|
Post by greg on May 22, 2008 17:06:05 GMT -5
I agree it just seems the easiest way, and any watcher card that a deck was ever really built around has been reprinted as a watcher or hunter card already. The watcher cards in Type 1 were never really used THAT much.
|
|
|
Post by davester64 on May 22, 2008 17:26:48 GMT -5
I agree it just seems the easiest way, and any watcher card that a deck was ever really built around has been reprinted as a watcher or hunter card already. The watcher cards in Type 1 were never really used THAT much. Except 'Fair Fight' and 'gain 2 ability', of course.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on May 22, 2008 18:13:58 GMT -5
I agree it just seems the easiest way, and any watcher card that a deck was ever really built around has been reprinted as a watcher or hunter card already. The watcher cards in Type 1 were never really used THAT much. Except 'Fair Fight' and 'gain 2 ability', of course. Which luckily have both been reprinted. I think the restriction of using either Hunter OR Watcher helps balance out the cards. You cant have damage cards as well as healer cards in the same deck, I like that.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jun 2, 2008 21:37:02 GMT -5
Also, are there not Cards labeled Hunter or Watcher in the Sub text of the card and in the title of the card I thought.
You can just say Watcher cards must be played with Watcher Pre-Games and Hunters with Hunter Pre-Games.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 9, 2008 8:03:38 GMT -5
I believe the suggestion of banning the 1ed Watcher cards was thought of so that there is not another complexity added to this game. To experienced players it is no big deal, but to newer players they see it as an insane puzzle that they might not be able to figure out. You already have a bunch of criteria that hinges on type/sub-type, why add more?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jun 9, 2008 20:55:14 GMT -5
They will most likely be banned.
|
|
dcapotate
Elder Immortal
Call Me Horseman Zero
Posts: 346
|
Post by dcapotate on Jun 10, 2008 14:36:26 GMT -5
Aren't you all forgetting Watchers Chronicles cards like Watchers Headquarters that can be used by both Watchers (who are known to both groups) and Hunters (who concealed their identity from Watchers (non-hunters)? In the spirit of the game's original plan simply change Watchers in type ONE to Hunters only if they are Hunters in type two already.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 11, 2008 10:13:57 GMT -5
Aren't you all forgetting Watchers Chronicles cards like Watchers Headquarters that can be used by both Watchers (who are known to both groups) and Hunters (who concealed their identity from Watchers (non-hunters)? In the spirit of the game's original plan simply change Watchers in type ONE to Hunters only if they are Hunters in type two already. Interesting view point, however, I believe the cards that are in question are the ones the only say "Watcher" in the title.
|
|
dcapotate
Elder Immortal
Call Me Horseman Zero
Posts: 346
|
Post by dcapotate on Jun 20, 2008 17:21:05 GMT -5
HWR, in 1st edition, there are ONLY Watcher cards because Hunter cards are only in 2e so obviously they only say Watcher. "Interesting view point, however..." implies that you don't agree. If so, for what possible reason could you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 22, 2008 7:59:14 GMT -5
HWR, in 1st edition, there are ONLY Watcher cards because Hunter cards are only in 2e so obviously they only say Watcher. "Interesting view point, however..." implies that you don't agree. If so, for what possible reason could you disagree? Well, you are correct, I did not support your viewpoint. But seeing your response, I realize now where you are going with this, I think. I originally percieved that your were saying ban any and all cards from Type One that have Watcher anywhere in the title. That would include Watcher's Chronicles, Watcher's Database, Watcher's Headquarters, Watcher's Tribunal, Watcher Field Agents, and so on. That is why I referred to the problem only being with the cards actually titled "Watcher". The cards I just listed above are ones I was bearing in mind, because they should not be affected by this issue/rule for these reasons: 1- They are unique cards that are not titled specifically "Watcher" or "Hunter". Therefore they should not be included in the ban or errata or whatever. 2- They are an association card, that association goes both ways, to the Hunters as well as the Watchers. In this case they are considered neutral territory and should be able to be used by both factions, since in the series they were. That is where I stand on that issue. I also now see that you might not have been discussing this part of the issue. After rereading your posts and the direction the discussion was heading in, I see that you were talking about one thing while I was talking about another. I can see your arguement, considering the "cloak and dagger" part of the Watcher's Organization, and no one really knowing who is what. But, for simplifying this issue in the game, I believe the Design Team is talking about just banning the 1ed "Watcher" titled cards that have been reprinted and already re-catagorized into Watcher or Hunter. Clarification or confirmation from Tim or Brent would be good at this point.
|
|
dcapotate
Elder Immortal
Call Me Horseman Zero
Posts: 346
|
Post by dcapotate on Jun 25, 2008 16:43:32 GMT -5
After sending last message, I subsequently learned that there was discussion to ban some or all of the old Watcher cards. I am against this. The only reason I could see would be that they confuse the new boundaries. The 1e original ruling was that W. Database,W.Chronicles, W.Headquarters, and others were all to be considered part of the card class "Watchers" cards and that any card that targeted Watchers in its title expressly included them. No cards that targeted made it past playtestings so this became unimportant. New cards in e2 did so target watcher specific cards, hence the confusion. Let's just ask the design team to designate H. or W. choices and resolve this minor problem until more problems appear.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 26, 2008 12:19:39 GMT -5
After sending last message, I subsequently learned that there was discussion to ban some or all of the old Watcher cards. I am against this. The only reason I could see would be that they confuse the new boundaries. The 1e original ruling was that W. Database,W.Chronicles, W.Headquarters, and others were all to be considered part of the card class "Watchers" cards and that any card that targeted Watchers in its title expressly included them. No cards that targeted made it past playtestings so this became unimportant. New cards in e2 did so target watcher specific cards, hence the confusion. Let's just ask the design team to designate H. or W. choices and resolve this minor problem until more problems appear. One thing to keep in mind on this is that the affected cards that are proposed to be banned are the cards titled "Watcher", not Watcher specific cards or Watcher group cards, just plain old "Watcher". Also, the only cards targeted are ones that have been reprinted or remade, from what I have come to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jul 14, 2008 18:00:24 GMT -5
Here is a rule proposal.
You may include any 1st ed Watcher or Hunter Cards in your deck if you have a Watcher or Hunter Pre-Game. You may only include 2nd Edition Hunters if you have a Hunter pre-game and Watchers from 2nd Edition if you have a Watcher Pre-Game.
You may still only include a total of 6 Watcher or Hunter cards in your deck. This means that if you have Watcher card not named Watcher, it still counts towards your limit of 6.
|
|
|
Post by dbaker on Jul 14, 2008 18:57:18 GMT -5
Dose this mean you can have the 1e Watcher healer card and the new Watcher "gain 2 ability" or have the 1e watcher Sniper(your oponent loses 2 ability) and the new Hunter(your opponent loses 2 ability) in your deck at the same time? In either instance, the 1e Watcher healer and the 2e Watcher healer or the 1e Sniper and the 2e hunter is basically the same cards, just with different titles.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jul 14, 2008 19:12:57 GMT -5
Definitely an interesting idea and a step in the direction the Watchers need to go. One thing that is very obvious is that the Watchers need some muscle cards. Hunter cards have gotten very brutal, and let's face it nothing says the Watchers are push overs. I am sure they can be just as damaging. The only thing that isn't very appealing is the ability to have 4 healers or 4 snipers and 2 healers in a deck. The Hunters need a little humbling factor from the Watchers other than 6 cards to fight up to 28 cards while not have to totally force your deck into a Hunter killer deck.
|
|