Council of Elrond

http://www.councilofelrond.org/forum/vi ... =12&t=1567

Should the CRF entry on Nazgûl events be subject to an erratum in order to make the process make clear, intuitive sense?

I don't know, I guess having the relevant Digest ruling in the URD is probably enough?

In general, I'm in favor of making as many rulings/explanations as intuitive as possible, given that is how so many casual players play the game anyway. The judges at Magic the Gathering recently realized the same thing, and rewrote rules to match the expectations of their players.

The exception? If it would cause changes to the way the cards/game are actually played. Then such decisions become more complicated, and have to be considered more delicately.

Frodo

miguel wrote:I don't know, I guess having the relevant Digest ruling in the URD is probably enough?

Agree

I'd prefer keeping to the original as much as possible. Otherwise backtracking (for those who care for it) will become difficult. So a reference seems better to me.

btw. I cannot access the discussion on this topic in the NetRep forum, seems CoE members are not automatically permitted?

Thorsten the Traveller wrote:btw. I cannot access the discussion on this topic in the NetRep forum, seems CoE members are not automatically permitted?

That is correct. CoE members have never been a part of the NetRep board. When the NetRep discussions migrated here, Mark (in the form of the NetRep) wanted to make the board visible to all. However, due to certain circumstances I decided to return to the ways of the old, at least for now. See notification.

Yeah I had noticed that, and had replied with the request to allow CoE members there.
But I guess the request was not formal enough? You want me to email you then, or a letter rather?

Or you'd rather not have me/us nosing in there? Well at least linking to threads in there is useless then.

I don't currently feel comfortable opening that section for non-members (of NetRep board). Sorry.

Hmm, I see no reason for such distrust, is there no optional setting for read only?
If the NetRep(team) will be involved in errata procedures, I think it's not wise if that board is closed, even if the erratum discussion takes place here at the CoE section.

Optional setting for read only? Yes that's what was available before and that privilege was abused, whether you see it or not.

Your request has been duly noted. And regarding errata procedures, let's cross that bridge when (if) we get there.