Can't wait till the discussions begin for Errata of X-listed cards....

[itjunkie]

deep in thought is definitely balanced as there is a requirement (which may not always be met) before it can be used.

[Thranduil]

Agreed. I'd say the same for Sleep, Caradhras. I think the only one with a question is Grown Suddenly Tall, and even that I don't think is ridiculous. It's sure powerful, but not incredible in the way something like Namarie or FNF are—they require less cost and you can choose the conditions you discard and leave all your own.

[Tbiesty]

IMO, Deep In Thought is fine, and the rest (Saruman's Power, Sleep, Caradhras, and Grown Suddenly Tall) have a high enough cost, plus the penalty of knocking out all your own conditions too.

[Thranduil]

There is something to say, however: I can't think of a single point when building an or deck featuring heavy that I wouldn't play Saruman's Power or Grown Suddenly Tall respectively. Cards that are so obvious to be included in every deck perhaps aren't conducive to a healthy environment.

But I actually think that in this case this is fine!

[ket_the_jet]

There is something to say, however: I can't think of a single point when building an deck that I wouldn't play Saruman's Power.

Trackers with Weary and such...
-wtk

[Thranduil]

There is something to say, however: I can't think of a single point when building an deck that I wouldn't play Saruman's Power.

Trackers with Weary and such...
-wtk

Even then I'd probably pack 1. I wouldn't use it most games, but there's no sideboard in LotR – if I came across a deck that wins off conditions, like knight, or one with powerful cards, like Namarie, I would be very happy to have it.

[hrcho]

I knew from the start that there is little or no chance of adding those condition removals to the list, but there is no way you can convince me that Fortress Never Fallen  is more powerful than Sleep, Caradhras, Grown Suddenly Tall or Deep In Thought. Just stop and think about a bit. That's a condition, it can get easily discarded. It has pretty high cost, for both playing and getting the tokens, it's unique and it gets discarded after use, unlike Namarie, which I won't even comment. The only reason FNF is on that list is because Decipher decided they didn't want the culture to have such powerful condition removals when they already have powerful possession removals and they wanted to make revolve around possessions.

[itjunkie]

with fortress never fallen, the FP gets to keep their conditions.

with saruman's power, deep in thought etc, the player who played those cards also lose all their conditions.

with regards to saruman's power, i think isengard decks that are condition based would think twice about using it.

[Tbiesty]

Let's give everyone a couple more days (until Oct 2nd) to identify any more "broken" things.
At that time, I'll open the first discussion.  The purpose of that first discussion will be to determine the process we will use in addressing each of these issues.

Let's do this together and make it work!

[legolas3333]

Legolas3333, would you be willing to help out in this?

I am actually with ket on this one ( I know he hasn't posted on this thread but we all know what he's thinking) I don't really want this to happen, I mean what about all the players on gccg how will you tell them about this? Anyway, that said if you do this, the current x/r-lists are fine for every format but standard and expanded, and in my opinion, the only cards that need to be fixed are x-ing namaire and making the players ruling of frenzy of arrows the real ruling

[MR. Lurtzy]

Legolas3333, would you be willing to help out in this?

I am actually with ket on this one ( I know he hasn't posted on this thread but we all know what he's thinking) I don't really want this to happen, I mean what about all the players on gccg how will you tell them about this? Anyway, that said if you do this, the current x/r-lists are fine for every format but standard and expanded, and in my opinion, the only cards that need to be fixed are x-ing namaire and making the players ruling of frenzy of arrows the real ruling

Brilliant post.

[Tbiesty]

I mean what about all the players on gccg how will you tell them about this?

"Word of mouth", pointing them back to TLHH.  In fact, most of the tables on GCCG were defined and created by me (so we can use them during this process), plus there's not exactly a lot of people on GCCG (I see pretty much the same 20 or so players day in and day out), so it is not difficult to share as far as "spreading the word".  Everything will be documented in the "Unofficial Rulebook" that I maintain, so accessibility is not a problem.

I'm aware that some players don't want anything changed, so they focus on playing only FOTR or "movie" block, basically choosing to ignore almost half the cards that exist because there are a few problems.   I am in a different group that thinks there are a few things that we can "fix" to make the game fair and balanced (with more variety than ever) for all formats.  The point here is to give players a choice.

For those that wish to help out with this, please let me know and let's work together.  Thanks!

[legolas3333]

For the record, I am not one of those players who doesn't want change, I have been a long-time proponent of a lotr PC and I love that you're making an unofficial rulebook but it's hard enough to convince players on gccg of actual rulings from decipher, I for one wouldn't listen to some random dude claiming he and his buddies made a new errata for savegery in fact I would probably walk away (no offense intended). In all honesty I think that by doing this by claiming to "help the game" you are actually harming it, how many new players want to spend hours learning cumbersome erratum, I have been playing lotr since 2003 and I still don't know all the erratum from the fellowship block, and now you are proposing to add dozens of new erratum on top of the existing 100+. As a new player I would rather take a game with fewer erratum and larger x/r-lists because x/r lists don't fundamentally change the way a card is played, for example, we must go warily or the mirror of galadriel, they just remove the given card from the equation in order to level the playing field, i.e. Steadfast Champion.

But if you are absolutely committed to doing this, I can't stop you, but I would highly suggest keeping the number of cards you change to a minimum, and pick cards that truly need to be addressed, like namarie and frenzy of arrows, instead of wasting time trying to decide if grown suddenly tall is overpowered because it destroys condition based shadows, by that reasoning you should also change aragorn's bow and greenleaf because they destroy swarms.

Anyway I won't say anything more on the matter, but please realize how much power over the card game you are asserting by doing this.

[MuadDib85]

I agree with legolas3333. All of these 'changes' must have Decipher's official approval, otherwise all of this discussion may as well be in the Chamber with the rest of the dream cards..

But go ahead and create rules for your own player circles, it will be very hard for you to enforce these rules officially (even on gccg) without big d though..

I will add New Chapter (change 'companion' to 'hobbit' or ban it) and Gil-galad, High King of the Noldor (actions 'once per turn' or ban him) to L3333's two cards: namarie and frenzy of arrows, as only cards that really need changing in standard format.

[ket_the_jet]

I am actually with ket on this one ( I know he hasn't posted on this thread but we all know what he's thinking)

and I will let this serve as my official input. Frankly, L3333 said it perfectly.

On another note, Tbiesty, could you change some of the superfluous "CCG League" Tables on GCCG to two-player "Standard Rules" tables? I'm sure more people than just myself would appreciate it. I appreciate more tables, but I don't think there is any reason that there need to be double the Standard tables with this purported "CCG League" tables. It isn't a huge deal when I play against people I know, but if I want to play against someone that I've never played against, I'd like to be able to confirm that his or her deck is legal for FotR, Towers, Towers Standard, or Movie...
-wtk