Antigoth said:

I agree, needs more 6 checks so I can write another forum topic about 'why these cards were banned' and where the game is going... (obviously sarcasm). There are some +2 block foundations, fire actually has a couple off the top of my head - The 'whatever' team (Paul's support) is +2 low, and one of Zi Mei's foundations is +2 high.

There are a boatload of +2 mid blocks on assets.

The biggest thing 6 check foundations would do is 'enable' more shenanigans early, giving certain symbols the ability to 'play' more agressive cards earlier...

I think that with character stacking, i.e characters that still have 6 checks but with difficulties in the 3-5 range, we will see a lot of decks get this big attack early advantage. Jin in particular is a character that has a super easy time playing agressively, i.e. checking 6s (from +'s or from stackers in his deck).

I think we are fine on both of these fronts.

I'm also wondering what 'abilities' that work on both players turns is referencing. Do you find there is an abundance of 'my turn only' abilities? I guess with a lot of damage pump around we are looking at cards that are very one-turn only in nature... But, if you elaborate it would be helpful.

- dut

Dut - Totally agreed. I mean I'm currently running a bunch of +0 mid block 6 checks, and It's impressive what you can do with those.

Characters can NOT be the only 6 checks, that is bullocks. Astrid, Jin, and Kazuya, are currently the only ones who REALLY wanna run chars. Otherwise, a char's ONLY purpose is to block and be used as a 6 check. I'm sorry, but I'd like my 6 checks to...iuno, do stuff? Be able to be played on my turn? Even if they made a 0/6 foundation with no effect, I'd likely still run it due to it being a foundation. It isn't that 6 checks ruined UFS, it's that the cards they were on (Olcadan's, Makai, Chester's) were all just broken IN GENERAL.

Abilities that work on the opponent's turn in truly ANY meaning of the word. I realize they're trying to make this game more attack-oriented, meaning abilities played on the user's turn (unless on Reversals, which there aren't enough in the current game anyways).

However, I'd like this game to be more than just turn 2-3 aggro, which is what UFS in block 1 was because aggro got so much but other symbols got so little. I'd like for there to actually be...responses? Twists? Crazy interactions that make each attack that much more dramatic.

At the current moment, there's no drama, unless you're against the more "control-oriented" chars Rasho and Lu Chen. Although Feline Spike was broke, I remember days of my opponent having no hand, but still being able to Tira's Contact the copies and live. I also remember the days of Finesse, THE drama card.

Stuff like that. There simply are not enough things that go on during the opposite player's turn. Not necessarily the borefest of Lu Chen + Block + R with a million Know When to Talk.

I mean more surprises (Perfect Memory is a shining example of a surprise).

MarcoPulleaux said:

Ok... The 6 check discussion aside, becuase we obviously disagree - I think only select characters should easily be able to run 6 checks, not every character and every symbol... 6 checks = agression, not every character is agressive.

There are plenty of your opponent's turns cards, and I'd argue that Tekken has given us quite a few more... Almost every character in Tekken got one.

King's damage redux action - surprise! Nina's Cold and Indifferent - surprise! Paul's damage redux action - surprise! Kazuya's enhance negation attack card - not as much of a surprise!

The interesting part about what you are saying is a) needs more action cards (truly these are the only 'surprise items'), b) I don't want draw it is ban-worthy, c) there are a lot of 6 handsize characters that can't feasibly run 'many' actions or even 'many' assets without risking early hands with nothing to do...

I kind of get what you mean, but I'd urge you to build other decks and other symbols (fire and earth are big right now and neither have finesse or great control elements by nature), there is a lot of 'on your opponent's turn' junk out there... maybe it is just your meta?

- dut

6 check doesn't NECESSARILY mean aggression. Yes, it did during the days of Adon Aggro, but a character like Adon won't exist again (at least, its limited to the form of Astrid), and what's more, 6 check merely means passing things. I'd really like to know the maximum check of my deck isn't just a 5. Once again, in a non-Astrid/Jin/Kazy deck, I'd like to run 6 checks THAT ARE PLAYABLE ON MY TURN, and are not solely to be used as a block. I like cards that are flexible, and all these non-block foundations and +3 block foundations (a block that can only block once a turn, 2 during late-game) just isn't the type of flexibility I'm used to (unless it's something like Iron Body Technique, which might as well be Yi Shan-only).

I'm not talking about more actions, I'm talking about more ANYTHING that works on the opponent's turn. Responses, primarily, but after playing countless games of my Life Yi Shan with my friend piloting my Fire James Hata/Hilde, enhance phases are almost entirely one-sided (even for Yi Shan). It's the attacking player's enhance step, and the opponent just cries "I wish there were abilities that worked on the opponent's turn." While I realize it simulates a fighting game in that it is, so far, an exchange of attacks, um, this is a CARD game, not a fighting game, and I happen to like mechanics that don't necessarily involve attacks.

I understand you're trying to be positive, but there ISN'T a lot of "works during your opponent's turn" cards, hence why I even complained about it in the first place.

Also, no need for the low blows, dude. I never mentioned draw anywhere in my post, and if you read my posts, you'll see I'm FINE with draw (Relentless and Jimmy Kimmel represent the EXTENT of what draw SHOULD be), just not otherwise free, costless, themeless draw. Relentless has a theme, in that it involves weapons to work. Kimmel is a unique asset that requires an attack to deal damage.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Wasn't meant to be a low blow, no need to be so paranoid, I mentioned it was interesting me and was just me commenting and trying to get to the bottom of the way your mind works, or at least what's in there. In mine is this thing that says surprise cards, namely actions, require a 7hs, splits , or draw. My only problem is that kimmel and relentless are very theme-specific, and in order to up the non-attack/foundation counts and hand-holders you necessarily need draw, 1 card here, 1 card there, to be a bit more prevalent. That is all.

I can't really id a drop in my vs. your turn abilities relative to prior blocks of cards, but maybe I just play different characters or something.

More flexibility is a good thing and a bad thing, part of balancing a game is forcing players to make choices. I do think there could be a bit more flexiblity without ruining balance, but at the same time I'm finding it pretty easy to find multiple uses for many foundations/attacks/dare-i-say assets.

- dut

Choices that will exist one day, but with such an early game, do not just yet.

Since this game is attack-oriented, it's hard to justify running stuff like Backhanded Axe Slash and Bear Fang. However, should they make 0/6 non-effect, 1/5 +1-MID foundations non-effect, etc etc, they WILL see play, I assure you, due to the fact that foundations aren't really as important as they used to be; attacks are where it's at!

Actions are definitely a surprise, and you don't need a 7 HS to use them. I just mean more responses, more abilities that work during the opponent's turn, etc.

Cba to read entire thread.

Game needs more late block 1/early block 2, and mid block 3 mentality.

More variety in cards, period. More potential deck strategies for people willing to work for it, not just "look, you're gonna run more attacks because we said so". Nothing wrong with reasonable ability to do anything, like vitality burn, mill, etc.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Excessive flexibility in foundations was the cancer that nearly KILLED THIS GAME.

*yawn* moar "sky is falling" unthinking rhetoric.

Also, note how you said EXCESSIVE, something I don't condone either. I've already stated how I'd like to see 0/6 foundations that have no effects, and likely no blocks, that way they seriously must have a niche.

People who remember the days of Makai-Chester-Olcadan's overlook the fact that it was their EFFECTS that destroyed the game and got them banned. Had they been 5 checks, they STILL would have seen the absolute most play they already did.

MegaGeese said:

No to anything Block 3.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I read the thread. I don't remember you saying that. You said you wanted your six checks to do something. If you jsut want six checks you can play as many character cards as you like in your deck. I play Rashotep and Siegfried. Having extra character cards is great because I have 6 checks 0 mid blocks and for Rashotep the ability to blank more stuff from character stacking. I think that characters like Nina benifit more from character stacking. Being able to fish more and more cards out of your oppenents deck would be awesome.

The problem I see with putting more 6 checks in is that aggro and not control will be unstoppable. Lets look closely. People main way of hard control is foundation commital. If you get locked down after your first or second attack you are going to have a tough time passing checks. If you play your harder difficulity cards first then a 6 check will allow you to play a 4 difficulity or less card on your 3rd attack without commiting foundations. Now if you are playing a person that doesn't have a lot of hard control then 6 checks create a situation were the person can string out more attacks and foundations in their turn. Add in a player who has any type of card draw or large handsize then the situation becomes more abusive. The 5 check is good because it forces the player to tap foundations for big attacks. Even with cc hax you still have to tap something to get that monster attack off.

Even if you create a 0/6 card that does nothing I would still have problems with it because it is weak costed for what it does. If played as a foundation you have an almost auto guranteed foundation any turn you play it from hand. Any card in the future that gets bonuses from the control check of a foundation will make the card abusable.

The game is moving in a good direction from control being reusable and constant to it being situational and played when needed. By keeping heavy control on attacks and cards that self destruct it gives players single turn openings to take advantage of instead of creating uphill battles that can't be won by the other player.

darklogos said:

Stacking another copy of the same character, while possible, doesn't grant you additional uses of their abilities. You only get abilities from different characters added to your staging area.

Also, as a note, before Loving Devotion came out (0/6 blockless foundation in set 2, had all/fire/life, e commit: your attack gets +1 speed), STG was actually worried that the card would empower aggro a little too much since they would effectively be guaranteed that one extra foundation and that one extra 6 check when needed from the same card slot.

While I don't quite agree with the reasoning that a 0/6 with no block on its own is overpowered, there's no denying that even back then, the card was an absolute unquestionable auto-include if you were playing one of those three resources. The only excuse for not running Loving Devotion was not OWNING them.

While we are seeing better-statted, highly situational cards in Tekken - a trend which may continue in the future - I'm not sure this game is ready for "useful" 6cc cards yet. We'll have to see how the format develops and how well the balance between aggression and control is maintained.

...what is it with you people and your doomsday theories? I remember a day when we had Loving Devotion, Strength and Beauty, Business Associate, etc, and they didn't affect the game, like, at all. Sure, there was a point in time where an Earth player's entire foundation base could be 6 checks, but that didn't matter. Why? Because cards actually need effects to be played, hence why none of the blank cards have really seen much play (Cleave has its niche, and I wouldn't call Crushing Embrace blank because it's a Throw =D).

6 is only one above a 5, guys. I like how we have so many 5s, nobody complains, but go up even once in any way, OMFGNOOOOO! THAT ONE JUST MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE! AGGRO REIGNS SUPREME!

Reality check: Aggro DOES reign supreme! I think most people would unanimously agree the top 3 characters are Astrid, Hilde, and Steve/Paul/Jin/Rashotep/King. Basically, ALL of those characters put up a MEAN aggro game. Yeah, we have some "control" characters like Nightmare, Daiyu, Kazuya, Cervantes, Nina, and to a lesser extent Algol, but I sincerely doubt any of them will be in the TOP tier, hence why I've said repeatedly this game needs more cards and effects that work during the opponent's turn.

Fire and Death are dependably capable of turn 2 kills, with Earth being able to as well in some cases. It reminds me of UFS before the cycle, back when my friends and I all unanimously agreed that this game needs to have T4 kills be the norm, T3 being lucky or in certain niche decks. Now...this game pretty much IS that game...

...but with easy peasy aggro in the forms of Ragnar and Astaroth's support, next to no control in this game (WHERE ARE YOU SPIRITUAL CENTER?! T_T), and such overpowered cards as Knight Breaker (undercosted like whoa), Midnight Launcher (same speed as Lightning Uppercut, yet 1 less difficulty AND off-zone), Path of the Master (can potentially turn anything into a kill, even Ensnaring Sleeve Attack), this game really only has niche'd defense (Lu Chen and Yi Shan's support really only work with their respective characters).

6 checks because we don't really have any CCbonuses for blocking (Evil E Commit on CWTA, like anybody'd ever use that, some of Cervy's support I THINK), ways to lower block modifiers, speed, etc. 6 checks would serve as I "at least I know I have more than 5s in my deck."

Once again, when it comes to running chars, unless you're Astrid/Kazuya/Jin, characters have no function during YOUR turn, which is why I don't give too much a crap about them. They rot in the hand, and unless you're using stuff like Frantic Search, Controller of Souls, etc, they wait to fulfill their job as a block, and failed to fulfill their role as a 6 check (if they're in your hand). Furthermore, how many characters are you really going to run in a deck? With 6 check foundations, you can actually DEPEND a bit more on checking 6s, as opposed to chars, where you're likely to run 2-4, if at all, meaning your chances of checking 6s at all is pretty non-existent.

If I said "I want 0/6s that do something", I mean that I want it to be playable, in that if it doesn't fulfill its role of being checked, it DOES fulfill its role of being a +1 to my staging area for committing later on. And it doesn't even have to be 0 difficulty, I just remember the days of OMFGLOVINGDEVOTION MOST BROKEN CARD EVER MADE! I REMEMBER HOW ADON PACKED 4 OF THOSE SUCKERS! IT WAS A NIGHTMARE!

Even if it was a 2/6 no block no effect, I'm sure I'd use it in whatever I could, depending on how the deck ran. Again, I want 6 check foundations because they not just grant 6 when checked, but they provide +1 to the staging area for further committing later on in the game.

All these people saying "6 checks almost destroyed the game", again, 6 check foundations have been around since Set 1 (even Penny Arcade had Generic Rage), and let's not forget, they actually had effects! Charisma, Yoga Mastery, Generic Rage, the list goes on and on. Until Set 12, we've had 6 checks, with Set 10 proving they meant nothing (because Return to Southtown and Burning Hatred really broke our game). It isn't the 6 check that made everybody **** their pants during the era that everybody hated the 6 check, it was the fact that, much like Yoga Mastery, and other such cards, the effects of Olcadan's Mentoring, Chester's Backing, and Lord of the Makai broke our game. If Olcadan's, Chester's, and Lord of the Makai had no effects, and were just blank versions, NOBODY would EVER run them!

In our new game, I realize people are catching on: no splits, no 6 checks, no foundations with +2-MID blocks, no foundations with +1 any zone, etc. However, now that we are living in NEWFS, we are back to the beginning, with only 3 playable sets. While it's clear we want this gravy train to keep its biscuit wheels on the tracks, you guys are getting WAY over your heads about 6 checks being the nail in the coffin of this game.

In the future, as I said, I'm sure we'll start to see blank foundations that have good stats, and should we get them, I assure you, they will see play. They'll see play for the reasons I've stated, that in this game, where attacks are what's important, and not foundations, it really doesn't mean TOO much what grey you play with, SO, if you can run a melange of good-effect foundations with spam, cheap foundations, you can PLAY the good foundations, keep the spam ones as blocks, or as spam foundations. However, at this current juncture, we don't have many foundations worthy of keeping in the hand since they have no block or +3 on them.

I'm really hoping this in-depth description helps people understand the issues as they really are, not as misconceptions and blind eyes make them out to be.

Put up more strawmen to tear down, troll boy. You're the one on the war path here, not us.

edit: Besides, you have this massive gaping hole in your argument. You say aggro is obviously dominant, but what you're rallying for is pure-stats foundations that would... only... help... aggro. Derr.

MarcoPulleaux said:

MarcoPulleaux said:

I'm not speaking form doomsday theory. I'm speaking from having a limited format of cards to play with and seeing how strong 6 checks are and then seeing the compared side of having six check limited to character cards. So there is a compare and contrast many of us are speaking from that is being discounted by your post. I don't think we are making conclusions out of nothing.

The argumentation that since 6 is one more then 5 then it is not that much of a big deal. That is a false comparision because the issue is the total spectrum. Its the fact that 6 is that much more then 2. Good foundations that do something have no block and check as a 4. Some situational blocks are 2-3 difficulity but may or may not have blocks but check at a 5. The balance is there. A blank foundation that has the ability to check makes the situation horrid in an atomsphere where six checks are character exclusive. This is where your comparrision between now and early sets break down. Early sets had 6 checks outside of character cards thus making them more accessible. On top of that the cost of those cards are more inflaited then they are now. When the cost of things go down in the game the inflation of 6 checks poses great problems. Before you were getting less from more. Now your getting a lot for a lot.

By making the 6 check card more common it makes the 2 check card worthless. If I know I am not going to check a 3 or less then I can spam more attacks that do more overall damage due to non-commital enhancments then playing a better 2 check attack that can risk my last attack in a string. Remember there are no 2 check foundations or assets.

I'm not going to go into the tier argument about characters. Because of this statement in the King of Iron Criticism Therad I started open discussion about tech and we are seeing more people contribute and report findings. I think that feedback on playstyle and method can make a lot of characters who are underestimated tourney winners. I think tiering makes people lazy most of the time and unwilling to test. That's just my opinion.

One thing you fail to address is that any foundation in the staging area that is not control blanked, ie no forgiveness, is a threat with the right cards and characters. Look again at my argument about a card that modifies off of difficulity of a foundation in your staging area. Lets not forget about Yimfang/G-corp/All life is prey goodness. Any card that modifies off of values on a foundation in the staging area makes the utility of that blank 0/6 foundation more viable. There is no way you can stop that from happening.

You argue for a 0/6 foundaiton with no block just to make checks. But I don't see why you then have a problem with packing character cards. Character cards can do the same thing. They can make a 6 check for you. They can block for you which your proposed card can't do. They can be used for making checks when you get them into your staging area. There are still a lot of strong mid attacks and having a 0 mid block in characters is not a bad thing. The only time they burn in your hand is if you are not using them to block. By the time you draw again no matter what that card is out of your hand. YOu can ditch it or block with it. Any character that can research the past loves character cards because you can recycle them to make checks over and over again. Also Nina's card lets you block with the top card from your discard pile. Again something your 0/6 couldn't do.

I will disagree about grey not mattering anymore. I grey as good as it once was? No it is not because it was broken and riddled with power creep. Foundations assists attacks and doesn't make indirect assaults at the other player. Foundations got out of hand because they became auto pass assults with little to no cost. When you strip that away from players the condition is that they are getting less now. The truth is what your getting now is balanced and what you had before was unhealthy and developed an unhealthy mindstate in the player. Pure and simple. I think the fact that we are even considering talking about how do you decide what attacks go into your deck indicates that people are recognizing the pardigm shifts needed and the old ways aren't coming back. Foundations are more character based then blanked symbol based. Thinking symbol first is causing people to have problems I feel when they need to think about the character first when it comes to deck construction. The high block checks on foundations again is a paradigm shift issue. The foundation block caused problems before because it allowed foundations to be pure defense and attacks pure offenses. Now people will have to think about what is more important, the next attack that could lead to a kill, or blocking this attack that might lead to me loosing. That is why running less then 14 attacks is risky because foundations don't wall for you anymore. Again your agrument for a 0/6 foundation doesn't add to your block argument and its just a side tangent that needs to be addressed more in depth at a later time.

The time of it being easyto pull stuff off is over. Now the player has to think, risk, and put in work to get their plan off. I think that is a better thing for the game. Control will be there but it won't be complete lockdown. Aggro will be there but it can't go on a 50 card tanget without risk, unless you are ivy. Those who pull outside of the box will get rewarded and improve the tech. Those that play what is easy will find that everyone will have counters.

I hope I shown you a rational thought out perspective to show you that just because one doesn't share your vision it doesn't mean we are blind to the fact. Some people have telescopes others have books 2 different types of vision generated.

darklogos said:

There are only two character cards each game that you can commit to pass checks or play abilities...and your opponent controls one of them. Foundations are the gift that keep on giving.

I don't see the problem of starting off playing a character card to get more checks if it matters that much. Stacked copies of the character can be used to pass checks. Again the original argument wasn't around checks from the staging area but checks off the deck into the discard.

darklogos said:

I know you said you're relatively new, so perhaps I should clarify myself better. First of all, only Jin's control checks in the current standard benefit from character stacking, due to his ability. When you stack characters in general, they count as one "super-character" meaning the cards count as one entitiy for the purposes of committing. If you play a commit cost on a character all copies of that character commit, my friend.

As far as foundations vs. characters goes: Foundations, regardless of their ability have the benefit of being added to your staging area and are usable to pass control checks for as long as they are in play, from that point in the game, onward. A character if not checked can only be added to your staging area as a stacked copy of the original character (with the exception of Here Comes a New Challenger, and other miscellaneous rotated cards). As i mentioned before those stacked characters combine, so they do not assist with control check help (unless you play the form on the aforementioned Jin promo). All other characters are discarded from the card pool after being played as blocks, so their benefit is fairly minimal in that respect.

Is it in this way that a 6-check foundation is more useful than a character card. By the way, to this date no character card has a high block, low block or breaker ability, which various foundations do.

yeah i really dont see the problem with printing cards like loving devotion that were just great stat cards and nothing else

Chesters and the like would have been banned if they had a 5CC or maybe even a 4CC it was the 6CC that made then extremely over powered as opposed to just slightly

not to mention the blocks.......

darklogos said:

Additional characters in your staging area only lend their abilities to your one "starting" character - and at that, only abilities not already present. They all "commit as one", so to speak.

Think about it logically, imagine if Jin could actually re-use his F: once for each character he had out

It wasn't clear on the rule sheet that was in the domination starters. From what I read the character cards count as foundation. It was not clear that they are all one. So I appologize for the misanalysis. From what you said they made the stacking mechanic worthless. Its only value is if you have a different version of the character which isn't guranteed. Here is the thing I see a blank 0/6 foundation still as an issue. It is the point spread from 2-6 being a bit extreme. It as already been stated it would automatically become a required card to have.

darklogos said:

No biggie, dude. We were all new once, and many of us are still learning new things. I don't think there's a single person who's won a major tournament and not posted at least one question in Q&A.

As for the second part of your statement though, you lost me. What 2-6 spread are you referring to?

Oh, and for the sake of posting something on topic: What does the game need?

Ignoring the obvious stuff [insert fanboy rally for more of favorite license here], I actually like where it is right now, so far. The main thing I can think of is that there should be more immediate answers to throws. Not so much something like Tira's Contract moreso something like Squared Circle as a response instead of an enhance (as long as it wasn't at a 2 momentum cost, lol).

I also think there is a ton of stun, so I hope the next set gives a push to another keyword instead of stun.

The lack of negation is something to keep an eye on, but it's better than ridiculous response wars constantly. As long as enhances don't get way out of hand I don't currently have a problem the lack of enhance negation.

Gotta disagree with ya there, ROTBI : we still only have 10 resource symbols ( Order and Water still don't exist yet), and we need to have a few of our licenses represented ( Street Fighter , King of Fighters , Samurai Showdown , Darkstalkers ). As far as actual mechanics are concerned, the game needs little; a bit more negation/stuff to do on your opponent's turn (I'd rather have it be too weak than too strong, though), and some parity between how generic your support is (case in point: Ragnar can use stuff from anybody who runs symbols with him effectively, and everyone on those symbols can use his stuff pretty well, especially the throws; the majority of Christie Monteiro* 's support might as well say Christie Only ).

LordAggro said:

Yeah, by "ignoring" I meant it's already been stated, so I wasn't going to repeat the sentiment. I totally agree with you and anyone else who said they'd like to see more of the other licenses, dude.

i also see where you're coming from with water. Poor, poor water.

As far as Order though, my opinion is this: In most sports, the worst teams get the best picks in the next draft to give the league the best chance for some sort of equality (obviously trades and all that happen too, etc.). The point is I personally am fine with symbols that were powerful taking the back seat for awhile. Order was running the show in Block 3. I'm ok with Life (which was considered by most to be quite abysmal) being the new king of the hill for the time being. Order isn't unplayable (in fact, it's still in better standing than Water), but yeah it's not amazing now. It'll get better, it doesn't need to be top tier this block as well.

I'm still waiting for the day when Evil and Fire are the undisputed bottom tier resources. Pretty much every other resource has had it's time in the cellar.