Preliminary Discussion: Mr. Underhill

[Thranduil]

Thran, why would anyone really be all that confused regarding two cards with the same gametext? There are separate images for each in GCCG, so I don't see it as all that different as having, say, Hobbit Sword*** vs. Hobbit Sword**.

I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

[Tbiesty]

I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

I completely agree.  In fact, this is the motivation behind much of what I do.  Simplifying the game (formats, X-lists, R-lists, etc.) would all be helpful.  Hopefully, this is something the Rules Team can pursue and others will find a worthy cause.

[Witchkingx5]

* Kralik has a couple.

And for the record, I will never cheat at GCCG collecting. I paid dearly in promos for the first and got the second recently after a game. All of my decks are proxy-free.

I meant real cards. There's no way GCCG will be asnearly as good as playing with real cards, with a real opponent with whom you can not only interact by sending text messages.

[Legolis]

I was thinking about new players. This whole activity of keeping the game alive is only going to work if we attract new players, and therefore complexity (both in the rules and the card pool) is something we should be thinking about. Though thinking about it, legalising it might actually reduce confusion: imagine trying to explain to a new player that these two cards are virtually identical, and yet one of them is illegal to play.

I was raising it as a general issue more than in this particular case, because I don't think it's that important for the Mr Underhill and Reluctant Adventurer problem.

Thran

I completely agree.  In fact, this is the motivation behind much of what I do.  Simplifying the game (formats, X-lists, R-lists, etc.) would all be helpful.  Hopefully, this is something the Rules Team can pursue and others will find a worthy cause.

I guess you can call me a new player I played my first game the other day. Sad part is I bought my first starter deck in 2001. This is one of the main things with me, I don't understand how they can print cards then later ban them, just doesn't make sense to me or probably anyone new to the game. I kinda understand now why but trying to figure out what is banned in however many different formats there are is kinda rough. It can be very intimidating trying to figure out what cards can be used and what one's can't. I kinda look at it like this, there are around 3500 cards and that is a lot to try to memorize. I know that it will get easier with time but for anyone trying to learn the game it is going to drive the teachers crazy!

[Crabby Imposter]

I've got a couple.  ;-)