Jump to content
Emilius

Different cards with the new reprint?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, rees263 said:

Picture of new Erebor Battle Master

20190507_220830-1004x1422.jpg

From hero to zero!!! (pun inten... I'll see myself out)

Edited by Freeman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I believe that most of these errata would make sense for new cards, in general I have not been a fan of FFG's aggressive use of errata to revise numerous existing, already printed cards for a non-competitive, co-op game. Too many errata makes playing and deck-building more complicated and for relatively little added value that I can see. Without competition, there's little reason for concern over OP cards, IMO. There are plenty of voluntary ways to make the game harder for those players that don't get enough challenge with the cards the way they are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the Taboo List alternative they've come up with for Arkham Horror. It's optional for those who want to shake things up, it doesn't invalidate any printed cards, and it allows a lot more experimentation (e.g. if they find they've over-nerfed they aren't stuck with that decision, and if they've under-nerfed they don't have to issue yet another errata, as with Erebor Battle Master).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fan of A Burning Brand, I can see why it got errata. It being restricted is interesting, maybe a bit puzzling, as it already has the Lore requirement and exhaustion seems more limiting than 'once per phase'. I can't recall, but is there a way to unexhaust attachments with a card effect or ability? It's still a good card but not amazing anymore.

Share this post


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

Honestly, that Erebor Battle Master errata isn't that bad, although it makes me think Booming Ent will get a similar errata.

It would make sense even if erebor master battle in a swarm deck could easily reach non-sense attack level while booming ent is a bit more difficult to set up and mantain to similar numbers.

 

I agree this errata is not devastating an equivalent  +5limit  with dain is still very good as intended without arriving to non sense level like slain a dragon or a balrog almost alone

 And now he is more in competition with different alternatives like dwarven axe on allies (3 resources for 4 attack or 1 for equivalent 2?). 

But in general I don't like all this errata on old cards unless there is a very good reason for them. And either FFG is just spending time addressing 6 years old design mistakes for no real reason or they have in preparation something which make necessary all those changes....

Maybe campaign design for old cycle similar to saga mode which require all those errata for balance reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they're revisiting old cards,  "Power in the Earth 3x" and "Unexpected Courage 1x" back in the Core set seem like they could use an easy fix just exchanging the amount provided, no need even to resorting to errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seastan said:

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.

Ugh, that's a good point.  Competitive brings with it demons that cooperative lacks, and one of the big reasons I prefer LOTR to competitive LCG is that I'm free to run quirky/suboptimal/thematic decks without any fear that I'm going to "lose" to an optimized deck.  That no longer holds true if I take the competitive events seriously.

With that said, I would greatly prefer that cards deemed unbalancing for competitive one-deck be handled with a Restricted list for that format rather than spoiling the fun for everyone with an errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seastan said:

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.

I've never thought of Fastred as an archetype, let alone top tier, just as Dunhere and LeEomer's best friend.  I've played Fastred without ABB/Raiment of War -- I did use Raiment of War in my mono-spirit Dunhere/SpBard/Fastred deck for the solo September league, and that was a lot of fun, thanks to SpBard I could use Raiment of War and Hauberk of Mail, with the Mirkwood shadows and Hasty Stroke that was sufficient for me (non-nightmare).  But my Black Serpent fellowship (using all cards from that AP) used both, and my not-yet played Dori, Side-Quests and LeEomer relies on both cards for Fastred.  He's only 3/3, he needs Raiment of War just to get where Beregond *starts*, and Rohan's defensive Golden Shield is strictly inferior to Gondorian Shield for Fastred.  It always annoys me when erratas damage a deck/fellowship before I get around to playing it, and since I have so many decks in that state it's almost inevitable it will happen.

Spirit has a lot of shadow cancellation events, Hasty Stroke being the most important (and given my fondness for hero defense, I'm leaning towards Hasty Stroke being more important than A Test of Will).  But I prefer repeatable effects to one-time effects.  Forcing me to abandon the deck I *want* to play via errata is a cost *even if* I change the deck to being more efficient.  My decks aren't usually optimal in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seastan said:

II 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.

[...]

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.

Now that ABB has been nerfed, do you not expect Beregond to still get loaded up with ABB and enough readies to handle defense for all players?  He can get easily to 6/5 with a restricted slot free and can survive most shadow effects with ease.

If a single deck can lay down six-seven attachments, most costing 2 resources, on a single hero all by itself in short order is the problem really ABB?  And are pickup players really disgruntled because they aren't *defending*?

Beregond will *still* monopolize defense when ready, but Bilbo and Denethor won't.  Denethor starts at 3/3, and has a sphere match for ABB, the change hurts him relative to Beregond.  Bilbo starts at 2/2 and has a sphere match for ABB, the change hurts him a lot relative to Beregond -- all those Fast Hitches are less useful when you can cancel only one shadow and are low-HP.  As a result of ABB changing, Beregond is now *more attactive* relative to other hero defenders not named Erkenbrand, especially Lore hero defenders.  I don't see this as a positive development in a game where Beregond was already easily the best hero defender.

Share this post


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

Now that ABB has been nerfed, do you not expect Beregond to still get loaded up with ABB and enough readies to handle defense for all players?  He can get easily to 6/5 with a restricted slot free and can survive most shadow effects with ease.

If a single deck can lay down six-seven attachments, most costing 2 resources, on a single hero all by itself in short order is the problem really ABB?  And are pickup players really disgruntled because they aren't *defending*?

Beregond will *still* monopolize defense when ready, but Bilbo and Denethor won't.  Denethor starts at 3/3, and has a sphere match for ABB, the change hurts him relative to Beregond.  Bilbo starts at 2/2 and has a sphere match for ABB, the change hurts him a lot relative to Beregond -- all those Fast Hitches are less useful when you can cancel only one shadow and are low-HP.  As a result of ABB changing, Beregond is now *more attactive* relative to other hero defenders not named Erkenbrand, especially Lore hero defenders.  I don't see this as a positive development in a game where Beregond was already easily the best hero defender.

True that the ABB errata hurts other super defender candidates like Bilbo and Denethor just as much, if not more, than Beregond. Beregond will still be the dominant defender in the game, and with his 4 base defense it seems he was designed to be. I'm not arguing that the errata will equalize the defender playing field. I'm arguing that it will make the whole "defend everything on the table with one character" strategy weaker.

It's true that Beregond tends to shrug off +X attack shadow effects, but many (the majority of?) shadow effects are not that simple. Here's a list of shadow effects from a recent scenario, The King's Quest:

1. Shadow: Attacking enemy makes an additional attack against you after this one.
2. Shadow: Discard an attachment you control.
3. Shadow: Deal 1 damage to the defending character.
4. Shadow: Defending character cannot ready until the end of the round.
5. Shadow: Attacking enemy gets +1 Attack.
6. Shadow: If this attack is undefended, discard an ally you control.
 
Beregond only shrugs off 5 and 6 (and maybe 3 if you've got healing out). And given that 4 could mean an instant loss if you are counting on Beregond defending for the table, you need to save ABB for that one and accept every instance of 1, 2, and 3.
Edited by Seastan

Share this post


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

With that said, I would greatly prefer that cards deemed unbalancing for competitive one-deck be handled with a Restricted list for that format rather than spoiling the fun for everyone with an errata.

That's sort of what they're doing. The errata aren't "forced" on anyone accept at an organized play event. You are still free to play them the old way at home or with your buddies.

Yes, the errata will be on the reprints, so in a sense new players will be "forced" to use updated text through ignorance (unless they dig up the originals online), but your complaints seem directed more toward a player who already owns the card having their current decks invalidated.

Share this post


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

I'd like Master of Lore to be errataed twice, but the designers are allergic to positive errata.

And Horn of Gondor. For one, the card should mention Boromir in the text. We have Firefoot and Snowmane for Eomer and Theoden respectively and they are not nearly as famous as the Horn and not nearly as connected to Boromir in the legendarium. It was the problem with the core set card because Boromir was not there yet, which was the shame, and I do not see why as he was clearly designed by then (the Mirkwood cycle). So I would like to see a new version of such a famed artifact that is actually well functional and has a bonus when attached to Boromir.

Share this post


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

That's sort of what they're doing. The errata aren't "forced" on anyone accept at an organized play event. You are still free to play them the old way at home or with your buddies.

Yes, the errata will be on the reprints, so in a sense new players will be "forced" to use updated text through ignorance (unless they dig up the originals online), but your complaints seem directed more toward a player who already owns the card having their current decks invalidated.

I play in a fellowship event once per year, so in terms of playing the cards there's little impact if I ignore the errata--aside from the psychological impact of playing a card one way when I know that by rule it is supposed to be played another way.  In general I'm a stickler for "playing by the rules" and prefer to play errata I disagree with and abide by designer rulings I find ridiculous.  If using a variant to make it easier I prefer it to be directed at setup conditions (like the Grace of the Valar variant does) rather than target specific cards.  Making something harder can usually be done within the rules by self-imposing restrictions.

But I also like to *publish* decks for the use of others.  I've published 17 decks that use ABB, none of them now work as well as when I published them and some of them wouldn't have ABB *at all* if it had been in its current form.  I could, of course, revise them, but that takes time and effort and I have lots of other decks waiting for the same vetting process before publication (some of which use ABB, of course).  This is a significant cost, and while few use my decks, there are over 1500 other published decks that took the same sort of damage.  I think when publishing decks it's a reasonable assumption that the latest errata will be used for them, and certainly that is what ringsdb will display for those cards when examining a deck.

I also like to *analyze* how cards are used in published decks, using that as the basis of articles or Stereotypical decks.  When the card changes, the basis of the analysis becomes flawed.  Analyzing how Hama *used* to be used is somewhat academic when Hama can't be legally used that way anymore.

I also like to post in forums here and BGG, and a lot of the posts that touch on ABB are affected by the errata.

I'm also one of the few to play in the solo league each month; since it is a low-stakes competition, it wouldn't be fair for me to use my version of ABB while someone new to the game is using the errataed version.

Share this post


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

It's true that Beregond tends to shrug off +X attack shadow effects, but many (the majority of?) shadow effects are not that simple. Here's a list of shadow effects from a recent scenario, The King's Quest:

1. Shadow: Attacking enemy makes an additional attack against you after this one.
2. Shadow: Discard an attachment you control.
3. Shadow: Deal 1 damage to the defending character.
4. Shadow: Defending character cannot ready until the end of the round.
5. Shadow: Attacking enemy gets +1 Attack.
6. Shadow: If this attack is undefended, discard an ally you control.
 
Beregond only shrugs off 5 and 6 (and maybe 3 if you've got healing out). And given that 4 could mean an instant loss if you are counting on Beregond defending for the table, you need to save ABB for that one and accept every instance of 1, 2, and 3.

If you're in a four player game, you have healing, and Bergond has 5 hit points to work with.  So the shadows that can cause problems for mighty Beregond are #1, #2, and #4.  #1 is ignorable if it comes anytime when Beregond has an extra ready to work with, #2 can be safely ignored at least once with the SofW/ABB combo (Song of Wisdom is expendable), and may be ignorable other times if you have replacement card in hand.  #4 can be ignored anytime it comes up in the last defense (though if ABB is still ready at that point, it's moot), or the next-to-last defense (presuming that you ready *before* the shadow is revealed, which if you are relying on Unexpected Courage you certainly will).

Shadow #4 is most dangerous early, when ABB is least likely to be exhausted, and least dangerous late, when ABB is most likely to be exhuasted.  If you're planning on Beregond handling four attacks and have four readying attachments, the odds of taking even *one* non-Beregond attack are slim despite the change to ABB -- and unless you have insufficient allies to sacrifice to non-Beregond attacks, it won't even cost you a hero, let alone Beregond or the game.  (Since there are only three copies of #4, two showing up in the same round is not only unlikely, it also guarantees only one being left in the deck until it runs out -- #1 has only two copies.)

This is the difference between Beregond and someone less mighty, someone who relies on blanket shadow protection to *survive* multiple defenses.  If Beregond gets hit with multiple problematic shadows he might end up exhausted and someone else must defend or even chump-block.  A lesser hero might *risk death* if ABB is exhausted, even though ready -- this Beregond does not do, at least with this set of shadows.

Share this post


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

If you're in a four player game, you have healing, and Bergond has 5 hit points to work with.  So the shadows that can cause problems for mighty Beregond are #1, #2, and #4.  #1 is ignorable if it comes anytime when Beregond has an extra ready to work with, #2 can be safely ignored at least once with the SofW/ABB combo (Song of Wisdom is expendable), and may be ignorable other times if you have replacement card in hand.  #4 can be ignored anytime it comes up in the last defense (though if ABB is still ready at that point, it's moot), or the next-to-last defense (presuming that you ready *before* the shadow is revealed, which if you are relying on Unexpected Courage you certainly will).

Shadow #4 is most dangerous early, when ABB is least likely to be exhausted, and least dangerous late, when ABB is most likely to be exhuasted.  If you're planning on Beregond handling four attacks and have four readying attachments, the odds of taking even *one* non-Beregond attack are slim despite the change to ABB -- and unless you have insufficient allies to sacrifice to non-Beregond attacks, it won't even cost you a hero, let alone Beregond or the game.  (Since there are only three copies of #4, two showing up in the same round is not only unlikely, it also guarantees only one being left in the deck until it runs out -- #1 has only two copies.)

 

It's also a restricted attachment, meaning if you want to use ABB and Gondorian Shield, you can no longer load him up with Spear of the Citadel to deal 1 damage to every enemy.

Quote

This is the difference between Beregond and someone less mighty, someone who relies on blanket shadow protection to *survive* multiple defenses.  If Beregond gets hit with multiple problematic shadows he might end up exhausted and someone else must defend or even chump-block.  A lesser hero might *risk death* if ABB is exhausted, even though ready -- this Beregond does not do, at least with this set of shadows.

You keep trying to say that it hurts other heroes more than Beregond. I haven't been arguing against this. I'll say again, that Beregond is still obviously a good defender even with the ABB errata. But if you don't see how this weakens the "defend everything with 1 hero" archetype, I'm not sure what else I can say.

Edited by Seastan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from agreeing with everything Seastan has been saying, I just want to point out that Beregond has 4 hit points, not 5. It's not a significant point but you keep bringing it up and it's bugging me.

Share this post


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

I play in a fellowship event once per year, so in terms of playing the cards there's little impact if I ignore the errata--aside from the psychological impact of playing a card one way when I know that by rule it is supposed to be played another way.  In general I'm a stickler for "playing by the rules" and prefer to play errata I disagree with and abide by designer rulings I find ridiculous.  If using a variant to make it easier I prefer it to be directed at setup conditions (like the Grace of the Valar variant does) rather than target specific cards.  Making something harder can usually be done within the rules by self-imposing restrictions.

But I also like to *publish* decks for the use of others.  I've published 17 decks that use ABB, none of them now work as well as when I published them and some of them wouldn't have ABB *at all* if it had been in its current form.  I could, of course, revise them, but that takes time and effort and I have lots of other decks waiting for the same vetting process before publication (some of which use ABB, of course).  This is a significant cost, and while few use my decks, there are over 1500 other published decks that took the same sort of damage.  I think when publishing decks it's a reasonable assumption that the latest errata will be used for them, and certainly that is what ringsdb will display for those cards when examining a deck.

I also like to *analyze* how cards are used in published decks, using that as the basis of articles or Stereotypical decks.  When the card changes, the basis of the analysis becomes flawed.  Analyzing how Hama *used* to be used is somewhat academic when Hama can't be legally used that way anymore.

I also like to post in forums here and BGG, and a lot of the posts that touch on ABB are affected by the errata.

I'm also one of the few to play in the solo league each month; since it is a low-stakes competition, it wouldn't be fair for me to use my version of ABB while someone new to the game is using the errataed version.

This a fact of errata in general, and less to do with ABB. Errata is always going to invalidate decks, and I say this as someone who has had more decks invalidated by errata than anyone, many of them in direct response to something I published. With this discussion I am trying to point out why the ABB errata might actually be healthy for the game, but if the above is actually the core of your argument (that all errata is bad by nature) then it's perhaps better to start there than continuing on about ABB.

Share this post


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

This a fact of errata in general, and less to do with ABB. Errata is always going to invalidate decks, and I say this as someone who has had more decks invalidated by errata than anyone, many of them in direct response to something I published. With this discussion I am trying to point out why the ABB errata might actually be healthy for the game, but if the above is actually the core of your argument (that all errata is bad by nature) then it's perhaps better to start there than continuing on about ABB.

What universe are you living in that you are able to claim this, based on what? There can be any given person with more decks built. It makes little difference, so it makes very little sense to make such a hollow egocentric claim in the first place.

Edited by lleimmoen

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...