First of all,
I've read all of the sound off in the official STOG thread, there are a lot of individuals who know enough to understand the bannings will have a positive impact on the game. i.e. I trust you will not consider this post ill-informed or one that ignores whate everyone else has said before. And of course, what I am elaborating on has been said by many before, but here it is plain and simple.
All 3 cards had two things in common:
a) they were all promos - relatively hard to obtain
b) they all had 6 checks!
I'm not going to address a) any more than this in this thread, becuase it has been addressed elsewhere extensively. Namely, it is good that certain cards that can no longer be obtained easily are gone, at least w/ respect to attracting new players. Yes, this spits on older players who worked hard to get their copies (I have 8 copies or more of all of the cards banned - so I cannot be said to not understand this sentiment), but this is a necessary evil and existing players need to make sacrifices for newer ones. Whether it be lending cards to newbies, countless hours teaching the game and sharing knowledge, or bending over for bans that impact cards that we have more or less exclusively, the leaders (old players of UFS) need to make this sacrifice.
So, on to b) . The #1 reason in my mind as to why no one can complain, or say - why was this banned? All 3 of these cards flew in the face of the prime mechanic of UFS and fighters in genearl, namely - for great reward comes great risk . How this is managed in UFS is the difficulty and check system.
An assumption before I go any further. I think we can all agree that the 3 cards banned had - game-winning effects? Otherwise, why would we care if they are gone, or rather, why would we use them in the first place as often as we do. I can say that a lot of my decks (especially an ALL or AIR deck) lose 8-12 cards out of their standard decklist with these bannings, so yes, they are heavily used.
Now, game-winning effect cards should probably have a difficulty to get onto the field. I would argue that only Chester's had a dificulty that stopped it from being spammed or at least played on the first turn.
More importantly, game-winning effect cards should add an element of risk to your game in order to use. All three of the cards have 6 checks. Why are good effects on 6 check cards? They shouldn't be... At least, if you consider the mechanic that makes UFS work, risk-reward, they shouldn't. That makes all of these cards auto-includes , and damages deck building. One of the best ways to build a deck is to go through noting the 'cost' and 'benefit' of each card in your deck with relation to your win condition and what you are trying to accomplish. In all three of these cards cases there is little or NO cost to running them in a deck, except for a) opportunity cost = other better card in deck, and b) one is an asset and therefore doesn't help pass other cards as a second use (keep in mind this asset has a ZERO difficulty and infinity symbol and isn't really played in place of a foundation).
Let's look at other cards with 6 checks on them shall we (I am only looking at ones that see play on a regular basis, I can assume the others, if they had great abilities, would see more play, that assumption is possibly flawed, but probably not that flawed)... And see if they have great abilities. Left in the meta are:
Valerias - ok, this is still pretty good, but has a 3 difficulty and is an asset, good, not game-winning in as many cases as the 3 that were banned
Lynettes - hit or miss, but usually hit. Same as above, has a cost to pass/play (can't be played first turn) and is not 100% consistent in helping win a game.
Bringing the Master to His Knees/End it All - pretty great card. The former has a 4 difficulty and is an action, the latter has a severe cost (discard 2 cards and destroy) both are also first form. The effect, however, can back fire as it likely impacts your staging area and your opponents and for your opponent's turn as well. It requires careful deck building and then careful timing to make it work as a game-winning card.
Blinding Rage/Makai High Noble - great effect when triggered, but otherwise useless. Does not win games, as it is not an offensive card, doesn't negate or push anything through. Is generally a good card, but has a situational effect.
Committment to Excellence - decent effect. But the effect is not game-winning and has a restriction, namely the 3+ damage pump on an attack that already has 5 or less damage. This is a good card, but isn't staple becuase it relies the deck builder to utilize little attacks so that the pump can work. As it defines the type of deck that needs to be played, small attacks with damage pump, it is not in the same class as the three that were banned.
Soul of Shoe - very decent effect harboring on staple, but does not win games any more than a vast number of cards or strategies that lend themselves to one more foundation being out at a given time.
In conclusion:
What the bannings have done is taken away all of the 6 check cards with 'staple-like' abilities that have little to no cost to play. This reinstates the risk-reward version of UFS, and in my mind is a very good thing. I hope anyone that is struggling to understand the bannings at least considers this method of thought.
- dut
ps. direction of the game. How many 6 checks do you see in block 4 atm? set 12 had... character cards?