Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Here I Stand» Forums » General

Subject: 500th Anniversary Edition as a separate game entry on BGG? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I just noticed that a separate entry has been added for the Here I Stand (500th Anniversary Reprint Edition).

Should we get that extra game entry removed, and have the 500th Anniversary edition as a version of this (Here I Stand) game entry?

As the previous editions can be updated to the 500th Anniversary edition it creates an unusual circumstances where a 1st Edition game is being played as the vanilla original game, as a 2nd Edition, or as a 500th Anniversary edition.

Thoughts?
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Edwards
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
YA R'LYAH
badge
Phnglui mglw nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah nagl fhtagn! With cheeze!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I don't think it's a separate game.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Papsch
Belgium
Ixelles
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree - differences are relatively minor
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel K
United States
Minnetrista
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Absolutely needs to be removed as a separate game entry.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is made awkward as (according to the BGG rules) the Second 2010 Edition should have been a separate entry as it included the Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck.

as per rule

Quote:


I: A game is released that contains the base game and a previously released expansion

In the database is a game 1 and an expansion 1A. A new version 1' is published, which includes the base game and expansion 1A.

Result: A new game entry 1' is added, which contains 1 and 1A.


See When_to_make_a_new_entry

Yet, I agree that one game entry for all versions make sense especially as the version upgrade path is so comprehensive.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel K
United States
Minnetrista
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's probably plenty of room to quibble, but I would never consider the Two Player Diplomacy deck an expansion. To me an expansion is something that is additive to the core game. The diplomacy deck is just stuff to facilitate a streamlined and completely transformed mode of play. It also should not have gotten its own entry (and by extension, I would have vigorously opposed making the 2010 edition a separate game entry).

Having multiple places where valuable rulings and information end up spread out from each other--for what is ultimately thought of by the player community as one game--is very inconvenient. The BGG rules are too overwrought.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy del Rio
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that it should not be separate. I was surprised to see such.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ståle Mellesdal
Norway
Lillestrøm
Akershus
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I agree that neither the Diplomacy Deck nor any of the editions need a separate page. (Whether there's any way of consolidating the pages into the main game page I have no idea.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I have contacted one of the BGG admins via geekmail about the issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chester
United States
Temple
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JoelCFC25 wrote:
There's probably plenty of room to quibble, but I would never consider the Two Player Diplomacy deck an expansion. To me an expansion is something that is additive to the core game. The diplomacy deck is just stuff to facilitate a streamlined and completely transformed mode of play. It also should not have gotten its own entry (and by extension, I would have vigorously opposed making the 2010 edition a separate game entry).

Having multiple places where valuable rulings and information end up spread out from each other--for what is ultimately thought of by the player community as one game--is very inconvenient. The BGG rules are too overwrought.

There is utility to be able to independently track ownership and trade/sale markets for the Diplomacy deck. Who cares whether it’s technically an expansion. If you wanted to acquire/sell a copy, there was a clear place to look.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cornjob wrote:
JoelCFC25 wrote:
There's probably plenty of room to quibble, but I would never consider the Two Player Diplomacy deck an expansion. To me an expansion is something that is additive to the core game. The diplomacy deck is just stuff to facilitate a streamlined and completely transformed mode of play. It also should not have gotten its own entry (and by extension, I would have vigorously opposed making the 2010 edition a separate game entry).

Having multiple places where valuable rulings and information end up spread out from each other--for what is ultimately thought of by the player community as one game--is very inconvenient. The BGG rules are too overwrought.

There is utility to be able to independently track ownership and trade/sale markets for the Diplomacy deck. Who cares whether it’s technically an expansion. If you wanted to acquire/sell a copy, there was a clear place to look.

I agree that the diplomacy deck should have it's own listing but disagree with the cited rule stipulating new listings for games including an expansion originally available on it's own. There is utility in using the Version variable to collect differences between editions without the significant inefficiency, redundancy, and utility lost to multiple entries for the same game.

It would be a considerable inconvenience if every reprint with minor revisions or included expansions were separate listings. The deluxe reprinting of Sword of Rome included the fifth player expansion, formerly released independently, but is simply a version under one listing. Similarly, the 2013 English printing of Le Havre included the arguably minor Le Grand Hameau expansion, formerly released independently in other languages. Does it truly maximize user utility for this 2013 and every subsequent printing to be a distinct game listing? What of the Anniversary Edition (Jubiläumsedition) of Friedrich which introduced some minor revisions of the prior edition? Would BGG users really be best served by creating distinct listings?

In my humble opinion, more is to be gained by having all files and forums in one place. It is far easier and likely more accurate for users to select a game and add it into their collection, possibly opting to indicate a specific version, than for users to determine which version they own when adding the game to their collection.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is not really an expansion of the Here I Stand game, as the content does not add to the base game.

The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is a variant that allows two players to play part of the game that is meant for many more players.
AND
the Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck was included in 2010 printing. You could make an argument that the game entries for the 2006 and the 2010 editions should have split back in 2010. I would have argued against that as many people I know have never played the Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck variant. Scattering the threads over two seperate game entries would have been wrong then, and I agree it would be wrong now.

The BGG rules, on creating game entries, have evolved over time. They are good rules, but they are not perfect. These database rules are not able to deal with every permutation of how games, game expansions, and promos, add-ons, and variant can interact with each other.


Here is a fact. The game box may not be the same, yet my 2006 edition is functionally the same game as the 500th Anniversary edition released late in 2017.

I am glad that people agree with me. I believe it is the right thing to have one game entry for all printings of Here I Stand. This post, and the others here, are aimed at the BGG admin/s who are reviewing this issue.

Tim


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is not really an expansion of the Here I Stand game, as the content does not add to the base game.

The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is a variant that allows two players to play part of the game that is meant for many more players.
...
Here is a fact. The game box may not be the same, yet my 2006 edition is functionally the same game as the 500th Anniversary edition released late in 2017.

I agree with your overall conclusion but think quibbling about what constitutes an expansion is a secondary issue. Whether or not the diplomacy deck be considered an expansion or variant is irrelevant to the issue of whether the 500th anniversary edition should have its own listing as the prior reprint included this deck but wasn't given a new listing.

That being said, the diplomacy deck was originally a separate release of new content not available in the first printing of the base game, hence, a dedicated listing for that deck seems appropriate even if included with the base game in the future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Crestfallen wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:
The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is not really an expansion of the Here I Stand game, as the content does not add to the base game.

The Here I Stand: 2-Player Diplomacy Deck is a variant that allows two players to play part of the game that is meant for many more players.
...
Here is a fact. The game box may not be the same, yet my 2006 edition is functionally the same game as the 500th Anniversary edition released late in 2017.

I agree with your overall conclusion but think quibbling about what constitutes an expansion is a secondary issue. Whether or not the diplomacy deck be considered an expansion or variant is irrelevant to the issue of whether the 500th anniversary edition should have its own listing as the prior reprint included this deck but wasn't given a new listing.

That being said, the diplomacy deck was originally a separate release of new content not available in the first printing of the base game, hence, a dedicated listing for that deck seems appropriate even if included with the base game in the future.



I think the distinction between a variant and an expansion is relevant, in this case. I am also trying to present all the facts to allow the admins to make the correct decision that keeps all the Here I Stand versions in one game entry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Here is a fact. The game box may not be the same, yet my 2006 edition is functionally the same game as the 500th Anniversary edition released late in 2017.

I just discovered this thread; I respectfully but fundamentally disagree that it's even a fact.

oi_you_nutter wrote:
I have contacted one of the BGG admins via geekmail about the issue.
Quote:
I am glad that people agree with me. I believe it is the right thing to have one game entry for all printings of Here I Stand. This post, and the others here, are aimed at the BGG admin/s who are reviewing this issue.

Which admin did you contact? I would like to present a counterargument and make him/her aware that not all users are in favour of such a move.

The changes in the 500th anniversary edition make for ultimately different games in my books:

• 6 brand new cards added to the deck, including Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Rough Wooing, and Imperial Coronation.
• Revisions to over 15 existing cards including Copernicus, Master of Italy, and Machiavelli to allow for more exciting in-game play and additional possibilities for diplomatic deals.
• A new Chateau construction table is now used to resolve France's Patron of the Arts home card plays.
• Several Virgin Queen rule updates are incorporated back into Here I Stand, affecting minor power activation, piracy, space trading, and foreign wars.


Adding and revising cards—21 of 116 different cards compared to 110 in the second edition—in a card-driven game makes for a notable difference. I don't quite know how to quantify the impact of the new Chateau construction table nor of the Virgin Queen rules, but logic dictates that they are non-zero.

Crestfallen wrote:
In my humble opinion, more is to be gained by having all files and forums in one place. It is far easier and likely more accurate for users to select a game and add it into their collection, possibly opting to indicate a specific version, than for users to determine which version they own when adding the game to their collection.

Having "all files and forums in one place" is only useful if the games are the same, which is a the crux of the matter.

As for your argument based on utility, it should be noted that lumping the two games into one entry would obliterate users' ability to distinguish between the two for play logging purposes, for offering both trades and sales in the Geek Market, and for distinctly tracking the market history for the two games.

oi_you_nutter wrote:
I am also trying to present all the facts to allow the admins to make the correct decision that keeps all the Here I Stand versions in one game entry.

That's a fairly circular statement.

Users are welcome to dismiss the differences between the games if they wish to, but please don't force the inability to categorize and distinguish upon those of us who view the rule changes distinctions that make these separate games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
[This space is intentionally left empty]
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
B Factor wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Here is a fact. The game box may not be the same, yet my 2006 edition is functionally the same game as the 500th Anniversary edition released late in 2017.

I just discovered this thread; I respectfully but fundamentally disagree that it's even a fact.

oi_you_nutter wrote:
I have contacted one of the BGG admins via geekmail about the issue.
Quote:
I am glad that people agree with me. I believe it is the right thing to have one game entry for all printings of Here I Stand. This post, and the others here, are aimed at the BGG admin/s who are reviewing this issue.

Which admin did you contact? I would like to present a counterargument and make him/her aware that not all users are in favour of such a move.

The changes in the 500th anniversary edition make for ultimately different games in my books:

• 6 brand new cards added to the deck, including Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Rough Wooing, and Imperial Coronation.
• Revisions to over 15 existing cards including Copernicus, Master of Italy, and Machiavelli to allow for more exciting in-game play and additional possibilities for diplomatic deals.
• A new Chateau construction table is now used to resolve France's Patron of the Arts home card plays.
• Several Virgin Queen rule updates are incorporated back into Here I Stand, affecting minor power activation, piracy, space trading, and foreign wars.


Adding and revising cards—21 of 116 different cards compared to 110 in the second edition—in a card-driven game makes for a notable difference. I don't quite know how to quantify the impact of the new Chateau construction table nor of the Virgin Queen rules, but logic dictates that they are non-zero.

Crestfallen wrote:
In my humble opinion, more is to be gained by having all files and forums in one place. It is far easier and likely more accurate for users to select a game and add it into their collection, possibly opting to indicate a specific version, than for users to determine which version they own when adding the game to their collection.

Having "all files and forums in one place" is only useful if the games are the same, which is a the crux of the matter.

As for your argument based on utility, it should be noted that lumping the two games into one entry would obliterate users' ability to distinguish between the two for play logging purposes, for offering both trades and sales in the Geek Market, and for distinctly tracking the market history for the two games.

oi_you_nutter wrote:
I am also trying to present all the facts to allow the admins to make the correct decision that keeps all the Here I Stand versions in one game entry.

That's a fairly circular statement.

Users are welcome to dismiss the differences between the games if they wish to, but please don't force the inability to categorize and distinguish upon those of us who view the rule changes distinctions that make these separate games.
I lack knowledge regarding play logging and marketplace, but the current system allows for entering which version one owns. Does this not carry over into those aspects of bgg?

The cards and chateau table are the only aspects that I would consider relevant here, everything else might as well have been errata to the previous version which would cause an extreme amount of additional versions to many games (I don't want to know how many versions Phil Ecklund's games would need that way )
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.