Jump to content
Emilius

Different cards with the new reprint?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

Ok, let’s put erratas on [...] blood of numenor, gondorian fire

Yes please, those cards are super overpowered.

To the people whining about Burning Brand, I have to ask: How often do you attach Burning Brand to a character with two other Restricted attachments, where you really couldn't manage without one of them? And how often do you need the same defender to cancel more than one shadow effect in the same round? Because those are the only times the errata will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, PocketWraith said:

Yes please, those cards are super overpowered.

To the people whining about Burning Brand, I have to ask: How often do you attach Burning Brand to a character with two other Restricted attachments, where you really couldn't manage without one of them? And how often do you need the same defender to cancel more than one shadow effect in the same round? Because those are the only times the errata will make a difference.

I play often 4-player games where I use Beregond to parry about 2-3 attack per round if not more!

 

but may be you are right and I should not whine. I guess I am always in time to ressurrect Gloin + Elrond and Warden of Healing combo

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yepesnopes said:

I play often 4-player games where I use Beregond to parry about 2-3 attack per round if not more!

Yes, but how often do you need to cancel more than one shadow effect while doing so? In my experience Beregond laughs off most shadow effects, and in the rare cases he does take damage we have healing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

in my opinion, in a 3-4 players game, too often.

Is just how the game has been designed. There are many nasty shadow cards.

And actually, your argument can also be used to ask why then the **** do we need an errata on Burning Brand?

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

Yeah I won't be playing the errata, I play what's on the cards.

I always wonder, when people say this, what do you do if you play 2-player and the other guy has the reprinted, errata'd cards? Two verisons of Burning Brand that operate differently?

Share this post


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

And by the way! For when an errata on the northern tracker!? That is so OP that the whole location mechanics of the game is wrapped around it!

How about: When Northern Tracker exhausts to commit to the quest, place 1 progress on X locations in the staging area.  X is the number of players in the game.

Share this post


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

Ok, let’s put erratas on Vilya, Unexpected courage, A test of will, steward of gondor, blood of numenor, gondorian fire, warden of healing...

In order of which cards I think really need errata, starting with "good heavens, how does this card even exist!?":

Blood/Fire: I have two options in mind. One is more simple, preserving the standard use case while preventing massive abuse of the effect. "Spend one resource from attached hero's resource pool to give attached hero +1 attack (or defense, for blood). Limit 3 times per phase."

The second option is a much larger change, but leaves a card that is more interesting to play, I think, and preserves the massive attack potential of the existing effect while still removing the potential for abuse. "Discard [blood/fire] to give attached hero +X [attack/defense] until the end of the phase, where X is the number of resources in the attached hero's resource pool."

Warden of Healing: Nowhere near as bad as Blood or Fire, but it's still much too efficient. I think that it's base stats and effect are in the realm of just design around it, but it's reading response definitely needs a "limit once per round" errata.

Steward:  Is probably fine.  Maybe make it enter play exhausted?

Courage:  also probably fine, but I wouldn't mind if they made it "limit one per hero."

Test of will:  no errata.  It is probably the most meta warping card in the game, but I don't think that you can change it without destroying it, and the game needs it.

Vilya: extremely powerful. Broken? I don't think so. Needs errata? Probably not. If anything, give it "attached character cannot be readied by player card effects," just to make the cost of the action less easy to overcome.

8 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

And by the way! For when an errata on the northern tracker!? That is so OP that the whole location mechanics of the game is wrapped around it!

 That's another simple one. "After northern tracker commits to the quest, place one progress on up to X locations in the staging area, where X is one more than the number of players in the game."

I'm actually more concerned with Asfaloth. At the very least, make it restricted. There isn't much else to do without completely reworking the card. The best I can think of is to make it restricted, remove the "2 progress if attached to Glorfindel" ability,  and instead make it like Snowmane. "If attached hero is Glorfindel, asfaloth loses the restricted keyword."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GrandSpleen said:

How about: When Northern Tracker exhausts to commit to the quest, place 1 progress on X locations in the staging area.  X is the number of players in the game.

Heh, great minds think alike. I like one more than the number of players, just to make it more worthwhile in solo, but your version is perfectly serviceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GrandSpleen said:

I always wonder, when people say this, what do you do if you play 2-player and the other guy has the reprinted, errata'd cards? Two verisons of Burning Brand that operate differently?

We probably won't ever have that issue because we only play with my set of cards. But if we did it's easy enough to say they work differently from each other, agree to use the errata or agree not too. It's a pretty casual chill game haha. Heck my wife and I when playing 2 player as well as our 4 player group plays sleazy mode with the extra resource at the start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the purpose of errata for a cooperative game. Just play it however you want to. If you get enjoyment from finding a strong broken combo then fill your boots. If you want to make things really hard for yourself play Fatty solo against Carn Dum. Play however you want to, its just you and a few really close friends. If you go to an actual event then for sure agree on whatever restrictions or errata you want. But in my opinion unless something is legitimately misprinted like an encounter card or quest being impossible to finish I don't see the need for any errata. I'll keep playing Hama, Caldera and Boromir the way they were designed originally and not worry about an extra level of complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

We probably won't ever have that issue because we only play with my set of cards. But if we did it's easy enough to say they work differently from each other, agree to use the errata or agree not too. It's a pretty casual chill game haha. Heck my wife and I when playing 2 player as well as our 4 player group plays sleazy mode with the extra resource at the start. 

I'm with you. I'm also not going to run a list of changed cards. I have a mix of cards that have been errata'd and some that have not. Makes for honest game play and no holds up while we look up the new text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really hate is when they errata Horn of Gondor into oblivion like that. It is hard as it is, you pay quite a bit for your cards, then soon they are meant to do something else than what is written on them. In case of Zigil Miner, at least it makes sense, and the card is actually more fun, but Horn is now just bad, so please, admit, and errata it again to make it better again. And more, errata bad cards, like Taking Initiative if I remember the name, I think no one ever played the card...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PocketWraith said:

To the people whining about Burning Brand, I have to ask: How often do you attach Burning Brand to a character with two other Restricted attachments, where you really couldn't manage without one of them? And how often do you need the same defender to cancel more than one shadow effect in the same round? Because those are the only times the errata will make a difference.

I don't pay attention to the shadows I discard, but I'd be surprised if I didn't cancel more than one shadow effect in the nearly every quest (putting readying on hero defenders is a high priority).  And in Carn Dum it happens frequently, even solo.  Losing a hero defender is by far my most common reason to scoop, so if you need to cancel two shadows *even once* in a quest, it can matter a lot.

How often do I intend to put two restricted attachments on a ABB target?  Let's see.  In Dori, Outlands and Dwarves, I want to put ABB on LeAragorn, also with Gondorian Shield and Celebrian's Stone (restricted, for no good reason).  Ring of Barahir gives him Lore for ABB.

In Dori and the Twins, ABB is meant for Elrohir, courtesy of Song of Wisdom.  Elven Mail, Gondorian Shield, and Armored Destrier are all restricted targets I like on him first -- Armored Destrier at least partially compensates for the nerf, except that the restricted ABB makes it less likely for it to be playable.

In Dori, Side-Quests and LeEomer (unpublished), ABB is meant for Fastred, courtesy of Song of Wisdom -- and he needs it with only 3 hp!  The intended restricted attachment is Raiment of War, which simultaneously buffs his defense and HP.  Oh, and it takes two restricted spots so it can't be mixed with ABB *at all*.  Thanks a lot.

In Dori and the Rings, Elrond is the ABB target.  He also is the target for Gondorian Shield and Elven Mail.

In Dori and Boromir, TaBoromir is the ABB target, courtesy of Song of Wisdom.  He is also the target for Gondorian Shield and Armored Destrier -- originally that was just to save threat, but after Boromir was nerfed it assumed new importance.  It could also mitigate the ABB nerf, except that they made it restricted and now there's not room -- he needs his shield.

In Dori and Rossiel, Rossiel is the ABB target, and also for Elven Mail and Gondorian Shield.  This is the fellowship least affected, both because Balin is in the fellowship and because she's not also a Steward of Gondor target, the Shield is just a flat +1 for her.

In Dori and the Silvans, Celeborn is the ABB target, courtesy of Song of Wisdom.  Elven Mail, Gondorian Shield, and Armored Destrier are all available.  Celeborn is also the Steward of Gondor target, as he is in a Leadership/Lore Silvan deck, together with Song of Wisdom he can.

In Dori and the Ents there are two possible targets -- LeFaramir is the eventual defender with Song of Wisdom (to help pay for Green ents), and he also wants Armored Destrier and Gondorian Shield.  The other target is Treebeard, an excellent lore defender to handle early defense if needed -- but he can't have restricted attachments and is now cut off from ABB.  The best lore defender -- no ABB.

In Dori, Traps, and Rangers LoFaramir is the ABB target, and only Gondorian Shield (limit 1) is an intended restricted attachment.  That's because this fellowship was constructed before Armored Destrier, an ideal card for LoFaramir to take advantage of his trap-enhanced *attack*.  But there's no way to put ABB, Gondorian Shield, and Armored Destrier together anymore.

In Grima meets Dori (unpublished) LoDenethor is the target along with Gondorian Shield -- once again, this was put together before Armored Destrier, which LoDenethor would absolutely want -- he wants to be ready post-defense, not only for another defense if necessary, but to use his ability.

The restricted hits hard, very hard -- my favorite ally target for ABB was Wellinghall Preserver -- decent defense, good hp, self-healing.  Freed from shadow concerns they can block some minor enemies.  No more.

This is, by far, the most popular card ever errataed, and both changes to it are major; but I think the restricted hurts more.  And the errata *cannot* be justified as being part of a broken combo.  This is straight up the designers saying "Wouldn't it be great if Carn Dum were even harder to beat?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

By far the most popular? Kidding?

I know you are good with numbers at ringsdb but for me it is one of the least popular. But I am guessing there may be many others who like Boromir, Horn, Hama, and even Caldara, at least as much as the Brand.

Edited by lleimmoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pages of decks (30 to a complete page) at ringsdb:

57 A Burning Brand

41 Horn of Gondor

15 TaBoromir

9 Hama

6 Caldara

Even Horn of Gondor, despite being a core card, doesn't match ABB.  And heroes can't match the deck count of widely-used cards in a sphere -- even SpEowyn is in "only" 49 pages of decks. I think only Gleowine (59 pages) outpaces ABB among lore cards, and that by not much despite the huge advantage of being in the core set -- 7 of those pages are core-only decks.  Warden of Healing (87 pages) and Daeron's Runes (95 pages) are the only lore cards more used often, I think -- and Warden of Healing and Daeron's Runes can justify their existence in *any* lore deck, while ABB requires a lore character who will be defending.

Now are there those who feel more deeply about Hama or Caldara or Boromir than ABB, despite them being less used overall?  Certainly!  Heroes are less widely used, but you start with them in play, and the errata to Caldara/Hama/Boromir made some decks designed around their abilities cease to function as written; I have an unpublished Hama deck designed to use his ability to toss Elven-Light -- not compelling with the nerf.  There are four pages of decks *named* after Caldara, and only one four with "Burning" in their title:  "Burning Brand in Gandalf's Hand", "Deck Tech: A Burning Erkenbrand" and "Arbestor (Beregond is Burning Out)" (two versions of that one).  And as you might expect, the Erkenbrand deck doesn't have ABB in it.  Nerfing ABB doesn't *kill* any deck that used it -- however it makes every deck that used it weaker and the heroes that used it more fragile.  There might be a handful of decks where the intended target wasn't an ent, never readied, and never had two restricted attachments, in which case the nerf did nothing -- but I've never made such a deck myself.

And it worries me.  Horn of Gondor was part of an actually broken combo, several other cards being errataed before they got around to fixing it the wrong way.  Legacy of Durin's unrestricted draw was an important part of setting up a WANI/Legacy of Durin loop.  But this is different -- this does nothing to fix *any* abusive combo -- this isn't protecting other players, this is protecting the encounter deck from all shadows getting nerfed.  I don't like that, and I especially don't like it when the single quest most affected by the change already is arguably the hardest in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

But this is different -- this does nothing to fix *any* abusive combo -- this isn't protecting other players, this is protecting the encounter deck from all shadows getting nerfed.  I don't like that, and I especially don't like it when the single quest most affected by the change already is arguably the hardest in the game.

Conversely, this is actually what I like most about this erratum: it protects the encounter deck from what is (was) to my taste the most boring card in the pool. Now it is a bit more interesting to deckbuild with, for many of the reasons your earlier post detailed re: difficulties with some of your extant fellowships.

I think a lot of criticism along the lines of "well, how do I win this quest(s) now!?" here is really more about those quest(s) than BB. Heirs/Against the Shadow has too much shadow-chaining; Carn Dum is essentially a NM quest in normal sheep's clothing.

I firmly believe that if BB had never existed in its original form, and we got this new version released in the latest pack, the general reaction would be that it's a solid card. There would be comparisons to Armored Destrier—pluses and minuses, people would say it's weaker, others would counter that it was a good option for Lore, etc.—but overall no one would call it a coaster.

This hits the progression and limited-pool players harder, I grant. But I do not fault Caleb for choosing to mitigate what feels like the biggest design mistake in the pool from the standpoint of repeatedly eliminating drama that is supposed to be intrinsic to the framework.

Share this post


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

This hits the progression and limited-pool players harder, I grant. But I do not fault Caleb for choosing to mitigate what feels like the biggest design mistake in the pool from the standpoint of repeatedly eliminating drama that is supposed to be intrinsic to the framework.

While I agree whole heartedly with your overall point, I would argue that Blood/Fire represent the biggest design mistake in the current pool. Burning brand is a clear second, though. :D

Share this post


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

Pages of decks (30 to a complete page) at ringsdb:

57 A Burning Brand

41 Horn of Gondor

15 TaBoromir

9 Hama

6 Caldara

Even Horn of Gondor, despite being a core card, doesn't match ABB.  And heroes can't match the deck count of widely-used cards in a sphere -- even SpEowyn is in "only" 49 pages of decks. I think only Gleowine (59 pages) outpaces ABB among lore cards, and that by not much despite the huge advantage of being in the core set -- 7 of those pages are core-only decks.  Warden of Healing (87 pages) and Daeron's Runes (95 pages) are the only lore cards more used often, I think -- and Warden of Healing and Daeron's Runes can justify their existence in *any* lore deck, while ABB requires a lore character who will be defending.

Now are there those who feel more deeply about Hama or Caldara or Boromir than ABB, despite them being less used overall?  Certainly!  Heroes are less widely used, but you start with them in play, and the errata to Caldara/Hama/Boromir made some decks designed around their abilities cease to function as written; I have an unpublished Hama deck designed to use his ability to toss Elven-Light -- not compelling with the nerf.  There are four pages of decks *named* after Caldara, and only one four with "Burning" in their title:  "Burning Brand in Gandalf's Hand", "Deck Tech: A Burning Erkenbrand" and "Arbestor (Beregond is Burning Out)" (two versions of that one).  And as you might expect, the Erkenbrand deck doesn't have ABB in it.  Nerfing ABB doesn't *kill* any deck that used it -- however it makes every deck that used it weaker and the heroes that used it more fragile.  There might be a handful of decks where the intended target wasn't an ent, never readied, and never had two restricted attachments, in which case the nerf did nothing -- but I've never made such a deck myself.

And it worries me.  Horn of Gondor was part of an actually broken combo, several other cards being errataed before they got around to fixing it the wrong way.  Legacy of Durin's unrestricted draw was an important part of setting up a WANI/Legacy of Durin loop.  But this is different -- this does nothing to fix *any* abusive combo -- this isn't protecting other players, this is protecting the encounter deck from all shadows getting nerfed.  I don't like that, and I especially don't like it when the single quest most affected by the change already is arguably the hardest in the game.

Thanks. It is pretty tight with Horn though, and Brand only came two pack after the core. The restricted keyword makes sense, I think that was the reason, it makes more sense than a horse, for instance. But I do agree, it does make all those decks weaker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sappidus said:

I firmly believe that if BB had never existed in its original form, and we got this new version released in the latest pack, the general reaction would be that it's a solid card. There would be comparisons to Armored Destrier—pluses and minuses, people would say it's weaker, others would counter that it was a good option for Lore, etc.—but overall no one would call it a coaster.

I certainly agree with you -- and in fact, it would be highly praised, because (absent ABB) all that you have in Lore to aid defense is Protector of Lorien (which costs cards), Dark Knowledge (which isn't much help) and Cloak of Lorien (restricted to elves).  Lore has heroes with good defensive bones and healing, but *absent* shadow protection the best defender in the core set (Denethor) or the best (conditional) defense in Lore (Rossiel) isn't going to live to be healed, having only 3 hp.

Now if ABB hadn't existed, maybe in the many cycles there would be more lore cards that help out hero defense along the way, and this new ABB would be seen as a big thing, the great attachment that *finally* vaults Lore defense into top tier.  But that's not what happened -- Lore had ABB, ABB was fantastic, it didn't get anything else along the way.  You can, I think, fairly argue that a weaker ABB way back in the Mirkwood cycle might have changed other cards released along the way -- certainly that argument has been made for Steward of Gondor enough times.  But all those subsequent cards have already been released, and undoing an early "design mistake" doesn't change the fact that the subsequent quests and cards were designed in the context of the *original* card, and the more powerful the original card, the greater than influence is.  Carn Dum was *designed* knowing that ABB could ignore a whole stack of shadows, the errata has made that impossible.  Rossiel was *designed* knowing that ABB could completely protect her fragile body from shadows -- now it's partial.  Treebeard was *designed* knowing that ABB could make the high-threat hero one of the best defenders of the game, at the expense of not using his damage-enhanced willpower or attack -- now the self-injuring hero is completely vulnerable to shadows because he can't have ABB at all.  In short, even if an early game "design mistake" has affected subsequent development, undoing the "mistake" does nothing to change subsequent development -- unless you start doing positive errata, and that just doesn't happen.

Aside from taking both restricted spots, Armored Destrier works exceptionally well with the new ABB, since it can remove the shadow from a second defense while ABB protects against the first.  The downside is that it requires songs or sentinel-granting to get both on the same hero, except for Lore Aragorn.  Since Armored Destrier can't remove the *first* shadow, it's not really in competition with ABB.  Staff of Lebethron is more of a direct competitor, and was already the superior card for some quests, though it's certainly more narrow.

I think the big winners in a multiplayer environment are likely to be Balin and Erkenbrand.

But any evaluation of errata should not just be limited to before/after -- the cost should also be taken into account.  *Any* errata imposes a cost by virtue of having cards not actually have the effect printed on them, this has been used to argue against the idea of positive errata for coasters, despite the expansion of the effective card pool that follows.  But when a card is not a coaster but a widely-used card, this effect is much, much larger.  ABB is in over 1500 published decks at ringsdb, and as an early card ABB has had much attention and study, along with recommendations to new players -- all of that is now obsolete.  The nerf to ABB is better than the nerf to Horn of Gondor (for example) in that its essential function hasn't changed and the "common case" of a single attack with a single shadow is exactly the same (at least if you can spare the restricted spot).  But that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of decks just got weaker, *without* any broken combo to require an errata.

Absent other cards and a handful of quests, ABB still is "repeatedly eliminating drama that is supposed to be intrinsic to the framework", because no Lore characters self-ready or defend without exhausting -- ABB still provides *complete* protection against a single shadow from a single attack.  It's certainly true that you can load up a hero with song of wisdom (if not lore), ABB, a host of readying effects and defensive attachments and repeatedly eliminate the "drama" of shadows against many attacks -- but now we are talking about the combination of *many* cards and much deck space to set up that scenario, a large investment in intentionally eliminating the drama.  And who suffers?  The person who did it?  No -- they did that *on purpose*, and were exposed to the intrinsic drama repeatedly while getting set up.  The other players watching the defender?  Possible, but making Beregond (non-Lore) more vulnerable to shadows won't stop him from taking as many defenses as possible, because that's what he's designed for and that's all he's good at doing.  (He's also less vulnerable to shadows because he starts with the highest def/hp, and exists in spheres with shadow protection events).  I was rather under the impression that meetup players *liked* having a player provide sentinel defense and would not be pleased for sentinel heroes to die more often -- perhaps that's not the case.

I think it's worth protecting other players -- but I don't think it's worth protecting the *encounter deck*, which has no feelings to be hurt.  I don't want to see the designers nerfing cards just for the purpose of making the game harder, but that appears to be exactly the motivation for this particular change.

Share this post


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

The list of erratas is already thicker than the rules book

I wonder how many actual errata there've been if you take away all the typos, fixes to do with spheres of influence (like Narvi's Belt), and obvious corrections to how a card is intended to work that didn't actually change the card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 2:19 PM, Onidsen said:

 That's another simple one. "After northern tracker commits to the quest, place one progress on up to X locations in the staging area, where X is one more than the number of players in the game."

I'm actually more concerned with Asfaloth. At the very least, make it restricted. There isn't much else to do without completely reworking the card. The best I can think of is to make it restricted, remove the "2 progress if attached to Glorfindel" ability,  and instead make it like Snowmane. "If attached hero is Glorfindel, asfaloth loses the restricted keyword."

As I have no sympathy for the encounter deck, it does not disturb me that tools exist to prevent location lock, quite possibly the least fun way to lose a game.

Asfaloth has the best protection against abuse already -- he's unique.  That limits him to a total of 2 progress placed, and that requires Glorfindel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I now remember the interview to Caleb done during the Lure of Middle Earth this year.

 

Interestingly enough, he said his biggest disappointment was the Dunedain trait, in particular the Warden of Annúminas. If I remember correctly, he commented that upon conceiving the Dunedain trait, he thought that the mechanics of keeping enemies engaged with you would be very cool. To this, a friend of him told him "but who would want to keep enemies engaged with him?"

Well Caleb, you just shot yourself in the foot...

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...