Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Ankha wrote:

Lilith's Blessing nerf has already been heavily discussed.

www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/28610-liliths-blessing-a-poor-nyc-prince-simple-question
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14556-on-liliths-blessing-3-qproblematic-cardq
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14426-concerning-liliths-blessing-ashur-tablets-and-liquidation

Maybe it's too good to gain 3 pool per vampire using Villein (like Political Stranglehold, but delayed in time).

In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the enless discussion about pros and cons. It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant.

That's not true. When a supreme court makes a decision, it issues a legal opinion that lays out the rationale for the decision. That's useful for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it offers the entire country, which knows that it is going to be bound now and forever by the decision of that court, a window into the process, granting the court a degree of legitimacy. Once the decision is made, people might grumble, but they know that it won't be changed. Similarly, I might know that the rules team's decision is final - at least until suitable errata are found and new cards are printed - but it would still help for me to know how that decision was made.

Ankha wrote:

In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the endless discussion about pros and cons.

That is a poor justification for not providing any context to this decision. If the worst thing is that people continue to debate the merits and flaws of the card, or any card, here or on any forum, that's not a heavy price to pay. Pascal can participate in such a debate or not.

It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant.

Judges do not (should not) arbitrarily make decisions. They are rooted in precedence and justified by the rules. The word legitimate comes from "lex" (meaning law) in Latin. And every judge's decision that I've ever read quotes (or can quote) from the relevant sections.

There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is. I also am curious what changed between the last set of rulings and this one that necessitated this latest ban. Why now, and not on December 1, 2012? And if the card is going to be re-introduced as PB says in the ruling, perhaps even as early as December 1, 2013, why ban it at all when a future errata would be sufficient?

Jeff wrote:

There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is. I also am curious what changed between the last set of rulings and this one that necessitated this latest ban. Why now, and not on December 1, 2012? And if the card is going to be re-introduced as PB says in the ruling, perhaps even as early as December 1, 2013, why ban it at all when a future errata would be sufficient?

Pascal wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned.

The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available.

There was a choice between ban and no ban. Given the choice, i applaud current ban as it was needed to stop the lb madness.

Jeff wrote:

There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is.

Indeed so.
unfortunately many people tend to keep on whining and everyone tends to have a (different) opinnion.

And we all know what opinnion are like, donät we?


And the rules team ain't us supreme court etc.

Pascal wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned.

The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available.

So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year?

I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time).

echiang wrote:

Pascal wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned.

The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available.

So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year?

I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time).

It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made.

The other two minor errata as you said were helpful clarifications rather than a change that needs a print.