Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm


Post by zarathustra » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:47 pm

We should have a discussion of endorsements by the CoE. How many things should we endorse? What should the endorsement amount to? Should there be any kind of discrimination amongst things endorsed?

I know that Charles is against the UEPs, and that he thinks the virtual cards should not be considered particular to CoE. Do others agree? What about the newsletter? Intermediate Challenge decks? The Judge Certification Program? I would appreciate it if everyone registered their opinion on each of these topics. For my part, here's my view:

(1) UEPs: I think the UEPs started out as a cool idea but quickly descended into uselessness. Many of the UEPs are so tiny or cosmetic or particular that they will have 0 effect on the metagame, and only very little effect even on thematic play. Many of the UEPs have to do with players unwilling to admit that thematic play will not give you the strongest deck. As such, a tournament using them is supported by at best 50% of people who considered it: http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.php?t=2355
Therefore, I think the CoE should endorse UEPs only to the point of saying that they exist and that some people like them. I find them mostly negative in character, and uninteresting compared to scenarios and other more radical stuff like virtual cards.

(2) Virtual Cards: I like the VCs a lot. I agree with Joe that, if they are managed well, they could make the game much more interesting by destabilizing the metagame and increasing the number of possible deck types. In my view, this is something the CoE should encourage by hosting a VC tournament at Worlds and encouraging organizers for national events to do the same. Joe has told me that he thinks the VCs could be used to make two meccg styles, kind of like the type1/type2 distinction in Magic. There will always be World Championships for those who want to play the original style, but there will also be a VC tournament of high stature for those who want to keep meccg competetive while adding a little flavor to it.

(3) Newsletter: This is the 2nd best thing we started last year. I'm all for it.

(4) Global Player List: This is the best thing we started last year. I'm all for it.

(5) JCP: This program is a little shaky, since not as many people have become judges as we might like. But it is very helpful. The documents produced by level 1, 2, and 4 judges are all useful. And the JCP is now working on both updating the CRF and crafting a universal rulesbook. The latter is more than half complete, in fact. I'm all for this.

(6) NetRep: well, this is part of our charter, so not really much to say. I'm all for it ;)

(7) Treasury/National Council Help: The Argentineans recently told me they are thinking of buying the mechanics to the game from ICE (card art and tolkien license obviously are a different matter). I think we should encourage them in this and consider even offering a little financial support. Other things we could use the treasury for are (a) buying sealed product in bulk, (b) commissioning special prizes like the CoL coins or wizard's rings, (c) simply supporting national councils by sending them prizes etc. I'm all for this.

(8) Vastor Peredhil's dream expansions: If we can convince him to put some stuff here, I think it would be great to support the dream expansions at the CoE website. Nico (and his friends) has done some amazing work, and it should have a place for people to enjoy it.

What are your views? It would be good to think about this as you consider running for the CoE elections. People like to know what they're voting for (or against...).

Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Re: Endorsements...

Post by jhunholz » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:23 pm

(1) UEPs:
I haven't really had much of an opinion one way or the other with the UEPs. I think it's an interesting idea, but since it was started by players I think it should continue to be led by players. The CoE shouldn't govern it or push it one way or the other. I agree with Mark that its good to recognize it and say "hey, it's there", but I don't think we should push it or try to hinder it. If someone wants to host a UEP tourney, then more power to them! But it's not our project.
(2) Virtual Cards:
Most of my comments about UEPs apply to VCs as well. It was a project started by Joe and others, and while a few CoE members are involved, it's not an offical project of ours (meaning we didn't vote on it). I do like this project more than the UEPs, because I've seen Star Wars CCG do it after Decipher lost their license. I also like that it gives you something physical to use with the card (you cut out the new insert and drop it in a sleeve with the card, covering the bottom half). This makes it easier to learn/remember what "new" cards do. But just like UEPs, we can't do more than just give this our thumbs up since it's a user-created project.
(3) Newsletter:
This is a great project and I'm completely for it. I think the community loves seeing it whenever we publish it as well.
(4) Global Player List:
This project is essential to our livelihood. It helps us stay in contact with our base of players, and also helps them stay in contact with each other. Yes, there are other lists, but ours is easily the most up-to-date one.
(5) JCP:
I think this program is good. It's paid dividends already by giving us updated rules inserts in pdf form, as well as the Play and Examples file and other great tutorials/help guides. Plus, getting players more knowledgable about rules is important for the game to stay active. Even though we haven't recruited as many judges as we wanted originally, I think this program is still a success.
(6) NetRep:
Of course I support this. Without this, us less knowledgable rules folks would be lost! :)
(7) Treasury/National Council Help:
I think having a treasury will help us promote the game better, since we now have some funds to do so. I also like the idea of an active prize support for tournaments that request our aide in that area. I think if we're pushing the money back out (in the form of prizes and other help) to national councils, players will be more likely to donate to the cause and chip in more than the 1 dollar/euro fee at major tourneys. As far as discriminating against a coucil, I think we should follow our non-discrimination policy passed back in 2001 or 2000 (I can't remember when it was passed exactly). Basically, if a council is discriminating against anyone at their tournaments, that would make them inelligable for prize support/etc. from the CoE treasury.
(8) Vastor Peredhil's dream expansions:
I think this goes along with the UEPs/VCs: we can give it a thumbs up, but it's not an official project. That doesn't mean we can't host it though. I'm all for hosting as much content as folks want us to host. I think the CoE should be in favor of hosting content related to our game, even if it's not our offical projects. If needed, we can always put a disclaimer on things like that saying this isn't our project, but we think players will enjoy it so we're hosting it.

Other projects: One project I'm starting to work on for MECCG is an in-depth card database. I'm still planning it out, so I'm not sure what the final form will look like, but I think it would be great to have a system in place where you can look up a card and it will show you: card text, a picture of the card (something like the gccg images), any COTD articles written about the card, any errata/rulings about the card, etc. Think of it as a spoiler on steriods.

Council Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria

Post by thorondor » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:54 pm

ok, my opinion on all of this is pretty much the same as josh´s and marks.
in summary:
UEPs are nice, but not effective enough to make the game better right now. however, as long as poeple like to work on it, it doesn´t hurt and we should at least support it.
by the way: i like to balrog rule very much! iirc it´s listed among UEPs, but for me it´s just an additional ruling for unofficial tournaments, that makes sense. same for the legalizing of the german special cards.
concerning VC: i have to admit, that i didn´t have an in-depth look yet, so i cannot really judge about them now. i would like to see them in action first. however, the idea is cool!
nicos dreamcards are really a nice addition to the game. the concepts are good and people like to play with these cards.
now i don´t think that any of these projects should be COE projects. they simply are not, since they have been started by individuals, and the COE as a group never took over (and shouldn´t do so).
i am all for supporting these projects, spreading the word about them and if needed let´s even give them a home on the COE site. but that´s it ...

i also want to point out, that global player list and newsletter are very important projects. and though i never completed level 1 (not yet!!), i am very much in favor of the JCP.

worlds and netrep are out of question.

i think national council help and treasury/prize support are two different things.
the first is about having contact to all the recognized councils on a regular basis. this should be maintained as each council has a representative within the COE. it s also about helping and encouraging not yet recognized councils to form one and join the COE. for example poland is at the threshold right now. but there is also for example hungary, australia or some southamerican nations, that might steart a council in near future.

the treasury project has mainly to do with prizesupport. we try to raise some funds, therefore we offer some prizes. it´s also important to create some new stuff for prizes. the pins are great, may we have some tshirts soon, too (hint: stephane hemberg is working in the tshirt industries, and he will come to Lure ;-), or whatever ...
this idea about buying the mechanics from ICE is great. but i really would like to see the COE playing a role in it. after all we consider ourselves the governing and representing body for MECCG worldwide.


Return to “Misc Topics - Council of Elrond section”