replies to the 18 May digest

Rules for 18 May 2001 / Question about "the Ruling That Shalt Not Be Named"

how do you precisely define the current known state of the game?

1. Ongoing effects in play.

2. Location of units in battle.

Suppose I use malekish, and put a 4 Focus car on the top of my deck. I then attack, sending noone at a province. At this province, my opponent defends with a dishonored, (printed 2PH) peep. Do I have the right to play betryyal ? ?

I sent this question to the rest of the Rules Junta a couple of days ago, hoping we could answer this question before it was asked. Almost made it. :)

The situation is the same: I *know* there is a 4 focus card on the top of my deck, therefore I *know* I'll get the personality (assuming the deck is not shuffled, and so forth of course). But is it the *current known state of the game * ??

My thinking -- and this is *BY NO MEANS A FINAL RULING* -- is that knowing information that is normally concealed (e.g., a Focus value) does not fit into one of the two categories defined above. Knowing a focus value isn't an ongoing effect -- it's just information, and thus not part of the "game state." But I can absolutely see the other side of the argument here.

It's final now. The "known state of the game" includes only open and visible knowledge available to every single player at that moment in time.

(And before anyone tries it, no, this does not mean you can focus with any card you want versus someone wearing the Armor of the Golden Samurai since not everyone knows what focus values your cards have.)

Checklist for AEG

In a message dated 5/17/01 5:22:46 PM Atlantic Daylight Time, writes:

[] How do you plan to improve playtesting and quality control in upcoming sets?

We're first going back to our own playtesters that we know and trust. Additionally, our entire design staff participates with in the playtesting and design process, not just the Lead Designer. AEG has never had so many qualified and experienced designers before. I think you'll notice an improvement in card design almost immediately.

Okay not attempting not to belittle the work and time into this but I will be blunt. My understanding from talking to a few playtester's is that that two-third of e-mail on the playtester list is written by one playtesting pushing for his clan and shouting down anyone who attempts to do the same for theirs. Other things led me to believe this is true. Will there be any changes so that there less jockeying for clan position and more about testing for play balance?

We have always striven for quality among and across playtest teams. We are also aware that even obviously biased participants can be astutely perceptive and insightful. In future, we will continue to strive for the optimum quantity of playtesters to give card sets sufficient coverage while not providing so much feedback that it becomes difficult to filter valid observation from personal opinion.

Also will design team have the discipline to go though a whole storyarc of making game of eight balanced factions. Jade was surpose to be balanced but a certain point I felt they said screw it and just gave up. Also Jade had annoying spike where clan would get huge boost and other starve.

A lot of that happened during Rolling Thunder days. Rolling Thunder's primary target was new players, and this was another element of that. Including Faction-X-helping cards in expansions that feature a Faction X Stronghold was a deliberate step taken to help insure that new players could field more competitive decks without needing to search out and buy loads of older cards. With new expansions coming out every month, the time any one clan would stay dominant would be lessened.