|
Author |
Message |
NBarden |
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
Hm...I think I understand what you’re doing now.
/denseness.
What about expanded though? Are you just gonna leave everyone to run to expanded for their broken combos? Or open?
Also, with FotR, you’re now in ultra limited format. I think we should just play movie block, personally, since everything was fine then. |
-Trade With Me
Add the popcorn smiley to your sig, help it achieve world domination.
What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?
As I lay in bed staring at the stars last night, I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
Spotlight on....Sense of Obligation. |
|
Back to top |
|
Elessar's Socks |
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 349
Location:
|
NB, who are you responding to? In case it was me, as I said in the initial post I’m open to X’ing/revising overpowered/broken cards, e.g. Madril DoO which was X’ed in Standard anyway. I expect that will cause enough uproar already, but IMO there’s a difference between that and adjusting everything we can get our hands on.
Which is why I suggested a split between the physical and online environment (obviously some changes can still overlap though). |
|
|
Back to top |
|
NBarden |
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:22 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
|
Back to top |
|
Hobbiton Lad |
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:00 pm |
|
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Location:
|
I guess what I’m saying is that starting with second edition, only 2E approved sets will be available for sanctioned play. I mean, you really can’t control what people choose to do with the cards on their own in a casual format, but if you want to start running tournaments then you have to limit the environment.
So, in this case, Standard format would consist only of FotR 2E. Then when Mines 2E is finished, it would be added to Standard. When Realms 2E is finished, it would be added to Standard. When Towers 2E is finished, it would be added to Standard...
... and so on and so forth.
The ultimate goal is to have all 18 sets come under a period of review and release. It would just mean artificially limiting the sanctioned play environment for a time while the PC reviews each set and makes the appropriate changes to cards and/or creates virtual versions of other cards.
It’s my hope that this methodology would lead to an instance where one could eventually have a Standard format that included all 18 sets, and was still somewhat balanced. You would still also be able to do Movie Block and other formats as well.
This approach pretty much allows for a "do over" as far as the game is concerned. I can’t tell you how many people I played with who loved Fellowship of the Ring and Mines of Moria but were worn out by the time Realms came around because of all the crap that was in that set that ended up getting X-listed.
Plus, another added bonus, retailers might be excited about the prospect of selling old stock again. If you start running tournaments again and people can only use FotR cards, then that’s what they’re gonna buy. So in that regard, it could be a good way to get local shops on board as well.
Anyway, these are just my ramblings. My ideas. I think the basic concept has merit, but the whole reason I started this conversation is because I think that together, the community here could come up with a really good strategy to get people playing again without doing anything (too) illegal and actually fix the game at the same time. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
kingmj4891 |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:15 am |
|
|
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
Location:
|
Hobbitan Lad what you are proposing is very very illegal and Decipher would shut you down the second they found out about it, and they would in time. Virtual Cards in the physical game are limited to an agreement by friends. I like your enthusiasm but get real, that dream is to big to fly without an official blessing from Decipher and probably New Line since they own the copyrights to the cards. And last I knew the whole PC thing died when Seth Masur tried to start it and with the D-Boards down now, it never gonna happen unless you know Warren from Decipher personally...
But if the small online playing community wanted to rewrite some cards for a online set for a special online format I am all game...I was proposing something for online use only using SDA and maybe Lackey.... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Hobbiton Lad |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:03 am |
|
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Location:
|
How is it illegal? I still have to own a copy of a card to use it. I’m not talking about manufacturing any new cards.
For example, let’s say Aragorn’s Bow were changed to something like...
----------------------------
Aragorn’s Bow
Possession - Ranged Weapon
Bearer must be Aragorn. He is an archer.
At the beginning of the archery phase, you may exert Aragorn to wound a minion; Aragorn does not add to the fellowship archery total.
Rangers learn the bow as well as the blade. 1 V 90
----------------------------
So yes, the gametext has been changed. However, you could do something like the SWCCGPC did and only post the bottom half of the card for players to use as an insert -- or something along those lines. Either way, a player would still have to own a hard copy of Aragorn’s Bow to play with it in a tournament, and that card is manufactured by Decipher. The only thing happening here is a reboot of the limited tournament environment along with the proposed errata of some cards in order to balance things out. Calling it "second edition" just eliminates confusion is all. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
hawkeyespf |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:38 am |
|
|
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 198
Location: Round Lake IL
|
You may not be talking about "manufacturing any new cards," but you are talking about preparing derivative works. Preparing errata, virtual cards or otherwise "tweaking" these cards for the purpose of distributing said changes to a wide audience without Decipher’s explicit consent is in fact very much illegal.
US Copyright Office wrote: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
US Copyright Office wrote: 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
US Copyright Office, Section 101, Definitions wrote: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means —
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.Hmm, I’d say the INTERNET would count as a place that is open to the public, and by posting or otherwise widely distributing your derivative works there, you have now displayed a that work "publicly"
US Copyright Office, Section 107 wrote: 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I highlighted the last part of the Fair Use quote because it means not only can Decipher sue, but also New Line and Tolkien Enterprises (is their property as marketable to another CCG manufacturer?)
Note that profit need not be gained in order to break copyright law.
Do not confuse my ranting here with not wanting this great game to continue and to once again thrive - I DO. What I don’t want to see is for any chance of that get blown out of the water because a vocal and impatient minority wants to ignore the rights of others (the copyright holders, Decipher/New Line/Tolkien). If the correct steps are taken, we will all have our game back, not only with the blessing of Decipher/et al, but probably with a level of assistance. |
When we do it in Iraq, it's called progress. When we do it here in the US, it's called socialism.
http://trade.mahasamatman.com/Rings/list_show.pl?user=florents |
|
Back to top |
|
Hobbiton Lad |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:42 am |
|
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Location:
|
I would assume then that this would make both SDA and Lackey illegal as well. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
lem0nhead |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:43 am |
|
|
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2981
Location: Blood Island
|
Wow thats one hell of a convincing arguement you got there hawkseye you must have gone to a lot of trouble to get that evidence. Nice research! |
Ban shampoo, demand real poo.
My Trade List and CC References
"Smart guy, especially considering his head is filled with lemon juice and seeds. That boy’s juicy brain is FULL of good stuff" ~ DainIronfoot
"No fair! And all I got was an oily unconscious steward!" ~ Pippin.
"Okay, stop me if you've heard this one. An elf, a man, and a dwarf walk into the Riddermark..." ~ Eomer |
|
Back to top |
|
Hobbiton Lad |
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:45 am |
|
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 26
Location:
|
Also, I think people need to realize one glaring fact...
Decipher doesn’t give a crap about this game anymore.
People have spent the better part of two years trying to get Decipher’s "blessing" to form a Player’s Committee, and it’s gotten nowhere. Warren isn’t interested in the vitality of the LotR community. All he sees is that he can’t make money off this game anymore. That’s all he cares about. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|