So we've been promised new rules for quite a while...

Could we get an update on when they'll be finished? It's been quite a few months and there hasn't been nary a peep about it.

They're being worked on.

I wouldn't expect to see them much before end of Q1 2009.

Can't really go into more details then that.

There really is a lot going on right now, and with the holiday season coming up, this doesn't surprise me. This is all not to mention the amount that needs to be taken into consideration for a full cleanup of rules, rulings, and errata.

It's a pretty huge undertaking, and it's not something you want to put out before its ready, those rules need to be cleaned up and made airtight.

Well I assume a lot of stuff will be on the back burner with the holidays , then planning regionals and now set 11 on the way as well .

The real problem is it's something they decided to do 2 some years after the game has been out instead of.... when the game started? That would have been the logical place. I'm not blaming FFG though because they are actually trying to fix it and it's going to take some time to back track, but I just think it's ridiculous that we don't have current/updated ruling, official errata on some cards, updated banned list, FAQ, etc, etc almost 3 years latter.

It's actually not that uncommon for a game, especially a collectible card game, to go quite some time, then have a massive overhaul to simplify or clean things up in their rules.

A good example is the stack in MTG...which was not implemented as a defined concept until YEARS after the game was out, even though now it is common knowledge.

Pokemon was another game that got many new rules or facets after being turned back over to Nintendo from WotC, which is an example, sort of, of what is happening here. FFG just got the license decently recently, and is making their attempt with this game in what they feel is the right way, by cleaning the game's rules up a bit, and making them more accessible.

Basically, this is necessary, I feel, for the game to move forward instead of in circles.

I just hope the way rulings are asked for will at the very least change for the better.

JDub said:

I'll be honest, that was something that I had been pushing for since the games inception. It was something that Dave was specifically unwilling to do.

Now, James is playing catch up after there was no development work for over 6 months, when things like the rules were already behind and aching to be dealt with.

I realize that I keep saying "Be patient" but unless FFG hired 2 developers to work on UFS, it's going to be a bit of a haul to catch up on everything that needs to be done.

JDub said:

Really, it's something that any gaming business with foresight would know they'd have to prepare for and do, but something they can't properly evaluate until the game has been run through the real market for a while. If they're doing full-scale, complete rewrites when the game's just started, it's a sign of a far bigger problem.

Antigoth said:

Now this is what I wanted to hear. Well.. no it's not actually, what I REALLy wanted to hear was "Oh yeah, they're up, we put 'em up last night while you weren't looking." but that's unrealistic. It's good to know they are still being worked on and haven't been left on a back burner and forgotten about.

It would be nice if a rough draft could be made available. There are many competent people out there in addition to the mods who could (and probably would be willing to) provide some error-checking and feedback and might be able to help streamline the rules creation process. Hell Armed Pirate (for example) was passionate enough about it to do the job for FFG.... I imagine he would be able to provide some excellent feedback on what works, and what could be a potential problem with rules.

aslum said:

The point though is the company and development team should be making these rules documents, not the community. It should not be up to us to make the rules when we have no background in game design or game mechanics. We could easily put a word or two in the TR that fix problem cards, but then they break another handful of cards.

While the mod team normally does a fine job with rules, they should be the ones to clarify the rules in case of disputes by referring to the rules documents available. They should not be the ones making the rules decisions due to them also being players. Currently, I know they are doing their best, and it is very appreciated but it is hard to run events when there are conflicting rulings with no backing.

Suffice to say, I just feel that the community should have no say in the creation or editing of the rules, cards or the game mechanics. Our jobs should be running events, playing the game and having fun.

Ultimately the responsibility for the rules falls to James.

I won't go into specifics, but the team looking at the rules does not exclusively comprise the rules arbiters and James. So please do not fret that " 'Goth's gonna warp the game so that he wins"

Just to clarify - when the Rules Arbiters make rulings, we do not do so in a vacuum. If we cannot reach an easy con sensus amongst ourselves, we have direct and frequently immediate contact with James.

And while the community may not have "immediate" input on the rules documentation, frequently any one of us if we notice something is awry because of what a user has brought to light, we will share it with the team, and put it on the stack of issues to be resolved / worked / clarified.

Wilding said:

There is a big differance in those examples and UFS situation. Magic was the first CCG out there so I wouldn't expect them to have the rules down pat for a couple of years, if not more. It was something brand new, they didn't really know what they were doing and they grew over time. Any CCG in this day and age to not have a FAQ, updated rules, official errata, etc is just unheard of. Most games have FAQs posted before they even come out. I wouldn't expect the first ever CCG (Magic) to think, hey we need a FAQ right away (and I'm not sure they did or not, they even could have for all I know). Also Pokemon switching over from Wizards to Nintendo and getting a few rules tweaks isn't the same either. Were not looking for new rules or anything we are still waiting for some of the rules to work properly. Until the rules were updated this past year according to the rules you revealed a card to play it and if you failed it would stay in your hand because there was nothing in the rules that stated that it was suppose to go to the discard pile if it failed. Of course we all know that when you failed a card it went to your discard pile but the OFFICIAL rules said otherwise (this is what I mean by updated rules).

All of this is STG's fault because they didn't do it from the start and if they did at one point decide to do it it would have taken to long to back track. I know FFG is working on it now but it won't be done for awhile because now they have to go back and make 3 years worth of errata, rulings, etc. At least it's getting done though.

I'm not sure that FAQ was even a common abbreviation back in 95.

JDub,

My comment on Magic and the rule clarifications or changes they made was not in anyway to compare a CCG that is created now with it. That would just be unfair. The point of bringing that up was to show that it realized problems in the game, and did wait to clarify them, which is the same issue we have here. I was merely pointing out that it is not the first time this has been done. Likewise, many games push past the point of the original game idea or design, and move into new territories, where the rules must be changed or updated. Simple rulings issues, like the ones stated about "when you fail a card" should have been addressed in the beginning, and I'm going to assume it was for the same reason that the Dragon Ball Z card game from Score had such a terrible terrible problem with rulings and wordings in the first set: The designers simply were not as well versed on card games and their mechanics as their players were.

Also, the issue wiht Pokemon was merely to show that rules overhauls, especially when a product exchanges companies, is not unusual.

Both of these were meant to be in reaction to the "instead of when the game first came out" issue that was brought up.