Let me start off by saying this is in NO way, shape, or form about banning a card that does not need to be banned. All I'm proposing is that PotM does gain the keyword "Terrain".

There's already been many people confused by the name of the card in comparison to the type of card it is. A "path" is about as terrain-sounding as a name gets. I personally tried to Tower of Souls one of my copies in last night, like an idiot, lol. (Which by the way, would have been well-costed as I have to remove ToS from the game, something that currently cannot be brought back in standard.)

Naming aside, another reason I propose this is because I think it would encourage more people to play terrains. They're a fun enough keyword, and obviously important enough that they had a ruling change to them not too long ago. With all the talk I've been seeing about assets being hard to handle, and this card being considered an auto-include to MOST decks, by most people, I think this would be an appropriate answer to a card that is quite powerful yet NOT banworthy.

Let me know what you think. As always, let's please be civilized about this, I can respect your opinion whether you agree or not. I'd just like you all to share your reasoning behind your decision. Thanks.

Not a big fan of that idea. As you pointed out, it would now be fetchable by a card in ivy's symbols. All that would happen is one person would play their potm and destroy the other person's making them unable to hit someone back with it. That and an errata in no way helps clear up confusion, not all people ae 100% update with current erratas.

bloodocean said:

Bingo!

In all honestly I think people overblow this card way too much. Yes it can be powerful but only so in certain decks that have matching symbols to use it where Ivy and King are the main culprits

I got an 18 dmg pommel smash with paul phoenix. that was my only attack that turn. i think there should be something done to this card.
I also got turn 2 18 dmg phoenix smasher because of PoTM.

To be honest, when I do get out PoTM, I feel like I'm cheating people out of wins sometimes, just like feline spike. This is a pretty big problem to be honest as well because all half of characters shares 2-3 symbols with each other...I seriously threw in some astrid support for the PoTM synergy...

Hayamachop said:

Meh, Pommel Smash can go to ridiculous heights with Paul's stuff and Toughest in the Universe. It's not a PotM problem.

Homme Chapeau said:

It was PURE PoTM boost.

Hayamachop said:

Not saying it's not, just saying that PotM is only a symptom.

symptom of what? and i think dmg boosts (on that scale) should be limited to certain symbols. Hell ragnar support cant even get +15 dmg free until about turn 2-3ish (if he commits all his cards)

I just think the issue everyone had with olcadans is similar, not all symbols should get to blow **** up, not all symbols should get +15 dmg boost.

Hayamachop said:

I hit my opponent with a 26 damage pommel smash on his third turn on sunday without PoTM...

there are worse things than PoTM, fury of the ancients Zei mi enhance to start with... kazuya's character recursion matching jin... Hilde's boring turn 2 16+ speed attacks for 27+ damage (without her using dual weild) with 1 non character based card to stop it....

also if you feel like your cheating, then stop cheating, if playing with PoTM makes you 'cheat' then don't play it.

I would like to see this change. When you look at all of the assets out there for block 4, it is obvious that Path should be a terrain. Terrains are the only cards that have continuous static effects, as well as abilities to boot. The call for asset destruction has been severely curbed by the fact that a large portion of the terrains out there can be destroyed by playing another with the same keyword. Most decks will currently run between 0 and 1 type of terrain, and only 2-3 copies of it. This means that there will not suddenly be an overbalance of terrians mucking up balance, as people already have an option built in. I see no real downside to this, aside from people running Immovable Object to counter Tower Of Souls.

-Mr. Tinman

I played it for the first time last night and i saw the true power of it. Our playgroup has a total of...4?

Tinman said:

I really don't think PotM is as unbalanced as many folks seem to think. However I do agree w/ terrain just because it makes sense.

Normally I would back this decission. But I can't. Not after the block change that was just put through. It will send the worst message to players. The game can't afford more edits and erattas even if it needs it because the patient called players is still healing. Yimfang is a good card. I don't see why people don't pack it out side of Ragnar. Also Path can also be used as a subsitution for Way. The thing that makes it confusing is the Art. The art makes it look like a terain.

kiit said:

Fury of the Ancients is really only scary becuase of how well it goes with Path... There are other damage pumps that help it, but all of those then require 'more' foundations which equals time = not as strong. Hilde can't get something to 27 turn 2 w/o dual wielding and even then it is **** hard and requires good checks on the attack and the 5 diff dual wielding. She might be able to with Path in her staging area though and with either dual wielding or Trained Far and Wide... Character recursion works, and is nice with the damage pump some cards provide, but there are lots of ways to stop it.

On topic though, I don't see why the card shouldn't have the terrain keyword... Not only does it 'look' like a terrain, it also has the effects most terrains have, i.e. those that impact both characters - with path both characters can play symbol specifics...

That said, errata get's ugly sometimes, and I am not a proponent of this one atm.

Sadly, what would happen is not 'more terrain cards run', just that every deck would have path, if only to destroy their opponent's path... And it would become the 100% necessary/staple card for both offense and defense. And... some games would boil down to 'who gets more paths and keeps them out to be used on an attack'...

- dut

darklogos said:

Path of the Master in the current meta is ridiculous because there's almost no way to run a deck without using themed cards that share 2 or 3 resources. Ivy is an obvious example because she works well with her support. Play TWO cards, then watch how that attack you played as your second card gets a damage bonus a LOT LARGER than Way of the Mightiest ever would.

It's not much fair when the first attack you play would get +3, the second +6, the third +9...

PATH FITS AS A TERRAIN IN THIS BLOCK. All terrains have an ability that is beneficial to everyone (everyone can play resource only abilities), and one or two abilities that only benefit the card's player as an incentive to play it. Path of the Master fits these parameters PERFECTLY, and adding the Terrain keyword will add a RISK to playing the card, because other than actually dealing 4 or more damage with an attack enhanced by Ymirfang or the very, very specific Controller of Souls/Killer Android or the two Scrolls (and not everyone will pack ANY of these), there really isn't much Path has to worry about. And if nothing can be done in a turn, it usually spells game over in pure themed decks.

I see people regularlly hitting people with like 3-4 pow 12+ astrid attacksturn 2. I've also seen hildie doing fatal unblockabls turn 2. I've also used Fury of the ancients turn 2 before to throw something like 4 speed 8 pow 10s. Ive also seen ivy decks that turn 2 could just keep throwing baby attacks untill she won with no need for damage pumping. All of this was made possible by assorted commons and such, none were POTM. I do not see POTM as an issue, and I see making it terrain giving it a downside but also giving it upsides as well, which could potentially net net you nothing.

dutpotd said:

dutpotd said:

This "errata" would be more of a headslap, duh, type of thing rather than an actual change, kind of like how Lost Memories was accidentally printed as an enhance. Everything about this card = terrain, it was just poorly futureproofed. I'm all for this change as it seems more of an accident rather than a conscious design desicion.

I do agree, though, that the card is overpowered in the current environment, if only because it has infinite on it. Why not play it? Its like the turbo button, one card doubles/triples damage for nothing! I love aggro, so I don't mind this at all, but I do realize its not healthy for the game. But if people cried infinately over the suggestion of banning BRT, a far more beligerant card, then this card shouldn't cause even so much as a second glance.

As I've said before and I'll say again, Path only works in a few decks. I've really only seen Ivy, Tira, Paul, King, and Zi Mei use this card to it's fullest potential, with perhaps Nina... Perhaps.

I personally hate the card, and wouldn't shed tears if it left the enviroment... It shouldn't have been let loose the way it was, but that argument was bickered about till it became flogging a dead horse

dutpotd said:

First of all, thanks for everyone's feedback thus far. It's nice to see rational thought on both sides of this.

In regards to this, I think we're not far off from everyone running PotM (if you have them, of course) as it is, so I don't think that changes the state of who plays it. In fact if you run X4 PotM and another terrain, you give yourself the upper hand. If you (meaning any player, not specifically you, lol) feel PotM is not that strong, or a cause for concern, you STILL don't need to run it. Play how you want. I just think it would give the card not only a fair "answer", but as was said already, the card would actually cause less confusion.

New players have probably said to some of you all, something along the lines of "How come this is enhance on Lost Memories? That doesn't make sense". They're totally right, it was a misprint, the very nature of what was written was suitable for a response. The same holds true for PotM. It's a "path" how does that not sound exactly like it's a terrain. It sounds laughable, but we don't see any foundations called "Quick Punch in the Face", right?

Also, the card is already unique, Terrain would just make it "board unique" so it's not like it would change that much.

grandmook said:

1) I don't think we should question the design of the card... It is possible Hata forsaw that 'if' given terrain everyone would run it becuase all the sudden it becomes offensive and defensive. As it stands only 80% of my decks run it, increase that to 100% if it had terrain.

2) This card is better than BRT, I can't count how many times BRT has failed to work at all (or even backfired) and cost me major games - oh wait I can, 4 points at US nats this year, and arguable 3 points at worlds... This card is a 'gauranteed' effect, i.e. does not have a random or undetermined amount attached to it, so it can't be compared to BRT which is like rolling a dice everytime you use it.

@ Proto: The situations you described are possible but 'rare', and the inclusion of Path into those equations increase the odds of that amount of damage being thrown onto all 3 of those situations early game - especially Ivy and Fury where it is likely +15 damage, Hilde maybe only +6-12 depending. Those types of damage numbers on mutiple copies, or late attacks, or on Hilde's with speed is like an additional 1/3 to 2/3 of your opponents life gone and with a fairly great certainty.

I think, however, that there is a bigger issue with removing it or errating it from the meta at this point in time. Namely, there are characters that 'need' it to compete speed and damage wise with the ones you named. Let's not forget the impact on them that an errata like this would have.

I am not in favor of an errata. I am in favor of a ban once 2 more sets of cards are released and characters that don't have built in kill switches get them. That or I am not in favor of a ban if once 2 more sets hit and cards are introduced that sees path's play decrease for whatever reason. In both cases I am 'wait and see' at the moment. Until then, run Controller if you can, and if you can't run some other form of asset hate, and if you can't then run a character that kills before this becomes a problem... i.e. equally as fast.

- dut

Controller isn't a particularly good card, and as a UR with the old distribution, nearly impossible to pull.

If anything, I'd rather run Scrolls. Scroll of the Abyss and Scroll of the Celestial Dawn, who are also not terrains, should be able to handle Path.

My problem with Path is that as soon as it hits, game over follows soon after. Usually not in favor of the opponent.

The logic of "it has infinity so it gives access to symbols that don't have access to abilities like it" is bull and will always be bull.

Same logic can be applied to Olcadan's Mentoring. Did Evil need Olcadan's Mentoring? Did Order need it? Did Death need it? HELL NO, but it having infinity will NEVER stop decks from running it!

Sure, you've seen Astrids fire out turn 2 14 damage attacks. That's great. EXCELLENT. Who cares? She could be firing 25 damage attacks at you with Path. Give every symbol access to an ability and watch as symbols who DON'T NEED IT use it to gain an even bigger advantage! That's always been the case with infinity, and I personally am tired of hearing that excuse.

guitalex2008 said:

I'm not sure anyone posted that and called it logic... It is actually a fact, namely that is what infinity does.

Relatively speaking, I agree with you and the rest of what you say, infinity is a cop out symbol. But, if any card deserved infinity, it would be something like PotM? Bleh, the card itself is just weird.

In any case, there is a big difference though between giving Astrid 'more lethal damage' and other characters 'some lethal damage'. Namely, lethal damage is lethal damage, more or less as long as it is still lethal is damage.

All I'm saying is characters like Algol, Nina, Yi Shan etc. without agressive abilities that allow early lethal need cards with damage boosts to compensate or else they can't even deal 'sometimes lethal damage' with any degree of sucess early enough to matter.

- dut

1) I get that this card isn't popular by a vocal minority.

2) During design and development of this card - extensive thought was given to PotM, and whether or not it should have Terrain. PotM not having Terrain was a deliberate choice by James, and was something specific that he wanted.

3) We've already exhausted the who/what/where/when/why/how as to availability of Path of the Master. For what it's worth, outside of all of my copies for Trade, I have enough Paths that I'm keeping to be able to run a full compliment in two decks if I so choose. Currently I am running 0 in my block 5 decks (and I'm coming up on a dozen different decks built), and I don't feel that my decks would be enhanced by adding the card. (And for those complaining that the card isn't available, it is. There are plenty of copies available for everyone. I've gone so far as to list in the Omni-Faq who you can aquire copies from.)

4) If you think people need more incentive to run Terrains right now, I've really got to wonder about that.

With Ivy abusing the crap out of Ostrheinsburg Castle - Twilight, and watching en entier Padma deck shut down at tournament earlier this week because of Kunpaetku Shrine - Dream Remnants... people need to think about running Terrains. With Patriot Games and Wonder World Comics out there, and what decks built around them can do - people need to run Terrains.

James and I (as an Arbiter) have already discussed this issue extensively. Please understand that while I appreciate healthy conversation, and applaud people having these discussion. I will not be bringing this issue to James.

5) Please note - people are complaining about a card that boosts Orange Cards. That enables people playing Orange Cards, to win "early". (I have no idea why people don't just block the attack that PotM is being used on.) This is moving the game away from Grey Wars. People wanted a newer healthier environment. Now that we have it, people are complaining because it's not grey wars.