UEP Ratification

[Sly Southerner]

I think its time we took another look at the direction of the UEP project. Clearly the intoduction of Virtual Cards has made some UEPs obsolete. This is particularly true for the more complex UEPs that were trying to strengthen certain strategies such as active Ringwraiths. IMHO this can be more easily done using virtual cards.

I still think that the UEP project is worthwhile but that we should take it back to the core purpose of "errata", in other words simple changes to cards that correct apparent mistakes and/or alter the power of a single card.

My feeling is that we should vote again on each UEP. We have dicsussed a ratification process before and now would seem to be a good time to do this. I suggest a simple Yes/No vote with a minimum of 10 votes required, minimum of 2/3 "yes" and a substantial voting period (eg 2-3 months). I'm also happy to spend the time to set up and monitor the ratification polls.

What do people think?

[Leon]

The UEP consist of some small change in a cards text and the virtual cards are most of the time radically different. I think it is not necessary to review al UEPs again and that it is better to just keep the virtual cards in mind with new UEP proposals.

If you really do want to vote, only state some criterium necessary to remove a card from the UEP list, because that is what would change. If any card gets a lack of votes it can stay around I would say.

[Bandobras Took]

I do see the focus of the two as different.  The Virtual Cards are more for introducing new strategies and ideas, something the UEP process is emphatically not about.

I've seen the UEPs as tweaking minor things that are obvious oversights (Many Coloured Robes) or annoying inconsistencies (RWs can't move to Barad-Dur without a mode card?!  8O  ) and so on.

Allowing a RW company size to be nine is a far cry from allowing Khamul followers in Fell Rider mode.  The concepts operate under different premises.

Even the UEPs that presumably promote active RWs don't seem that complicated to me.

To sum up, I don't think that the two ideas (UEPs and VCs) as they stand are working at cross purposes or overlapping.

[Jambo]

The only UEPs I continue to feel strongly about are:

Many-coloured Robes
Sneakin'
Flies and Spiders
German promos
And since WHCtK and ACM are ruled as they are, the Balrog 2-mind rule

Virtual cards do more for perceived weak strategies like active RWs than any of the current UEPs and given they're now live on GCCG where I play MECCG and UEPs are not, my inclination is to agree with Adrian.  If I had a regular in real life playgroup then I'd probably think differently, since UEPs are easier to use for real cards than are VCs.

If the core rules were ever to change, then yes, there would have been some real value in some of the current UEPs, but as the proponents against rule change are very vocal, and I play my games online, then I personally see little use for many of the UEPs.  And that's just it, since they're never going to be officially endorsed they're too hard for someone not in a regular playgroup to use.

Strider being able to Athelas is a good example. It's a neat idea and there's no argument that that should be the way it is played.  But then Athelas is fairly rubbish (everyone uses Healing Herbs or Cram) and so the UEP is kind of pointless.

[Sly Southerner]

JUst to clarify, I am not suggesting deleting UEPs from the accepted UEP list, I'm proposing creating a smaller sub-list of Ratified UEPs. These would be the ones we considered to be the best (or most important) UEPs. There would thus be two tiers with the ratified list beng more conservative and people could choose whether they wanted to play with a smaller or larger list of UEPs.

Is there enough interest to bother with this given the shift to virtual cards? I dont know but I was encouraged by the high number of votes in the recent Balrog/Nazgul attack UEP.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

I agree with Bandobras, in that the goal of UEP was never to improve on strategies or change certain strengths/weaknesses, but always to change (thematic) inconsistencies. I didn't check the list, but most UEP proposals that were intended for the former didn't make it, as I recall it.

So I see little point in voting again in general, but I believe the UEP rules state a revote is always possible, so if someone feels a specific UEP is obsolete or should be better adressed by V-cards, we could discuss it on a case by case basis.

Sly wrote:

Is there enough interest to bother with this given the shift to virtual cards?

Personally I feel the UEP's are very relevant. Inconsistencies in general are a sour thing to many, just look at the rules debates. But, like we realized at the start of the UEP, the status of UEP's is obviously very relevant for the enthusiasm people put into voting/discussing, and eventually using UEP's.

Jambo wrote:

If the core rules were ever to change, then yes, there would have been some real value in some of the current UEPs, but as the proponents against rule change are very vocal, and I play my games online, then I personally see little use for many of the UEPs.  And that's just it, since they're never going to be officially endorsed they're too hard for someone not in a regular playgroup to use.

On the other hand, should we decide to make an appeal to the CoE to adopt a UEP list and endorse it (for casual play or tourneys, up to people themselves), then a revote would probably be in order.
This, I think is the way to go, but, that's something for people that seem to have more influence in the community and with people in the CoE, because for the moment I seem to be the only one who thinks it's strange that small and logical corrections that are democratically decided on are not endorsed, while a (possibly) big and new impetus on the game that is decided on by few is endorsed.  8O . I don't want to look like a crusader, nor do I feel I have the energy to waste on the matter, so best I drop it.

Jambo wrote:

Strider being able to Athelas is a good example. It's a neat idea and there's no argument that that should be the way it is played.  But then Athelas is fairly rubbish (everyone uses Healing Herbs or Cram) and so the UEP is kind of pointless.

Ah, but what if there's invented a Athelas (V)?    Of course that could be made to include Strider, but the point is, sometimes you don't see the consequences later on, therefore it's still good to tackle obvious inconsistencies. I think acting on principles and not make everything a relative issue is a very Tolkinesque thing to do  

[Sly Southerner]

I seem to be the only one who thinks it's strange that small and logical corrections that are democratically decided on are not endorsed, while a (possibly) big and new impetus on the game that is decided on by few is endorsed.  8O . I don't want to look like a crusader, nor do I feel I have the energy to waste on the matter, so best I drop it.


...but the point is, sometimes you don't see the consequences later on, therefore it's still good to tackle obvious inconsistencies. I think acting on principles and not make everything a relative issue is a very Tolkinesque thing to do  

I absolutely agree. I would also love to see UEPs officially endorsed and cannot understand at all why people who are in favour of the radical changes of virtual cards also oppose the minor and sensible UEPs.

Having said that I think there are a couple of UEPs that dont really fit the mould of addressing inconsistencies. We did feedback polls a while back on many UEPs which did give some good information. My interpretation is that minor changes addressing inconsistencies and "obvious mistakes" from all sets had positive feedback. Bigger changes for the later sets (Balrog and White Hand) also had postive feedback.

The UEPs that I would say are now "obsolete" are the following:

Fell Beast counts as half a creature
Khamul
mode card not required for ringwraith to travel to Barad dur
altered conditions for discarding mode cards

As these were not addressing inconsistencies, but trying to improve certain strategies. I think they could be better addressed by virtual cards. However I still think they are cool ideas so I wouldnt like them deleted and lost forever.

What I would like would be an "elite" list of UEPs. Perhaps ones we think could be adopted for a UEP tournament. This list should necessarily be small and so easily understood. The ones Jambo mentioned are a good start. Ideally one day these might be considered by the COE but that shouldnt be the driving force.

I guess what I am now proposing has changed a bit. I'd like to see selected ratification polls for the best UEPs (perhaps starting with those mentioned by Jambo) with the creation of a smaller Ratified UEP list. If a UEP fails its ratification poll it still stays on the accepted list and could still be ratified later on after more playtesting. To make this clear poll choices could be "Yes" or "Needs more playtesting".

Any thoughts?