Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by Bandobras Took » Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:18 pm

http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =12&t=1567

Should the CRF entry on Nazgûl events be subject to an erratum in order to make the process make clear, intuitive sense?
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by miguel » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:09 pm

I don't know, I guess having the relevant Digest ruling in the URD is probably enough?

Frodo
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by Frodo » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:04 pm

In general, I'm in favor of making as many rulings/explanations as intuitive as possible, given that is how so many casual players play the game anyway. The judges at Magic the Gathering recently realized the same thing, and rewrote rules to match the expectations of their players.

The exception? If it would cause changes to the way the cards/game are actually played. Then such decisions become more complicated, and have to be considered more delicately.

Frodo

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by marcos » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:23 am

miguel wrote:I don't know, I guess having the relevant Digest ruling in the URD is probably enough?
Agree

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:39 pm

I'd prefer keeping to the original as much as possible. Otherwise backtracking (for those who care for it) will become difficult. So a reference seems better to me.

btw. I cannot access the discussion on this topic in the NetRep forum, seems CoE members are not automatically permitted?
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by miguel » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:36 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:btw. I cannot access the discussion on this topic in the NetRep forum, seems CoE members are not automatically permitted?
That is correct. CoE members have never been a part of the NetRep board. When the NetRep discussions migrated here, Mark (in the form of the NetRep) wanted to make the board visible to all. However, due to certain circumstances I decided to return to the ways of the old, at least for now. See notification.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:12 pm

Yeah I had noticed that, and had replied with the request to allow CoE members there.
But I guess the request was not formal enough? You want me to email you then, or a letter rather? :D

Or you'd rather not have me/us nosing in there? Well at least linking to threads in there is useless then.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by miguel » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:36 pm

I don't currently feel comfortable opening that section for non-members (of NetRep board). Sorry. :|

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:06 pm

Hmm, I see no reason for such distrust, is there no optional setting for read only?
If the NetRep(team) will be involved in errata procedures, I think it's not wise if that board is closed, even if the erratum discussion takes place here at the CoE section.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Re: Erratum Discussion: Nazgûl Timing

Post by miguel » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:06 am

Optional setting for read only? Yes that's what was available before and that privilege was abused, whether you see it or not.

Your request has been duly noted. And regarding errata procedures, let's cross that bridge when (if) we get there.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”