Erebor Battle Master

You can put weapon attachments on him to boost him, he can get pretty powerful.

Just slot him into a deck with leadership (no need to incldue tactics) because you can get him into play with A Very Good Tale and with Sneak Attack.   

Just slot him into a deck with leadership (no need to incldue tactics) because you can get him into play with A Very Good Tale and with Sneak Attack.   

To me, O my kinsfolk!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that he really needed that nerf - there is no other ally with 3 cost and 4 attack. I still use him as a late game finisher and he works pretty well. Last night I played him and he got 5 attack, not bad for a 3 cost ally! 

Exactly, he just became a late game card, which is still usefull in pure dwarf decks (I use him in mine). 

In a coop game he didn't need a fix. The designers get to decide how they balance the quests so leaving him would not have made a significant number of quests all that much easier. He's hardly the only way to get super-high attack values on the board. 

That being said, I think he was poorly designed from the start. He probably should have cost 4 as is (pre-errata) or 5-6 if he took into acct all dwarf characters in play. At 3 he was undercosted relative to the majority of other cards. 

The problem is that FFG doesn't errata costs or values. I get it--they want to let errata's be as unobtrusive as possible. But it means you have to change the ability and the change they made fundamentally effects the usefulness of the card. 

And sure--you can play him later game for some okay attack power but in most cases he's almost a dead-draw in the early game and his three resources could probably be better spent on weapons/events. 

I tend to have plenty of cards in my hand, especially in a dwarf deck, so hanging onto him until later in the game is not really an issue.  "dead" cards only matter if you don't have draw - and Dwarves have serious draw potential along with all the standard means of drawing so it is far less of an issue.  If you hit him with a Very Good Tale then he is at least a 3 attack anyways, and you can get that on turn 1 or 2.  By turn 3 or 4 he's going to be 4+ attack. and Non-unique at that.

I tend to have plenty of cards in my hand, especially in a dwarf deck, so hanging onto him until later in the game is not really an issue.  "dead" cards only matter if you don't have draw - and Dwarves have serious draw potential along with all the standard means of drawing so it is far less of an issue.  If you hit him with a Very Good Tale then he is at least a 3 attack anyways, and you can get that on turn 1 or 2.  By turn 3 or 4 he's going to be 4+ attack. and Non-unique at that.

As far as "dead" cards, you are probably right. Dwarves have enough draw that holding him in hand isn't that bad. 

As for the rest--it depends on the deck you put him in, obviously, but it's not unusual for me to hit turn 3 or 4 and not have 3 dwarf allies in play. Especially with Tactics. 

Does that make the post-errata card terrible? No. But it makes it swingyer as you can no longer count on your heroes making up for a poor opening draw or other circumstances that don't allow you to play out your allies. I'm not a fan of them making a card less consistent. 

And I'm honest enough to admit there is also an emotional component of this. Nobody likes errata, all the more so when they nerf something we like. But it especially bugs me in this game since it is cooperative and for the most part the cards they errata weren't broken, they were just a little above where they want the curve since they want to continue selling more packs (with better cards) and they don't want to ramp the power-curve too fast. Which sucks when the only downside to leaving it is...some people have an easier option on some quests if they choose to use it (if you want to even call that a downside). 

And yeah, I could ignore the errata and just play it as printed but...that feels like cheating, ya know?

A minor effect of this card, is that the Red player normally ends up with any of my "Blue Mountain Trader" cards (after they have spent some time bumping green or purple up to the magic 5 count).

@Jon - I agree that he is definitely deck dependent.   I don't think I'd include him in a pure tactics deck since there just isn't enough dwarves in there to make it count until late game.  I also just assume he is going to be in a mixed deck with Leadership for access to steward, narvi's belt and a very good tale.    Also, I'm still not a big fan of any of the tactics dwarf heroes anyways, so I never really consider building a tactics dwarf hero deck in the first place.  

@Jon - I agree that he is definitely deck dependent.   I don't think I'd include him in a pure tactics deck since there just isn't enough dwarves in there to make it count until late game.  I also just assume he is going to be in a mixed deck with Leadership for access to steward, narvi's belt and a very good tale.    Also, I'm still not a big fan of any of the tactics dwarf heroes anyways, so I never really consider building a tactics dwarf hero deck in the first place.  

Yeah, he can still work out in a deck made for him. I don't want to sound like he's useless now. 

Part of my experience with him is also that I usually play him in a Lore/Tactics deck that's a slower burn. If you are leveraging Spirit (Bofur, Kili) and Leadership (A very Good Tales, King Under The Mountain, Resource exceleration/discount) he's a different story. He's just not as flexible and consistent as he used to be.

Like I said, I just really hate when the designers put out a good card and then decide, "nope, nevermind--this conflicts with something we want to do later so errata." Emotionally it sucks and it's mechanically unnecessary based on the nature of a coop game. Especially in a game that I think needs a larger spread of "power" cards to help more casual players play along with veterans. 

On a side note--you're not a fan of Hero Gimli? How dare you, sir--those be fightin' words!

My issue with Gimli is that when I got into the game it was well into the Heir cycle already and I had access to a lot more heroes. To be sure, Gimli has a place - he was critical in my group decks that took down Smaug at the Battle of Lake Town - but Legolas simply out matches him with so much more ease and reliability.  

If you visit the FFG forums, some people there are pretty vocal about not liking the powerful cards (glorfindel (s), Gandalf hero, etc) so I think the errata could be in part influenced by that group.  I agree with you though in practice.  I dislike errata that changes the power level of a card.  Zigil Miner made me sad as well.  

My issue with Gimli is that when I got into the game it was well into the Heir cycle already and I had access to a lot more heroes. To be sure, Gimli has a place - he was critical in my group decks that took down Smaug at the Battle of Lake Town - but Legolas simply out matches him with so much more ease and reliability.  

 

If you visit the FFG forums, some people there are pretty vocal about not liking the powerful cards (glorfindel (s), Gandalf hero, etc) so I think the errata could be in part influenced by that group.  I agree with you though in practice.  I dislike errata that changes the power level of a card.  Zigil Miner made me sad as well.  

I do visit the FFG forums and agree that the errata is probably to appease those that feel like these more powerful cards unbalance the game. I feel like there is something to be said for the designers not balancing the quest difficulty on the very best cards and combos but a simpler answer than an errata is just for the design team to...not balance the quest based on those cards. 

Ziggy is a good example, actually. You could break the game with him if you built a deck for it but that deck was super boring (for me) to play so I didn't. If someone else wants to what do I care? The only time it would matter is in pickup games where you aren't comparing decks with the other players. And LotR doesn't work well in that situation anyway for a variety of other reasons. 

As for Gimli...I just love him. 

Legolas is great, probably even the better hero when you need what he provides. But the flexibility Gimli allows appeals to me. Assuming Dain's on the board standing he's a 3/3/2/5 with an ability that punishes the encounter deck for damaging you, can keep you using your actions efficiently in the early game by taking some undefended attacks and works as a serious Big Stick later in the game when you can load him up. And that's before you talk about other dwarf synergy.