Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The New FAQ Wishlist (NOT Restricted List)

- - - - - FAQ Errata Clarifications

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts
So while opinions regarding the restricted list are a dime-a-dozen, I feel it's worthwhile discussing some of the other possible changes to the FAQ; tourney rules, errata, and clarifications we might hope for.

My first hope is that the FAQ will, like the last one, be accompanied by an article explaining the changes and sharing the reasoning behind them, hopefully with an eye out for the long-term problems of burden of knowledge/increasing card pool problems.

Obviously, I expect they will Errata the following;
Errata Battle for the Shield Island (Typo)
Errata Margaery Tyrell (Typo)
Errata Jaquen (Reprint) (And remove from Banned List)
Errata Compelled by the Rock (Reprint) (And remove from Banned List)

In the FAQ, I'd like it if they addressed some of the recurring questions I've seen discussed on the rules board. They include;


Clarify the Dreadfort Scenario (Sons of mist etc - do you check whether a condition is met only at the time of triggering (Dreadfort) or when the condition was satisfied (Sons of Mist), or both).
Clarify the timing on Rhoynar Emissary with Naval Enhancements, and Naval superiority with Naval characters being removed from challenges.
Clarify the Much and More (Revealing Cards 1 at a time like draw? Does it apply to discard-from-deck effects?)
Clarify the null value (Still shuffle my deck if 0 cards "Remain" on Summer Sea Corsair?)
Clarify the "Loses All keywords" issue.
Clarify the Any House Except X for Neutral Faction.
Clarify The Kingsguard agenda (Successfully defend = Winning?)

I also feel there should be a clarification on the Shadows timing; since they got rolled into the timing chart, it would seem to imply that start of phase passives would happen *before* responses to cards coming out of shadows, in direct contradiction to the shadows rules insert.

And oddly enough, I'd really like a templating pass to fix a few things we do by convention. As Mdc posted recently - the way we play events is entirely by convention as the rules and FAQ use some very poor and inconsistent language to explain it.
  • mdc273 likes this

#2
scantrell24

scantrell24

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 3041 posts
I'll repost myself from another thread:

It's not just The Long Voyage and Negotiations. We need errata for Jaqen, Braided Screamers (limit once per phase or something), and Blood Magic Ritual (unless the current ruling is how they intended it, in which case we need some official clarification).

Greyjoy and Targ are dominating the scene right now and clearly could use another card or two restricted. I'd like to see Street Waif and one of the top burn cards (Meereen Tourney Grounds, Flame-Kissed, Incinerate) hit the list.

#3
Danigral

Danigral

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1358 posts

I'll repost myself from another thread:

It's not just The Long Voyage and Negotiations. We need errata for Jaqen, Braided Screamers (limit once per phase or something), and Blood Magic Ritual (unless the current ruling is how they intended it, in which case we need some official clarification).

Greyjoy and Targ are dominating the scene right now and clearly could use another card or two restricted. I'd like to see Street Waif and one of the top burn cards (Meereen Tourney Grounds, Flame-Kissed, Incinerate) hit the list.

Leave the Screamers alone I think. No need for that.
  • erocklawell likes this

#4
OKTarg

OKTarg

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1756 posts
I agree. Has a Dothraki no agenda made a cut yet? Far bigger fish to fry, IMO.

#5
slothgodfather

slothgodfather

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2951 posts
I could be mistaken, but this seems to be a thread more focused on fixing issues that FFG has created, not necessary errata cards because of perceived power issues.

The FAQ errata for Jaqen should include that he is unique :ph34r:

As a side note, I find it funny that there isn't a "rule book" but instead an FAQ that constitutes the rules... that kind of implies to me the rules are made up as the questions occur. Not there being established rules and then just a list of actual FAQ's...

I want to see an errata that says any rule from Damon is suspect and should be disregarded :o

I really want to see the FAQ have a statement about the Lose All Keywords business and an explanation of the reasoning, whatever they decide. And honestly, if you lose ALL of a keyword, it should be all.. not just 1 instance.
  • istaril, icarus911 and mdc273 like this

#6
emptyrepublic

emptyrepublic

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 702 posts

I really want to see the FAQ have a statement about the Lose All Keywords business and an explanation of the reasoning, whatever they decide. And honestly, if you lose ALL of a keyword, it should be all.. not just 1 instance.


Yes, we really need a clear decision on this. It's arguably one of the most counterintuitive effects in the game if it means only removing 1 instance.
  • Kennon and istaril like this

#7
scantrell24

scantrell24

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 3041 posts

I agree. Has a Dothraki no agenda made a cut yet? Far bigger fish to fry, IMO.


Dothraki made top 4 at the TN regional and crushed my Greyjoy TLV in swiss. Also, if FFG restricts/erratas any cards that deck isn't using, namely TLV, it's relative power level will only increase.
  • OKTarg and mdc273 like this

#8
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

I could be mistaken, but this seems to be a thread more focused on fixing issues that FFG has created, not necessary errata cards because of perceived power issues.


Not mistaken at all... I did try to say as much in both title and body.
  • clique84 and slothgodfather like this

#9
Keggy

Keggy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts
Really, I'd like to see more than just those two typos fixed. Rhoynar Emissary (AHM) has a typo as well, as do other cards.

I'd like to see better clarifications on situations where passives and triggers meet (ex: The Dragonpit (TftRK) with Maegi Crone (BtW), etc).

I wouldn't mind them going back and rewording cards to make their effects clearer. By now we all know that The Long Voyage (TPoL) just gets you one extra card, but then why was it deliberately worded differently than similar effects? Kings of Summer (ASoS), Seal of the Crown (APS), and Knights of the Realm (KotStorm) are perfectly understandable, why change wording for no reason?
  • istaril and mdc273 like this

#10
Bomb

Bomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts
I don't think it was deliberately worded differently. I think it made sense at the time it was being made and play testers probably just read it as "draw 1 additional card", so it was never brought up.

#11
mdc273

mdc273

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
This thread is far too reasonable for me to participate in!!!

I really appreciate this thread and I hope it continues to hit home on what I rant and rave about. This game plays a lot of things "by convention" because it's harder to play things "by the rules". Pretty much everything being discussed here brings the game more in line with being able to play "by the rules". I've always been of the opinion that if this game is playable "by the rules" it will become significantly easier to introduce people to it and the community will have much more room to grow.

Oops, I think I just ranted again... Sorry. :wacko:
  • MotoBuzzsawMF likes this

#12
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1741 posts

Really, I'd like to see more than just those two typos fixed. Rhoynar Emissary (AHM) has a typo as well, as do other cards.


I'd forgotten about Eligble characters!

#13
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

Clarify The Kingsguard agenda (Successfully defend = Winning?)


Kingsguard agenda is an easy one. A successful defend does = winning because that is what the card states.

* I love the KG deck for melee lol

#14
Vaapad

Vaapad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 560 posts

Kingsguard agenda is an easy one. A successful defend does = winning because that is what the card states.

* I love the KG deck for melee lol


All the card says is "successfully defend a challenge." Compare to King's Landing Coup, which says, "every time you win a challenge as defender." Could be bad templating where both mean he same, or not
  • MotoBuzzsawMF likes this

#15
Danigral

Danigral

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1358 posts

Clarify the Any House Except X for Neutral Faction.

The Neutral Faction card is one of the most unintuitive cards in the game. It seems like a cool idea until you find out that nothing is in-house and it doesn't work for locations. They should just make it like an actual house, and errata it to say "Your neutral cards are considered to be in-house."
  • mdc273 likes this

#16
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

All the card says is "successfully defend a challenge." Compare to King's Landing Coup, which says, "every time you win a challenge as defender." Could be bad templating where both mean he same, or not


I see what you mean. Maybe they left The White Book the way it is to open it up to defending for supporting titles and such. Since you successfully defended but you werent necessarily the original defender.

#17
slothgodfather

slothgodfather

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2951 posts

I see what you mean. Maybe they left The White Book the way it is to open it up to defending for supporting titles and such. Since you successfully defended but you werent necessarily the original defender.


But when you support, you are considered the defender for all purposes except claim.

<rant>
Cleaning up typos, actually establishing a template for ALL card effects (variations between the defender bit, or the draw effects, etc...), clarify the "lose all keywords" BS and to stop making cards that immediately need errata (Castle Battlements (VD)) would go a LONG LONG way in improving this game. It seems a small price to pay if they could focus a bit more on quality control rather than have to release a laundry list of errata to fix simple mistakes.

I understand mistakes can be made, but they really shouldn't happen with this frequency. A lot of spelling issues are on known English words, like somehow they are using some archaic notepad program that doesn't have spell check options - hell even my internet browser has a build in spell checker! You can also build you own dictionary for your spell checker, so you can have it point out other words as well, like Ironborn, etc..

Also, they should have established templates for certain text effects. When they want to use a "Do X to do Y" format, then there shouldn't be any odd deviations in the format. When they want you to draw an extra card during the framework draw phase, any new cards should follow precedent set by the previous templates used. templates would make everyone's life better, the designers, the play testers and the players!
</rant>

It is funny how thorough your initial list is Istaril, because we haven't really been able to add much more to that list ;)

@keggy, I'm curious what issue there is with Dragonpit and the Crone that I'm unaware of.
  • Kennon, emptyrepublic, scantrell24 and 4 others like this

#18
Bomb

Bomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2588 posts
I think Keggy wants to know at which point Dragonpit makes a character's STR reach 0 for the purposes of triggering Maegi's Crone. Perhaps when a character enters play or the instance Dragonpit is turned on by putting cards into the shadows.

That is my guess, but he can obviously speak of his confusion since I don't know it. :-)

#19
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

But when you support, you are considered the defender for all purposes except claim.

<rant>
Cleaning up typos, actually establishing a template for ALL card effects (variations between the defender bit, or the draw effects, etc...), clarify the "lose all keywords" BS and to stop making cards that immediately need errata (Castle Battlements (VD)) would go a LONG LONG way in improving this game. It seems a small price to pay if they could focus a bit more on quality control rather than have to release a laundry list of errata to fix simple mistakes.

I understand mistakes can be made, but they really shouldn't happen with this frequency. A lot of spelling issues are on known English words, like somehow they are using some archaic notepad program that doesn't have spell check options - hell even my internet browser has a build in spell checker! You can also build you own dictionary for your spell checker, so you can have it point out other words as well, like Ironborn, etc..

Also, they should have established templates for certain text effects. When they want to use a "Do X to do Y" format, then there shouldn't be any odd deviations in the format. When they want you to draw an extra card during the framework draw phase, any new cards should follow precedent set by the previous templates used. templates would make everyone's life better, the designers, the play testers and the players!
</rant>

It is funny how thorough your initial list is Istaril, because we haven't really been able to add much more to that list ;)

@keggy, I'm curious what issue there is with Dragonpit and the Crone that I'm unaware of.


I agree with this so hard lol.

FFG really needs to hire someone with a job description of pure quality control and nothing else.
  • clique84 likes this

#20
BaraBob

BaraBob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
For my own sanity more than anything else, I would like FFG to include a separate section in the 'Rules Clarification and Enhancement' for Attachments. Similar to events and character abilities they could highlight the main minefields re play restrictions, cost, target and effects.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: FAQ, Errata, Clarifications