House errata (Custom format)

[Kev-La]

Thanks for the further feedback, Thranduil and Witchkingx5. I admit I haven't at all considered the issue of a card being useful in too many decks. Have a cookie each, but please mind your crumbs

Thranduil: The errata you quoted from above seem to be the originals, which I posted prior to your first round of feedback. The private message I sent you was asking if you wouldn't mind please taking a look at the revised errata, which are found as an attachment at the bottom of page 2 of this thread. If you feel like perusing those and offering some more feedback, it will be very much appreciated

[Kev-La]

Thanks for the email, Thranduil. The weather forecast is for sunshine with a very high chance of cookie showers...
 
 

[Kev-La]

Once again, I've made some significant changes to several of the house errata, in response to feedback from several helpful fellow forum-users, not least of whom is Thranduil. Thanks very much, folks.

Here's the latest version, which is still the subject of ongoing playtesting.

Of course, any more feedback will be gratefully received

[Kev-La]

I'm currently considering bringing in an erratum for 1C311 Sam ~ Son of Hamfast, and also possibly modifying the existant erratum for 1R313 Sting.
Any suggestions at all, please?

[Witchkingx5]

Sam constantly kills corruption just by hitting the table and eating 3 burdens, 5 when you run cards like Hard Choice, which can be really awful. Maybe limit it to once per turn, but I wouldn't do too much. Just as annotation, 7 of 8 Decks from Worlds back then (2004?) had at least one Sam, SoH.

[ket_the_jet]

While I know you don't take my opinion or experience with much aplomb, but I do have a few thoughts that may help your local play group have a better gaming experience.

I would suggest not changing Sam, Son of Hamfast. He is a single splash card and everyone runs one. If you want to play corruption, you have to plan for Sam to be there.

As for Sting, I actually have brought up before that Decipher should have un-banned that. As alternate Ring-Bearers are prevalent in movie block, Sting is not as common because, well, Frodo isn't.

If you think that un-banning Sting will have everyone running Frodo, you could have him exert twice as the cost. I would exert twice most big turns to get a look at my opponent's hand...

But when it all comes down to it, Decipher made these rulings for a reason and I think sticking with Decipher's format is always the best and most enjoyable way to play.
-wtk

[Kev-La]

Sam constantly kills corruption just by hitting the table and eating 3 burdens, 5 when you run cards like Hard Choice, which can be really awful. Maybe limit it to once per turn, but I wouldn't do too much. Just as annotation, 7 of 8 Decks from Worlds back then (2004?) had at least one Sam, SoH.

Yes, he certainly always seemed like the 'go-to' anti-burden companion. I was thinking something along those lines - something that only limits his ability slightly.
Corruption hasn't happened much in our games for a while and I'm wondering if a tweak of Sam might make it come to the fore more often.

[Tbiesty]

The errata for Sam, Son of Hamfast that my playing group uses is "Exert Sam twice to remove a burden."

The errata for Sting that my playing group uses is "Exert Frodo to reveal 2 cards at random from an opponent's hand. Remove for each Orc revealed (limit )."

Both are small, simple tweaks that get the job done.  It's nice not having an X-list. :-)

[Kev-La]

While I know you don't take my opinion or experience with much aplomb, but I do have a few thoughts that may help your local play group have a better gaming experience.

I was irked by your conduct, sir, not your opinion or experience. Thank you for your offer of help

I would suggest not changing Sam, Son of Hamfast. He is a single splash card and everyone runs one. If you want to play corruption, you have to plan for Sam to be there.

I know what you mean; changing this card, even only a bit, could have a drastic effect on the game as it is played as a whole. I think maybe we'll leave him be for now and give it some consideration before playtesting an erratum next time we fancy throwing a fun spanner in the works

As for Sting, I actually have brought up before that Decipher should have un-banned that. As alternate Ring-Bearers are prevalent in movie block, Sting is not as common because, well, Frodo isn't.

If you think that un-banning Sting will have everyone running Frodo, you could have him exert twice as the cost. I would exert twice most big turns to get a look at my opponent's hand...

At the moment, exerting Frodo in either the fellowship or regroup phase (once per turn) allows you to reveal up to 4 of your opponent's cards at random, removing for each Orc revealed. This has seemed to me to 'blunt' Sting just about the right amount, but some earlier feedback suggested maybe it's still too universally useful. I take your point about alternate Ringbearers very seriously: after all, I need an erratum that can be read identically for Custom Fellowship, Custom Towers, Custom Towers Standard, Custom King and Custom Movie formats. I'll give it some more thought _,~

But when it all comes down to it, Decipher made these rulings for a reason and I think sticking with Decipher's format is always the best and most enjoyable way to play.
-wtk

I appreciate the caveat and how it might colour your advice. Thanks again.
 

[Kev-La]

The errata for Sam, Son of Hamfast that my playing group uses is "Exert Sam twice to remove a burden."

I like this. I think I'd be more inclined to go for this over the obvious alternative of "Exert Sam to remove a burden (limit once per turn)."

The errata for Sting that my playing group uses is "Exert Frodo to reveal 2 cards at random from an opponent's hand. Remove for each Orc revealed (limit )."

Slightly more limiting than the one we're using, though this is balanced out by the ability to use it more than once per turn. Again, I can see this being an effective erratum.

Both are small, simple tweaks that get the job done.  It's nice not having an X-list. :-)

Thanks for sharing, Tbiesty. And yes indeed, I think so too