I'm just wondering why we need errata's for these cards? From the "Nearly Impossible to Beat" draw decks I've seen/heard of, to the conflict of what these cards affect, I decided to finally sit down and look into both the rulebook & the cards themselves and I'm just wondering what the problem is? Here is a quote directly from the rulebook:

----------

Card Names and Home Worlds
When a card is referred to by name, quotation marks are used
around the card name. For example, a card may discard an
"Aladdin" card. Cards with a name that contains part of another
card name are treated as that card. For example, "Riku" and
"Dark Riku" are both affected by effects that target "Riku"
cards.
Home Worlds are the world affiliations that some cards have
above their card names. When a type of card is referred to by its
Home World, the Home World reference is in bold italics . For
example, a card may discard an Agrabah Friend Card.

----------

So from this, if a card name is in "quotes" it is specifically referring to the actual card name (aka "Jack Skellington"). However, if a card name is bold italicicized it is referring to the world affiliation (aka the little world symbol to the right of some card names)

Now here are the texts for the cards Wishing Lamp and Pegasus lvl2:

----------

Wishing Lamp
Only "Sora" or "Riku" can equip this card. While this card is equipped, you may draw one card each time you play an "Agrabah" card.

Pegasus lvl2
While this card is in your Friend Area, draw one card each time an "Olympus Coliseum" card is put into play.

----------

If we go straight from the rulebook, these cards mean you only draw cards when you play a card with the card name "Agrabah" or "Olympus Coliseum" respectively. The cards being the World Cards with the respective names. I know some people think it's the other way but the rulebook, the card texts and even the rarity of the cards point elsewhere. I don't really see where a problem began here.

In fact, looking through all of Set 4, the only card I see that presents problems and probably needs an errata is Hades, as I believe his "quotes" should be swapped for bold italics , otherwise his effect doesn't make much sense.

I apologise if this is all common knowledge or has already been said, but I think this was a problem that wasn't really a problem in the first place. Please feel free to point out where I was wrong or things that I missed out on, as I believe discussion is the only way to get through this

Mostly because we thought that it was stupid that they didn't cover the Home World icons, when it seemed like they really should have done.

And now problems are arising because we made the ruling...

Trothael said:

Really? Well...I dunno what to tell ya lol

There are cards in this set that properly use this mechanic, so I don't see the real dissapointment. I'm sure the mechanic will get more play in the next set, no need to change around the effect of a card simply because the mechanic is underused

yea, I think a lot of people don't realize that a ruling was made to make the cards work the way they do right now. I know I didn't realize it at first, so it is more correct to say that the original ruling needs to be reversed, not that it needs further errata (although that would make the cards more usable, not that that really matters). I'm not sure you can really say that the mechanic will probably get more play in the next set, the original designers of the game didn't seem to have any real cohesion in mind when they designed things.

There are poor text on lots of cards, but even in the rulebook it becomes pretty clear that " " is a name of a card. I'm not going to grab it or go over it but read the first little bit and it goes over things utilizing the " " as name reference.

I know Hades wouldn't make sense (they obviously forgot to bold and italic the reference to __ friends, but note they didn't quotation it either, meaning all they did was forget to bold italic ), but it isn't hard to tell that you shouldn't be able to DRAW a card 30+ times a turn simply becuase you play a symboled deck, and I haven't seen anything that tells me something in quotes isn't refering to a NAME, and something qualified by a __ friend , or __ dark card is referring to one of those types of cards that has a __ symbol... I didn't even know we had such an errant interpretation until I read a thread on the deckbuilding page that isn't conclusive either way, such an influential ruling needs to be recognized as such immediately and stickied or discussed, if the person making the rule is not aware of it's influence, as was discussed in the errata deck thread then the rule should not be made.

I just used 1 pegasus in a deck today, won our tourney of alberta, and it drew me a card every so often (had 5 Olympus Collisuem world cards in the deck), which, combined with a different 5+ level 2 made it a still very useful card.

Wasn't wttd admitting his mistake in Highjack's errata thread a clear indication that his initial ruling was wrong? His post was oddly not followed up on... http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efpag=1&efid=92&efcid=5&efidt=193813

WE NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR SET OF RULES - not a bunch of discussion betwen a 'group' of players, many of whom were wrong in the past about the monstro lock mentioned below... and it really isn't that hard to do - there are about 10+ cards with ambiguous wordings in the new set, and with clear rules everyone can play the game and the rule forum section would be a lot less cluttered.

I had to email and get Jaffer to clarify the parasite cage + monstro issue when people started thinking you could friend lock http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=94&efcid=5&efidt=6083&efpag=4 , a very important interaction that I had little help with from the forum community to address and one that resulted in a very important correction to the rules - and I wouldn't hesitate to help out with cleaning the entire game state up starting with posting the tourney faq we play with in my area... if you all want to see it.

If you don't, and if it isn't clear by the end of the week that you can't draw a zillion cards with a symboled deck (the ambiguity here should not waste Fairbanks and Highjacks time, they are obviously building decks to peitition for a fix (see title of their deckbuilding threads)), I will email Jaffer again or go to any of my other contacts at ffg (or my store owners that all have histories with ffg and/or their games or people) to try my best to get an 'official response posted'.

Players, especially new players, coming to the game don't need to be confused by infinite draw decks and builds that title themselve ' this needs to be fixed, errata deck ' . Just like they didn't need to suffer NPE monstro locks with Parasite Cage.

- dut

Hey, hey, heeeeeeeey Dutpotd~~~~

Ruling questions/problems get emailed to me and Dawn now. Not Jaffer. He's stated that he'll be ignoring any rulings emails that aren't from me or Dawn for the most part.

You want an official response: We have said that yes, maybe our ruling was wrong. We have also said that we are working our hardest to get together to fix this card game for all of you.

And as for the 'clear set of rules' comment, THERE IS GOING TO BE A CLEAR SET OF RULES WHEN THE ERRATA IS FINISHED.

Along with something new and potentially game-breaking.

Trothael said:

How long do we have to wait for a clear set of rules and from a group that is 'maybe' making wrong rulings? Is there a timeline? Why does everyone need to confer when it is clear that something needs to be done ASAP? A lot of my playgroups players are very irritated with this coming up in Highjacks thread, wttd admitting he's a fool, followed by no progress for what - don't make me count the days... Followed by countless more decks utilizing a 'maybe' wrong ruling. The event card fix isn't even necessary, and isn't in direct contradiction to the rulebook, but it is implied that there isnt' a restriction on event uses by noticable omission.

And don't get me wrong, my players aren't irritated becuase they aren't enjoying the game. They are irritated because other players around the world are surely not enjoying the game as much, with a set of inconclusive rulings marked by 'maybes' and infinite draw options, the latter popping up as deck building possibilities that confuse our beginner players weekly. It isn't good when I don't feel confident referencing new players to the forums for deck advice or otherwise.

I highly doubt Jaffer wouldn't respond to me granted his last communication with me indicated his gratitude for my time towards the parasite cage issue, one that I suffered nothing but opposition on the forums for my part in ensuring got addressed, and from at least 2 of the people now needing to confer about another possibly erred ruling.

And yeah, isn't it great that there will be something new and game-breaking, becuase that's just what everyone wants, the game broken.

I have a lot of respect for you Troth, and I always have. If you want my faq, with situational interpretations on the set 4 cards, becuase it would speed up the process of getting something to the playerbase, just let me know. Similarily, I'd be interested in playing some online games with you, especially if you feel the need to support rulings with cross-water meta stress tests. I don't know how often you play, who you play with, all I know is you reside in the UK or therabouts. I'd love to get to know a person who has been instrumental in my desire to even keep reading and posting on these forums since the game came out as far back as the old forums.

That said, the respect part, if you want me to drop it (i.e. any further posts on this thread or board) and until a rule faq is up. I will, just tell me the clear set of rules will be out (a reasonable date) and make it happen like I know you can.

- dut

you know dut, I kind of felt the same way, like why is this taking so long (of course I didn't realize they were still working on it, foolish on my part) but what you have to realize is a) they're not getting paid, so they're not exactly going to drop everything and focus on this and b) everyone on these forums seems to have a different opinion on what should be done. Now, since the people on this forums are, I assume, 90% of the playerbase for the game, it stands to reason they would want to really think about it.

Highjack said:

You raise valid points, except people on the forums are NOT 90% of the playerbase, probably the inverse, i.e. 10%.

My group has ~8-9, then there are at least 5 3 hours north of me, and another 5 5 hours east of me. That is 18 people at least that I know play the game regularly, and only 2/3 of them post on these forums, and largely becuase of the way things are more or less dominated by certain people that are impossible to get through to (stubborn), and even worse, a select group of very active posters that gang post against anything with validity that they themselves didn't think of...

a) I'm not getting paid (well I work full time, i.e. not paid by ffg = duh), b) opinions are not fact, nor are they conducive to what is best for the game, clear rules need to be SET by one person or an official, one that is open to discussion and one that makes ruling decisions that are best for the game, not wily nilly ones because (and hiding behind the fact that) the 'cards' are inconsistent or hard to read.

It doesn't take long to read your deck that you built based on a bum ruling, namely to exploit it, and after admiting err, to turn around post an apology and ruling reversal on the rules section of the board . Your decks should also all be referenced to this ruling to ensure players know they aren't indicative of what works or doesn't.

You can't tell me that me watching you, or you watching me, draw my deck 'because' I got wishing lamp or pegasus first isn't a NPE.

I like playing KIngdom Hearts, I have travelled long distances to play, and regularly. I DON'T like playing "first to draw to the bum ruling card hearts..."

- dut

from dictionary.com:

hyperbole:

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

any idea how that might have been used?

I get your point, I do, but FFG doesn't care enough about the game to actually pay someone to be in charge of the rules and really focus on that and quite frankly thats fine. They've been pretty clear with their intentions toward the game and quite frankly the best we're gonna get is what we've currently got. Sure it sucks, but what are you gonna do, stop playing? As far as your points about the cards, all those points have been brought up before, so, no offense, this isn't accomplishing anything. I mean if you real feel like this is a great injustice, e-mail Jaffer, I gotta agree with Troth though, you're prolly getting ignored, regardless of what you may have done in the past.

*Wakes up groggily* Urgh...why did I sleep 'til 6PM...

Right, I think (Note the words 'I think', meaning 'possibly') have a solution, at least a temporary one.

Will get back to you later about it.

Highjack said:

Perhaps I utilized hyperbole, but we both know the games lost with the infinite draw decks are when they don't get their 2/3 cards that make it happen.

I'm not asking for FFG to do anything, if I was I would contact them. I am asking the interested and able parties to address something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

The argument isn't about the cards, Devil Monkey pretty much states it all right there, and it is pretty obvious that 'maybe' the ruling is wrong.

I've already voiced that I will contact the right people at the right time, i.e. the end of the week if this relative injustice is not addressed (note using the word injustice is more hyperbole than what I used in the message above... it is a card game after all).

I have voiced my desire to contact Troth in this thread, and even get to know him better, to which he has yet to respond - he can do so by way of this thread or a private message or whatever. It is therefore obvious that he is aware of my 'ruling question'.

If you don't feel me voicing the above is 'not' going to accomplish anything, all I can say is wait and see. Actually, I go back to edit this now, seeing that Troth has already indicated a possible solution, on the way to accomplishment - and before the badgers reply, not just my accomplishment, moreso Highjacks, Fairbanks, Devilmonkey, and anyone else that has contributed to the light shining on this 'maybe' wrong ruling.

All I can say now is that I hope the 'solution' simplifies things and doesn't sginficantly errata two more cards. All that needs to be done is the ruling made correctly and a note that certain text should be bold and italic...

- dut

Right. I'mma gonna be in Chatzy pretty much all day.

If people want to talk to me, feel free to do it there. We can discuss your opinions for what me and Dawn need to do, mull a few things over etc etc.

this forum is being dumb and not clearing its new status so I'm posting this to solve the problem... solving the problem

GTrogi said:

Yeah, I had that too...