LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: Proposed Errata and Discussion  (Read 43983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 12, 2009, 02:38:41 PM
Reply #75

FingolfinFinwe

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 507
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2009, 02:38:41 PM »
lol to be more specific, Elven Armament's has been errata'd and no longer skips the archery phase:

Game Text: To play, bearer must not be bearing any possessions. Bearer must be an [Elven] companion. Bearer cannot bear any other possessions. While a unique companion bears this possession, the Free Peoples player may not use archery special abilities and the minion archery total is -1.

June 13, 2009, 01:51:18 PM
Reply #76

jdizzy001

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2009, 01:51:18 PM »
Yeah, I know, I just don't like erratas.  My crew and I play the cards at face value.  It really hurts sometimes, but that is the nature of the game.  Anyway, if FoA is errated, replacing the 2's with 1's is a real good idea.
*All posts made by jdizzy001, regardless of the thread in which they appear, are expressions of his own opinion and as such are not representative of views shared by any third party unless expressly acknowledged as such by said party.

I play LOTR SBG look at my minis!
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.124731667611081.33577.100002227457509&l=aeb5fa3bdd

June 18, 2009, 07:16:12 AM
Reply #77

Thranduil

  • *******
  • Information Offline
  • Wizard
  • Posts: 4996
    • Zalman's Dungeon (blog of SF stories by Thranduil)
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #77 on: June 18, 2009, 07:16:12 AM »
I'm obviously very late in on this discussion, but I thought I'd add my thoughts here.

FoA is already unusuable, no reason to ban.
I disagree. If a PC wants to make Virtual Cards, then at some point it is conceivable that they'll want to make an [Orc] minion that can possibly get the archer keyword. Once that happens, FoA is now playable and hence broken. You shouldn't limit the PC's creativity in this way: it's not good enough to say "Never make an [Orc] archer".

But anyway, isn't it a bit early for this sort of stuff? Do we have a PC yet, and isn't this the sort of thing that the PC is going to deal with?

Thranduil

June 18, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
Reply #78

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #78 on: June 18, 2009, 02:01:22 PM »
and here is another idea for a rule change:
once the shadow has initiative, the free peoples player cannot regain initiative until the end of the turn regardless of his hand.

Bad idea. Think of something like 2 Gorgoroth Stormer + 2 Gothmog's Warg.

If the idea really bothers someone then don't play followers.

I think part of the idea in proposing errata is to keep the game balanced and encourage a variety of deck styles. "If you don't like FoA, then don't play followers!" and "If you don't like Namarie, then don't play conditions!" are limiting to all of the possible decks that could be made.

You can't prevent choking, at least not to my knowledge.

There are ways to deal with each card that chokes in some way. Also, build your shadow with a variety of minions and strategies, not just high-cost ones.

You could apply the rule of 4 to every phase.  That would eliminate a lot of "overpowered" combos.

Naw, some Shadow strategies need to draw more than 4 per phase. :)

June 18, 2009, 05:28:00 PM
Reply #79

jdizzy001

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #79 on: June 18, 2009, 05:28:00 PM »
Well, your just full of retorts aren't you ;)
*All posts made by jdizzy001, regardless of the thread in which they appear, are expressions of his own opinion and as such are not representative of views shared by any third party unless expressly acknowledged as such by said party.

I play LOTR SBG look at my minis!
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.124731667611081.33577.100002227457509&l=aeb5fa3bdd

June 19, 2009, 11:41:24 PM
Reply #80

Mc Tono

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Scout
  • Posts: 92
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #80 on: June 19, 2009, 11:41:24 PM »
and here is another idea for a rule change:
once the shadow has initiative, the free peoples player cannot regain initiative until the end of the turn regardless of his hand.

Bad idea. Think of something like 2 Gorgoroth Stormer + 2 Gothmog's Warg.


Thinking about that makes me think of another errata, one that actualy allows 2 gothmog wargs to be played in one shadow fase  :lol:

June 20, 2009, 12:55:08 PM
Reply #81

Gerontius

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Horseman
  • Posts: 308
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #81 on: June 20, 2009, 12:55:08 PM »
I think part of the idea in proposing errata is to keep the game balanced and encourage a variety of deck styles. "If you don't like FoA, then don't play followers!" and "If you don't like Namarie, then don't play conditions!" are limiting to all of the possible decks that could be made.
I agree, but evidently it's already been done. "If you don't like Anduin Confluence in expanded, don't play allies!" Followers in the later sets were really powerful and needed something to damage them, but it shouldn't have been an event. A site should have been made with a similar effect.

June 20, 2009, 04:05:15 PM
Reply #82

jdizzy001

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #82 on: June 20, 2009, 04:05:15 PM »
That is a real good point.  A site would have been a great way to beat up on followers.  They did make a couple cards though albeit they weren't sites.  cards like all life flees.  That's a good follower killer.  I must admit, I like the concept behind followers.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 04:47:59 PM by jdizzy001 »
*All posts made by jdizzy001, regardless of the thread in which they appear, are expressions of his own opinion and as such are not representative of views shared by any third party unless expressly acknowledged as such by said party.

I play LOTR SBG look at my minis!
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.124731667611081.33577.100002227457509&l=aeb5fa3bdd

June 20, 2009, 06:04:16 PM
Reply #83

Kralik

  • Guest
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #83 on: June 20, 2009, 06:04:16 PM »
Thinking about that makes me think of another errata, one that actualy allows 2 gothmog wargs to be played in one shadow fase  :lol:
* Kralik bonks himself.

Ah, good point!

July 02, 2009, 01:45:22 PM
Reply #84

SomeRandomDude

  • ********
  • Information Offline
  • Maia
  • Posts: 7004
  • Most Likely To Usurp Kralik and Dáin
    • My Wordpress
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #84 on: July 02, 2009, 01:45:22 PM »
I think that if you must errata, having Frenzy of Arrows at 1 would be good.

I also think that we should make followers characters, that way, stuff like Crooked Townsman can help hold the Horn deck in check. Ya know, not as much, but every little bit helps. If you have some sorta Evil Man toolkit with the discard to play from discard pile minions, you can toss in a Crooked Townsman or 2 and make the freeps fight him every site.
NB- 4 year veteran of CC/TLHH

"It was like:
Kralik: "What hath God wrought"
NB: "I dunno, but I'm in ur house eating ur food.""
-Elessar's Socks

Trade List- ft. Aragorn, Defender of Rohan

July 02, 2009, 04:28:52 PM
Reply #85

jdizzy001

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1038
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #85 on: July 02, 2009, 04:28:52 PM »
However, if all of a sudden players can spot followers as characters, there will be a whole bunch of new issues that will need resolved.   
*All posts made by jdizzy001, regardless of the thread in which they appear, are expressions of his own opinion and as such are not representative of views shared by any third party unless expressly acknowledged as such by said party.

I play LOTR SBG look at my minis!
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.124731667611081.33577.100002227457509&l=aeb5fa3bdd

July 02, 2009, 10:34:04 PM
Reply #86

legolas3333

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • King
  • Posts: 2152
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #86 on: July 02, 2009, 10:34:04 PM »
I said this in another topic but I think the only thing that needs to happen is errata New Chapter to "Each time you play a follower heal a [Shire] companion" instead of any companion
A Promo Saved is a Promo Earned

July 30, 2009, 11:18:46 PM
Reply #87

Anautikus

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Ranger
  • Posts: 927
  • Life isn't a dress rehearsal.
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #87 on: July 30, 2009, 11:18:46 PM »
The Faithful Stone was errata'd to unique? (Yes, I am not up to date :()

Man, erratas are great for gameplay, but a pain to follow.
Yeah, I know, I just don't like erratas.  My crew and I play the cards at face value.  It really hurts sometimes, but that is the nature of the game.  Anyway, if FoA is errated, replacing the 2's with 1's is a real good idea.
I get you 110%
"Do yourself a favor; never try to send a grappling hook through the post office."



Trade List

July 30, 2009, 11:21:28 PM
Reply #88

MR. Lurtzy

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • King
  • Posts: 2745
  • Wouldn't it be nice if we were Hodor?
    • My website
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #88 on: July 30, 2009, 11:21:28 PM »
I believe the TFS errata was the addition to the end of the text, "Any Shadow player may remove (2) to prevent this."

July 30, 2009, 11:24:16 PM
Reply #89

Anautikus

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Ranger
  • Posts: 927
  • Life isn't a dress rehearsal.
Re: Proposed Errata and Discussion
« Reply #89 on: July 30, 2009, 11:24:16 PM »
Is it still "spot a man" or did it errata to [Gondor] specific?
"Do yourself a favor; never try to send a grappling hook through the post office."



Trade List