MarcoPulleaux said:

MarcoPulleaux said:

So we acknowledge that POTM is good enough to auto include in most decks. So thus, we are affirming the fact that NOT playing POTM is making our deck suboptimal. We also know that if we did not play to win or at least not lose, we would not be rallying to have a card banned from a competitive environment.

So, youre not going to get POTMs because you THINK it might get banned after a years worth of product makes it possibly broken to the point of banning?

I just think the arguments in this thread are kind of silly. Just because the card is format defining does not mean it needs to be banned. Yes rejection was broken. Rejection made attacks completely moot and ruined turns which should not have able to ruined. Same reason the injuries were a horrible idea. These cards were just too powerful for the cost. Path is nowhere NEAR as broke as cards like rejection, lotm, kasumi gaki, etc.

The decks that are designed to abuse path are going to abuse path. King, Ivy, Zi Mei are arguably the best candidates. Outside of these characters, path acts a very good damage pump and a decent card draw engine. Without path, Ivy is going to lose to stand off EVERY game. Without path, king becomes a much slower ragnar or bryan. Zi mei can still do very well without it, but doesnt really stop her main issue and that is multple hate. All life is prey is just as good a damage pump in zi mei as path albeit it takes a little more to set up. I dont know. It just seems like the redux in this format is too good to not have a game ender like path running around. LIke without path, stand off, shadowar, ultimate team, man behind the mask, and a number of other good reusable reduction runs the risk of slowing the game down too much. And fire gets most of it!

I just dont think that we should move so quickly towards banning a format defining card before any major tournies. It bad for the game and when POTM rears its head as a major threat, it should be addressed then. I like the idea of errata on the card, like +1 for each card that shares 2 or more symbols with your character, but ffg's stance on errata has always been pretty set in stone.

As for the availability issue, yes its annoying but it shouldnt be that much of a problem. The card is very obtainable despite the lack of tourney or event to get them at. Several very cool, very sexy, very andrew olexa people on the boards are more than willing to trade and purchasing them does not really ever exceed ten dollars a pop. Having the limited availability be a reason for banning the card is stupid. If thats the case, hell BRT should have been at the onset. I have to spend 70 dollar or so for a start box or roughly 30 a pop for one? Nothing in this format is even CLOSE to being as broken as evil was a year ago.

The way i see it, if POTM goes, then stand off needs to go. And if stand off goes, then the rest of the fire symbol needs to go.

Hey, I've been saying Stand Off needs to go

Here's the thing: it needs to be banned BECAUSE OF WHAT IT DOES.

People are so pre-occupied with a cards symbols, stats, etc, they forget that the only reason you're running the card is for what it does (treat Path as though it had a blank text box, and tell me if you'd still run it).

The problem with Path is there is simply nothing balanced about it. No draw backs, no real "to run or not to run" prince of Denmark monologue, no deckbuilding woes.

It's just kind of "do I want to win? Yes I do, so I need X-number of Path of the Master to increase my chances."

I like actually having to WORK for my victory. In Lu Chen, a character with VERY few aggressive options at the moment, I should have to find a way to balance his EXTREMELY redonkulous defensive prowess with his otherwise dead aggressive front. I should be forced to run such heavy-hitters as Siegfried's Earth Divide and Wrath of Heaven because I know my damage output is low, not just: Snap Kick Snap Kick Disruptor + Path =

Path just takes away so much from the actual thinking process. Believe me, I straight-up jizz in my pants every time I look at my copies of Ancient Burial Ground. But no matter how many lofty Scrolls you tell me destroy it, or how many Controller of Souls stop it, it just does not make a broken card unbroken.

Also, Eithnis, stfu, nobody had faith in Order.

*people's reaction to Order post July bannings*

"OH WHAT NOW ORDER? YOU LOST MAKAI, CBOXING, AND JSA! YOU'RE NOT A DECK NAMED STALL/MILL! EARTH HAS ONE OF THE BEST REDUCTIONS OF ALL TIME! ONE OF THE BEST REDUCTIONS OF ALL TIME! *shrugs shoulders and walks off*"

MarcoPulleaux said:

This may be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in print.

Ever.

I guess you'd know stupid, right newb? =/

It serves a purpose. When a card is too good, a lot of people say "well duh, look at its stats!" or "OMFG IT HAS *insert best symbol at the time* OH NOES!"

While both do serve a purpose, the MAIN thing people need to look at when they are crying is the card's effect and cost. Disciple of War had one of the hands down greatest effects this game has ever seen.

Cept it required 12 momentum, had a 6 difficulty, and was a 1 check.

Olcadan's Mentoring had one of the hands down greatest effects in the game "lawl, I turn your greatness into crap", and its cost? F Commit.

My point is, stats mean next to nothing, as do symbols.

There was a point in this game where Earth had the most 6 checks, and as I've said repeatedly, just because your card's got a 6 check doesn't mean nothin. Why? Because during that point in the game, Earth had the most 6 checks...that did absolutely nothing. They didn't even block.

In summary, you need to look at a card's effect, and then its cost. If the cost does not match its effect, THE CARD IS PROBABLY BROKEN REGARDLESS OF BOTH SYMBOLS AND STATS! If you need any further proof, just look at Concealed Shallow Swipe and Feline Spike.

Now then, "sketch", maybe before you go and post a short, curt, one-sentence response without any evidence to back-up your claims you should, I don't know, think? 'Cuz there's definitely nothing worse than a civil pwnage when it's finished by complete arrogance =D

MarcoPulleaux said:

Except for...anyone who played this game competitively? We had bitchy forumgoers who complained that their spiral lock gill was gone, but that was it.

i am gonna have to step in off topic and say, Shinji just because you lay it out there that you are biggest dickhead on the forums, doesnt give you the right to run wild with it, how about a little respect for other forum members, Iam kinda getting tired of your mouth and iam sure most other people are too, not what you are saying but the disrespect and venom with which you speak to other people...give it a rest ....we understand you are an attention ***** and need to be in a constant state of turmoil on the forums because its your thing" but enough is enough man, learn some manners please

I top 16ed at worlds last year, finished I think in top 2 or 3 of swiss, playing non-evil with my only Swiss loss being to Hata. Placed third at the -first- Nationals for UFS, swept swiss there, and helped get Promo Zasalamel banned in the process. Made top 4 at teams last year at Nationals, won or T4-8ed a pile of regionals and two southeast AOPs. Ran the largest FOP Sabertooth had (ATL represent!) back in the day. Dropped the game when it got horrible, back now that it's good. Been playing the game with a very competitive team on a very competitive level in a -very- strong meta since set 1. Does that count?

Went by Vyrce on the old boards, btw.

6CCs have nothing to do with Path. It would see much less play as a 3/3 asset in this format, but that's a moot point.

In this format, would I run a blank 1/5 foundation with a +1 or +0 mid block on it? Maybe, depends on the symbol spread. It's a different ball game now. Would I run a blank asset with the same stats? No, you'd have to be retarded.

Path doesn't kill people on its own, sorry to tell you. With Ivy you need the planets to align and your opponent to not see the deck coming, it's very easy to defend against, and the deck is on the slow side as it is. Zi Mei needs at least a turn or two of build to do it correctly, and ideally her own asset in play to help the multiple - so what, turn 3-4 usually? Most aggro kills this quickly anyway, and Zi Mei is scrawny. King is fantastic with Path, but not unstoppable by any stretch of the imagination. Killing with it requires some sort of setup beyond it and one other card, Shallow Swipe and Spike needed significantly less 'help' to kill, and won on the back of their foundation bases and splashability. You can't get away with that now, really. It's a bad comparison.

Sketch said:

While Path isn't an attack, and thus cannot literally kill anybody on its own, it can make any ATTACK have the potential to kill, so, that having been said, um, YES, Path CAN cause any attack to kill ON ITS OWN (as in, without any further enhancements).

I have no idea why you felt the need to bring up Ivy and Zi Mei, as Path can be used and abused in any deck. I realize the thought is that Mei and Ivy can produce large strings of attacks, but I mean, I don't use Ivy for the very reason you mentioned: predictable. She doesn't put much pressure on the opponent when all she can deal is 5 (unless she's doing some crazy Valentine* + Regretful Existence abuse). Of course, if you were an intelligent Ivy player and has a Path out that you know wouldn't be Controller'd/Grounded, then you'd have to plan it so that your Path'd attack would kill for certain. How? Not sure, again, I don't like Ivy, and have recently come to change my thoughts about Christie being worse than Ivy (to Christie being better).

Concealed and Spike only needed the back-up they weren't going to be negated. Of course, the two were from different eras, and really, I don't want to go off into too many different arguments. Point is, Path can be slid into any deck and increase its chances of winning that much more. While I realize one could just say "the same holds true for any damage pump", such a statement is ignoring the fact that any other damage pump printed has a cap, a number it reaches before it stops being potent. Path does not. Path generally starts at 3, and can go up to 12 or more depending on the circumstances.

In a normal deck packing hit after hit, if there's a POTM on the table, you need to be extremely critical. Although with your Ivy and Zi Mei example, where players could theoretically eat the weenie damage, then fully block the Path damage, most commonly-played characters do not play that way. Fire aggrosters such as Astrid, Ragnar, and Bryan Fury make every attack they play that much more stupid, while people such as Jin Kazama and Hilde can simply play more attacks. Once again, you can eat their previous attacks until they use Path, but just think of how much damage you've taken. Also, what if their last attack they use Path on is a Throw?

I wouldn't even necessarily call it an enabler. An enabler would be like Kunai: by its own, it didn't really do much. It generated momentum, but couldn't kill a fly. However, due to its flexibility, it LEAD to all STUPID sorts of degeneration.

Path doesn't get used, and then insanity ensues. Path gets used, and then games are over.

I'm sorry, I refuse to see our game like that. When one card turns sideways to end a game match, after match, after match, after match, again, that shows a very unhealthy state of our game.

I really wish there'd be no more debating about this card, because it's pretty much the same as any debate. People will bring up examples of times they've survived Path, and because they've survived Path, now it isn't broken. People will note how it promotes playing strings of attacks, running attacks that share symbols, etc, disregarding the fact that a VAST majority of characters, due to the small card pool, DO run their own support, as well as share 2 symbols with their neighbors.

By the way, this isn't even mentioning the fact that Path has 2 other abilities, both of which can lead to degeneration somewhere down the line (oh good, just give any All/Life/Water character the ability to SSS loop, awesome).

MarcoPulleaux said:

It's not that Path has some quirky and abusable loop with something else (barring SSS lol). It's that specifically because of the early rotation and the new direction in design (both of which are GOOD things), every deck will have tons of cards sharing more than one resource. For example, making a Nina deck without Nina attacks is not the same. But then again, in addition, only Head Ringer doesn't share all three symbols with Nina. And all of her other cards do.

So suppose you use Wipe the Floor, Sadistic Cupid, Head Ringer then Evil Mist. Nice attack string, but both Sadistic and Ringer are mid attacks. So let's assume those blocked fully. Here comes a 3H0 attack with Stun:2 that will burn for 2 if not blocked (not liekly). Commit Path of the Master, it's now magically a 3 diff, 3H11 with Stun:2.

So now you have an attack that would deal NOTHING is dealing upward of 10 damage, done as early as turn 2. This might be normal in Astrid with her weapons, but this is mostly due to Astrid's support itself combined with the character, showing pretty awesome synergy.

Path is synergistic with ANYTHING right now. Sure, Ivy and King do it better but what about Heihachi fully multipling out two Spinning Demons and ditching a character for each (3L10 x 4) then using Path on the last, which will almost certainly kill anyone if they didn't fully block three of them (now a 3L18), or just flat out kills anyone with a 7HS (barring a few exceptions).

I traded my ass for them (no homo), and I was I guess lucky most of the cards I traded rotated recently, but I can't see this card doing anything healthy in the meta. It is, to put it bluntly, too easy.

guitalex2008 said:

Hypothetical situations are why this argument is becoming so skewed. Lets look at this same Nina play in depth.

My opponent goes to wipe the floor turn 2 probably after playing at most 3 foundations and path (at MOST. void has only a couple good 1/x and 0/x spam foundations and death has less in Cursed blood or Treacherous offspring as their only passable offerings.) So i have to roll a 5 on wipe the floor. Say i have two cards gone now after you commit a foundation to use the ability. Ill take 4.

You go to sadistic cupid me. Find ill take the damage. Head ringer comes across. At this point i am thinking to myself, okay he is going to path soon as he doesnt have the foundation base to keep trying to kill me. Thats fine ive taken 7, i will hold my block for his path target. You go to head ringer me. Assuming you check the 6 naturally (which you wont in this format) youve just committed another foundation and burned a 3rd card from your grip. Right now your defensive options for the following turn are looking pretty garbage.

So you now go for you evil mist at a six diff. You need to commit your last foundation, possibly nina, to make sure it goes through. Assuming im not the worst player in the world and i noticed that you built path on turn 1, i kept 2 decent blocks in my grip. Which i am not going to play against my tapped out nina opponent.

And let me tell you, when i get to my main phase, I am going to force through enough damage to put you on a clock AND try to build to better keep up with your clock. Keep in mind too that you have burned 4 cards out of your grip, built no foundations turn 2, and set yourself back a considerable amount of time JUST to do a cute path combo. Meanwhile Im set up, possibly with Ka technique, controller of souls, or stand off, to help stave off your assault.

Hypothetical situations are no way to judge a card's value. And i think it was Dut that said that POTM was a late game enabler. If it was a late game card... then why are we bitching about it? Isnt the issue that we are getting ran over by path on turn 2? If not, then how is it any more a problem then like fury of the north or the other damage pump out there?

I also think a lot of people are forgetting the best answer to POTM in the format: FREAKING BLOCKING! Its an enhance. If you SEE them path, then please block the attack. We are in this mindset where we have to play out our grips ever turn too keep pace. Its an aggressive format, play 3 foundations, hold blocks if you fear them swinging turn 2, and play dynamically. ADJUST! You cant go into every game being like IM GONNA DO THIS THIS AND THIS AND **** WHATEVER MY OPPONENT PLAYS CUZ I HAVE MY GAMEPLAN. If they play path, adjust and build according. Its an asset so its not a threat the turn it comes into play. It can be played around.

Hammer could not be played around. Hammer killed you and you never saw it coming. The two pumps are nowhere NEAR the same level of brokenss. And it could kill you turn 1. That is broke. Path is not. Path is just VERY good. Like BRT was just VERY good. Or TYPFG was VERY GOOD. Or seal was VERY good.

And even then, in the same vein i think that Dut's and ROTBI's argument are very well though out and valid. The card is deserving of some errata and I agree with you two gentlemen wholeheartedly. Whoever, until it gets that errata, we have to learn to play in field of path and the best way to do that is plan accordingly. Plain and simple.

Good luck making the check to block. Evil Mist has a Stun:2, and you ARE forgetting who you're playing against.

It's an EXAMPLE and it's a bad one, I know. But it's the one obvious example that can turn a ZERO DAMAGE ATTACK into something stupid.

And it being turn 2 has nothing to do with it; it can be done turn 3 without overextending yourself one bit. Zero effort.

ShippuJinrai said:

Thank you. I'm not saying it needs an errata though, lest we want to undermine a lot of characters in the small cardpool that we have. I've already said that any change to this card would leave 3+ characters with the inability to kill as fast as they need to in order to be competitive.

I have posted suggested erratas or 'original prints' that would have been slightly more balanced versions of 'a card that works with symbols, and in the case that that isn't out, can give you a healthy damage pump'.

What was printed is 'a card that works with symbols, and in any and all cases is the best damage pump in the game at the moment based on the way this meta runs (albeit must run cards that share symbols, which isn't hard in the small card pool we have, it is done anyways)'.

Shinji is (insert any word you want here), he's making statements about the meta and is claiming to have knowledge about what 'should' be 'banned' or 'changed' and in other sentences he discredits himself indicating a) he doesn't even own the cards, and b) he doesn't really have a playgroup. To the latter, I would love to play some online games with you if only to give you a dose of what different metas are really like, i.e. the metas that exist in practice and not just in your mind. And yes, most of his statements about Path are correct, but at the same time, anyone who thinks Standoff is a problem in this meta, anyone who thinks Financial Troubles is a problem in this meta, etc. is less than enlightened about actual play.

All in all, everything that I'm saying is this. Path of the Master is a defining card in this meta, it enables 3+ characters to be beast, Zi Mei, King, Ivy, etc. and it enables 3+ more to even be playable. The fact that 3+ characters don't need to or want to run it is equally defining and says something about their character abilities and the way they deal damage.

The other thing I am saying is that Path of the Master is a card the allows players to play with 'fewer' attacks in their decks, relatively speaking of course. Namely, attacks are the way of NewFS, but this has nothing to do with Path of the Master. And yes, Path of the Master in Zi Mei can and does mean she can get away with 4 attacks in her deck and still win 90%+ of her games, losing the 10% where she doesn't draw into 1 of 4 by turn 3. Rockstar seems to now understand this, and I'm glad I got through to him, being that he is one of many smart and strong players that I respect.

For the sole reason that Path, and in certain situations, can enable a player to 'check' significantly better than others (i.e. on average run far fewer attacks) it should be watched, and will possibly recieve an errata or ban once the card pool enables it to receive this errata or ban. i.e. once the card pool develops so that characters with less agressive symbols gain alternate ways to kill. I expect this to be after the set after SCIV2. Until then, I suggest we all respect what Path is and what it means to this meta - whether that means asset hate, or simply using it yourself, you have to understand that Path is a huge defining card, moreso than Torn Hero, moreso than the lack of an answer to throw.

- dut

guitalex2008 said:

I absolutely see where youre coming from Al and I wasnt discrediting your argument. If i came off as obnoxious i apologize. I was merely stating that while certain plays are silly with path, they are not infallible.

A better example would simply be King playing the way he plays. Dropping 4 foundations then turning sideways to play a 20+ damage grab for no cost aside from doing what he was gonna do on turn 2 anyways. This is ridiculous but you can still adjust to it. Playing against king with path in play means you have to hold foundations you would normally play in order to half block as much as possible while trying to force him on a better clock than his. All in all though, it takes king usually 3 to 4 turns to kill if he is trying to protect himself and not get his face ripped off by fire.

But i definitely see what you mean. However, my point is that in the meta we play in right now, we need to understand that pathing attacks is one of the best plays. Just like mulliganing for 2 forethoughts was last year. Or chain throw hammer kunai chain throw chain throw hammer was the best play before that. Its simply adjusting to the meta and without any CONCRETE EVIDENCE (caps not directed at you Al just for emphasis lol) saying path is an issue (like tourney results) we cant say that it warrants a ban.

@Dutpotd- i like that you guys have such a drastically different meta than ours. I think that it is very interesting and contesting all of the people saying that fire makes this game unplayable. The fact that a solid meta can exist that is not saturated with Stand off and Financial is a very good thing. I also found it interesting that you recognize Torn Hero as format defining. Either way, it will remain to be seen during the fallout of SAS/PT Ft. Myers.

I still think however, that a 4 attack deck in this new format is impossible even with path. There are too many answers to the supporting attacks and the format is too fast to sacrifice the presence of good blocks that come stock on most attacks now. Just my 2 cents. Supplementing a deck like zi mei with wheel kick and pommel smash on the other hand...

ShippuJinrai said:

Aye, 'tis possible to agree to disagree. I appreciate the sentiment and second your notion myself. I've resigned myself to the current situation and as you said, it is something that we must simply prepare for.

I like the 3 checks with great stats. Going to 4 check attacks is not really necessary.

Cleave is an excellent attack. So is Fire Shadow, Leg Slash, Astaroth's Body Splash...

Olcadons was a format defining card....did it need to go? yes.

guitalex2008 said:

While they may be decent attacks, I wouldn't go so far as calling any of those excellent, especially ABS. Sorry, I just can't consider many non-throw, non-stun, 2-speed attacks excellent. Possible exceptions include, but are no limited to Ultimate Volcano, Shadow Exit, Lunging Snake, and Chi Disruptor.

ShippuJinrai said:

Of course Torn Hero is defining, many matchups go - Defensive Card in Staging Area < Pommel < Torn Hero. i.e. having the defensive card and Torn Hero around is the way to defend.

Similarily you could go - Standoff < Stun < Torn Hero...

Oddly enough you can also go - Ka < Damage Redux Below Zero < Stun < Torn Hero...

Yeah, I wouldn't run a 4 attack deck either, I was using an extreme case that will still more often than not get you the results. That being said, for optimum performance with Zi Mei, I would run a 12 attack deck, or even an 8 attack deck, both of these being a 'significantly' lower number of attacks than the average opposition giving me a clear advantage check-wise. About 1/3 of my foundations would need to be damage redux, granted I would have fewer blocks, and I would run some character blocks, maybe 4-6. <Sadly, I think Fury should run a 2, and I think Path should run a 3 or at the very least a 4>

Fire doesn't make the game unplayable, fire is what the game is to a large extent at the moment, the game is agressive = the most agressive symbol will be the most prevalent, this just makes sense. Earth is, however, very defensive becuase it has access to 'Defensive Card in Staging Area' + 'Torn Hero', and so far good and life just don't have the 'Defensive Card in Staging Area' to match it.

In any case, and imo, the defining cards in this meta are: Keyword Hate < Throws < Extreme Damage Redux < Stun < Torn Hero < Staging Area Destruction < Extreme Damage Pump ( Astrid, Hilde, arguably Heiachi/Fury/Jin and anything that abuses Path...) < consistent answers to damaging characters = ??? Then you have draw which can either highlight or dampen the effects of any of these depending on if the cards drawn can be played and if blocking means anything. And then you have blanking and Rashotep that can also highlight or dampen the effects of any of these.

It's kind of a toss up, there are some clear front-runners at the moment, but at least there are a few of them - many of them use path of the master.

- dut

ROTBI said:

Hehe, I see where you're coming from. Didn't mean to argue semantics. I'd just consider it decent at best, not excellent. If it were 3 difficulty, I could totally except it as "excellent".

ROTBI said:

Then you haven't played with Cleave or Leg Slash yet. Cleave is not just great at a 4high 5 weapon attack, but has a +0-MID, making it all-around reliable.

Leg Slash, IMO, is a staple in anything that can run it. Breaker: 2 is mad important.

Also, while I do gree Path would be fine with several erratas, by the time they've fixed the card (deleting the static, adding a commit cost to the R, fixing the E completely), you've now redesigned the entire card.

That just isn't going to happen. Most erratas can have a "character-only" or "only playable during" type of thing that Path simply won't have =/

MarcoPulleaux said:

Pretty much.

Oh yeah you just reminded me of what I need to build.

"Also, while I do gree Path would be fine with several erratas, by the time they've fixed the card (deleting the static, adding a commit cost to the R, fixing the E completely), you've now redesigned the entire card."

You seriously think all THREE abilities, taken individually, are broken?

Are you SERIOUSLY that retarded? FAIL

Tagrineth said:

I wouldnt go as far as saying any of them are broken by themselves, if you put any of them on an asset by itself then it would probably get run in alot of decks.

Its all the abilities together that makes its somewhat over the top.

I mean i can get the abilities of needs no ally(to use SSA), (insert random draw foundation here), and a couple of Damage pump foundations all in one, without sacrificing the slots to those cards or commiting the other cards to get those effects