Logic behind Nerfs

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Theo » Sun May 06, 2018 3:30 am

Would it be possible to make a subforum that catalogs the motives behind historic errata? Particularly for errata that seem to be entirely based on reducing the power of a card (which to me seem more subjective), as opposed to things like ease of interpretability/gameplay, thematic consistency, or removing typos or other inconsistencies.

On my list are mainly cards which have multiple nerfs, where I wonder "Were all of these really necessary?", like
Rescue Prisoners: reduced MP and MP only when stored?
Vilya: site restriction and reduced cards and limit 1/turn?
Guarded Haven: no region removal and cannot start?
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by the Jabberwock » Sun May 06, 2018 4:42 am

When we created the new forums about a year ago, I completely reorganized the forums and reduced the total number of forums and subforums by about half. So I am a bit of a minimalist when it comes to this and generally speaking, require a very good reason to create a new forum.

That said, if this proves to be a topic of interest to people, I would be happy to make it a sticky. Even without a sticky, a somewhat active thread will be moved to the top of the forum regularly.

I'm no expert on the history of any of the cards you listed, but in terms of Vilya, I'm pretty sure it was massively broken and needed a serious fix. I'm actually a little surprised ICE missed this fact during development.

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Jose-san » Sun May 06, 2018 6:57 am

The region removal from protected wizardhavens was pretty broken too.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 06, 2018 1:04 pm

You needed to have been here for the beginning of the game. With the Wizards release, you could move to a site, play two greater items and rescue prisoners, and easily have an 11-point site phase. This was unhealthy for the game.

As was infinite Vilya recycling.

When Wizards was released, there was no creature minimum, either. Every hazard portion was The Balance of Things, Ren the Unclean, and twenty-three corruption cards.

Guarded Haven isn't startable because some FWs benefit far more from a protected Wizardhaven than others.

It's interesting to note that the number of broken cards increases as one approaches the Balrog set precisely because ICE didn't have time to nerf the cards that break the game. And their best gauge of that was seeing how much players who knew the game well could break it.
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Theo » Sun May 06, 2018 7:02 pm

I mean, I did play when Wizards was released... maybe not the day of, but before Dragons for sure. But the more important limit to MP burst was probably Thorough Search, no?

I would think subforums would be precisely useful for topics that are of interest to only a smaller set of people? I guess I've never seem them used much outside of this site, though.

I perfectly realize that Rescue Prisoners and Vilya weren't balanced. My point about Rescue Prisoners is that I've seen it used in a deck maybe once since the errata was known in the groups I played in. To get some justification for this sense, I did a quick search through all of the world champion decks that Shapeshifter has easy links to on his website and got... 0 uses of Rescue Prisoners. Any surprise? While I think lowering from 3 MP seems obvious---is there any other way to get 3 MP/card without tapping a site besides character play, which has its own limit from influence?---the requirement to store for any MP seems a bit excessive. Oh wait, compare to Smoke on the Wind, which not only gives instant 3 MP but you don't have to keep a character tapped for 2 more turns let alone worry about the poor sod getting knocked off and losing it all on your journey back to some (potentially useless) site. So, from this we should conclude that Rescue Prisoners was deemed to need the extra storage requirement because hero greater items give too much MP? Fair enough.

For Vilya, I don't understand the changes as solving infinite recycling, which after all the nerfs can still be done! Or was the problem in combination with some other card I'm not realizing? Anyway, if recycling were the concern, a better solution might have been to not allow Vilya to return itself, say by being set aside until the player exhausts their deck, or any other mechanism. Conceptually I have a very hard time believing that Vilya, made by Celebrimbor in Eregion and first sent to Gil-galad in Lindon before ever coming to Elrond, would have some binding to Rivendell in particular. I guess we'll have to wait a year to suggest an official change proposal.

Meanwhile there are cards like Longbottom Leaf, which 100% of champion decks have the maximum allowed, but no one seems to bat an eye because every deck uses them, rather than Rescue Prisoners or Vilya being somewhat more strategy dependent and thus actually an interesting choice.
Bandobras Took wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 1:04 pm
Guarded Haven isn't startable because some FWs benefit far more from a protected Wizardhaven than others.
That's really the historic motive? Uhh... isn't being different kind of the point of having multiple Fallen-wizards? :|
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Bandobras Took » Sun May 06, 2018 10:12 pm

If you wish to argue with ICE's reasoning, you're several years too late. ;)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

Logain
Council Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Logain » Wed May 09, 2018 9:13 pm

Lowering a broken card to a point it isn't used anymore is common as far as Collectible Card Games are concerned, ICE is no exception...

The last set (Balrog) has some cards that could have been errated if ICE hadn't stopped, Council of Elrond discussed some and issued at least one.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu May 10, 2018 4:22 am

Logain wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:13 pm
The last set (Balrog) has some cards that could have been errated if ICE hadn't stopped, Council of Elrond discussed some and issued at least one.
Do you know which one the CoE issued? The only erratum I'm aware of is this one... viewtopic.php?f=103&t=2815

Logain
Council Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Logain » Mon May 14, 2018 7:37 pm

The one i had in mind concerns Balrog characters with 3 mind, but we didn't manage to agree on something, as usual... viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1503

So in all its existence this Council only issued one... which is more of a wording correction.
That's conservative to say the least. ICE issued many erratas and we didn't manage to pull a real one. What's wrong ?

Tharasix "I forgot how deliberate and conservative the fan base is. Like Gimli describes working in the Glittering Caves of Aglarond: "With cautious skill, tap by tap - a small chip of rock and no more, perhaps, in a whole anxious day - so we would work..." Good job in displaying your cautious skill".

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by the Jabberwock » Mon May 14, 2018 9:33 pm

Logain wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 7:37 pm
So in all its existence this Council only issued one... which is more of a wording correction.
That's conservative to say the least. ICE issued many erratas and we didn't manage to pull a real one. What's wrong ?
Indeed. Well, I can't speak for Councils of the past, but as you know, our current Council has more of a focus on making the game enjoyable and long lasting for its current players, as well as those new players who continue to join our game.... and not so much of a focus on rigid adherence to ICE-era rules.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Bandobras Took » Mon May 14, 2018 9:46 pm

Logain wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 7:37 pm
The one i had in mind concerns Balrog characters with 3 mind, but we didn't manage to agree on something, as usual... viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1503

So in all its existence this Council only issued one... which is more of a wording correction.
That's conservative to say the least. ICE issued many erratas and we didn't manage to pull a real one. What's wrong ?
If you knew how hard I had to fight to get them to even amend the process, let alone issue that one, you might be more impressed. :)
Remember, NetRep rulings are official. This does not necessarily mean they are correct.

You probably aren't playing Fallen Wizards correctly.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Theo » Mon May 14, 2018 11:11 pm

I enjoyed the links; thanks all.
Logain wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:13 pm
Lowering a broken card to a point it isn't used anymore is common as far as Collectible Card Games are concerned, ICE is no exception...
I imagine that most CCGs are based on making a profit :arrow: selling new cards :arrow: power creep. Excessive nerfs work in favor of that. But without profit as a driver, why not revisit them?

Sealed decks making the best of what they are given is the only reason I can think of to deliberately have otherwise-unused cards in the game. But from a self-centered perspective, my prospects of sealed deck play at this point are pretty minimal.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Logic behind Nerfs

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue May 15, 2018 12:07 am

Theo wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:11 pm
I imagine that most CCGs are based on making a profit :arrow: selling new cards :arrow: power creep. Excessive nerfs work in favor of that. But without profit as a driver, why not revisit them?
Amen and Hallelujah!

:)
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”