4 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I like      keyforge more, but keyforge has had way more issues  than hearthstone ever had. 

Only because Hearthstone has the computer enforce rulings so there is no need for interpretation. In reality those rulings were very inconsistent, but we wouldn't notice too much since there weren't any decisions for us involved in the process.

4 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I know it still deals with the turn one rule but.. In the original rule book there was nothing stopping you from modifying the first turn, so by the GOLDEN RULE you could modify turn 1. Why have a golden rule if it's not actually true. Since they have changed it twice.

In the original rulebook you could stun creatures that are already stunned. In rulebook 2 you cant. Now you can target them again.

Are Brad's rulings official or no? If not why is it ok to spread speculative information?

I'm not sure which rulebook you have, but the copy I have from August 18th 2018 says you can only play or discard 1 card from your hand. They did clarify that this couldn't be modified, and have now flipped, but that's an example of a single rule charge, no back and forth.

Under Stun it said a stunned creature couldn't be stunned again, and it still can't. They did clarify that it couldn't even be targeted, but as far as I can see that didn't actually appear in a rulebook, so it was never official.

Brad's ruling are not official, but they are the best we have to go on if there's confusion. They only become official if the make it into the actual rulebook.

It's true the new rulebook has changed a couple things and clarified a lot, but I'm really not seeing the chaos you're describing, at least not in the official rulebooks.

Anyway, I'm in the camp that the latest rulebook has taken several steps in the right direction. I'd like to see them go a little further in some cases, like making Action cards with lasting effects remain in play until the effect ends, and doing something to alleviate the Restringuntus one turn pure luck, fluke win, but I'm pretty happy with where the game is now. It's unfortunate you don't feel the same...

6 hours ago, dperello said:

I'm not sure which rulebook you have, but the copy I have from August 18th 2018 says you can only play or discard 1 card from your hand. They did clarify that this couldn't be modified, and have now flipped, but that's an example of a single rule charge, no back and forth.

I have the same one you have. Read GOLDEN RULE. By that you COULD modify turn 1.

6 hours ago, dperello said:

Brad's ruling are not official, but they are the best we have to go on if there's confusion. They only become official if the make it into the actual rulebook.

I'm aware there not actually official and that was my point. Why is it ok for him to spread speculative information?

7 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Only because Hearthstone has the computer enforce rulings so there is no need for interpretation. In reality those rulings were very inconsistent, but we wouldn't notice too much since there weren't any decisions for us involved in the process.

That's a whole lot more speculation. In reality the game played very smoothly and over 99% the way they Intended.

12 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I have the same one you have. Read GOLDEN RULE. By that you COULD modify turn 1.

And that is what led to the clarification in the November book. But that turned out to have bigger problems. Technically, by the same argument, that rule could still be modified by the Golden Rule, even though it explicitly says that it cannot. That could have been solved by modifying the Golden Rule section, but then how do you word that so it only works on the rules you really want to be ironclad and not some other rule that can be modified even though they are written similarly? This, like your other example, is a case of the designers attempting to forge a principle into the rulebook that looked good but turned out bad. Now that they realize it (maybe in light of future sets we know nothing about), the project has been dropped, and we're back to a more sane interpretation of the rules IMO.

11 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

And that is what led to the clarification in the November book. But that turned out to have bigger problems. Technically, by the same argument, that rule could still be modified by the Golden Rule, even though it explicitly says that it cannot. That could have been solved by modifying the Golden Rule section, but then how do you word that so it only works on the rules you really want to be ironclad and not some other rule that can be modified even though they are written similarly? This, like your other example, is a case of the designers attempting to forge a principle into the rulebook that looked good but turned out bad. Now that they realize it (maybe in light of future sets we know nothing about), the project has been dropped, and we're back to a more sane interpretation of the rules IMO.

While I agree with basically everything you said, It's also kind of my point. How did this much get through that they didn't notice? Severe lack of playtesting, or caring. Either way not good. You shouldn't have to word it any differently because they should have put in the time to make sure at LEAST the golden is rule would be true. But another failure.

On 1/19/2019 at 5:27 PM, Doyouevenforgebro said:

That's a whole lot more speculation. In reality the game played very smoothly and over 99% the way they Intended.

No. For example you had Druid of the Claw vs. Ancient of War being worded the same, but working differently, Tracking not triggering on draw abilities, Jarraxus and the demon tag, Sword of Justice vs. Knife Juggler, Divine Shield preventing damage, but still having Acolyte of Pain draw... These things would have been huge issues had it not been for the computer enforcing things arbitrarily. And that doesn't even touch on the necessity to regularly heavily nerf cards, both in the extended alpha and beta periods as well as with a significant part of all expansions. KeyForge has similar issues without the presence of a computer judge, but is also disproportionately more difficult to playtest for because of the distribution model, having a few minor to medium things slip isn't a huge surprise to me.

7 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

While I agree with basically everything you said, It's also kind of my point. How did this much get through that they didn't notice? Severe lack of playtesting, or caring. Either way not good. You shouldn't have to word it any differently because they should have put in the time to make sure at LEAST the golden is rule would be true. But another failure.

How did it get through? Simple. There are about 100 people who are listed in the credits of the game. So as not to "spoil" large numbers of decks (in the sense that they are out there and no longer "random", each was probably given 10 decks or so, resulting in 1000 decks to play with. The interactions of 1000 decks played among 100 players pale in comparison to the 104 quintillion possible decks now in the hands of thousands of players.

11 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

While I agree with basically everything you said, It's also kind of my point. How did this much get through that they didn't notice? Severe lack of playtesting, or caring. Either way not good. You shouldn't have to word it any differently because they should have put in the time to make sure at LEAST the golden is rule would be true. But another failure.

What about a rulebook available as a PDF online made you think it was never going to change?

On 1/18/2019 at 8:12 PM, Doyouevenforgebro said:

Now this is where I'm kinda shocked by what read.. You are really ok and would stick with the game if they reworked the whole rulebook from the ground up, which I kind of suggested was happening when I said it feels like they are making it up as they go, only to get much hate, but people are ok with you saying it for some reason.

It really shouldn't be that shocking.

It's a pretty clear example of "how you say things matters"

When you start out ranting and raving about how much money you lost, you can't expect people to just hop on board with you when you decide to change the focus of your complaint to early or frequent rules changes being bad for the game.

It doesn't matter what you say afterwards, because some people have likely decided you are about the money and don't really care about the game, so it comes off as disingenuous changing tact after starting off the way you did.

We all have moments we aren't proud of.

11 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

but is also disproportionately more difficult to playtest for because of the distribution model

But it isn't really. Print enough non-random decks to make sure you tested everything that needed to be tested. If they used all random decks to test with they're just not that smart.

7 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

How did it get through? Simple. There are about 100 people who are listed in the credits of the game. So as not to "spoil" large numbers of decks (in the sense that they are out there and no longer "random", each was probably given 10 decks or so, resulting in 1000 decks to play with. The interactions of 1000 decks played among 100 players pale in comparison to the 104 quintillion possible decks now in the hands of thousands of players.

Read above.

1 hour ago, Ishi Tonu said:

It really shouldn't be that shocking.

It's a pretty clear example of "how you say things matters"

When you start out ranting and raving about how much money you lost, you can't expect people to just hop on board with you when you decide to change the focus of your complaint to early or frequent rules changes being bad for the game.

It doesn't matter what you say afterwards, because some people have likely decided you are about the money and don't really care about the game, so it comes off as disingenuous changing tact after starting off the way you did.

We all have moments we aren't proud of.

I understand that and have admitted that multiple times since, once in the same post you are quoting. You admitting you said the same thing I was saying when I said they are making it up as they go is new and is a clear example of a larger problem. "Reworking the rule book from the ground up" is just a nicer way of saying "Making it up as they go." Also this did nothing to hurt my pride as I don't care. If anything it helped my pride because honestly not one person here has said even one thing to genuinely change my mind. I also feel like I changed some peoples perspective, as I came back with the wicked retorts they had no responses for. Or maybe they were just embarrassed, either way, go team.

38 minutes ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

If anything it helped my pride because honestly not one person here has said even one thing to genuinely change my mind. I also feel like I changed some peoples perspective, as I came back with the wicked retorts they had no responses for. Or maybe they were just embarrassed, either way, go team.

Alright, you got me to bite again.

None of the above. It felt like you were just here to scrap and that's why there were no further replies from me. I didn't care to continue it. I haven't even followed the entire thread, just enough to know there was a true concern past all the fluff if I may, although you might claim the fluff was mistaken as the main course instead of the appetizer and I suppose that's a fair point.

So let's put that all aside and get down to the real meat and bones of the matter. I don't have anything of actual substance to say to refute your main point. I guess it doesn't really matter to me. Bottom line? I've enjoyed playing the game since launch and I still do. For me it's still a fun game and I enjoy the puzzle of trying to figure out my decks, especially the "lesser" ones. The rule changes they've made haven't changed that one bit.

Is it plausible that they re-work the rules from the ground up someday and completely change everything about the game and how it functions? I think I would be fairly on track to see that as the concern that you are hinting at. It could be a possibility, who knows?

I think I'd rather see them screw up big at the beginning and then fix it along the way to get it where it needs to be. Like a video game that releases with major bugs and issues but you come back a year later and it's in a good place. I think that's where our opinions will differ as I don't see their early mistakes with as critical a perspective as you and that's alright. I mean no disrespect in that, we see it different and that's fine by me.

Agree to disagree? Cheers.

3 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I understand that and have admitted that multiple times since, once in the same post you are quoting. You admitting you said the same thing I was saying when I said they are making it up as they go is new and is a clear example of a larger problem. "Reworking the rule book from the ground up" is just a nicer way of saying "Making it up as they go." Also this did nothing to hurt my pride as I don't care. If anything it helped my pride because honestly not one person here has said even one thing to genuinely change my mind. I also feel like I changed some peoples perspective, as I came back with the wicked retorts they had no responses for. Or maybe they were just embarrassed, either way, go team.

Actually no we are not saying the the same thing. Also, if you feel validated because other people on the internet couldn't change your mind......

Never mind, I'll just wish you good luck and move on.

5 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

But it isn't really. Print enough non-random decks to make sure you tested everything that needed to be tested. If they used all random decks to test with they're just not that smart. 

But even with non-random decks things easily slip. In hindsight it is easy to see things that needed clarification, but when every card is just one of 500, seeing those that will be more important is not quite possible, especially in a game where you can't even predict how people will consume it. Honestly I expected far worse of a mess with KeyForge being a completely new kind of distribution model and FFGs track record. Wouldn't have dared to dream that the two decks I got at pre-release would spiral into the ten I have now. The game is a lot better than I expected.

8 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

Also this did nothing to hurt my pride as I don't care. If anything it helped my pride because honestly not one person here has said even one thing to genuinely change my mind. I also feel like I changed some peoples perspective, as I came back with the wicked retorts they had no responses for. Or maybe they were just embarrassed, either way, go team.

It is replies like this that make me think it would be a waste of effort to try to let you see things from a different perspective. If lack of response makes you feel more validated, all the more power to you.

Me, I’m happy they made these changes, because I believe they make for a better Keyforge experience and that is ultimately what it’s all about, isn’t it? We’ll just have to agree to see things differently.

On 1/19/2019 at 11:15 AM, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I'm aware there not actually official and that was my point. Why is it ok for him to spread speculative information?

Because what else are we going to do? If there's a conflict or a card interaction that needs clarification, what alternative is there? Stop playing until the rules get updated? Whoever can shout the loudest wins? Or consult the best authority we have available and do that, until something more official comes along. Like a Rules update. What would you suggest?

16 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

But it isn't really. Print enough non-random decks to make sure you tested everything that needed to be tested. If they used all random decks to test with they're just not that smart.

The question is: How do you know what needs to be tested beforehand? I've tried my hand at designing a few things and it turns out that most of the big problems come about with the things that seemed so obvious at the time. Why would you bother testing the wording of Nexus, when it's so obvious? Well, when the choice of opponent's artifacts is Banner of Battle or Mighty Javelin and the only creature in play is your own Nexus, you really need to know what "Do as much as you can" means in that situation.

17 hours ago, Doyouevenforgebro said:

But it isn't really. Print enough non-random decks to make sure you tested everything that needed to be tested. If they used all random decks to test with they're just not that smart.

I don't think they missed much with respect to playtesting, I don't think there is a single instance here where the problem is one of not having playested well.

Every bit of red text in the current rulebook is a wording change to an existing rule to help clarify how the rule works. They also make a change to a lockout combination that creates an negative play experience, given that Richard Garfield actually wanted this, I am not too sure playtesting would have changed this. The issue is that the current game designer responsible for the game wants to avoid a NPE and ruled against it.

Changing the rules as to effect a better reading and understanding of the rules is a great idea, probably the biggest reason for making the rulebook a PDF available on the web.

As for rescinding the rules that created a NPE I doubt you'll find too many assenting posts. I have a sneaky suspicion there may be one more NPE issue to address before too long, but I feel that Destiny was killed because the Game Designer of the day let far too many NPE's go for too long.

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 6:05 PM, Doyouevenforgebro said:

I understand from time to time a rule may need to be changed, but the sheer amount of changes you guys have made in keyforges short lifetime points clearly to you weren't ready to release this game. The newest change about the "can't" and "must" interaction, you cost me over 400 dollars with that change. I had a deck with the lockout combo auctioning on eBay, now the bid has been cancelled and I can't Imagine anyone else paying that much now, and what about anyone who has already paid that much for that type of deck and no it doesn't even work. I would like a response to this from ffg so I know you are at least aware your screwing over your customers major.

48 minutes ago, Rabbitball said:

The question is: How do you know what needs to be tested beforehand? I've tried my hand at designing a few things and it turns out that most of the big problems come about with the things that seemed so obvious at the time. Why would you bother testing the wording of Nexus, when it's so obvious? Well, when the choice of opponent's artifacts is Banner of Battle or Mighty Javelin and the only creature in play is your own Nexus, you really need to know what "Do as much as you can" means in that situation.

I used to play test another game and this is perhaps the biggest problem you face. You understand how the rule works, so the rule makes sense even when the actual text doesn't.

I can only think a blind playtest where the players just have rules and cards, like say the post GenCon decks. However, even in saying that, it wasn't until the ruling on Biomatrix Backup that I even noticed the Active Player rules. So even then preconceptions can get in the way. I would almost suggest moving the Active Player rules to the Golden Rules as to make it clearer.

5 minutes ago, Amanal said:

I used to play test another game and this is perhaps the biggest problem you face. You understand how the rule works, so the rule makes sense even when the actual text doesn't.

I can only think a blind playtest where the players just have rules and cards, like say the post GenCon decks. However, even in saying that, it wasn't until the ruling on Biomatrix Backup that I even noticed the Active Player rules. So even then preconceptions can get in the way. I would almost suggest moving the Active Player rules to the Golden Rules as to make it clearer.

My first pass at a Keyforge Comprehensive Rulebook does just that. It also adds the "cannot" vs. "can" distinction, although I now have to add that "must" is a stronger "can".

@Doyouevenforgebro I am being lazy and not quoting all the different responses you have made. In lieu of taking that time I'll just respond here in a more general response.

I think the biggest problem with your arguments is they are almost totally emotionally driven. They are not fact based. When you present an emotional argument you will instantly polarize a majority of those who read/hear your argument. They will respond to the emotion with their own emotional bias on the topic. Thus this thread at 3 pages and no one has 'swayed' you.

Please do understand I am not insulting you. I am just saying that most don't seem to hold the same emotions around this as you do. When you have polarized emotions around an argument instead of using facts you will never have a consensus.

Value, worth, perceived loss, 'dramatic' rules changes, and various other strata of this discussion are all emotions. Not facts. And to add to that facts don't care about emotions. They just are; no matter how you feel about them.

So to me from an emotional stand point the rules clarifications are not at all drastic. In fact I find them to be fairly common sense and in line with what I would have guessed they should be. However this is based on my emotions and why I had not posted them previously. What I and others have posted in past about this matter that is factual is that MTG (the most successful card game ever) has had changes. Some of them came after quite awhile and some have had much more impact on the core of the game than most other games ever see, and yet, MTG is still around and still very successful.

In fact what was in the clarifications of this update were just that, clarifications. They were not the drastic sweeping changes you seem to feel they were (I may be wrong on how you feel about them but I am taking my best guess based on your previous posts). I would say the most significant clarification is that we can modify the play 1 from hand on the first turn rule. And even then it is not such a dramatic change that it will change the way the game plays.

We can dive into the individual clarifications themselves but that would be an emotionally charges discussion and there will never be a consensus on if they were good, bad, or how severe they are. Thus while an interesting discussion is a wholly different discussion than when you overall premise is in the OP and subsequent responses.

In summary, if someone presents emotionally charged arguments they are bound to end up in a heated discussion that can never have consensus.

But Dear you are making an emotional argument.

Does that ever end well? 😁