Jump to content
Emilius

Different cards with the new reprint?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

The list of erratas is already thicker than the rules book

This is not even close to true. I can no longer find a PDF of the original rulebook, but the Learn to Play is 32 pages and the Rules Reference is 29. The FAQ is 19, and of that, only two and a half pages are actually taken up by errata.

1 hour ago, dalestephenson said:

Staff of Lebethron is more of a direct competitor, and was already the superior card for some quests, though it's certainly more narrow.

*snip*

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.

*snip*

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.

1. Um, what? Staff of Lebethron was never a better choice than Burning Brand assuming either could be attached. With the errata it's a bit closer, but Burning Brand is still better (which is fair, it costs more).

2. The fact the essential function and common case haven't changed directly contradict your claim that 'all of that is now obsolete'. Some of it may be obsolete, the decks that stacked a Burning Brand hero with readying effects to ignore all shadows forever are obsolete (but that was a broken case which needed to be fixed), and some decks now have one Restricted attachment too many (but many of those can be reasonably tweaked to manage without one of those attachments). Very little has actually been made obsolete.

3. You say there was no broken combo which required errata, and then later go on to describe the case of stacking Burning Brand with readying effects and other defensive attachments - which is a broken combo that (imo) required errata.

4. From my own perspective, I don't think nerfing Burning Brand makes the game meaningfully harder, because any quest in the game could be beaten pretty reliably without using it. It *was* (part of) one method of making the game a lot easier and, notably, less interesting by removing the aforementioned drama - the game is designed on the assumption that shadow effects are something the players will have to deal with to some extent, and Burning Brand on the right target made it too easy to just excise that entire aspect of the game.

To my mind, this Burning Brand errata is actually the perfect kind of errata, in that it blocks the broken case while leaving the common case untouched, as you yourself noted. From my own personal perspective it also rehabilitates the card to the point where as mentioned, I'm now much more likely to play it myself.

35 minutes ago, Yepesnopes said:

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...

I mean, he was absolutely right, the Dunedain mechanics are very cool. His friend was clearly wrong.

And if your implication here is that you can't play Dunedain and keep a bunch of enemies engaged without pre-errata Burning Brand, I can tell you from substantial experience that you are also clearly wrong.

Share this post


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

I mean, he was absolutely right, the Dunedain mechanics are very cool. His friend was clearly wrong.

And if your implication here is that you can't play Dunedain and keep a bunch of enemies engaged without pre-errata Burning Brand, I can tell you from substantial experience that you are also clearly wrong

 

My implication is that the Dunedain archetype is already of little appeal as shown statistically from the number of decks in ringsdb (so may be his friend was not wrong). Keeping enemies engaged is always dangerous.  Without burning brand, it is even less appealing.

You can play the archetype, for sure.

I want to note that with the new release of Outmatched, the Dunedain archetype was being boosted to a nice level.

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


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

1. Um, what? Staff of Lebethron was never a better choice than Burning Brand assuming either could be attached. With the errata it's a bit closer, but Burning Brand is still better (which is fair, it costs more).

2. The fact the essential function and common case haven't changed directly contradict your claim that 'all of that is now obsolete'. Some of it may be obsolete, the decks that stacked a Burning Brand hero with readying effects to ignore all shadows forever are obsolete (but that was a broken case which needed to be fixed), and some decks now have one Restricted attachment too many (but many of those can be reasonably tweaked to manage without one of those attachments). Very little has actually been made obsolete.

3. You say there was no broken combo which required errata, and then later go on to describe the case of stacking Burning Brand with readying effects and other defensive attachments - which is a broken combo that (imo) required errata.

4. From my own perspective, I don't think nerfing Burning Brand makes the game meaningfully harder, because any quest in the game could be beaten pretty reliably without using it. It *was* (part of) one method of making the game a lot easier and, notably, less interesting by removing the aforementioned drama - the game is designed on the assumption that shadow effects are something the players will have to deal with to some extent, and Burning Brand on the right target made it too easy to just excise that entire aspect of the game.

To my mind, this Burning Brand errata is actually the perfect kind of errata, in that it blocks the broken case while leaving the common case untouched, as you yourself noted. From my own personal perspective it also rehabilitates the card to the point where as mentioned, I'm now much more likely to play it myself.

1) I said Staff was better in certain quests, and it is.  In Wastes of Eriador you can't cancel shadows at night -- but you can discard.  In the Lonely Mountain, reattacks can be triggered by shadows even if you have ABB -- but not if you discard them (and due to Smaug's high threat, you can *always* discard).  In Road to Isengard shadows to Saruman can do their wizardy effects even if you have ABB -- but not if you discard them (and due to Saruman's high threat, you can *always* discard).  And for Mountain Warg's you can keep them engaged by discarding their shadow.

Staff was just as good as the old-ABB in the case where you need to take exactly one attack from a high-threat enemy each turn (there are a number of quests like this), if you can afford the restricted spot.  Now it's better in that situation, because it's cheaper.  The new-ABB has lost some of its important advantages over Staff, but still retains some -- doesn't have to exhaust in advance of knowing the shadow, works against enemies of all threat levels.  But it's still much worse for Lonely Mountain.

2) The decks are only weakened, but the commentary is obsolete.  We had not along ago a fresh in-depth description posted by Silblade of the Conflict at the Carrock player cards.  He quite rightly raved about ABB, gave it six stars out of five, and compared it to SoG, Test of Will, Unexpected Courage, and Feint (one of these things is not like the others, IMO).  Obsolete.

The decks aren't obsolete, but they are published -- they are fixed, and no longer work like they did when designed.  This is a significant cost to errata.  Could those decks be tweaked to remove restricted attachments no longer fitting, and/or include additional shadow protection to cover for ABB's weakness.  Sure.  They could also be tweaked to think that SoW/ABB is no longer worth the work and substitute different shadow protection instead.  They could even be reworked to abandon hero defense entirely.  You're welcome to rejoice in all that future deckbuilding in light of the revised ABB, but for me I mourn for all the work *already done* that has been affected, including some of my own unpublished decks.  All to fix a problem that *wasn't* a problem to me.

3) Because I don't think being able to negate shadow cards *constitutes a broken combo*.  I see broken combos as something that *actually guarantees* victory, like the infinite resource/card combos that involved since-errataed cards like Master of Lore, Love of Tales, We Are Not Idle, and Horn of Gondor.  You've seen it before, Seastan posts a ridiculously powerful and uninteresting to play deck, and the next FAQ that comes along breaks one or more of the components to keep it from happening again.  This is worlds away from an effect that has been in place for *years* and was both widely used and widely enjoyed.  Stacking ABB with readying only gives you a finite number of shadow-free defenses, bounded by your readying, and merely makes defense predictable, as attack already is and questing can be in the presence of scrying.  Do you propose a limit on Erkenbrand's ability?  Do you consider the option given in the game rules to play without shadows at all "broken"?

4) I'll have to take your word that "any quest in the game can be reliably be beaten" without ABB, because I certainly don't reliably beat all the quests in the game even *with* ABB.  I don't rember *ever* beating Carn Dum without ABB, which is particularly shadow-heavy.  But I also don't make hyper-efficient decks a priority.  Yes, in my Dori fellowships I will sometimes go to lengths to get ABB on a heroic defender, since Dori *requires* a heroic defender to take advantage of his ability, but I know full well that I could make the game easier by not bothering with Dori and trying to turn a 2 defense or 3 hp hero into a Beregondish defender, instead just using the original article from the get-go.  That's *my* choice -- I'm OK with self-inflicted difficulty increases on the way to a shadow-free super defender.  I'm less pleased with the designers taking away my end-state, not to protect *other players* in a pick-up game, but to protect the integrity of the encounter deck after all these years.  They're taking away something I liked.  I appreciate that you didn't like it, and you didn't play it, so it expands your pool -- but is it worth the cost to others?

I agree that as errata goes, ABB *does* preserve the common case, and in that respect it's a better errata than what was done to the poor Horn of Gondor.  And the end result is a viable card, unlike poor Master of Lore.  But I don't agree that the uncommon case was "broken" instead of just not to your taste.  If the designers want to errata cards to address power level, I would prefer they target little-used cards to expand *everyone's* pool, not just nerf widely-used cards to make them more attractive to the few who consider them too powerful.  I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


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

Wow, the new Burning Brand is almost like the way I reworked it in my "fix the game" project long long ago:

 

op1wyMl.png

 

I was a little more liberal.

Indeed.  Dropping the lore restriction would really expand the utility of the card, even with restricted and exhaustion added.

Share this post


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

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...

I just listened to that interview (Nerd Meets You podcast)—it's really excellent.

Caleb was not denigrating the entire Dúnedain archetype at all; he even says he's "happy with all of them"… Except the Warden, who Matt Newman told him was overcosted for the ability. Caleb was afraid of it being OP due to absence of a limit on the willpower bonus, but he admitted that subsequent experience has shown him to be wrong.

Anyway, just wanted to be sure that no one thought Caleb regretted the whole Dúnedain mechanic, heh. Listen for yourself (at the 11 min mark):

https://nerdmeetsyou.de/designer-caleb-grace-verrat-warum-errata-fur-ein-living-card-game-so-schwierig-sind-episode-110/

Share this post


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

You've seen it before, Seastan posts a ridiculously powerful and uninteresting to play deck, and the next FAQ that comes along breaks one or more of the components to keep it from happening again.  This is worlds away from an effect that has been in place for *years* and was both widely used and widely enjoyed.  Stacking ABB with readying only gives you a finite number of shadow-free defenses, bounded by your readying, and merely makes defense predictable, as attack already is and questing can be in the presence of scrying.

Actually, I *do* have decks that heavily abuse A Burning Brand. They use Path of Need to make your defender not need to exhaust to defend, and then there is no longer any sense of being "bounded by your readying". You keep Path of Need up for a few rounds by not overquesting (scrying helps, but there are other tricks), while everyone builds up an unbeatable board state with 0 danger from enemies. I was able to beat Nightmare Escape from Dol Guldur using this trick.

And before you cry foul on Path of Need, I agree. But I've also seen A Burning Brand on Beregond block every shadow effect on the table in a 4 player game with next to no effort. You don't need to have a endless readying to handle all the combat. Getting around 4 readies onto Beregond is easy, and is often all it takes, and there's no single culprit there. Targeting ABB is one way to bring that archetype more into balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sappidus said:

I just listened to that interview (Nerd Meets You podcast)—it's really excellent.

Caleb was not denigrating the entire Dúnedain archetype at all; he even says he's "happy with all of them"… Except the Warden, who Matt Newman told him was overcosted for the ability. Caleb was afraid of it being OP due to absence of a limit on the willpower bonus, but he admitted that subsequent experience has shown him to be wrong.

Anyway, just wanted to be sure that no one thought Caleb regretted the whole Dúnedain mechanic, heh. Listen for yourself (at the 11 min mark):

 https://nerdmeetsyou.de/designer-caleb-grace-verrat-warum-errata-fur-ein-living-card-game-so-schwierig-sind-episode-110/

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting discussion!

I can see the annoyance over A Burning Brand - felt the same for my way-overused Boromir, but I still put him in the line-up, and now play with his errata. (Just have to rely on other characters doing some defence and counter-attacking). So Hasty Stroke, or Dawn Take You All, or Sterner than Steel may all benefit in the charts at ABB's expense.

To me, I think ABB was a combo - almost in itself. If you can basically ignore one of the frameworks of the game, that is pretty powerful. To stretch the point a bit, imagine an attachment that said "whilst attached hero is questing, cancel all When Revealed effects...". 

As the card pool has grown, so have the options for shadow handling. One way for the encounter deck to preserve itself would be to have more non-cancelable shadow effects - but that would impact all the counters, not just ABB (and "You can't cancel me" is so, so annoying!). Maybe errata on the card is the best way to limit it alone.

I rarely play ABB (mainly because I defend with a certain Tactics hero, and - probably due to poor deck design, never could get Song of Lore and ABB out as a reliable combo. Looking back at my games log, I did actually use it on Lore Aragorn when I finally won in the Battle of Carn Dum, but he'd fallen by the end to a double Vile Affliction with Gandalf in the discard pile). 

So the rare quest aside, from my experience the majority are perfectly manageable with the new-look Brand.

(And it makes perfect sense to me not to allow Treebeard to uses it. Why would a walking tree want to hold a burning branch???)

Share this post


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

Actually, I *do* have decks that heavily abuse A Burning Brand. They use Path of Need to make your defender not need to exhaust to defend, and then there is no longer any sense of being "bounded by your readying". You keep Path of Need up for a few rounds by not overquesting (scrying helps, but there are other tricks), while everyone builds up an unbeatable board state with 0 danger from enemies. I was able to beat Nightmare Escape from Dol Guldur using this trick.

And before you cry foul on Path of Need, I agree. But I've also seen A Burning Brand on Beregond block every shadow effect on the table in a 4 player game with next to no effort. You don't need to have a endless readying to handle all the combat. Getting around 4 readies onto Beregond is easy, and is often all it takes, and there's no single culprit there. Targeting ABB is one way to bring that archetype more into balance.

I don't see using Path of Need to clear the field of enemies as "abuse", I see that as its intended purpose.  It's a 4-cost 1-per-deck, and is meant to be game changing.  The same applies to non-exhausting defense on the expensive events Light the Beacons and Hour of Wrath (which thanks to the Hama nerf can only be played nine times in a row).  I *especially* don't see Path of Need as abuse in multiplayer when *everyone* cooperates to avoid overquesting to build up their build state.  It's a co-operative game.  I understand the need for errata where a *single deck* can force a win or monopolize combat in a multiplayer situation.  But when *all* players at the table cooperate to keep Path of Need in play to clear the board of enemies, that's what they've *chosen* to do and it's simply not a problem that needs to be fixed.  And *no* solo "abuse" needs to be fixed at all.

The same is true of Beregond's normal action in a four player game, where the players cooperate to get Beregond set up for shadow-free defense with plenty of readies -- if they cooperate to do that, so what?  Beregond + 4x Unexpected Courage + Song of Wisdom + Gondorian Shield + A Burning Brand is an eight card combo involving three spheres and four copies of a single card, a single deck isn't going to make Beregond bulletproof by itself (nor would it necessarily be unwelcome -- isn't bringing Beregond to the table what you *want* your friend to do in multiplayer?).

And what are we bringing the superdefender Beregond more into balance *with*?  Yes, it raises the difficulty level, but that by itself is not intrinsically good.  But compared to other defending heroes, with the obvious exception of Beorn and Erkenbrand, the ABB nerf will bother Beregond *less* than any other hero -- he can get to 6/5 sentinel with a single cheap/free attachment, leaving a restricted slot free that other heroes need to get anywhere near Beregond's lofty stats.  He's also not native Lore, so weakening ABB weakens Lore defenders relative to Beregond.  Beregond will be fine, and in a 4-player game will require little supplemental shadow cancellation and healing to survive handling multiple defenses per turn, even with the change to ABB.  Meanwhile, Fastred can no longer do Raiment of War/ABB *at all* in my two-deck fellowship, and he will die from ordinary common-case defense.  Was making Super Beregond slightly more fragile so important than Fastred deserved this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Boromore said:

[...]To me, I think ABB was a combo - almost in itself. If you can basically ignore one of the frameworks of the game, that is pretty powerful. To stretch the point a bit, imagine an attachment that said "whilst attached hero is questing, cancel all When Revealed effects...". 

[...]

I rarely play ABB (mainly because I defend with a certain Tactics hero, and - probably due to poor deck design, never could get Song of Lore and ABB out as a reliable combo. Looking back at my games log, I did actually use it on Lore Aragorn when I finally won in the Battle of Carn Dum, but he'd fallen by the end to a double Vile Affliction with Gandalf in the discard pile). 

[...]

(And it makes perfect sense to me not to allow Treebeard to uses it. Why would a walking tree want to hold a burning branch???)

I quite like the idea of a hero attachment that says "while questing, attached hero is immune to all When Revealed effects", though it would really be a sideboard card.  ABB only affected one character, that only covers all shadows if you can ensure that character handles all defense.  That requires additional cards.

The last time I beat Carn Dum (with the help of 8 Grace of the Valar tokens) in the March solo league, my defensive options were Rossiel (3 hp) and Treebeard.  With ABB + Silvan Tracker + Ent Draught + Cloak of Lorien + Self-Preservation, Rossiel was able to take a single Thaurdir attack each turn and heal up.  After nerf, she's dead dead dead -- and Treebeard can't use ABB at all.  Nerfed ABB would've produced a result more like the Stereotypical Dunedain Deck (no lore) did against that quest -- 36 tokens and chumping with 3-cost Dunedain, since a fully healthy Amarthiul, boosted to 6 defense, was killed by shadows in previous tries.  *Every* entrant in the league (all of which did better than my not-built-for-Carn-Dum deck) used either Lore or Balin.

Why would a walking tree want to hold a burning branch?  Because they want to cancel shadows and are smart enough to hold the non-burning end?  It seems more plausible than Leather Boots or Mithril Shirt or Arod, all of which are perfectly legal on Treebeard.  The ents were not intrinsicly offended by fire, only by hewing down living trees to get wood -- and even then what they found most offensive was hewing *without* burning -- "It is the orc-work, the wanton hewing--rarum--without even the bad excuse of feeding the fires, that has so angered us."

On the very edge of Fangorn, the three hunters made a fire (while cutting no living wood) under a great tree, and Legolas said "Look! the tree is glad of the fire!"

"It may have been that the dancing shadows tricked their eyes, but certainly to each of the companions the boughs appeared to be bending this way and that so as to come above the flames, while the upper branches were stooping down; the brown leaves now stood out stiff, and rubbed together like many cold cracked hands taking comfort in the warmth."

Like with Eagles in Moria, the thematic disconnect has more to do with what *we* would expect, rather than any prohibition drawn from the text itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last line was only supposed to be a throw-away quip. But catch it if you wish...!

Thematically, the burning brand was used to keep the Ringwraiths at bay - fire and light against chill and darkness.  The card translates that idea to a universal counter to surprises in combat, which it retains, albeit in a more limited fashion, post-errata.

And if the Battle of Carn Dum can only really be won by maximising the use of one particular card, (and I'm not arguing against that), then maybe it is the quest that is broken and not the player card.

 

Share this post


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

And *no* solo "abuse" needs to be fixed at all.

I think the presence of the competitive format introduced at organized play events (where you can play 1v1) is alone enough to warrant "fixing" solo abuse. Anyway, with ABB the abuse is more common in multiplayer, so I won't expand on this.

Quote

The same is true of Beregond's normal action in a four player game, where the players cooperate to get Beregond set up for shadow-free defense with plenty of readies... a single deck isn't going to make Beregond bulletproof by itself

I have watched multiple decklists from myself and others get Beregond loaded up with ABB and enough readies to handle defense for all players all by itself in short order. He becomes completely invincible with ABB, and nobody else at the table has to deal with defenses the whole game. This is an example of one player trivializing a big chunk of the game for all players, due to ABB.

Quote

isn't bringing Beregond to the table what you *want* your friend to do in multiplayer?).

I am normally only interested in my friend handling all defense for the table if I am bringing some kind of questing/support deck. If I am bringing a combat deck, he will be making my gaming experience a lot more boring, because it will always make more sense to defend with ABBBeregond than any of my characters.

Quote

And what are we bringing the superdefender Beregond more into balance *with*? 

It's not Beregond that we are balancing. It's ABB. I picked Beregond as an example because I happen to see him abuse it the most. But lore Denethor could be used too - he's only 1 less starting defense, but he's got the trait match for Gondorian Shield and is in-sphere for ABB. Lore Bilbo was another culprit due to Fast Hitch. The problematic combo is not Beregond+ABB, it's readying+ABB. And out of those two options, nerfing ABB is way cleaner and easier with less far-reaching consequences.

Quote

The last time I beat Carn Dum

Carn Dum's "thing" is its shadow effects, so it makes sense that nerfing ABB would have the biggest impact against this quest. But even so, ABB has never been needed here. Just last week I had a challenge with The Mormegil to build a thematic Rohan deck that could beat Nightmare Carn Dum with a decent winrate. He put together this deck that won 3/4 times, with no ABB in sight: https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11986/nmcarndmrohanchallenge-1.0

I put together a deck that used Grima as a defender with ABB and Protector of Lorien to boost his defense. Even playing with the ABB errata in mind, I still managed to win: https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11992/rohannightmarecarndumchallenge-1.0.


Maybe the quest is just so hard that people think they absolutely need this one exact card in order to win. That would be bad quest design. Hopefully, by errating ABB and forcing people to look at other options, they will realize that this isn't actually true.

Quote

Meanwhile, Fastred can no longer do Raiment of War/ABB *at all* in my two-deck fellowship, and he will die from ordinary common-case defense.  Was making Super Beregond slightly more fragile so important than Fastred deserved this?

I've always considered the Fastred archetype to be top tier, and have never used Raiment or ABB in my deck, so this seems like a reach. Spirit has plenty of in-sphere shadow cancellation. Tactics has some too. Trying to shoehorn ABB onto Fastred with a Song of Wisdom would slow my deck down quite a bit and probably make it worse. Who knows, maybe your dependence on ABB has made you overlook some more efficient options, and your decks will actually improve as a result of the errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To have Beregond set in a 4 players game, you need Shield of Gondor, song of wisdom, burning brand, and a bunch of readying effects (most likely Unexpected courage).

To do technically the same with Erkenbrand you need, Ancestral Armour, another attachment (like Hauberk of Mail or Citadel Plate) and a healer (which will be anyway on the table), and a bunch of readying effects (most likely Unexpected courage). Having into account that you do not have to cancel all shadow cards, this combo needs the same amount of cards to set up. I don't see why not getting an errata on Erkenbrand then.

 

Not to mention that in multiplayer you can trivialize combat with Gloin as well.

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


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

To have Beregond set in a 4 players game, you need Shield of Gondor, song of wisdom, burning brand, and a bunch of readying effects (most likely Unexpected courage).

To do technically the same with Erkenbrand you need, Ancestral Armour, another attachment (like Hauberk of Mail or Citadel Plate) and a healer (which will be anyway on the table), and a bunch of readying effects (most likely Unexpected courage). Having into account that you do not have to cancel all shadow cards, this combo needs the same amount of cards to set up. I don't see why not getting an errata on Erkenbrand then.

 

Not to mention that in multiplayer you can trivialize combat with Gloin as well.

I do think we'll start to see a similar issue with Erkenbrand dominating. But currently he's an underused card, and errata tends not to be preemptive. Maybe he will be hit in the future.

Gloin needs Elrond and Warden of Healing in order to trivialize combat (though shadow effects can still ruin your day). Do we know for sure that neither of those cards were hit by errata?

Share this post


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

 

Carn Dum's "thing" is its shadow effects, so it makes sense that nerfing ABB would have the biggest impact against this quest. But even so, ABB has never been needed here. Just last week I had a challenge with The Mormegil to build a thematic Rohan deck that could beat Nightmare Carn Dum with a decent winrate. He put together this deck that won 3/4 times, with no ABB in sight: https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11986/nmcarndmrohanchallenge-1.0

I put together a deck that used Grima as a defender with ABB and Protector of Lorien to boost his defense. Even playing with the ABB errata in mind, I still managed to win: https://ringsdb.com/decklist/view/11992/rohannightmarecarndumchallenge-1.0.


Maybe the quest is just so hard that people think they absolutely need this one exact card in order to win. That would be bad quest design. Hopefully, by errating ABB and forcing people to look at other options, they will realize that this isn't actually true.

 

Your deck-building skills are impressive. Just curious... would you be able to build progression-style decks with similar win ratios vs. standard Carn Dum that incorporate the new errata (if you would use any of those cards, like ABB, at all)? Solo and 2-player?

I want to believe that it can be done... but I'm not convinced that it can.

EDIT: And as far as I'm concerned, if cards are errataed in such a way that a particular quest can no longer be beaten with the card pool that was available at the time of release, that's just a BS thing for the designers to do (I intend no disrespect).  

At this point, I would just prefer they go on and release a second edition rather than keep monkeying around with errata each time they release a new cycle. 

Edited by TwiceBorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TwiceBorn said:

Your deck-building skills are impressive. Just curious... would you be able to build progression-style decks with similar win ratios vs. standard Carn Dum that incorporate the new errata (if you would use any of those cards, like ABB, at all)? Solo and 2-player?

I want to believe that it can be done... but I'm not convinced that it can.

EDIT: And as far as I'm concerned, if cards are errataed in such a way that a particular quest can no longer be beaten with the card pool that was available at the time of release, that's just a BS thing for the designers to do (I intend no disrespect).  

At this point, I would just prefer they go on and release a second edition rather than keep monkeying around with errata each time they release a new cycle. 

I did it progression style with a few decks when it came out. Here's a Vilya one that does not use A Burning Brand: https://youtu.be/aqwhWuL664E

I've also beaten Carn Dum in minimum purchase mode (just using cards from Core, Lost Realm, and Carn Dum), which is way more restrictive than progression. Granted, I did play on easy mode for that one: https://youtu.be/6RsWSCYvJ_g

 

Share this post


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

Do we know for sure that neither of those cards were hit by errata?

I have packs from the most recent printing (including new wording for Legacy of Durin) and as far as I can tell Elrond and Warden of Healing haven't changed. 

 

Don't know if this is widely known but Erebor Battlemaster also has a change that isn't in the most recent FAQ - his attack bonus is capped at +4. 

 

Haven't noticed any others for now.

Share this post


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

I do think we'll start to see a similar issue with Erkenbrand dominating. But currently he's an underused card, and errata tends not to be preemptive. Maybe he will be hit in the future.

Gloin needs Elrond and Warden of Healing in order to trivialize combat (though shadow effects can still ruin your day). Do we know for sure that neither of those cards were hit by errata?

I am sure you can make a deck with Erkenbrand that trivializes combat as much as with Betegond 😉

I will start working on it 😊

Share this post


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

I am sure you can make a deck with Erkenbrand that trivializes combat as much as with Betegond 😉

I will start working on it 😊

I made one last week, the same day I heard about the Burning Brand errata. Haven't tested it in 4 player yet though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rees263 said:

Picture of new Erebor Battle Master

20190507_220830-1004x1422.jpg

This card has the dubious honor of been errated twice!

What about errating twice Horn of Gondor? I throw an idea "Response: When an enemy is added to the staging area, exhaust Horn of Gondor to add 1 resource to attached hero resource pool." It is even properly thematic!!

jesus...

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...