Scratch-pad for brainstorming ideas

[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).