Turn 2 is not much of a game, Anti. It's a coin flip.

Coin flip games are just as bad as gray wars.

Antigoth said:

I think the one thing here (and this is me just playing Devil's Advocate) is that if a player is smart, the attack used on PotM is usually the one that can't be blocked. In the current enviroment, unless you have For the Money's out and your opponent has no ready foundations, you're usually only blocking 1-2 attacks, and that's assuming you haven't been stunned out (yes there are answers for stun, but they're not universal so hear me out). Hypathetical situation for ya (and yes this requires a semi decent hand with three-four attacks):

Your opponent is Tira off of Air who has a PotM out.

Commune--->Commune---> Wheel Kick (diff 1)----->Some other cheap attack(diff 1-2)-----> F with Driven by Fear------> Vibrato (for upwards of 12 damage, 14 if Drossel is in play and is used, diff 2))----Minuette Dance (diff 5)----> Multiple it out----> Use Path on the last multiple for 20 damage?

Now yes that's stoppable, but rather likely given the fact Tira is rocking a 7hs. I'm sure there are other scary looking things, like Zi Mei and 2x Fury and a Solitary Assassin out.

Just my two cents

guitalex2008 said:

That's where I'm coming from on this too, Antigoth.

Aggro is strong, and that's "the people" wanted. That being said, I've heard countless people wanting some level of control back. It is quite limited now, and I'm not complaining about that. However, if anyone thinks that aggro is not running the show right now, they are sorely mistaken. As we now have tons of pieces to compliment that playing style, it's really overkill to have one card that can so easily enable any card to be a kill card and not give it some sort of draw back.

Is it low difficulty? Yes. Is it a high control check? Yes. Is it a decent block? Yes. Can it be played on any of your attacks regardless of who's turn it is? Yes. Can it let you draw without additional cost? Yes. Does every resource have access to it? Yes.

While I totally respect the good things that Hata has done for the game (Combo has to be the most universally loved mechanic in the game, and I count myself among those fans), I don't buy that he's the savior of UFS or that his decision is always right. Naming this card the "Path of the Master" and if what you say is true, purposely NOT making it a terrain is, in my opinion, a terrible decision. Maybe if it was "Weapon of the Master" (since it pumps damage tremendously) that would be better.

But please, don't think that this is all about semantics. We ALL want the game to be fun and balanced. That being so, one can not honestly convince me this card is close to balanced. It's not ban-worthy, of that I truly believe. However to make a comment like "just block it" is not the most well-though out response. If only a card is required to give an attack a huge damage increase how much so does that allow all your other cards to assist in areas of speed enhancement, etc. Nina's Ice Pick would love to see you block her PotM-backed attack.

I like the card and I own multiple copies, as you said yourself, this is NOT really about the haves vs. the have nots (unlike BRT and many other strong cards). This is about the possibility of giving some minor drawback to an unquestionably strong card, that has none at this time..and in the process decreasing (not increasing) confusion about said card.

Again I thank you for your feedback, sir. I would be naive to think that this conversation, proposed only to discuss this card and glean feedback, would ever be presented to someone to actually do something about it, lol.

guitalex2008 said:

My "Way" arguement is not to point ot a card but to a synomn. I'm a theologian. I've seen the word Path to be ascribed to a way of teachings. So my argument on the terrain element was based on art and not the name because the name could be figuratively based and not physically based. I don't disagree with everyone's desire for change but like I said I don't think the overall player base could handle it at this point.

Oh, the WORD "path" can be substituted for the word "way". Ha, I fail at words.

guitalex2008 said:

I'm a guy, so typically I'm refered to as Uncle

guitalex2008 said:

I lost turn 2 to a Jin deck at tournament the other day. It was quite an impressive turn, that did not in anyway involve a Path of the Master. It wasn't a coinflip. I just didn't expect him to be able to go off the way he did, so I didn't keep the approriate blocks. If all these Path of the Master decks that you're running into a consistently winning turn 2, A) I want deck lists. Because maybe they're doing some sort of super awesome tech I'm not seeing. B) Perhaps it's time to alter your playstyle/how your deck works?

B-Rad said:

I totally get how the Tira Combo can work. But at the same time, if you see it coming you can plan for it. I also understand that you're playing devils advocate, and that in theory the PotM player will wait until you've blocked the earlier attacks. Funny thing though... the blocking player can choose to eat some damage and save the blocks for the PotM. If those earlier attacks are going to kill you without the PotM, then in this situation, the PotM is irrelevant, as you'd be dying turn 2 to the combo anyway.

ROTBI said:

Just to be clear:
This is a game that is supposed to be representative of a fighting game? Where players fight one another, and do not seek to "control them" right?

I will agree - Aggro is in the drivers seat. We've had 2 years where control has been in the drivers seat. And prior to that, people were still complaining that control was too strong. People have been leaving the game in droves because UFS no longer resembled a fighting game.

While you are complaining about 1 card being too strong - I think everyone is way too focused on PotM. I think part of the problem is that people don't play this game with all the cards. They see one or two power cards, focus on those, and don't bother to explore the rest of the game. (This is a rant that's brewing, so I'm going to change subjects quickly.)

People wanted a fighting game. You now have a fighting game. Despite people complaining that "Turn 2 is a coin flip", people made that same argument a couple of years ago. Funny enough we had a lot more people playing back then. We also had fewer people quitting because "it's a coinflip game" as opposed to it being "a boring grey war game."

Please understand - inherently - I am a control player. So when you're complaining that "control is too weak", it tells me that you're not trying hard enough. Control is out there - control can work, control does work. You just have to go about it differently. No, I'm not going to have an AYB Mill deck in this environment. But there are other things that can be done. People just have to broaden their scope, and take the time to look at all the cards that are out there in the card pool. It's a collectable card game, and I've come to realize that one of the biggest problems is that too many players in this game have a cripplingly limited card, which slants their veiw as they're not willing to invest outside of their limited card pool. So it's like they're bringing a butter knife to a sword fight.

ROTBI said:

Can it be blanked? Yes. Can it be destroyed? Yes. Can those attacks be blocked? Yes. Can it be committed? Yes. Can it be prevented from being readied? Yes. Does every resource have answers to the card? Yes. Are many decks better off not running the card because there are better cards for the deck? Yes.

Look, I can make a bunch of close ended rhetorical questions too.

ROTBI said:

::Pause:: No Hero worshipping going on. No calling of people to strike Jesus Christ poses. [Re: out of nowhere reference to Hata as the saviour]::end Pause::

I need you to think back... think back to the events where there was a different one each month, thirteen of them in all, where you got a patch at each of the events if you won. What was it called. Do you remember? Was this card Path of the Master given out as the promo celebrating the wrap up of the event? What was the even called again?

ROTBI said:

Terrain is not a minor draw back. Terrain is a major costing feature.

Regarding "well thought out" per "just block it" If you're not able to block this kill attack, maybe there's something else going on that should be looked at?

Errata as mentioned in the rules Q&A is issued only when the card does not work as intended. Power Level errata is not done, the card would be banned instead. PotM works as it's intended, as its supposed to. That means that if it were to be changed, it would have to be banned. You've already agreed that it's not Ban Worthy.

I'm sorry, but when I see threads like this, it flashes me back to Gencon where one play group asked for 30 minutes of my time to try to convince me to lobby James to Errata Shredding Vibrato to remove the block, because it annoyed them to see the block in their hand and not be able to play it.

I saw the thread, and before it reaches 13 pages like the FD thread did, I figured I'd step in and give the "sorry, no, not going to happen."

Here is the issue no one wants to address. Is the issue so much damage but the fact damage buffing is not capped. People can do insane buffing in a turn. Why not limit that? Why not say that this card can not be used if other positive damage modifiers have been played this attack or even this turn. This would balance out the card and not make it a kill condition card.

I never said anything about complaining, we're just discussing. As a person who is looked to for answers and guidance, it is not unthinkable that you should hold yourself to a higher standard. It would be appreciated if you tried to make a little more effort to be less combative, my friend. I understand seeing "these types of things" often may wear on you as a rules arbiter, but even as you encourage others to see the big picture in all situations (good advice I might add), so to should you be mindful of the words you use. You've already made one a girl cry at World's. I'm sure that's not the norm for you, so please try be more thoughtful about how you are expressing your thoughts as well.

As for your counter-statements to my "close-ended rhetorical questions" (yet another attacking comment), they seem like the grasping-at-straws type. Surely many cards fall under those categories, it doesn't make the card any more susceptible to these means than any other foundation, etc. Yet it is, harder to deal with as it is a non-terrain asset. For one thing, as an example, it can't be stunned. You say that "terrain is a major costing feature" and "If you think people need more incentive to run Terrains right now, I've really got to wonder about that". Barring any additional power you'd want to add to it, he incentive to run PotM couldn't be higher than it is right now. Why not put make it a terrain, so the majore cause you are referring to offsets said incentive to run it mindlessly. You say "people need to run Terrains" but of the 40 odd or so that were released only a minor fraction ever saw real play. Even now there are a dozen or so and only about 4 see play. I guarantee if the card was a terrain it would still see play.

Again, I have no personal issue with you, sir. I appreciate the points that you did bring up, so for that I thank you.

darklogos said:

With respect, capping damage is neither fair nor a good thing to do. You should not penalize a player for being able to do massive damage, if they are paying a fair cost. Also, the stipulation of no other boosts doesn't really help. Fight or Flight (which thankfully is not around anymore) makes Seigfried's Earth Divide a card that can kill almost any character single-handedly without any other damage pumps. Damage itself almost never an issue, my friend. It is the balance that causes concern, there should be a suitable cost to any ability that grants power. PotM can only be strong if you play cards into your card pool. Trust me, I drew into no attacks one turn last night and made my Close Throw a 5 damage attack, lol.

The issue is not so much the power of the admittedly strong card, it's the limited amount of ways to keep that power in check when compared to other strong cards. Whoever said Control of Souls was a practical answer to this is saying that an ultra-rare (hard to obtain) card is supposed to be accepted as a suitable measure to contain a card that was given to many people for free.

Antigoth said:

This.

And, if the game is a coin flip why do some of us still win far more consistently than others? It isn't.

The other thing is that there is a lot of answers for Path of the Master, a lot of asset hate that people just don't run. Does it cost resources to run Soul Wave? yeah... Does it cost resources to run the Scrolls? yeah... But keep in mind it costs the opponent a PotM slot as well and most of these costs balance out 'if' your opponent is always running path. Do most asset hate cards also have another use? Yes.

One of my recent favorites is the Ragnar mid weapon attack, costs 2 vitality to kill an asset if deals damage. But hey, an attack is an attack, toss it in a deck that combos with mid/weapon/blockless/shadowar cards and you are laughing. Play it first game, if the opponent doesn't run assets side it out for a slightly better attack, end of story. btw, the story was how to kill 12+ damage pump on your opponent's attack once a turn...

- dut

I always come back to this. Path is an UNIQUE ASSET THAN CAN HELP YOUR OPPONENT in a game that really supports GENERIC GRAY THAT ONLY HELPS YOU. It had better be **** good to merit being included in most decks. I honestly think path is just good enough to consider using, not so good that it's bannable.

Also just throwing this out there, did anyone who played James at Gencon see the card acrobatics? Problem solved me thinks, or at least highly mitigated.

So, uh... WHY does it need errata, exactly? Just because you don't like the "flavour" of the card not having the word "Terrain"? That's a horrible reason to want errata on a card.

I want it errated to have a 4 point Shuriken. Just like all the other Infinity Cards.

Protoaddict said:

Horrible post.

dutpotd said:

I wanted BRT banned because it was NPE, not just because of its absurd power level. PotM is super stong, but I don't mind it at all because ridiculous aggro is a blast in this game. BRT was "you don't get to play attacks at all." Not fun. A mechanic I hope to never see return in standard

As for the discussion at hand, I didn't realize Hata purposely decided no "terrain" for PotM. In that case...I still think its a head-slap "duh" that it should be changed to Terrain, haha. Seriously, it would be the most minor errata in the history of UFS, I'm surprised people are even discussing it as much as it has been. Obviously, Antigoth has made it abundantly clear it won't happen, but I definately don't understand all the fuss.

...*sigh*

When it comes to errata'ing cards, more often than not, it's hard to place an errata, because by the time you've done so, you've almost bastardized the card to no use (Maternal Instincts, *Adon*). Often, it's so much easier to just ban the card.

Such is the case. The static is a gateway to potential problems in the future. The R may not have many triggers right now, but the mere fact that the SSS loop cards exist (especially with All which has more than enough draw) means the R is getting to be too much. The E Commit is obviously the most broken part.

Now...if Path were to be errata'd, the static couldn't be there, the R would need to commit 1 foundation, and the E Commit would have to read: "Your attack gets +X damage. X equals the number of cards in your card pool."

So, once again, just ban Path.

because the card is SOOOOOO banworthy...

ROTBI said:

ROTBI said:

It has been done in other games I've played to make sure the game goes past turn 2. There is that or not allow attacks on turn one and two. In this game that would be a far worse solution. The issue isn't to punish aggro. The issue is to give the chance for the other person to respond. If you take that away then it does come down to who goes first and if they pull the right foundations to kill you next turn. COH card game hand to institute a rule that turn 1 you couldn't attack because of 2 characters drawing a god hand that could drop a tank in turn one. Heroclix did the same thing. People would be able to Pulsewave kill other people on turn one or two. They also capped how much damage could be modified by due to the fact that punk units with weak damage but good attack values could 1 shot high point figures due to perplex aka attack bumping abuse. I'm not speaking these games in a game development vaccum.

Thing is in this game unlike other games control, damage, damage reduction, and draw have no limits. There is no cap that forces the player to diversify. At this point a major rules change would kill the game. Balancing power cards with power cards rarely works from what I've seen. The main reason is first of all you have the rich man vs poor man problem that comes up in ccgs. Power cards are always rares. The generic counters that only counter that one card and nothing else become commons in a set or two. The direct counter to the intial problem card does something else and it to is rare. When you face massive deck diversity then the generic common doesn't get chosen.

The cost formula in this game is not consistent. There is no way for me to look at one kill condition card and then compare it to another. There is no way of saying "Ahh this the formula for a kill condition card." After looking through almost all of block 3's cards when I started this game I found that there is no level of constency. This creates to many problems because there isn't a way to balance game developer instinct. With that said formulas can be broken. That was one big mystery in Heroclix was how can you get crappy pieces for high cost and broken good figs at low cost. Then you find out that the figs on both extremes got hedged one way or another by game development.

We talk about getting pay offs for balanced cost. THen I would say there shouldn't be an effect in the game that doesn't commit a card or discards a card from somewhere. This makes it so there can be a back and forth because it does slow both players down and it allows both players to respond. Again my issue is making sure there is an interaction between both players not just turn 2 slaughters. This applies to any card that does that. Making everything have a cost stops that issue. Take Man behond the mask for example. If the card commited itself or another card it wouldn't be an issue. If one is lucky and gets 4 of them in play they can knock 4 damage off per attack. No one thought a 0 cost foundation should not commit itself.

The game experience of being able to do something is essential. If the goal is that a person shouldn't be killed before turn 2 then everything we have is fine. If the goal is that a player can not be killed before turn 3 we have a big problem. This is game designs decession and not ours. If game design doesn't see it as a problem for turn 2 kills then the card is balanced and we are wasting our time. If game development wants a 4-5 turn interaction or even a 3-4 turn interaction then the cards and rules have to reflect that.

Tagrineth said:

Any card that not just can but DOES turn EVERY attack into a kill? Can usually give 6-9+ damage in ONE commit?

Yep, broken.

@ Darklogos:

Part of the appeal of UFS is that the game can end turn 2 if a) you don't protect yourself with the right cards, either blocks, or stuff in staging area, or a combination of boht, and b) if your opponent draws and checks well and also has the 'ideal' cards in his/her staging area. I'd like to speak as the designer, obviously I can't, but what this means is that it truly mimics most fighting games, where matches can be extremely lopsided, combos after mistakes can be heavily punished, etc.

There are definately caps to all of the items you listed, namely the amount of damage that can be thrown around and your opponent's ability to do the same caps what you can and are able to do in a game...

The cost formula for this game is 'fairly' consistent, if it wasn't everyone would quickly id what the most leveraged cards were and we would all be playing the exact same decks - you will notice that this rarely happens, although it did come very close to happening along the lines of Chun-li and 8 hs order mid block 3... In any case, even at that point in time there were 8 diverse characters and decks, most of which had a chance of beating the others based on skill and luck. I'd go as far as to say that this game has more 'consistent' costs than most, at least in its current state, and the evidence is the lack of very many staple cards.

Now, Path of the Master is a very near staple card, if only becuase it offers the basic win condition and in a very mundane way (opinion). Honestly, I think the R: and static ability on path of the master are genius, except the R: ability maybe should commit itself after 3 uses or something in a turn... The damage pump I get, namely it needs another use for when symbol specifics haven't been drawn yet or seen play. The sheer 'MAGNITUDE' of the damage pump it offers is kind of ridiculous, espcially in combination with cards that play themselves for free. i.e. it might be fair if it said: 'only playable if the cards in your card pool were played by making control checks against printed difficulties adjusted for progressive difficulty'

Alternatively, it could just be E commit: your attack that shares 2 or more symbols with your character get's +5 damage. There you go, another use, and one that doesn't get crazily out of hand...

- dut

ROTBI said:

Fair enough. Interesting follow up to that - I had two different people from two different groups approach me once on Saturday and once on Sunday to let me know "Don't feel bad, she wasn't crying because of what you said, it was because you actually caught her, and called her on it." <Lin I have no idea if that was the truth or not, my apology still stands, but since the situation was brought up, I felt it worth mentioning the follow up.>

Please note - my choice of sharp words is simply because my patience is not what it used to be. Folks often forget that I am an unpaid volunteer, who does all of what he does out of a love for the game. And even over the past few weeks, I've had players yelling at me, to my face, upset because "I'm a Street Fighter Fan, how dare you take away my favourite cards, when are YOU going to fix it." <Despite the fact that I'm not the one who made the call to push rotation early>. By and large I'm getting the point where I'm probably just going to relegate myself to the Q&A and stay there.

ROTBI said:

No offense, dude, but in an earlier argument in a previous thread, you stated that one of the problems this card has is the difficulty in which to get a copy or 4 of. NOW, however, you are implying that PoTM simply runs rampant and everyone seems to have said copies, and that answers are too few and far between.

I'm just not buying into any of it.

This card is fine, as is. And, it PROMOTES players playing attacks, which is something the previous block certainly did NOT do. Ridiculous damage pump? That's cool, bring on the aggressive decks!

Worried about the King decks that only spam foundations and then play a throw? Again, refer to the aforementioned (in this thread and in prior threads) to PoTM. Also, do not forget about Zhao Daiyu's support which is heavy negation.

RockStar said:

Really? it promotes attacks? i didnt know that because last I saw an Ivy player played out 5-7 foundation on me then used Ivy's form and plays a 3 diff attack checked the 3 and pumped it with path for 18+ damage or so....

Then King went and did the same thing... played out a bunch of his support(very easy to do with that 0 difficulty) and processed to use his form.

...and then the epic Ivy 20 damage attack got blocked

dutpotd said:

dutpotd said:

I don't get how what you just said "does not apply now". Other than the fact that I cannot destroy a path with a path I still should have it to keep up. The fastest route to winning is the route most taken, and if that is truly something we are trying to avoid than we still need work. Anyway, to my point, I do not have an answer for what to do about the card but I do know that ignoring the problem or acting as if a correction can be problematic due to ufs history, is at best, weak. I have a friend that runs a really good Lu Chen deck, but he could do very little about his attack power vs say Astrid even if they both had path of the master out. The card is to much in my opinion to deal with not including all the other obvious power the fire,earth and death have to "throw" at you. Yeah I meant to add that little keyword we all love to be sitting across the table from. Yo this not to start a problem. I am just saying that this will be dealt with sooner or later by FFG or us. Take your pick.

Peace