#453550
Faithful Reader wrote:Isn't this what playtesting is for? I mean, there are many cards off-cost -- for some that's the reason why they are played. But can't we trust designers, playtesters, rules people, errata people, community response, and 40 sets in history to keep the game in line beyond rules written by the lead designer of Peak Performance?Danny wrote:No disrespect to Charlie, but do we need the sacred texts?You would think so but ...
Have not enough cards been created that, when a card comes onto the designer's board, its cost can be worked out by comparing it to other cards with similar attributes, keywords, skills, staffing icons, and comparable gametext?
Before I go further, the Design team is full of a diverse group of very smart people. There's a lot of work that goes into each and every card that. This team has worked with cards for a long time. They know the ins and outs. There are over forty sets of precedents out there to use as a measuring stick, so to speak and are often cited for costing questions behind the scenes.
Now where was I?
Despite their best efforts, you can count on at least one card in each set being a bit off, for lack of a better term. Usually, a card can get another thing and maintain its cost. There are occasions where it needs to lose something in order to do so.
Really, the only set I can think of under my tenure that didn't have costing issues was Warp Pack: Access Denied. Granted that had the double team of two very experienced designers and only two personnel.
This isn't a knock against anyone; it's more of something that happens on occasion with designers new and old.