Should Wulven change its "no errata"-policy?

[Awer]

Like many of us know, Wulven's current policy is that cards that have been physically released will not receive any kind of modifications afterwards. However, I'd like to know what the members of the community think about the issue.

Let's start by looking at the interactions that I've brought up in a card-FAQ post. Several weapon cards are worded so that if you also have Violet Thunderstorm (VT) in play, then the damage caused by your hero with VT (to a hero/ally who attacks your hero) can trigger the effect of the weapon:

- Soul Seeker should trigger if VT kills the attacking ally.
- Ghostmaker should trigger if VT damages the attacking hero.
- Anklebreaker should trigger if VT damages the attacking ally.
- Fangs of the Predator should trigger if VT kills the attacking ally.
- Dagger of Unmaking should trigger if VT damages the attacking ally without killing it.

Also, if a weapon has Sorcerous Poison attached to it, then Sorcerous Poison should trigger if VT damages the attacking hero/ally.

There's also the peculiar situation when you have VT and Uprooted Tree ("Hero armor doesn't reduce the damage done in combat by your hero while Uprooted Tree is in play."), and an opposing hero with Spelleater Bands ("Your hero takes no damage from abilities while Spelleater Bands is in play.") attacks your hero: Will your Uprooted Tree cancel out the effect of the opponent's Spelleater Bands, allowing VT's ability damage to go through? If SB grants a "damage reduction" effect, then it would seem to be so.

In every case, these examples should illustrate that the wording on several cards isn't as good as it could be. In addition, if Wulven doesn't have the flexibility to change previously "locked" card wordings, then this will restrict their freedom to design aspects of the game in the future. For example, if they'd want to allow for a single player to control several weapon cards simultaneously, including the weapons in the current core set, it would cause problems with the wordings. So even if they'd want to design it that way, they wouldn't be able to, because past wording choices would prevent them from doing that. As a result, they'd have to design "around" these problems.

Well, what could be done to solve these wording issues?

-Cards could be given errata like MTG does. This means that the wording of a card, and even any other aspect of it, could be changed from what it originally was. In the digital version, the changes could be shown automatically. The downside of this approach would be that it's a burden for the players of the physical version: They have to both memorize and keep up-to-date on what the latest errata is. I assume this burden is the underlying reason for Wulven's current policy.

-Instead of errata, Wulven could address the flawed card wordings with special rulings. For example, something like "Violet Thunderstorm can't cause the abilities of weapon cards to trigger" or for each of those weapons cards something like "The ability of this weapon can only be triggered when this weapon is used". The wording of the said cards wouldn't need to be touched. However, just like with the errata approach, this ruling approach too requires players of the physical version to memorize something that isn't written on the actual cards. And if the digital cards wouldn't be linked to their respective rulings, then players of both digital and physical version would have this burden of memorization.

-Wulven could continue on its current path, conceding that "locked" cards must work the way they were originally worded:

Yes, Violet Thunderstorm can cause some cards to trigger twice in a single combat phase. Kyle has ruled this is intended behaviour.

Currently, the aforementioned "VT + weapons"-interactions aren't actually working like that in the digital game, so first Wulven would have to fix that. Then, these "loophole combos" could become viable to use in Meltdown games, and even in regular games the "VT + Dagger of Unmaking"-combo would allow Mages to return an attacking ally (who has no damage reduction) to it's owners hand without DoU losing any durability in the process. Cards in future expansions might increase the viability of these combos, and open up venues for new ones that "utilize" the past wording choices in a similar manner.

Personally, looking at the overall situation, I think that correcting past wording errors with errata would be the best thing to do, though it's an inconvenience for players of the physical version. I'm not saying that giving cards errata should become some kind of a frequent routine - although errata can be used to correct any aspect of a card, I'd say that it still should only be used "as sparingly as possible", preferably just to fix (wording) errors that have slipped in already released cards. In my opinion, for balancing the game and "buffing useless cards", the main method should remain as being the careful design of cards, and future cards that address the shortcomings of previously released cards. (This, in order to avoid encumbering the physical version players too much.)

The thing with fixing wording errors by creating separate rulings is that people have to memorize them just like they would have to memorize errata in the physical game, so for me it feels like doing the same thing in a more burdensome way. If we're trying to minimize the "memorization" task, then at least errata can be updated instantly in the digital version, and that might also help the physical version players to remember it, if they play the digital version frequently.

But a lot of that was just my opinion about it. I'd very much like to know what other people, and especially players of the physical version think about this issue, since (to my understanding,) the current policy of "no errata" exists for the sole purpose of catering to the physical version players. Would errata or rulings that "update" the way cards work be a significant inconvenience for you? (Of course, the opinions of digital version players are important as well, and many players probably play both versions.)

I've created a poll so that people may vote on which approach they'd like best. (And although I can't say that Wulven will adopt the choice that's most preferred by the players, I imagine that it might be a good idea for Wulven to do so.)

[Gondorian]

Speaking entirely hypothetically:

If we were to consider changing our errata policy to fix something that isn't currently a problem (e.g. VT) then surely we might as well wait until there is a problem before considering whether to change our errata policy then, no?

[MistahBoweh]

Erata is done as new sets are released and the format changes, not every couple weeks to artificially manipulate a meta as you see with other esports such as League of Legends. This is a physical game. Changes have to be made after lots of testing and consistent results. As someone who worked behind the scene, I can assure you the numbers are extremely balanced. There is nothing in the game that currently needs erata at all.

Wulven hasn't even gotten the chance, even if they were going to, so how do you even know what the policy is?

If there's an issue... then fix it. But you better be sure there's a problem, and for now, there aren't any.

[1ndeed]

Changing the wording once physical cards are printed would be a huge headache for wulven. Better to thoroughly test the cards before they are printed, and address problems with special rulings.

[Awer]

If we were to consider changing our errata policy to fix something that isn't currently a problem (e.g. VT) then surely we might as well wait until there is a problem before considering whether to change our errata policy then, no?

Well, I like to bring potential problems into attention as early as possible, so that they may be dealt with before they start causing real consequences. I agree that there's nothing wrong with VT. What I perceive to be a cause for concern is that we're approaching a point where past wording errors start having a real effect on gameplay. The weapon cards that I've listed in the opening post, and Sorcerous Poison, have such wording errors on them. (I'll subsequently refer to those cards as the "listed cards".)

In the digital version, the wording of those cards doesn't match their current functionality. They're not programmed so that VT would cause them to trigger. Why not? I'm willing to make an educated guess that the reason is because that's not how they were intended to work in the first place. Let's use Dagger of Unmaking (DoU) as an example. Instead of working according to its current wording, which is ...

"When your hero deals non-fatal damage to an ally in combat while Dagger of Unmaking is in play, that ally is returned to its owner's hand."

... it actually works according to the following wording:

"When your hero deals non-fatal combat damage with Dagger of Unmaking to an ally, that ally is returned to its owner's hand."

As you can see, in the latter case, the ability of DoU is "insulated" so that it will trigger only when your hero deals non-fatal combat damage with it to an ally, and not in any other situation. If we look at how weapon cards are worded in WoW TCG, they follow the same principle of "insulation". For example, the weapon card "Deathbringer" says ...

"When your hero deals combat damage with Deathbringer to an ally, your hero deals that amount of shadow damage to target hero in that ally's party."

A conscious design choice was made to limit the card's ability into a specific event, and the card was worded accordingly. In the case of Shadow Era, with the listed cards, conscious design choices were made as well, but errors were made in the wording part. What I'm trying to ask here is, should those wording errors be fixed by rewording the cards so that their text would accurately reflect their current functionality in the digital game? In the example that I mentioned about DoU, you can see how the wording would change. Let's take Ghostmaker as another example:

From:

"When your hero damages another hero in combat while Ghostmaker is in play, ..."

To:

"When your hero deals combat damage with Ghostmaker to another hero, ..."

Other major TCGs like MTG and WoW TCG have taken the "errata approach" so that they can reword cards when appropriate, to ensure that their cards work in the limits they were intended to work. Though Kyle made a ruling previously that's related to the issue, I'm not sure how informed decision that was, and whether it "validates" the interactions between VT and the listed cards.

Wulven hasn't even gotten the chance, even if they were going to, so how do you even know what the policy is?

After the digital version 1.503 was released, Wulven made the decision to "lock" the cards so that no more changes would be done to them (the announcement can be read here). Had that decision not been made, there really wouldn't be any reason not to fix the wording errors, but since it was, we now have to ask, would we rather like to see those errors repaired with rewording (which is basically called "errata"), addressed to the same end with special rulings, or implemented into the game as they stand? The first two choices wouldn't actually change the functionality of the current digital version in any way, while the last one might have unforeseeable consequences in the future.

I think players should be involved when decisions about these things are made, since they're the ones directly affected by them, after all.

[Gondorian]

I expect the digital game bugs have not been addressed because the chance of them happening in the past was so low. With Meltdown available now, it's no longer the case that you need Dimension Ripper or Transference to end up combining Violet Thunderstorm with the other cards, so the bugs will be fixed in a future version.

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, and for the reminders, so that the digital game can be corrected.

I hope you are available to go over the expansion with a fine-toothed comb when it hits the test server.

[Awer]

I certainly hope that in the future, issues like these can be avoided altogether, so I promise I'll do my best to give the expansion a thorough combing when it comes along .

[Ballyworld]

With the expasion nearly doubling the card pool the possible combination rises dramatically, can the PFG's really test all of this? Its a big job, and I would not be surprised if something was uncovered after 1-2 weeks of going live that would need changed.

Wulven shouldn't paint themselves into a corner with a blanket 'no errata' policy. As expansions come out, the time will come where one new card will interact with a long forgotten card in the initial 200 that will require action.

Hopefully they can arrange for a live digital release for a few weeks before printing physical cards. But that would naturally hurt sales of the physical cards.

They will have to find some middle ground.

[Demnchi]

With the expasion nearly doubling the card pool the possible combination rises dramatically, can the PFG's really test all of this? Its a big job, and I would not be surprised if something was uncovered after 1-2 weeks of going live that would need changed.

Wulven shouldn't paint themselves into a corner with a blanket 'no errata' policy. As expansions come out, the time will come where one new card will interact with a long forgotten card in the initial 200 that will require action.

Hopefully they can arrange for a live digital release for a few weeks before printing physical cards. But that would naturally hurt sales of the physical cards.

They will have to find some middle ground.

Part of the PFG's job is to find stuff like that. We use ALL the cards, not just the ones from the expansion. Not to mention, some time on the Test Server will be similar to having it on live (all though not as big scope wise) for what your suggesting anyways.

[Ballyworld]

Part of the PFG's job is to find stuff like that. We use ALL the cards, not just the ones from the expansion. Not to mention, some time on the Test Server will be similar to having it on live (all though not as big scope wise) for what your suggesting anyways.

I don't doubt that you all are trying to dig deep and really 'break' the cards. My point isn't so much with this expantion as down the road with future expasions and 2 vs 2 play etc. Every effort should be made to not need errata, but does anyone seriously think that wulven would chose not to 'fix' a previously 'locked' card just for the sake of the no errata policy...They should not and will not break the whole game so as to not eat crow.