With some choice bannings. Does anyone else agree with me here? I can't get a new player to stick because of all the jank garbage that was created. Now that new players aren't joining, old players are leaving.

No new players, and fleeting old players = NO PLAYERS.

This game really needs to be cleaned up, immediately. Does anyone else feel this way, or will this topic go the way of "no talking bad about the game" and get ignored?

There's a lot of jank that arguably has to go, but yes this topic will get shunned by most of the community because in the end it doesn't solve anything. While I empathize with ya there Trips, doing stuff like this only leads to the moderaters/friends of FFG wagging their fingers at you for saying the dreaded B word.

While this year is probably my last go-around, I don't really care for things to be banned. I just strive to beat the stupid jank that's out there, and give myself more credit if I do so.

If I were you and having trouble with new players sticking and old players leaving, I would be encouraging SW and SCIV only events. That way the new guys dont have to worry about getting or getting beat by $40/ea Spikes, etc. and everyone is on the same playing field right off.

Hi Trips,

I don't really agree. The problem with banning one card is that all of a sudden other cards that the said card countered end up becoming a bit more powerful = chain reaction.

The state we have are some really strong cards, all of which have answers (after set 12 I would say they all have answers and most symbols have access to them). All decks either need to a) run the strong cards, or b) run the answers to said strong cards to be competitive.

Is this a great state of game and would banning the great cards not lead to second best great cards becoming the most powerful followed by the need for more bannings. My answer, yes. The question is : where do you draw the line?

For instance, if you ban Bitter Rivals (which you have recently mentioned in another post), does not feline spike and every other 'strong' multiple/powerful card become the new overpowered thing and require a ban???

What we are looking at is a situation where bans cause more problems.

What everyone is complaining about is 'staples' or as I put it in my second paragraph, run or run answers to, or c), kill before either is necessary.

Unfortunately, there is always going to be that staple, or 'effecient card' ... it is actually impossible (assuming there is a meta and shared conscious among players) to avoid certain cards seeing more play and ending up being considered the most effecient.

A lot of people say Olcadon's needs the ban and even Spinta. These are both 'solution' cards as much as they are 'problem' cards. For instance, let's say I run deck that doesn't have an answer to nasty forms, i.e. a lot of them don't have answers to 'forms' except for skull which has a tendancy to go away after use... or, a lot of them don't have answers to 'responses', again, except for skull (there is also preventing the curse and charismatic, both are limited to darker symbols).

An example, what does life has as an answer to responses? Not a whole lot... Doesn't have Chester's to deal with foundation responses, Doesn't have Inhuman to deal with any response. I guess it does have kung-fu to deal with action responses - great? It arguably has Revanant's to commit extra copies of a response card or a free response card - great?

In this case, the only way life can combat nasty response cards in the staging area is to run Olcadon's and hope to get it out first and protect/push it through against things like Chester's etc... i.e Olcadon's becomes the reason other cards aren't OP and banworthy . Same thing with Spinta... How many times have we seen Spinta as the answer to nasty situations in the staging area? All the time. Spinta can lock down, yes. But it is also the answer to things in the staging area.

Your argument about new players is easy to answer. Unfortunately this game can only be played at the top level by players that know and devote a relatively large amount of time to the game. The player needs to know all of the common/efficient problems and answers for them, and needs to know to either run the problem or answer based on his character and strategy.

The learning curve in this game is steep is all, and, if new players are scared away by staple cards, it is becuase they have not invested the time required to determine the answer cards or equally problematic cards within their symbols.

If you agree with my statement (which I hope you do), the big question is how much do you dumb down a game to cater to new entrants vs. catering to the class of players that spends the time and money and demands an interesting and time consuming hobby?

Lots of questions, and yet I was trying to answer your question. If there is any middle ground, I would agree with you that a lot of the Sabertooth games sets and (PROMOS) are of the more powerful class of cards, and I hope to never see any more 'as powerful' cards released becuase that is the first step in many of what people are complaining about now.

- dut

ps, edit : as HDC has pointed out indirectly, the 'fun' thing about any card game is creating and overcoming. If there is nothing to overcome, nothing that is seen as the current strongest, then the game actually loses it's flavor and challenge. You could just toss a bunch of cards together (not have to think about your character's/symbol's strengths and weaknesses) and play... which wouldn't be fun, the thinking and solving/building is the fun part of the card game.

TripsEX said:

I can think of at least twelve cards that, for the good of the game, could be banned ASAP. A lot of people'd disagree but that'd be because they think of power level as opposed to streamlining and solving problems. Again, it's "could" and not "should". A card that should be banned or else? Don't know if that exists now. A card that could be banned and the game'd be better for it? Sure.

Worst part is? Two of them are my favorite cards in Block 3, but because of no functional, easy to look up errata, or an errata document, they should get the axe.

Honestly, just solving the promo disparity between playerbases and other logistic problems that have been plaguing this game from day one would do a whole lot. I liked the promotion of "send a deck of a game you don't play anymore and get a starter" - that was creative thinking and a great way to introduce new players. Or even better : "Show up get a starter." That one was great.

Once again, we're in May and all we have is promises that it's gonna be awesome later on. Reminds me of last year. And the year before last.

Don't scouts have the right to maintain a local banlist?

Not saying that's a panacea to the problem or anything, but it's definitely an option to get some data to back up your ideas :]

TripsEX said:

Agreed completely. I keep saying repeatedly, "UFS NEEDS a big banned list", and as always, I'm shot down for crying "ban".

Look at every regional report posted since Set 12.

This game officially sucks balls. Every top 8 consists of the exact same character repertoire (Alex, Ibuki, Chun Li, Akuma, Donovan, John Herr, Hanzo, Nagase, etc), and there are so many cards out right now that turns games into extremely lame gray wars, and the popular term "Evil vs Evil" has become always a profanity in the UFS realm.

UFS is an amazing game, and boy am I glad I wasn't competitive during the **Ibuki** Higher Calibur days, but holy crap, every single regionals has the exact same results.

Screw that dude, and let's start swingin that banhammer =)

dutpotd: I agree with your post for the most part, but I don't believe that keeping Olcadan's around will help the game. You have given me a lot to think about, but if you remove these problem cards, the other cards don't get any more stronger. I would image that they would be used even less because of the lack of those problem cards.

I am all for staple cards in particular decks, definately, but when the staple can be throw into EVERY deck with no punishment and no down side, then it's no fun. Building a deck and overcoming is great, but when you have to overcome the same exact cards constantly, then there is no creative side to either player. Player A inputs cards to protect and use, and Player B knows what to expect. You see a certain character, you know exactly what to expect because of the symbols.

Banning won't make the game terrible, especially if it's all these power cards, because look at the last round of bannings. Military Rank, Revitalize, Injury Assets, and Addes Syndicate; the game has been doing much better. Having those cards around didn't help the answer cards in the game, and when they were gone there wasn't some surge in anything to counter card draw or life gain.

It's really hard to play against cards that you don't have.

Wafflecopter: If I start banning locally, then what happens if players go to a different area and see something they're not used to, or just go to a different area to play? As a Scout I am supposed to help the game grow and thrive, and a local ban list does nothing but confuse players and weaken them.

MarcoPulleaux said:

1. that's still more variety than MOST other card games can boast

2. most regionals to date have been either pre set 12 or so soon after set 12's release that it hasn't had much impact yet beyond the occasional Hilde deck, give it time, or just look at the SCC results

3. lol

anyone from my playgroup can attest that I despise the Universal Foundation System this game became for a long time. I've nearly quit many, many times, and sold about $700 worth of cards a few months ago. but you know what?

I got top 8 with freakin' Astaroth. Go look at my list. Gray wars? Hah. I lost in the top 8 not to foundations but to an attack...

Tagrineth said:

Congratulations. Gotta admit, I wasn't sure what to make of Astaroth, but Hell I'm inspired.

Oh wait, it's too bad your Astaroth deck represents an extremely small minority of the top 8 popularity, both in style and in fact that you're the first (and maybe only) Astaroth to top 8.

Read my new article. I'm sure you're bound to disagree, but I'm still curious about your opinion about the thread's title.

That's not insulting at all, Shinji. Owait...

OP: I have to disagree. You say that people are fleeing, no new players.

Our group used to be six people. Then, with set 10, just after Worlds, we snagged one more - an employee of the store we played at.

At GCC, only six of us went.

Since then, we've gotten SEVEN new players.

Yes, one of them quit, and another one can't play due to lack of a job (no way to get to the store).

But methinks +6 and -1.5 isn't a game dying.

HolyDragonCloud said:

And also until you trade ma a *Donovan* and sign it.

MegaGeese said:

...um, it WASN'T insulting. Looking around, Astaroth has only topped 1 event thus far, and there's no promising that the aggro strategy Tag used is a reliable enough one when compared to the others.

I'm saying that a lot of characters consistantly place well. Just facts dude.

The same characters place consistently well because they're good decks with good characters being piloted by good players.

There is one card that needs to leave the environment and one card that needs errata. The game is fine otherwise.

I'm honestly sick of most of you preferring to complain instead of LEARNING TO FREAKING PLAY THE ENVIRONMENT. Jesus christ, it's not that hard to metagame this environment, and your failure to do so is on your shoulders, not the developers.

There are so many obligatory staples in this game that you can predict 75% of the field from 2 miles away. Bring the necessary procedures and prepare for rough times, because competitive environments aren't supposed to be cakewalks where the winner is decided on who gives the best hugs.

My opponent in the final match at California regionals (Smazzurco) was piloting Evil Jon Herr with all the tasty little tools he can roll out. Straight cheese, no doubt about it. Yet those games were arguably the most enjoyable games I've ever had because I didn't complain. I sat down, shut up, and learned how Good/Fire hybrids can dance around Evil control.

You people complaining about the environment are belittling everybody who enjoys the challenge of competition. Everybody who's top 8'd by fighting to be there. You belittle every man who has their face on a champion card. They chose to sit down and learn to play the environment, and look what that got them.

I have to say, I gotta agree with Archimedes on this, I do think it's very belittling, as he said, as it is irritating, because there are people who try very very hard to overcome the meta by playing something slightly different to everyone else, and sometimes, it does work.

I'll be the first person to say that there are cards that could do with errata or leaving the environment, but I'll always always say that if it DOESN'T, I'll live happily with it still being there. At the end of the day, its a game, and should be treated as thus. Don't go to tournaments if you feel that strongly about it, as you'll only end up upsetting yourselves and others.

I'm interested to know Arch, what are the two cards you see as being viable for ban/errata? I'm pretty sure everyone knows the two cards I think could do with it.

Id personally like to see two cards go to improve game balance overall and to help out tournament play.

Rejection And Olcs.

Rejection because it's powerlevel is skyrocket high over every card like it, remember when they banned the injury assets? Rejection was better then them when they were legal, and is still better then them now. It made for a incosistant powerlevel banning, without it, evil has to play by the rules a little bit mroe early game and actually block attacks and worry about chip damage, with it, you cannot chip damage a evil deck, you either take then down in one huge turn, or you do not take them down at all.

Olcs is a funnier one, I think olcs powerlevel is ridiculous, but that is offset by its accessibility to everyone(not neccessarily a good thing) The main problem I have with it is a point made by Jon Herr a milllllion years ago. The card literally just EATS up time in tournament play, it just ******* devours clock, time spent playing is replaced by time spent resolving olcs and taking the time to make the right play with it, I bet right now they typical worlds/nats match involving two fairly evenly matched decks spends 10 minutes or more of their hour just resolving olcladans, not a good thing to me.

With that being said. I dont think either card HAS to leave the enviroment, I just think the enviroment would be better if they did. There is a group of other cards the game would also be better off without (chinese boxing is a big one, Bitter Rivals is another and there is a few more) because they are counterproductive to the ultimate goal of getting people to attack over turns more frequently. The problem being when you remove these cards, you hurt or cripple their respective symbol to a extent so if you take one, you need to get them all.

I think the game is in a "okay" spot right now, Evil once again sits on it's stupid throne, but air and order can both compete, and many other symbols can accel in proper(but specific) builds. I'd like to see more of those symbols step up in effectiveness, but within the block Idon't think they will, the problem is powerlevel of the new cards coming down is a creep downward, so the symbols that started good are likely to stay the best of the bunch until all of their old tricks have rotated and we have a solid hata-created enviroment.

failed2k said:

This is right on the money, people need patience. And people should be patient given the direction the last set has given us. I understand that everyone wants 'quick-fix' right away, but sometimes a band-aid solution just causes more problems if applied incorrectly.

If I was to say 'ban' said card, it would be rejection - maybe olcadon's (note : I only play with 1 or 2 in a deck now, it isn't 'needed' for me to win, and frankly, I hate playing with more than 7 or 8 assets... of course it does help when the opponent doesn't have answers, and even if they do they waste resources to answer the owl - I get it, good in all situations = to good... = EVIL, all puns intended)

Rejection and the goregeous team need to go, or 1 at the very least. I am sorry, but a game that gives a HUGE defensive (and offesnive if used right) advantage to 'female' characters, i.e. gives Chun-li/Ibuki/Nako/Tira 'significantly more powerful' characters is simply sexist. Yes, I am a fan of all of those chicks (bar one) but no, I don't want to sit across from them and know that they have a HUGE advantage becuase of their sex and relative appeal to fans...

note that if you ban bitter rivals, you need to ban rejection and spike or water is deadly beyond belief...

- dut

If we can actually get the game running again around here, I very much plan on a local banlist because most of the players would be just starting or just coming back and probably wouldn't want to go to any majors until next rotation anyway. And it's much better to take that risk than it is not to - the issues with having a list can't come up unless people get pretty solidly into the game, (i.e. want to travel for it) whereas the dangers of not having a list show up as soon as someone puts Bitter Rivals or Battle Prowess into a deck and NPEs every other newer player there causing them all to quit. They're not going to have collections big enough to have access to 4x every possible answer, and even if they did nobody wants to hear "you have to play an answer to this card that obviously should never have been made in every single deck you build" - what casually interested player would want to play a game like that when they can just stick to Magic? So, local banlist it is, assuming they agree to it of course. Looking at doing <BRT, BR, Olc, Rejection, LOTM, Spike, Ways of Punishment, Battle Prowess>.

So far as general bans on these cards, I don't think they can. Even if it seems pretty clear the game would probably be better off without such blatantly overpowered cards, they can't ban things simply because the game would be better off without them. It's too subjective, and once you ban one set of cards there'll be some other group of cards people want to go because they feel it would make the game "better." It's just too slippery a slope, no matter how much the aforementioned batch stands out from the rest in terms of power level. As such, they have to reserve the banhammer for only situations where certain cards dominate the top-level metagame with such a steel grip that they clearly have to go for the health of the environment.

Tag, you were so nice to mention Hilde She didn't do well for me though; then again in every game I ever played with her I got this overwhelming sensation of seeing cards that stop me cold turn 1 lol

I'll agree on one thing; something needs to be banned. Not stating what, though; a banning promotes a meta shift and prevents the game from becoming stale.

Last cards to be banned were Addes, Revitalize, Military Rank (read both cards before this one), Broken Arm, Bleeding Internally and... I think that's it.

Addes Syndicate was simply too easy to play and use, and created some rather nasty interactions with things like The Curse Broken and Donovan. Revitalize made it so games would not end, especially (but not necessarily) if your name is Seong Mi-na. Broken Arm and Bleeding Internally did something ELSE bad for the game; discouraged Powerful kills and aggro decks in general, especially if your name is Donovan or Strife, or Victor... or have a Cathedral Overlook out... And last but not least, Rank can pull all of those problem cards back, and promotes a lot of problems with block cards (and thus it was probably too hard to give good cards blocks, which made the game design hurt a bit).

You can argue that bannings will make it so that the cards they counter become more powerful, and that's true. If Olcadan's is banned, however, FOUNDATIONS (which are a card type in the game, BTW) will have a point. Not every deck should run a 0/6 with a +0L block that blows up a foundation every turn; it makes it so that if any deck whatsoever relies on their foundation base to win, they are at a disadvantage, barring Air/Earth/Fire/Chaos/Good/Evil.

Sure, I'd love nothing more than to counter The Gorgeous Team in my Good deck, but you shouldn't EVER have access to destruction for every symbol. It makes the game lose flavor and become stale, as everyone will be running Olcadan's and anti-Olcadan's so 8 cards or so in every deck are the same. Add to that a few Lynette's Shops (which I have no problem with, just making a point), and you have 12 identical cards in every deck. We're talking 1/5th of a deck.

Sure, you can say that Chesters makes foundations useless, but it is a lot more manageable than permanently losing it without a cost. If Olcadan's destroyed itself, SURE, I'd have no problem with it.

Ira-Spinta... well, to be quite honest I don't see a problem with it outside of Seong Mi-na (maybe Chun-Li). Then again because Order has so much CC hack (Forethought is a card I have issues with, so is BRT), suddenly you find yourself being locked out of a game. Way to keep the environment refreshing.

I agree with the OP, the game needs bannings. What those cards are, I'll leave that to FFG. I can't really say "ban Olcadan's, Ira-Spinta, Rejection, The Gorgeous Team, Seong Mi-na, Chun-Li, Blood Runs True, etc.", which I do feel like saying because they change the way the game plays, but because my meta =/= everyone else's metas, there's no way for me to give a globally informed decision. Thus, I will not even state those cards I find to be a problem. This is FFG's part; they should read through decklists that won tournaments and tournament reports, like they did when Addes et al were banned, and make an informed decision.

But I remember the day Addes/Revitalize/Injuries/Rank were banned... there was much rejoicing. Because it needed to be done.

Not saying ban 17 more cards, just analyzing the current environment everywhere should be a good indicator.

There is only one card in the whole game right now that if it were to disappear I would not shed a single tear for it, and no one has even mentioned it. Which really does make me think people are saying ban x,y, and z not because it deserves a ban, but because they are just sick of the card. There is a very big difference between a card being broken or ban worthy or a card just being way to prominent, often times because most everything else on the symbol is crap.

As a brand new player to the game... I honestly feel very overwhelmed. I look around and all the best cards are these promo cards I have no way of getting without going broke lol. I do not like to lose, so i try to obtain top tier cards to stay compettitive. Now normally I can come up with some tech to guard myself but with a lack of a library its tough. I am going to stick with getting things from the recent sets and maybe play casually a bit and wait till older stuff rolls out that I cannot find. It is a bit scary though.

I really dont think the game is dying we have a 10 player base which ever since set 9 came out we haven't seen . I mean I got someone hooked who never played before and now he loves it more then his old CCG's Naruto and Yugioh. Not to mention most of the older players who quit came back . But I agree if you want to entice new players do some set 12 exclusive tournaments. Not only will you get some new players but you will probally boost sales as well.

I've given many reasons as to why I feel Olcadans should be banned, the biggest ones being that people can't run foundations solely for their check anymore like Promo Adon used to, (could you imagine anyone running Loving Devotion now?) and Water gets shut off completely by it, which isn't nice.

I only feel Rejection or possibly Feline Spike could do with errata.

With Feline Spike being made Felicia Multiple 2, it opens up the game to play various different attacks instead of just that, similarly to how CSS was overplayed. As I've stated before, the only reason Feline Spike is broken isn't because of the card itself, it's because of the characters who can run it. 7/8HS characters shouldn't be able to run it, and by restricting it to Felicia, it both weakens characters like Chun-Li, and strengthens her,opening diversity up a bit. Feline Spike would only be able to be run with a potent 6HS character, or a very underplayed 7HS character, which wouldn' stop people from playing the card, only allow people to play Felicia more freely and stop relying on it with the speedier characters. It upsets the balance between speed and power, quite simply.

Rejection is a slightly different and more difficult story than Feline Spike, as the game tries to promote attacking over more than one turn rather than one-shot kills, which Rejection discourages. However the problem, again, lies not in Rejection itself, but the ability to play it again and again and again. through means such as Hybrid Style, The Gorgeous Team and Defender. This is why I feel Rejection should have its text changed to "E Remove this card from the game: Reduce this attacks damage to 1. Gain 3 Vitality". Kung Fu Training and Tag Along deal with this cost and are played very regularly, so this added cost would not change the cards playability at all, but it would change the ability to keep buggering about grabbing it back rendering your opponents entire attack strings useless.

I always wonder why people feel bannings are such a bad thing. It changes the state of the game quite alot and keeps things fresh. Yes, people will end up having spent money on a card they no longer use, but rotation is no different, why is banning/errata?

Viewtiful_Joe said:

I know one of them is Lord of the Makai because he talked about it after Desert Wars.