Jump to content
Jekzer

FAQ 1.9 Released

Recommended Posts

Can't agree more with Dalestephenson, 13nrv and Yepesnopes.

To be honest, i don't have much of a problem with "we are not idle" that is still, i.m.h.o, very strong.

Then Caldara is still playable, well, not a big news you know :   but the fun around her ability, and what makes the all archetype is just dead. Period ! Serioulsy :  They could have start gently, and kill that 4 allies revive, and bring it back to three or even 2 allies (as we get more and more strong allies to revive as the game goes on it's still good, and it would have kept the fun around multiple revive active...) ! And see how it goes first... But No... Too much brainstorming i guess...

Boromir :  from the 3 it's the one i'm the least surprised and the less annoyed. I played him when i started, then i quickly change to try some other stuff more funny. I think that a native untap is still very good, but all in all... Was he that much of a problem ? just think about it for a sec.
Will we see him a lot more now ? I'm not really that sure to be honest, and was that one of that errata's goal ? To see him more played ? Probably a bit yes... If not, it's even more useless.

Hama :  From the 3, it's the one that still turn me to the Dark Side... I really don't get that hard and harsh rework... 13nrv speak about killing the fun out of a character with Caldara, well FFCalebG has just done that with Hama... They killed the only interresting aspect of him. And as DaleStephenson, i liked to toss Elven light to grab a feint, a foe, a wait no longer and stuff the like depending on my needs, wich makes Hama interresting, and not even O.P at all... The only card why caleb nerfed him for is just that Ticket... Wich is not in my opinion the strongest one in a recursive way of playing hama.

And let's be realistic :  How many hama ticket have you seen in a random event ? And then, was it really a problem of fun for the one table you played with that guy playing it ? My last Hama Spears 4 players game proves me how not "THAT GOOD" nor "OP AS ****" that combo was... There are still plenty random and "out of combat phase" attacks that occurs on many quests. And Beregond saved the table and the game much more than Hama + Spears...

So... Shall we nerf Beregond + Burning Brand aswell ?

Shall we nerf everything that works fine in this game so Sir Caleb is happy that some of his quest stays that hard and challenging ? (btw, for a player like me, i got plenty of challenging quest to lose against... specially in 2, 3 players games, and i lost many games even with a caldara and hama on the board... so once again... Where exactly was that "primal need" for changing those ?)

FFG should also understand that players like Seastan, 13nrv and Rouxxor, are not the majority of players in the game... So when ffg Caleb saw videos or topics mentionning how those players beat those quests hard with their decks, this could not just be threaten as a declaration of war or a problem of this game going badly...

As a "normal" player, i got plenty of quest that just rekt me hard without cream and killing the fun i got with some characters is not, to me, a good way to start making the game a better one...

This game is like the anti-christ of a versus game... So really... i defenatly don't get some of those very harsh reworks... I guess that Director Grace took the word "META" a bit too seriously for a co-op game... ?

And why this late... ? Ok the game is probably going on for a 8th cycle, but he will probably not last for 7 more...

And why they never did the opposite as mentionned by some players... why never "boosting up" a bad cards that sleep in the binder ? This could be so good and could open new windows...

Too much binder cards to up probably ? But you know FFG, just try to make even just 5-10 cards ! You could be surprised how positive that could be !

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST :  PLEASE ! And believe me, a lot of player would be MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY for a POD with all the errated cards in max copy !

Coz erratas are (not) fine, but as a "client" i think i deserve the right to have access to the game i paid for, even when you change what has been wrote on my cards, so you could offer me the chance to have THE RIGHT CARDS that i can play with in real life, instead of some homemade prints .pdf files you gave us...

Anyway, as others said, it's defenatly not like FFG was reading what we were saying here. (Nor that they care even just a bit)...

I just know that they just read what they want, the "between the lines" ways, and do what they want without looking further or looking closely or twice at what could be done Or done differntly before it's done the poor way (wich is unfortunaly what they do most of the time)

Take care.
 

 

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Network57 said:

Thought you said you were done?

Thought you could read right my little gollum !

On 18/11/2017 at 4:20 PM, Aorakis said:

Not with this topic no,

 

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Network57 said:

My literacy is not in question. Just my interest in paying attention to what you say. Which, probably like literally everyone else on this forum, is zero.

Well the literally right question you bring to me is more like  :  if you are still losing time with me, and got only that to say to me, wich is **** interresting don't get me wrong... why won't you just go and do a way better and constructive stuff like :  sorting your socks ?

http://i.imgur.com/4lSrfMG.gif

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 13nrv said:

Well Seastan, yesterday i have read all your description of your deck. In this description, you write change to do depending on quest like Ethir swordsman and quest with Direct damage's treachery.

Ok, your deck works without that. So ok, i am wrong and Caldara continue to be strong ... But this feedback make me more disappointed and angry against these errata.

So developers want to nerf Caldara power but you show that it change nothing. More you beat some quest easiler than my old one. Is it really a nerf ?This errata have just killed two gameplay but change nothing on what is powerfull or not. So they killed the fun of player who love to play these gameplay. Sorry but i can't be enjoyed with that, i have all the collection. I spend a lot of money for this game and developer produce errata that killed my favourites gameplays.

So the errata show you, How can we use Caldara differently ? I would like to say that i respect you deckbuilding skills (i have watched all your videos). But the gameplay of Caldara 2.0 wasn't new for me. I have already make decks which bring quickly some heavy allies and then use Narya on it. These deck rely in heavy willpower hero too and can turtle. The idea i like in your deck is the tribes man. But for me, it's an improvement of a gameplay which already exist and Caldara isn't needed for that. I have seen other player use differently Caldara with only one other spirit hero and one from another sphere. These decks rely on only one use of Caldara on Combo Prince Imrahil. These player didn't need an errata to build differently around a hero.

So these errata bring no new gameplay, but killed an existing one ... I didn't like the gameplay of Caldara 2.0 and i like the old one. The first has been untouched by the errata and the second one have just disappear. Conclusion, my fun was killed.

I eagerly wait new release for many reason. First one, new mechanic, new idea for new deck and second one, new cards for tuning my deck i love to play.I eagerly wait for new spirit cards, for new tactic event, for new Noldor, for New dwarves etc ... And then tune my deck and play again and again Nightmares. Now i will be disappointed when a card will be released that will fit with my favourite killed decks. It kills my fun again.

 

I hate to disappoint someone. I play many event in France and Belgium and it is so bad to tell a player that his deck didn't work due to an errata. The player is frustrated and some of them didn't understand why developers do errata on a coop game.

And last point, where is the upgrade POD pack ? Because, play with non errated cards could be frustating when explaining  game to new player.

I want just to say another time that i agree with Yepesnopes.

Now, i think, it is my last post in this thread. Maybe, i represent a minority or not. And i think that developer didn't read this thread. My personnel feeling is : "Some of these errata were wrong. They don't bring fun to me but instead killed it. I can't understand that for a coop game."

After

- Horn of Gondor and many other errata that killed some fun deck (really not abused)

- Some nerfed cards definitively put into binder

- missing errata on powerless card which could bring a lot of fun

It's time to me to not follow errata like other member said.

And just to finish by : Zigil Miner + Lord of Eldar when deck is empty is quite fun :D

I don't disagree with many of the things you said here. Just like you I am saddened by the removal of deck archetypes. I am just trying to see the positive side of things, because there are some. Maybe it means it opens up more interesting cards in the future, kind of like how the Horn of Gondor errata may have opened up the possibility of Tactics Imtrahil.

The article says the errata was done to limit their power, but I don't fully believe this. I think errata is better understood as limiting the cards that have gone far beyond the designer's intent. 

Boromir: The intent was never to let you defend and attack all enemies in play and totally dominate the combat phase.

Caldara: The intent was for a powerful 1-time effect. At the time of release the effort of reviving her for another use was not worth it, so maybe they were shortsighted and didn't bother with limiting it to once per game. 

While look at other powerful decks:

Elrond+Vilya: The way Vilya is designed it is pretty obvious that players will be using this to play a high cost card every turn. Super strong, but working as intended.

Outlands: Again, their design makes it obvious that people will be rushing to get a bunch of these allies on the table fast. The intent was to make them into a strong simple deck that players who dislike deckbuilding could put together easily.

So it's not that they really care about powerful decks. They just care about cards that have started being used in "cheesy" ways. Imagine someone new to the game sitting down and playing a multiplayer game where someone quickly gets 15 allies on the board by turn 4 and dominates the game by killing off Caldara and resurrecting her every turn. That person might think "really, this game is about being a necromancer for some character I've never heard of?".

 

The Hama errata seems a bit different because it doesn't just limit his broken use but also what seems to be his intent of being able to grab and event every turn. So I'm curious if anyone can provide a constructive alternative to his errata that would limit abuse. So far I haven't heard any. Adding Thicket to the victory display doesn't solve abuse with Hour of Wrath, Feint, Oath or Eorl or any event that may come in the future. Making the event go in the victory display the second time you play it raises a bunch of rule problems. Other suggestions I've seen would add an incredible amount of book-keeping to the game.

Hama is a good example of a card that should never have existed, despite how much I like him. Events are able to be powerful because they are hard to recur. Introducing reliable event recursion totally breaks their identity. At some point this had to happen, although I do wish something more clever had been done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have just restricted Hama to only being able to pull 0 cost events. There are no shortage of those for tactics and would seem to prevent the more troublesome interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna take that hama for the following exemple (as he's the one that sturck me th most and especially for a multiplayer exemple) : 

I played tons of game irl and even more on octgn, and i never felt that those decks where that much of a "fun" problem to play with. And if someone did'nt like to play with those on the table, well, we changed the composition (or just removed the thickets or don't played them during that game so the big defenders on the table could have some more fun) and everything was just fine...

I never, long term speaking, felt that hama + thicket (nor wrath, OofE, feint, any event you want) was making the ALL game, on those i played with this deck on a table... So basically, if the "op combo, is possible" is it actually really making the game "That Bad" for the majority of the players in the entire world... ? I'm not really that sure...

Maybe on a solo player sight it's different, coz you manage to make hama thicker able to beat this or that quest "absusing" the ability of, (mainly thicket let's just say it right ?) (coz as far i've looked and experienced game with hama... I never saw him looping anything else in big multiplayer quests)

I'm wondering, actually, how many players in the world, has been annoyed in Real life, on some events, by that combo... ? To be that much of a necessity to "deal" with it ?

And for the people who did, what did you do ? Have you throw out the table ? Have you thrown your deck into the face of that hama player ? Have you speak to the event's organisator to cry about the player who were playing that "not funny combo deck" ?

I'm just trying, to get back to the very basic root and fact of the question about those erratas in this specific co-op game here... nothing more.

To be honest, if i'm taking a plane to fly above all of this :  i'm defenalty not that sure of those absolute necessity...

And the last questions wich are probably the most important ones i guess :  

Are those heroes now more attractive for the entire players in the world ? Probably for one week as they got the spotlight on them, but on long term ? Are we going to see much more hamas, caldara or boromir played coz they're not "broken" anymore ?

And on the opposite side, with those changes... Are we gonna see much more Bilbos, Spirit Pippin nor Tactic Dori to be played (especially on big challenging nor nightmare quests ?) ? Once and for all... I'm not sure...

So the basic question is still :  were those changes, that much of a necessity... ?

You already know my answer for that, and let's say it, i'm not a big caldara, boromir nor hama players...

The problem for me isn't even the characters/archetype that has been sentenced to death, but is more about the very absolute necessity of all of this... For let's say what... ? not even 10 decks/combos in the entire game that are "broken" ? (wich they're not even if you look at those closely on different angles than the "pro" ones wich are making the most use or "abusing" uses of those...)

One thing is for sure, half of those reworks could have been avoided, or at least done the right and better thinking way...

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Seastan said:

Caldara: The intent was for a powerful 1-time effect. At the time of release the effort of reviving her for another use was not worth it,

If they thought that they just weren't playing it right. I find it harder to believe it would have been worth it on release to do it as a 1-time effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And about Hama's ability :  I'm struck that no one ever mentionned that one of "his problem" could also be the basic fact that he just have to attack, and not kill an ennemy to trigger his ability :  that could have been a small but smart change to start with.

But i thought about somthing like this :


After Hama kills an ennemy add a token on him (max 2 tokens)

Combat action (once/turn) :  Remove X tokens from hama to play a (tactic) event that cost X from your discard pile has if it were in your hand.


That way, you stop making him able to loop those big cards, but you still make his ability fun to play around (with foes, feint) (or this is way tooooo good against every quest in the entire game aswell ?) and it would take two kills for him to loop a 2 cost card...

Something the like. The hero would be still good and fun to play around, but not "broken"


But sure, i'm not a game designer so it might still be too good and beat all the quests in the game of course...

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the intent for Caldara was for a "powerful one-time effect" at time of release.  Through Heir of Numenor, Caldara in mono-spirit got you exactly two heroes, which had to hit your discard first (only Eowyn could discard among heroes, though Emery/Zigil Miner could churn cards).  So what were the powerful spirit allies at the time of release?

4-cost -- Northern Tracker, Elfhelm, Damrod

3-cost -- Lorien Guide, Eomund, Bofur, Rider of the Mark, Pelargir Shipwright, Emery, Kili, Dwalin

Throw in a couple great 2-cost spirit allies in Arwen and Ethir Swordsman and you can see that the board state might improve a bit (if you can get good allies discarded) , except that you're now down a hero and only get 2-resources per turn going forward.  I don't think that's really a "powerful one-time effect" as much as a mildly beneficial effect.  But if you have Fortune and Fate and Caldara, you can get any two spirit allies for 5-cost, less if one of your spirit heroes is a Hobbit and you have Good Meal.  I'd say at the time of release, Caldara was *only* useful as a potentially recurring ability.  That's no longer true with Imrahil around, and *now* it's a powerful enough effect that a once-per-game effect can still be a big boost -- but I don't think that was the case when designed.

It's true that a new player who is doing uncoordinated multiplayer may be put off by Caldara in all her new glory, or by the old Super Boromir.  But they could also be put off by Caldara 2.0 or Boromir 2.0 or Outlands or Elrond/Vilya or Dwarven Swarm (even with We Are Not Idle errata) or *any* power deck whatsoever!  This isn't a problem that can be fixed by the designers, because the power level of decks constructed using the whole pool and with an eye for efficiency is going to be much, much higher than a new player is going to bring to the table.  Nightmare packs exist for a reason.  I would think rather than trying to stomp out (a few) power decks, the logical target would be going after decks that can effectively monopolize combat in a multi-player environment, which Caldara old or new cannot.  Questing is straightforward, and no matter how massive the questing a single deck provides, a new players can contribute.  But if the new player can't participate in combat because Super Boromir-now-with-ranged-and-sentinel is doing it all himself, or because Tactigorn/Merry are stealing and killing all the enemies every turn, or because Hama/Thicket is collecting all the enemies (perhaps with TaAragorn's help), then *that's* a problem because he's going to be bored.

It's interesting that you list "Feint" on the abuse list with Hama, since Hama was released in the same cycle as Shadow and Flame and *Feint* was specifically errataed so that Hama's "abuse" of it was confined to himself, not other players.  Clearly, Hama recycling Feint was *not* an issue then, it shouldn't be a problem now.

Thicket I can see as problematic, because it covers all attack.  Hour of Wrath is very powerful, but it costs four so is difficult to play every turn.  Oath of Eorl is *very* powerful, but the enemy at least gets to hit back, so it's not as strong as Thicket.  I don't think it would let the Hama player monopolize combat without Tactigorn's help.

Event recurrence is possible, but Hama's limit drives him *directly* to recur powerful events.  It seems improbable to me that there are or will be tactic events that are too powerful to play every turn, yet are *not* overpowered when played *at least* four times, in consecutive turns if necessary.  Hama has easy recurrence, but between records and search effects recurrence is totally possible for all events -- if that breaks anything, the events *must* be self-removing, like Will of the West and Out of the Wild.  Every truly broken combo in this game seems to feature event recurrence and/or attachments that don't exhaust.

Attaching events to Hama and then removing (or at least sending to the bottom of the deck) after used doesn't seem too difficult to me, but I think the number of events that truly are a problem if recurred every turn are few in number, and could be dealt with by errata to those cards.  Another possibility would've been a Combat Action/Response (limit once per phase) that lets him discard a card to play a tactics event from his discard as if it were in hand, then put that event on the bottom of his deck.  That'd drop the attack requirement, but given his stats that's what he'd do anyways.  That would actually *reduce* the number of times he could play cards like Thicket, while preserving his main functionality. 

BTW, I think making Horn of Gondor exhaust instead of unlimited-but-require-destruction would not have been broken with TaImrahil.  And errata-ing to exhaust when a character is *discarded or destroyed* would've retained its original functionality without powering up TaImrahil or Silvans at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aorakis said:

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST :  PLEASE ! And believe me, a lot of player would be MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY for a POD with all the errated cards in max copy !

Coz erratas are (not) fine, but as a "client" i think i deserve the right to have access to the game i paid for, even when you change what has been wrote on my cards, so you could offer me the chance to have THE RIGHT CARDS that i can play with in real life, instead of some homemade prints .pdf files you gave us...

+1 to this: not having the intended text on errata'd cards is really bothersome. This is one of the things that bothers me the most about erratas.

FFG should leave cards untouched as much as possible, specially considering this is not a competitive game. Instead, they should apply errata only on stuff that REALLY needs the errata (aka cards/combos that TRULY break the game), AND launch them again with the adequate/new text. 

Honestly, instead of errating cards, they should leave these nerfs just as suggestions for players who seek a major challenge, instead of making these changes official. Plenty of players (me included) enjoy most of the errata'd cards in their original state and hate when the text on the card isn't correct because of the errata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PocketWraith said:

If they thought that they just weren't playing it right. I find it harder to believe it would have been worth it on release to do it as a 1-time effect.

Well, I don't have inside information of Caldara's design or anything, it just seems really strange to release a card for which the design intention is at such odds with the thematic intention. It seems like the thematic intention (again, just guessing) is for her be rallying allies to her upon her death. Why imply such a theme if the playstyle intention from day 1 was to repeatedly bring her back from the dead (FoF's thematic reference to Gandalf)?

I'm aware that there are ways to interpret the theme of these cards differently, but nevertheless I think this is strange. I think it's more likely the design intent was to wait until an opportune moment to trigger Caldara and through her sacrifice get out some allies to help turn around a bad situation, perhaps near the end of the game when the loss of a hero is less significant.

1 hour ago, Aorakis said:

And about Hama's ability :  I'm struck that no one ever mentionned that one of "his problem" could also be the basic fact that he just have to attack, and not kill an ennemy to trigger his ability :  that could have been a small but smart change to start with.

But i thought about somthing like this :


After Hama kills an ennemy add a token on him (max 2 tokens)

Combat action :  Remove X tokens from hama to play an event that cost X from your discard pile has if it were in your hand.


That way, you stop making him able to loop those big cards, but you still make his ability fun to play around (with foes, feint) (or this is way tooooo good against every quest in the entire game aswell ?) and it would take two kills for him to loop a 2 cost card...

Something the like. The hero would be still good and fun to play around, but not "broken"


But sure, i'm not a game designer so it might still be too good of course...

Requiring Hama to make a kill would not limit his abuse though. Giving him enough attack to be able to kill enemies is not that hard to do. Your other suggestion is pretty good but limits him in a lot of ways that people might actually prefer the errata'd version. Also, it seems a little OP for 0-cost events :P 

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

 It's interesting that you list "Feint" on the abuse list with Hama, since Hama was released in the same cycle as Shadow and Flame and *Feint* was specifically errataed so that Hama's "abuse" of it was confined to himself, not other players.  Clearly, Hama recycling Feint was *not* an issue then, it shouldn't be a problem now.

Hama+Feint can shut down 1 enemy per round, more with readying. This is often enough by itself to shut down most combat in a 1 or 2 layer game, especially when you consider that it's always targeting the strongest enemy on the table.

Thicket I can see as problematic, because it covers all attack.  Hour of Wrath is very powerful, but it costs four so is difficult to play every turn.  Oath of Eorl is *very* powerful, but the enemy at least gets to hit back, so it's not as strong as Thicket.  I don't think it would let the Hama player monopolize combat without Tactigorn's help.

Hour of Wrath + Beregond will trivialize combat, more so when someone gets a Brand on him. This becomes even stronger than Thicket because it can trivialize all attacks against all players, not just one.

Event recurrence is possible, but Hama's limit drives him *directly* to recur powerful events.  It seems improbable to me that there are or will be tactic events that are too powerful to play every turn, yet are *not* overpowered when played *at least* four times, in consecutive turns if necessary.  Hama has easy recurrence, but between records and search effects recurrence is totally possible for all events -- if that breaks anything, the events *must* be self-removing, like Will of the West and Out of the Wild.  Every truly broken combo in this game seems to feature event recurrence and/or attachments that don't exhaust.

I don't disagree. 

Attaching events to Hama and then removing (or at least sending to the bottom of the deck) after used doesn't seem too difficult to me, but I think the number of events that truly are a problem if recurred every turn are few in number, and could be dealt with by errata to those cards.  Another possibility would've been a Combat Action/Response (limit once per phase) that lets him discard a card to play a tactics event from his discard as if it were in hand, then put that event on the bottom of his deck.  That'd drop the attack requirement, but given his stats that's what he'd do anyways.  That would actually *reduce* the number of times he could play cards like Thicket, while preserving his main functionality. 

Moving events to the bottom of the deck doesn't solve anything, because you can easily empty your deck and you are back at every-turn recursion.

BTW, I think making Horn of Gondor exhaust instead of unlimited-but-require-destruction would not have been broken with TaImrahil.  And errata-ing to exhaust when a character is *discarded or destroyed* would've retained its original functionality without powering up TaImrahil or Silvans at all.

Again this seems more like an errata to bring it in line with designer intent. Having it exhaust would have successfully limited its power, but I argue that that's not what errata is trying to do. Blowing the Horn when a elf goes to hide in the woods was not how the card was intended to work. But sure, "destroyed or discarded from play" would have been nicer for Rohan.

 

Edited by Seastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response Seastan.  I value your opinions.

I fully agree that recurring Feint can shut down one non-immune enemy per round.  Recurring two Feints is more difficult, since it requires two Feints in play, two cards to discard, and two enemies for Hama to attack.  But even shutting down the top enemy consistently can often "shut down" combat in one-player and is a huge help in two-player.

But there's no such thing as "abuse" of one-player in a cooperative game.  A solo player who doesn't want to use Feint-Hama-lock on Shadow and Flame doesn't have to -- and a player who *does* want to is using Hama for exactly what he was designed to do!  That's what he was doing right out of the gate, and the Feint errata shows that the designers were *fine* with Hama shutting down an enemy per turn as long as it protected only one player.  Nerfing one attack in exchange for the lone card drawn and the lone resource Hama got isn't beyond the pale.  And it certainly doesn't provide complete defensive protection in 2-player, let alone shut down combat altogether.

I'll agree that recurring Hour of Wrath is potentially more powerful than recurring Thicket of Spears, if you have a shadow-proof brick wall of a sentinel defender.  However, in the context of a multi-player "monopolize combat" scenario, I think Hour of Wrath is friendlier.  Recurring Thicket makes you want to concentrate all enemies at the Thicket player.  Recurring Hour of Wrath means other players can kill things engaged with them instead of the Thicket player having all the fun.  I don't see one player providing rock-solid defense for everyone is a problem, any more than one player providing lots of questing power is a problem.  One player monopolizing combat completely I *do* see as a problem, and Thicket enables that approach.

Moving events to the bottom of the deck with Hama's power means that the *common* case is of him regenerating a tactics event -- any tactics event -- only once.  Now it's true that there are power decks (especially with Erestor) that can get to the bottom of the deck and letting him recur consistently, something ordinarily only done with Lords of Eldar (though you'd also need Elven-light or Lords of the Eldar to give Hama a card to discard).  But any deck that gets to the bottom can already play a power event *nine times* already without Hama's help, without even considering use of Will of the West.  Any event that's so powerful that Hama recurring it every turn is unacceptable, is also probably too powerful for Hama to play four times in a row, or to play nine times in the course of a game for a draw-your-whole-deck approach.  Though I'm guessing the number of mono-tactics Thicket decks that easily can draw their whole deck is pretty darn small.  In *practical* terms, bottom-decking would not only prevent Hama/Thicket every turn, it wouldn't really have more plays than using Book of Eldacar instead of Hama.  It would be a *stronger* fix to the alleged problem, while saving Hama's ability to recycle cheap tactics events.

Finally, I don't buy for a second that the Horn of Gondor nerf was designed to "bring it in line with designer intent".  There were player cards in the core that left play without being destroyed, and there were other cards (e.g. Valiant Sacrifice) that keyed off leaving play instead of being destroyed.  Further, the entire first cycle was devoted to developing Rohan and Eagles, both notable for leave-play abilities.  Logically, the designer intent was for those expensive Eagles leaving play to power up Tactics' only resource generator -- something they no longer do.  I even found a Second Breakfast by one of the designers that included Horn of Gondor and a few leave-play allies -- they were well aware of exactly what Horn of Gondor did and how it worked.  It simply wasn't an issue until recurred events and the lack of exhaustion made Horn part of broken combos, and even then the first time around they nerfed the poor Master of Lore instead of fixing the Horn.  I don't think there's any evidence at all that the original designers "intended" for Horn of Gondor to only generate resources from chump-blocking, and a new designer appealing to "designer intent" to make one of the rare core cards work so much worse in the first cycle rubs me wrong.

I will agree that the new text is more thematic, but theme alone is a poor reason IMO to turn a useful card into a coaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seastan said:

Moving events to the bottom of the deck doesn't solve anything, because you can easily empty your deck and you are back at every-turn recursion.

You can? I don't think I've ever come anywhere close to emptying my deck. Maybe in "Riddles in the Dark." This goes back to the point that it makes little sense to design errata around the needs of a handful of hardcore power gamers in a co-op game that is mostly played solo and has zero organized-play/competitive play element.

I'd like to see errata that "fixes" some of the most frustrating quests that seem nigh impossible to beat for my single-handed solo decks. 

 

 

Edited by cfmcdonald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cfmcdonald said:

You can? I don't think I've ever come anywhere close to emptying my deck. Maybe in "Riddles in the Dark." This goes back to the point that it makes little sense to design errata around the needs of a handful of hardcore power gamers in a co-op game that is mostly played solo and has zero organized-play/competitive play element.

I'd like to see errata that "fixes" some of the most frustrating quests that seem nigh impossible to beat for my single-handed solo decks. 

 

 

You can, but you likely won't if you don't build for it. But if I wanted to I could play down a Longbeard Sentry and empty my deck in a couple turns. And of course Erestor decks are quite good at running through the whole deck.

And in a way, there was an "errata" introduced to the rules that makes the quests more beatable. Easy mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Seastan said:

You can, but you likely won't if you don't build for it. But if I wanted to I could play down a Longbeard Sentry and empty my deck in a couple turns. And of course Erestor decks are quite good at running through the whole deck.

And in a way, there was an "errata" introduced to the rules that makes the quests more beatable. Easy mode.

I've never seen/played with those cards. Again, since this is a non-competitive game that many people play in progression mode, many (most?) players of Hama decks will not have these cards either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cfmcdonald said:

I've never seen/played with those cards. Again, since this is a non-competitive game that many people play in progression mode, many (most?) players of Hama decks will not have these cards either.

If the goal of progression mode is to experience the game as if you were playing along as the packs were released, then what you'd really have to do is ignore Hama's errata up until The Black Serpent was released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The less FFG should have done is to offer in the new deluxe cycle box the new FAQ and all the errated cards from the last FAQ they realised.

Perhaps they would have think twice before errating in butcher's mode.

I'm sick to cover my beautiful cards by home printed proxies. Even more heroes !!!

Indeed, why buy the cards if i must print them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The article says the errata was done to limit their power, but I don't fully believe this. I think errata is better understood as limiting the cards that have gone far beyond the designer's intent. 

Boromir: The intent was never to let you defend and attack all enemies in play and totally dominate the combat phase.

Caldara: The intent was for a powerful 1-time effect. At the time of release the effort of reviving her for another use was not worth it, so maybe they were shortsighted and didn't bother with limiting it to once per game. 

Sorry but they wrote an entire news for that. They explain for each card why they errated them.

For Boromir, this hero exist since beginning of the game. I think that the initial intent is let Boromir defend and attack until you die (Threat or Destroy). This fit with the book and the last fight of Boromir. Now the news explain to us that Boromir design was good initialy due to the lack of threat reduction ... Hum the majority of Boromir deck use : Galadrim's Greeting, Elrond Counsel, Dwarven Tomb, Arargorn Lore and Gandalf ... Wait all this card are nearly as older as Boromir. I don't think that Galadriel change anything about that. My Boromir decks don't use Galadriel, don't use Aragorn Lore and don't use Gandalf, just the other and my final threat is always fewer than the beginning. So this issue exist since the beginning, it isn't new. The only thing that transform Boromir into an insane character is Blood of Numenor/Gondorian Fire/Stewart of Gondor. I don't think that it's an intent from the designer to let a character attack/defend or quest (with Grappling Hook) at 50+. But ok, let's nerf Boromir and don't change a combo which hurts a lot the game.

For Caldara, see Dalestephenson and pocketwraith.

Quote

While look at other powerful decks:

Elrond+Vilya: The way Vilya is designed it is pretty obvious that players will be using this to play a high cost card every turn. Super strong, but working as intended.

Outlands: Again, their design makes it obvious that people will be rushing to get a bunch of these allies on the table fast. The intent was to make them into a strong simple deck that players who dislike deckbuilding could put together easily.

So it's not that they really care about powerful decks. They just care about cards that have started being used in "cheesy" ways. Imagine someone new to the game sitting down and playing a multiplayer game where someone quickly gets 15 allies on the board by turn 4 and dominates the game by killing off Caldara and resurrecting her every turn. That person might think "really, this game is about being a necromancer for some character I've never heard of?".

Outlands and Vylia decks damage the coop game. I know player that were totally disguted by these deck because they can hold the table.

Caldara is discarded not destroyed by this effect. This difference is important for me. I don't think that Rohan discard mechanic with Gamling is about being a necromancer ... But we can chump blocked with Eomund which is an unique characted, gain a resource with Horn of Gondor, untap all Rohan character, bring back in hand with Guthwine and then play it for one less ressource with Theoden ... Well ... Ok, let's say that Caldara power is insane due to an insane and unthematic ressurection mechanic.

They have increase the power Caldara deck by their own willpower. They have created Sword thain and then make a ruling on Prince Imrahil. Sword thain is often played with Emery. So they have created a powerfull archetype and they can't say : "We don't konw". And then after the archetype become emblematic and appreciate by the community, they kill it. No i don't understand.

15 allies on turn 4 with Caldara deck ... Well we don't play the same deck :D

Caldara is not an easy deck to play and each party is different. The deck can put 15 allies on turn 4 but it is quite rare. Caldara can't hold the table on his own. My experience show that the deck decrease on power with the number of player. Outlands deck is always powerfull and can play for two or more player. I don't play outland on multi because my mate hate this kind of deck but the like Caldara because she is versatile and let space for the other.

I am not in mind of developer but i can give you a lot of counter example. For Horn of Gondor, it's unthematic to use it for silvan. Well ok, and with Stewart, it is more thematic ? 

My feeling is each time i play Caldara with new players, they smile and want to learn how to play this deck and each time i play my outland deck, they say it's a way too much powerfull ... It's kill the game and is uncooperative.

I like the idea of challenge instead of errata. It's a good way to increase creativity without restrictions.

Once again, the developer do a good job on scenario and new mechanic for player but for errata ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

The problem of the way errata was done to Eomer and Caldara isn't just the effect it has on existing decks, it's also that it drives behavior towards the very things that apparently prompted the errata in the first place. The limit on Caldara's ability means that she won't be used without Imrahil and/or Sword-Thain.  The limit on Hama's ability means he will only be used for really powerful events -- like Thicket of Spears.  The flexible Hama is out of existence, but the Hama who enables Thicket of Spears to be played turn after turn will still live on, since he can guarantee *at least* four plays of it with one copy, and his mono-tactics deck will have three Book of Eldacar and 2-3 Thicket of Spears.

So here we are post-errata -- Caldara used with Imrahil?  Still viable.  Caldara recurred without Imrahil/Sword-Thain?  Not viable.  Hama used with Thicket of Spears?  Still viable.  Hama used with a variety of cheap tactics events?  Not viable.

This!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

I will agree that the new text is more thematic, but theme alone is a poor reason IMO to turn a useful card into a coaster.

Post-errata Horn of Gondor is not a coaster. This isn't particularly relevant to the subject at hand but it always bugs me when people say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would zero cost event be a problem with my exemple of hama ?

he would still need to kill, wich is not guaranteed early game, and especially against big ennemies and occasions... And to be honest what are those event except that "foe hammer" or "Get +3 ATT if an enemy got a higher threat..." "+3Doom wizards" (wich you'll not "loop" that much i reckon)  well... There's almost no other zero cost cards played with him.
Is Foe hammer making Hama the best O.P Drawing character in the game ? Probably not...

I'm not saying my exemple is better than any other i saw so far, but it would be much pleasant to play than this new actual version and would fix the major problem that makes ffg to decapitate him.


And as Perseflamme said :  the least they can do, would be to give players a pod with those cards they paid for but are not "right" anymore...

And please people, stop talking about other cards that are o.p, i don't want to have any others erratas in this game anymore.

First coz it's useless in this type of co op game, and second, coz they make them so badly that it's even worst than annoying.

Cheers, take it easy, see ya

Edited by Aorakis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PocketWraith said:

Post-errata Horn of Gondor is not a coaster. This isn't particularly relevant to the subject at hand but it always bugs me when people say it.

Fair enough.  It is, however, dramatically less useful to me in the decks I previously ran it in, which were used for one-handed or two-handed solo play.  I haven't relied on chump blocking for tactics since I got Defender of Rammas, and with Honour Guard as my favorite tactics card I hate to lose any allies to damage.

It bugs me that Horn of Gondor's reward for my allies getting "destroyed" doesn't apply to discarded characters.  Dark Sorcery took out seven allies in one blow, but as far as Horn of Gondor is concerned they just went on vacation or something.

But I'll concede that Horn of Gondor can be useful where the allies are actually getting destroyed, especially as the player count increases.  From a design standpoint, there's something praiseworthy about a card rewarding you for things that go wrong instead of things that go right.

On the other hand, the thematic connection between having characters destroyed and getting rewarded can also be argued.  "Loud and clear it sounds in the valleys of the hills, and then let all the foes of Gondor flee!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Seastan said:

I don't disagree with many of the things you said here. Just like you I am saddened by the removal of deck archetypes. I am just trying to see the positive side of things, because there are some. Maybe it means it opens up more interesting cards in the future, kind of like how the Horn of Gondor errata may have opened up the possibility of Tactics Imtrahil.

The article says the errata was done to limit their power, but I don't fully believe this. I think errata is better understood as limiting the cards that have gone far beyond the designer's intent. 

Boromir: The intent was never to let you defend and attack all enemies in play and totally dominate the combat phase.

Caldara: The intent was for a powerful 1-time effect. At the time of release the effort of reviving her for another use was not worth it, so maybe they were shortsighted and didn't bother with limiting it to once per game. 

While look at other powerful decks:

Elrond+Vilya: The way Vilya is designed it is pretty obvious that players will be using this to play a high cost card every turn. Super strong, but working as intended.

Outlands: Again, their design makes it obvious that people will be rushing to get a bunch of these allies on the table fast. The intent was to make them into a strong simple deck that players who dislike deckbuilding could put together easily.

So it's not that they really care about powerful decks. They just care about cards that have started being used in "cheesy" ways. Imagine someone new to the game sitting down and playing a multiplayer game where someone quickly gets 15 allies on the board by turn 4 and dominates the game by killing off Caldara and resurrecting her every turn. That person might think "really, this game is about being a necromancer for some character I've never heard of?".

 

The Hama errata seems a bit different because it doesn't just limit his broken use but also what seems to be his intent of being able to grab and event every turn. So I'm curious if anyone can provide a constructive alternative to his errata that would limit abuse. So far I haven't heard any. Adding Thicket to the victory display doesn't solve abuse with Hour of Wrath, Feint, Oath or Eorl or any event that may come in the future. Making the event go in the victory display the second time you play it raises a bunch of rule problems. Other suggestions I've seen would add an incredible amount of book-keeping to the game.

Hama is a good example of a card that should never have existed, despite how much I like him. Events are able to be powerful because they are hard to recur. Introducing reliable event recursion totally breaks their identity. At some point this had to happen, although I do wish something more clever had been done.

 

Perfect way of saying it.

 

Also An errata against vilya would be horrible imo. We need something to help against nightmare quests. 

 

Unrelates to this comment though I agree with someone earlier who said eadagast needs an errata. When are we finally going to get to play with a good radagast? We have pirates and harad but no radagast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×