Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Squidalot wrote:

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.

It's an "old" thought that has been reinforced by the PoD program sounding more and more realistic. Some changes in cardtexts that were considered for this RTR have been postponed (changes similar to the Psyche! changes in the previous RTR).

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 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.

I don't think LSJ ever explained why PTO had been banned, and it's maybe better like this.

I actually think it *would* have been helpful if LSJ (and past rules authorities) explained why the cards were banned, especially since they are no longer involved in the game. From what I've heard secondhand (i.e. Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper B-) ), LSJ has mostly moved on from the VTES chapter in his life and isn't particularly interested in discussing past VTES matters. So having on record some explanations for some of his decisions could be very helpful.

In the past there have been a handful of banned cards that were unbanned:

Rowan Ring & Stake: Presumably because they had the old Paralyze keyword, but were simply errata'ed with new card text to simulate how Paralyze used to work.

Monocle of Clarity: Unbanned and errata'ed so that answers to questions about the future are not binding.

Return to Innocence: Went through a cycle of ban/unban with different card texts, but still ended up on the ban list.



However, even with many of the current cards on the ban list, some of them still have supporters who believe that the card could be unbanned with only minor changes:

- Some old school players were displeased when Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were banned, and believed that some tweaks could be enough to bring them back.

- Some players believe that the main issue with Memories of Mortality is that it works too well with Imbued. So changing its wording to non-Imbued allies (or maybe making it Unique) is all that is needed.

- I've personally always thought that Succubus Club was fixable. My idea on how to prevent extremely unbalanced trades (and which I had wanted to implement in a Limited Storyline event) was that after tapping the Club, any Methuselah could prevent the trade by burning 1 or 2 pool.


The game environment can drastically change in 5-10 years. Even more so if new cards are introduced. As a result, the reasoning why a card was originally banned may no longer apply. Knowing why a card was banned 10 years ago is helpful because then the current rules authority and players can better evaluate if the ban is still necessary. IMHO, that's better than the alternative of blindly accepting bans and other past decisions just because "that's the way it's always been."

Squidalot wrote:

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.

Wouldn't it have just been easier and more consistent to have simply banned Villein then? Especially since that mindset is apparently an "old thought."

I can just imagine a parallel universe where the December 2, 2011 rulings errata'ed Lilith's Blessing and the April 22, 2013 rulings banned Villein.

Also, did Lilith's Blessing just suddenly start wreaking the tournament scene this past year? If it was such a problem, maybe it should have just been errata'ed or banned back in December 2011 instead of now. Similarly, if a card like Deflection or Govern the Unaligned were banned, most people could probably guess why, but would be puzzled about why *now*.

Jeff wrote:

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.

For reference, other CCG's like Magic and L5R often provide explanations for their card bans.

Now that is not to say that VTES should also provide explanations "just because everyone else does." But it does show that providing explanations isn't necessarily such a bad thing. B-)

Lönkka wrote:

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

Obviously not, but its decisions carry a similar game-defining weight, and there's no higher body of appeal. It's a reasonable parallel.

Anyway, Pascal seems to be deliberately avoiding the question, so I guess this decision's going to remain mysterious. I can't understand the justification for that, frankly, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Edit to add: I'm grateful for the work that the rules team does. I know they're volunteers, and they're freely giving away their time. I hope questions like these aren't read as persecutions, because they're really not intended that way.

echiang wrote:

I actually think it *would* have been helpful if LSJ (and past rules authorities) explained why the cards were banned,
...

However, even with many of the current cards on the ban list, some of them still have supporters who believe that the card could be unbanned with only minor changes:

- Some old school players were displeased when Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were banned, and believed that some tweaks could be enough to bring them back.

Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those. The fundamental issue is the predator-prey dynamic. Two players should not, in general, have the same goal, giving a third player two predators at once. That can happen, to an extent, where a player generates significant table hate by their own actions. It shouldn't happen just because I included three copies of Dramatic Upheaval in my Pander vote deck.

A secondary concern is that they almost inevitably lead to long, long, long discussions if players have the ability to negotiate for any reason (blocking, voting it down, threats of retaliatory action etc). Every good player has to reassess the new table and the discussions can become extremely lengthy - and not include any element of stalling or slow play.


Since you apparently believe that tweaks could fix these problems, in the face of extensive explanations by LSJ, it doesn't really seem that the details of why a card was banned matter.