarded objectives that are "added" to the staging area rather than being "revealed."

 

Q: Does the Guarded keyword trigger when the encounter card it’s on is “added” to the staging area (and not “revealed”)? A: No. In order for the Guarded keyword to trigger, the encounter card it appears on must be “revealed” from the encounter deck.

Whaaaat. That's crazy, I've been doing that wrong for years.

 

On the Horn of Gondor thing - balance-wise I think a better solution would've been to give it a "limit once per phase", but I'm somewhat inclined to think that this choice of errata is more motivated by the intent of what the card is supposed to be doing than game balance (though it may have been initially motivated by the existence of a broken combo deck).

 

 

So, on the Guarded ruling, does that mean that all keyword effects (like doom and surge) should also be considered "When Revealed" effects? Because that's not the way I've been playing since...ever. 

 

As for the game balance vs intent argument...you may be right. But if so that sucks--especially for Love of Tales.

 

It's like they're trying to limit cards from growing into more than they were originally intended but without any reason. Outside of weird, broken combo decks those cards were better than they were originally but they weren't crazy. They had just finally grown into themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rulebook defines both Surge and Doomed as when revealed effects.  So those have never triggered when added to the staging area.  Guarded (in the rule book) triggers when it enters the staging area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They forgot the Bilbo hero errata (7 threat cost, 2 will power)!!  :o

 

Lol--I just spent 5 minutes looking for a supposed positive errata to Bilbo in the FAQ before I realized this was a joke. 

 

...

 

I'm sad now and only a reasonable threat Bilbo will make it better. Make it happen, FFG!!!

 

 

 

The rulebook defines both Surge and Doomed as when revealed effects.  So those have never triggered when added to the staging area.  Guarded (in the rule book) triggers when it enters the staging area.

 

 

Well ****--I have never played them that way. I wonder how much extra threat and enemies I have taken on over the years because of that, lol...

Edited by JonofPDX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...