Unique Short Events

[Bandobras Took]

How dare you say Van was wrong when we must all uphold every insanely needlessly-complicated ICE/CoL/CoE ruling for the sake of posterity???
Having out-of-game and out-of-play has no functional difference in vast majority of circumstances and, as shown above, hasn't been upheld even by ICE in their own printings/terminology, so personally I'm in favor of cleaning up the rules for the sake of streamlined gameplay when possible... But of course, I don't expect to make headway with ICE-rules-reform arguments around here.

Don't give up hope; after almost a decade of arguing, the CoE actually issued an erratum!

[Konrad Klar]

Having out-of-game and out-of-play has no functional difference in vast majority of circumstances and, as shown above, hasn't been upheld even by ICE in their own printings/terminology, so personally I'm in favor of cleaning up the rules for the sake of streamlined gameplay when possible...

It has functional difference in case of unique cards. Maybe they are vast minority; I did not count.

You are right that it hasn't been upheld even by ICE in their own printings/terminology.
The same could be said about a passive conditions (until MELE), and about a cards off to the side (until MEDM).
But the concepts have existed since METW (the host card off to the side in one example).
And without a passive conditions (or alternative regulation) it was not known how to deal with situation when multiple conditions written on card(s) in play are activated simultaneously.

[gkg]

I believe News of Doom should be saying "remove from play" not from the game, and agree with Van's ruling.
Therefore I have to vote NO on otherwise nice Rule change proposal (Ballot item #7), because I believe it should correctly be changing NoD to "remove from play" similar to dragon manifestations.

[the JabberwocK]

I believe News of Doom should be saying "remove from play" not from the game, and agree with Van's ruling.
Therefore I have to vote NO on otherwise nice Rule change proposal (Ballot item #7), because I believe it should correctly be changing NoD to "remove from play" similar to dragon manifestations.

I think you have a good point, and I recently spoke with a friend who feels the same way about News of Doom. However, I personally don't think that voting against ballot item #7 is the best way to express your concern. A NO vote result means this topic will remain a mess and cause confusion. With a YES vote, it will be clarified and eliminate that confusion. Then a motion can be submitted for next year's vote proposing Favor of the Valar and News of Doom be given errata to say "removed from play" instead of "removed from the game." As mentioned in the Additional Comments section of ballot item #7, it was decided not to put so many different errata into one proposal at this time (except those which were essential).

I feel it is better for our game to fix something 90% and then leave it open for another 10% of future improvements, rather than to fix 0% and have it remain broken and unclear. Proposals which are voted down will not be tweaked and put back on the ballot year after year unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Just food for thought. Thank you for your input.

[Bandobras Took]

I feel it is better for our game to fix something 90% and then leave it open for another 10% of future improvements, rather than to fix 0% and have it remain broken and unclear.

And may I just thank you for bucking over a decade of tradition?

[gkg]

I understand your point and understand your frustration at people like me, but I hate imperfect changes.

If at all possible, try to stick with what is on the card is my #1 mantra.
Any changes to something else are problematic, even if you have an actively played always up-to-date online representation of the game.

But again, this is great initiative, awesome work.

[the JabberwocK]

And may I just thank you for bucking over a decade of tradition?

Haha, well you're welcome I guess.

I understand your point and understand your frustration at people like me, but I hate imperfect changes.

I'm not frustrated with you or anyone else who is like-minded. I'm simply pointing out that sometimes taking large steps in the right direction is the best move. Perfection is not always attainable (and certainly less so on the first try). Furthermore, "perfection" to one person may be "imperfection" to another.

The more feedback and participation we have on items during the submission period, the closer to some kind of "perfection" we can get. Hopefully we will have more active feedback on submissions for next year (and there will be a much longer submission time frame as well).

But again, this is great initiative, awesome work.

Thank you kindly. I'm lucky to have 3 incredible partners on the ROC.

[CDavis7M]

This whole discussion and no one bothered to quote the rules on playing Unique cards?

I won't bother to either. But reading the rules sure would answer this question easily.