Jump to content
Emilius

Different cards with the new reprint?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Amicus Draconis said:

Well, Gillie mentioned core set only, so Eagles and Rohirrim would not count, though I somehow forgot about Gandalf, who is similar to Beorn. And you might save maybe three ressources by playing Gandalf, while the Horn itself costs one. Sure, it is weakened, but not so much that I would complain about it.

Winged Guardian and Vassal of the Windlord cost two and one ressource respectively, not what I would call expensive. Of course I like paying to keep the Guardian around, but in this case the Horn will not trigger. And when I have Eagles of the Misty Mountains on the table, I pay one ressource for a chump or attack boost and then get a permanent boost to the Eagles. There is no need to generate an extra ressource on top of it.

Also neither Lore nor Spirit have ressource acceleration in the core set or Mirkwood cycle. Now spirit could really use some extra ressources when discarding all those Rohan allies, and Lore allies tend to become more expensive, but the Horn is a tactics card, where I do not see a need for extra ressources.

Winged Guardian is expensive *because* you have to keep feeding it.  I saved a lot of resources (progression) when I was able to replace Winged Guardian with Defender of Rammas.  Vassal is cheap but temporary.  And yes, it's nice when they go away and buff Eagles of the Misty Mountains (cost 4), and when you get down your Support of the Eagles (cost 3).  And you can also play Descendant of Thorondor (cost 4) and Landroval (cost 5).  But don't worry about those high costs, because ally Radagast (cost 5) will help you pay for it.

One of the reasons I was so excited about Radagast is his staff's cost reduction.  There's a reason that Mablung is in the stereotypical Eagles deck (Gwaihir edition).  They're about the least affordable tribe in existence.  But even without that, Tactics doesn't lack for expensive cards, like Citadel Plate and Beorn.  Yes, tactics needs resources.

And since mono tactics isn't viable until Heirs of Numenor (and even then only in Siege/Battle quests), Horn of Gondor certainly will have leadership/lore/spirit cards on the table.  The biggest problem with the original Horn of Gondor isn't its utility, it is its rarity -- only one in the core set.  It wasn't a reliable source of resources, but it was nice when it was present.

The big problem with the Horn of Gondor is that it didn't exhaust, that's the feature that let it be part of infinite card/resource combos.  And oddly, they decided to fix it by nerfing the *common* case but not requiring exhaustion.  Now even self-discarders don't generate a resource -- Boromir can sacrifice himself without the Horn giving a peep.

Share this post


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

And newer players that buy a new pack will have no choice but to play vastly underpowered versions of those cards.

OK I have to object to this. While some cards may be rather dependent on the card pool you have available, that's the case whatever their errata status, so let's disregard that for the moment. The only errata'd card I might consider underpowered following its errata is Master of Lore, and even then not 'vastly' so. This is the thing that annoys me most when people start complaining about errata - a lot of the time they seem to only consider the card in relation to its pre-errata state rather than to other cards in the pool, the actually reasonable means of assessing whether something is over- or underpowered. Which again, they're not underpowered, certainly not vastly so.

Share this post


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

Winged Guardian is expensive *because* you have to keep feeding it.  I saved a lot of resources (progression) when I was able to replace Winged Guardian with Defender of Rammas.  Vassal is cheap but temporary.  And yes, it's nice when they go away and buff Eagles of the Misty Mountains (cost 4), and when you get down your Support of the Eagles (cost 3).  And you can also play Descendant of Thorondor (cost 4) and Landroval (cost 5). 

As soon as you pay to keep Winged Guardian around, Horn of Gondor is not helping you and never did, so the errata changed nothing in that regard. If the Guardian is destroyed, you will still get the ressource. The only difference is, that you no longer get a ressource when you choose not to satisfy the forced effect, but in that case, why were you using the Guardian instead of a chump`? And Support of the Eagles even lets you use the Guardian like an attachment, so no extra cost for keeping him around at all.
Landroval is expensive, yes, but compared to Fate or Fortune, which costs the same with a similar effect, you also get a decent ally. I have already mentioned,

Quote

that spirit could really use some extra ressources when discarding all those Rohan allies, and Lore allies tend to become more expensive

but some of you chose to ignore that part of my sentence completely. I can see a certain habit in these times, where quotes are cited without context to create a straw man.

Quote

But don't worry about those high costs, because ally Radagast (cost 5) will help you pay for it.

While Radagast himself is expensive, he also provides 2 willpower, which in that card pool is worth about 2 - 3 ressources, particularly in tactics, where Eagles of the Misty Mountains are the best, when it comes to questing with 2 willpower. If you want more willpower, use a different sphere. So you are paying 2 - 3 ressources for his ability, which is reasonable.

Quote

One of the reasons I was so excited about Radagast is his staff's cost reduction.  There's a reason that Mablung is in the stereotypical Eagles deck (Gwaihir edition).  They're about the least affordable tribe in existence.  But even without that, Tactics doesn't lack for expensive cards, like Citadel Plate and Beorn.  Yes, tactics needs resources.

 

So there is your answer: if you need more tactics ressources, include Mablung. This might not work in a progression deck, that is why he was developed. And what do you think would happen, if you could get even more ressources besides Mablung's response? Games need to be balanced. Of course you are free to add Steward of Gondor and some other cards to enable playing it into a tactics deck.

Quote

And since mono tactics isn't viable until Heirs of Numenor (and even then only in Siege/Battle quests), Horn of Gondor certainly will have leadership/lore/spirit cards on the table.  The biggest problem with the original Horn of Gondor isn't its utility, it is its rarity -- only one in the core set.  It wasn't a reliable source of resources, but it was nice when it was present.

I assume, you mean mono tactics solo one-handed. In that case SoG and Song of Kings will give you many ressources. And while there is only one Horn in the core set, the rules allow up to three in a single deck, so proxying would be a solution. Just assume your Power in the Earth is a stand in for the Horn, or copy it, or buy additional core sets.

Quote

The big problem with the Horn of Gondor is that it didn't exhaust, that's the feature that let it be part of infinite card/resource combos.  And oddly, they decided to fix it by nerfing the *common* case but not requiring exhaustion.  Now even self-discarders don't generate a resource -- Boromir can sacrifice himself without the Horn giving a peep.

I would rather get additional compensation for sacrificing several allies in the same turn, than making many Rohan allies free in conjunction with Théoden or getting free ressources out of The Tree People. For example:

At the beginning of the planning phase you have three ressources, one silvan ally in hand and O Lórien and Horn of Gondor in play. Reduce the cost to play an ally by 1 with O Lórien, pay a ressource, play the one ally and trigger his enter play effect. Use The Tree People to bring the ally back to your hand, the Horn generates a ressource (back at 3) and search for an ally in the top five cards in your deck, bring it into play and trigger its enter play effect. Pay 2 ressources to bring the original ally back into play and trigger its effect again. Congratulation: You now have paid 2 ressources for 2 allies and 3 enter play effects (e.g. reduce your threat by 2 and draw an event card). Throw in a Galadhrim Weaver to shuffle The Tree People back into your deck and then tell me, whether this combo is overpowered. Even if the Horn exhausted, like you want it to, you could repeat this combo for a couple turns. And then, when you or another player have to chump block, you no longer get a refund.
So your proposal enables some crazy shenanigans, while shooting yourself into the foot.

And besides: Boromir also did not use his Horn because some elves played Ring around the Rosie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Amicus Draconis said:

At the beginning of the planning phase you have three ressources, one silvan ally in hand and O Lórien and Horn of Gondor in play. Reduce the cost to play an ally by 1 with O Lórien, pay a ressource, play the one ally and trigger his enter play effect. Use The Tree People to bring the ally back to your hand, the Horn generates a ressource (back at 3) and search for an ally in the top five cards in your deck, bring it into play and trigger its enter play effect. Pay 2 ressources to bring the original ally back into play and trigger its effect again. Congratulation: You now have paid 2 ressources for 2 allies and 3 enter play effects (e.g. reduce your threat by 2 and draw an event card). Throw in a Galadhrim Weaver to shuffle The Tree People back into your deck and then tell me, whether this combo is overpowered. Even if the Horn exhausted, like you want it to, you could repeat this combo for a couple turns. And then, when you or another player have to chump block, you no longer get a refund.
So your proposal enables some crazy shenanigans, while shooting yourself into the foot.

You are talking about a 5+ card combo which has almost nothing to do with Horn of Gondor. There are lots of ways to get extra resources. You could also just have Steward of Gondor in play, and get 2 more resources for free without having to pull any ally shenanigans. In what world is an exhausting Horn of Gondor broken but that isn't? 

Edited by cfmcdonald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Most of my annoyance with errata would be erased if FFG simply made cheap POD update packs available so players could get the new physical version of the card.  Then it wouldn't be necessary to remember which cards should be played with which text (or try to explain to new/casual players why the old version of the card isn't actually played the way it's printed anymore)  -- you could simply just play the card as printed. Such packs would have to be cheap, however, because otherwise there would be a problematic monetary incentive to issue needless errata just to get players to buy the updates.

Edited by Kjeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying money to get a bunch of nerfed player cards!? Over my dead body!

Include a playable version Brok, Fatty, SpPippin, Longbeard Orc Slayer, LoGlorfindel, Bombur, Power in the Earth... and we are talking ūüėā

Share this post


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

You are talking about a 5+ card combo which has almost nothing to do with Horn of Gondor. There are lots of ways to get extra resources. You could also just have Steward of Gondor in play, and get 2 more resources for free without having to pull any ally shenanigans. In what world is an exhausting Horn of Gondor broken but that isn't? 

You might have understood me wrong. This was an example of what Horn of Gondor would do in its old incarnation, which I am clearly against. Here is the preceding sentence, in case you skipped it:

3 hours ago, Amicus Draconis said:

I would rather get additional compensation for sacrificing several allies in the same turn, than making many Rohan allies free in conjunction with Th√©oden or getting free ressources out of The Tree People. For example: ÔĽŅÔĽŅÔĽŅ

Horn of Gondor basically would make the ressource cost of Silvan events negative 1. Together with O Lórien and the usual events this would result in a free ally every round and two other effects, one from the event and one from the ally.

Share this post


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

You might have understood me wrong. This was an example of what Horn of Gondor would do in its old incarnation, which I am clearly against. Here is the preceding sentence, in case you skipped it:

Horn of Gondor basically would make the ressource cost of Silvan events negative 1. Together with O Lórien and the usual events this would result in a free ally every round and two other effects, one from the event and one from the ally.

You wrote, "Even if the Horn exhausted, like you want it to, you could repeat this combo for a couple turns," which to me indicates that you think Horn of Gondor would be overpowered if they had just added "Exhaust to..." to its original text. Again I can't see how getting 1 extra conditional resource a turn could possibly be OP, given that there are plenty of other ways to do this, or even to get them unconditionally (Resourceful, Steward of Gondor). If getting > 3 resources per turn makes Silvan cards broken, the problem is not the resource generation. 

Share this post


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

Paying money to get a bunch of nerfed player cards!? Over my dead body!

Include a playable version Brok, Fatty, SpPippin, Longbeard Orc Slayer, LoGlorfindel, Bombur, Power in the Earth... and we are talking ūüėā

Fatty, SpPippin, Bombur ally, and Lorefindel are all playable right now.

Bombur is actually very good in any quest that uses underground locations. Lorefindel is only seen as bad because of his spirit version.  I'm playing a saga campaign that has used lorefindel to good effect right now; we're up to passing of the grey company now.

Fatty is much better than people give him credit for -  the ability to adjust questing after cards a revealed is extremely powerful, and the modern card pool has enough threat reduction options that raising your threat is not the penalty it once was.

Pippin is still bad, but playable. I've for a mono spirit hobbit lineup that just quests past all the enemies in the staging area and does a pretty good job of it. He also pairs well with tactics Bilbo, letting you keep enemies in the staging area to kill.

Not going to bother to defend Brok, and the Orc- slayer can make a big impact, but probably costs one more resource than he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatty appears in 90 decks in ringsdb, Bombur in 81, SpPippin in 60. It is a fierce competition!

LoGlorfindel appears in 252 decks, less than Brok! Who appears in 296. Fore core set cards, this is a veeeedy low count. As a benchmark for comparison, Power in the Earth (core set), appears in 166 decks.

But hey! I agree, they are playable cards, just very bad ones given the current card pool, and they don‚Äôt recieve an errata. Notice that this¬†argument is not that different¬†from that that makes¬†cards to recieve an errata ‚Äúthis card is too powerful given the current card pool‚ÄĚ.

Share this post


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

OK I have to object to this. While some cards may be rather dependent on the card pool you have available, that's the case whatever their errata status, so let's disregard that for the moment. The only errata'd card I might consider underpowered following its errata is Master of Lore, and even then not 'vastly' so. This is the thing that annoys me most when people start complaining about errata - a lot of the time they seem to only consider the card in relation to its pre-errata state rather than to other cards in the pool, the actually reasonable means of assessing whether something is over- or underpowered. Which again, they're not underpowered, certainly not vastly so.

To me, if I would previously have used a card and now I will literally never include it in a deck, it has been nerfed too hard and saying it is now ‚Äúvastly underpowered‚ÄĚ seems reasonable (if not the specific words I would use). Master of Lore, Horn of Gondor, Hama, all fit into this category.

It’s different with the likes of Caldara and Boromir who had their power level reduced but are still very playable (they’re actually still powerful cards imo which shows the errata was probably needed). 

HoG specifically is such an iconic part of the books and (now) such a bad card. I never even include it in mono-tactics decks. And that makes me a bit sad. 

Share this post


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

As soon as you pay to keep Winged Guardian around, Horn of Gondor is not helping you and never did, so the errata changed nothing in that regard. If the Guardian is destroyed, you will still get the ressource. The only difference is, that you no longer get a ressource when you choose not to satisfy the forced effect, but in that case, why were you using the Guardian instead of a chump`? And Support of the Eagles even lets you use the Guardian like an attachment, so no extra cost for keeping him around at all.
Landroval is expensive, yes, but compared to Fate or Fortune, which costs the same with a similar effect, you also get a decent ally. I have already mentioned,ÔĽŅ

but some of you chose to ignore that part of my sentence completely. I can see a certain habit in these times, where quotes are cited without context to create a straw man.

While Radagast himself is expensive, he also provides 2 willpower, which in that card pool is worth about 2 - 3 ressources, particularly in tactics, where Eagles of the Misty Mountains are the best, when it comes to questing with 2 willpower. If you want more willpower, use a different sphere. So you are paying 2 - 3 ressources for his ability, which is reasonable.ÔĽŅ

So there is your answer: if you need more tactics ressources, include Mablung. This might not work in a progression deck, that is why he was developed. And what do you think would happen, if you could get even more ressources besides Mablung's response? Games need to be balanced. Of course you are free to add Steward of Gondor and some other cards to enable playing it into a tactics deck.

I assume, you mean mono tactics solo one-handed. In that case SoG and Song of Kings will give you many ressources. And while there is only one Horn in the core set, the rules allow up to three in a single deck, so proxying would be a solution. Just assume your Power in the Earth is a stand in for the Horn, or copy it, or buy additional core sets.

I would rather get additional compensation for sacrificing several allies in the same turn, than making many Rohan allies free in conjunction with Théoden or getting free ressources out of The Tree People. For example:

At the beginning of the planning phase you have three ressources, one silvan ally in hand and O Lórien and Horn of Gondor in play. Reduce the cost to play an ally by 1 with O Lórien, pay a ressource, play the one ally and trigger his enter play effect. Use The Tree People to bring the ally back to your hand, the Horn generates a ressource (back at 3) and search for an ally in the top five cards in your deck, bring it into play and trigger its enter play effect. Pay 2 ressources to bring the original ally back into play and trigger its effect again. Congratulation: You now have paid 2 ressources for 2 allies and 3 enter play effects (e.g. reduce your threat by 2 and draw an event card). Throw in a Galadhrim Weaver to shuffle The Tree People back into your deck and then tell me, whether this combo is overpowered. Even if the Horn exhausted, like you want it to, you could repeat this combo for a couple turns. And then, when you or another player have to chump block, you no longer get a refund.
So your proposal enables some crazy shenanigans, while shooting yourself into the foot.

And besides: Boromir also did not use his Horn because some elves played Ring around the Rosie.

1) You don't benefit from Horn of Gondor *when* you pay to retain a Winged Guardian after defense, but the resource you pay to retain a Winged Guardian could have been generated by Horn of Gondor.  For example, needing two defenses and lacking resources, you can let one Winged Guardian go and use that resource to retain the other -- or chump with a Vassal and pay the Winged Guardian with that.  And if you can't afford to keep a Winged Guardian, Horn of Gondor gets you an extra resource to help pay for a replacement next turn.

With the current Horn of Gondor, if you defend with Winged Guardian and intend to let it go (either because you're broke or trying to buff an Eagle of the Misty Mountain), you're actually hoping for a bad shadow to kill it outright.  I find that a bit peverse.

2) Yes, if you keep a Winged Guardian around just to use his 4 defense for Support of the Eagles, there's no additional cost -- but you need 5 resources to get that combo, and once you get Misty out (another 4 resources) you'll want that to be the buff target.  And you might need more defense than the Support of Eagles hero provides....

3) That Landroval is expensive (like other eagles) is the point of needing more resources.  Yes, Fortune or Fate is expensive too.  It's also a rarely-used sideboard card that was never popular outside of the brief heyday of pre-errata Caldara decks.

4) Yes, Radagast provides 2 willpower, and willpower doesn't come cheap in Tactics.  But as you point out, you don't use Tactics to provide willpower, so that hardly matters.  Radagast's role in an early Eagles deck was to help pay for Eagles, and to a lesser extent heal eagles (the two cheap Eagles are unhealable).  But with a 5 resource investment, he takes 5 turns to payoff, and that can be a hard sell.  In the solo-capable Gwaihir edition of the Stereotypical Eagles Deck, Radagast drops out completely.

5) What happens when you mix Horn of Gondor and Mablung?  That actually *is* the case in the Gwaihir edition (cost 5) of the Stereotypical Eagles Deck.  And you need all the help you can get, because the deck still has a lot of expensive cards.  Nor do I think it makes sense that a resource generator in Tactics should be nerfed just because another resource generator is subsequently introduced, especially when it's a hero -- heroes constrain deck design far more than cards in the deck.

Even with both generators, Eagles decks were among the least popular and least powerful archetypes in the modern card pool, though I think hero Radagast and his staff will give the trait a much-needed boost.

6) "Games need to be balanced".  In a cooperative game, neither decks nor cards *need* to be balanced, nor is it necessarily *desirable* that they be balanced.  Vilya decks are far more powerful than Eagles decks, and that's OK!  I've created and played a lot of Dori fellowships, nearly all of which would be more efficient if I subbed Beregond (either version) instead.  But that wouldn't make it more enjoyable to me, so I don't -- I specifically started the Dori fellowships because of his bad reputation as one of the worst heroes in the game.  Turns out he's actually fun and useful, just not in Beregond's class.  But that's NOT a reason to nerf Beregond!  It's not required that all hero defenders be "balanced", nor is it even desirable to do so.  It's not required that hero defense, ally defense, and chump defense be "balanced", nor (IMO) is it even desirable to do so.

7) Yes, I'm saying mono tactics isn't solo-viable until later in the history of the game (TaTheoden and *especially* TaEowyn).  That means that Tactics is either going to be in a deck with other spheres or at the table with other spheres.  Horn of Gondor was the only resource generation outside leadership for quite a while in the game's progression.  It's true that you can play Steward of Gondor without leadership with Song of Kings or (more likely) Good Harvest, but again there's no reason that the existence of one generator should make the other generator be nerfed, *especially* when in the common case SoG is much better -- not restricted, 2 resources per turn, grants Gondor, and can give you the resources when you usually need them, in the planning phase.

8 ) It's true that IF you are at the table with multiple chump-blocking players, Horn of Gondor is more powerful in its current state than if it had retained its original form (or even downgraded to discard) and exhausted.  But if your strategy isn't chump blocking, Horn of Gondor isn't going to be worth packing in its current form; the rare payoff isn't worth the deck space (and being Restricted doesn't help).

But if it exhausted, the common case would still be preserved while being totally unusable as part of an extreme card/resource loop.  And it could then be a reasonable resource generator from the beginning of the game, where resource generators are certainly needed.  Even if that generates a resource *every turn* in Silvan decks, so what?  One resource per turn from a unique, restricted item is not remotely game-breaking.  Nor is a single effectively free self-discarding 2-cost Rohan ally in a Rohan deck.  Silvan and Rohan decks aren't as powerful as Vilya decks, nor would they be if Horn of Gondor had a saner errata (most Silvan decks don't even use Tactics).

9) Boromir did not use his Horn because of disappearing Silvans.  But he also did not use it because one of his compatriats died.  He used it to *summon aid* and *intimidate the enemy*, both of which worked, just not quick enough to save him.  Rewarding players for characters *dying* (or disappearing) isn't actually a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor.  I also note that Boromir bore a long sword, a shield, *and* the Horn, so the Restricted is also not a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 3:33 PM, Amicus Draconis said:

I will answer your question marks as well as voice my opinion about some errata.

Thicket of Spears and Out of Sight used to be a multi-target Feint, they used to prevent all attacks from engaged enemies against any player. I wonder why Hobbit-sense has not gotten an errata yet as it also prevent enemies from attacking. Narvi's Belt could be used to generate Baggins ressources as rees263 already pointed out. Nori reduced your threat after a dwarf character entered play under your control. Combine this with Sneak Attack or A very good Tale und you got some crazy threat reduction. I am not familiar with the old combo of Master of Lore, so I cannot comment this card. Maybe you can explain it to me.

This was, I think, the first of the draw-your-deck combos.  It went like this:

Get Master of Lore, Legacy of Durin and Horn of Gondor in play.  Have Born Aloft in hand or top attachment in discard and Erebor Hammersmith in hand.

1) Master of Lore names allies, reducing allies cost to 1 (minimum of 1).

2) Play Erebor Hammersmith for 1 resource, draw a card, and get Born Aloft from discard if necessary.  Play Born Aloft on the Hammersmith.

3) Discard Born Aloft to return Hammersmith to hand, get your resource back.  Go back to step 2 (until your entire deck is drawn.)

Naturally, the designers in the wisdom broke the combo by nerfing poor Master of Lore, though he didn't make Hammersmith free.  They subsequently nerfed Horn of Gondor (adding exhaustion would've broken loop) after it showed up in another game-breaking loop -- though sadly, not by making it exhaust.  And now Legacy of Durin will be exhausting (which I prefer to the HoG fix) which at least preserves the common case.

Recursion and/or attachments that don't exhaust is at the heart of every extreme combo, both can be easily fixed while preserving the common case -- make the attachment exhaust (Love of Tales) or remove the event after playing (Will of the West).  I don't consider shadow protection an extreme combo, but if you do and consider it errata worthy making ABB exhaust is *certainly* the correct way to errata IMO.  (Adding the Restricted is just nerfing for the sake of nerfing, though.)

Share this post


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

You might have understood me wrong. This was an example of what Horn of Gondor would do in its old incarnation, which I am clearly against. Here is the preceding sentence, in case you skipped it:

Horn of Gondor basically would make the ressource cost of Silvan events negative 1. Together with O Lórien and the usual events this would result in a free ally every round and two other effects, one from the event and one from the ally.

The main objection to Horn of Gondor errata isn't that it was done *at all*, but that it changed and weakened the common case.  Changing Horn of Gondor to exhaust could have, and should have been done to fix the Master of Lore loop instead of picking on the master, (and as was done with the Love of Tales loop).  Horn of Gondor was in yet another loop before its errata IIRC, as was inevitable when it didn't exhaust.

But you're overstating the effect for Rohan and Silvan.  Theoden can't make "many Rohan allies free" with HoG because he can only discount one ally per turn.  With Gamling you could make Escort from Edoras free every turn, but everything else would have to be paid for, and Gamling + Horn for effectively a 4-wp quester isn't outrageous.

The original Horn can do well with Tree People, but O Lorien only discounts one card per turn, and once you play Tree People it's in the discard.  Playing a Weaver gets it back in your deck, not your hand.  Now with ElvenKing and Galion you could make money off the original Horn, but only one per turn because Elvenking exhausts.  I'll agree Silvan shenanigans had potential for serious resource generation with the original Horn of Gondor (though most Silvan decks didn't use Tactics), but that could've been easily fixed with exhaustion.

Share this post


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

9) Boromir did not use his Horn because of disappearing Silvans.  But he also did not use it because one of his compatriats died.  He used it to *summon aid* and *intimidate the enemy*, both of which worked, just not quick enough to save him.  Rewarding players for characters *dying* (or disappearing) isn't actually a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor.  I also note that Boromir bore a long sword, a shield, *and* the Horn, so the Restricted is also not a thematic fit for the actual Horn of Gondor.

That!

So, now that Erebor Battle Master has shown that a card can be errated twice (at least), may be we get a right version Horn of Gondor finally... :)

Share this post


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

OK I have to object to this. While some cards may be rather dependent on the card pool you have available, that's the case whatever their errata status, so let's disregard that for the moment. The only errata'd card I might consider underpowered following its errata is Master of Lore, and even then not 'vastly' so. This is the thing that annoys me most when people start complaining about errata - a lot of the time they seem to only consider the card in relation to its pre-errata state rather than to other cards in the pool, the actually reasonable means of assessing whether something is over- or underpowered. Which again, they're not underpowered, certainly not vastly so.

But I literally said: "And newer players that buy a new pack will have no choice but to play vastly underpowered versions of those cards"

For sure there are other cards out there, that are comparable to what the post errata cards are. But how many of the more senior players here had Boromir save their hides more than once by being able to ready more than a single time per phase? Or had the extra resources from Horn of Gondor to afford the key cards and pull off a win. Or just actually use Master of Lore in a deck? Hahaha. 

But seriously we are finishing a saga campaign right now and the two brand new players pairing up with my wife and I are using strong Dwarf decks with all of these recently errata-ed cards. And now my whole play group loses out on what was helping us scrape through with our limited card pool because people couldn't regulate their playing experience and FFG didn't want to create a restricted list for the rare competitive game nights that they have. 

These errated cards are vastly underpowered compared to their original incarnations. And in a competitive game I can see why there is a need for errata, in a cooperative game I can't. If you really wanted to break your game with the master of Lore loop then go on. Doesn't sound very fun to me. But it literally affects no one but the person playing it. Where errata-ing something every time a player finds a new combo is just silly to me as it only does the following:

-starts to complicate newer players getting into the game

-increase the difficulty for players like me that don't have the whole card pool to utilize on older scenerios that were balanced with those player cards

-add mental fatigue to keep track of changes to be playing "legit".

-take away strong combos for newer or less hardcore players that don't enjoy getting the floor wiped with their depowered heroes by Carn Dum and the like.

 

I think erratas are really just a lot of rubbish that don't have a place in a cooperative friendly game. At this rate are we going to rebalance every card in the game? I'm sure everyone can list off dozens of cards that could be toned down, so where does it stop? Vilya? Gandalf? Elrond? Warden of Healing? Steward of Gondor? Sword that was Broken? I could go on and on but the line must be drawn here! 

Nah we won't be following the errata anyways but it sure is annoying that people feel the need for errata because they can't regulate their own experience and the developers then have to create continuous errata.

Edited by GILLIES291

Share this post


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

FFG didn't want to create a restricted list for the rare competitive game nights that they have.

Such an easy fix that would end all this errata discussion and avoid this pro- vs against erratas factions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new errata incoming to Legacy of Durin and Erebor Battle Master at least preserve the common case; WANI changed functionality, imposing a cap would've been much friendlier.  Dwarf decks are the first power deck to come online in progression play, so nerfing its power level has disproportionate impact on new players (to the extent new players can play progression, always iffy given the reprint schedule).

Share this post


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

The new errata incoming to Legacy of Durin and Erebor Battle Master at least preserve the common case; WANI changed functionality, imposing a cap would've been much friendlier.  Dwarf decks are the first power deck to come online in progression play, so nerfing its power level has disproportionate impact on new players (to the extent new players can play progression, always iffy given the reprint schedule).

This reminds me of something I've been wondering: I did progression play myself when getting into the game, and loved it. And it still gets discussed quite a bit.

But how many people these days actually do it? Anecdotally in my area, at least, literally all the players who have an interest in the game (who do not have the entire pool) have a smattering of products spread out quite a bit in time, usually including the latest cycle, or sometimes a cycle like Dream-chaser that is slightly less recent but still relatively "modern".

Caleb has remarked several times about designing the player cards of Wilds and the Ered Mithrin cycle to be a good addition to the Core right away for new players. I wonder if he really thinks much about progression play at all; or whether he perceives that the state of reprints, the overwhelming size of the pool, etc. means that progression play is pretty unrealistic for the vast majority of players. His mental mode may be that people tend to buy more recent stuff, then backfill when they have the opportunity.

Or maybe I'm off base here. What do people think?

Share this post


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

This reminds me of something I've been wondering: I did progression play myself when getting into the game, and loved it. And it still gets discussed quite a bit.

But how many people these days actually do it? Anecdotally in my area, at least, literally all the players who have an interest in the game (who do not have the entire pool) have a smattering of products spread out quite a bit in time, usually including the latest cycle, or sometimes a cycle like Dream-chaser that is slightly less recent but still relatively "modern".

Caleb has remarked several times about designing the player cards of Wilds and the Ered Mithrin cycle to be a good addition to the Core right away for new players. I wonder if he really thinks much about progression play at all; or whether he perceives that the state of reprints, the overwhelming size of the pool, etc. means that progression play is pretty unrealistic for the vast majority of players. His mental mode may be that people tend to buy more recent stuff, then backfill when they have the opportunity.

Or maybe I'm off base here. What do people think?

I think you're probably right, although I'm speaking from assumptions rather than data. It's 3 or 4 years since I obtained the whole card pool and started buying expansions as they were released, but before that I would pick up packs almost completely based off of what could be got for a good bargain at the moment. I never had any interest in progression style, but even if I had I think that combination of availability + economics would have won out. And that was during a time of relative plenty in terms of reprints.

I was pleased on behalf of new players that the Wilds of Rhovanian had a thematic, formidable archetype right out of the box. I suspect Caleb is very sensitive to the fact that (from what I've seen) most stores, if they keep physical stock of the game at all, typically have the Core Set and at most one or two of the most recent releases. I doubt many newer players have progression play on their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 3:33 PM, Amicus Draconis said:

A Watchful peace allowed to bring a location back to the encounter deck that had victory points, potentially abusing some cards. Trained for War was changed so it could be used on quests that had key-words other than Siege like Dire or Defense. Blue Mountain Trader allowed free ressource trading between players (and heroes of different spheres) thus trivializing the planning phase. Imagine like A Good Harvest in ally form for all players.

Love of Tales is limited once per hero instead of restricted, but you surely meant that. Sure, you can no longer generate three ressourcs on a single hero when playing a song, most of which can be paid by any hero. I never tried this combo, so I cannot say, whether it was extreme or not.

[...]

WANI was a power nerf, but a needed one, as generating a dozen ressources with a single card (and potential readying with Lure of Moria) is just plain overpowered. Traffic from Dale is a similar card, but at least it is limited to once per round and having allies with attachments is more difficult to achieve than spamming dwarves.

H√°ma and Thicket of Spears just trivialized combat for a single player, as you no longer needed to defend non-immune enemies. You just engaged everything and let them rot. I cannot say whether this was the best way to nerf the situation but at least it no longer restricted Caleb in the invention of new tactics events. Not even spirit can play a single event for the rest of the game.

I am fine with errata to Legacy of Durin and Erebor Battle Master. Five attack for a single ally (with D√°in) is enough, I see no justification why a dwarf should be able to one-hit everything in the game. Granted you need some work to achieve such a power level, but it is not as if you had to exhaust all other dwarves to use his ability or something. The nerf to Legacy is similar to the one of Nori.

Burning Brand again is one of those cards trivializing the game, which I should be fine with nerfing, though I will have to adjust my deck-building and approach on shadow effects. I wonder why Elrond or Warden of Healing have not received an errata.

There must be some scenario-specific reason why Watchful Peace bringing back VP locations is problematic, because for the most part VP locations are obnoxious beasties you don't want to see again.  I took a brief look at VP locations and nothing jumped out of me.  Overall the errata preserves the common case, and it's a rarely used sideboard card in any case.

Did the original wording of Trained for War exclude keywords, making it a rare positive errata?

Blue Mountain Trader's errata was expected as soon as the card came out, and came in the form people expected, preserving a common case.  BMT didn't allow free redistribution between players (a maximum net transfer of one no matter how many exchanges were made), but within each player was equivalent of a solo Errand Rider that didn't exhaust.  I don't the effect was game-breaking (unlike Good Harvest, it couldn't be used to play a sphere you didn't have), and more importantly it required *cooperation* to work, so it could not affect anyone who didn't wish to be affected.  But all the same, the form of the errata was well done.  This was also a card that was errata-ed at the first opportunity after printing, I'm much more sympathetic to those ("Whoops, we didn't mean to do that") than to errata of long-standing cards--I think it's quite possible that the designers didn't realize its potential int he first place.

The key change for Love of Tales wasn't the 1 per hero (that's limiting, but since it's not unique you can still have multiple copies in play), but the exhaustion -- that nerfed the card/resource loop by restricting the resources.  Really, *any* attachment that generates resources and doesn't exhaust (or have a hard per round limit) is just waiting for the right combination to break the game.  This was not a surprise nerf, but the limit 1 per hero was not necessary after exhaustion was added.  Post-nerf it's returned to obscurity, though it at least is a reliable (and free) generator in a song-heavy deck.  It's a shame that the lesson about exhaustion wasn't followed for Horn of Gondor.

Original WANI in conjunction with Lure of Moria works out to a net resource gain if you have more than 3 dwarves, and are willing to burn the powerful Lure of Moria event (or can easily recur it).  WANI/Lure of Moria/Legacy of Durin could be used for a draw-your-deck loop, so some limitation on WANI and/or Legacy of Durin makes sense -- but aside from the novelty value, if you can make a massive amount of money because you have a massive amount of dwarves on the table, you *already* are in a winning place and are just doing "win more".  My grief against the WANI errata isn't that it was limited, but that it was *changed* to be a much less useful card -- the common case was not preserved.  Put "limit 3" on it instead and it can still be used to help you get five dwarves out quickly.

The original errata to Thicket of Spears shows clearly that the designers had no problem with Hama "trivializing combat" for a single player.  The larger problem is that thanks to Mablung and TaAragorn, Hama-deck could steal other players' enemies as well and trivialize combat for *multiple* player.  The problem with the errata is that it doesn't preserve the common case -- rather than focusing on preventing the recursion of powerful cards, it incents Hama to *only* recur powerful cards by giving him a per-game limit.  Sending Thicket of Spears to the victory pile, or turning a Hama-recurred cards into an attachment which is removed or bottom-decked after play would've limited recursion of *specific* cards while still allowing Hama to do what he was designed to do.  As it is, the nerf pretends that while Hama playing Thicket of Spears every turn cannot be born, even at the cost of using the only card drawn and all of the resources generated, playing Thicket of Spears nine times is just fine (3x + 3 Hama + 3 tome).  I don't think the design space opened by allowing nine plays (or more in combination with other cards) but not every turn actually exists.  Honestly, if there's an event that's problematic in *any* sphere to recur repeatedly, it needs to go to the victory display after playing.

Tactics Gimli takes issue with your claim that one dwarf should not be able to one-shot everything.  The nerf to EBM capping at five preserves the common case, but strikes me as unnecessary -- if you have an obscene number of dwarves to generate obscene EBM attack values, you probably don't *need* EBM for obscene attack values.  It's preventing a win-more that was fun, but pointless.  At least EBM's cap doesn't leave him inferior to a same-cost card, like poor Leaflock.  More concerning to me is that with the change to EBM *and* Legacy of Durin on the heels of the WANI nerf, there's the appearance of a concerted effort to nerf dwarf decks in particular, as if there weren't other archtypes just as powerful or even more powerful.  Since dwarf deck is the first power deck progression-style, this hits new progression players hardest and I don't see that as a good thing.

The most powerful archtype is Vilya, but I don't see nerfing Vilya as either necessary or desirable.  A limit could be reasonably placed on the number of times Warden of Healing could be used per turn without impacting the common case, but I don't think the efficient healing provided by Elrond/Warden is a problem that needs fixed.

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...