This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Trailblazer
#494783
Welcome to today's First Edition Friday Question, where you get a chance to answer questions that will help shape the future of First Edition. If you'd like to catch up on previous entries, here's a list of all of my previous Friday Questions:

17 JAN 2020: What card would you unban without changes?
10 JAN 2020: What single card would you ban to improve your game?
3 JAN 2020: What are you looking forward to in The Neutral Zone?
27 DEC 2019: How can we help you recruit new players?
20 DEC 2019: Where do you want the game to be in five years?
13 DEC 2019: Which concepts should 1E "import" from other games?
6 DEC 2019: Which couples should get a dual personnel card?
29 NOV 2019: Which old, unused 1E cards deserve some love?
22 NOV 2019: Which upcoming milestones need celebration?
15 NOV 2019: What's your favorite card image?
11 NOV 2019: What was your first 1E experience?
1 NOV 2019 What is your opinion of the "full page" policy?
25 OCT 2019: What do you want to see in a Halloween set?
18 OCT 2019: What is your favorite expansion?
11 OCT 2019: Which TNG main character needs a new card?
4 OCT 2019: Which Star Trek story needs more cards?
27 SEP 2019: How many points should [SPOILER] be worth?
20 SEP 2019: Which rules always confuse you?
13 SEP 2019: What do you think of [SPOILER]?
6 SEP 2019: Which card needs an alternate image (AI)?
30 AUG 2019: Which characteristic needs love?


Q Who is legal in all formats today! Have you started working on a [1E-TNG] [Bor] deck? I hope that you get the chance to try it out soon.

Over the past two weeks, we've talked about banning cards and unbanning cards. But we've got another step in the process called watching cards. A card on the watch list is a card that might be a problem - or it might not. The point of watching a card is to pay special attention to the card and when, where, and how its used to make an informed decision. Today's question is about the watch list.

What circumstances should qualify a card to be added to the "watch list"?

I'm curious to know what criteria each of you would use to determine a card should be watched. They can be whatever you like, as strict or as lax as you'd like to see. Perhaps a card should go on the watch list if it's used in a certain number of decks? Or maybe just winning decks? Maybe it's cards that you feel are too powerful, or cards that are too confusing.

Any and all criteria are valid. Your reasons can be your own, but I'm very interested in what you think should qualify a card for being on the watch list. I personally think that we should be pretty liberal about how cards get added to the watch list, but I want to know what you think.

Have a good weekend, everyone. If you can, check out Star Trek: Picard. I watched the first episode last night and (no spoilers) thought it was very good.

-crp
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#494784
I take the term literally - card A *might* be a problem (or a local group *is* having a problem), and we want to keep an eye on it before pulling the trigger on ban/errata - sometimes the meta adjusts, sometimes it just had a lucky game and it's not reliable enough to be a constant problem.

So the watch list brings attention - ironically it's almost a call to ask people in other *to* break the card if they can. And more attention hopefully means more data for the Powers That Be to make a more informed decision.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#494786
I agree with Allen's take - the watch list should be for cards that are potentially too powerful/ broken but we don't have the data to be sure. It's a useful signal to deckbuilders, both as a dare to try to break something and also to let them know that the card might be gone/ changed soon so prepare accordingly.

I think it would be great to have a second category on three watch list for cards that are currently being considered for errata or new rulings because of rules problems and not power level problems. It would be nice to have a clear signal that the appropriate people are aware of rules issues with certain cards and are developing fixes to them.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
President
Community Contributor
#494803
I'm torn.

Argument for a liberal watchlist: it allows the Department as well as the Community to share concerns about a broad cross-section of cards from all across the game.

Argument for a conservative watchlist: The Errata team really has to focus on the cards that are on the watch list -- and its resources are limited, as with all teams, so an overly broad watch list ends up with a lot of cards on it being ignored and not really watched at all, reducing the list's value as a focusing-and-communications tool.

The current policy (intermittently followed) that a card on the watchlist automatically drops off the watchlist after six months if no further action is taken, somewhat complicates both sides of the argument.

Regardless, I would very much like to see monthly watchlist updates, just like monthly rules updates. The watchlist is rarely touched at all right now, maybe annually, and that really attenuates its value. Monthly updates would also encourage quick movement on and off the list, which would also be valuable.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#494805
BCSWowbagger wrote: Argument for a conservative watchlist: The Errata team really has to focus on the cards that are on the watch list -- and its resources are limited, as with all teams, so an overly broad watch list ends up with a lot of cards on it being ignored and not really watched at all, reducing the list's value as a focusing-and-communications tool.
I always thought of it the other way - it's asking the *community* to watch the card, rather than Errata. The six months just gives an alternate out (if it's not screamingly bad by then it most likely just isn't that bad). I'd actually up that to a full twelve months, just to guarantee that any watchlist card had the opportunity to get abused during the Big Events.

Aside: I know some folks hate the idea of "I won with X and now they nerfed it", but locally we always used to consider it a badge of honor - what is a better proof of knowing the game at an extremely high level than finding the broken combo and putting the game in a submission hold? :D
User avatar
Director of Organized Play
By LORE (Kris Sonsteby)
 - Director of Organized Play
 -  
Alpha Hunter
1E North American Continental Champion 2019
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Champion 2020
2E Andoria Regional Champion 2020
W.C.T. Chairman's Trophy winner 2014-2015
#494806
BCSWowbagger wrote:The current policy (intermittently followed) that a card on the watchlist automatically drops off the watchlist after six months if no further action is taken, somewhat complicates both sides of the argument.
This stipulation seems silly to me. A card should be on the watch list until a ban / errata are deemed necessary or the rules team has taken a long look at it (or used information provided by others by proxy) and given it a pass. A card should never get removed from the watch list simply because we ran out of time on some artificial / arbitrary clock. :twocents:
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#494807
AllenGould wrote:
BCSWowbagger wrote: Argument for a conservative watchlist: The Errata team really has to focus on the cards that are on the watch list -- and its resources are limited, as with all teams, so an overly broad watch list ends up with a lot of cards on it being ignored and not really watched at all, reducing the list's value as a focusing-and-communications tool.
I always thought of it the other way - it's asking the *community* to watch the card, rather than Errata. The six months just gives an alternate out (if it's not screamingly bad by then it most likely just isn't that bad). I'd actually up that to a full twelve months, just to guarantee that any watchlist card had the opportunity to get abused during the Big Events.
Aside: I know some folks hate the idea of "I won with X and now they nerfed it", but locally we always used to consider it a badge of honor - what is a better proof of knowing the game at an extremely high level than finding the broken combo and putting the game in a submission hold? :D
+1
However I don't think it is communicated that way. I would hazard a guess that most people believe the errata team - or at least some team - is watching these. Whatever the outcome of this thread I would like to see a short article on the front page so we can all be applying the same "rules" to the watch list.

:twocents:
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#494810
Iron Prime wrote:
AllenGould wrote:
BCSWowbagger wrote: Argument for a conservative watchlist: The Errata team really has to focus on the cards that are on the watch list -- and its resources are limited, as with all teams, so an overly broad watch list ends up with a lot of cards on it being ignored and not really watched at all, reducing the list's value as a focusing-and-communications tool.
I always thought of it the other way - it's asking the *community* to watch the card, rather than Errata. The six months just gives an alternate out (if it's not screamingly bad by then it most likely just isn't that bad). I'd actually up that to a full twelve months, just to guarantee that any watchlist card had the opportunity to get abused during the Big Events.
Aside: I know some folks hate the idea of "I won with X and now they nerfed it", but locally we always used to consider it a badge of honor - what is a better proof of knowing the game at an extremely high level than finding the broken combo and putting the game in a submission hold? :D
+1
However I don't think it is communicated that way. I would hazard a guess that most people believe the errata team - or at least some team - is watching these. Whatever the outcome of this thread I would like to see a short article on the front page so we can all be applying the same "rules" to the watch list.

:twocents:
:thumbsup:
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#494811
LORE wrote:
BCSWowbagger wrote:The current policy (intermittently followed) that a card on the watchlist automatically drops off the watchlist after six months if no further action is taken, somewhat complicates both sides of the argument.
This stipulation seems silly to me. A card should be on the watch list until a ban / errata are deemed necessary or the rules team has taken a long look at it (or used information provided by others by proxy) and given it a pass. A card should never get removed from the watch list simply because we ran out of time on some artificial / arbitrary clock. :twocents:
The problem with that is now Errata is being tasked with certifying that Card A Is Fine (and probably in the face of some number of players still advocating for a ban). Which will 100% bite them in the ass if it gets broken later. That's a lot of stress folks don't need.

And just because it comes off the list doesn't mean it can't go back on if it flares up again. It just means that the list will naturally prune itself down to things the community are actively caring about.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2020
#496255
A card should be banned if Overpowered AND with no, or rare or no practical counter.
e.g. Holoprogram cafe desatist (reduce to draw 1-2) or Space Time Portal drop. Should be limited 2 [1E-AU] personal report with crew. And return ship to hand, only of your 4 cards (random selection).

In a few cases if its a NDE, e.g. costs a lot of time.
e.g. Containment field
or cards that allow constant or unlimited downloads.
Empok Nor errata to 3 equipments.

The Virtual Promos listing needs correction. Pr[…]

This question is so odd. Absolutely not. Every g[…]

Humq: Balance team focus

It's Wednesday! We're more than halfway through th[…]

WandaVision Review

There are times in the show, when Vision is bein[…]