UEP project

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

UEPs

Post by zarathustra »

Please all take a look at the following thread (long, sorry!) and post your thoughts here.

http://www.meccg.net/dforum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=
http://www.alfanos.org

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor »

can you please copy/paste the text of the posting here? thanks!

jhunholz
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz »

For Wolfgang's reference, Jambo's post is a pretty good summary:
Jambo wrote:I've been thinking about forwarding a select few UEPs to the CoE for consideration. And before there's a mass hysteria over such a proposal, the UEPs I was thinking about are only the following:

Barrow-wight playable at Barrow-downs.
Saruman's Robes following the same pattern as every other FW special card.
Sneakin' like a true Stealth.
Flies and Spiders.
Strider and Athelas.
German Promos legal.
Mumak playability.

And the Balrog rule?

Some of these were thought to be mistakes by ICE and most had unanimous voting in favour. The Balrog one is a UEP already in common use and acceptance.

So, should something like this be tried?

jhunholz
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz »

As far as my opinions on that thread/topic, I see no reason why we can't "endorse" some of the good changes, but I don't think we should consider making any changes to the official rules/cards.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo »

thorondor wrote:can you please copy/paste the text of the posting here? thanks!
Wolfgang, apparently it was a bug in the phpBB. I've been informed it's fixed and you should be able to read the topic now. Let me know if this is not the case.

Cheers

Earendil
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:01 am
Location: Como, Italy
Contact:

Post by Earendil »

I agree to start the discussion about "endorsing" some UEP rules.

But, most of all, I think it's time to understand what to do about Balrog rule. We started last year with the idea to "suggest" to the national councils the use of the Balrog Rule (or at least we made them free to choose it in national tournaments). Now I think it's time to collect some feedback.
As far as I can see (in meccg.net forum) in quite a number of tournaments the rule is used. It's possible to check exactly in how many tournaments it was used? I tried to compute and seems to me it could be more than half, but I'd like some confirmation from national councils leaders.

I think we should seriously speak about using the rule from worlds 2007, if the feedback is positive.

I start: in Italian Nationals the rule was ON.
"...And he said that if I had the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond, it was my affair. I suppose he was right"

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel »

The Finnish Council has never used the 2-mind rule, and we have seen no reason to start doing so. In our tournaments there have always been several competetive non-Balrog decks, and as far as I can remember, last year was the only time a Balrog deck won the Nationals (well, one deck was Balrog, other normal Minion). The year before there were two Red Hills at Nats, but they didn't do too well. I guess people were ready for them ;)

I do agree the WHCtK trick with Balrog is nasty, but I would hate to lose his big Troll boys from the sideboard... To me it just wouldn't feel like Balrog without them :x

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor »

quick notion first: i am able to read at meccg.net/forum again.

now in general i like the idea of UEPs. its a way to add some authentic flavour to the game (that´s the mst important aspect for me) and to correct some faults, that are obvious.
thus i even might be convinced to accept an UEP as an official ruling in the future (the german promos for example in the VERY NEAR future).
so nothing is impossible for me.

by far more important is, how UEPs are created, introduced and then put into reality at tourneys.
1) it´s important to have 1 UEP list only
2) this UEP list will not be changed in too short intervals, though changing will be needed.
3) it needs a reliable team of players, that create UEPs and maintains the list.
4) the COE may endorse some special UEP tourneys.

finally i think, that there should be a power somewhere in the MECCG universe, that is able to make clarifications and errata. that´s part of an active CCG!
and we have good reason to assume, that also ICE would do this, if they had still anything to say.
Last edited by thorondor on Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

Mikko, I've kept up with the debate between you and Brian (on the one hand) and Jamie, etc. on the other hand. You seem pretty vehement about the idea that there should be no changes. I'd just like to say one thing: it's not that The Red Hills deck itself is broken. Red Hills is just one example of an all-too-common problem with the balrog: the big characters from the sb. You say the hog wouldn't be the same without his big Hill Trolls... well, yes, of course. But can't he just play them in his deck as normal characters, like all the other avatars? If he wants 2-mind or 1-mind characters from the sb, no problem.

Alternatively, there's an even weaker version of the balrog house rule: you may not play characters with 3 mind from the sb with whctk, but you can play them normally. What do you think of that?...

Finally, if this is kept at the level of 'endorsed' cards/rules, rather than 'official', would you still have a problem with it? There's just so much rancor and ressentiment in parts of the community over the balrog and other things. I'd like to see some way of compromising with dissatisfied factions without compromising the game itself.
http://www.alfanos.org

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel »

I have absolutely no problem with endorsing any UEPs. Jamie and co. have done great work with them. We might even have some of them in effect at the next year's Nordic Cup, but I would keep Nationals, EC and Worlds UEP-free.

In the thread I entered the discussion when the talk had already turned to making them official rules. To make it worse, they were talking about changing the official rules in the optional rules section. To me that means the discussion was hidden from most of the community (I only stumbled in because the thread was brought to my attention). :x

Red Hills isn't broken in my opinion either, but that seemed to be the reasoning in that thread for the Balrog UEP. I was simply pointing out people can beat Red Hills even without the UEP (thus no need to change the official rules).

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo »

The initial talk of CoE endorsement was well-received on page 4 (including even Brian) of that now 10-page thread. However, there was unfortunately never a follow up to that initial proposal (understandably not from you Mark, since you were at Worlds :)).

Anyway, as a result what inevitably follows is then a to-ing and fro-ing which ultimately sees the discussion deviate and become much more polarised. On top of that I guess in hindsight if Mikko had mentioned on that thread what he has above me here (first sentence), much might have been avoided, at least on my part.

What that discussion now needs is a good show of leadership and preferably from someone who doesn't stand at one of the two poles. Ideally, this would be a member or members of the CoE.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel »

zarathustra wrote:You say the hog wouldn't be the same without his big Hill Trolls... well, yes, of course. But can't he just play them in his deck as normal characters, like all the other avatars? If he wants 2-mind or 1-mind characters from the sb, no problem.

Alternatively, there's an even weaker version of the balrog house rule: you may not play characters with 3 mind from the sb with whctk, but you can play them normally. What do you think of that?...
On a personal level I don't want the Hog to lose his ability to drop two big trolls in the game on the first turn just by snapping his fingers (seriously, how 8) is that!). The WHCtK trick is just an unfortunate consequence of that ability. The weaker house rule would not take away his big boys, but I am against 'nerfing' decks in general.
Jambo wrote:On top of that I guess in hindsight if Mikko had mentioned on that thread what he has above me here (first sentence), much might have been avoided, at least on my part.
Well, I did not say it in so many words, but I did not deny their unofficial status either (and unofficial they stay, even when endorsed by CoE). Only the part about them becoming official rules was contested by me. But it's easy to misunderstand people when you only see the written text instead of hearing the words (and all that comes with it). :)

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

What does everyone think of the "virtual cards" Joe and I made for NA Championships weekend?....

www.meccg.net/nachamps06
http://www.alfanos.org

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

UEP project

Post by Thorsten the Traveller »

Well, the UEP proposals and list are kept at the meccg.net board.
I would prefer to have the whole project here, for 2 reasons: more attention, bring under CoE umbrella for casual gameplay. However, the UEP initiative was started by others (Adrian I believe), I will have to ask him/them. Perhaps we can have the whole thing at two boards, but seems problematic.

It is however clear that the attention for the UEP's in general is very low, regardless of low activity on the meccg.net board.
I've posted 2 proposals 2 months ago, and got only 4 votes in total. Regardless the outcome of a proposal, it should yield some more discussion. People seem completely indifferent, too indifferent even to vote "no opinion." :wink:
If the results remain this low, the project can be considered deadwood.

The importance of UEP's is lessened if/when the CoE issues official errata of course. Nevertheless, most UEP's would never make it as an official erratum, and thus can still have value for casual play.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Re: UEP project

Post by marcos »

i agree with moving the project here, and i agree that if some project doesnt awake a little bit of interest in the community it should be considered deadwood as you said, probably the same problem happen with virtuals

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”