Broken?

[ramolnar]

This is a nice discussion. Thanks for starting it, sgtdraino, and contributing, dethwish07 and others.

As one of the very long-term players of this game, from the first day of public release, my historical definition has been that a Broken Card is one that prevents the opposition from playing the game, while an Overpowered Card is one that is well above the cost curve.

I think the most Broken card ever was Far-Seeing Eyes. For the first week of public Constructed play, it was not unique. Really!

Other cards I consider Broken because they shut down many opponent strategies or just win the game:
combo cards like Steadfast Champion and Gondorian Captain
The Mirror of Galadriel, pre-errata
The Palantir of Orthanc, definitely sets 1-3 or 1-4, and Movie due to initiative
Galadriel, Lady Redeemed in Movie Block
Frenzy of Arrows, pre-errata
Madril, Defender of Osgiliath (though I know sgtdraino disagrees)
and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.

Note that there are counters for many of these, but they require serious commitment and they force someone to weaken their main strategy to play them. I don't like that.

Overpowered card examples:
Saruman, Keeper of Isengard
Sam, Son of Hamfast (though I like him because I think corruption victories should be tough to obtain, not having Frodo enforcement makes him overpowered)
Aggression
Final Account
Corsair Marauder (which to me is more powerful than Castamir)

[UnPapayaCoconut]

Without having read through everything: LR is definitely broken.

You have to commit so much of ur deck just to counter galadriel that even if you can pull it off, ur shadow side will be very limited because of all the dead cards ull end up having (unless ur already playing a sauron deck in which they fit). And even with Terrible as the dawn used, shes not gonna die if she's got the ring, so you need to save up for 2.

[daisukeman]

Interesting discussion, but I would think that either if a card is broken or just over powered, it is best if there is an additional format that leaves it out.

Simply because, if you do not have spaces where that card will not be used, then everyone (or most everyone) uses it.
And for the sake of the game, it would be nice to have diversification in decks...

There should be definitively for instance, a Movie format without GLR.
Otherwise, we won't see Shelob 8R strategies around, moria, etc, and we would also benefit from decks being built better (without diluting with As terrible as dawn).

To wrap my two cents, take poorman formats or sealed games; it could be interesting having more balanced games instead of knowing right from the start "shoot, my deck does not work against this.."

[ramolnar]

I understand your point, daisukeman. Even in poorman there's always a strongest card and a best deck - which in most formats tends to be a swarm deck. How overpowered must a card or cards become before we should ban it? How much of the metagame must it take?

Take Corsairs in Movie Block as an example, without Galadriel, Lady Redeemed. GLR takes out the boats and makes Corsairs less powerful. I think corsairs are the best deck without her, but are Peter Jackson and the Marauder too powerful? Probably not, since there are good decks against Corsairs like archery/Eowyn and Knights with only conditions. But you'll see them a lot.

[Eukalyptus]

There should be definitively for instance, a Movie format without GLR.
Otherwise, we won't see Shelob 8R strategies around, moria, etc, and we would also benefit from decks being built better (without diluting with As terrible as dawn).

There is a Movie without GLR option for the leagues, and we've played it a few times. But don't expect any diversity. You'll see Besieger, Dunland, Corsairs going crazy and the same freeps to counter them, sadly.

dethwish already named a few viable strategies that work and aren't bothered by GLR at all. But people just like to complain that their own shadow gets destroyed by her instead of thinking of a new one that doesn't. In every format some shadows just aren't playable that well.

[sgtdraino]

This is a nice discussion. Thanks for starting it, sgtdraino, and contributing, dethwish07 and others.

My pleasure!

Other cards I consider Broken
<snip>
Madril, Defender of Osgiliath (though I know sgtdraino disagrees)

I disagree! Because...

Note that there are counters for many of these, but they require serious commitment and they force someone to weaken their main strategy to play them. I don't like that.

The main counter to Madril does not require serious commitment, nor does it force someone to weaken their main strategy, nor (even though you didn't mention this) does it require any dedication to any particular culture.

and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.

Why should monoculture be a safe bet? Multiculture decks already have numerous counters against them, I think it's very reasonable that monoculture gets Dark Horseman. After all, if the game is supposed to simulate the feel of the story, it's the story of multiple cultures banding together to take the ring to Mount Doom. Not just a bunch of Dwarfs or a bunch of Elves.

[daisukeman]

I hear you...

About:

dethwish already named a few viable strategies that work and aren't bothered by GLR at all. But people just like to complain that their own shadow gets destroyed by her instead of thinking of a new one that doesn't. In every format some shadows just aren't playable that well.

Either preparing for her or restraining yourself from playing other interesting shadow alternatives still takes away the fun (disregards certain decks and some deck building initiatives).
It's for the sake of the game mostly, you don't have to keep proving you are excellent players and can use strategies to defeat her.

So I think that the Movie without GLR should be done for casual games too, or better still she should have an errata.
Decipher didn't put it but we could do it, right (at least call it a new "community errata format")?
Discarding a shadow condition or possession shouldn't be as easy...
Because as long as she is allowed, then count me in: I will be using her in my competitive deck.

--
And yeah, I do not think Corsairs should be banned.
Indeed these are not OP against all freeps, and there are "natural" counters... if I'm allowed, I'm kind of introducing this "natural counter" term here: for me, cards such as fierce in despair, or gorgoroth assasin are natural counters (in their own decks accordingly) because you would want to use them in the deck...regardles what you are facing.
As opposed to using Terrible as dawn!

Galadriel is really FU IMO because the benefit/cost relation is way too unbalanced.
She reminds me of that easter-egg/cheat in Age of Empires where you would magically bring one modern car to shoot up the crap out of the whole 12-century scenery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJyvxSnEmY, anyone?).

1. She is absolutely free!
..no strings attached, you may even choose her as "cannon fodder" in your starting fellowship, if you don't want to use elvish events (but why wouldn't you?).
Even Smeagol costs 1 burden, even Madril in expanded has spotting requirements implicitly attached.

To emphasize on a solution idea, the meta/community should errata her as cost=1 (or two?).
By the way, does anybody play her as non-starting fellowship???


2. Her ability is too easy and for serves more than 1 purpose.
..she does not add twilight, does not require exertion, does not require having initiative or certain number or cards, not even spotting something!
#$&*@!, it can even be done at regroup for nothing, but to cycle your hand!!
Take Derufin, secret sentinels or other cards that have a nice and needed ability. No other card is like this on its own.. you gotta work out these, they cost something you may think twice about.

I think it would be more balanced if she had an errata for her ability such as either:

* Restrict her's ability to only fellowship (not regroup)...
* Discard one shadow card and an elvish event to...
* Exert an elf + discard an elvish event to...


We could apply this same thing to other OP cards (e.g, for Sam SoH: include "limit 2 burdens per turn", for Forearmed: include a "limit -8" part, for Vilya: include "any shadow player may remove 2 to prevent this" or so..., etc).
 

[dethwish07]

and there's a case for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman because it takes away monoculture decks quite painfully.

Why should monoculture be a safe bet? Multiculture decks already have numerous counters against them, I think it's very reasonable that monoculture gets Dark Horseman. After all, if the game is supposed to simulate the feel of the story, it's the story of multiple cultures banding together to take the ring to Mount Doom. Not just a bunch of Dwarfs or a bunch of Elves.

Sgt. is right of course about the easy counter to Madril, but I'd also like to say that I completely agree with this assessment of Dark Horseman.

[ramolnar]

The main counter to Madril does not require serious commitment, nor does it force someone to weaken their main strategy, nor (even though you didn't mention this) does it require any dedication to any particular culture.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with less than three Ships of Great Draught. I think three Shadow cards is a serious commitment. Try this: Take Madril Mark whatever and add three Hides. Hides costs 1 instead of 2 and draws you a card back, so it's less painful than Ships of Great Draught. What happens?

Three Shadow cards, plus three FP cards, is a bigger commitment for decks with less than 100 cards. As an example, I just posted a good but not Tier 1 Smeagol Morgul Orc deck:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8807.0.html

It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.

As for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman, from a storyline perspective I agree with you. From a gameplay perspective, it closes off decktypes that people want to play. I included it because it's an example of a card that's potentially Broken by my definition but not Overpowered. I don't think it's Broken and I wouldn't remove it, like dethwish07, but it changes how I play the game - I won't play mono-race decks in Extended.
Similar cards include Grima, Wormtongue and Grima, Chief Counselor. There were a few concerns about Wormtongue but most players understood the idea of countering tanks, particularly Aragorn. Grima, Chief Counselor was controversial because it took away storyline possibilities, though eventually people realized that deck culture consistency was generally better than tossing in suffering Eowyn, Lady of Rohan.

[sgtdraino]

I wouldn't feel comfortable with less than three Ships of Great Draught. I think three Shadow cards is a serious commitment. Try this: Take Madril Mark whatever and add three Hides. Hides costs 1 instead of 2 and draws you a card back, so it's less painful than Ships of Great Draught. What happens?

3x Ships of Great Draught is indeed what I stock in my deck as a counter to other Madril decks. Looking through my game history, of the last 19 Expanded games I've played (as far back as my history goes), ZERO have been vs. Madril. So, that's 19 games in which Ships of Great Draught has been completely useless. Did it hamper my strategy? No, not to any significant degree. I'm sure part of that is due to my deck size, and part of it is due to the strategy itself (I can use Gollum to dump cards out of my hand, for example). But that's all part of the give and take of designing an effective deck.

Three Shadow cards, plus three FP cards, is a bigger commitment for decks with less than 100 cards.

For decks with less than 100 cards, that may in fact be the case. However, it is natural that smaller decks do have some disadvantages, just as they have some advantages. I don't see a problem with that. Smaller decks are going to be weaker against certain types of opposing strategies, that's just the nature of the game.

It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.

Then perhaps you need to change something in order to make it more effective.

As for Ulaire Nertea, Dark Horseman, from a storyline perspective I agree with you. From a gameplay perspective, it closes off decktypes that people want to play.

Apparently it doesn't, because I still see plenty of monoculture decks being played. In fact, I know a number of those 19 Expanded games I mentioned were against monoculture, whereas none of them were against Madril. So it would seem that monoculture is in fact more popular than Madril, in spite of Dark Horseman.

I'd say the people who complain the most about Dark Horseman, are those who like to use Dwarf Choke. They play 3-5 Dwarfs, generate almost no twilight, and IMO are pretty close to unstoppable... if it weren't for Dark Horseman! So I say thank goodness Dark Horseman is there to bring some balance to that strategy.

Similar cards include Grima, Wormtongue and Grima, Chief Counselor.

And, just like with Dark Horseman, I still regularly encounter people piling possessions on one guy, people using 4 or more cultures, and (in spite of Shotgun Enquea) people using 6 or more companions. These "magic bullets" can be powerful cards, they're supposed to be powerful cards. But since players keep using these strategies, I think that is a clear demonstration that they are not too powerful. I think they're just powerful enough.

[Eukalyptus]

daisukeman:

While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.

Sure, Sam gets in the way of corruption. As he should. He's supposed to help Frodo ease the burden of wearing the Ring, the card reflects it and I'm fine with that. He is not cultural enforced and therefore banned in Expanded, which is also fine by me. Expanded Dwarfs shouldn't be able to remove burdens easily.

Vilya needs Elrond to be in play which alone gives 4 twilight. Those 4 tw could be the end for your freeps in just that very turn.

Forearmed needs a whole freeps strategy dedicated for it to work properly. Be it Nenya RoA or Gandalf MoW, it forces your deck into this direction. And it hinders cycling, too.

In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.

[ramolnar]

I don't believe Dark Horseman is Broken; I'm using the card as an example of an idea that can become Broken quite quickly. Another example is Argument Ready to Hand.
There were occasional complaints about the splashability of Shotgun Enquea. Note that Decipher started culturally enforcing large fellowship stoppers - the two best splashes, Enquea and The Number Must Be Few, come from set 1, which also included Savagery to Match Their Numbers, Ulaire Nertea for Moria recycling, Uruk Warrior, and Greed.

Looking through my game history, of the last 19 Expanded games I've played (as far back as my history goes), ZERO have been vs. Madril. So, that's 19 games in which Ships of Great Draught has been completely useless.

Thanks for the information. I see Madril a little more often, maybe 10% of the time, though playing casually is not the same as playing competitively. In movie block, I have a nice Galadriel, Lady Redeemed / Corsair decklist in GEMP, but I never bring it out in casual play. Almost nobody else does either, but I'd expect half the decks to play GLR in a serious event.
One of my extended decks has a Warg shadow. I have lots of fun and win a little over half the time, but it's not Tier 1 or Tier 2. In a competition, I'd instead play a good deck. There's nice discussion about Tier 1 above, which agrees with my perception that the proportion of Madril decks would be much higher.

It's 32 cards a side and it wants to be smaller so I can get to everything quickly. I can find three spots for Ships of Great Draught, most likely Evil Smelling Fens, one Saruman, and one Black Lord, but that's a less effective deck.

Then perhaps you need to change something in order to make it more effective.

What I meant was that I have a choice:
1) Add three cards, making a less effective 35 card deck.
2) Yank out three cards and play 29 cards + 3 Ships of Great Draught. That's a less effective deck.
3) Play my effective 32 card deck and lose to Madril.
None of those choices are appealing.

[dethwish07]

What I meant was that I have a choice:
1) Add three cards, making a less effective 35 card deck.
2) Yank out three cards and play 29 cards + 3 Ships of Great Draught. That's a less effective deck.
3) Play my effective 32 card deck and lose to Madril.
None of those choices are appealing.

My recommendation would be to take out a Nertea and a Saruman to add two Ships of Great Draught. You're running a 64 card deck and your saying Madril IB makes up about 10% of your games, so I'd say two would be enough. Whereas Sgt. needs three because his deck is huge (though it cycles pretty well).

It may not be appealing, but one has to make some choices when considering the field of decks one is going to be playing against. If your cost/benefit analysis doesn't deem it worth removing two cards and hurting our deck consistency a bit to add Ships of Great Draught to easily counter a deck you play against 10% of the time, it is that same analysis that is going to affect your play experience against Madril DoO without the inclusion of said counter. Sometimes we just hafta take our lumps. That is the way I look at it, anyway.


Edit: I'd also like to note that I agree with Euk's analyses of Vilya, Sam, and Forearmed.

[jdizzy001]

While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.

In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.

Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.

[dethwish07]

While I get that GLR is way OP (and I don't play her at all because I honestly can't find a decent use for her other than condition/possession removal which is too much dedication for my taste), I wouldn't call Forearmed, Vilya and Sam SoH overpowered.

In retrospect: While Sam is strong, he's not overpowered and Vilya and Forearmed are even lower on that list since they aren't splashable.

Since I brought up the SoH being OP, I will defend it. 2 twilight for a 3 burden removal + a meatshield with unlimited splashing capability is OP. There is no other card in LOTR which removes 3 burdens and gives you a "pass" on a combat for only 2 twilight in any deck type. LR at least requires the use of elven events thus some form of dedicated freeps deck. Not trying to start a fight, just saying.

Honestly, adding burdens usually comes as the result of something other than skirmish resolution which is the conflict the game tends to center around. In my view, it makes sense that a win condition that doesn't center around the game's main conflict should be a bit more difficult (even though in spite of Sam, it still sometimes isn't). Think along the lines of a mill/discard deck in M:tg if you're familiar.

Basically, I find Sam acceptable when things like Enquea, ToTO, Morgul Brute, etc exist (especially without the more prevalent counters to such things which are available in Expanded). I mean, there are cards that basically just mean "play this to add a burden" or in some cases, "play this to add X burdens." So, I can see how the argument can be made that stapling 3 burden removal onto a thrarin, dwarven speed bump, is overpowered... when you frame it like that. But when you put it in the entire context of a format with other real cards that also do "powerful" things, the argument isn't as compelling.

Edit: Also, in reference to Euk's comments about the banning of Sam, SoH in expanded: the other factor in this was that after Shadows was introduced, resistance was a factor for all companions. SoH would provide a resistance buffer against fellowship resistance reduction shadow strategies that would make for quite a struggle (whereas a committed full on corruption deck wouldn't be as bothered).  I feel movie is the same way. Committed corruption can contend with a deck that runs SoH. Fellowship resistance (aside from the RB) is not relevant in movie, of course.