Bruce wrote:If the CoE started altering the ICE legacy (modifying rules and or card texts), I'm afraid it would all end up in an arm-wrestling between opposing parties with different ideas of what is broken, what is cheezy, what is unthematic and so on.
What in these three guidelines gave you the idea that theme ever entered into it?Bandobras Took wrote: 1) Errata should never change the function of a given card to something else entirely. This is the purpose of the Virtual Card project, and it is doing well in its way. The purpose of CoE Errata should be to make cards work as intended, not to make cards do something different.
2) Errata to rules should have in mind simplification and intent. For example, the rules for facing automatic attacks are very poorly written. An erratum would ask "What was the intent behind these rules? Is there a way to more simply express that intent that results in fewer gray areas and less vagueness?"
3) Errata should never be solely for thematic reasons. A balance issue or a card not working as intended should always be the overriding force.
So, because a CCG cannot be 100% perfect, we should give up on attempting to perfect it? Some cards and strategies are more powerful than others, but to the day that they went under, ICE issued errata and created cards to balance out the game and make sure that cards weren't too powerful. Their whole goal was to reach that 100% perfection, regardless of whether it was attainable.Some cards and strategies are more powerful than others, and some cards are much more frequent in decks than others. That happens in all CCGs. The same applies for the number of top-competition decks being very restricted. I don't think this is the real problem. No CCG can be 100% perfect, at least not for everybody. I think MECCG is well balanced and thematic as it is.
As opposed to the current endless conflicts on Chance Meeting, or being able to play River on non-moving companies, We Have Come to Kill and Ringwraith Followers, etc.?Intervention on existing rules and/or cards is justified whether its benefits are clearly greater than its costs. In other words, whether they fix unanimously acknowledged faults. Not by chance the only precedent was the Balrog 2-mind rule, which fixed an imbalance, and was welcomed by the whole community and didn't create any rift. Nevertheless, I consider this as a pretty unique case: an abuse of such intervention may lead to endless conflicts.
If the core of the game is dead, extensions will already have limited life. If you object to rules modifications on principle, then you object to Vastor's entire dream card project. The number of rules he's modified for the dream card format to work are too many to count.Developing new sets of cards (if necessary accompanied by new rules, and/or modifications of existing rules) instead of struggling over modifications to the existing ones can be more productive, IMO. In my view, the "standard" MECCG, i.e. the whole ICE-era's legacy, would become an introduction to the "CoE-era" of MECCG, an inner core of something bigger (and better).
So we should take huge efforts with uncertain benefits to create something new, rather than take huge efforts with uncertain benefits to make sure what we've got is actually working the way it was intended?To make it short, the point is not being conservatives or non-conservatives: the point is where we need to act in order to achieve our goals. IMO we should focus on developing something new, instead of taking huge efforts (with uncertain benefits) in order to retouch the existing.
I'm sorry, but the only huge effort an errata process will require is one we put in place ourselves. I would not endorse Vastor's Dreamcards for normal play because he's made too many drastic changes to the rules, and that strictly on his own authority. That does not mean that his Dreamcards are without value or do not serve the community.
There is no correlation between us issuing errata and divisiveness. The divisiveness was already there, it's just that people who would like to see the game polished and balanced have been on the receiving end of all the negative results.