To Bring to Everyone's Attention...

[Gil-Estel]

Some say 'we' move too fast.... But with LR, all there is been done is take the gentlemen's agreement into effect. A lot of people never played her for obvious reasons, others played for equally obvious reasons.
The discussion went on for weeks, so I guess the time taken was plenty. Even more, the discussion is there for ages, eversince the card came into existance. So I feel the move was legit, with this remark: it is just a players preference for a group players here at TLHH. Back me up on this Lurtzy.... If you don't want to face her, play the TLHH table, otherwise don't. Don't make too big a deal of it.

I like your input FM, with an extended validator whether cards should be banned or not.

[FM]

Yes, I do not think the moves were particularly rushed, just that the process as a whole might not be going at the right pace or coming from the right angles. If there was a gentleman's agreeement in effect so much that LR was not warping the format so much anymore, that alone would be reason to let it be for now.

[jcb213]

If you don't want to face her, play the TLHH table, otherwise don't.

Here's the catch though, that's only how it is right now.  But, once you make a bunch more changes it will be "If you don't want to face her and are ok with all the other cards that received errata or were moved from the X-list to the R-list (which doesn't even exist in Movie Block) then play the LHH table, otherwise play the official rules table."

I'm ok playing the LHH rules when it's just Movie Block with Galadriel LR added to the X-list, but once you start issuing errata for other cards or banning other cards I will stick to the official rules tables.  Ultimately, if most people are planning on playing LHH rules then I don't know if it's worth my time to build decks and play on GCCG (since I just downloaded it recently and have to learn), but only time will tell what the majority of people on GCCG actually want to play (because that should be taken into account).

I think you will find that while a lot of people supported the Galadriel LR ban it won't be so black and white once you start messing with other cards.  I don't think people acknowledge or realize that "LHH House Rules Movie Block" is going to be very different than Movie Block as more and more cards receive errata, move to an R-list, etc.  But, as long as the official rules tables are kept open hopefully most people will be happy with one format or the other.

[Imrahil]

I support Tbeisty in his plan to errata the cards which are, as of now, X-listed because I too think it's a pity that so many cards just sit in binders and never get played.  Personally, most of the reason I was in favour of banning LR was because it was implied that we would be giving her an errata soon afterwards.

It's important to remember, I think, that "Movie" is not an official Decipher format and never was.  It has several major problems (including the fact that LR was never banned), and therefore requires a number of unspoken "gentleman's agreements" to function.  Essentially, the "Movie Block" format is already a creation of the TLHH community, because the platform itself and metagame are the creation of TLHH.  So I don't know if it's accurate to say that people want to stick to Decipher's traditional format considering that what we are playing is already a conglomeration of rules from Decipher and TLHH.

I think it's also slightly unfair to Tbeisty to imply that he's suddenly going to change or restrict dozens of cards and thereby destroy the world as we know it.  So far he and his camp are limiting themselves to the "official" (in word only) Movie block X-list which is fairly conservative.  Allowing him to continue with the discussions to create suitable erratas and vote on their introduction into the gccg  will allow people to input their various criticisms on the balance of each card, and allow gccg players to test each errata in game.  It will NOT bring about autocratic changes to the format from a small group of elitist reformers. :-)

And for those of you who claim to have a hard time remembering erratas, I must say I'm a little confused.  First of all, the advantage of technology is that Kralik can alter the card text for you so the errata is on the actual card.  Secondly...if you're anything like me, you've already memorized the text for hundreds of other cards, so are twenty or so more really going to make a difference?

it is a dangerous precedent we are setting for ourselves, but one that, if handled responsibility, will become an asset to this community.  Decipher, wonderful company though it was, left us with some problems.  We are trying to solve them.

Simple in theory.

[ket_the_jet]

It's important to remember, I think, that "Movie" is not an official Decipher format and never was.

Movie is effectively the name given for "Standard" as the game stood before the release of set 11. The name "Movie" is a creation of the players of Lord of the Rings (although I have heard that well before joining this site) who preferred the "Standard" before set 11 was released.
-wtk

[jcb213]

Movie was an officially defined format in the official Lord of the Rings Online game, which was supported by Decipher.

Movie Block
Movie Block format uses cards from sets 1-10 (all of the 'movie' blocks plus Reflections) and a King-block legal site path. You may not include cards from the Standard Exclusion List prior to the release of Shadows (you can use the Deck Validation option in your Deck Builder for a list of these cards).

That is taken straight from the Movie Block Definition and X-List thread from this site.  So to say that Movie Block was never an official Decipher format isn't true.

[jcb213]

It has several major problems (including the fact that LR was never banned), and therefore requires a number of unspoken "gentleman's agreements" to function.

What other "gentleman's agreements" are required other than not playing LR?  I've never heard talk of any others.

[Imrahil]

Okay, I've heard several things about the origins of Movie block as a format, but I'll take your word for it since you're willing to do the research.

The main "gentleman's agreements" are general taboos on LR and Corsairs, both of which have the potential to dominate the format if abused. 

[Imrahil]

Actually, I did some research myself and it looks like your right jcb, sorry for being wildly inaccurate. :-)  I would still argue that we've reached a level of sophistication (or at least variation) in our deck-building that Decipher never really accounted for, and are therefore having to make "modifications" to the format.  Gentleman's agreements are informal modifications in themselves, and things like our ban on LR are genuine modification to the format. Decipher didn't leave LR in Movie by mistake.  In my opinion they allowed her as an inelegant solution to a complex problem, a problem that will not be eliminated simply by banning LR.  It's that problem which Tbeisty and others are trying to address (although I know that many will deny there is a problem, even after voting to ban LR).

I agree with you jcb that I don't want to see a bunch of unchecked errata on cards that have no business being changed, but I think that discussion into errata on X-listed cards is an exciting and potentially valuable prospect.  Several of the cards involved require only minor changes to bring them back into the format in something very close to their original role, and I'm already thinking of deck-building possibilities for them.  :-)

[Tbiesty]

Actually, I did some research myself and it looks like your right jcb, sorry for being wildly inaccurate. :-)  I would still argue that we've reached a level of sophistication (or at least variation) in our deck-building that Decipher never really accounted for, and are therefore having to make "modifications" to the format.  Gentleman's agreements are informal modifications in themselves, and things like our ban on LR are genuine modification to the format. Decipher didn't leave LR in Movie by mistake.  In my opinion they allowed her as an inelegant solution to a complex problem, a problem that will not be eliminated simply by banning LR.  It's that problem which Tbeisty and others are trying to address (although I know that many will deny there is a problem, even after voting to ban LR).

I agree with you jcb that I don't want to see a bunch of unchecked errata on cards that have no business being changed, but I think that discussion into errata on X-listed cards is an exciting and potentially valuable prospect.  Several of the cards involved require only minor changes to bring them back into the format in something very close to their original role, and I'm already thinking of deck-building possibilities for them.  :-)

Thank you, Imrahil.  I think that was very well said.

[jdizzy001]

I'm bewildered. If official rules tables still exist, and still support the cannonized formats, then why does anyone care how fast house rules format moves? Ket has it figured out, it really isn't that hard. If you don't like house rules, don't play house rules.

Movie block is still movie block, standard is still standard, etc. etc.. It isn't productive to complain (in silece none the less) about a format in which you don't plan to participate. If you don't like it don't play it. If you don't like the fact house rule cards are being errataed, don't use them. Like I already said, we all know folks who made it very clear, they disagree with what is going on so they choose not to participate. More power to you. However, those who want to participate shouldn't be hindered because you feel uncomfortable. I don't like star wars V cards but I still play star wars.

The "PC" is attempting to revitalize the game, if they walk too slowly nothing will happen.  There is no reason to slow them down just because...

A. you don't plan on participating in House rules
or
B. you aren't going to use/like the erratas.

House rules are only "legal" in the house rules format. Again, if you don't like it stick to the "classic" formats. After all, Kralik is bending over backwards to make sure the 2 formats remain seperate. Lastly, I garuntee that even if house rules is a smashing sucess, there will still be a huge number of people willing to play the classic formats. Heck we still play FOTR block and that is darn near 10 years old!

[legolas3333]

The reason that the banning of LR seemed rushed to me was that I felt it didn't need fixing, I have rarely seen her on GccG and never played against her, it seemed, on the whole, a move that alienated some members (smeagollum) but didn't need fixing in the first place. Sure, a few people were playing her, but that doesn't mean you have to push for a ban so quickly that it seemed to me (and a few other members) as if you were wildly overreacting to a few members of the GccG community (who may or may not be affected because they might not play by the house rules).

[FM]

Not to mention, a lot of people who voted PRO banning actually posted stuff like: "I haven't faced LR a lot/at all, but I know she's broken"! People, please, MtG is the largeest, longest-standing TCG in the World for a reason, take a lesson from the folks at WotC:

General Guidelines for banning/restricting/errata'ing:

Errata:
-Card does not function as intended due to a hole in the rules;
-A mistake (generally in wording) renders the card completely useless (or close enough);
-The rules have been updated and the card's text does not work as written anymore.

Banning:
-A card is uncounterable (strategy-wise, they keep printing andwers and the card simply won't acknowledge them in a given format);
-The card is way too abusable and easy to be played;
-The card warps the format SO MUCH that all decks either play it, or play against it (there's no room for archetypes to be brewed, you either play X or anti-X);
-The card warps a format so much that, even though not everyone plays it, it demands an arbitrarily elarge number of answer cards that it cripples deckbuilding.

Restricting:
-Restricting is a little trickier, but basically, MtG has two Eternal (every card ever made) formats: Legacy and Vintage. Legacy is the "healthy" version, with a lot of banned cards, and close-to-none restricted (since the format is kept in check with the other bannings), while in Vintage, most banned cards will instead be restricted (and some cards that are not banned NOR restricted also will, to prevent über-brokeness).

As a first measure for the PC, I'd advise working on this aspect (making it easier to move around banning/errata'ing cards): two Eternal Formats. Open and, I don´t know, New Open? Slightly Ajar? SOmething like this. It wouldn't change the game AT ALL, but it could help the PC gain some perspective on what is broken and what is not. I know you might say that "House Rules" means exactly this, but it doesn't. You banned LR in MOVIE, not created a new format where she's banned, and there's a difference. For instance, if ALL your changes would only affect Movie Block, THEN it'd be the same. But you're changing everything, at once, and too quickly. Think about this.

I'll say this again, and try to explain I'm not comalaining about changes, I'm just trying to help making them in a better way. Think LR is worth banning? Run a mini-tournament (with as many members as possible) on Movie Block. Take decklists, results and ask a few key players to write a small report on the tournament. See how many LR decks surfaced, and how it fared against the rest of the field. See what ELSE surfaced (you could be surprised). Post those results. See if it WAS utterly dominant. THEN, start the process of voting to ban it, BACKED UP BY REAL DATA instead of "oh yeah, I never played against LR, but she's broken!". Again, I'm not complaining that you're ruining the game or anything, I actually give you guys thumbs up for trying to keeo it alive and fresh, and if I wasn't studying like crazy to try and get into my career of choice, I'd be helping you guys much, much more rather than just in the very few ways I have been trying to. However, I think you're going at it from the wrong angles. Changes should be slow, so people can adapt to it, and see if they like it. For instance, MtG will "unban" a single card from the list in Legacy, which they think might be worth unbanning, and see how it runs for 1-2 tournaments. Sometimes, they'll ban it again. Sometimes, it'll be fine due to the new format's aspect, and it will leave their "X-List".
What you should start on:
-Errata'ing that card that mentions archers, which there are none (just removing the archer clause at first, see what happens) and other cards like it (not Movie, I know, but still something that should be adressed first to give you guys credibility with the Player Base);
-Actually UNBANNING cards first, that, surprisingly, might not be worth keeping banned anymore, like:
Bill the Pony
Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Relics of Moria
Forces of Mordor (maybe restricting it is still a good idea, though, first, but I'd actually support a full-scale unban, to see how unfair it really is)
Sting
Flaming Brand
Aragorn, Heir to the White City
Frying Pan
Aggression (same as Forces of Mordor)

Remember, you're trying to start a PC, do not forget what the "P" stands for, so "If you don't like it, simply play a different format" argument might not be the brightest way to go about this, otherwise you risk rupturing the community, and having multiple PCs starting due to a lack in method, and that would both ruin the plans of every PC, not to mention probably kill the game for good.

[Tbiesty]

This whole idea affects a very small number of cards (compared to the 1500 or so in the block).  No radical changes going on here.  We shouldn't be so fearful of offending anyone that we don't try.  

If it makes people more comfortable, we can have the whole process go more quickly, but just be a probation period.  Once we go through the cards and finalize the updates, give players to a few months to try it out.  If the community doesn't like it, we can drop it, otherwise, we'll keep it and players will end up with two good playing options.  At least at that point, players would get to actually try it out for themselves and make an informed decision.

[Gil-Estel]

It would be worth a shot indeed to see how decks would do in an open environment. Will they dominate the format etc. I, for me, don't think that a random Frying Pan is worse than Radagast the Brown, or Saved from the Fire.
FM, does it need to tick all boxes when it comes to the list your provided? In the curious case of LR I'd say that it is indeed not uncounterable, but the risk is that she will protected as much as possible, and also attacked as much as possible. 4x terrible as the dawn in your deck etc.
I do not share the fear 'we' -I have some trouble with the term you etc, as if 'we' are a unified front. Heck, we are a bunch of players each with their own preference etc- will alter Movie. As far as I know there are no other cards than LR that are nominated to be banned. There are more cards waiting to be unbanned, or slightly changed so they can be played. Cards that are now already banned.

Again, I subscribe FM's contribution, maybe a bunch of volenteers can make various decks with banned cards and play a series of games, so we can see with indeed hard data see how things work.