the future of banned cards - LSJ

Sorry if this has already been addressed in the 240+ thread on the new banned list, couldn't find the energy to go mill through all that. A while ago, it was proposed to temporarily ban problematic cards, for an unspecified amount of time, and when a good, thoroughly thought out fix (i.e. errata) was found, reissuing them. (Granted, folks were talking about doing this to the entire NoR set, but still). Is that the idea with the new banned cards? I mean, do you (LSJ and servants) consider these cards to be dead and buried, or are you going to work on fixing them so they can one day be used again? I hope for the latter. Teeka

Teeka schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I prefer the former. Yesterday we played with a new player. I played a Powerbase: Rome. And had to explain a very different card than the one I was holding. Enough of this. Let them rest in peace. Johannes

[ quoted text not captured ] Then of course the best solution in that case is to ban definitevely the cards, and then make newer, better balanced equivalents. This seems to be the current politics, and personnaly I'm fine with it (in the worst case scenario the "old banned versions" can be used as proxys in casual games). -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

Orpheus wrote: >> Teeka schrieb: >> > Sorry if this has already been addressed in the 240+ thread on the new >> > banned list, couldn't find the energy to go mill through all that. >> > >> > A while ago, it was proposed to temporarily ban problematic cards, for >> > an unspecified amount of time, and when a good, thoroughly thought out >> > fix (i.e. errata) was found, reissuing them. (Granted, folks were >> > talking about doing this to the entire NoR set, but still). >> > >> > Is that the idea with the new banned cards? I mean, do you (LSJ and >> > servants) consider these cards to be dead and buried, or are you going >> > to work on fixing them so they can one day be used again? >> > >> > I hope for the latter. >> > >> > Teeka >> >> I prefer the former. Yesterday we played with a new player. I played a >> Powerbase: Rome. And had to explain a very different card than the one I >> was holding. Enough of this. Let them rest in peace. >> >> Johannes > > Then of course the best solution in that case is to ban definitevely the > cards, and then make newer, better balanced equivalents. By who's definition/opinion of 'best'? I don't agree with either of you. > This seems to be > the current politics, and personnaly I'm fine with it (in the worst case > scenario the "old banned versions" can be used as proxys in casual games). How in the hell would you define that? Is Forgery a card that I could use my old Return to Innocence as a proxy for, or something? I'd rather the old cards get reprinted and fixed with their most recent printed text. New players, by definition, won't be having those old ones much, so it won't matter to them, and the old players will know the new texts of their old cards and be able to explain them when they come up. This includes updated reprints of old underpowered cards. I have a dream of a time where there aren't any cards so bad (or so banned) that you'd just never put them in a deck, ever, if you were being even remotely serious about your deck building. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4760459f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > I'd rather the old cards get reprinted and fixed with their most recent printed text. New players, by definition, won't be having > those old ones much, so it won't matter to them, and the old players will know the new texts of their old cards and be able to > explain them when they come up. That doesn't cover the issue, though. Old player often _don't_ know the new text of their old cards - when they're old players who don't read forums like this, at all or often enough. The other problem is that new players have to trust that an old player truly knows the new card text when he plays an old card. Cut it however you will, issuing errata and updated reprints causes its own set of problems. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4760459f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> I'd rather the old cards get reprinted and fixed with their most recent printed text. New players, by definition, won't be having >> those old ones much, so it won't matter to them, and the old players will know the new texts of their old cards and be able to >> explain them when they come up. > > That doesn't cover the issue, though. Old player often _don't_ know the > new text of their old cards - when they're old players who don't read > forums like this, at all or often enough. The other problem is that new > players have to trust that an old player truly knows the new card text > when he plays an old card. all too true. > Cut it however you will, issuing errata and updated reprints causes its > own set of problems. For me, though, as an opinion (and thus in no way an absolute) I find those problems are worth it for the twin goals of (in order of importance): 1. Balancing the game 2. Allowing me to play with all the pieces of cardboard i have spent money on Banning achieves 1, but fails on 2. I can see, however, that if your priorities are: 1. Balancing the game 2. Having cards do what they say then you're in an entirely different boat to me. I wonder if people falling into group A or group B has any statistically significant correlation with those players who played through the time of the 7/7 rulings or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 dec, 14:13, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > A while ago, it was proposed to temporarily ban problematic cards, for > an unspecified amount of time, and when a good, thoroughly thought out > fix (i.e. errata) was found, reissuing them. (Granted, folks were > talking about doing this to the entire NoR set, but still). > > Is that the idea with the new banned cards? I mean, do you (LSJ and > servants) consider these cards to be dead and buried, or are you going > to work on fixing them so they can one day be used again? > Still waiting for an answer on my initial question. LSJ?

[ quoted text not captured ] There is no official position other than "all options are open for evaluation". Current evaluations lead to current conditions.

On Dec 13, 3:05 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if people falling into group A or group B has any statistically > significant correlation with those players who played through the time > of the 7/7 rulings or not. As someone who was right in the thick of that, I'm perfectly happy with whatever is most effective for making the game work better. If errata accomplishes it, ok then. If banning accomplishes it, fantastic. That being said, I'd rather have a small number of bannings than a large amount of errata, given the choice. I don't know if there is any connection there at all, but I figure I'd throw it out there. I'm *totally* ok with cards being banned on an infrequent and laser guided basis. I find the whole "but I wanna use all the cards I paid for!" argument to be generally empty, as even in VTES, the main buisness model for a CCG is "sell lots and lots of cards to people that they don't use most of as they chase a small number of hard to get ones", so simply by entering the arena of VTES, you are implicitly accepting the idea that, like, half the stuff you purchase will never see play anyway. Then, there are the folks who are all like "But I paid $20.00 for each of my PTOs! I'm mad! You made me waste my money!" The secondary market is a gamble. Sometimes you pay a lot of money for cards that become commons in the next set. Sometimes you pay a lot of money for cards that become errataed or banned. That is a risk, and always has been. Consider that before forking over a significant amount of money for a single card. -Peter

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4760e7bb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > For me, though, as an opinion (and thus in no way an absolute) I find those problems are worth it for the twin goals of (in order > of importance): > 1. Balancing the game > 2. Allowing me to play with all the pieces of cardboard i have spent money on > > Banning achieves 1, but fails on 2. > > I can see, however, that if your priorities are: > 1. Balancing the game > 2. Having cards do what they say > > then you're in an entirely different boat to me. I'm conflicted about it. For my own purposes, I have no problem letting go of my own personal pieces of cardboard and I find having the game components work right to be important. (That's why I'm so anal about not wanting to mix the card face styles in my decks.) But demanding they ban rather than reprint kind of makes that value judgment for everyone else and I think others may not be so sanguine about losing their cards. > I wonder if people falling into group A or group B has any statistically significant correlation with those players who played > through the time of the 7/7 rulings or not. Well, there's no doubt, the game needed a BUNCH of work at that point. I'm not sure it really makes a lot of difference right now. Fred

On Dec 13, 10:59 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Salem" <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4760e7bb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... [ quoted text not captured ] That's because your a splitter! Go play with your NJL errata! :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Dec 13, 11:59 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Salem" <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4760e7bb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > For me, though, as an opinion (and thus in no way an absolute) I find those problems are worth it for the twin goals of (in order > > of importance): > > 1. Balancing the game > > 2. Allowing me to play with all the pieces of cardboard i have spent money on > > > Banning achieves 1, but fails on 2. > > > I can see, however, that if your priorities are: > > 1. Balancing the game > > 2. Having cards do what they say > > > then you're in an entirely different boat to me. > > I'm conflicted about it. For my own purposes, I have no problem letting > go of my own personal pieces of cardboard and I find having the game > components work right to be important. (That's why I'm so anal about > not wanting to mix the card face styles in my decks.) But demanding > they ban rather than reprint kind of makes that value judgment for > everyone else and I think others may not be so sanguine about losing > their cards. Personally, I think reprints with small changes are fine, so long as those reprints are easy to acquire (example: if Embrace was reprinted as a common with it's current text, it would be pretty easy for someone to acquire, say, 10 of them for a 30 embrace deck. Enough that they're nearly always going to have one in hand, play, or ash heap, to check for the updated text). I don't much like errata, as compared to text migration, though, and complicated errata is probably better served as banning/rewording. -witness1

> There is no official position other than "all options are open for evaluation". > > Current evaluations lead to current conditions. There must be a Haiku somewhere here but I'm not sure about the seizure... LSJ, the Unknown Poet of strict yet open statements strikes again !! But my favourite will remain, forever and always : "Officially, the sex of Krassimir is undeterminate". Struggle on, O poets of modern prose, you have a long way to go before any of you can equal that !!! -- Orpheus ---------------------------------------- "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, ... but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." --Robert McCloskey

Orpheus <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> There is no official position other than >> "all options are open for evaluation". >> >> Current evaluations lead to current conditions. > > There must be a Haiku somewhere here but > I'm not sure about the seizure... Current evaluations Correct, See above Lead to current conditions Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In message <1989bf1a-5576-4dc8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups .com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >As someone who was right in the thick of that, I'm perfectly happy >with whatever is most effective for making the game work better. If >errata accomplishes it, ok then. If banning accomplishes it, >fantastic. I'm mostly in line with this. As a general rule: - if a card needs a root and branch re-write, these days I would usually tend towards a ban - if a card can be fixed easily, these days I would tend towards errata - if a card can be fixed easily but still causes design problems (not overpowered per se, but outclasses many other potential cards, makes it hard to create new cards), I'm more flexible. Back during 6/23 and 7/7, errata was - to me - more important for the simple reason that the chance of new cards being printed was low. Not impossible, but WotC were unlikely to invest real money in the game. Keeping cards and strategies around was important as there were a finite number of cards, and no new cards. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:55 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Orpheus <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> There is no official position other than >>> "all options are open for evaluation". >>> >>> Current evaluations lead to current conditions. >> >> There must be a Haiku somewhere here but >> I'm not sure about the seizure... > > Current evaluations > Correct, See above > Lead to current conditions You need some reference to nature and seasons. If we're at sea, "current" can be good for the weather, but you still need something about seasons... Current evaluations - cold winter morning - Lead to current conditions Or, Cold winter morning current Evaluations Lead to current conditions -- Regards, Daneel

On 14 dec, 09:58, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:55 -0800, Kevin M. <youw...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: > > > Orpheus <orpheus...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > >>> There is no official position other than > >>> "all options are open for evaluation". > > >>> Current evaluations lead to current conditions. > > >> There must be a Haiku somewhere here but > >> I'm not sure about the seizure... > > > Current evaluations > > Correct, See above > > Lead to current conditions > > You need some reference to nature and seasons. > > If we're at sea, "current" can be good for the weather, but you still > need something about seasons... > > Current evaluations > - cold winter morning - > Lead to current conditions > > Or, > > Cold winter morning current > Evaluations > Lead to current conditions > > -- > Regards, > > Daneel All kidding aside, I'm a bit disappointed in the answer. I mean, basically you're saying "I'm not going to think about them anymore, but if anyone else should come up with a good fixing solution, I'll be happy to dig them up". Which is different from "I'm going to actively (although not as priority) try and come up with a fix for these(*) cards". (*) Of course I'm only referring to the cards that are banned for power/game play-reasons, not for practical ones (the ante cards, SucClub, the seat switchers, MadnessOTB). I am, however, referring (pro-ferring?) also to future additions to the banned list, because I'm a bit concerned where this is going. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think you have nothing better to do, but I'm certain some of us would be happy to volunteer for an "official" think tank/playtest team dedicated to coming up with the best fixes for problematic cards. You know, without all the not-always- so-productive talks we get here (no offence to anyone, just talking efficiency here).

Teeka wrote: > I mean, basically you're saying "I'm not going to think about them > anymore, but if anyone else should come up with a good fixing > solution, I'll be happy to dig them up". Patently false.

[ quoted text not captured ] Alright. Then I have misunderstood, sorry. Could you perhaps put your statement in other words then? Please note I am not trying to pull anything here. English is just not my first language.

Teeka wrote: > On 14 dec, 12:22, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Teeka wrote: >>> I mean, basically you're saying "I'm not going to think about them >>> anymore, but if anyone else should come up with a good fixing >>> solution, I'll be happy to dig them up". >> Patently false. > > Alright. Then I have misunderstood, sorry. Could you perhaps put your > statement in other words then? "Everything is on the table" precludes "these cards are off the table"

[ quoted text not captured ] I think what LSJ might be trying to say is he's always thinking about ways to make the game better, and just because he's banned some cards for now, doesn't mean he's not thinking about other options for those or other cards into the future. But all decisions would be based on evidence, and whatever balancing method seems to be most appropriate at the time, but that level of appropriateness can change over time, so the methods used to balance cards (and the game more generally) could also change over time.. maybe. I dunno. I've never met the guy. he could just do it all with a set of 'RTR dice', that have card types on one die (master, combat, etc) and ban, errata, reprint, ignore (x3) on the other.... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4763390d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >I think what LSJ might be trying to say is he's always thinking about >ways to make the game better, and just because he's banned some cards >for now, doesn't mean he's not thinking about other options for those >or other cards into the future. In particular, I don't think he's waiting for someone else to come up with a good idea. LSJ is likely to be in a better position to do this than most others for the simple reason that he knows what's coming in new expansions, and can create new rules, new card types, new costs, new mechanics etc. If any of those look appropriate for a banned card, I'm sure there'd be thoughts about/playtesting a re-print with that text. Hypothetically, if there was a monster combat card that was evil and broken, does anyone think LSJ wouldn't have considered making it an Aim card when he invented Aim cards? And say, again hypothetically, LSJ invents a type of powerful action with a new cost... say a cost of removing your top X library cards from the game, where X was the capacity of the target... would he think about applying that to PTO, or the pre-change Mind Rape? I'd be very surprised if he didn't think about such things - even if he decided that they weren't appropriate after evaluating them. (If LSJ is thinking about such a cost, my telephone psychic needs a raise.) [ quoted text not captured ]