Gemp-LotR rules, format and errata committee

[MarcinS]

Seing as Gemp-LotR is getting a lot of attention and also hearing what people have to say about:
- the formats being stale (limited viable deck choices),
- certain cards being overpowered (or perceived as overpowered) if using the official Decipher rules.

Given the power of Gemp-LotR to enforce rules, I'd like to propose to create a committee of players, who will decide (and shape) the future of the game, at least in the limited scope of Gemp-LotR website.

For me the obvious choice as the first person is - Tbiesty, who has provided me with a lot of feedback on the issues and has started a discussion about card erratas and format changes here:
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,7911.msg77143.html#msg77143

I would like to get your (community) opinion about these (maybe) upcoming changes.

Here is how we would like the changes to be applied:
1. A list of proposed erratas for cards will be made by the committee and posted, most likely on this forum.
2. Feedback about these will be gathered and reviewed by the committee
3. A list of erratas for cards will be proposed for testing.
4. A selected constructed league(S)/tournament(S) will be using the errated versions of the cards, instead of the normal ones.
5. Results of the league(S)/tournament(S) will be reviewed by the committee, and some of the cards from the list will be decided to be final, at which point the normal version of cards will be replaced by the errated ones and used for all game-play going forward.
6. The cycle will continue...

What I want to avoid:
1. Rushing any changes and erratas.
2. Having separate formats for "official Decipher cards/rules" and "house cards/rules". As Decipher is unable to continue the work and monitoring of the game, we have to start making the decisions ourselves, as current state of the game is not healthy. Introducing more formats (possibly doubling the amount) is counter-productive, as it will only further de-fragmentation of the community.

The errated cards will be specially marked, to draw player's attention that the card works differently than a printed in paper one. Also all errated cards will have current text on them (images).

So, what is your take on this matter? Any opinions or feedback?

[Ringbearer]

I like it to keep it the way it is. I find a single errata round not having any effect, cause the pool might live up a little, but then staleness will occur again and we are back a point zero. The only way to live up the game is to introduce a flow of new cards, much as the star wars players committee has done, but I know from earlier attempts that Decipher does not like that a LOTR committee is formed. There has been communication with Warren Holland before without any positive result.

[bradeier]

people don't want to play with new cards.  all good players quit after mt doom anyway, so any of the nostalgia players want to play the cards as is with minimal x list or r list

[mikefrench]

i agree with bradeier.

the only card i would be willing to errata (ever) would be galadriel, lady redeemed.  i feel that banning her is destructive to the movie block environment, but in present form she is too powerful.  but i would not be interested in errata or unbanning of any cards in any format that i play.  the only other format that would benefit from any changes )(imo) is towers standard, and the banning of the palantir (even tho that'd be my favorite deck to play in towers standard).

what i WOULD be interested in doing is creating custom sealed decks for league play.

[shewski]

I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen. When I was just starting on here a lot of the fellowship cards that were errata'd (thrors map for instance) threw me for a loop when the program enforced text that was different than what was on the card.  Since this is a digital product it is very easy to fix that.  

Errating cards for the latter sets would get me interested in trying them, and could possibly make it so that more people try them out, since the general perception i've heard is that the sets were rushed and poorly tested, much like what happened at the end of SWCCG's physical run.

It also would be nice to take advantage of the digital format to minimize the x/R list. 

[Zatzir]

The largest problem is the lack of a viable metagame, since there is no influx of new cards at all. You can't fix that without adding new cards.

A committee would have to get the trust of the players, I'm not sure that it will be that easy...
Also, agreeing on what cards to fix, and how, won't be that easy.

At the moment, I think the most broken cards in Movie block is the mass condition removal, I'm not sure everyone agrees with me on that.

[Nitsuj]

I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen. When I was just starting on here a lot of the fellowship cards that were errata'd (thrors map for instance) threw me for a loop when the program enforced text that was different than what was on the card.  Since this is a digital product it is very easy to fix that. 

Yeah, if the actual care images themselves are not updated, then I'd say I'm not interested in more erratas.  It is very frustrating not knowing what a card does (especially when it could be a bug with the software), and introduce a mechanism to do more erratas would have to include a means to update images.

I didn't vote, I'm rather indifferent, but completely opposed if the gametext of teh cards isn't updated.

[CoS]

I don't want new cards without new pics/text. I really don't want errata at all but for Lady Redeemed. I don't play sets 10+

[TelTura]

This would be the obvious first step to the creation of virtual dream cards and virtual expansions.  For that reason alone I would support this endeavor; without a committee to regulate errata and shepard the metagame virtual expansions would be impossible.  I would point out that that should be kept in mind; as people have pointed out it's useless to simply regulate the current (dead) card pool.

[MarcinS]

I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen.

It's already done for very few cards (for example set 1 Gimli), it's just a matter of me getting my hands on the new images. This will hopefully gradually done, to have all the official errata in there.

[CT]

Lotr is fine the way it is. Play the formats you want to enjoy it how you want.

SWCCG made a committee, and they messed things up constantly and it's just awful.

Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.

[MarcinS]

Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.

This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Why don't we just revert all the errata Decipher did then?

[TelTura]

SWCCG made a committee, and they messed things up constantly and it's just awful.

and the Star Trek PC does things right.  It can go both ways, it's not a doomed endeavor.

Creating different environments with different card pools to make it interesting is better than trying to make or errata cards.

That's exactly all that making new cards or errata would do but with more restrictions and less freedom.  Inferior result, less freedom.

[TelTura]

I would love edit card images to show current errata (as well as any new erratas) that happen.

It's already done for very few cards (for example set 1 Gimli), it's just a matter of me getting my hands on the new images. This will hopefully gradually done, to have all the official errata in there.

I've been meaning to tell you that I have an open-source font file for that purpose that does a whole lot better than the crappy errata images we have now.

[bradeier]

the later sets are pretty bad.  like, in set 19 there is an eomer who does the same stuff as third marshall AND is valiant. 

thing is its not like swccg which had, idk, 4 episode 1 sets.  for most people, its like 9 new sets.  i played some during shadows but i know many didnt.