Player Base?!?

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm talking about the reason it exists. When the actual designer of the game says, "This is what we wanted" or "this isn't what we intended," that's a far cry from a card getting changed because a few people complained about it.

Neither has the CoE, to my knowledge, ever changed a card because people were complaining about it.

That is the issue I have with what's been said here. If you're going to ascribe motive for the changes made, it would be best to:

1) Actually know who changed what, and
2) Actually know why they did it.

ICE changed what they wanted because it was their game and they knew how they wanted it to play out, whether they were capable of expressing that clearly or not. Seize Prisoners had its functionality massively changed because they were aware that seeing the same things over and over makes the game stale, and the sheer amount of MPs generated per turn curtailed the effectiveness of other decks.

Categorizing such decisions as ICE changing things for the sake of a handful of people's perceptions of power level is disingenuous.

Likewise, categorizing ICE-era decisions as "staying true to what we imagine the designers had intended" is outright fabrication if the alteration in question was by the designers.

Which, incidentally, everything listed in this thread so far is. Van Norton was an ICE Netrep.

Feel free to bring up examples of of something the CoE has done to arbitrarily change a card. Good luck. I haven't noticed that happening despite at least a decade of effort trying to convince them to do so.
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
DamienX207
Council Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:53 pm

Apologies, I was including ICE in that. I think the fact that we’re arguing about this stuff at all is a sign that ICE wasn’t perfect. Point still remains ...

I’ve said my peace though, others can chime in if they’re so inclined, I really gotta turn off email notifications on this!! :P
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Theo wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:42 am With something like MECCG, where each card was designed to have some tie to the overall story/game, it would be sad to ban iconic cards.
Absolutely TRUE.
Bandobras Took wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm But given ICE's sloppy wording, a tome of rulings and clarifications is inevitable. That problem's not going to be solved until you rewrite both the rules and all the cards from the ground up, because imprecise and incomplete texts are found in both.
The only argument I have with this (Create the TOME by all means tho :P), is that when you pick-a-part 20+ year old card texts, we are going to find mistakes like CRAZY, some language changes and the CCG lingo is different. That's why I try and empathize with the original design, and go with what should be, but mind you this takes a culmination of knowing tons of cards by heart, and saying, "it's gotta be like such-n-such card"
DamienX207 wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:25 pm in the case of Palantir of Orthanc, the fact that Fallen Saruman can't use his own dang palantir to build his victory is LESS thematic, not moreso.
This is what kinda, made me sick to my stomach. Because Saruman has the Keys of Orthanc (1), Many-coloured Robes (1), Palantir of Orthanc (2), plus his Saruman (-1) CP. Putting him at 5 CP check? And you are telling me my opponent can't play a Lure of the Senses? for 7 CP every Haven Check? with a 6 to discard Lure?!? How hard is this to achieve? play Lure DONE? I don't get this. UGH
n.b. And to use the Palantir he has to make a 5 CP [-me_cp-] every time?

The even SICKER part is, you miss the Corruption Check and it's what? a 9 MP swing?

Thanks for the reading, I JUST WANT TO SAY, NO ONE IS TO BLAME! :D I hope I am not coming off like I am saying the CoE situation is STUPID or people haven't put in hard work.

I just think there should be like a REVISED MECCG. Like the Council or something should go thru, certain changes and do an audit, saying BYE, BYE, BYE, CUT, CUT, CUT, etc...

Like, I know and I can understand the Rescue Prisoners storing, but the 3 to 2 meh... I know LOL

Just a patchwork quilt of rules is rough, but THANK GOD for the URD!
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

You're late to the party. :)

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1638
The game is flawed, but this does not mean it cannot be loved.
User avatar
rezwits
Council Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

This game is a freaking CIRCLE!

haha
As of 4/3/21 4:03:21
my current rulings foundation is based on:
All of the rules and rulings found in these PDFs at:
https://cardnum.net/rules
If you have other collected rulings that are not
listed please feel free to email them or PM me...
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

rezwits wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:25 am I consider myself a games designer. I have some apps and video games.

But when I look at the this net rep digest ruling from circa 2003:

What is the reason that the Palantíri of Orthanc and Elostirion don't give MP's to Fallen-wizards?
*** This was created to try to make squatting Fallen Wizards less powerful.


I had to ask myself, was the player base of MECCG this HUGE? to justify this ruling?

I mean were there like an onslaught of Fallen-wizard decks at tournaments all over the globe? Where the top 4 Decks were Squatting Saruman White Hand decks? or some other Wizard? Say Pallando?
If you look through some of the old archives, you can see that Fallen Wizards really were powerful. But more than that, I think people were up in arms about the CHEEZE. Squatters are annoying enough, but Fallen Wizards took it to the next level.

All of the balancing errata to FW came in the last CRF #15 on May 29, 1999 (see below). Before that, FW decks won many tournaments in 1998 and early 1999 (Worlds, North America, Germany, etc). Balrog decks won some too. From what I can see, Fallen Wizard and Balrog decks are still popular and still win, but maybe they aren't as cheezy as before. Well, clearly they are not. Because now people are complaining that FW is not powerful enough whereas before people were compaining they were too powerful. (for tournament results see http://www.fallen-gandalf.net/results/worlds.html)

What is funny is that ICE even asked the players for their thoughts on how to fix the issue. And there were many ideas. But from what I can tell, ICE used none of these player ideas and just came up with their own balancing errata.
CRF 15 - Changes wrote: Balrog
@ Erratum: Balrog players receive no MPs for heor items played at their darkhavens.

Fortress of Isen
@ Card Erratum: Remove "A company moving to or from Isengard is not considered to be moving through Gap of Isen (including one less Borderland in their site path."

Fortress of the Towers
@ Card Erratum: Remove "A company moving to or from The White Towers is not considered to be moving through Arthedain (including one less Wilderness in their site path."

@ Guarded Haven
You may not use this card as a starting stage resource. [Effective 8/27/98]
Card Erratum: Remove "A company moving to or from this site is not considered to be moving through the region containing the site (including one less region in their site path."

Palantír of Elostirion
@ Card Erratum: This item does not give MPs to a Fallen-Wizard regardless of other cards in play.

Palantír of Orthanc
Cannot be used on site cards.
@ Card Erratum: This item does not give MPs to a Fallen-Wizard regardless of other cards in play.

Rhosgobel
@ Card Erratum: Remove "A company moving to or from Rhosgobel is not considered to be moving through Southern Mirkwood (including one less Dark-domain in their site path."
Card Erratum: Replace "healing cards" with "healing effects."
Post Reply

Return to “CoE Rules & Errata Community Proposals”