please don't post such blatant lies in the forums. that is just not a fact, there are plenty of deserving individuals that have been and keep being passed over for that statement to hold any credibility.

thats how it has worked for five years.... yeah, you mean that is how it has GOTTEN by for the past 5 years.
once again, your "direction" is so vague that there is actually no goal. it is not concrete enough to have a how are you getting there? what steps are you taking to make sure it is realized, etc. it is just a blanket statement, almost like it was written by a P.R. firm lol.

The design team rotates with one new individual each set. Old designers return. 4 in a set.
The new spot was given to jake for playtesting, to laura by open invitation for vote, tj is designing because of contributions to proofing, rule work and admin, brad designs because of his rule work.

There is a new guy each set but it's a massive list. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen when it happens every set.

I've worked (very) heavily on 6 consecutive sets (the 7th is in progress) and I wouldn't expect to get on as a designer over other applicants, without completing the application process with a strong entry.

That, or sending $500 in unmarked small bills to Bill, delivered to his door by a singing French maid.

Until the actual application process started for set 10, the previous new designers after set 2 had all been involved heavily from set 1 on.

New designers from set 3 on are
Daniel, Jason, David, Les, Brad, Scott, Trevor, Lou, Tim, Jake K

All of those people were very heavily involved in the first two sets with lots of playtesting and other contributions.

hmmm.... What other talents does this singing french maid have?... Just out of pure curiosity... Oh, could you possibly PM me her number?

In an attempt to pick the conversation up. For the most part I agree!! I think some of the smaller NPE's, such as lockouts and mice walls, will have to be left in order to address much bigger NPE's, poggle, naboo(I pray) and the like.

I thought you brought up compelling points, and ones that are appropriate for this thread because the whole conversation is on topic regarding what we should errata. The conversation only devolves when somebody insults and dismisses an argument out of hand. If you don't think that players not knowing about errata is a problem, I would hope you would make an argument that addresses the evidence that I have that it would be a problem (unique Bloomilk users, number of printed sets sent out, anecdotal evidence about people printing their own cards) rather than just say "no that's a weak argument".

It IS the responsibility of the design team to consider EVERY player, not just the players here on Bloo. If errata makes the game better for 10 people but worse for 25, it would be irresponsible and damaging to do the errata. With that in mind, before we make errata, we need to analyze how many people errata would help and how many it would hurt. Actual data is important, not just feelings or hunches about it.

There are over a hundred people that visit Bloomilk fairly regularly that haven't even seen this thread. There are over a hundred people that get printed v-sets that aren't represented in this thread. These statements are very strongly supported by factual evidence. These aren't numbers I made up, they are facts.

With that in mind, I feel that it's safe to say that many players would not see or get the errata. This happens in a lot of games. This is the part of my argument that is more intuitive, but I think it follows Occam'a Razor pretty well, and that we should err on the safe side and assume that it's true. I believe that assuming it's true and benign wrong does less damage than assuming it's false and being wrong.

As to your main complaint, I think that if we errata many pieces, it will happen very quickly that pieces work with the errata and ONLY with the errata. In that case, I think it is very foolish to say "well they can just house rule it". Players should never ever be forced to play with house rules, and that's the position you would be putting these people in. I sure wouldn't play a game like that.

We don't have a good system to communicate errata to casual players. That's another fact. This shouldn't be brushed off as just no big deal, it should at least be considered. That's what I'm saying. Like I said before, I supported the CDO ban. If you take this as me saying "we should never ban or errata pieces", you are misunderstanding my post.

I've never said anything like that, and disagree strongly with those sentiments. I speak only for myself and how I think things should be

If they've already printed sets, adding errata to the PDF doesn't help.

I think Echo makes a good point. As a summary, I think he's saying this:

-The purpose of Errata is to fix or help fix the un-good elements of the game.
-That's because we want the game to be as enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. [There's our mission statement!]
-Some (perhaps many) SWM players are not regulars here on BM or elsewhere, and so there's a good chance they will miss the errata, and suffer unintended bad consequences as a result.
-Therefore we should not errata too quickly or too often.

I think that's a pretty close summary of what he's been saying.

In the end, any discussion of errata comes down to our desire to make the game as fun as possible for as many people as possible. I've said it before: We'll never be able to please everybody! But with that awareness, we still want to please as many as we can. If people are leaving the game because some elements of it are blatantly un-fun (ie, broken or massively screwed up), then we've got a problem...Errata to the rescue!


Having said that, I do think there are good ways to disseminate any (yes, ANY) errata or changes that we have to make:

--Whenever new sets of V-Sets are mailed out and new erratas have been made, include a written summary of the changes and explanation for them; tape, glue, or otherwise affix this written summary to each pack of cards that goes out. On that summary be sure to include a website reference which points people to a thread, which will be stickied at the top of the BM General forum. This thread--called "Collection of All Official SWM Errata to Date" or something like that--will list each of the erratas that we make as a community, along with the dates when these erratas were made and the reasoning behind them. In general, anybody who can find the General forum on BM will have a super-easy time finding all the errata for the game.
-- ^^Heck, we can even put my email address on this piece of paper, telling people that they can email me if they have any questions about the errata. :) The purpose here is to give people an easy contact if they have questions about the errata.
--Some people print their own V-Set cards from a PDF; no problem. Any PDF we publish which contains errata cards will also contain a section which explains the errata and how people should treat X piece going forward. It should also explain that future designers will take this new statblock into account, rather than the replaced one, when making new pieces.

Maybe there are more steps we can take, but each of these steps is a very easy and very user-friendly method of disseminating errata information. I mention this because I think that yes, we DO have the freedom to make ANY errata that we think needs to be made for the health of the game. In other words, I do not think that the "non-BM-ers" should be a road-block (or even a speed bump!) to us making errata, because it is not difficult to disseminate the information to them.

And therefore, our discussion of future errata can keep the focus where it needs to be: on the health of the game and the good of the community.