Author Topic: Bans vs Errata (Read 7162 times)

Kevinthedude · « **on:** April 09, 2018, 02:32:27 PM »

Quote

I know the subject of bans, rotation, and errata has been given a lot of discussion lately but given today's announcement I wanted to bring it up again to ask a specific question: If the Elder team is ok with banning problematic cards (A very good thing) why was CoL given drastic errata rather than being banned?

Errataing cards like Besieging the City makes sense as the errata'd change will seldom come up without a deck being built to abuse it and the card still does the basics of what the actual wording claims. The past and recent Mayhem changes are right what I would consider borderline unhealthy errata since it completely changes how the card is played in scenarios that come up rather frequently but the card does still does basically the same thing as it's wording so I can see why it was errata'd rather than banned.

Errataing CoL by simply deleting not just an entire ability but the main ability on the card does not make any sense to me at all. Only part of the playerbase reads this forum and only a fraction of that group stays up to date on every errata change. When people bring their CoL decks to my tournaments am I just supposed to tell them "Oh hey yeah that card you have there? It just doesn't do what it says it does. That line of text on it doesn't actually exist anymore."

Even if a nerfed CoL allowed an armor/fruits deck to function as intended it is not worth this kind of errata.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ranting because CoL was effectively removed from Redemption, I completely agree it's an unhealthy card in the current card pool and should not exist. I'm ranting because it was neutered instead of being banned. The only argument I could see for not banning CoL was that the Elders did not want to commit to the precedent of banning cards but that precedent was set in the exact same announcement. I believe the precedent of using errata to this extent is a FAR worse one to set than that of being willing to ban cards.

I am very excited about all the changes except this one. Please do not make drastic errata. Please ban CoL.

Entire old post is irrelevant after the recent announcement that replacement cards will be issued. Huge thanks to Rob for this!

Xonathan · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2018, 02:47:49 PM »

I would be for a limit on CoL. Like limit 7 for number of AoG GE's

Gabe · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2018, 02:48:57 PM »

For the record, we are NOT in favor of banning cards. That is a last resort and decided upon with much apprehension. We considered many options to "solve the Liner problem" but none were easy to implement, teach or explain.

While I respect your opinion about CoL, I disagree that the "main" ability of CoL was "deleted". At least as we originally intended the card, it was meant to help keep your investment of AoG and/or FotS safe. The draw was more as an afterthought intended to offset the potential card disadvantage of placing so many eggs in one basket. It was never meant as the main ability to help you speed through your deck. We didn't envision (or even test) a speed CoL deck that used such an unconventional offense as 18 GE's and 5 Heroes.

Props for finding away to abuse the card! I'm sorry that it had to lead to an errata. We didn't rush into a decision based on public outcry but instead took our time and looked at many options before deciding that 1) something needed to be done and 2) this is the best solution.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2018, 02:55:37 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 09, 2018, 02:48:57 PM

For the record, we are NOT in favor of banning cards. That is a last resort and decided upon with much apprehension. We considered many options to "solve the Liner problem" but none were easy to implement, teach or explain.

While I respect your opinion about CoL, I disagree that the "main" ability of CoL was "deleted". At least as we originally intended the card, it was meant to help keep your investment of AoG and/or FotS safe. The draw was more as an afterthought intended to offset the potential card disadvantage of placing so many eggs in one basket. It was never meant as the main ability to help you speed through your deck. We didn't envision (or even test) a speed CoL deck that used such an unconventional offense as 18 GE's and 5 Heroes.

Props for finding away to abuse the card! I'm sorry that it had to lead to an errata. We didn't rush into a decision based on public outcry but instead took our time and looked at many options before deciding that 1) something needed to be done and 2) this is the best solution.

By main ability I meant the main reason someone would choose to play the card. People will still play armor decks casually for fun like they did for fun and I believe if they are optimal they won't even include post-errata CoL. The problem with armor decks has always been card disadvantage. The protection ability was a nice bonus while the draw actually solved armor's problems (A bit too well unfortunately). Regardless of how the card was intended to work the protection is a nice bonus and the draw is the only reason the card fits into an optimal deck, both pre and post errata.

Even if it was the protection ability that was deleted instead, I would still have made this thread. I don't really expect to change the opinion of the entire Elder team since I know this kind of decision was made only after a lot of internal discussion and I respect that you all have a great commitment to doing what's best for the game but I cannot emphasize enough how unhealthy I believe this kind of errata to be.
Complaint no longer relevant since the announcement that the errata'd cards will be replaced.

Red · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:05:07 PM »

I would have preferred a full ban on Mayhem to the Errata.

The Guardian · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:21:17 PM »

Quote from: Red on April 09, 2018, 03:05:07 PM

I would have preferred a full ban on Mayhem to the Errata.

This errata has undergone several months of testing and Mayhem has been so much more balanced. It now typically impacts a single turn (or maybe two), but it does not swing the game completely around.

The ban to Liners was made as a last resort decision because every errata/rule tweak we considered was simply too confusing. This errata to Mayhem is incredibly simple and therefore there is no reason it needs to be banned IMO.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:25:33 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 09, 2018, 03:21:17 PM

Quote from: Red on April 09, 2018, 03:05:07 PM
I would have preferred a full ban on Mayhem to the Errata.

This errata has undergone several months of testing and Mayhem has been so much more balanced. It now typically impacts a single turn (or maybe two), but it does not swing the game completely around.

The ban to Liners was made as a last resort decision because every errata/rule tweak we considered was simply too confusing. This errata to Mayhem is incredibly simple and therefore there is no reason it needs to be banned IMO.

It's simple to understand once you are aware of it. If this were a digital card game where you could update the text of all Mayhems and CoLs everywhere I would be 100% behind these changes. ~~Sadly that's not the world we live in.~~ Apparently that IS the world we live in!

Ironisaac · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:26:01 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 09, 2018, 03:21:17 PM

Quote from: Red on April 09, 2018, 03:05:07 PM
I would have preferred a full ban on Mayhem to the Errata.

This errata has undergone several months of testing and Mayhem has been so much more balanced. It now typically impacts a single turn (or maybe two), but it does not swing the game completely around.

The ban to Liners was made as a last resort decision because every errata/rule tweak we considered was simply too confusing. This errata to Mayhem is incredibly simple and therefore there is no reason it needs to be banned IMO.

I didn't play that many games with an errated liner, but the few i did play made it so they wouldn't reset when taken out of play. Imo, that seemed to solve the problem nicely, but i think i only played like 3 games against a deck using it, so maybe I just don't have enough perspective to really weigh in on this.

The Guardian · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:29:29 PM »

Quote

It's simple to understand once you are aware of it. If this were a digital card game where you could update the text of all Mayhems and CoLs everywhere I would be 100% behind these changes. Sadly that's not the world we live in.

What is the difference in knowing a card is banned and knowing it's wording has been changed?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2018, 03:36:00 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 09, 2018, 03:29:29 PM

Quote
It's simple to understand once you are aware of it. If this were a digital card game where you could update the text of all Mayhems and CoLs everywhere I would be 100% behind these changes. Sadly that's not the world we live in.

What is the difference in knowing a card is banned and knowing it's wording has been changed?

A. If all major changes are only bans, not errata, the only information you need to know is the answer to "Does my decklist have banned cards in it?". If some major changes are errata, you need to know the answer to the previous question plus you must memorize all errata'd cards that exist because your opponents could be running them.

B. In the case that a player is not up to date on recent changes, in the case of bans their mistake can be corrected at deck check and they can potentially change their deck. In the case of errata, a player could have no idea about the changes and get matched an opponent of similar knowledge and play their errata'd card as written without either player realizing the issue. Unless a judge is watching every minute of every game this will happen, its just a question of how often.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2018, 04:01:53 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 09, 2018, 03:21:17 PM

The ban to Liners was made as a last resort decision because every errata/rule tweak we considered was simply too confusing.

I'm just curious, but did you try Rescuer's Choice? Because I know the Liner Lost Souls aren't really a big deal in T2 (you might get a block out of them if you're lucky, but generally people just go for a different Lost Soul unless there isn't a choice), I know there's more differences between T1 and T2 than just Rescuer's Choice, but I don't think Rescuer's Choice is too confusing.

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2018, 04:02:12 PM »

@kevinthedude--While that's a fair point, the same could be said for any rule change. For quite awhile after the announcement of the rule change that Son of God could not rescue your own Lost Souls, people were still doing that because they hadn't found out yet.

While it's completely true that the fewer of these changes/erratas we have, the better, the policy we have decided to move forward with is that banning cards should be the last resort only. That's not set in stone forever and ever, but that is the decision we have made at this point in the life of the game. I have no issue with viewpoints that disagree (in a respectful manner like you have), and we will continue to evaluate concerns and suggestions.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on April 09, 2018, 04:01:53 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on April 09, 2018, 03:21:17 PM
The ban to Liners was made as a last resort decision because every errata/rule tweak we considered was simply too confusing.

I'm just curious, but did you try Rescuer's Choice? Because I know the Liner Lost Souls aren't really a big deal in T2 (you might get a block out of them if you're lucky, but generally people just go for a different Lost Soul unless there isn't a choice), I know there's more differences between T1 and T2 than just Rescuer's Choice, but I don't think Rescuer's Choice is too confusing.

I believe it was brought up, but that would have affected T1 in so many other ways as well. What we would have been left with is a category sans Liner (meaning it might as well have been banned) but also fundamentally different than it has always been.

The Schaefer · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2018, 05:03:14 PM »

With the introduction of bans I think there is a potential for a bright future with redemption. As for why CoL and mayhem weren't banned and instead errataed, it kinda comes down to bans being a last resort, and errata still making the cards functionally usable even if it's not ideal.

I hope that we can eventually reprint the errataed cards with updated wording and then the old ones be rotated out or banned. There would likely be backlash from that though so a trade in program may have to be implemented for this so it's not just as easy as talking about it. In the meantime though errata at least lets cards see play as long as errata can be implemented effectively. Liners didn't seem to have that imo so banning it seems like a great move.

The path ahead is difficult when it comes to decisions like bans and errata but I think for now a good job was done and I trust that the future will continue to build upon good decisions so that our gripes and concerns will be mitigated as much as possible.

YeshuaIsLord · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2018, 08:41:24 PM »

Quote from: The Schaefer on April 09, 2018, 05:03:14 PM

I hope that we can eventually reprint the errataed cards with updated wording and then the old ones be rotated out or banned. There would likely be backlash from that though so a trade in program may have to be implemented for this so it's not just as easy as talking about it.

I think that is a great idea! To me as a newcomer the idea of having to learn about two decades of game changes and errata's is intimidating. Even though it seems that there hasn't been too much change since I/J but maybe I'm just to uneducated?
I would also like to see reprints of outdated wording. Glade to see that with the Legacy Rares!

Kor · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2018, 08:57:32 PM »

I’m glad of the elders making errata (and a ban!) when necessary. Specifically for CoL though, could the draw have been errata’d to ‘once per turn’ instead of removing it entirely? Just seems like that would still kill the OP combo aspect while being closer to the original card.

Isildur · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:31:10 PM »

Where were these new erratas issued? I can't seem to find the thread or article stating them.... I feel out of the loop!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #16 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:32:00 PM »

Quote from: Isildur on April 09, 2018, 11:31:10 PM

Where were these new erratas issued? I can't seem to find the thread or article stating them.... I feel out of the loop!

The Rule Annoucements section.

Isildur · « **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2018, 11:47:19 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 09, 2018, 11:32:00 PM

The Rule Annoucements section.

Nice!! Thanks!

VJ · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2018, 08:26:51 AM »

Quote from: Isildur on April 09, 2018, 11:31:10 PM

I feel out of the loop!

Welcome to my world!

The Guardian · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2018, 02:56:45 PM »

Quote from: The Schaefer

I hope that we can eventually reprint the errataed cards with updated wording and then the old ones be rotated out or banned. There would likely be backlash from that though so a trade in program may have to be implemented for this so it's not just as easy as talking about it.

Schaefer is a prophet--confirmed.

The Schaefer · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2018, 06:38:31 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on April 10, 2018, 02:56:45 PM

Quote from: The Schaefer
I hope that we can eventually reprint the errataed cards with updated wording and then the old ones be rotated out or banned. There would likely be backlash from that though so a trade in program may have to be implemented for this so it's not just as easy as talking about it.

Schaefer is a prophet--confirmed.

I wouldn't say prophet. More like I've heard the idea from someone and figured I'd voice my support of the idea.

It still could be considered "prophetic" based on who I heard the idea from though.

egilkinc · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2018, 10:01:02 AM »

I would suggest leadership consider banning Saint of Virtue from the game. I am not whining about the unfairness of me having the slightest disadvantage due to the female-only Lost Soul. Rather, I believe it opens the door to potential controversy that I brought up even when it was first released. At some point, Cactus will have to rule on its gender if and when a transgender player enters a tournament. As far as I know, it hasn't happened, but I pose the question of whether you want to enter in to that discussion and make a determination. It might be easier to ban the card.

I would suggest leadership consider banning Haman's Plot form the game. MTG Chaos Orb was ripped BY THE PLAYER'S CHOICE to maximize effectiveness. But, to force a player to consume/destroy their product is counter to what I personally view the spirit of the game as. Obviously, I'm not Cactus or on the leadership team, but I value the collectability and to ask me to destroy it just to play it turns it in to a consumable, which isn't what I feel I signed up for when I started collecting.

Thanks for the consideration!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2018, 10:33:36 AM »

Quote from: egilkinc on April 13, 2018, 10:01:02 AM

I would suggest leadership consider banning Haman's Plot form the game. MTG Chaos Orb was ripped BY THE PLAYER'S CHOICE to maximize effectiveness. But, to force a player to consume/destroy their product is counter to what I personally view the spirit of the game as. Obviously, I'm not Cactus or on the leadership team, but I value the collectability and to ask me to destroy it just to play it turns it in to a consumable, which isn't what I feel I signed up for when I started collecting.

Chaos Orb is not the one that gets ripped. You're thinking of Chaos Confetti, which was printed in a literal joke set and was never legal in any real format to begin with.

bmc25 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2018, 10:35:56 AM »

I used the besieging the city, hypocrisy, mayhem combo...I can completely understand why that was squashed. It was unreal how good that was and the simple Hypocrisy / Mayhem combo was in every single deck.

COL, yeah, that was obvious. It wasn't good for the game.

However, I'm confused as to why the liner was banned all of a sudden.

It has been around forever and there are more ways than ever to keep it from being shuffled away, why ban it now?

Didn't GOYS (ROJ) kind of completely fix this "issue"?

I'm an anti-banning cards / set rotation guy. So I may be biased but am I missing something?

Thanks!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2018, 10:42:48 AM »

Quote from: bmc25 on April 13, 2018, 10:35:56 AM

I used the besieging the city, hypocrisy, mayhem combo...I can completely understand why that was squashed. It was unreal how good that was and the simple Hypocrisy / Mayhem combo was in every single deck.

COL, yeah, that was obvious. It wasn't good for the game.

However, I'm confused as to why the liner was banned all of a sudden.

It has been around forever and there are more ways than ever to keep it from being shuffled away, why ban it now?

Didn't GOYS (ROJ) kind of completely fix this "issue"?

I'm an anti-banning cards / set rotation guy. So I may be biased but am I missing something?

Thanks!

Their existence forces both the players to always run potential counters even if they aren't in the meta and the set designers to never print any strong cards that can potentially abuse the liner. Cards can be unhealthy for a game even if they don't appear in meta decks.

News:

Author Topic: Bans vs Errata (Read 7162 times)