Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 10, 2010, 08:30:01 AM

ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!

Armageddon
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 16:16 • Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)

super OP'd.

I'm not sure...I don't think it's OP, since it costs you a battle to use it. Maybe it should have limited uses though, because I'd bet you anything this would be abused in def-heavy decks. How about...

"During your battle phase, instead of making a rescue attempt you may begin a battle against opponent's Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. Opponent must block with a hero. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul and place it in owner's Land of Bondage. Ability may be used once per game."

What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game.

Wow.  That is false.

Lord of the Rings really only issued errata for the first few sets.  For the next 16 sets, it simply banned or restricted cards.

What "killed" the game was a combination of factors, including financial hardship for the company which tried to produce far too many games at once (Austin Powers, .hack, Wars, more), the major dip in the CCG industry as a whole at about that same time, and decreased interest in the property a few years after the last movie was out of theaters.  

If anything game related contributed to its demise, it might have been the fact that they dropped almost all of the original story-based shadow cultures (really only the ringwraith culture continued to get cards), and replaced them with generic shadow cultures that were based on type of minion, rather than the loyalty of the minion (we got a generic "orc" culture, rather than continuing to develop Moria, Sauron, or Isengard).  Suddenly, that part of the story was gone, and instead all that remained were generic minions.  Another gameplay factor that may have contributed to its demise was the new unnumbered site path had players jumping all over Middle Earth, starting at Mount Doom if you wanted, going straight to Moria, then to Gondor, then the Shire, stopping by Rohan, and ending back in Moria.  The game ceased to make sense and stopped telling the story everyone loved.

Redemption also has a story behind it.  It does not make sense to me that Ithamar, one of the faithful priests, would, while he is still faithful, activate Golden Calf on the Tabernacle.  That might not sound like that big a deal, but to Jews, that was just about as bad as you can get - even worse than child sacrifice.  There were a few instances of idols getting put in the Temple in the Bible, but they were all done by the most evil men, not by a faithful priest.  This is not a trite little thing like "Gamaliel would not have used Jael's Nail."  Putting an idol in the Tabernacle is a very big, bad deal.

Since Ithamar is years old and no one until now has tried to use it that way, and since the playtesters are currently split on whether the identifer acts as a limiter or not, and since the current wording is ambiguous to the average player, we need to issue a play as or errata to clear it up.  I vote for errata.

If you think that kills Tebernacle Priests as a strategy (which would not make much sense since no one even tried to used Ithamar that way until now, but for the sake of argument...), just wait until summer.  Good things come to those who wait.  

Playing Tabernacle Priests is like playing blue with Genesis. Why bother?

Did you mean without Genesis? Otherwise I'm confused.

It does not make sense to me that Ithamar, one of the faithful priests, would, while he is still faithful, activate Golden Calf on the Tabernacle.  That might not sound like that big a deal, but to Jews, that was just about as bad as you can get - even worse than child sacrifice.  There were a few instances of idols getting put in the Temple in the Bible, but they were all done by the most evil men, not by a faithful priest.  This is not a trite little thing like "Gamaliel would not have used Jael's Nail."  Putting an idol in the Tabernacle is a very big, bad deal.

Bryon, the problem that I see as a judge is that you are going from a fairly bright line standard (i.e., cards are played as written unless they break the game) to a "does this card somehow violate the nature of who it is depicting?" criterion.

How many arguments were spawned by the old "hero-nature" criterion for deciding whether a particular EC's special abilities converted or not? Do you really want to open that can of worms to errata a card whose what-is-written-on-the-card SA cannot--by any stretch of the imagination--be considered OP?

I think that Ithamar putting an idol in the temple would be about as odd as Abishai killing David with a spear, which he would do if David happened to be the top card of opponent's draw pile when Abishai attacked with Warrior's Spear on him. Or, as has been mentioned, someone praying a Battle Prayer for God to provide an evil gold enhancement. Or someone having Great Faith to receive an evil enhancement. Yet all of these are possible. I don't see why we can't just go with what's written on the card in this case too.

Abishai does not kill David in that case, since David was never "alive."  And God mentions several times in the Bible that he does use evil people to punish other evil people.  So, God answering a prayer by sending an evil card to hurt another evil card is actually more Biblical than not.

If Ithamar so clearly allows you to activate an idol in the Temple, then why has that not been attempted until now, almost 4 years after he was printed?  The great thing about issuing errata now (though at least 2 playtesters would call this a play as, since, in their minds, it only lets the card do what it does anyway), is that it doesn't change anything.  It maintains the status quo, does what most players assume it does (and have assumed for the last 3.5 years), AND keeps the benefit of a faithful hero not practicing idolatry in the Tabernacle.

All those weigh against having the card do what some view "as written."

In my mind, the balance is heavily in favor of errata.

The great thing about issuing errata now ... It maintains the status quo, does what most players assume it does (and have assumed for the last 3.5 years) ...

I didn't know anyone assumed anything, since Ithamar has been considered such a worthless card until now.

In my mind, the balance is heavily in favor of errata.

Well, considering this card is not broken as it is, it helps a theme that is otherwise pretty useless (or even nonexistent), and almost no one likes erratas, I would say just the opposite, but I guess we are all entitled to our own opinions.

By the way, I know (at least I do now) that there will be more Tab. priests coming which will (hopefully) be good enough to make The Tabernacle theme worthwhile. However, I would much rather make an older card more useful than just bombard our inventory with new cards that make the old ones obsolete.

Well, if there aren't more Tab. priest coming, then I would definitely not down-power Ithamar.

And even if an errata is appropriate, we really can't make good long-term arguments without knowing about the cards from the next set you are referring to which will make Tab. priests better. Will they be arts, enhancements, doms? Will they be set-asides, battle-winners, number decreasers?

What I'm really trying to say is, please do not make any erratas based on cards from the next set before the next set comes out.

(And if you really want Ithamar to get an errata, you should make the card that will enhance him the first one you write an article on. )

I'm just in favor of reserving errata for only those cards which are clearly incorrect in what they say (like a Child is Born with cannot not be negated) or cards that are too powerful as written (Holy Grail converting EC's in battle, ANB not letting your opponent play in a game, etc.) Currently, Ithamar is neither. It's just one of those things that should go in the "hmm, it doesn't really make sense biblically, and maybe it should have been written differently, but at least it's just a game" category.

I agree for the most part.  But we don't know if he is broken or not.  Give some of the crazy people on this board the opportunity to mix ANY artifacts they want and see what happens.  

Since his ability has not shown itself broken yet, then the idolatry in the Tabernacle issue alone would not be enough to make me vote for errata.  If errata would change status quo, I would not vote for errata.  If errata would make him do something different than what most readers of the card would assume he does, I would not vote for errata.  The fact that errata preserves status quo, and preserves the intuitive reading (by every player for almost 4 years), gives us reason to consider whether Ithamar activating Asherah Pole in the tabernacle is something we'd want anyway.  Three stones on one side of the scale, and one stone (disputed by at least a couple playtesters) on the other.

@ the issue of searching for an "evil" card with the Blue Eli the Priest or with Zaccheus: First, the Blue Eli is NEVER used (silly you'd think that anyone EVER uses a blue card if it doesn't have a Genesis reference.  Read these boards.  According to some players, no one EVER uses a blue card that does not have a Genesis reference.  )  But seriously, Eli and Zaccheus would not get errata, since that would change the status quo, and would change the card away from what has been intuitively understood by the vast majority of players since it released.  There is no "slippery slope" if your three voters are "status quo," "intuitive reading," and "playing it as written."  If the votes on those are two to 1, and going with the 2 gives you a chance to keep a hero from practicing Idolatry in the Tabernacle, should we not go with the 2 and simply issue errata?

Players don't like errata when it CHANGES how the card has been played for a long time.  Players didn't like the errata on A New Beginning, because they had played it a certain way for YEARS, and now had to use it differently.  This is totally different.  Errata in this case will go unnoticed by 98% of Redemption players, since they never even considered that it could be used that way, much less played it that way in games for years.

I really believe using "status quo" as a factor for establishing whether a card receives errata or not is counter-productive.  There are plenty of "status quo" issues that have changed over the years.  There's no consistency as to which "status quo" issue gets changed or not.

I am a fan of consistency.  If Ithamar receives errata, then Gabriel (W), Battle Prayer et al get errata.  Otherwise, leave him be until it IS actually broken. 

Just my 

I really believe using "status quo" as a factor for establishing whether a card receives errata or not is counter-productive.  There are plenty of "status quo" issues that have changed over the years.  There's no consistency as to which "status quo" issue gets changed or not.

I am a fan of consistency.  If Ithamar receives errata, then Gabriel (W), Battle Prayer et al get errata.  Otherwise, leave him be until it IS actually broken. 

Just my 

This. In addition, everyone thought Split Altar would shuffle Artifact Piles when it came out. Since it was a Nationals promo it got a lot of attention and the flaw in the wording was quickly discovered, but that doesn't change the fact that it's another card with an intuitive reading that doesn't do what people thought it did and clearly not what was intended. If you errata Ithamar, you must errata Split Altar.

Sometimes the best way to keep the worms in the can is to not open the can at all.

Not an option in my neck of the woods.   

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 10, 2010, 01:32:31 PM

If you errata Ithamar, you must errata Split Altar.

Because Split Altar has been played the same way for 3.6 years?

So what is the amount of time a card must be played intuitively and incorrectly before it can be given an errata?  It appears that you are saying the three months or so for Split Altar is not enough but the 3 1/2 years of Ithamar is enough?

Since we didn't know of this requirement before can re-visit the Every Man's Sword question? Every Man's Sword was played as a site-access stopper for years. Can we get that re-errata'ed so that it plays the way everyone played it for years?