Page 3 of 4
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:54 am
by marcos
thorondor wrote:this thread is another good eample that we need some more structure when discussing. too many different topics ar emetnioned ehre already. i will do this tomorrow.
on the other hand, i thing this is a very good sign, cause finally the COE is awakening from its entish state.
@ A Chance Meeting:
i am pretty sure, the cards was laways meant to be played exactly as it is played right now. the title says CHANCE meeting, something unexpecting is coming the way, this can happen always and everywhere. this sudden popping up of a character in the site phae exactly reflects what the title says imo.
generally, i agree with bruno, that we should start with cards, where mistakes are obvious. that would give the COE some sort of legitimatin from the very start when we are about to begin with issueing errata. if we start with cards, where it looks like we want to balance the game, it will definately lead to splitting the community, i fear.
The use of Latin died out when ...
talking of latin:
"erratum" = error, mistake (singular!), while "errata" is the plural.
the soul of a philologist in me always cries out when seeing the wrong use of this latin word
finally quick note on DC:
as a whole i like it.
but new cards and rules are deliverd too fast. and the constant changes are annoying. i think thats why the tourney right now isnt taken as seriously as it should be: players feel to play an incomplete game, rules arnt finished, the map isnt finished, the decks arent finished (last lure i played a CH deck with out any ally in the deck. and it was no mistake, as nico told me).
imo the most important thing is to consolidate parts of DC. printing a first series with some additional rules would be prefect.
thats for the normal DC players then, let the nerds have there playground with thouands of more cards and rules and changes and maps.
i agree with wolfgang, but i still think that introducing new cards can be revitalizing for the game
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:18 am
by thorondor
marcos wrote:
i agree with wolfgang, but i still think that introducing new cards can be revitalizing for the game
thats what i am also saying! and i really appreciate all the work and efforts nico/eric are putting into this!
i just think sometimes new sets and new rules are released to soon, not being playtested thouroughly enough. thats why i would love to see FB printed. no changes possible any longer, its set in stone. and a player has something that he rely on totally.
nb: of course in an ongoing tourney it also adds some fun and the need of a certain skill having nico explain some new rules and errata on cards while playing them
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:18 am
by Thorsten the Traveller
the real problem exists with rules that can only be found in Nico's head
but I think you'll agree, we've made some serious progress on this the last couple of years (since I graduated from shrink-school)
You're right Wolfgang, I'm not nagging, but if ICE had done some more playtesting on the later sets the result would have been so much better. And we can't design and test all by ourselves in a narrow time-frame, and we don't want to wait. It's just part of the dc game experience right now, so why not see that as an exciting thing? You can actually help developing the stuff, how cool is that, to be at the forefront of a new type of meccg game!? When the cards are finally official, you'll have a big headstart on the other players and you'll become the new WC!
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:33 pm
by Shapeshifter
I think Nico never said that DC play already left the playtesting process. I always looked at it as such.
Well, before this discussions wholly turns into the DC direction we should return to the core of this thread:
Would it be o.k. if the CoE would make changes to ICE-era rulings?
As said before, I like the CoE issuing new card and rules errata. Though this should be done
very carefully. Personally I think that new errata should "normally"
not be made for seemingly overpowered cards just because some players don't like the way a card is played. Most people are used to play with such "overpowered" cards and can cope with it. It would, however, have a great impact (positive or negative I dare not say, yet) on the game to make changes to cards like River, ACM/WHCtK or Great Shadow. Furthermore in my opinion it's not the fact that "overpowered" cards are being played that scares away players from competitive GO games rather than that always the same deck types are being played. Well, there is of course a correlation between strong cards and often played deck types, but that is only a part of the story, imo.
I would suggest that we start playtesting with less controversial cards/rules errata. For me this could be a change to the current ruling on what cards are playable on auto-attacks. As the way it is ruled right now is a bit weird and obviously not meant to work like this. What do you think?
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:07 pm
by marcos
I would suggest that we start playtesting with less controversial cards/rules errata. For me this could be a change to the current ruling on what cards are playable on auto-attacks. As the way it is ruled right now is a bit weird and obviously not meant to work like this. What do you think?
i agree
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:37 am
by Bruce
Shapeshifter wrote:I think Nico never said that DC play already left the playtesting process. I always looked at it as such.
Well, before this discussions wholly turns into the DC direction we should return to the core of this thread:
Would it be o.k. if the CoE would make changes to ICE-era rulings?
As said before, I like the CoE issuing new card and rules errata. Though this should be done
very carefully. Personally I think that new errata should "normally"
not be made for seemingly overpowered cards just because some players don't like the way a card is played.
Shapeshifter wrote:I would suggest that we start playtesting with less controversial cards/rules errata. For me this could be a change to the current ruling on what cards are playable on auto-attacks. As the way it is ruled right now is a bit weird and obviously not meant to work like this. What do you think?
I definitely agree.
From
this topic
Bandobras Took wrote:If we don't want to change chance meeting/we have come to kill, may I suggest rewriting the rules about cards playable on auto-attacks so that you can play resources with the phrase "playable on an attack" or "playable on a company facing an attack"? This has the manifest advantages of opening up more options for players and being less confusing for new players (they won't have to be told their strike assignment cards can't be played).
I agree that the most flawed part of the whole ICE-legacy is the one regarding auto-attacks: it really needs some corrections. I suggest to start a new topic with the purpose of solely discussing this particular auto-attacks issue.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:36 am
by Bandobras Took
I ran into this gem while going over Van Norton's digests:
As always, my rulings indicate how I would rule on the card based upon the current rules and CRF. There is no requirement for any play group to play this way. Rulings are provided as a free service to make playing Middle- Earth: CCG more consistent and hopefully more enjoyable.
Rulings that do not make the game more consistent or actually make the game less enjoyable should be considered good candidates for errata.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:07 am
by Thorsten the Traveller
Note also that if you do not claim authority, you will not get it. Of course authority comes with wisdom and good judgement/management, but still, if the NetRep starts by saying: do as you please, then that's what people will do.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:26 am
by Jose-san
Why don't we ask the community what they think? I've opened a poll in the Spanish forum. I think this is important enough to ask them.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:31 pm
by Thorsten the Traveller
Sure, good idea
but the idea was to do an inventory first, and then consult, so it would be a little more centrally coordinated, which sends out a more unified message, and stronger image.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:03 pm
by Bandobras Took
I agree with Thorsten.
P.S. Quick, somebody sticky this! I agreed with Thorsten!
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:42 pm
by Bandobras Took
The CoE issued an Erratum to Belegaer in rulings digest #6. Did this follow the approved process, or did the NetRep take it upon himself?
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:45 pm
by marcos
what errata was that?
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:02 pm
by Bandobras Took
Changing Elven Coast on Belegaer to Elven Shores. There is no Elven Coast region, but this does consitute an erratum to the card.
Re: ICE-Era Rulings and Conservatives
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:17 pm
by Bandobras Took
Here's another comment on the idea that we should be issuing errata in the name of game balance:
CoE 21 wrote:What is the reason that the PalantÃri of Orthanc and Elostirion don't give
MP's to Fallen-wizards?
*** This was created to try to make squatting Fallen Wizards less powerful.
ICE did this for no other reason than attempting to balance the game. Yes, they wanted to succeed, but they recognized the necessity of making the attempt whether they succeeded or not.