#556600
Hello folks,
I'm leaving on a weekend vacation in a few hours, so I figured I'd type this up early and get the discussion going. It's Friday, and that means it's time for another question. Today, I'm going to give you an entirely fictional example of a situation we might face, and ask your opinion on a couple of the theoretical options. And I apologize in advance, this is a long one.
First, the situation. And remember, this is entirely fictional:
There is a card in an old Decipher expansion, and the card is called Blue Crash. Blue Crash is a Portal, a card type that has a full text box and can be played at any time on a player's turn. This particular card has three different ways it can be played:
1) Seed on table and open the Blue Sequence side deck, which contains Blue cards.
2) Seeds like a dilemma and, when encountered, makes the crew/Away Team deal with some Blue cards.
3) Stocks in your deck and can nullify a Blue card.
Unfortunately, because it's a old card, the words on Blue Crash don't exactly explain how it works. This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Blue Crush card and side deck work. And over the years, the rules of the game have changed and evolved such that it's really hard to play with Blue Crash and the side deck.
Many, many years later, we in the Department of First Edition decide to make a small, boutique style expansion that will address some of these issues and bring some new life to Blue Crash and the Blue Sequence side deck. At the same time, we figure we can do some clarifying errata and get rid of some of the extra glossary entries.
After a bunch of design, development, testing, rules, and creative work, we come to a solution we really like: splitting Blue Crash into two different cards. First, the original card - Blue Crash, which will be an errata - now only takes the second function of the original - seeding like a dilemma and causing the opponent to deal with Blue cards. A brand new card takes all of the first function of the original, seeding on table and opening the Blue Sequence side deck.
This allows the Rules team to move almost all of the glossary text onto these two cards, virtually eliminating the extra rules. Now, the cards tell you what they do and how they work. This is a net win, but it comes with a few problems.
So, given this entirely fictional and theoretical situation, we have a couple of questions for you to consider and answer:
1) Without reading ahead, which card of the two (the one that seeds on table or the one that seeds under missions) should keep the title Blue Crash?
2) Now, assume that as an errata, the original card (which is the one that goes under missions) keeps the name Blue Crash. But, creatively, the image on the original Blue Crash is a much better fit for the new card that opens the Blue Sequence side deck. How would you feel about an errata to a card changing the card's image?
3) Let's say the wording on Blue Crash is such that it could now fit on a Dilemma template instead of a Portal template. How would you feel about errata to a card changing the card type? How about adding lore?
Finally, a bonus question:
4) The design team has made a new card, Blue Crash: Crash Harder. In theory, it would be a Portal because the original Blue Crash was a portal. Let's say the answer to the previous question is no, we can't change the original's card type. Would it be okay for the new card (that uses the colon rule) to be a different card type than the original?
Thanks for reading this long and entirely fictional situation, and giving your feedback on the options. I'm excited to read what you think - just as a theoretical exercise, of course. If you're on the west coast of the US, stay cool and stay safe. Actually, no matter where you are, stay cool and stay safe.
-crp
I'm leaving on a weekend vacation in a few hours, so I figured I'd type this up early and get the discussion going. It's Friday, and that means it's time for another question. Today, I'm going to give you an entirely fictional example of a situation we might face, and ask your opinion on a couple of the theoretical options. And I apologize in advance, this is a long one.
First, the situation. And remember, this is entirely fictional:
There is a card in an old Decipher expansion, and the card is called Blue Crash. Blue Crash is a Portal, a card type that has a full text box and can be played at any time on a player's turn. This particular card has three different ways it can be played:
1) Seed on table and open the Blue Sequence side deck, which contains Blue cards.
2) Seeds like a dilemma and, when encountered, makes the crew/Away Team deal with some Blue cards.
3) Stocks in your deck and can nullify a Blue card.
Unfortunately, because it's a old card, the words on Blue Crash don't exactly explain how it works. This means there are a lot of extra rules and clarifications in the glossary about how the Blue Crush card and side deck work. And over the years, the rules of the game have changed and evolved such that it's really hard to play with Blue Crash and the side deck.
Many, many years later, we in the Department of First Edition decide to make a small, boutique style expansion that will address some of these issues and bring some new life to Blue Crash and the Blue Sequence side deck. At the same time, we figure we can do some clarifying errata and get rid of some of the extra glossary entries.
After a bunch of design, development, testing, rules, and creative work, we come to a solution we really like: splitting Blue Crash into two different cards. First, the original card - Blue Crash, which will be an errata - now only takes the second function of the original - seeding like a dilemma and causing the opponent to deal with Blue cards. A brand new card takes all of the first function of the original, seeding on table and opening the Blue Sequence side deck.
This allows the Rules team to move almost all of the glossary text onto these two cards, virtually eliminating the extra rules. Now, the cards tell you what they do and how they work. This is a net win, but it comes with a few problems.
So, given this entirely fictional and theoretical situation, we have a couple of questions for you to consider and answer:
1) Without reading ahead, which card of the two (the one that seeds on table or the one that seeds under missions) should keep the title Blue Crash?
2) Now, assume that as an errata, the original card (which is the one that goes under missions) keeps the name Blue Crash. But, creatively, the image on the original Blue Crash is a much better fit for the new card that opens the Blue Sequence side deck. How would you feel about an errata to a card changing the card's image?
3) Let's say the wording on Blue Crash is such that it could now fit on a Dilemma template instead of a Portal template. How would you feel about errata to a card changing the card type? How about adding lore?
Finally, a bonus question:
4) The design team has made a new card, Blue Crash: Crash Harder. In theory, it would be a Portal because the original Blue Crash was a portal. Let's say the answer to the previous question is no, we can't change the original's card type. Would it be okay for the new card (that uses the colon rule) to be a different card type than the original?
Thanks for reading this long and entirely fictional situation, and giving your feedback on the options. I'm excited to read what you think - just as a theoretical exercise, of course. If you're on the west coast of the US, stay cool and stay safe. Actually, no matter where you are, stay cool and stay safe.
-crp
Director of First Edition, 2019 - now
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Symbolizing the elements that create truth and beauty."
Klingons say TRANS RIGHTS.
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Symbolizing the elements that create truth and beauty."
Klingons say TRANS RIGHTS.