Eye of Sauron

Errata issued by the CoE, open discussion of candidate rules for errata, and submissions for the Annual Rules Vote.
Post Reply
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

The Wizards: Eye of Sauron
Rarity: Rare, Precise: R

Hazard: Long-event

The prowess of each automatic-attack is increased by one. Alternatively, if Doors of Night is in play, the prowess of each automatic-attack is increased by three. "The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing."-LotRII
Proposed erratum:

The prowess of each automatic-attack is increased by one (by three if Doors of Night is in play). "The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing."-LotRII


Rationale:

I think that "Alternatively" in text of Eye of Sauron is inadequate. Player does not play a long-event for primary or alternative effect.

For comparison:
The Wizards (Unlimited): Minions Stir
Rarity: Uncommon, Precise: U

Hazard: Long-event

The number of strikes and prowess of each Orc and Troll attack is increased by one (by two for Orcs if Doors of Night is in play). Cannot be duplicated. "...for in the gloom the Shadow Host seemed to grow stronger and more terrible to look upon."-LotRV
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 6:54 am I think that "Alternatively" in text of Eye of Sauron is inadequate. Player does not play a long-event for primary or alternative effect.
ICE already covered this. No errata needed. A clarification is sufficient.
EyeofSauron.png
EyeofSauron.png (55.57 KiB) Viewed 386 times
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Theo »

"Alternatively" is not in the text of Eye of Sauron. Move post to cardnum subforum?

I agree that Alternatively was not the right choice.

@CDavis7M, errata is not needed in the sense of changing how the card works, but still useful for ease of player reference. A better option might be for ICE to release a new edition of the card.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.
One [online community] with hammer and chisel might mar more than they make... Cautious skill!
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

Theo wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:27 am "Alternatively" is not in the text of Eye of Sauron. Move post to cardnum subforum?
I have a variant of the card from Unlimited Edition, that has "Alternatively" in its text.
Coincidentally text of the variant is used by Cardnum.
Both are unofficial texts of the card?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

This is the "official" and most recently published text.

If the idea of the "errata" is to clarify that Annotation 27 does not apply, then why not say as much. Asking for errata to a version of the card which apparently no one plays with doesn't make much sense. Errata is more difficult to read and follow than a clarification and this is already an issue. Errata is not a good solution. Errata applies to one publication of the card. Clarifications apply to all publications.

I think the already issued clarification is sufficient and better than the proposed errata. Better in the sense that it is easier to understand how the card works without having to have read an errata, and reformat the text with the changes. And that puts aside digging through the rules to maybe find a corresponding annotation that may or may not apply, and guess that maybe the errata changes were done so that it is clear that an annotation which already did not apply does not apply.

If the errata is intended to have the card work differently from its workings under the existing clarification, then what is the difference? If the errata is intended to clarify a misunderstanding about the rules, then errata is not the solution by itself.
IMG_4304.jpg
IMG_4304.jpg (117.5 KiB) Viewed 357 times
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:36 pm Errata applies to one publication of the card. Clarifications apply to all publications.
Curious idea. Are the cards from Challenge Decks not affected by errata?
Clarification that contradicts with that what may be concluded from text of a card and rules is an offence of logic.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:04 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:36 pm Errata applies to one publication of the card. Clarifications apply to all publications.
Curious idea. Are the cards from Challenge Decks not affected by errata?
Clarification that contradicts with that what may be concluded from text of a card and rules is an offence of logic.
By definition "errata" is a change to published text. ICE does not always tell you which publication and in most cases it doesn't matter. For instance, the errata to River is an errata to the Limited publication of the card. This is clear because it is removing text. But other times it is not so clear. I just check the date of the errata, which is partly guesswork but I have a pretty good idea of when things were published at this point.
river.png
river.png (19.22 KiB) Viewed 335 times
Of course, another issue is that the Limited cards with errata don't always exactly match the Unlimited cards, which don't always match the MELE cards even when Unlimited errata/clarifications are applied. And so on, through the Challenge Decks.

And then there is errata to The Dragons rules but not to the Against the Shadow Rules. Lots of little things like this.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

The whole evil errata...
If someone has habit of making silent corrections (ICE had), not announcing them as errata, then he can produce multiple variants of some card.
If there are such multiple variants of some card, only sensible errata is errata for whole text of the card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:13 am The whole evil errata...
If someone has habit of making silent corrections (ICE had), not announcing them as errata, then he can produce multiple variants of some card.
If there are such multiple variants of some card, only sensible errata is errata for whole text of the card.
A correction on another printing is NOT errata. That is what the word "errata" means. Errata is a change to a specific publication.

I have a 2 page essay about Lure of Nature.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

Right. So:

"If someone has habit of making silent corrections (ICE had), then he can produce multiple variants of some card.
If there are such multiple variants of some card, only sensible errata is errata for whole text of the card."

New version, but not errata.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:50 pm Right. So:

"If someone has habit of making silent corrections (ICE had), then he can produce multiple variants of some card.
If there are such multiple variants of some card, only sensible errata is errata for whole text of the card."

New version, but not errata.
And unless someone is publishing a set of cards with new text and mailing them to all of the players, then no one is going to be playing with the version with the whole new card text. So clarifications to the existing text seems more sensible since it will be a much smaller amount of text to read compared to whole new text, and players don't need to analyze the whole new card text for "silent corrections," and they don't need to read a separate clarification of the new text saying whether or not their were corrections in case they were not silent. And no one can be bothered to read even the card anyway (myself included).

So I like the original ICE clarification "+3 total"
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by Konrad Klar »

CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:53 pm So I like the original ICE clarification "+3 total"
And I do not like a mess, where some errata addresses only one variant of some card, not specifying that it is valid only for that variant, but not next variant, where changes have been imprinted directly in text of the card.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
CDavis7M
Posts: 2709
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:10 am
Location: California

Re: Eye of Sauron

Post by CDavis7M »

Konrad Klar wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:58 pm
CDavis7M wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:53 pm So I like the original ICE clarification "+3 total"
And I do not like a mess, where some errata addresses only one variant of some card, not specifying that it is valid only for that variant, but not next variant, where changes have been imprinted directly in text of the card.
Have you met Lure of Nature? It might be even worse than Great-ship in this respect.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules & Errata”