#558334
Howdy folks, and happy Friday.
I'm bringing this question in as a rep from the Balance team, but this conversation came up on a design meeting. It is balance-adjacent, as it deals with issuing errata, and the palate of the player base for such things.
Let's say we were working on those Blue Rash cards Charlie mentioned a few weeks ago. There is an interrupt that is Blue-Adjacent, that might be affected by some shakeups on how the Rash works overall.
Now, in this era of print on demand, my personal feelings are that issuing an errata to make the game better is a no-brainer. Get it done, and folks can reprint a single card for their deck.
The problem is... the Continuing Committee just released an AI of this interrupt as a tournament promo.
I love playing with foil AI tournament promos. I wanted to make an all-foil deck back in the day, and still feel like that would be a "cool" challenge. So getting my hands on these promos, and experiencing the chase is great fun. On the other hand, I tend to always use the latest version of an errata'd card, because I have trouble keeping straight what version of game text is current, and I want to have it in clear text in front of me when I'm playing. So that makes the neat version unusable.
So there's the conundrum. I feel like it is poor form to issue an errata for an AI Promo. It still bugs me that the original Continuing Mission foil AI got an errata, even though it probably was for the best. If memory serves, we managed to avoid the errata to that Blue-adjacent interrupt I mentioned above so far, and I'm relieved.
But as time goes on, more and more cards will have promo versions. And the likelihood of an errata target having an Alternate Image will only go up.
So what do you think? Am I alone with my bugaboo about issuing errata to cards that have shiny, collectible versions?
Should there be a higher barrier for issuing errata to cards that have a promo version?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and have a great weekend.
I'm bringing this question in as a rep from the Balance team, but this conversation came up on a design meeting. It is balance-adjacent, as it deals with issuing errata, and the palate of the player base for such things.
Let's say we were working on those Blue Rash cards Charlie mentioned a few weeks ago. There is an interrupt that is Blue-Adjacent, that might be affected by some shakeups on how the Rash works overall.
Now, in this era of print on demand, my personal feelings are that issuing an errata to make the game better is a no-brainer. Get it done, and folks can reprint a single card for their deck.
The problem is... the Continuing Committee just released an AI of this interrupt as a tournament promo.
I love playing with foil AI tournament promos. I wanted to make an all-foil deck back in the day, and still feel like that would be a "cool" challenge. So getting my hands on these promos, and experiencing the chase is great fun. On the other hand, I tend to always use the latest version of an errata'd card, because I have trouble keeping straight what version of game text is current, and I want to have it in clear text in front of me when I'm playing. So that makes the neat version unusable.
So there's the conundrum. I feel like it is poor form to issue an errata for an AI Promo. It still bugs me that the original Continuing Mission foil AI got an errata, even though it probably was for the best. If memory serves, we managed to avoid the errata to that Blue-adjacent interrupt I mentioned above so far, and I'm relieved.
But as time goes on, more and more cards will have promo versions. And the likelihood of an errata target having an Alternate Image will only go up.
So what do you think? Am I alone with my bugaboo about issuing errata to cards that have shiny, collectible versions?
Should there be a higher barrier for issuing errata to cards that have a promo version?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and have a great weekend.
Sir Dan