Jump to content
Emilius

Different cards with the new reprint?

Recommended Posts

The rules reference glossary under Sentinel calls it a "keyword ability", and the same wording is used for Ranged.  The glossary under "ability" includes keywords as a type along with action, response, forced, constant ability, and when revealed ability.  So from the glossary, I think it's clear that sentinel/ranged in fact are considered an ability.  Ranged and Sentinel appear to be the only two keyword abilities, the other keywords are not.

Share this post


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

And Fastred? And Theoden, who has sentinel and can get to 4 defense with a 1-cost attachment? Pretty easy to argue that both of them are better defenders than Loragorn and Rossiel, if you take ABB out of the picture. In fact, take the 5 spirit heroes with a defensive ability and compare them to the 2 lore heroes with a defensive ability, and I'd consider the worst defensive spirit hero to be better (at defending) than the best defensive lore hero.

Fastred is 3/3.  I like Fastred a lot, but like Rossiel he is fragile.  Rossiel's 4 defense is conditional, but she's same sphere with ABB and her access to Cloak of Lorien is better than Fastred's access to Golden Shield in three ways -- it doesn't exhaust, it's not restricted, and it's in the same sphere.

Theoden has Sentinel, but Golden Shield gets him to 4 for only a single attack.  For a SuperDefender target, I'd rather have LoAragorn, who also has sentinel, has an extra hp, and is the right sphere for ABB.

Frodo has incredible survivability (at least for one attack per turn), but I'd prefer not to routinely raise my threat.  I'd rather rely on Treebeard or Denethor or Radagast, despite the lack of defensive abilities. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, part of the problem is that "best defensive hero" depends on the situation.  A heroic defender trying to cover the table in a four player game has different needs than a heroic defender in the "combat deck" of a 2-deck fellowship -- the former *needs* sentinel to do his job, while the latter can usually get by fine without it.  Then in a solo deck you have heroic defenders who some turns may not defend at all -- Beregond is strictly superior to Denethor as a defender, yet Lore Denethor still might be a better "defensive hero" for a solo deck because he's always useful.

Share this post


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

LoDenethor/Palantir is pretty sweet for multiplayer scrying, (though by requiring two exhaustions it makes him an unlikely defender, but in multiplayer you can have help for that).  I think it's about the same setup as Radagast's Raven/Staff combo, since unless you have SpLegolas or TaBrand at the table it requires at least two cards.  Even with SpLegolas, you don't get the full benefit of the scrying because SpLegolas' player has already committed to the quest, and with TaBrand you need to have an engaged enemy to kill in order to get the ready.

Denethor requires the Palantír and a readying effect. Originally, I had Spirit Legolas in my list of cards that can ready him, but edited him out. After thinking for a while, I came to the conclusion that it still works: Use Denethor in the combat phase to scry the encounter deck, ready him in the refresh phase, use the Palantír at some point before commiting characters to the quest and then Legolas can ready him for the next combat phase. I do not consider this an ideal solution as it nets you one card less and Legolas questing for 1 is really poor without Gimli. That being said Magic Ring raises threat even more, which is counterproductive, so I guess the only usable options are Heir of Mardil + SoG or UC. If you have tons of cash, a Greenwood Archer and Elven-king with Elf-friend get you some extra readies, though the more complicated a combo becomes, the easier it is to fail. If you can work around the limitations of Bard or Legolas, you only need the one attachment, but both heroes are far from ideal, so 2 cards is the most common cause.

Radagast requires his staff, a pipe and a raven. Usually a 3 card combo is harder to get in one's hand than 2 or only 1 card. And while playing Lore, Gléowine is always an option for dependable card draw, the rest is just a cherry on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Amicus Draconis said:

Radagast requires his staff, a pipe and a raven. Usually a 3 card combo is harder to get in one's hand than 2 or only 1 card. And while playing Lore, Gléowine is always an option for dependable card draw, the rest is just a cherry on top.

Radagast requires staff, pipe, and raven to get the card draw for free, but only Pipe and Raven for guaranteed card draw.  (ETH/Pipe also works, but requires successful questing).

Now the Pipe/Raven combo does cost 1 resource per turn (to put the raven back in play) if you don't have the staff (or use it on something else).  But that's not a bad price for a card *plus* Radagast questing without exhausting.  But it's certainly true that with 3-4 players being able to scry three cards before staging is *way* more useful than another 2 willpower.  Different story in one-deck solo, of course.

It's also worth remembering that Word of Command in a Radagast deck makes assembling *any* combo easier, if you can spare his action.

Share this post


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

Rossiel's 4 defense is conditional, but she's same sphere with ABB

...

I'd rather have LoAragorn, who also has sentinel, has an extra hp, and is the right sphere for ABB.

Wait, I'm confused. We agree then? You are using sphere-match with ABB as (one of) the selling points for why the lore defenders we've gotten are arguably as good, or better, than the spirit defenders. That's... exactly my point.

Share this post


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

Wait, I'm confused. We agree then? You are using sphere-match with ABB as (one of) the selling points for why the lore defenders we've gotten are arguably as good, or better, than the spirit defenders. That's... exactly my point.

Sure, access to ABB was a selling point for a defending hero.  Still is, because shadows are what kill hero defenders.  I'm just not convinced that the existence of ABB (in un-errataed form) is the reason there aren't more/better Lore defenders, and we can expect better Lore defenders now that it's errata-ed.  The only characters I think might be broken in Lore with the old ABB are the allies who don't exhaust to defend.

But if you take shadow protection off the table, I'm still not convinced Fastred > Rossiel or SpTheoden > LoAragorn.

Share this post


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

I'm still not convinced Fastred > Rossiel

So your position is that even without ABB, Rossiel is a better defensive hero than Fastred? I wonder how many people would agree with this. I certainly don't.

I've always considered Rossiel a terrible hero. She requires significant setup to turn on her abilities, and she doesn't even help you do so. Even worse, the bonuses she does eventually get are redundant. To get her +willpower bonus, you are likely using Leave No Trace, which requires successful questing. To get her +defense bonus, you are likely using None Return, which requires successful dispatching of an enemy. And the cherry on top is that even after all that work, her ability isn't even consistent. It's win-more. In the first couple turns, which matter the most, she's useless. In fact, my victory display decks become more successful when I remove Rossiel, which is just sad.

Meanwhile, Fastred is the defensive hero in a top-tier deck archtype. His 3/3 statline is enough for early game, particularly when he actively helps you avoid engaging the heavy hitters by keeping your threat down.

Share this post


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

So your position is that even without ABB, Rossiel is a better defensive hero than Fastred? I wonder how many people would agree with this. I certainly don't.

I've always considered Rossiel a terrible hero. She requires significant setup to turn on her abilities, and she doesn't even help you do so. Even worse, the bonuses she does eventually get are redundant. To get her +willpower bonus, you are likely using Leave No Trace, which requires successful questing. To get her +defense bonus, you are likely using None Return, which requires successful dispatching of an enemy. And the cherry on top is that even after all that work, her ability isn't even consistent. It's win-more. In the first couple turns, which matter the most, she's useless. In fact, my victory display decks become more successful when I remove Rossiel, which is just sad.

Meanwhile, Fastred is the defensive hero in a top-tier deck archtype. His 3/3 statline is enough for early game, particularly when he actively helps you avoid engaging the heavy hitters by keeping your threat down.

Again, this comes back to the context of "defensive hero".  I like Fastred a lot and I recognize Rossiel's weakness and have no quarrel with the idea that Fastred is a better *hero*, but I like Rossiel better as a *defender*.  My Rossiel decks are typically secrecy decks, so I mulligan for Out of the Wild and use that to setup Rossiel (typically for defense, though in quests with a starting location it may be for turn one willpower).  So she's often defending at 4/3 from turn one against most enemies, and that's solid defense.   That usage explains why Rossiel doesn't make the strongest VD decks, since you're powering up Rossiel with (likely) a weak card instead of taking out a nasty card and powering up Door Is Closed.  But getting an 8-threat hero to defend for 4 or quest for 4 in turn one is pretty cool and helps me get off to a good start.  Rossiel decks are neither the best victory display decks nor the best secrecy decks, but I find them fun for all that--they are certainly viable against non-nightmare quests.

Fastred is the bomb in the specific archtype of staging area attackers, which is a ton of fun -- but it also means that he's tied at the hip to a handful of heroes.  Without staging area attacks/damage (or a handful of quests where some enemies are important to un-engage) his ability is *terrible* for a defender, putting enemies back in staging to contribute threat and preventing you from attacking them.  Looking at him as a generic defender, he starts with a 1 def advantage, but Rossiel has an ability that will add to her defense while Fastred has an ability that actively works against combat.  He is also not eligible for most in-sphere defensive attachments.  If I grabbed two heroes at random and was choosing between Fastred and Rossiel to be hero-defender-when-needed, I'd usually go for Rossiel.  (Of course, it's likely I'd prefer one of the 3 def heroes *without* an explicit defensive ability over *either*.)

The one big advantage Fastred has as a generic defender -- and it is a big one -- is Warrior.  That doesn't help him in Spirit unless he's playing with SpBard, but Raiment of War is beautiful on him, buffing his defense and hp with one card.  Rossiel's eligible 2-cost tactics attachment gives her sentinel instead of +1 def, which is usually much less useful for a generic defender, though it does leave a restricted slot free (with the ABB nerf, that obviously becomes very important).

Share this post


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

My Rossiel decks are typically secrecy decks, so I mulligan for Out of the Wild and use that to setup Rossiel

...

Without staging area attacks/damage (or a handful of quests where some enemies are important to un-engage) [Fastred's] ability is *terrible* for a defender

I see some bias here. You are praising Rossiel for her defensive ability in a narrow archetype that demands certain other heroes and support cards, then you turn around and criticize Fastred for that very reason.

We don't evaluate cards in a vacuum. Their usefulness depends on what other cards in the pool and what decks you can build with them. You bring up some cards that can get Rossiel to a conditional base of 4 defense in early game using some in-sphere cards (Out of the Wild mainly, Cloak of Lorien's +2 defense is way too unreliable), but neglect to mention that Fastred has in-sphere ways of getting to an unconditional base of 4 defense (Arwen and Mithril Shirt, both of which provide additional benefits).

Then there's the fact that Fastred seems to fit better in a deck with tactics access than Rossiel does (11% of Rossiel decks on RingsDB have tactics access, while 60% of Fastred decks do) which means he has easier access to cards like Gondorian Shield, Golden Shield, Raiment of War, Captain of Gondor. And nearly every Fastred deck that doesn't have Tactics access does have leadership access (far from the case for Rossiel decks, of which only 5% have leadership access), giving Fastred access to Dunedain Warning and Hauberk of Mail. It's not uncommon for my Fastred decks to have him defending multiple times for 6 or 7 by mid game.

Rossiel's biggest advantage over Fastred (apart from ABB) is access to healing. It's important, but an extra point of defense is worth a lot of healing over the course of the game.

Quote

Rossiel decks are neither the best victory display decks nor the best secrecy decks, but I find them fun for all that--they are certainly viable against non-nightmare quests.

Meanwhile, Fastred decks can handle the majority of nightmare quests.

Share this post


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

I see some bias here. You are praising Rossiel for her defensive ability in a narrow archetype that demands certain other heroes and support cards, then you turn around and criticize Fastred for that very reason.

We don't evaluate cards in a vacuum. Their usefulness depends on what other cards in the pool and what decks you can build with them. You bring up some cards that can get Rossiel to a conditional base of 4 defense in early game using some in-sphere cards (Out of the Wild mainly, Cloak of Lorien's +2 defense is way too unreliable), but neglect to mention that Fastred has in-sphere ways of getting to an unconditional base of 4 defense (Arwen and Mithril Shirt, both of which provide additional benefits).

Then there's the fact that Fastred seems to fit better in a deck with tactics access than Rossiel does (11% of Rossiel decks on RingsDB have tactics access, while 60% of Fastred decks do) which means he has easier access to cards like Gondorian Shield, Golden Shield, Raiment of War, Captain of Gondor. And nearly every Fastred deck that doesn't have Tactics access does have leadership access (far from the case for Rossiel decks, of which only 5% have leadership access), giving Fastred access to Dunedain Warning and Hauberk of Mail. It's not uncommon for my Fastred decks to have him defending multiple times for 6 or 7 by mid game.

Rossiel's biggest advantage over Fastred (apart from ABB) is access to healing. It's important, but an extra point of defense is worth a lot of healing over the course of the game.

Meanwhile, Fastred decks can handle the majority of nightmare quests.

I grant more latititude for deck space than hero selection.  There's now a wide variety of heroes that can be used with Rossiel in a secrecy deck (with Folco, practically anyone), but Dunhere is tied to a small number of heroes.

It's true that Rossiel's defense boost is conditional, but it's also built-in.  Cloak of Lorien is a conditional +2, but it's unconditionally +1 and doesn't take a restricted spot.  Fastred does have in-sphere access to Arwen and (when released) Mithril Shirt, both of which are great defensive cards (though Mithril Shirt has the guarded cost as well).  They also can be used on anyone, unlike ABB/Cloak.  Rossiel in a secrecy deck with a spirit hero has access to those defensive options, Fastred in a deck with Argalad not so much from the reverse.

It's true that Fastred finds himself with Tactics decks access, but that's a function of his partners -- LeEomer, Argalad and Dunhere all want weapons and TaBilbo is tactics already.  The same is true of leadership access via LeEomer.  That Fastred is used more often in the two spheres with the best defensive attachments is a function of his partners.  If both heroes were used in the same sphere configuration, Fastred has an advantage in that he's natively eligible for Hauberk, Captain, and Raiment (Golden Shields is terrible on him since it blocks Raiment IMO), but Dunedain Warning would benefit both equally.

I'm not surprised that you could get Fastred to multiple 6-7 defenses by mid game when you invest in his defense.   But it requires 4 cards to get to 7 plus additional cards for the readies.  A similar investment in Rossiel would produce a lower min defense but a higher max defense, meaning that if you ignored ABB access Fastred is more reliable -- but with ABB, I'll certainly take Rossiel *as a defender*.

I'm also not surprised that your Fastred decks can beat nightmare quests -- I've certainly found my Fastred decks with LeEomer and Dunhere more powerful than the Rossiel decks I've played.  But they weren't powerful because of Fastred's defense (good but fragile), nor were they powerful because his ability bolsters his defensive prowess (it doesn't).  His defense is only important as a trigger for his ability, which is the real thing that makes Fastred great in the few decks where the ability is useful.

I doubt we really disagree much about utility -- I'm not claiming Rossiel is a better hero than Fastred, you're not claiming Fastred is a good splash hero if you want a defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow ... seems i arrived after the battle !

The last errata and the lack of new release have completely erode my entertainement for the game. And i am not the only one in my game circle.

These errata is like the previous. Totally useless. If they make these errata due to competitive part introduce in last POD, it's a big mistake in my point of view.

I hate competitive game. I came to LOTR for cooperative deck building card game playable in solo. So i have to accept some errata for competitive variant ... NO WAY. It's a cooperative game, it doesn't need this kind of errata ... Unless the designer have a competitive mind.

These card are old and the most powerfull OP archetype or deck (like Elronds-deck, doomed deck, Outlands) continue to be untouched. So what's the meaning of touching to dwarf deck again ? Poor Erebor ally errated twice ... So like all previous errata, i will just ignore and now just use the text of the card.

I like the discussion with the community ... But now, i feel like playing a different game because we don't have the same rules.

Share this post


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

So like all previous errata, i will just ignore and now just use the text of the card.

You play with the original text of Beravor and Zigil Miner? Without errata, some cards are too powerful for me to even have fun playing. So I'm glad we have errata to that I can actually use them in my decks.

And you play with the original Blocking Wargs?

As for enjoyment of the game, most people I talk to think the game has been getting better overall as time goes on, even despite the errata. People that dropped out after the Boromir/Caldara/Hama nerfs would have missed out on the amazing Haradrim and Ered Mithin cycles.

Share this post


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

You play with the original text of Beravor and Zigil Miner?

I just started playing in late 2017. Did Beravor used to have no limit to card draw? That would have been bonkers to play with all the readying effects these days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Who is up to the challenge of making a deck that abuses Elvenking + Galadhrim Weaver to recur infinitely an event like Light the beacons?

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Seastan said:

You play with the original text of Beravor and Zigil Miner? Without errata, some cards are too powerful for me to even have fun playing. So I'm glad we have errata to that I can actually use them in my decks.

And you play with the original Blocking Wargs?

As for enjoyment of the game, most people I talk to think the game has been getting better overall as time goes on, even despite the errata. People that dropped out after the Boromir/Caldara/Hama nerfs would have missed out on the amazing Haradrim and Ered Mithin cycles.

The errata on Beravor and Zigil Miner wasn't done many years later.

For Beravor, you can up the limit of her capacity to two time now ... With Erestor, Galdor & Co, she is ridiculously under powered.

For Miner Zigil, it's a design issue quickly discover and fix. I'm ok with that.

These new errata come five years after release. And for the two concerning the dwarves, it make no sense because some other tribal archetype was already better (by far) from dwarves. So why decrease their power after nerf on We are not idle ? Noldor is just crazy, they crush scenario before The battle master as any chance to be view as OP ... Same for Outlands. When i compare Noldor capacity draw to dwarf, i don't find old legacy of durin totally OP ... just ok and again Noldor continue to be better for this job.

The comparison with encounter cards has no sense. Blocking wargs was a bug as many other encounter cards. I have no complain with these errata. But i think that nightmare is a better fix than errata (especially for cycle 3).

And last, i don't find Ered Mithin cycle amazing. I found it bad for scenario and great for player card. And Haradrim just ok. Just a point of view not the truth for everybody.

I would prefer that designer work on more new mechanics and player cards. I would prefer new release that this kind of useless errata. The lack of new content hurt a lot.

I continue to think that Gandalf Hero is OP and Elrond + Vilya also. The best deck with an incredible ratio on NM are with these kind of heroes not the dwarf. And we see errata on dwarf. Outlands with Erestor literally destroyed most of the powerfull scenario. And we see Errata on burning brand.

So you can find it good for the game. Great designer have done a good job for some people. They do a great job for new mechanich, new player cards (Radagast is a great hero). For errata, i think that the job isn't correctly done by far on player card since the last three FAQ on the game. I ignore player errata since the nerf of Horn of Gondor.

Edited by 13nrv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

Who is up to the challenge of making a deck that abuses Elvenking + Galadhrim Weaver to recur infinitely an event like Light the beacons?

Interesting Challenge !!!

But why not reccurs Hidden ways instead :D

I prefer to not see any ennemy rather than handle defense/shadow effect ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 13nrv said:

Interesting Challenge !!!

But why not reccurs Hidden ways instead :D

I prefer to not see any ennemy rather than handle defense/shadow effect ;)

Sure! Although hidden ways don’t cover a multiplayer game. I want to see a deck with Elrond + Vilya, Erkenbrand and a third hero that abuses that combo, in order to nullify combat. I am working on it, but I am not a great deck builder.

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


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

The errata on Beravor and Zigil Miner wasn't done many years later.

For Beravor, you can up the limit of her capacity to two time now ... With Erestor, Galdor & Co, she is ridiculously under powered.

For Miner Zigil, it's a design issue quickly discover and fix. I'm ok with that.
These new errata come five years after release.

Ok so the problem is the delay between the release and the errata. That wasn't clear from your original comment. I'm just curious, do you have a time limit for when errata are acceptable, and beyond that you ignore them, or do you evaluate each errata on a case-by-case basis?

The Out of the Wild errata came out a long time after the card's release, but nobody complained as it's arguably a buff for the card, so I'm curious if you follow that one or not.

I actually don't disagree with most of your comments. I also think the Ered Mithrin cycle had the best player cards in a long time, while the Harad and Angmar Awakened quests remain my favorite. And I agree that Vilya and Outlands are overpowered, but I can see a good explanation for why that might be intended (Vilya, thematically, should be the strongest attachment in Middle-earth apart from the One Ring, and Outlands were designed for new players to feel powerful without a lot of deckbuilding).

One thing often ignored in the errata discussion is that we don't have the same picture of the card pool that the developer has. The game is developed years in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff they are playtesting right now won't even come out until 2021. So it could very well be that Caleb has already designed some more Dwarf cards, but they would make Dwarves way more powerful than the already are, so we are seeing some nerfs to old (and frankly overpowered) cards like Legacy of Durin. In the end, the errata may make room for more design space in the Dwarf swarm archtype that would make them fun to play again (I am tired of that mechanic myself). I would gladly take a hit on a couple cards, regardless of their age, if it allows an archetype to grow and become more interesting to play.

Meanwhile, maybe Noldor and Outlands will not see much development in the coming years, so he is leaving their power level alone (this is obviously all conjecture, as I am not a playtester).

My point is, if you've been playing this game for the last 5 years, you clearly must think Caleb is a good game designer, and has done a good job of piloting this ship we've all been on. When I see a content announcement, it is easy for me to trust that the new cards will be a good fit for the future card pool, given Caleb's track record. Now, why should the trust in his future vision stop at level of creating new content and not include the adjustment of current content? Who knows better where this ship is headed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Seastan said:

I actually don't disagree with most of your comments. I also think the Ered Mithrin cycle had the best player cards in a long time, while the Harad and Angmar Awakened quests remain my favorite. And I agree that Vilya and Outlands are overpowered, but I can see a good explanation for why that might be intended (Vilya, thematically, should be the strongest attachment in Middle-earth apart from the One Ring, and Outlands were designed for new players to feel powerful without a lot of deckbuilding).

One thing often ignored in the errata discussion is that we don't have the same picture of the card pool that the developer has. The game is developed years in advance. I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff they are playtesting right now won't even come out until 2021. So it could very well be that Caleb has already designed some more Dwarf cards, but they would make Dwarves way more powerful than the already are, so we are seeing some nerfs to old (and frankly overpowered) cards like Legacy of Durin. In the end, the errata may make room for more design space in the Dwarf swarm archtype that would make them fun to play again (I am tired of that mechanic myself). I would gladly take a hit on a couple cards, regardless of their age, if it allows an archetype to grow and become more interesting to play.

Meanwhile, maybe Noldor and Outlands will not see much development in the coming years, so he is leaving their power level alone (this is obviously all conjecture, as I am not a playtester).

My point is, if you've been playing this game for the last 5 years, you clearly must think Caleb is a good game designer, and has done a good job of piloting this ship we've all been on. When I see a content announcement, it is easy for me to trust that the new cards will be a good fit for the future card pool, given Caleb's track record. Now, why should the trust in his future vision stop at level of creating new content and not include the adjustment of current content? Who knows better where this ship is headed?

The rationale you find for the Outlands could be applied to any archetype, really. Why the dwarf swarm archetype would be different? Plus, the Outlands archetype does the same as a dwarf swarm archetype just faster and better. In your case, more than 25% of the decks you have published in Ringsdb use some sort of outland ally (typically Ethir and Anfalas). I guess you are not tired of this mechanic, but there are people who would like to see an errata on the outlands archetypem because frankly, they are reeeeally overpowered. Shall Caleb errate them?

The new Elvenking + Galadhrim Weaver combo shall be errated? Because Hama was errated to 3 time per game to avoid recurring events like fient and thicket of spears.

I, my self, am tired and bored of seeing decks with steward of gondor (which you use in about 50% of the decks you have published in Ringsdb), which is one of the most overpowered cards in the game. Shall it get an errata in order to make the game more challenging?

My answer to all of these questions is No. It is a collaborative game (and I hope it stays like this). There is really no need to make erratas, with the exception may be of those combos that create loops of infinite resources, card drawing and so on, which by the way they are not all corrected, you have a two-deck fellowship that generates infinite resources! Even in this case, a list of suggested erratas, like in Arkham Horror, is a more friendly way to go than an imposed errata appearing in the reprinted cards.

Ok, that is but my opinion which is obviously not shared by the developers 😀

And yes, I, like you, have full trust on Caleb game design skills.

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

The rationale you find for the Outlands could be applied to any archetype, really. Why the dwarf swarm archetype would be different?

Because in this case, the developers have stated their intention. On various podcasts Caleb has said that Outlands was designed for new players and for people who dislike deckbuilding to still be able to have a good time playing the game.

Quote

Plus, the Outlands archetype does the same as a dwarf swarm archetype just faster and better. In your case, more than 25% of the decks you have published in Ringsdb use some sort of outland ally (typically Ethir and Anfalas). I guess you are not tired of this mechanic, but there are people who would like to see an errata on the outlands archetypem because frankly, they are reeeeally overpowered. Shall Caleb errate them?

No, I think Outlands is supposed to be overpowered, as I said above. Just because some people want an errata is not enough reason to issue one, in the same way that just because some people don't want an errata is not enough reason for them not to issue one. It's the developer's decision.

Quote

The new Elvenking + Galadhrim Weaver combo shall be errated? Because Hama was errated to 3 time per game to avoid recurring events like fient and thicket of spears.

The Weaver combo you're talking about requires an empty deck, which comes with a significant setup cost and maintenance penalty, unlike Hama. I don't see how these are comparable.

Quote

I, my self, am tired and bored of seeing decks with steward of gondor (which you use in about 50% of the decks you have published in Ringsdb), which is one of the most overpowered cards in the game. Shall it get an errata in order to make the game more challenging?

The idea of an errata for Steward has been brought up many times before. If I recall correctly, Caleb's stance (so far) has been that it is essential for new players to help them through the core set and first few cycles, so he is not inclined to nerf it.

Quote

There is really no need to make erratas, with the exception may be of those combos that create loops of infinite resources

What if Legacy of Durin creates an infinite loop with some future card that is designed but not yet released? Would you prefer to have the errata come pre-emptively, or wait until after it's released and the community has had some time to exploit it?

Quote

Even in this case, a list of suggested erratas, like in Arkham Horror, is a more friendly way to go than an imposed errata appearing in the reprinted cards.

I have some problems with the Arkham Horror "taboo list" concept, but that is a whole other discussion.

Edited by Seastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1) Sorry to say but the Outlands argument that Caleb wields is pathetic (I was not aware of it), still it does not justify why it cannot be the same treatment for dwarfs?

2) For the combo of Elven King + Galadhrim weaver you need to empty your deck (or have recurrent powerful scrying like Mirror of Galadriel). How many rounds do you need to empty your deck with Sp Dain? With Dain and Erestor? That is how they are comparable.

3) I really love the argument on Steward of Gondor!

4) Regarding the errata of the Legacy of Durin, I definitively would prefer to see this "infinite combo" before the errata comes. All this pre-emptive errata give me the shivers, bad things have been done in the name of "pre-emptiveness". Besides, there is already a loop for infinite resources that you have created, will it get an errata?

But it is really a pointless discussion. Caleb will keep doing erratas, somo of us don't (and won't) like that the erratas are forced on us through re-prints, but they will keep coming. 

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like any errata, just spoils the game especially as my wife and group and I are newer players and we find it hard enough without knocking down the few really good cards that have helped us scrape by. We don't have all the cards and I'm the only one that enjoys a challenging design/battle. Most of the players want to just sit and play something without having to feel bad that they are playing "the wrong way" or "cheating" let alone trying to remember all of the existing errata on cards. Therefore we don't use them and yet we still have a fun time, we are only able to do this because I managed to find pre-errata packs which I'm very grateful for.

I feel bad for brand new players that are buying the errated packs as they are going to have a lot harder time with getting started having to used toned down critical cards through the hardest scenarios.

Has anyone tried a progression style Carn Dum with the new Burning Brand and/or Boromir rules? Same question for Black Gate Opens and Mount Doom. 

I agree with yepesnopes that a special banned or temporary errated list would have been much better for the "competitive tournaments" so that the more hardcore players can have that challenge and be regulated that way. While still allowing new journeyers like myself and many others the opportunity to have the full card pool without having nerfed cards forced on us while other players had the ability to use the "Broken cards" to help save them through the hardest quests.

In the name of balance it kind of comes across as favoring longer time players who have the whole card pool and already have years of playing the errated cards the original way and screwing over/making new players feel bad even if they don't want to use forced on them errata.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...