Song of Earendil

Why do they persist in making so many multiplayer-only cards? As a mainly Solo player, I'm underwhelmed by the player cards in this cycle so far.

Because encouraging multi-player interaction is key to the success of the multiplayer game.

I think the cantrip mechanic on this card is really welcome - it enables a wider variety of minor effects (like this one).

It's not really clear to me why this needs to be attached to a hero, since the effect is global.

Because Attachments are the only non-character "permanents" that exist thus far.

Has anyone else abused the Wandering Took with Song of Earendil brokenness? It seems too good to be within the rules unless I have missed some errata.

Just wondering if you have the choice to resolve the response action or is is automatic, meaning your threat is bound to increase?

And is it only 1 threat point period or 1 point per threat inccrease from the other player, meaning you can increase your threat by more then one at a giving moment.

Not unique so if you are running mono-spirit you can have three of these and all three should trigger. This would be a fantastic way for spirit to help out a mono-tactics deck especially one featuring tactics Boromir.

Check out the story behind Earendil, it's one of the best that Tolkien wrote. He's one of the most important characters ever to have lived in Tolkien's world. Not only did he convince the Valar to destroy Morgoth, he personally destroyed the great dragon Ancalagon. He's also got a boat that fly to the stars. And did I mention he was the father of Elrond?

Together with Love of Song there is a great opportunity for an endless combo, when a new card is released which makes you able to take cards back to your hand.

The question has been brought up: since it is non-unique, would the Response, "After Song of Earendil enters play, draw 1 card." not trigger for each copy in play? For example, Player 1 already has a copy attached to their hero. Player 2 plays a copy on their own hero. Result, both copies trigger their response and they both each draw one card? I'm not so sure if this is the wording's intent, but in theory, it should work, yes?

The question has been brought up: since it is non-unique, would the Response, "After Song of Earendil enters play, draw 1 card." not trigger for each copy in play? For example, Player 1 already has a copy attached to their hero. Player 2 plays a copy on their own hero. Result, both copies trigger their response and they both each draw one card? I'm not so sure if this is the wording's intent, but in theory, it should work, yes?

 

I don't think that was the intention of the card but I would say that as-written that's a reasonable interpretation. 

It's in the faq somewhere, when a card mentions its own name, it's talking about itself, not additional copies of the card. It would be phrrased differently if it was meant to cover any copy that enters play.

The question has been brought up: since it is non-unique, would the Response, "After Song of Earendil enters play, draw 1 card." not trigger for each copy in play? For example, Player 1 already has a copy attached to their hero. Player 2 plays a copy on their own hero. Result, both copies trigger their response and they both each draw one card? I'm not so sure if this is the wording's intent, but in theory, it should work, yes?

 

There is nothing in the FAQ about this, but FAQs for other LCGs do have rulings for "self-referential text" - that is, a card that refers to itself by name - to only mean that copy of the card, not all copies, unless the card itself states otherwise. So I'd say that if you were to ask the developers for a ruling, they'd say Song of Earendil only responds to its own entering play, but not other copies of it.

This ^. Also other cards specifically call for "another copy of xxx" when they are dependant on other cards: Anchor Watch, Elwing's Flight etc. It is also another reason why cards are called by their Traits ot types as much as possible in order to avoid confusion.

FAQ section 1.31 titled "self referential effects"

So if I attach three of these to a hero, and in response to another player raising its threat at the end of a round, can I trigger all three which first keeps them from gaining threat at all, but then you reduce that player's threat by two as well?

So if I attach three of these to a hero, and in response to another player raising its threat at the end of a round, can I trigger all three which first keeps them from gaining threat at all, but then you reduce that player's threat by two as well?

A quick google search brought up a few places this was talked about and the general consensus is yes it's legal.