Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

It's also why I think Pentex should allow the minion it is on to remove the card but other than that edit, Pentex should potentially stay (increase in minion interaction). Sense Dep is considered incredibly powerful because of its ability to remove a minion from interactions.

I think pentex should just have limited duration, autoremove clause (say burned in first/second discard of pentexed minion) would make it way better balanced, while still allowing some good lunge action.

echiang wrote:

Pascal wrote:

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).

How does this relate to Robert Goudie's "old" thought that:

If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's
not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt
falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted
elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then
they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly
be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had
presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned.

With POD coming, new printings should be readily available. So shouldn't there be "not much need to ban" Lilith's Blessing right now, especially since it could be fixed and reprinted within the year?

I fully agree with Robert's statement.
In the meantime,
- I don't have a final cardtext for Lilith's Blessing *right now*.
- We don't have printers printing the cards *right now*.

By then, we used to have "frequent" sets, "frequent" releases, and "frequent" updates in cardtext.

I think that's quite a difference in the hypotheses, but I might be wrong. Hence the difference in the result.
In 8-month time, I might not have taken the same decision. 8 months ago, I might not have taken the same decision. Right now (and it's been so since a few months), I made this decision.

Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread)

Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many.
And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat".

Reyda wrote:

Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread)

Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many.
And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat".

"Rant"? I've found that he's been quite polite. I understand that it's difficult to hear tone in text, but he isn't using aggressive language or deploying ad hominem attacks - which, I feel like I have to note, you are. (As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.)

On old posts: I think that he was bringing them up in order to demonstrate that players in general, and not just particular malcontents, are regularly concerned with the rationale and process that informs decisions, and that this particular round of questions isn't any different. If people were concerned then, why wouldn't they be concerned now? And why would it be wrong to be concerned?

Reyda wrote:

Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread)

Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many.
And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat".

I'm sure you are just trolling, but I need to get it off my chest. Your post was quite, quite unnecessary. I'd judge it "unnecessary roughness".

I think it's interesting to read what people said years ago. It's a good read, and it might open up different perspectives.

echiang wrote:

HUGH ANGSEESING:

However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than
perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or
other adjustments.

Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were
banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and
Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK)

That is hilarious (snipped the others for the sake of brevity)!

I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons.

However I can also see now (that i'm no longer 23)that whatever LSJ or Pascal or Pacman wrote wouldn't satisfy everyone and could just cause the same cycle of pointless arguments on this forum (that might not be a good reason not to have it)

I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy).

I was certainly part of the lilith's blessing ban lobby (I also had Anthelios and to a lesser extent Ashur in my head as bads and was convinced by other to add ToGP and Giant's blood for different reasons to the list - not a fan of OPG game design)

I also know that these discussions have been going on some time (since villein was 'corrected') and it's because Pascal wants to make as balanced a decision as he can that he really thinks it through.

In terms of why Villein wasn't banned and LB was I would think something like this:
- easy to correct Villein's card text as Pascal said (comparatively)
- no obvious fix to LB currently
- villein is definitely an enabler - it allows big fat decks that struggled to be competitive before to be competitive now
- LB probably isn't an enabler in the same way (I've used in in a Gio deck to deliberately get DOM but generally it's used for 3 blood)
- LB adds Bahari an unnecessary keyword to the game
- Eric we clearly disagree on this last part but LB was poorly tested (not saying other cards haven't been) as part of the Heirs test - the reasons range from too much text, villein not pervading normal decks at that time so can't see combo and finally many playtesters were under the impression this was a storyline card (no rules included for Bahari) so didn't need to be tested in the way other cards in the set did