Errata vs. Banning

Errata is horrible. I teach this game to players as often as possible, and the number one complaint is the existing errata. More errata is going to further increase the barrier to entry, and what we need more than anything else is more players. Anything is better than errata, which means banning is better than errata.

I used to be a strong advocate of banning Pentex (which I still think is horrible for the game). Since the game is out of print, I'm less inclined to make any changes to it, but I'd still like to see Pentex go, since it limits the number of viable decks. If it doesn't get banned, I'll stop complaining about it eventually, but errata is the worst possible thing for the game, and I'd rather get my minions Pentexed from now until Kingdom Come to avoid errata.

-dc

ICL wrote: Banning a card may, for all intents and purposes, "unban" a lot more cards that weren't worth playing because of the banned card. That's probably a good thing.

I think this is an interesting point. I don't know if this is particulary true for VtES, but it is worth a thought.

Joscha wrote: I think this is an interesting point. I don't know if this is particulary true for VtES, but it is worth a thought.

I think that if, say, Pentex Subversion was banned (which I'm not going to fight a great deal for), for example, an awful lot of cards that rely on having a superstar deck would become useful. As would a whole lot of decks that rely on having a superstar.

ent wrote: Errata is horrible. I teach this game to players as often as possible, and the number one complaint is the existing errata. More errata is going to further increase the barrier to entry, and what we need more than anything else is more players. Anything is better than errata, which means banning is better than errata.

What he said.

It is really pretty bad as it is trying to remember a couple of rewordings of some cards, that were either misprinted in a single expansion, or have their text changes during years. There aren't many of those cards, fair enough, but if players enforce errata 'just because', there's little point.

Simple things could be okay, like including 'may only be played once per game' (to Parity Shift, Pentex, what else?), since they are rather easy to remember, but anything beyond that (actually changing some of the card text) gets cumbersome beyond reason.

Neverthless, banning is way easier.

Also, it is easier to mix casual gaming and tournament play when there are as little to remember when changing from one to the other. Errata for tournament play only makes it a whole different experience - and that is not really the idea of tournament play in any game.

I can see why it is tempting to starting twisting and modifying the rules and gameplay, especially now that the game is discontinued, and there is a small and coherent group discussing issues (or even making them up) in the internet, but as someone said: this discussion reaches only a small minority of players. Tournament play, on the other hand, should be accssible to as many as possible.

Just my two !

Errata is terrible for new and old players alike. Trying to get some one new into the game and then tell them that some of the cards they own have the wrong text or that they need to go look at a database or forum in order to know whats legal makes newbies not want to play. Also their are a ton of players that don't look at these sites or read the NG and often have to be told mid game that the deck they have had for 6-7 years isn't exactly what they thought.

Now I think the game is fine the way it is, but if the a change is found to be needed, then it should be banned.