Page 1 of 1
[UEP Proposed]: Isle of the Dead that Live* (MV)
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:20 pm
Isle of the Dead that Live*
voting still open
Errata: Special: An overt
company must tap an untapped character (if available) if this site is revealed as its new site.
It is the only site in a coastal sea region which requires to tap a character in a covert company, instead of an overt company.
Easy, read covert as overt and be done, with it, believe it or not, some people on GCCG, believe it to be meant as it stand on the card for whatever strange reason ICE had for it, but I really doubt, that. I am hoping for a 100% vote
Consistency, obviously no one ever found about this mistake, until ICE was no more.
None, unless, maybe one of the strange peolple believing in it has some arguement for it.
The chance would cure an inconsistency while not changing the game balance signficantly.
Voting started at:
January 9th 2009
Voting ends at:
January 23rd 2009
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:48 pm
While I have no strong feeling either way, I don't mind adding support to other people's desires.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:33 am
@whoever voted no; if people like you where in charge the world would still be flat and neither Americas found
I mean for real how can one not see the obvious mistake in this cards?
well it will passed easily, still an explaination would be nice
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:07 am
Havent voted on this one yet because there hasnt been much discussion. Is it possible this was done on purpose rather than by mistake? Are there any implications for game play?
Vastor I also think you really need to address the "con" side of the argument yourself also.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:35 am
I do not see much use for this UEP, so I am not going to vote on this one.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:48 am
so if it is of no use, it isn't worth discussion, as I said above, I beleive this card has an obvious text mistake, and if it wasn't so hard to spot or unimportant someone might even have spotted it before.
I wouldn't have carred for this text myself, as I always played it as an obvious print/text mistake, so we made it consistend within my playgroup, only on GCCG I found out that some people believe that this cards is different "on purpose" so it was intended by ICE, but I myself do not see that or can convince me of this reasoning.
So lets bring on the discussion
I only wanted some consistency within all coastal sea-region sites, but others do not seem to care about consistency within this game or for common sense ;(
@Sly, what do you think are the "cons" for this UEP: is there a top-notch overt minion deck, which makes use of this site.
Is it not obvious that overt minions should tap at the site where Luthien & Beren dwelled for so long???, or am I only seeing that ???
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:43 am
THis UEP is a mere speculation what ICE wanted, and I dont thing it adds. Obvious the site has been around and if it really bothered they would have issued an errata LONG ago.
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:23 pm
Ringbearer wrote:THis UEP is a mere speculation what ICE wanted, and I dont thing it adds. Obvious the site has been around and if it really bothered they would have issued an errata LONG ago.
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:24 am
Voted no because of the same reasons as ringbearer. I see your point Vastor, and I think UEPs are great, but too many just adds confusion.
Perhaps the legacy of Luthien & Beren is that covert minions find it harder to hide here?
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:42 pm
I voted "no" because I'm rather suspicious of UEPs which have the purpose to make a certain group of cards perfectly homogeneous. It may seem strange that Isles tap a char in a covert company instead of an overt company, but it doesn't prove that ICE didn't have some reason for that and is no way a proof that the text of Isles is wrong.
If we should think in terms of perfect homogeneity, then we should also make an UEP for Gandalf's friend changing the text in "...requires 2 points of influence to control..." with the argument that all the other 3 analogous stage cards (Ala's, Saru's and Palla's) state that the char "requires 2 points of influence to control" instead of only 1 point of influence. Sucha way of reasoning would trigger a whole series of redundant UEPs with weak justifications. I don't think that would do any good... :?
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 am
Hm. I have to admit that Bruno's comment got me thinking. Although I voted "yes".
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:57 am
of course I am as much speculating on ICE's ideas of homogenity or reason for this site being different from the others, but all I say is that this site cards was to unimportant to be noticed
, so no changes were made where none were seen so to say.
@Bruce(asphalt) the reasoning with "Gandalf's friend" is lame though, as all 4 "friend-cards are different in so many aspects that none would reason that "Gandalf's Friend" wouldn't be the "friendliest" of them all
of course we have to make sure not to leave some space for variability, but as I see it ICE didn't give any consistency what so ever, so it is upon us to reach at least some minor consistency.
As I said, I would have never thought that others believe the printed card text (of Isles of the Daed) to be so on purpose or intend by ICE.
@might hurt some feelings here
it must be the same reason why people believe in the bible as fact, just because it is printed
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:27 pm
I wanted have voted No on this UEP.
My reason is that I think ICE believed such a place is scary for covert minions, elves too, since it is known that Beren and Luthien (an elf) lived there. Overt minions can move to a place if driven too. So, I like such a requirement on Dead Isles for it brings flavor to the game.