What Sauron considers ok changes.

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:25 am

Ok, your position is clear, let's take it in another direction: which changes in rules/cards would you like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? Which obstructions in the game do you see? You can use this board section, but preferably start another thread.
This was split off from the other topic as this is a new line of thought and reasoning.

This game is a complex game with many strategies, tricks, tips, etc. No new player is going to be able to absorb it all. I've been playing for over 10 years and I still don't know everything.

1st - I think any changes in the rules or clarifications must be backed up by our primary rule sources (Rule Books from the Starters, CoL Tournament Policy, CRF, and Digests)

2nd - How we choose to interpert those things can change as we've seen in the past, some rulings from previous digests have been overturned due to new lines of reasoning

3rd - You ask which changes in rules/card would I like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? I know this is going to sound harsh, but I'm not looking at the rules and such from the perspective of a new player. I'm looking at them from established players, tournaments etc. A new player is going to make mistakes by virtue of being a new player, s/he will learn along the way as the rest of us by doing research, playing, other players pointing out things, etc.

4th - What obstructions in the game do I see. The biggest obstruction I see is the complexity of the rules, however I do not have a good solution to this other than for players to learn or make a quick cheat sheet. Perhaps extensive guides into the more complex rules would help. I know alot of people have issues with chains, passive conditions, etc.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:27 am

Sauron wrote:
Ok, your position is clear, let's take it in another direction: which changes in rules/cards would you like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? Which obstructions in the game do you see? You can use this board section, but preferably start another thread.
This was split off from the other topic as this is a new line of thought and reasoning.

This game is a complex game with many strategies, tricks, tips, etc. No new player is going to be able to absorb it all. I've been playing for over 10 years and I still don't know everything.

1st - I think any changes in the rules or clarifications must be backed up by our primary rule sources (Rule Books from the Starters, CoL Tournament Policy, CRF, and Digests)
Odd. That eliminates approximately 99% of the rules/card errata that ICE issued when they existed. Why did ICE issue errata? Why can't we use the same reason?
2nd - How we choose to interpret those things can change as we've seen in the past, some rulings from previous digests have been overturned due to new lines of reasoning
That's a separate issue, and highly debatable, to say the least. In the past, NetReps have been willing to overturn rulings due to new lines of reasoning, except in the case of Chance Meeting, We Have Come To Kill, Black Horse, Strider, Adunaphel, Hoarmurath Unleashed, etc. That, however, has nothing to do with errata as it was issued by ICE.
3rd - You ask which changes in rules/card would I like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? I know this is going to sound harsh, but I'm not looking at the rules and such from the perspective of a new player. I'm looking at them from established players, tournaments etc. A new player is going to make mistakes by virtue of being a new player, s/he will learn along the way as the rest of us by doing research, playing, other players pointing out things, etc.
However, the purpose to the CoE is to "facilitate organized play and to ameliorate the playing environment." I am quoting directly from the Charter. If hanging on to a particular game rule is not ameliorating the playing environment, if a lack of errata has caused frustration, if rules issues sit on the NetRep board for two and a half years without issue, then it is both within the scope and the right of the CoE to issue errata. It has nothing to with whether ICE said something about it while they were around and everything to do with ICE's process, which was to change things according to perceived need, up to and including axing specific alignments/avatars. (Unless you believe Palantir of Orthanc being worth no MPs to Fallen Wizards had a basis in the already existing rules? It was an attempt to ameliorate the playing environment, if you will.) That is the purpose of any CoE-issued errata, and has as much to do with Rules Interpretation (such as it has been) as a nice dinner of trout in lemon sauce.
4th - What obstructions in the game do I see. The biggest obstruction I see is the complexity of the rules, however I do not have a good solution to this other than for players to learn or make a quick cheat sheet. Perhaps extensive guides into the more complex rules would help. I know a lot of people have issues with chains, passive conditions, etc.
I thought that this was solved by the URD, which even went out of its way to provide commentary on difficult questions and examples of how rulings have been overturned through the years. There is also the Play & Examples file, which should go through a similar update under the NetRep's searching eye, and perhaps even expanded. I will also point out that it isn't the new players who have diminished Worlds attendance over the years. It's old players tired of what Frodo referred to as "Tournament Scene Stagnation." I'll quote a little bit of it:
But there is a more complex reason for tournament frustration. At the Worlds level, and any other national or local tournament with a decent attendance, frustration with tournament scenes is happening (when they happen) because of a lack of new deck ideas. The same strong deck types are consistently doing well, even as (thank god) some brand-new deck types are popping up and taking the first-place spot now and again.

But these rare new deck types are not enough. I believe that most people play Middle-earth for the creativity of it. They may still be competitive players (or they may not be… it’s important to remember that many game players are not competitive in the tournament-level sense), however, if they see the presence of a few uber-types that constantly win, these players feel mired by creative stagnation, because they look at their own deck and think, “This deck is working, therefore it isn’t fun, and if I want to play a deck that does work, I have to choose between one of these silly solitaire decks…”

This isn’t just a question of whether it gets creamed in worlds play or vs. uber players, but also if it just gets beaten too many times on GGCCG because too many players regardless of individual skill are using these same tested, nearly perfect decks. So the counter-argument of, “There’s plenty of interesting hobbit-lore decks to make, so stop complaining and just play those, newbs” isn’t enough. Deck strength matters. With a limited player pool, decks that work become necessary for fun. Not losing massively, not losing all the time, defines “work.”

Additionally, those who play MECCG for the sheer thrill of competition are also saying, “Okay, I get it, these deck types have been proved already!” Many such competitive players, including the ones who designed these Death Stars to begin with, are (respectably) standing far away from these decks now, even informing other players on how to beat them.

But it’s not enough. Now, the Council of Elrond could keep applying laissez faire economics theory and say, “Well, just let the players decide when too much is too much. We’re not going to interfere: we will not issue new errata, new guidelines. When players don’t want to play these decks anymore, they won’t play them, plain and simple.”

The problem with this approach is that it’s too slow. It leaves out the fact that when players don’t want to play against these decks anymore, they will simply stop playing altogether. I’ve heard numerous stories about local/national playgroups that have disintegrated in this fashion. Such a laissez faire policy also does not address the problem of creative stagnation… unless you are an exceptionally talented or exceptionally obsessive player who swears by what I’m about to describe in my next paragraph:

I am sure that some players won’t see the point to democratizing our game so that it appeals to more or even weaker players. Why not keep the game going for those who still appreciate it, and screw everyone else who doesn’t, who just wants to complain? There will always be a certain group of players who love the player-versus-player purity of the game, so much so that even if they were playing a similar deck, even the same deck, versus their opponent, they would still get excited about the match. But eventually, we will end up with roughly 8 players in the entire world who are eager to alternate between the same 4 deck types, who pin all their strategic hopes to metagame tweakings of individual hazard strategies or a few resource cards, year after year. On some level, this kind of Platonic competition sounds interesting—even to me. But I bet that’s not a level the majority of players care about. Worse, there is already a name for the science fiction scenario I’ve described above. It’s called, “Worlds.”
In all, I find that your restrictions hinge upon a very flawed idea of errata, as though ICE didn't change things regularly or it were merely another step of document interpretation.

It isn't. It is a continuation of the process that ICE engaged in throughout the history of the game -- modifying certain aspects in order to create a level playing field and fun for the greatest amount of people.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:19 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:
Sauron wrote:
Ok, your position is clear, let's take it in another direction: which changes in rules/cards would you like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? Which obstructions in the game do you see? You can use this board section, but preferably start another thread.
This was split off from the other topic as this is a new line of thought and reasoning.

This game is a complex game with many strategies, tricks, tips, etc. No new player is going to be able to absorb it all. I've been playing for over 10 years and I still don't know everything.

1st - I think any changes in the rules or clarifications must be backed up by our primary rule sources (Rule Books from the Starters, CoL Tournament Policy, CRF, and Digests)
Odd. That eliminates approximately 99% of the rules/card errata that ICE issued when they existed. Why did ICE issue errata? Why can't we use the same reason?
We're not ICE. How can you say we're staying true to the game? We may be taking the game far away from the vision ICE had or we may not.
Bandobras Took wrote:
2nd - How we choose to interpret those things can change as we've seen in the past, some rulings from previous digests have been overturned due to new lines of reasoning
That's a separate issue, and highly debatable, to say the least. In the past, NetReps have been willing to overturn rulings due to new lines of reasoning, except in the case of Chance Meeting, We Have Come To Kill, Black Horse, Strider, Adunaphel, Hoarmurath Unleashed, etc. That, however, has nothing to do with errata as it was issued by ICE.
Yes debatable.
Bandobras Took wrote:
3rd - You ask which changes in rules/card would I like to see to make the game more diverse and attractive for new players? I know this is going to sound harsh, but I'm not looking at the rules and such from the perspective of a new player. I'm looking at them from established players, tournaments etc. A new player is going to make mistakes by virtue of being a new player, s/he will learn along the way as the rest of us by doing research, playing, other players pointing out things, etc.
However, the purpose to the CoE is to "facilitate organized play and to ameliorate the playing environment." I am quoting directly from the Charter. If hanging on to a particular game rule is not ameliorating the playing environment, if a lack of errata has caused frustration, if rules issues sit on the NetRep board for two and a half years without issue, then it is both within the scope and the right of the CoE to issue errata. It has nothing to with whether ICE said something about it while they were around and everything to do with ICE's process, which was to change things according to perceived need, up to and including axing specific alignments/avatars. (Unless you believe Palantir of Orthanc being worth no MPs to Fallen Wizards had a basis in the already existing rules? It was an attempt to ameliorate the playing environment, if you will.) That is the purpose of any CoE-issued errata, and has as much to do with Rules Interpretation (such as it has been) as a nice dinner of trout in lemon sauce.
Who gets to choose what's ameliorating in the playing environment the CoE? So if in a particular year CoE(A) think something should change and it gets changed, but in the next year the CoE(B) reverts it how is that any help?
Bandobras Took wrote:
4th - What obstructions in the game do I see. The biggest obstruction I see is the complexity of the rules, however I do not have a good solution to this other than for players to learn or make a quick cheat sheet. Perhaps extensive guides into the more complex rules would help. I know a lot of people have issues with chains, passive conditions, etc.
I thought that this was solved by the URD, which even went out of its way to provide commentary on difficult questions and examples of how rulings have been overturned through the years. There is also the Play & Examples file, which should go through a similar update under the NetRep's searching eye, and perhaps even expanded. I will also point out that it isn't the new players who have diminished Worlds attendance over the years. It's old players tired of what Frodo referred to as "Tournament Scene Stagnation." I'll quote a little bit of it:
"Note I took out Frodo's long quote"
The URD is an extensive document, I was talking about a quick 8.5x11 cheat sheet.
Bandobras Took wrote: In all, I find that your restrictions hinge upon a very flawed idea of errata, as though ICE didn't change things regularly or it were merely another step of document interpretation.

It isn't. It is a continuation of the process that ICE engaged in throughout the history of the game -- modifying certain aspects in order to create a level playing field and fun for the greatest amount of people.
What do you mean create a level playing field? The playing field is the same for all.
You say you're continuing the process ICE engaged in, but I could easily say you're straying from the vision ICE had. Without ICE here to say, all we can do in conjecture.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:59 am

Sauron, am I correct then in assuming you don't want any real changes (i.e. other than interpretations and rewordings), not even ones that serve the purpose of simplification (such as the "cards playable on automatic-attacks"), a goal which you mention in the OP as the main/only legitimate goal for change? My question to you was to name a few things you would like to see differently, but I can see none in the OP.

Then could you elaborate more on what you think the ICE vision you refer to several times is about? Referring to some unspecified set of principles as a reason for (not) doing something is rather unsound of course, then it belongs more to the realm of religion almost.

Imo, what it basically comes down to is: which version of the game attrackts more crowd? If all current tournament players are Saurons, and they would leave the game because the "vision of ICE" is substantially breached by something like a "cards on aa rule", which ruins the game, well then: it's their party.... but somehow I doubt that.

Your concerns for yearly or frivolous change are duly noted.
But going from no change to yearly change, decided frivolously, does that seem very plausible? Not to me. So this concern should not lead to mere conservatism. Yes the CoE is only human, we are fallible indeed, but keep in mind also this is a game, and ICE were not demi-gods.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:27 pm

Message Deleted by Sauron
Last edited by Sauron on Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:32 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Sauron, am I correct then in assuming you don't want any real changes (i.e. other than interpretations and rewordings), not even ones that serve the purpose of simplification (such as the "cards playable on automatic-attacks"), a goal which you mention in the OP as the main/only legitimate goal for change? My question to you was to name a few things you would like to see differently, but I can see none in the OP.
I don't mind change, but I'd like for there to be a reason or justification in the rules. I don't terribly mind the cards playable on automatic-attacks simplification personally, as it does seem odd some cards that should work on automatic attacks don't, ie Sojourn in Shadow.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Then could you elaborate more on what you think the ICE vision you refer to several times is about? Referring to some unspecified set of principles as a reason for (not) doing something is rather unsound of course, then it belongs more to the realm of religion almost.
ICE's vision is what they set down in the rules of play documents.
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Imo, what it basically comes down to is: which version of the game attrackts more crowd? If all current tournament players are Saurons, and they would leave the game because the "vision of ICE" is substantially breached by something like a "cards on aa rule", which ruins the game, well then: it's their party.... but somehow I doubt that.
No I don't expect everyone to flock and leave, but I can't speak for anyone else, I'm tired of learning new rules to a game I've been playing for 10+ years straight. Why should the rules for the game change constantly?
Thorsten the Traveller wrote: Your concerns for yearly or frivolous change are duly noted.
But going from no change to yearly change, decided frivolously, does that seem very plausible? Not to me. So this concern should not lead to mere conservatism. Yes the CoE is only human, we are fallible indeed, but keep in mind also this is a game, and ICE were not demi-gods.
This is of course just an extreme example, as I don't expect this to happen. But it is an example of what could happen.

There was an idea Mikko and I were throwing around.

Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?

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

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by marcos » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:10 pm

Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?
that would be rather interesting to playtest and compare

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:21 pm

Bandobras Took wrote:Odd. That eliminates approximately 99% of the rules/card errata that ICE issued when they existed. Why did ICE issue errata? Why can't we use the same reason?
We're not ICE. How can you say we're staying true to the game? We may be taking the game far away from the vision ICE had or we may not.
I didn't ask if we were ICE. I asked if we could use the same justifications and reasonings they did when issuing errata; if we do so, then we have stayed as true to the game as they did.
Bandobras Took wrote: However, the purpose to the CoE is to "facilitate organized play and to ameliorate the playing environment." I am quoting directly from the Charter. If hanging on to a particular game rule is not ameliorating the playing environment, if a lack of errata has caused frustration, if rules issues sit on the NetRep board for two and a half years without issue, then it is both within the scope and the right of the CoE to issue errata. It has nothing to with whether ICE said something about it while they were around and everything to do with ICE's process, which was to change things according to perceived need, up to and including axing specific alignments/avatars. (Unless you believe Palantir of Orthanc being worth no MPs to Fallen Wizards had a basis in the already existing rules? It was an attempt to ameliorate the playing environment, if you will.) That is the purpose of any CoE-issued errata, and has as much to do with Rules Interpretation (such as it has been) as a nice dinner of trout in lemon sauce.
Who gets to choose what's ameliorating in the playing environment the CoE? So if in a particular year CoE(A) think something should change and it gets changed, but in the next year the CoE(B) reverts it how is that any help?
Because the only way that can happen is if there is a massive shift in the opinions of those who actually announce their candidacy and get voted for. Since the old charter required majority community approval and so will the new, this isn't going to happen in any practical sense; the people who would manage to vote in an entirely new CoE would stop the passage of such errata in the first place.
Bandobras Took wrote: In all, I find that your restrictions hinge upon a very flawed idea of errata, as though ICE didn't change things regularly or it were merely another step of document interpretation.

It isn't. It is a continuation of the process that ICE engaged in throughout the history of the game -- modifying certain aspects in order to create a level playing field and fun for the greatest amount of people.
What do you mean create a level playing field? The playing field is the same for all.
You say you're continuing the process ICE engaged in, but I could easily say you're straying from the vision ICE had. Without ICE here to say, all we can do is conjecture.
marcos wrote:I believe that FW dunk is just non viable for a tournament scene even when i can think on a decklist that could avoid most of the problems here mentioned, it can't just do it in the needed amount of time for making it competitive.
This would be one example of creating a level playing field: is there a particular reason why FW dunk shouldn't be viable for tournament settings? The playing field is not the same for all if one particular alignment does not have a viable option to gain 7 TPs in tournament setting.

Yes, there's room for conjecture (which is why there's, you know, a voting process), but the fact that ICE was engaged in making new rules and rewriting cards up to the day of their demise does show one thing: if we aren't doing that, then we can't possibly be staying true to what ICE was doing while they had control of the game, because we aren't doing the things they were doing.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:29 pm

Are you saying every alignment must have the ability to get 7 TP tournament wins at an equal level?

So you want level playing field in terms of alignment, not in terms of players?

This will never happen. The various alignments have their specific weaknesses and strengths. To figure out and fix all the inequalities between the various alignments will never happen. 1 example, dragon factions. So do we make all factions attack XYZ reigon or do we make dragon factions not attack? Another example Hero items are generally worth more than Minion items we going to normalize that? Another example Minion and Hero versions of the same item work different ie Arkenstone.

How would you propose we normalize all these things?

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

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by thorondor » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:00 pm

i dont mind that ring "dunk" for minion or FW is more difficult than for heroes. would it have been easier, sauron would have won back the ring or saruman would have become the new master of arda.
i guess ICE did this on purpose. i am sure back then it was not often seen that the ring was redeemed by sauron in barad dur. and ICE had time enough to correct this for minion, if they wanted to. so i guess they wanted it exactly that way: the possibilties are there, but chances are very low. same for FW.

i know that argueing with the books often doesnt help. i still like the moments the game reflects and books and i wont argue against it.

maybe it would have been smart to give 8 or even 9 TPs to a ring "dunk" with minion/FW. so if i thnk there should be some change (which i do not), i´d rather go that route.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:08 pm

Minion dunk is still at least possible in a tournament setting; I'd rather this not turn into a debate of specifics, since Sauron's talking about general principles. When marcos of all people can't figure out a way to make something work, that's a good sign that it's not going to work.

So yes, the FWs are essentially gypped out of the possibility of 1 TP/round compared to alignments. This is not a level playing field; and Sauron asked for an example in which the playing field might be leveled.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:35 pm

Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?
You mean, like the starter rules and the standard rules? Well that idea was very successfull :wink:
ICE's vision is what they set down in the rules of play documents.
Then it IS like a religion after all :D
Not just to make a joke of it, but said time and again, ICE also kept modifying. So a vision set in stone, that is hard to grasp. The more general vision of a game that is halfway between role playing and cardgame in a middle earth setting (drawing on Tolkien or tolkienesque material), that sounds good to me.

btw. FW dunk might be possible if you manage to roadblock your opponent for a turn or 3, then again, many other competitive decks are squatters. Now, a Riddle Game or a Treason the Greatest Foe deck, that is impossible in a tournament setting, that should be worth at least 9 TP's. :lol:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

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

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by thorondor » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?
You mean, like the starter rules and the standard rules? Well that idea was very successfull :wink:
there are rumors (anyone can confirm this?) that also ICE realized that it would have been good for the game to go that way: maintain the old "classic" rules and issue something new with simplified rules. though nothing ever became official, the idea was already there.
and i like it. this could help to attract new players, while veterans can still play "their" game on the same high level.
Last edited by thorondor on Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sauron
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Sauron » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:01 pm

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:
Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?
You mean, like the starter rules and the standard rules? Well that idea was very successfull :wink:
ICE's vision is what they set down in the rules of play documents.
Then it IS like a religion after all :D
Not just to make a joke of it, but said time and again, ICE also kept modifying. So a vision set in stone, that is hard to grasp. The more general vision of a game that is halfway between role playing and cardgame in a middle earth setting (drawing on Tolkien or tolkienesque material), that sounds good to me.

btw. FW dunk might be possible if you manage to roadblock your opponent for a turn or 3, then again, many other competitive decks are squatters. Now, a Riddle Game or a Treason the Greatest Foe deck, that is impossible in a tournament setting, that should be worth at least 9 TP's. :lol:
<prays before the One Ring> Oh mighty One Ring, please take this offering of Orcrist, Longbottom Leaves, and Ent Draughts as my humble sacrifice so you may show us the wisdom of your ways</pray>

On a more practical note, yes it could be interpeted in either way. Hence why we have discussions. I'm bringing the other point of view to the table so it can be discussed. People need to be aware of both sides of the issues.

Mark A. made a fairly good Riddle Game deck. High interaction decks tend to be difficult, it's alot of dice rolling and luck. You can put things into a statisitcal advantage for yourself, but it always comes down to dice rolling. It's why CvCC and Malady decks can back fire so horrendously.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: What Sauron considers ok changes.

Post by Bandobras Took » Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:09 pm

marcos wrote:
Why not make Classic MeCCG Ruleset and NewAge MeCCG rule set?
that would be rather interesting to playtest and compare
Actually, we already did that; we just called it "Virtual Cards."

The playtesting proved to be more grueling than most people anticipated, and was not regularly endorsed or rewarded. The entire project went stagnant at least in part because it was "alternate" rather than "official."
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”