Update as per September 13, 2008
|
|
Post by Thorr on Sept 19, 2008 6:59:27 GMT -5
It's not difficult, zarth. it's not a question of OR, it's a question of AND.
Evade: Escape is titled Evade. Dodge is titled Dodge. Two titles, both unrestricted. This means that you can include all 12 cards. This is the very reason that the Evade and Counter cards are typically bugged.
Example - Amanda. In 1E, she has Back away, Distract, Jump, Left Side Step, and Right Side Step (30 total dodges). If you unbug her 2E dodges, then you've just given her Counter: Duck, Counter: Jump, Evade: Escape, and Master's Dodge (unbugged) too. That's another 13 (counter only counts as 6 due to title restriction).
How about Kurgan? He goes from having just Back Away to having Evade:Back Away as well. Now he has 12 dodges instead of 6.
Title uniqueness makes it possible. This is the very reason that most Counter and Evade cards are bugged. The new system of dodge design is meant to replace the old system. In order to avoid giving old personas a bunch of new dodges, those cards were bugged. Quite simply, they need to stay bugged. (At least, they need to stay bugged until such time as an equivalency list is available and made into part of the rules.)
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Sept 19, 2008 8:15:02 GMT -5
However if someone knows that they can use their 2E Evade: Escapes in type 1, that would be a further incentive to buy new 2E product rather than buying old 1E product off of Ebay to finish out their decks. With the various boxes of 1E regularly going for 20$ or less, it is never a bad idea to give new and old players EVERY reason to want to pick up boxes of 2E and support LM. The thing is, right now the sales of 1ed stuff for CHEAP actually is helping drive the sales of 2ed. When new and old players see that they can get into the game so cheaply, they have seen that as a plus. Then once they start playing and recognize the utility of the 2ed cards, they begin picking those up as well. I like many older players I know just don’t happen to enjoy the Gem system. I think this is Easily overcome by offering Non Gem based alternatives in Type 1 Prize packs, which LM has been doing to a degree. I can’t wait to see the English Long Sword Type one version, and I would still encourage them to do a Type One Sinuous blade. I also think they should offer a set of the type 1 equivalents with every purchase of 2 boxes of product for those who live in areas not large enough to support tournaments. I agree that Type One versions of some of the bugged cards are in order (Sinuous Blade, English Long Sword), we will see if these get made or not. The idea of putting them in as bonus cards for boxes ordered isnt a bad one, maybe Mike will consider it. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Sept 19, 2008 9:42:07 GMT -5
It's not difficult, zarth. it's not a question of OR, it's a question of AND. Evade: Escape is titled Evade. Dodge is titled Dodge. Two titles, both unrestricted. This means that you can include all 12 cards. This is the very reason that the Evade and Counter cards are typically bugged. Example - Amanda. In 1E, she has Back away, Distract, Jump, Left Side Step, and Right Side Step (30 total dodges). If you unbug her 2E dodges, then you've just given her Counter: Duck, Counter: Jump, Evade: Escape, and Master's Dodge (unbugged) too. That's another 13 (counter only counts as 6 due to title restriction). How about Kurgan? He goes from having just Back Away to having Evade:Back Away as well. Now he has 12 dodges instead of 6. Title uniqueness makes it possible. This is the very reason that most Counter and Evade cards are bugged. The new system of dodge design is meant to replace the old system. In order to avoid giving old personas a bunch of new dodges, those cards were bugged. Quite simply, they need to stay bugged. (At least, they need to stay bugged until such time as an equivalency list is available and made into part of the rules.) Due to the fact that 2E cards have white boarders front and back it is impossible to mistake 2E cards and 1E cards. Considering the ridiculous amount of errata that Highlander players already have to remember on cards, I don’t think they would have any problems remembering to drop the Evade and Counter part of the title. I dare say they are even smart enough to remember If a 1E persona had a “Dodge” that would allow them to use an Evade or not. However, I would be MORE than happy with an equivalence list in the new 1E handbook. I don’t want to flood the game with dodges. And I don’t want them to be unbugged, before lunch. I know it will take a while to get things worked out for them. But if you wait 6 months to voice the opinion, it will take 6 more months to get people thinking about it and maybe (just maybe) get something done on it. I simply want to see everyone that puts out cash for cards 2E cards to have an opportunity to play them in a official setting and while supporting the game they love. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Sept 19, 2008 10:02:44 GMT -5
The thing is, right now the sales of 1ed stuff for CHEAP actually is helping drive the sales of 2ed. When new and old players see that they can get into the game so cheaply, they have seen that as a plus. Then once they start playing and recognize the utility of the 2ed cards, they begin picking those up as well. Man you have just described my entire playgroup. We start almost every one on 1E. They learn the basics and they get hooked for cheap. (God I feel like a drug dealer now...*L*) But, We’re now trying to introduce more and more 2E cards to make them realize how much they can improve their decks with the 2E stuff. I mean even the commons are often huge improvements. But when a bunch of players get together and say “LETS GET A BOX MAN!” they get a little disheartened when they cant use a high percentage of the basic cards. Take for instance, the guy who plays Amanda and gets a bugged Distraction in his box of Core and is still one short from his ideal deck, he tends to be a little irate. Like I said to Thor, I know it takes time. I am just tossing out some ideas from my side of the Highlander universe, because I love the game and I would like to see it succeed. I expect most of it just to float off into the net, but if an idea or two happen to stick then so much the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Sept 19, 2008 10:03:33 GMT -5
I am not saying it's about confusion. It's about the rules. The rules as they stand would not prevent a 1E Kurgan player from having essentially 12 Back Aways. 6 are titled Back Away and 6 are titled Evade which makes it legal to have all 12 in your deck. The bug on Evade prevents that from happening and that's why it should stay.
Maybe what we need is a new bug. (Hear me out)
How about keeping the bug currently in use and have it mark cards that are simply not allowed in 1E. Then, have a second mark to show that the card has a 1E equivalent and that the two version cannot be used in the same deck.
So, We would see things like Duncan MacLeod's Tessa (2E) card having a full bug (since it uses attribute gems), but we would see Kurgan's Evade: Back Away have an (=) bug to show that it has an identical counterpart in 1E.
Of course, the problem is that there are 3 possible mixing scenarios -
1) The card is meant for 2E only.
2) The card is identical to an existing 1E card.
3) The card has the same title as an existing 1E but has a different function or a self-referring function and therefore you can only use 1E or 2E versions, but not both.
If the cards had a bug on them to indicate each one of those, then we'd be all set. (It's easy to do from this point forward, but a mass errata would happen on existing cards, i.e. - the equivalency list)
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Sept 19, 2008 10:11:12 GMT -5
But when a bunch of players get together and say “LETS GET A BOX MAN!” they get a little disheartened when they cant use a high percentage of the basic cards. Take for instance, the guy who plays Amanda and gets a bugged Distraction in his box of Core and is still one short from his ideal deck, he tends to be a little irate. I am not arguing that point, it DOES suck, especially in this economy when people dont exactly have the cash they used to have. Problem is, that is the nature of CCGs. But to address your example directly. An equivalency list WOULD be helpfull, and could open up some bugged cards, but I also think its opening a big can of worms because not all those cards have the exact text of thier 1ed counterparts. So now we are looking at yet MORE errata for cards and as you pointed out, there is already so much of it to deal with. The Design Team have a real decision to make regarding these types of things, I dont envy them. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Sept 19, 2008 10:27:47 GMT -5
I am not saying it's about confusion. It's about the rules. The rules as they stand would not prevent a 1E Kurgan player from having essentially 12 Back Aways. 6 are titled Back Away and 6 are titled Evade which makes it legal to have all 12 in your deck. The bug on Evade prevents that from happening and that's why it should stay. Maybe what we need is a new bug. (Hear me out) How about keeping the bug currently in use and have it mark cards that are simply not allowed in 1E. Then, have a second mark to show that the card has a 1E equivalent and that the two version cannot be used in the same deck. So, We would see things like Duncan MacLeod's Tessa (2E) card having a full bug (since it uses attribute gems), but we would see Kurgan's Evade: Back Away have an (=) bug to show that it has an identical counterpart in 1E. Of course, the problem is that there are 3 possible mixing scenarios - 1) The card is meant for 2E only. 2) The card is identical to an existing 1E card. 3) The card has the same title as an existing 1E but has a different function or a self-referring function and therefore you can only use 1E or 2E versions, but not both. If the cards had a bug on them to indicate each one of those, then we'd be all set. (It's easy to do from this point forward, but a mass errata would happen on existing cards, i.e. - the equivalency list) I understand that the titles are different. So yeah going by the letter of the rule you could have 12. But we ignore the writing on cards all the time. Have you played Monkey lately? We ignore every thing on that card. Comparatively ignoring an Evade would be just a little omission. We could just rule… Hey, take off that 1st word if your playing 1E and don’t use evade unless your supposed to have a dodge! Ok…I admit I’m kinda giving ya crap now ( I hope the humor is carrying and not making me sound like an ass.) *L* But I guess I’m more about playing the game than a completely literal adherence to the rules. On the other hand, I have to admit that's a good idea. It is definitely one I could live with. I am a little fuzzy on why it would have to be one or the other though. Lets take Duncan's Master's Block for instance. 1E allows a hidden attack while 2E allows an unblockable attack. Most players would use 2 of which ever supported their overriding strategy, but I could see the merit of including one of each. Anyway just something that occurred to me. Let me know what you think on it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Sept 19, 2008 11:00:33 GMT -5
Your example falls into the "one or the other" category. If duncan could use both, then he could have 4 Master Blocks in his deck (which you don't want to allow). Since they are each unique cards, the restriction numbers only apply to each individual card. By using it as one-or-the-other, then you will keep Duncan at 2 master blocks.
|
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Sept 19, 2008 11:10:24 GMT -5
You know what, it just occurred to me why you say that and you are absolutely correct. Since the cards don’t have the same mechanics he could have 2 of each if it wasn’t one or the other. Wow. I have obviously gone to long with out sleep. I started focusing on Titles with the dodges and forgot the rest of the rule. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Sept 19, 2008 12:16:01 GMT -5
But I guess I’m more about playing the game than a completely literal adherence to the rules. There is nothing wrong with that.  However, since this game is played competitively, and people can be quite literal when it comes to competition, rules have to be as precise as possible. I have run into this same problem with other games that many play for FUN but others play competitively. There is a constant struggle to maintain FUN while still keeping things concise for everyone else. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Sept 19, 2008 12:31:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I played Magic competitively for years, and finally just burnt out on it. So, I can do the precise thing when forced to. But I try to keep Highlander my fun game as much as possible. Besides it's just so much easier to solve a problem when you don’t let logic interfere with the issue. *L*
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Sept 19, 2008 16:31:03 GMT -5
Besides it's just so much easier to solve a problem when you don’t let logic interfere with the issue. *L* Who said LOGIC ever entered into Highlander?  |
|
|
|
