Scratch-pad for brainstorming ideas

[FM]

And who elected/selected the people in charge of such changes? Was the community (every active player) asked, as a whole, if they actually WANTED a group to do this (and knowing what they would do)? Or just a poll in a forum from which some (or all) might not be an active member? If the idea is to "go with the flow because, if no one does, no one will do it", I'm wholeheartly against it, I don't think such a comitee should have a say in how I play my cards, they're not the authority on the game, they do not have the authorization to be, and errata, as has been mentioned, is extremely confusing.
Adding new cards? Sure, that could work, I could simply choose not to play with those cards. Having a format where those cards saw errata (assuming anyone would even want to play them after errata)? Sure again, go for it!
FORCING a format upon everyone where we have to remember erratas and abide by changes made by a "comitee" that was NOT lawfuly instituted for such and is not taking the whole pool of cards into consideration before issuing errata to see if they make something even more degenerate? Not a fan. Not at all.
I applaud the effort, but this is not the way, this is the way dictators rise to power and stay there: "since no one will govern this country like it should be governed, I will!".

[Tbiesty]

This Gemp-Lotr Committee would only apply to Gemp-Lotr, so:
1)  MarcinS has the final say in how Gemp-Lotr works in any case, since he developed it.
2)  You can still play outside of Gemp-Lotr (e.g. GCCG, IRL) however you want.
3)  Gemp-Lotr takes care of the rules for you, so you don't have to "remember" anything.

[FM]

And then, the net result is the community is split asunder into people who use GCCG due to not wanting non-official errata, and people that are fine with it. Still does not strike me as "good for the health of the game", which I believe is among the chief concerns behind this idea.

[TelTura]

What's good for the health of the community is having something in place that allows for adaptation and evolution.  I'm perfectly in agreement with you in thinking that we need some sort of barrier between these changes and the "official" formats.  It's a classic backwards-compatibility problem, and that can't be solved by forcing forwards-compatibility.  We need two different environments, one for changes, one for old, locked formats.  Marcin, you're worried about fragmenting the playerbase, but all that's being fragmented is the total number of options available.  As the number of users grows more options will always be a good thing.

[hsiale]

As the number of users grows more options will always be a good thing.

Yes. And that's why before even thinking about doing any changes, we need to get more users. We need to find ways to attract new people to the game. Completely new ones, who have never played LotR TCG before. There are two reasons for this. First, to support more play environments, we need way more players. I think we should aim for at least 400-500 players active each week (we are around 150 now), preferably even closer to 1000. Second, if we want to have a game that lives, we need a self-renewing player base, and for this we can't base on people who played the game before, as the number of such people is limited.

This needs a lot of work, many good ideas and probably some luck as well. But if we fail at this, I see no reason to try any changes.

[TelTura]

I think something small needs set up soon.  We're all getting hung up on long-term effects on both sides of the argument, but what we need to do is set up like a three-man team (plus submissions) to experiment within a PTR format and just iterate over things.  See how it works.  If it blows, we pull out.  If it's successful, then cautiously proceed.  We're not going to get anywhere at all, good or bad, if we focus on what-if's and whatnot when we have exactly zero data to draw from. 

[Tbiesty]

I think something small needs set up soon.  We're all getting hung up on long-term effects on both sides of the argument, but what we need to do is set up like a three-man team (plus submissions) to experiment within a PTR format and just iterate over things.  See how it works.  If it blows, we pull out.  If it's successful, then cautiously proceed.  We're not going to get anywhere at all, good or bad, if we focus on what-if's and whatnot when we have exactly zero data to draw from.  

Thank you!  Now can we please get this topic back to what I created it for.
(If you want to argue about whether or not to do anything, please use this discussion topic instead. Thanks!)

Any more comments on the errata shown on the first page?

Specifically, can you see a reason why a change is either too much or not enough to allow it to live with the rest of the Movie block.

I'll keep this brainstorming session going for a few more days, before we see where MarcinS wants to take this.  I'm trying my best to address each person's comments.  Keep them coming! :-)  Thanks!

[hsiale]

If those are meant for Movie Block playing, a few issues arise:

1. Lady Redeemed and Uruk Regular are legal in Movie Block, so no need to do anything with them.

2. Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be cancelled in Movie Block. So OEG should be reworded to "... or remove a Nazgul from a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer."

3. Ulaire Nertea, ModG still looks as if he would be incredibly overpowered in a Morcs deck (which arleady have good hand extension in form of Flung Into the Fray, Evil-smelling Fens, Morgul Squealer and Morgulduin). Additionally, playing this minion does not hurt Morcs deck in any way (there is no other version of Nertea good for it).

[Tbiesty]

If those are meant for Movie Block playing, a few issues arise:

1. Lady Redeemed and Uruk Regular are legal in Movie Block, so no need to do anything with them.

2. Ring-bearer skirmishes cannot be cancelled in Movie Block. So OEG should be reworded to "... or remove a Nazgul from a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer."

3. Ulaire Nertea, ModG still looks as if he would be incredibly overpowered in a Morcs deck (which arleady have good hand extension in form of Flung Into the Fray, Evil-smelling Fens, Morgul Squealer and Morgulduin). Additionally, playing this minion does not hurt Morcs deck in any way (there is no other version of Nertea good for it).

Ah, sorry, I should have worded that a little better.  I meant so the cards would be able to be used with any of the other cards in the Movie blocks (So including Fellowship block, Towers Standard, and Movie).

Does that change your comments at all?

Updated Ulaire Nertea...

[hsiale]

OK, if we talk about Movie and all earlier formats, then Regular indeed may be thought of. Lady Redeemed still is not X-ed in any of those formats, only in WotR Standard, Standard and (not sure) Expanded, so no need to touch her here. OEG being legal but not working seems a bit strange. Do you think allowing it to work in Movie would be too much?

[TelTura]

I still think O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! would work well with a Hobbit Stealth treatment:  "Skirmish: At sites 1-7, discard this condition to cancel a skirmish involving the Ring-bearer and a Nazgul.  At any other site, discard this condition to make bearer strength +3."  It has the elegant solution of still being used with its intended effect in Fellowship block while being usable out-of-block after RB skirmish cancels were revoked.

[Tbiesty]

OK, if we talk about Movie and all earlier formats, then Regular indeed may be thought of. Lady Redeemed still is not X-ed in any of those formats, only in WotR Standard, Standard and (not sure) Expanded, so no need to touch her here. OEG being legal but not working seems a bit strange. Do you think allowing it to work in Movie would be too much?

Even though Galadriel, Lady Redeemed is not technically banned in Movie, pretty much every one thinks in its current form it should be.  That is why I'm including it in this discussion.

Since Movie format does not allow the Ring-bearer's skirmish to be cancelled, that specific part of the O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! game text just doesn't apply.  (BTW: My playing group has long used a rule that the Ring-bearer's skirmish cannot be cancelled at any site 9, which by itself has avoided "cheap" wins at the end; perhaps that would be an idea to bring up in later discussion we can have at some point.)
I feel that adding the "If bearer is wearing The One Ring..." will keep the original purpose of the card intact (because it can still be used to "take off" The One Ring, while making the Free Peoples player take a little more risk (by wearing The One Ring), before trying to cancel a skirmish with a Nazgul (so Wraith World, The Twilight World, and Return to Its Master could come in handy...)  Plus, it even mirrors the scene from the movie a little better.

[hsiale]

Even though Galadriel, Lady Redeemed is not technically banned in Movie, pretty much every one thinks in its current form it should be.  That is why I'm including it in this discussion.

I don't know who your "pretty much everyone" includes, it definitely doesn't include me. There is a big difference between cards banned by Decipher and cards that some (even quite a lot) players may want to ban and we should definitely never mix ones with the others.

BTW: My playing group has long used a rule that the Ring-bearer's skirmish cannot be cancelled at any site 9, which by itself has avoided "cheap" wins at the end; perhaps that would be an idea to bring up in later discussion we can have at some point.

I don't understand the notion of a "cheap win". If you win, you win. If you managed to get to a situation where you can cancel ring-bearer's skirmish at site 9, then you deserve to benefit from it (especially as there are not many ways to achieve this).

[Tbiesty]

I don't know who your "pretty much everyone" includes, it definitely doesn't include me. There is a big difference between cards banned by Decipher and cards that some (even quite a lot) players may want to ban and we should definitely never mix ones with the others.

ok, I moved her to the end of the initial post and pointed out that she is not "officially" banned.  Though I do feel that keeping balance to the formats will require a change to her.

I don't understand the notion of a "cheap win". If you win, you win. If you managed to get to a situation where you can cancel ring-bearer's skirmish at site 9, then you deserve to benefit from it (especially as there are not many ways to achieve this).

No problem.  Just a thought.  The fact that you just need to have O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! and Filibert Bolger, Wily Rascal out for basically an auto-win against any deck that plays a Nazgul at site 9, is something that some people may not like.  But you're right, it's just an opinion.

[Tbiesty]

Does anyone have anymore specific comments on the card updates?  Do you see any particular changes as too much or too little?  Please let me know.

I'll keep this discussion open until tomorrow, and then consider the cards ready for actual gameplay testing.  We'll see where things go from there.  Thanks!