Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

I support (an errata)

I highly doubt you will get one.  I don't know that we have ever given a card errata for the sake of making it more playable.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

There goes another worthless promo.

Please send all those worthless promos to me. PM me for my address or check my trade thread to get what you really wanted.

Yes, I spoke with Kevin Shride, who spoke with Bryon, and Split Altar will be getting errata. I have no idea why none of the official rulings guys haven't posted this news yet, but there seems to be a consistent dearth of official rulings lately.

 At any rate, this card will end up being played as intended, not as written. Let the masses rejoice! 

The first piece of errata to make a card stronger, rather than weaker. I hope the trend doesn't continue...[/spoilsport]

Not so much of "more powerful" and more of "As the card was SUPPOSED to be written"

Off the top of my head, Love, Household Idols, the NT and */4 Lost Souls, and possibly Tartaros probably do not work as initially intended. They didn't receive errata.

Love: "If played on a Hero of */5 or less, Hero gains */10 for remainder of the battle."
It's very unlikely that the card meant to re-add the Hero's strength. It likely meant 0/10. It wasn't given errata to make it as intended.

Household Idols: Original SA: "Heroes may not band. Good banding cards have no effect."
It's very unlikely that the card meant to prohibit Heroes with banding abilities from entering battle, while allowing Transfiguration to work. It wasn't given errata to make it as intended ("Negate banding of Heroes. Protect Heroes from good banding abilities.").

The NT and */4 Souls were not intended to prohibit dominant rescue. They weren't given errata to make them as intended ("This soul is protected from rescue except by a dominant or an NT Hero/Hero of */4 or higher.")

Tartaros is less clear to me, but I still believe that it was intended to allow you to put your own demons in Tartaros when they were discarded by anyone.

Gifts of the Magi, as well, was probably not intended to let you draw when you force him to draw, like with Hur. It wasn't given errata to work similarly to Rain Becomes Dust.

No card so far in the game has been errataed for the purpose of playing it as intended.

 Holy Grail immediately comes to mind. It was never intended to let you convert an EC in battle, but as written, that's what it does. Therefore, it was eratta'd to make it play as intended.

I didn't group cards like A Child Is Born and The Rabshakeh Attacks into that, because they were clearly misprints, not wording changes. Joab, as far as every list that I've seen says, Joab does not have errata (the definition for "Mentioned in I and II Samuel" just happens to allow either instead of requiring both). I'm not sure what the original intent of Holy Grail is, but it was changed for its power, not for intent.

Good call also on ET, also.

So in short, yes, I agree with Tim that changing the way cards are played to make them "more usable" would be a shift that is not good for the game.

Angelic Advice shuffles your own artifact pile too, making it much, much worse than Split Altar, even excepting the CBN and the ability to play another card.

Quote from: Hedgehogman on October 10, 2008, 07:41:05 AM

And at any rate, Kevin told me that there was no way they were going to allow a National Promo to become as useless as Angelic Advice simply because it wasn't proofread properly. They goofed, so they're correcting that mistake. There's nothing crazy or "bad for the game" about that.

Does that mean Mary's Prophetic Act will be getting errata too?

Elijah could use a skosh of a bump also. Just errata his SA to be non-interruptible or something.