[Armus]

in light of the recently brought up point about mission stealing, i voted to keep the ban. this guy needs a little bit of work. thematically and power-wise, he should be errataed to only being able to solve YOUR mission.

but it's not hard to do the errata and try an unban. theres no reason it should be taking this long.

and if thats still too powerful, then try out my suggestion: "once per game, may meet any single requirement when solving your mission."

Here's my thing about all mission-stealing-related concerns in the current OTF environment:

If you choose to run stealable missions, don't cry when they get stolen (ESPECIALLY if you didn't do anything to protect them).

There is no shortage of Tier One, potentially Worlds winning decks that are completely theft-proof. It's not only possible, but very easy, to build a deck where an opponent can't steal your missions, period.

If you don't want your missions stolen, play one of those many many decks.

Now I know there's been some other threads on changing the OTF mission stealing rules, and if that happens then the above view would obviously need to be reevaluated in the context of the revised rule. However, ceteris paribus, I don't see this as a significant issue.

[AllenGould]

Oh darn it... #GuineaPigTime

First:

Second: this leads to my argument why this sort of thing should be tied to a side event at a major - we don't want this to be the best player in the neighborhood beating everyone about the head and shoulders, but our best players showing us the worst that can happen (and also teching against that worst).

[Slayer07]

Here's my thing about all mission-stealing-related concerns in the current OTF environment:

If you choose to run stealable missions, don't cry when they get stolen (ESPECIALLY if you didn't do anything to protect them).

There is no shortage of Tier One, potentially Worlds winning decks that are completely theft-proof. It's not only possible, but very easy, to build a deck where an opponent can't steal your missions, period.

If you don't want your missions stolen, play one of those many many decks.

Now I know there's been some other threads on changing the OTF mission stealing rules, and if that happens then the above view would obviously need to be reevaluated in the context of the revised rule. However, ceteris paribus, I don't see this as a significant issue.

Just for clarification sake, explain how to choose missions that are completely theft proof. I know of course the biggest one is to choose missions that are only attemptable with your chosen affiliation, but that isn't always an option. What other ways exist? Basically asking because I don't play high level tournaments.

[Armus]

Here's my thing about all mission-stealing-related concerns in the current OTF environment:

If you choose to run stealable missions, don't cry when they get stolen (ESPECIALLY if you didn't do anything to protect them).

There is no shortage of Tier One, potentially Worlds winning decks that are completely theft-proof. It's not only possible, but very easy, to build a deck where an opponent can't steal your missions, period.

If you don't want your missions stolen, play one of those many many decks.

Now I know there's been some other threads on changing the OTF mission stealing rules, and if that happens then the above view would obviously need to be reevaluated in the context of the revised rule. However, ceteris paribus, I don't see this as a significant issue.

Just for clarification sake, explain how to choose missions that are completely theft proof. I know of course the biggest one is to choose missions that are only attemptable with your chosen affiliation, but that isn't always an option. What other ways exist? Basically asking because I don't play high level tournaments.

In OTF you can only attempt your opponent's mission if you seeded a copy or if it's a ❖ mission or a mission with a point box showing 40 or more points.

So if you don't want your missions stolen, keep it to 35 point or less unique missions, and there's no shortage of those!

That doesn't totally solve it since mission duplication can still happen, but since you'll be putting dilemmas under shared missions, it's still not a freebie.

You are correct that in open format, there's nothing you can do to prevent your opponent from stealing your mission by rule, though limiting the number of affiliation icons on your opponent's side of the card is a good start and Fair Play has been a pretty good deterrent for a long time, and was the basis for the OTF rule.

Does that help clarify it for you?

[Discovery suxs]

I think there should be a 3rd option. So I pick errata dixon hill then unban the card. It seems to be the way of things. If hill comes off then so should holmes. So we actually be able to use those holoprograms fully.

[Armus]

I think there should be a 3rd option. So I pick errata dixon hill then unban the card. It seems to be the way of things. If hill comes off then so should holmes. So we actually be able to use those holoprograms fully.

That's the issue: there's no consensus on what to errata him TO, let alone whether errata is needed in the first place.

That's the point of this whole conversation.

And Sherlock Holmes is a completely separate discussion. If you want to advocate for unbanning him, I recommend starting a new thread.

[Discovery rox]

Here's my thing about all mission-stealing-related concerns in the current OTF environment:

If you choose to run stealable missions, don't cry when they get stolen (ESPECIALLY if you didn't do anything to protect them).

There is no shortage of Tier One, potentially Worlds winning decks that are completely theft-proof. It's not only possible, but very easy, to build a deck where an opponent can't steal your missions, period.

If you don't want your missions stolen, play one of those many many decks.

Now I know there's been some other threads on changing the OTF mission stealing rules, and if that happens then the above view would obviously need to be reevaluated in the context of the revised rule. However, ceteris paribus, I don't see this as a significant issue.

oh i have no problem with mission stealing and i think it should be a bigger part of the game.

i just think that if you get to pick the dilemmas under your opponents mission that your going to steal, you should have to apply at least a little bit more effort to solving it then just playing dixon hill, who is already you mission solving trump card anyway.

[Discovery rox]

That's the issue: there's no consensus on what to errata him TO, let alone whether errata is needed in the first place.

That's the point of this whole conversation.

yes but the poll needs a third option. right now the options are:

1 release dixon hill unchanged
2 keep dixon hill banned and continue to do nothing for years

there should be

3 make a change and release it to see how it goes

maybe the majority think a change is needed. even if its the wrong change it should be tested to show that and thats just not happening right now.

[AllenGould]

there should be

3 make a change and release it to see how it goes

Problem is "make a change" without saying what the change *is* isn't useful information. Do you mean make it better, make it worse, make it a *lot* worse?

[Armus]

That's the issue: there's no consensus on what to errata him TO, let alone whether errata is needed in the first place.

That's the point of this whole conversation.

yes but the poll needs a third option. right now the options are:

1 release dixon hill unchanged
2 keep dixon hill banned and continue to do nothing for years

there should be

3 make a change and release it to see how it goes

maybe the majority think a change is needed. even if its the wrong change it should be tested to show that and thats just not happening right now.

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

[Discovery rox]

there should be

3 make a change and release it to see how it goes

Problem is "make a change" without saying what the change *is* isn't useful information. Do you mean make it better, make it worse, make it a *lot* worse?

i agree its not complete information. if it wins, then perhaps a follow up poll should be taken.

but its not useless information.

[Discovery rox]

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

this rule needs to change then. q needs to be fixed, nobody likes it. and this rule is apparently also getting in the way of fixing other cards, like dixon hill.

saying we dont revisit errata is like saying we dont make mistakes. its arrogant hubris to insist that once youve tried to fix it once then its fixed no matter what.

[AllenGould]

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

this rule needs to change then. q needs to be fixed, nobody likes it. .

I will pause to note that while "nobody likes Q", I have yet to hear a suggestion for replacement text that isn't just "make a new card and call it 'Q'" (Red Alert has similar problems)

[Orbin]

That's the issue: there's no consensus on what to errata him TO, let alone whether errata is needed in the first place.

That's the point of this whole conversation.

yes but the poll needs a third option. right now the options are:

1 release dixon hill unchanged
2 keep dixon hill banned and continue to do nothing for years

there should be

3 make a change and release it to see how it goes

maybe the majority think a change is needed. even if its the wrong change it should be tested to show that and thats just not happening right now.

I would be much more supportive of your option 3 if the rule to not revisit errata once published didn't exist. As is, I don't want another Q - better to leave Dix on the ban list so at least the Open players can use him.

I feel like you missread Charlie's last post on this. His last post said:

For a long time, we had a policy of not revisiting errata unless there was need for additional errata. While I can't promise anything, we're now looking at options for doing exactly this kind of thing.

-crp

Which to me reads as we no longer have a "policy of not revisiting errata..." and that we are not open to revisiting things.

- James M

[Armus]

I feel like you missread Charlie's last post on this. His last post said:

For a long time, we had a policy of not revisiting errata unless there was need for additional errata. While I can't promise anything, we're now looking at options for doing exactly this kind of thing.

-crp

Which to me reads as we no longer have a "policy of not revisiting errata..." and that we are not open to revisiting things.

- James M

Until I see a decision that "what they're looking at" has become "what is" I'm going to assume status quo.

I'd love for there to be a new approach, and I respect that "looking at it" can take some time, but I'm not going to assume anything while it's being "looked at" because he also said he "can't promise anything"

I take him at his word on both counts, thus status quo until otherwise informed.