|
|
Post by prowler7 on May 22, 2009 5:09:36 GMT -5
Rules that are posted in an update such as the one in this thread are dated as the date given on the "official post" they are stated in. We have added a few rules to the currently counting down post so that they dont have to go into thier OWN countdown and cause even MORE confusion, and also to expedite thier use.
|
|
|
|
Post by kittesque on May 22, 2009 6:01:29 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I get trying to keep it from having a new rule that becomes active every other day, but doesn't slipping it in the middle of an older post have the potential of really screwing someone at a tournament? Say someone doesn't necessarily have access to a computer very often and they are getting ready for, say a regional tournament. They make a point to get on a computer exactly three weeks from said tournament, heck 2 1/2 weeks from the tournament, to make sure that the deck they've been tweaking for the last month is legal. They spend the rest of the time fine tuning their deck, then get to the tournament, only to realize that their strategy has become completely null and void due to a ruling that was retroactively slipped into the last rules update that would have been legal for that tournament a week after the initial posting of that set of rules. There were at least two rules that were slipped into the 5/9 update on 5/16, but there was a new post only 2 days later for 1 (which is now 3) rule update. I use the words "slipped into" because there was no real way to tell , unless you knew what was there before, which rules were added into the middle of the post. They weren't marked in any way. I don't think that anyone would purposely skew the rules in their favor for a tournement, but it definitely has the potential to. Most of the rulings that I've seen added this way wouldn't necessarily have a major impact on anyone's deck construction. I just think there should be a shorter limit on adding rules to a post. Or, better yet, only post official rulings at a set interval. Say every two weeks or so. It would get the rulings out there slightly slower, but it would be easier for people running tournaments to keep track of what's official for that tournament and three weeks would really mean three weeks. Not trying to pick any fights, just sharing my thoughts on this (and possibly rambling slightly more than necessary at this hour  ) |
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on May 22, 2009 15:37:19 GMT -5
Putting out rulings every two weeks would be a complete nightmare. We try to limit the Official Rules Additions to as few as possible, preferring to release a group of errata/rules/faq instead of one or two every couple weeks. Both ways have thier pros and cons, but keeping rulings grouped is MUCH easier to keep track of.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on May 23, 2009 6:07:19 GMT -5
If you are ever in doubt of your deck idea, consult your tournament director prior to the tournament.
Before you ask the next question that I think you will, the answer is no, we will not drop a new rule into and update that is about to end it's 3 week induction period. We have a good system working, and intend to stick with it. We only insert a new rule into an update if we deem it is necessary. This is why we created the 3 week induction period.
HWR
|
|
|
|
Post by kittesque on May 23, 2009 14:46:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I didn't realize suggestions or constructive criticism was frowned upon. I was never intending to impune anyone's honor by saying that either of you would INTENTIONALLY throw something in at the last minute, but simply to point out that the potential to do so was there. Not to mention that it looks kinda shady when a rules addition is added with no way of reliably telling exactly what was added. A different color maybe, just so there's no confusion as to what was added.
What I WAS thinking about saying was that maybe it would be a good idea, to keep things grouped together and all, to maybe only put out one official set of rulings per set that comes out. You could wait 2-3, heck maybe a month, get feedback from people, see what needs rulings, addendums, clarifications, ect. and post it all at once. If something happened to slip through the cracks, well the sets seem to be coming out pretty rapidly at this point and it could get fixed with the next update.
Oh, but wait, that's a suggestion and it's different that what you've decided is the BEST way for the game so feel free to ignore that.
ps. It's not polite to assume you know what someone's going to say. It comes off as being a know-it-all, and tends to piss people off, especially when it was nowhere near what they were actually going to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on May 23, 2009 21:22:42 GMT -5
The problem with only one set of rules addendum per set is that cards that are severly broken will remain so for an extended period of time. This was a problem in the old game and one we are trying to fix nowadays. We are human and make mistakes, but we try to do what is right and catch misprints and problem cards as soon as we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on May 23, 2009 21:46:43 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I didn't realize suggestions or constructive criticism was frowned upon. I was never intending to impune anyone's honor by saying that either of you would INTENTIONALLY throw something in at the last minute, but simply to point out that the potential to do so was there. Not to mention that it looks kinda shady when a rules addition is added with no way of reliably telling exactly what was added. A different color maybe, just so there's no confusion as to what was added. What I WAS thinking about saying was that maybe it would be a good idea, to keep things grouped together and all, to maybe only put out one official set of rulings per set that comes out. You could wait 2-3, heck maybe a month, get feedback from people, see what needs rulings, addendums, clarifications, ect. and post it all at once. If something happened to slip through the cracks, well the sets seem to be coming out pretty rapidly at this point and it could get fixed with the next update. Oh, but wait, that's a suggestion and it's different that what you've decided is the BEST way for the game so feel free to ignore that. ps. It's not polite to assume you know what someone's going to say. It comes off as being a know-it-all, and tends to piss people off, especially when it was nowhere near what they were actually going to say. Suggestions and questions are in no way frowned upon. We thrive on the interaction of the players as many on the boards will attest to. After answering your question, my comment and answer was in reference to the next logical question, that's all. What you have stated as far as an update with the release of each set is normally what we do. However, due to issues brought up by players, we deemed it necessary to include them in as soon as possible. As I stated before, we try not to do it if we don't have to, but we can modify the color to alert others of an addition to the update without having to reread the entire update on a regular basis. Thanks for the inquiries and the color change idea. HWR |
|
|
|
Post by kittesque on May 23, 2009 23:36:51 GMT -5
Np, I had figured that I'd already touched on that I didn't think that either of you would slip in a ruling at the last minute in a previous post.
A color change would be nice, for ease of reading if nothing else.
|
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on May 28, 2009 18:26:24 GMT -5
After a few weeks of running around like a chicken with my head cut off I finally have time to comment. And ask questions on these latest changes. For the most part they look good. I would say however that a few of them seem a little out of whack.
Persona Abilities with Deck Construction: When using a persona that allows more than the 6 of any card, it supersedes the 6 of any unique card rule found in the Deck Construction section. For example, Ramirez can include 12 slashes. You may have 12 of any slash so long as the Slash does not have a restriction number on the card. If it does, you must adhere to the restriction number on the card. This also applies to Anthony Galen, Xavier St. Cloud, as well as any persona with a like ability.
Really? 12 of Ramirez persona specific slashes? 12 Tackles? This sounds like a good idea to the rules team? Because besides violating one of the simplest rules of the game (6 no more than 6…) it sounds a little overpowering to the effected personas. And I play Gallen and Ramirez on a regular basis…
Watcher and Hunter PreGame: If you wish to include Watcher or Hunter cards in your deck, you must include the appropriate PreGame card. You may include either 1 Watcher or 1 Hunter PreGame, you cannot use both, and may only have 1 of either in your PreGame. Cards or effects which allow you to include cards not normally allowed in your deck cannot be used for Watcher or Hunter cards. If the Watcher or Hunter pregame is removed from the game, you may still play the Watcher or Hunter cards included in your deck normally.
Is this how were handling Pregame cards such as quickenings that allow you to include cards you normally couldn’t? Ritchie and Xavier Qs? Or personas whose persona powers allow them to include cards that then have their powers shut down? If so, I missed the change and applaud your decision. If not, it seems horribly inconsistent.
Lastly
Middle Left Attack (HS3-233)
Broad-Bladed Spear
Basic Attack
000
X00
000
This attack does an additional point of damage. If your opponent played a power blow last turn, you may make your first attack this turn hidden. You may make a hard exertion to make this attack a power blow.
Middle Right Attack (HS3-234)
Broad-Bladed Spear
Basic Attack
OOO
OOX
OOO
This attack does an additional point of damage. If your opponent played a power blow last turn, you may make your first attack this turn hidden. You may make a hard exertion to make this attack a power blow.
Wouldn’t it make more since to errata the names rather than the grids since most players look at the grids while choosing defenses? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on May 28, 2009 18:34:09 GMT -5
Watcher and Hunter PreGame: If you wish to include Watcher or Hunter cards in your deck, you must include the appropriate PreGame card. You may include either 1 Watcher or 1 Hunter PreGame, you cannot use both, and may only have 1 of either in your PreGame. Cards or effects which allow you to include cards not normally allowed in your deck cannot be used for Watcher or Hunter cards. If the Watcher or Hunter pregame is removed from the game, you may still play the Watcher or Hunter cards included in your deck normally.Is this how were handling Pregame cards such as quickenings that allow you to include cards you normally couldn’t? Ritchie and Xavier Qs? Or personas whose persona powers allow them to include cards that then have their powers shut down? If so, I missed the change and applaud your decision. If not, it seems horribly inconsistent. This change affects Q and Persona Abilities, it is now consistant across the board. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on May 28, 2009 19:09:28 GMT -5
Watcher and Hunter PreGame: If you wish to include Watcher or Hunter cards in your deck, you must include the appropriate PreGame card. You may include either 1 Watcher or 1 Hunter PreGame, you cannot use both, and may only have 1 of either in your PreGame. Cards or effects which allow you to include cards not normally allowed in your deck cannot be used for Watcher or Hunter cards. If the Watcher or Hunter pregame is removed from the game, you may still play the Watcher or Hunter cards included in your deck normally.Is this how were handling Pregame cards such as quickenings that allow you to include cards you normally couldn’t? Ritchie and Xavier Qs? Or personas whose persona powers allow them to include cards that then have their powers shut down? If so, I missed the change and applaud your decision. If not, it seems horribly inconsistent. This change affects Q and Persona Abilities, it is now consistant across the board. Then Applause is in order ;D thanks for the info. |
|
jafo17
Ancient Immortal
Posts: 451
|
Post by jafo17 on Jun 8, 2009 17:03:21 GMT -5
Very cool. Design team  . Having read through most of the new additions, errata, I'm impressed. Thats saying alot for me as I have been out of the loop for a while. I do have a wondering question, I saw in the new rules that non-gaurd standing D's can be raised or lowered at any time. I gets me to thinking (I may be wrong, please correct me if so) if I place a non-gaurd standing D on my turn, that has one hand icon on it and situation (this is where I may be amiss) will that count as playing my one special for the turn? Or would that be just a standing D, and still able to play my special? So other than a question that I may already know the answer to, I think the new rules (having them up and up to date) is very cool. My only 2 cents would be instead of doing additions every year (I think thats what I read) could some be done on a tourney by tourney basis. I only ask because there is a possiblity that every region would have thier own "house rules" and it may be easier for them to have a updated rule book (2 or 3 months) so that adjusments to house rules don't fry brains and result in pulling ones hair out. Cheers L |
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Jun 8, 2009 19:04:23 GMT -5
I do have a wondering question, I saw in the new rules that non-gaurd standing D's can be raised or lowered at any time. I gets me to thinking (I may be wrong, please correct me if so) if I place a non-gaurd standing D on my turn, that has one hand icon on it and situation (this is where I may be amiss) will that count as playing my one special for the turn? Or would that be just a standing D, and still able to play my special? If the non-guard standing D is a special card, that would count as your special card for your turn. The printable version of the Rulebook was planned for a once-per-year update. However, circumstances have shown that a more timely update may be in order. We are not currently giving a timeframe for a release date on the updated Rulebook. |
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Jun 8, 2009 19:06:42 GMT -5
My only 2 cents would be instead of doing additions every year (I think thats what I read) could some be done on a tourney by tourney basis. Even if we did this only counting Kansas City area tournaments, that would be an update every week, sometimes twice a week. I can say that we dont have a rules question that needs an entry into the Rulebook every tourney, even if we HAD the time to do such a thing. Thank you for the kind words. |
|
zarth2k
Elder Immortal
"So lure him outside and take his head. Problem solved."
Posts: 265
|
Post by zarth2k on Jun 8, 2009 21:03:12 GMT -5
I have to agree. Every tournament would just be nuts. You guys wouldn’t have time to breath that alone have real lives or enjoy playing yourselves.
If it were possible to do an update every 3 or 4 months I think it would be more than enough. The biggest problem I see is just with rules filtering in a few at a time and trying to keep track of them. You would think that a few rules at a time would be easier, but it’s been just the opposite for me. I know you are trying to fix things as they come up, and I applaud your vigilance and hard work. It can just be a bit confusing going through several pages of “This rule changed to…” and “This section removed…” to find the right rules your looking for. Once again I realize it has been written up that way in the interest of complete disclosure and not confusing people with seemingly conflicting rules. But unless a rule is needed to fix a horribly broken card, I think most rules should be held and released as part of a regularly released rules update. Most rules just aren’t of that immediate of importance. If people don’t play edges with special attacks or only use six of a particular slash in their Ramirez deck for an extra month it’s not really that world shattering. On the other hand, things that could break the entire landscape of play like Appel needing to be bugged for Type One obviously needed to be enacted immediately. But I think we should strive for the immediate rule changes to be few and far between. That’s just one person’s opinion though.
On a side note, (since I just brought up Appel) Have you ever considered a One Edge per target rule? For instance in type one you could play either a lunge, or an appel on a basic attack, but you could never play more than one edge on any block or attack unless specifically stated on the card. Obviously some cards like Gladius: Twist would need some errata, but it might give the design team a little more leeway in the future.
|
|
|
|
)
