Author Topic: Seeker of the Lost - misprinted verse? (Read 11054 times)

Gabe · « **on:** September 05, 2008, 11:43:46 PM »

Seeker of the Lost has a scripture reference of Luke 15:4 on the card list found on the Cactus website. The actual verse printed on the card (and listed in the REG) is II Timothy 2:4. Was Seeker supposed to be printed with the Luke verse but instead got the verse for Soldier of God?

2 Timothy 2:4 No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer.

Luke 15:4 Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?

Bryon · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2008, 12:20:46 AM »

Yes, Seeker was supposed to have the seeking-the-sheep reference from Luke. I don't know why it didn't get it.

Too bad, too. She'd make a nice Luke hero!

galadgawyn · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2008, 12:27:54 AM »

I've noticed several references recently to misprinted cards. I don't suppose they would be looking for additionaly playtesters, would they?

Bryon · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2008, 12:37:58 AM »

Playtesters are in no way at fault for misprints. We only get to see the card list, not the cards themselves. If Rob (or Doug in the past) doesn't transfer something from the list to the card, playtesters won't know about the oversight until the cards are already printed.

To be fair, there are VERY few misprints, and most make no real difference in the game.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2008, 12:56:47 AM »

Im still lost as to how Seeker is considered Female, when BOTH possible verses state HE.

The Schaef · « **Reply #5 on:** September 06, 2008, 08:56:31 AM »

I'm confused. The master list has Luke 15:4 on it.

STAMP · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2008, 10:08:12 AM »

Bummer. She definitely would have made a good Luke hero.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** September 06, 2008, 11:29:01 AM »

Yeah, much so. Don't errata her though. You can't errata the Bible, what does that say?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:28:03 PM »

Name the last card that had a verse erratad.

Why should we set a precedent for an already overused card? If there was a past example, I might agree. But there's no point of changing a verse IMO.

Gabe · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:47:19 PM »

There have been several cards that didn't have a verse when they were printed but have had a verse added to them in the REG. Many of the old promos fall into this category. Threatened Lives (I believe that's the right card) doesn't have a scripture reference on the printed card but the correct reference has been given to it. Granted these aren't "errata to the verses" but they are changes to a cards scripture reference so it's not like this type of thing hasn't been done before.

Alex, it appears we see Seeker of the Lost from different perspectives. I see it as a great card that doesn't get much play because it doesn't fit in most themes (the Salvation Army conversion deck being the exception). It makes it in the occasional speed deck, if the deck already includes Coat of Many Colors, but that's about the only time I've seen anyone use her.

When the Luke theme was pushed in RoA I was excited because I actually had a good reason to use Seeker of the Lost (I have the intended scripture reference on my list, not the actual printed one). I played my Luke deck for a couple weeks under the impression that SotL was a Luke Hero until last night when I pushed her into the field of battle to make a rescue and noticed the verse.

So I brought this up to see if those in authority, namely Rob or Bryon, feel it would be worth while to correct a mistake. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Either way it's not game breaking, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2008, 07:52:32 PM »

Hmm, I agree with the theme statement. Seeker isn't exactly a thematic card usually. However, in my expiriences, if you are playing a Blue/Red/Gold enhancement in your offense, 9/10, Seeker is worth taking up some extra space to get in there. I have seen a fairly large amount of Seekers get played (Probably in a tier just below Priests of Christ as far as number of plays) generally. She has arguably the most versatile ability in the game, along with good initiative numbers, and 3 colors to choose enhancements from. If she was a Luke hero as intended, wow. She'd be absolutely fantastic. While I agree that the intention was for her to be Luke, so she should be Luke is a valid argument, Split Altar's intention was to shuffle the artifact piles was it not? Why should Seeker get an errata and not Split Altar?

Just my thoughts.

Master KChief · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2008, 08:36:46 PM »

seeker should receive a verse errata; her current verse doesnt make any sense whatsoever in relation to the card.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2008, 09:32:47 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on September 06, 2008, 07:28:03 PM

Name the last card that had a verse erratad.

Why should we set a precedent for an already overused card? If there was a past example, I might agree. But there's no point of changing a verse IMO.

Just cuz it hasn't been done is NEVER a reason not to do it if it is needed.

Master KChief · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2008, 10:40:38 PM »

i completely agree. there has to be a first time for everything.

SirNobody · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2008, 03:10:03 AM »

Hey,

Errata is a last resort solution that is used to solve problems when there is no other realistic option. While the inacurate verse on Seeker of the Lost is unfortunate, it does not create a problem, and thus I cannot imagine it getting errata.

Quote from: BrianGabe on September 06, 2008, 07:47:19 PM

There have been several cards that didn't have a verse when they were printed but have had a verse added to them in the REG. Many of the old promos fall into this category.

You are correct that some of the promos are like that but it is not all that many. The 2001 and 2002 sets of promos were the only ones that did not have verse on the cards. That is a total of 16 cards. And 11 of those were reprints or have since been reprinted and have simply been assigned the verse on the other versions of the cards. So it's really only 5 promos that had verses "added." But you are right, that still is a precident of adding verses to cards that don't have them.

Tschow,

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

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2008, 04:38:25 AM »

Quote

While the inaccurate [sic] verse on Seeker of the Lost is unfortunate, it does not create a problem, and thus I cannot imagine it getting errata.

You can't imagine it? Really?

galadgawyn · « **Reply #16 on:** September 08, 2008, 04:53:24 PM »

Quote

Playtesters are in no way at fault for misprints. We only get to see the card list, not the cards themselves. If Rob (or Doug in the past) doesn't transfer something from the list to the card, playtesters won't know about the oversight until the cards are already printed.

To be fair, there are VERY few misprints, and most make no real difference in the game.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding here. I didn't know how things were run and I thought that playtesters would be involved in catching misprints. I would LOVE to be a playtester. So I was not criticizing but intended to lightheartedly be looking for possible recruitment of playtesters. In which case I'm available to have fun - I mean help.

The Schaef · « **Reply #17 on:** September 08, 2008, 06:46:14 PM »

We are involved in catching errors. If the printed card is different from the final document on which we signed off, there's not really anything we can do about that.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2008, 07:51:37 PM »

Quote

If the printed card is different from the final document on which we signed off,

I wouldn't mind working on that part either. However, I hear that Cactus does not have a very large staff (and the economy is difficult) so I doubted they were looking at applications for additional staff members. This was mostly wishful thinking but you never know....

DaClock · « **Reply #19 on:** September 12, 2008, 01:37:07 AM »

Official word on this??

Bryon · « **Reply #20 on:** September 12, 2008, 11:31:01 AM »

I see no reason that we must make the change. So, I don't expect that we will make the change.

STAMP · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2008, 11:58:47 AM »

Well, at least it makes it a very valuable error card now.

(Yes, I'm a glass half-full type of person.)

Gabe · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2008, 11:59:55 AM »

Disappointing, but thanks for the answer all the same.

Bryon · « **Reply #23 on:** September 12, 2008, 01:31:41 PM »

I'd love to see a reprint with the Luke reference someday. Maybe in foil.

SirNobody · « **Reply #24 on:** September 12, 2008, 04:38:44 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Bryon on September 12, 2008, 01:31:41 PM

I'd love to see a reprint with the Luke reference someday. Maybe in foil.

We could reprint it right along with Luke with a Luke reference and John with a John reference

Tschow,

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

News:

Author Topic: Seeker of the Lost - misprinted verse? (Read 11054 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef