Scratch-pad for brainstorming ideas

[Tbiesty]

I just wanted to have a place (sort of a scratch-pad off to the side) to organize some ideas for now.
At this point, it's a brainstorming session to flush out ideas (included many that I've tried out in the past).
This would remove the need for any R-list or X-list for any of the set 1-10 formats.

If you have any thoughts, or other suggestions, feel free to chime in.

•Aggression                      
Condition • Support Area
While you have initiative, each Dwarf is
damage +1.
Fellowship: Spot a Dwarf and
discard this condition to draw a card.

•Aragorn, Heir to the White City
Companion • Man
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Signet: Frodo
Ranger.
Each time the fellowship moves during
the fellowship phase, you may exert
Aragorn to remove .

[3K] Base of Mindolluin
Sanctuary. Fellowship: If you cannot spot 2 threats, add a
threat to play a fortification from your draw deck (limit 2).

•Bill the Pony
Possession
Bearer must be Sam.
The Shadow number of each site is -1.
Discard Bill the Pony when at an
underground site.

•Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Ally • Home 3 • Elf
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
To play, spot Gandalf or an Elf.
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 3.
Fellowship: Exert Elrond twice to draw
a card.

•Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal
Ally • Home 1 • Hobbit
Strength: 1
Vitality: 2
Skirmish: Exert Filibert Bolger and
exert a Hobbit companion twice to
cancel a fierce skirmish involving that
Hobbit companion.

Flaming Brand
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Man.
If bearer is Aragorn, he may bear this
weapon in addition to 1 other hand
weapon, and he is strength +2 and
damage +1 while skirmishing a Nazgul.

Forces of Mordor
Event
Shadow: Spot X roaming minions
to add (limit ).

Frying Pan
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Hobbit.
Skirmish: If bearer is Sam, exert
him to wound a Orc he is skirmishing.

•Galadriel, Lady of Light
Ally • Home 6 • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 6.
Fellowship: Exert Galadriel to play an
Elf ally. Its twilight cost is -2.

•Horn of Boromir
Possession
Bearer must be Boromir.
Maneuver: Exert Boromir, discard this
possession, and spot an ally. Until the
regroup phase, that ally is strength +3
and participates in archery fire and
skirmishes.

•Memories of Darkness
Condition • Support Area
To play, spot a Dwarf.
Each time you lose initiative (except
during the fellowship phase), you may
play a condition from hand.

Mordor Fiend
Minion • Orc
Strength: 9
Vitality: 3
Site: 6
Shadow: If you cannot spot another
minion and there are 3 or fewer twilight
tokens, add (or if this minion is
roaming) (limit once per phase).

•No Stranger to the Shadows
Condition
Bearer must be a ranger.
Each site's Shadow number is -1.

•O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
Condition
Strength: +1
Tale. Bearer must be the Ring-bearer.
Skirmish: If the Ring-bearer is wearing
The One Ring, discard this condition to
take off The One Ring or cancel a
skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and
a Nazgul.

•Ottar, Man of Laketown
Ally • Home 3 • Man
Strength: 2
Vitality: 2
To play, spot Gandalf.
Fellowship: Exert Ottar and discard a
card from hand to draw a card.

Relics of Moria
Condition
Plays to your support area.
Shadow: Remove to play a
possession from your discard pile
(limit once per phase).

•Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Minion • Wizard
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Site: 4
Saruman may not take wounds during
the archery phase and may not be
assigned to a skirmish.
While you can spot 5 companions,
Uruk-hai are fierce.
Response: If an Uruk-hai is about to
take a wound, exert Saruman to prevent
that wound.

Savagery to Match Their Numbers
Event
Skirmish: Make an Uruk-hai strength
+2, or spot 5 companions to make an
Uruk-hai strength +4 and fierce until
the regroup phase.

•Sting
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +2
Bearer must be Frodo.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Frodo
to reveal 4 cards at random from an
opponent's hand. Remove for each
Orc revealed (limit ).

•The Palantir of Orthanc
Artifact • Palantir
To play, spot an minion. Plays to
your support area.
Shadow: Spot an minion and remove
to reveal a card at random from the
Free Peoples player's hand. Place that
card on top of that player's draw deck.

•Ulaire Nertea, Messenger of Dol Guldur
Minion • Nazgul
When you play Ulaire Nertea, you may
spot 5 companions and another Nazgul
to play a minion from your discard pile.

•Uruk Regular
Minion • Uruk-hai
Strength: 8
Vitality: 2
Site: 5
Damage +1.
Shadow: Exert this minion to play an
Uruk-hai; its twilight cost is -1 for each
other Uruk-hai you can spot.


Not "officially" banned in Movie, but worth considering an erratum:

•Galadriel, Lady Redeemed
Companion • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
To play, spot 3 Elves.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Galadriel
and discard an event from hand
to discard a Shadow condition or
Shadow possession.


Errata that would "cleanup" some abusive strategies/loops:

-Add (limit once per phase) to each of the "Each time you lose initiative" conditions.
-Change New Chapter to heal a Hobbit companion instead of any companion.


Errata that would make a card actually playable again:

-Change Frenzy of Arrows to spot an minion and only add 1 (instead of 2) to archery for given cases.

[Ringbearer]

Dont restrict cards. That is confusing and unneccesary.

[TelTura]

I just wanted to have a place (sort of a scratch-pad off to the side) to organize some ideas for now.
At this point, it's a brainstorming session to flush out ideas (included many that I've tried out in the past).

If you have any thoughts, or other suggestions, feel free to chime in.

Don't mind if I do.

Elrond, Lord of Rivendell  (restricted to 1 per deck; or errata:  exert twice to draw a card)

I think the errata is better.  I'm personally not a fan of limiting access to a card; if it's OP it's usually OP regardless of number (some obvious exceptions to the rule) and limiting how often you can access the OP'ness is kind of a kludge in my opinion.

Galadriel, Lady of Light  (errata:  exert to play Elven ally at -2)

Or even errata'd to "Exert Galadriel X times to play an Elf; that Elf's twilight cost is -X".  

Ottar, Man of Laketown  (restricted to 1 per deck; or errata:  while you can spot Elrond, Ottar cannot heal)

The solution is kind of awkward, perhaps "Ottar can only be healed by cards" would be better (although I don't even recall if there is such a thing for ally healing.  At any rate Elrond really is the reason he needs adjustment, but no need to specifically call him out on it).

No Stranger to the Shadows  (restricted to 1 per deck)

I'd prefer something like "If you choose to reconcile, if you can spot more companions than minions, discard this condition".

Savagery to Match Their Numbers  (restricted to 1 per deck)

Or perhaps "Skirmish: Make an Uruk-hai strength +2, or, if you can spot 5 companions, exert 2 Uruk-hai to make an Uruk-hai strength +4 and fierce until the regroup phase.

Relics of Moria  (restricted to 1 per deck)

Not sure what's wrong with this one, but if you need to restrict it, make it unique (thus causing clog with multiples in hand and forcing them to discard anyway) or increase the cost to , or both.

Ulaire Nertea, Messenger of Dol Guldur  (errata: when you play, if you can spot another minion,...)

Perfect.

Forces of Mordor  (restricted to 1 per deck)

perhaps errata'd to "Exert a orc and spot X Minions to remove X.  The Free Peoples player may discard a condition to prevent this."  I don't play as much expanded and I imagine that's what the limitation is for, since twilight flows easier in that format.

Sting  (errata:  reveal 4 cards at random from opponent's hand)

Or maybe "Exert bearer to reveal an opponent's hand.  You may exert bearer again to remove for every orc revealed."  Or is it the revealing itself that's being limited?  If that's the case than your solution is elegant.

Flaming Brand  (restricted to 1 per deck; or errata: bearer must be aragorn; or errata: cannot be borne with another hand weapon)

I posted in another thread: "Bearer must be a Man.  Limit one per bearer.  This weapon may be borne in addition to one other hand weapon.  Bearer is strength +1 when skirmishing a Nazgul (or if bearer is a Ranger, strength +2 and damage +1"  Alternatively, "Bearer must be a Ranger.  This weapon may be born in addition to one other hand weapon.  Response:If a skirmish involving a Nazgul is about to end, exert bearer and discard this possession to wound that Nazgul."

Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal  (good as is; or new rule: cannot cancel Ring-bearer's skirmishes at any site 9)

Or perhaps "Exert Filibert Bolger and exert a Hobbit Companion (except the Ring-bearer) twice to cancel a fierce skirmish involving that hobbit.

O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!  (good as is; or new rule: cannot cancel Ring-bearer's skirmishes at any site 9)

We could make it more like hobbit stealth "Skirmish: Discard this condition to take off the One Ring. Skirmish: At sites 1-5, discard this condition to cancel a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and a Nazgul.  At any other site, discard this condition to make bearer strength +3 if skirmishing a Nazgul"

Aragorn, Heir to the White City  (errata:  you may exert to remove 2)

Good.

Horn of Boromir  (errata: discard after using)

You got it right.  Put it in the cost, of course, but that will help avoid abuse a lot, I think.

Saruman, Keeper of Isengard  (errata:  while you can spot 5 companions, Uruk-hai are fierce; or errata: exert Saruman to make an Uruk-hai fierce until regroup)

I think maybe both your errata's should be mixed.  "If you can spot 5 companions, exert Saruman to make an Uruk-hai fierce until the regroup phase."

The Palantir of Orthanc  (errata: remove 3 instead of 1)

Or perhaps "Spot an minion and remove to reveal a card from the Free Peoples player's hand.  You may remove to place that card on top of the Free People's deck."

Bill the Pony  (restricted to 1 per deck; or errata: bearer must be Sam)

I think the errata is elegant.  Makes you wonder why they didn't do that in the first place; Sam's the only one that cared about the darn thing.  For additional flavor you could do "When Bill the Pony is discarded from play, exert Sam."

Frying Pan  (restricted to 1 per deck; or errata: bearer must be Sam)

or "Bearer must be a Ring-bound Hobbit", either way.

Uruk Regular  (restricted to 1 per deck)

or perhaps "Exert this minion and X Uruk-hai (except enduring Uruk-hai) to play an Uruk-hai minon; that minion's twilight cost is -X."

Steadfast Champion  (errata: may not be played during regroup phase)

and perhaps:
"Bearer must be Gandalf.  Each minion gains this ability: "Assignment: Assign this minion to Gandalf to make this minion strength +1 until the regroup phase."  At the start of the Regroup phase, you may discard this condition to discard a minion and heal an unbound companion 3 times"

Aggression  (restricted to 1 per deck)

Make it unique and turn the cost from spot to exert.  

Memories of Darkness  (errata:  limit once per turn; or errata: only can play condition from hand)

or maybe "Each time you lose initiative (except during the fellowship phase), you may play a condition from hand or exert a Dwarf to play a condition from your discard pile."

Galadriel, Lady Redeemed  (errata: exert twice and discard Elven event)

Good errata.  I would also decrease the twilight cost while in the starting fellowship to -2.

Mordor Fiend  (errata:  limit once per turn)

Or "exert this minion to..."

Gondorian Captain  (errata: limit once per turn)

Or "At the start of your fellowship phase..."




All in all, pretty good.  It'd be nice if this could be implemented and a testing realm be set up.

[TelTura]

Dont restrict cards. That is confusing and unneccesary.

And is, unfortunately, how a lot of the official rulings were made, but I agree with you.  If it's gonna be fixed, fix it all the way, don't do it half-assed.

[Ringbearer]

TO be honest I am fan of neither errata or restriction, as it creates a confusion with people who dont visit these boards. Also I dont think allowing these cards will seriously do anything to the meta. People will still play the same things, simply because its good.

The only thing that would spice up the format is creating complete new cards, but thats a whole new ballgame.

[Vroengard]

My playgroup plays the Cards as they are and just with our personal forbidden-list, for example:

Galadriel, Lady Redeemed


thats it, and we have own errata for example for Frenzy of Arrows, it spots an Orc and just adds +1 to the archery and +1 additional for every follower to spot. Thats pretty good but not broken as it was before.

[TelTura]

Errata and restriction are not really as important for smaller groups except for when you have that one #$&*@! that likes to take advantage of it.  However, in a bigger group like this, if there's an exploit that's just OP, it needs to be taken care of for the health of the community as a whole. 

If we were still on GCCG, I would agree with you two about minimizing changes, but in a format that is enforced like Gemp, I think it's a lot easier and intuitive.  The one thing I would like to be changed is to make it more obvious when a card is errata'd...the game, for being based on a visual medium such as cards, has a really unintuitive manner of looking at them.  Checking and combing each individual card on the table is the only way to do it, and while I have no problem with that, the current method is slow and clunky. 

At any rate, so long as it was done behind the scenes as transparently as possible, there shouldn't be much of a problem.  I might suggest putting red borders on an errata'd card, though, or something like that that could be toggled in the options menu.

[Tbiesty]

Made a couple more updates...

I might suggest putting red borders on an errata'd card...

I think that it be could be very useful, at least while things are being tested out; sort of a reminder to "pay attention to this".
I've tried out overlaying a red border on the actual card images and it works well.  Who knows, perhaps Gemp-Lotr itself could overlay a border over the image like you said (based on an option the user could toggle).  Neat idea.

[Ringbearer]

Lets make one thing sure beforehand: I seriously dont like erratas on cards, and I hope they will not be forced trough on GEmp, cause then I will quit, BUT I will give an honest review.

•Aggression                      
Condition • Support Area
While you have initiative, Gimli is
damage +1.
Fellowship: Spot a Dwarf who is
damage +X to draw X cards. Discard this
condition.

I find this card tackled on the wrong way. The banhammer was a result of the extreme card draws. The card drawing is the problem, not the damage +x bonus. There are enough ways already to make a dwarf damage +4 easily, so its still a 4 card drawing that can be played 4-of.

•Aragorn, Heir to the White City
Companion • Man
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Signet: Frodo
Ranger.
Each time the fellowship moves during
the fellowship phase, you may exert
Aragorn to remove .

This might work, its still playable but how much compared to a ranger of the north I dont know. There is enough healing in the block to make it work, and a choked fellowship simply wont face much.

•Bill the Pony
Possession
Bearer must be Sam.
The Shadow number of each site is -1.
Discard Bill the Pony when at an
underground site.

Actually a simple but elegant solution.

•Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Ally • Home 3 • Elf
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
To play, spot Gandalf or an Elf.
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 3.
Fellowship: Exert Elrond twice to draw
a card.

Hmmm. I think the card is still playable, but borderline. It depends ont he healing, and a shoulder fire package can still very much abuse the card drawing, but its more situational.

•Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal
Ally • Home 1 • Hobbit
Strength: 1
Vitality: 2
Skirmish: Exert Filibert Bolger and
exert a Hobbit companion twice to
cancel a fierce skirmish involving that
Hobbit companion.

Might be still too strong for hobbit decks in FOTR block. They have enough helaing for allies as it is.

•Flaming Brand
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Man.
This weapon may be borne in addition
to 1 other hand weapon.
Bearer is strength +2 and damage +1
while skirmishing a Nazgul.

Not sure if it is strong enough to restrict its play on the table. I still find it a very powerful card that effective shuts down a lot of strategies.

Forces of Mordor
Event
Shadow: Spot X roaming minions
to add .

Still ridiculously good with roaming orc strategy. I would tackle it in another way, probably with a cap to twilight addition.

Frying Pan
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Hobbit.
Skirmish: Exert bearer to wound a
Orc he or she is skirmishing.

Exactly the errata it doesnt need. It was banned cause it cancels out the entire moria block. Other orcs suffer much less from it compared to Moria.

•Galadriel, Lady of Light
Ally • Home 6 • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 6.
Fellowship: Exert Galadriel to play an
Elf ally. Its twilight cost is -2.

Still ridiculously good, cause all the other elven allies cost 2. The problem didnt lie in the playing companions, its the huge healing factor.

•Galadriel, Lady Redeemed
Companion • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
When Galadriel is in your starting
fellowship, her twilight cost is -3.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Galadriel
twice and discard an event from
hand to discard a Shadow condition or
Shadow possession.

She is seriously neutered into implayability. Exert once could have been enough.

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Discard a fortification to
remove a threat (limit once per turn).

I would rather cap the Base of Mindolluin to twice per turn then this guy. He was already unplayable, and it didnt get any better.

•Horn of Boromir
Possession
Bearer must be Boromir.
Maneuver: Exert Boromir, discard this
possession, and spot an ally. Until the
regroup phase, that ally is strength +3
and participates in archery fire and
skirmishes.

I think an elegant solution. People can still play 4, but the effect is much less.

•Memories of Darkness
Condition • Support Area
To play, spot a Dwarf.
Each time you lose initiative (except
during the fellowship phase), you may
play a condition from hand.

Its probably unplayable, but I dont see a decent way to solve it either.

Mordor Fiend
Minion • Orc
Strength: 9
Vitality: 3
Site: 6
Shadow: If you cannot spot another
minion and there are 3 or fewer twilight
tokens, add (or if this minion is
roaming) (limit once per phase).

Its now even worse than a goblin runner. Its unplayable.

•No Stranger to the Shadows
Condition
Bearer must be a ranger.
Each site's Shadow number is -1.

A solution that probably will work, unsure tho if people will still play it.

•O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
Condition
Strength: +1
Tale. Bearer must be the Ring-bearer.
Skirmish: If the Ring-bearer is wearing
The One Ring, discard this condition to
take off The One Ring or cancel a
skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and
a Nazgul.

This card creates an oxymoron in movie, as ringbearers skirmishes cannot be cancelled. Also, in fellowship the ring putting on is a response to a wound, in which you cannot cancel annymore. It might have a niche use in Towers Standard but as a whole: unplayable.

•Ottar, Man of Laketown
Ally • Home 3 • Man
Strength: 2
Vitality: 2
To play, spot Gandalf.
Fellowship: Exert Ottar and discard up
to 3 cards from hand to draw a card.

Unplayable. Not worth the slot in any deck that I can think of.

Relics of Moria
Condition
Plays to your support area.
Shadow: Remove to play a
possession from your discard pile
(limit once per phase).

Might be a good solution, tho i dont know for sure.

•Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Minion • Wizard
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Site: 4
Saruman may not take wounds during
the archery phase and may not be
assigned to a skirmish.
While you can spot 5 companions,
Uruk-hai are fierce.
Response: If an Uruk-hai is about to
take a wound, exert Saruman to prevent
that wound.

A nice solution, tho it creates a problem when there is a fierce skirmish and someone dies. I would reword it to: shadow Spot 5 companies to make each uruk fierce until the regroup phase.

[skirmish] Savagery to Match Their Numbers
Event
Skirmish: Make an Uruk-hai strength
+2, or spot 5 companions to make an
Uruk-hai strength +4 and fierce until
the regroup phase.

Upping the cost doesnt really work if all uruk players play sarumans ambition.

•Sting
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +2
Bearer must be Frodo.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Frodo to
reveal 4 cards at random from an
opponent's hand. Remove for each
Orc revealed (limit ).

Still too good. The probelm with sting was that its always playable, and hobbit vitality usually isnt an issue.

•The Palantir of Orthanc
Artifact • Palantir
To play, spot an minion. Plays to
your support area.
Shadow: Spot an minion and remove
to reveal a card at random from the
Free Peoples player's hand. Place that
card on top of that player's draw deck.

A difficult card to errata but in this way its rendered unplayable. 2 probably would have been enough.

•Ulaire Nertea, Messenger of Dol Guldur
Minion • Nazgul
When you play Ulaire Nertea, if you can
spot another Nazgul, you may play 1
minion from your discard pile for each
companion over 4.

Unsure if this is enough as swarm decks can still find a way to incorporate a second nazgul if needed.

•Uruk Regular
Minion • Uruk-hai
Strength: 8
Vitality: 2
Site: 5
Damage +1.
Shadow: Exert this minion to play an
Uruk-hai; its twilight cost is -1 for each
other Uruk-hai you can spot.

I dont think this card needs such an errata. Outside towers standard the card is fine as it is, and with the deep of helm its still ridiculous.


IN short, some erratas are nice, but there are enough erratas that make a card unplayable, in which I wouldnt errata is cause people wont play it anyways.

[Tbiesty]

Lets make one thing sure beforehand: I seriously dont like erratas on cards, and I hope they will not be forced trough on GEmp, cause then I will quit, BUT I will give an honest review.

Thanks for the review.  I seriously doubt you would quit.  But if you do, GCCG is still there (and forever unchanging) for your use.

•Aggression                      
Condition • Support Area
While you have initiative, Gimli is
damage +1.
Fellowship: Spot a Dwarf who is
damage +X to draw X cards. Discard this
condition.

I find this card tackled on the wrong way. The banhammer was a result of the extreme card draws. The card drawing is the problem, not the damage +x bonus. There are enough ways already to make a dwarf damage +4 easily, so its still a 4 card drawing that can be played 4-of.

Good point. Just what I needed to know.  Updated to limit card drawing instead...

•Aragorn, Heir to the White City
Companion • Man
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Signet: Frodo
Ranger.
Each time the fellowship moves during
the fellowship phase, you may exert
Aragorn to remove .

This might work, its still playable but how much compared to a ranger of the north I dont know. There is enough healing in the block to make it work, and a choked fellowship simply wont face much.

Good. Then this is likely a good balance.

•Bill the Pony
Possession
Bearer must be Sam.
The Shadow number of each site is -1.
Discard Bill the Pony when at an
underground site.

Actually a simple but elegant solution.

Great!

•Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Ally • Home 3 • Elf
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
To play, spot Gandalf or an Elf.
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 3.
Fellowship: Exert Elrond twice to draw
a card.

Hmmm. I think the card is still playable, but borderline. It depends ont he healing, and a shoulder fire package can still very much abuse the card drawing, but its more situational.

Good. Then this is likely a good balance.

•Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal
Ally • Home 1 • Hobbit
Strength: 1
Vitality: 2
Skirmish: Exert Filibert Bolger and
exert a Hobbit companion twice to
cancel a fierce skirmish involving that
Hobbit companion.

Might be still too strong for hobbit decks in FOTR block. They have enough helaing for allies as it is.

Good.  I'm not out to affect FOTR block too much, but still keeping things in check.

•Flaming Brand
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Man.
This weapon may be borne in addition
to 1 other hand weapon.
Bearer is strength +2 and damage +1
while skirmishing a Nazgul.

Not sure if it is strong enough to restrict its play on the table. I still find it a very powerful card that effective shuts down a lot of strategies.

Good.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

Forces of Mordor
Event
Shadow: Spot X roaming minions
to add .

Still ridiculously good with roaming orc strategy. I would tackle it in another way, probably with a cap to twilight addition.

Good point.  Updated to add cap to twilight...

•Frying Pan
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Hobbit.
Skirmish: Exert bearer to wound a
Orc he or she is skirmishing.

Exactly the errata it doesnt need. It was banned cause it cancels out the entire moria block. Other orcs suffer much less from it compared to Moria.

This card was intended to counter moria, but they made it too general.  Updated to unique...

•Galadriel, Lady of Light
Ally • Home 6 • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
At the start of each of your turns, heal
every ally whose home is site 6.
Fellowship: Exert Galadriel to play an
Elf ally. Its twilight cost is -2.

Still ridiculously good, cause all the other elven allies cost 2. The problem didnt lie in the playing companions, its the huge healing factor.

Good.  I'm not out to affect FOTR block too much, but still keeping things in check.

•Galadriel, Lady Redeemed
Companion • Elf
Strength: 3
Vitality: 3
When Galadriel is in your starting
fellowship, her twilight cost is -3.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Galadriel
twice and discard an event from
hand to discard a Shadow condition or
Shadow possession.

She is seriously neutered into implayability. Exert once could have been enough.

With the healing available, and as useful as she is, I think two exertions is best.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Discard a fortification to
remove a threat (limit once per turn).

I would rather cap the Base of Mindolluin to twice per turn then this guy. He was already unplayable, and it didnt get any better.

The point wasn't to make a weak card way better.  If he's no good, you don't have to use him.  But now you at least have the choice.

•Horn of Boromir
Possession
Bearer must be Boromir.
Maneuver: Exert Boromir, discard this
possession, and spot an ally. Until the
regroup phase, that ally is strength +3
and participates in archery fire and
skirmishes.

I think an elegant solution. People can still play 4, but the effect is much less.

Good.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Memories of Darkness
Condition • Support Area
To play, spot a Dwarf.
Each time you lose initiative (except
during the fellowship phase), you may
play a condition from hand.

Its probably unplayable, but I dont see a decent way to solve it either.

The ability to still play conditions like Dark Ways from hand (after you moved) can still be useful.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

Mordor Fiend
Minion • Orc
Strength: 9
Vitality: 3
Site: 6
Shadow: If you cannot spot another
minion and there are 3 or fewer twilight
tokens, add (or if this minion is
roaming) (limit once per phase).

Its now even worse than a goblin runner. Its unplayable.

Now he works the way he was intended.  (Goblin runner is great, so worse than that is still useful in some situations).

•No Stranger to the Shadows
Condition
Bearer must be a ranger.
Each site's Shadow number is -1.

A solution that probably will work, unsure tho if people will still play it.

Good.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
Condition
Strength: +1
Tale. Bearer must be the Ring-bearer.
Skirmish: If the Ring-bearer is wearing
The One Ring, discard this condition to
take off The One Ring or cancel a
skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and
a Nazgul.

This card creates an oxymoron in movie, as ringbearers skirmishes cannot be cancelled. Also, in fellowship the ring putting on is a response to a wound, in which you cannot cancel annymore. It might have a niche use in Towers Standard but as a whole: unplayable.

The format rules ultimately determine whether or not the Ring-bearer's skirmish can be cancelled, so no issue there.  In FOTR, the Ring-bearer can still put on the ring when about to take a wound during a regular skirmish, then use this condition to cancel a fierce skirmish.  At least now he generally will have to fight at least once to get the ring on.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Ottar, Man of Laketown
Ally • Home 3 • Man
Strength: 2
Vitality: 2
To play, spot Gandalf.
Fellowship: Exert Ottar and discard up
to 3 cards from hand to draw a card.

Unplayable. Not worth the slot in any deck that I can think of.

With healing I think he is still usable.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

Relics of Moria
Condition
Plays to your support area.
Shadow: Remove to play a
possession from your discard pile
(limit once per phase).

Might be a good solution, tho i dont know for sure.

Good.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Minion • Wizard
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Site: 4
Saruman may not take wounds during
the archery phase and may not be
assigned to a skirmish.
While you can spot 5 companions,
Uruk-hai are fierce.
Response: If an Uruk-hai is about to
take a wound, exert Saruman to prevent
that wound.

A nice solution, tho it creates a problem when there is a fierce skirmish and someone dies. I would reword it to: shadow Spot 5 companies to make each uruk fierce until the regroup phase.

No issue there. If the fierce minion has been assigned prior to someone dying, the fierce skirmish still takes place.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

Savagery to Match Their Numbers
Event
Skirmish: Make an Uruk-hai strength
+2, or spot 5 companions to make an
Uruk-hai strength +4 and fierce until
the regroup phase.

Upping the cost doesnt really work if all uruk players play sarumans ambition.

Updated cost to 2, but 1 may still be good enough. We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Sting
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +2
Bearer must be Frodo.
Fellowship or Regroup: Exert Frodo to
reveal 4 cards at random from an
opponent's hand. Remove for each
Orc revealed (limit ).

Still too good. The probelm with sting was that its always playable, and hobbit vitality usually isnt an issue.

Updated to 3 cards.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•The Palantir of Orthanc
Artifact • Palantir
To play, spot an minion. Plays to
your support area.
Shadow: Spot an minion and remove
to reveal a card at random from the
Free Peoples player's hand. Place that
card on top of that player's draw deck.

A difficult card to errata but in this way its rendered unplayable. 2 probably would have been enough.

I want to keep it on par with Alive and Unspoiled.  It still needs to not be too easy to make opponent lose initiative.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Ulaire Nertea, Messenger of Dol Guldur
Minion • Nazgul
When you play Ulaire Nertea, if you can
spot another Nazgul, you may play 1
minion from your discard pile for each
companion over 4.

Unsure if this is enough as swarm decks can still find a way to incorporate a second nazgul if needed.

Good.  We'll see if this is the right balance.

•Uruk Regular
Minion • Uruk-hai
Strength: 8
Vitality: 2
Site: 5
Damage +1.
Shadow: Exert this minion to play an
Uruk-hai; its twilight cost is -1 for each
other Uruk-hai you can spot.

I dont think this card needs such an errata. Outside towers standard the card is fine as it is, and with the deep of helm its still ridiculous.

Having this unique lessens the usefulness of having 4 of these in hand with Deep of Helm.  We'll see if this is the right balance.


Ultimately, to find the right balance, games (and specifically, lots of games) need to be played where players can give feedback.
This hopefully offers a solid starting point.

[tanzhamster]

I think Savagery to Match Their Numbers could be: make an Uruk +2 or if you can spot 5 companions make it +4 OR fierce until the regroup.

Saruman, Keeper of Isengard maybe should loose his wound preventing and get exert saruman to make an uruk fierce until the regroup.

Maybe Lady Redeemed should loose her -3 in the starting and get to spot 3 elf companions to play her, because she still will destroy to many strategies.

Sting could get: exert frodo twice to... so it's not usable each fellowship AND regroup

Lady of light maybe should get: at the start of your fellowship heal another ally whose home site is 6

Lord rivendell maybe should be able to heal himself.

[Tbiesty]

Maybe Lady Redeemed should loose her -3 in the starting and get to spot 3 elf companions to play her, because she still will destroy to many strategies.

Good point about not being able to start with her.  Updated...

[Not a Zombie]

I think Lady Redeemed could get away with just one exertion, especially since you can't start her now. Any idea when the league will start to test these bad  boys?

[Vroengard]

How about... just dont play her? Its quite easy actually. Try it out, you'll be amazed afterwards.

[Tbiesty]

I think Lady Redeemed could get away with just one exertion, especially since you can't start her now. Any idea when the league will start to test these bad  boys?

True. Removing the ability to start with her may be enough to avoid her causing too much damage before a Shadow side can get set up at all.  Ok, we'll start with one exertion.

As far as when a league could start, that'd be up to MarcinS.

I have the updated card images all ready to go at a moment's notice, so it would mainly require him to create a new "test version" of a card and make that version available to that league.

My preference would be to keep gathering other options and suggestions for another week or so.  I'm trying to be as true to the original card as possible while removing the OP and NPE stuff, getting as much input as I can before continuing.  After that, an announcement could be put on the Gemp-Lotr page to let players know about the upcoming league (at least a couple weeks before it starts).

Probably start with a FOTR league, after that do a TS league, and finally a Movie league.  After that, there should be sufficient gameplay to gather a lot of good feedback.

Perhaps put a post over at this topic, or send a message to MarcinS, and let him know if you are interested.

Thanks!

[Not a Zombie]

How about... just dont play her? Its quite easy actually. Try it out, you'll be amazed afterwards.

I'll drink to that!

[MarcinS]

Due to card borders being used by the Gemp-LotR itself, to mark that card is selectable/playable at certain times, but also to hide the white corners of card, I suggest to mark them with a red wide semi-opaque line in right-bottom corner. See the example.
I can even do this automatically in the browser, without having to modify the card image itself.

[Vroengard]

guys, make a re-errata for frenzy of arrows, I think my idea and of my friends is pretty good. What they did there doesnt even need a comment or should even be called ''errata''.

Keeping the original text and just reducing the numbers from 2 to 1 is pretty dope I think.
(As well as maybe including a Limit: 3 line)

[TelTura]

I can even do this automatically in the browser, without having to modify the card image itself.

This was precisely how I figured it would be done; dynamically and without additional card images.  The test image you showed is a good alternative to the border; that works for me.

guys, make a re-errata for frenzy of arrows, I think my idea and of my friends is pretty good. What they did there doesnt even need a comment or should even be called ''errata''.

It changed from " minion" to " archer minion" which is actually a substantial change; it means the card changed from a splash that any player who has an minion in their deck can use, to a more limited subset of people working archers.  Nonetheless, you're right in the sense that the card is OP in spite of the errata.

[Vroengard]

I can even do this automatically in the browser, without having to modify the card image itself.

This was precisely how I figured it would be done; dynamically and without additional card images.  The test image you showed is a good alternative to the border; that works for me.

guys, make a re-errata for frenzy of arrows, I think my idea and of my friends is pretty good. What they did there doesnt even need a comment or should even be called ''errata''.

It changed from " minion" to " archer minion" which is actually a substantial change; it means the card changed from a splash that any player who has an minion in their deck can use, to a more limited subset of people working archers.  Nonetheless, you're right in the sense that the card is OP in spite of the errata.

You are aware of the fact that there is no ORC archer right? lol....Thats why I said ''errata''  

Jokes aside, the guy who made that change just destroyed a good card, thats it. So its up to us to make a WORKING errata. Productive replies are welcome.

[TelTura]

Ha, alright, you got me.  I mostly do Fellowship and Movie and stick to Nazguls when I do Expanded, so I haven't perused the selection.  In spite of that the OPness stands, and you're right, if there are no archers then the guy in charge had his head up his #$&*@!.

[Thranduil]

•Aggression                      
Condition • Support Area
While you have initiative, each Dwarf is
damage +1.
Fellowship: Spot a Dwarf and
discard this condition to draw a card.

Know that this is still incredibly powerful. Not completely broken as it was, but nonetheless powerful. Also, if you are printing errata slips for these cards, will they be able to give cards uniqueness? If not, my suggestion would be that it loses the fellowship ability altogether.

•Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal
Ally • Home 1 • Hobbit
Strength: 1
Vitality: 2
Skirmish: Exert Filibert Bolger and
exert a Hobbit companion twice to
cancel a fierce skirmish involving that
Hobbit companion.

Exerting Filbert Bolger has solved the problem: it no longer needs to exert the Hobbit companion twice. Once would be more than enough to make it a decent and not overpowered card.

•Flaming Brand
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Man.
This weapon may be borne in addition
to 1 other hand weapon.
Bearer is strength +2 and damage +1
while skirmishing a Nazgul.

I don't see how this has been made much worse. Was it really just too good for companions? That seems unlikely to me. My fix would be lose either the strength and damage bonus for fighting Nazgûl or the fact it can be borne as a second weapon.

Forces of Mordor
Event
Shadow: Spot X roaming minions
to add (limit ).

The limit has solved this card—it doesn't need the roaming restriction as well. In fact, the same card with the roaming restriction and no limit is really intriguing and might also not be overpowered.

•Frying Pan
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Hobbit.
Skirmish: Exert bearer to wound a
Orc he or she is skirmishing.

Don't see how this has solved the problem. Admittedly, it now makes the card much more narrowly good, but still against this is just a blowout (how many Orcs have 1 vitality, for instance?). I think it should exert twice or, perhaps, lose the skirmish ability altogether.

•Memories of Darkness
Condition • Support Area
To play, spot a Dwarf.
Each time you lose initiative (except
during the fellowship phase), you may
play a condition from hand.

I feel that, in order to keep the spirit of the original, it should return conditions from your discard pile to your hand.

•Ottar, Man of Laketown
Ally • Home 3 • Man
Strength: 2
Vitality: 2
To play, spot Gandalf.
Fellowship: Exert Ottar and discard up
to 3 cards from hand to draw a card.

I understand what you've done here, but now the card just feels completely wrong—all the symmetry has been broken. I would suggest "Fellowship: Exert Ottar and discard a card from hand to draw a card."

•Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Minion • Wizard
Strength: 8
Vitality: 4
Site: 4
Saruman may not take wounds during
the archery phase and may not be
assigned to a skirmish.
While you can spot 5 companions,
Uruk-hai are fierce.
Response: If an Uruk-hai is about to
take a wound, exert Saruman to prevent
that wound.

Is 5 companions enough to keep this card in check? I might go with 6: if they're on 6 companions, they deserve to have to face something as obscenely powerful.

Overall, pretty nice. Some elegant solutions to some of the problems.

Thran

[TelTura]

Also, if you are printing errata slips for these cards, will they be able to give cards uniqueness?

This would mostly be concerned with Gemp-lotr, so actually setting up how these errata would be used IRL seems to be out of scope for the project.  It's downright trivial to do it in the enforced online environment, however.

[Tbiesty]

Updated Frying Pan and Ottar, Man of Laketown.

[TelTura]

•Flaming Brand
Possession • Hand Weapon
Strength: +1
Bearer must be a Man.
This weapon may be borne in addition
to 1 other hand weapon.
Bearer is strength +2 and damage +1
while skirmishing a Nazgul.

I don't see how this has been made much worse. Was it really just too good for companions? That seems unlikely to me. My fix would be lose either the strength and damage bonus for fighting Nazgûl or the fact it can be borne as a second weapon.

Actually, I heard talk that the lack of cultural enforcement was in fact a problem.  Eomer with dual Flaming Brand was apparently troublesome, not to mention inadvertent hilarity with Strange-looking Men putting it on Shadow minions.  What do you think of my proposals?   "Bearer must be a  Man.  Limit one per bearer.  This weapon may be borne in addition to one other hand weapon.  Bearer is strength +1 when skirmishing a Nazgul (or if bearer is a Ranger, strength +2 and damage +1"  Alternatively, "Bearer must be a Ranger.  This weapon may be born in addition to one other hand weapon.  Response:If a skirmish involving a Nazgul is about to end, exert bearer and discard this possession to wound that Nazgul."

Updated Frying Pan and Ottar, Man of Laketown.

  The restriction is quite counterproductive; as pointed out it's the only culture that suffers anyway, enforcing that weakness doesn't do any good.  The Sam-only exertion is nice, I think

[Tbiesty]

Updated Flaming Brand.

[mikefrench]

the problem with the vast majority of the banned cards in lotr was NOT costing.  you can't just slap a cost on some mechanics and hope they'll be balanced.  the problem with the banned cards in lotr was that many of them did things that the game fundamentally should not do.

things that permanents should not do:

remove twilight (httwc)
reduce the twilight number of sites (bill the pony, no stranger)
look at opponent's hand (sting)
play cards for free

so anything that does any of the above things simply will not work.  httwc cannot work in lotr.  period.  there are plenty of other aragorns, why does anyone need access to httwc?  play fotr block if you want to play him.

many of the banned cards are fine if some other cards remain banned.  for instance, ottar does not need to be banned if elrond remains banned.  he never needed to be banned, if they had simply banned elrond.  he would've transitioned from a broken card to a very powerful card that would've given people reason to play more tower assassins.

and in my opinion, savagery never needed to be banned.  it was a fine card.  it would be a fine card in any legal format, fellowship block, towers standard, or movie block.  it would instantly become a very strong card, but it would not remove all reason to play anything BUT uruks, which saruman KOI did in fellowship block.

[TelTura]

I find it interesting that everything that you point out that should not be done are done from the very beginning of the game.

Perhaps what we ought to do is start with a completely wiped slate and first test for a while with absolutely no errata or restrictions or bannings, and go from there.  It's quite possible that current strats have out-stratted the old restrictions anyway (this happened in the Star Trek CCG when they waited long enough), and if things become a problem, then address them.  It's possible we're looking at things with too much theory and not enough practice.

[MarcinS]

I don't think the problem with Sting is looking at opponent's hand. I think it's once again the problem you have mentioned - removing twilight.

[tanzhamster]

marcin, maybe it would be better to mark the cards in the upper left corner because there are some cards which have to be equiped and a mark on the right wouldn't be visible then.

[TelTura]

marcin, maybe it would be better to mark the cards in the upper left corner because there are some cards which have to be equiped and a mark on the right wouldn't be visible then.

Excellent point.  Right through the twilight icon.

[Tbiesty]

marcin, maybe it would be better to mark the cards in the upper left corner because there are some cards which have to be equiped and a mark on the right wouldn't be visible then.

Excellent point.  Right through the twilight icon.

Sounds good.

A couple more minor updates made.  Getting very close now I think.

I'm feeling pretty good about how far we've come. Nice job guys!

[Zurcamos]

Actually, I heard talk that the lack of cultural enforcement was in fact a problem.

What they said is, "This card has no cultural enforcement, may be played in addition to another weapon, and has no cost. The resulting combination provides too much utility."  Three issues, not one (also: only two characters could use it while it was legal).  For the card to be balanced, it would have to be a completely different card, which is why it was banned instead of receiving a simple errata.  I'm going to say something, and I promise I'm not trying to upset or offend anyone, but I don't think anybody on this site has the knowledge or right to be changing Decipher's products, even if it's called a "House Rule."

[TelTura]

Decipher's dead.  If we are not to carry on, then no one will.

[mikefrench]

I don't think the problem with Sting is looking at opponent's hand. I think it's once again the problem you have mentioned - removing twilight.

this is absolutely incorrect.  absolutely. 

1) playing around ALL their cards with perfect information is too powerful (ie oh look they have a savagery, i won't play my 5th companion)

2) being able to perfectly count the twilight costs of their minions/plays and selectively choking is too powerful

3) being able to see what FP cards they have coming up makes your shadow deck better and is too powerful

getting perfect information for almost no cost every turn was why sting was banned.

here's a replay elucidating this concept:

http://www.gempukku.com/gemp-lotr/game.html?replayId=mikefrench$7vvat3xeh15w6cjp

in my turn 1 fellowship phase, i get sting and use it before playing last alliance.  i note that if i play last alliance he will be able to play morgul gates + nazgul.  so i prevent him from playing ANY cards by using sting and managing twilight.

in my site 3 fellowship phase, i sting and see that playing sam will not allow him to play a 2nd nazgul, so i can get away with dumping my entire hand.

in my site 4 fellowship phase, i sting and see that i can prevent him from playing more than 1 nazgul by not playing my boromir and my orophin.

this enables me to dump my hand in my fellowship phase at site 5, knowing that my 3 elf allies will be able to help out in skirmishing his hand that has been choked full of nazgul.

so by careful use of sting, i was able to survive the early onslaught of nazgul, when they are at their most dangerous.  i was able to survive long enough to set up my fellowship so i could thrive at sites 7-9.

[hsiale]

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Discard a fortification to
remove a threat (limit once per turn).

I really don't like erratas which make the card too weak to be playable. Why bother with errata then?

Gondorian Captain: a knight that removes threats. Banned due to overpowered combo with Base of Mindolluin. So, any errata should start from preventing this. But, if we work on a card, we should make it playable as well. The current ability is too weak and it should be made stronger. We want such companion to compete (against Ingold and Turgon, MoB) for place in knights' starting fellowship alongside Alcarin, WoL. Let's say:

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Unless the fellowship is at Base of Mindolluin, discard a fortification to
remove 3 threats.

This way, knights get access to good threat removal. Now the question is: will they have enough ways of adding threats to do something useful so that Captain is a viable choice? This needs testing. But for example Duty of Two will become way better card. Knight's Spear also (maybe its limit should be moved up so that you can add up to 3-4 threats with it).

[TelTura]

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Unless the fellowship is at Base of Mindolluin, discard a fortification to
remove 3 threats.

That is far too on-the-nose, and while it solves the immediate problem, it is awkward, and doesn't fit story-wise.  A better option would be something like:

Gondorian Captain
Companion • Man
Strength: 6
Vitality: 3
Knight.
Fellowship: Unless the fellowship is at a sanctuary, discard a fortification to
remove 3 threats.

..which helps balance the notion of discard one card to remove three threats anyhow.

[Tbiesty]

Updated Sting and Gondorian Captain.

[Ringbearer]

One card for 3 threats? That shuts down ALL threat based strategies. Thats seriously overpowered. Try 2 first.

[Tbiesty]

Replaced Gondorian Captain with Base of Mindolluin, since even though Gondorian Captain was banned, Base of Mindolluin really was the issue.  Gondorian Captain isn't really that powerful itself, so limiting him just makes him less useful.  Where as pulling a max of 2 fortifications with Base of Mindolluin is still useful.
Example: You can still use Base of Mindolluin a bunch of times with Citadel to Gate and Saved from the Fire; with both that would be 9 fortifications from your draw deck.

[mikefrench]

i think what we need to be asking is, WHY are we doing this?  what formats would be IMPROVED by unbanning and errata'ing these cards?  why do we need access to another sting, we have a few fine options already.  why do we need access to another elrond?  etc.  uruk-hai don't need savagery, they have sack of the shire.  if you like savagery, play fellowship block.  sure, you might be able to make these cards balanced (some of them anyway) through severe enough errata, but after all that work, would they be fun to play with?  would they add anything positive to the game?  would any formats be IMPROVED by this?

also, whose job is it to improve on these formats?  everyone has a different idea of fun, and someone's idea of fun will surely be trampled on by someone else if we let people errata/design cards based on THEIR opinions. 

[MarcinS]

i think what we need to be asking is, WHY are we doing this?  what formats would be IMPROVED by unbanning and errata'ing these cards?  why do we need access to another sting, we have a few fine options already.  why do we need access to another elrond?  etc.  uruk-hai don't need savagery, they have sack of the shire.  if you like savagery, play fellowship block.  sure, you might be able to make these cards balanced (some of them anyway) through severe enough errata, but after all that work, would they be fun to play with?  would they add anything positive to the game?  would any formats be IMPROVED by this?

Fine point, unbanning a card and adding an errata, just for the sake of doing this, is probably not a good idea.

On the other hand, banning or adding an errata to a card that is causing a current format to be lopsided (Horn) might be a good idea. Decipher would have probably done that, if it cared enough at the point in time, when it started being a problem.

[Tbiesty]

i think what we need to be asking is, WHY are we doing this?  what formats would be IMPROVED by unbanning and errata'ing these cards?  why do we need access to another sting, we have a few fine options already.  why do we need access to another elrond?  etc.  uruk-hai don't need savagery, they have sack of the shire.  if you like savagery, play fellowship block.  sure, you might be able to make these cards balanced (some of them anyway) through severe enough errata, but after all that work, would they be fun to play with?  would they add anything positive to the game?  would any formats be IMPROVED by this?

also, whose job is it to improve on these formats?  everyone has a different idea of fun, and someone's idea of fun will surely be trampled on by someone else if we let people errata/design cards based on THEIR opinions. 

One of the things that I think is great about LotR is how you were able to blend in the new cards (and their mechanics) with the previously existing card pool to come up with a whole new deck idea.  No matter which "movie" particular cards were from, you are able to be creative and mix them (if you wanted) from cards from another "movie" and come up with new variation on a deck.  More available options lead to more variety in decks, which I think makes for more fun.  This ability to intermix cards works great for all cards in sets 1-10, over 1800 cards, (except for 24 of them, which get left behind).  Each of those 24 cards, like all the other cards, is an opportunity for someone (even someone that hasn't even learned to play LotR yet) to come up with a new, exciting way to make a new deck using that card.  I think it's best for the game to re-open these possibilities for players, rather than settling to live with a few past mistakes/oversights.

I don't believe I'm alone in this opinion.  Sometimes it just takes someone to stand up and say how they feel to get people's attention.  If anything, I can't see how this would harm anything to give it a try.  If it fails miserably, then fine, we move on.  But if it happens to walk that fine line and works out, then hey, we just gained access to 24 cards we forgot we had.  That's a pretty good deal in my opinion.

[Ringbearer]

I definitely agree to Mike French here. The way I see it errata doesnt add to the format. There are enough ways to go with the game alone. I feel these cards wont add anything to the game exceot confusion. Imagine being an old LOTR player stumbling here, but suddenly your card does not do what you think it does.
Much of these erratas are useless, only made to push trough that card arent on the x-list anymore. The X-list exists, Decipher agreed they amde some errors, and I feel we should leave it as it is. With a pool of over 1800 cards, who is gonna miss those 24? There is enough choice as it is. FOTRwise, TSwise and moviewise, the format is healthy enough, with several decks being viable, and not a certain deck popping out.

We also should take an example what other companies do. If you compare it to Wizards, a game company with dare I say a LOT of experience in keeping up a healthy tournament format. Do they errata cards? No. Why? Cause it adds to confusion if a card doesnt work as people remember. They outright ban cards. Last summer two cards got the banhammer. They agree they made a mistake and banned the cards instead of errata-ing the cards.
The last argument I can add is splintering from the game community. It doesnt help for the game communitee as a whole if several groups play their own errata. If I get used to errata online, and I visit the French for a tournament, the cards sudenly work completely different. Gemp-LOTR is a wonderful thing, I applaud Marcin for his work on it, but its not the authority on LOTR. That authority simply isnt exsistent. So I would say keep it as it is how Decipher left it, or keep a gentlemens agreement on not playing certain cards. I simply wont play Lady Redeemed in movie and horn in standard (If I ever play standard).

[TelTura]

Gemp-LOTR is a wonderful thing, I applaud Marcin for his work on it, but its not the authority on LOTR. That authority simply isnt exsistent.

But why not have one?  I think as long as we can segregate the new changes from the old formats, there's no reason we can't try and fix what we have.  These actions could eventually lead to a group that could permanently revitalize the community.  You make good points about consistency, preferring the banhammer over errata in real-life formats; however in a virtual enforced environment such as Gemp I can see that being a nonissue. 

However, to reiterate, I do think that any changes we make need to be segregated.  Like Ringbearer says, we can't risk alienating the old players; if we make changes we have to act as if we're the last hope for the game (which is not an overassessment, in my opinion).

[FM]

And who elected/selected the people in charge of such changes? Was the community (every active player) asked, as a whole, if they actually WANTED a group to do this (and knowing what they would do)? Or just a poll in a forum from which some (or all) might not be an active member? If the idea is to "go with the flow because, if no one does, no one will do it", I'm wholeheartly against it, I don't think such a comitee should have a say in how I play my cards, they're not the authority on the game, they do not have the authorization to be, and errata, as has been mentioned, is extremely confusing.
Adding new cards? Sure, that could work, I could simply choose not to play with those cards. Having a format where those cards saw errata (assuming anyone would even want to play them after errata)? Sure again, go for it!
FORCING a format upon everyone where we have to remember erratas and abide by changes made by a "comitee" that was NOT lawfuly instituted for such and is not taking the whole pool of cards into consideration before issuing errata to see if they make something even more degenerate? Not a fan. Not at all.
I applaud the effort, but this is not the way, this is the way dictators rise to power and stay there: "since no one will govern this country like it should be governed, I will!".

[Tbiesty]

This Gemp-Lotr Committee would only apply to Gemp-Lotr, so:
1)  MarcinS has the final say in how Gemp-Lotr works in any case, since he developed it.
2)  You can still play outside of Gemp-Lotr (e.g. GCCG, IRL) however you want.
3)  Gemp-Lotr takes care of the rules for you, so you don't have to "remember" anything.

[FM]

And then, the net result is the community is split asunder into people who use GCCG due to not wanting non-official errata, and people that are fine with it. Still does not strike me as "good for the health of the game", which I believe is among the chief concerns behind this idea.

[TelTura]

What's good for the health of the community is having something in place that allows for adaptation and evolution.  I'm perfectly in agreement with you in thinking that we need some sort of barrier between these changes and the "official" formats.  It's a classic backwards-compatibility problem, and that can't be solved by forcing forwards-compatibility.  We need two different environments, one for changes, one for old, locked formats.  Marcin, you're worried about fragmenting the playerbase, but all that's being fragmented is the total number of options available.  As the number of users grows more options will always be a good thing.

[hsiale]

As the number of users grows more options will always be a good thing.

Yes. And that's why before even thinking about doing any changes, we need to get more users. We need to find ways to attract new people to the game. Completely new ones, who have never played LotR TCG before. There are two reasons for this. First, to support more play environments, we need way more players. I think we should aim for at least 400-500 players active each week (we are around 150 now), preferably even closer to 1000. Second, if we want to have a game that lives, we need a self-renewing player base, and for this we can't base on people who played the game before, as the number of such people is limited.

This needs a lot of work, many good ideas and probably some luck as well. But if we fail at this, I see no reason to try any changes.

[TelTura]

I think something small needs set up soon.  We're all getting hung up on long-term effects on both sides of the argument, but what we need to do is set up like a three-man team (plus submissions) to experiment within a PTR format and just iterate over things.  See how it works.  If it blows, we pull out.  If it's successful, then cautiously proceed.  We're not going to get anywhere at all, good or bad, if we focus on what-if's and whatnot when we have exactly zero data to draw from. 

[Tbiesty]

I think something small needs set up soon.  We're all getting hung up on long-term effects on both sides of the argument, but what we need to do is set up like a three-man team (plus submissions) to experiment within a PTR format and just iterate over things.  See how it works.  If it blows, we pull out.  If it's successful, then cautiously proceed.  We're not going to get anywhere at all, good or bad, if we focus on what-if's and whatnot when we have exactly zero data to draw from.  

Thank you!  Now can we please get this topic back to what I created it for.
(If you want to argue about whether or not to do anything, please use this discussion topic instead. Thanks!)

Any more comments on the errata shown on the first page?

Specifically, can you see a reason why a change is either too much or not enough to allow it to live with the rest of the Movie block.

I'll keep this brainstorming session going for a few more days, before we see where MarcinS wants to take this.  I'm trying my best to address each person's comments.  Keep them coming! :-)  Thanks!

[hsiale]

If those are meant for Movie Block playing, a few issues arise:

1. Lady Redeemed and Uruk Regular are legal in Movie Block, so no need to do anything with them.

2. Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be cancelled in Movie Block. So OEG should be reworded to "... or remove a Nazgul from a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer."

3. Ulaire Nertea, ModG still looks as if he would be incredibly overpowered in a Morcs deck (which arleady have good hand extension in form of Flung Into the Fray, Evil-smelling Fens, Morgul Squealer and Morgulduin). Additionally, playing this minion does not hurt Morcs deck in any way (there is no other version of Nertea good for it).

[Tbiesty]

If those are meant for Movie Block playing, a few issues arise:

1. Lady Redeemed and Uruk Regular are legal in Movie Block, so no need to do anything with them.

2. Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be cancelled in Movie Block. So OEG should be reworded to "... or remove a Nazgul from a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer."

3. Ulaire Nertea, ModG still looks as if he would be incredibly overpowered in a Morcs deck (which arleady have good hand extension in form of Flung Into the Fray, Evil-smelling Fens, Morgul Squealer and Morgulduin). Additionally, playing this minion does not hurt Morcs deck in any way (there is no other version of Nertea good for it).

Ah, sorry, I should have worded that a little better.  I meant so the cards would be able to be used with any of the other cards in the Movie blocks (So including Fellowship block, Towers Standard, and Movie).

Does that change your comments at all?

Updated Ulaire Nertea...

[hsiale]

OK, if we talk about Movie and all earlier formats, then Regular indeed may be thought of. Lady Redeemed still is not X-ed in any of those formats, only in WotR Standard, Standard and (not sure) Expanded, so no need to touch her here. OEG being legal but not working seems a bit strange. Do you think allowing it to work in Movie would be too much?

[TelTura]

I still think O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! would work well with a Hobbit Stealth treatment:  "Skirmish: At sites 1-7, discard this condition to cancel a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and a Nazgul.  At any other site, discard this condition to make bearer strength +3."  It has the elegant solution of still being used with its intended effect in Fellowship block while being usable out-of-block after RB skirmish cancels were revoked.

[Tbiesty]

OK, if we talk about Movie and all earlier formats, then Regular indeed may be thought of. Lady Redeemed still is not X-ed in any of those formats, only in WotR Standard, Standard and (not sure) Expanded, so no need to touch her here. OEG being legal but not working seems a bit strange. Do you think allowing it to work in Movie would be too much?

Even though Galadriel, Lady Redeemed is not technically banned in Movie, pretty much every one thinks in its current form it should be.  That is why I'm including it in this discussion.

Since Movie format does not allow the Ring-bearer's skirmish to be cancelled, that specific part of the O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! game text just doesn't apply.  (BTW: My playing group has long used a rule that the Ring-bearer's skirmish cannot be cancelled at any site 9, which by itself has avoided "cheap" wins at the end; perhaps that would be an idea to bring up in later discussion we can have at some point.)
I feel that adding the "If bearer is wearing The One Ring..." will keep the original purpose of the card intact (because it can still be used to "take off" The One Ring, while making the Free Peoples player take a little more risk (by wearing The One Ring), before trying to cancel a skirmish with a Nazgul (so Wraith World, The Twilight World, and Return to Its Master could come in handy...)  Plus, it even mirrors the scene from the movie a little better.

[hsiale]

Even though Galadriel, Lady Redeemed is not technically banned in Movie, pretty much every one thinks in its current form it should be.  That is why I'm including it in this discussion.

I don't know who your "pretty much everyone" includes, it definitely doesn't include me. There is a big difference between cards banned by Decipher and cards that some (even quite a lot) players may want to ban and we should definitely never mix ones with the others.

BTW: My playing group has long used a rule that the Ring-bearer's skirmish cannot be cancelled at any site 9, which by itself has avoided "cheap" wins at the end; perhaps that would be an idea to bring up in later discussion we can have at some point.

I don't understand the notion of a "cheap win". If you win, you win. If you managed to get to a situation where you can cancel ring-bearer's skirmish at site 9, then you deserve to benefit from it (especially as there are not many ways to achieve this).

[Tbiesty]

I don't know who your "pretty much everyone" includes, it definitely doesn't include me. There is a big difference between cards banned by Decipher and cards that some (even quite a lot) players may want to ban and we should definitely never mix ones with the others.

ok, I moved her to the end of the initial post and pointed out that she is not "officially" banned.  Though I do feel that keeping balance to the formats will require a change to her.

I don't understand the notion of a "cheap win". If you win, you win. If you managed to get to a situation where you can cancel ring-bearer's skirmish at site 9, then you deserve to benefit from it (especially as there are not many ways to achieve this).

No problem.  Just a thought.  The fact that you just need to have O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! and Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal out for basically an auto-win against any deck that plays a Nazgul at site 9, is something that some people may not like.  But you're right, it's just an opinion.

[Tbiesty]

Does anyone have anymore specific comments on the card updates?  Do you see any particular changes as too much or too little?  Please let me know.

I'll keep this discussion open until tomorrow, and then consider the cards ready for actual gameplay testing.  We'll see where things go from there.  Thanks!

[Tbiesty]

ok, looks like that's all the comments we have.
Closing up this particular discussion for now, until actual gameplay testing reveals any required changes.
Thanks!