Player Base?!?

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Player Base?!?

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:01 am

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm talking about the reason it exists. When the actual designer of the game says, "This is what we wanted" or "this isn't what we intended," that's a far cry from a card getting changed because a few people complained about it.

Neither has the CoE, to my knowledge, ever changed a card because people were complaining about it.

That is the issue I have with what's been said here. If you're going to ascribe motive for the changes made, it would be best to:

1) Actually know who changed what, and
2) Actually know why they did it.

ICE changed what they wanted because it was their game and they knew how they wanted it to play out, whether they were capable of expressing that clearly or not. Seize Prisoners had its functionality massively changed because they were aware that seeing the same things over and over makes the game stale, and the sheer amount of MPs generated per turn curtailed the effectiveness of other decks.

Categorizing such decisions as ICE changing things for the sake of a handful of people's perceptions of power level is disingenuous.

Likewise, categorizing ICE-era decisions as "staying true to what we imagine the designers had intended" is outright fabrication if the alteration in question was by the designers.

Which, incidentally, everything listed in this thread so far is. Van Norton was an ICE Netrep.

Feel free to bring up examples of of something the CoE has done to arbitrarily change a card. Good luck. I haven't noticed that happening despite at least a decade of effort trying to convince them to do so.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

DamienX207
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Player Base?!?

Post by DamienX207 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:59 am

Apologies, I was including ICE in that. I think the fact that we’re arguing about this stuff at all is a sign that ICE wasn’t perfect. Point still remains ...

I’ve said my peace though, others can chime in if they’re so inclined, I really gotta turn off email notifications on this!! :P

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Player Base?!?

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:48 am

Theo wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:42 am
With something like MECCG, where each card was designed to have some tie to the overall story/game, it would be sad to ban iconic cards.
Absolutely TRUE.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm
But given ICE's sloppy wording, a tome of rulings and clarifications is inevitable. That problem's not going to be solved until you rewrite both the rules and all the cards from the ground up, because imprecise and incomplete texts are found in both.
The only argument I have with this (Create the TOME by all means tho :P), is that when you pick-a-part 20+ year old card texts, we are going to find mistakes like CRAZY, some language changes and the CCG lingo is different. That's why I try and empathize with the original design, and go with what should be, but mind you this takes a culmination of knowing tons of cards by heart, and saying, "it's gotta be like such-n-such card"
DamienX207 wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:25 pm
in the case of Palantir of Orthanc, the fact that Fallen Saruman can't use his own dang palantir to build his victory is LESS thematic, not moreso.
This is what kinda, made me sick to my stomach. Because Saruman has the Keys of Orthanc (1), Many-coloured Robes (1), Palantir of Orthanc (2), plus his Saruman (-1) CP. Putting him at 5 CP check? And you are telling me my opponent can't play a Lure of the Senses? for 7 CP every Haven Check? with a 6 to discard Lure?!? How hard is this to achieve? play Lure DONE? I don't get this. UGH
n.b. And to use the Palantir he has to make a 5 CP [-me_cp-] every time?

The even SICKER part is, you miss the Corruption Check and it's what? a 9 MP swing?

Thanks for the reading, I JUST WANT TO SAY, NO ONE IS TO BLAME! :D I hope I am not coming off like I am saying the CoE situation is STUPID or people haven't put in hard work.

I just think there should be like a REVISED MECCG. Like the Council or something should go thru, certain changes and do an audit, saying BYE, BYE, BYE, CUT, CUT, CUT, etc...

Like, I know and I can understand the Rescue Prisoners storing, but the 3 to 2 meh... I know LOL

Just a patchwork quilt of rules is rough, but THANK GOD for the URD!
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Player Base?!?

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:31 am

You're late to the party. :)

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1638
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
rezwits
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Player Base?!?

Post by rezwits » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:09 am

This game is a freaking CIRCLE!

haha
You probably aren't playing Agents correctly 8) <- need a rule thread for this tho...

Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”