#592647
Without going into specific errata, since that's a topic for another time: it's another situation that shows how divided opinions are on what the game needs. Person A may think a card is fine, the deck it's in is fun and works as intended; it's not exceeding a normal power range. Person B doesn't like playing against this card, thinks it's too strong or sees it too frequently.
I'm more person A, and think errata should be for cards found to be enabling loops, having a powerful interaction that was missed, etc.
monty42 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:04 pmIt's primarily the gameplay-related changes that actually bother me; I'm neutral on the grammar/minor edits.Marquetry wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 5:42 pmI'm wondering what makes you think that people would change cards "for the sake of changing them"?
*And please stop changing cards for the sake of changing them- there are several errata in the past few years that have annoyed me. (In addition to people who may not check the site as often, or don't want to reprint the same card multiple times)
I honestly can't think of a reason why somebody would do that.
Now I can't speak for all of them but I can at least assure you that all of the errata I've been involved in was made with the best interest of improving gameplay in mind.
That obviously might mean something different to different people but those decisions certainly weren't made lightly.
Without going into specific errata, since that's a topic for another time: it's another situation that shows how divided opinions are on what the game needs. Person A may think a card is fine, the deck it's in is fun and works as intended; it's not exceeding a normal power range. Person B doesn't like playing against this card, thinks it's too strong or sees it too frequently.
I'm more person A, and think errata should be for cards found to be enabling loops, having a powerful interaction that was missed, etc.