Hiya guys,

The forums are deathly quiet so without further ado i'll place my predictions of the next STOG here, it may be a small little number or even a complete shift for the meta, who knows?

Here's what we do know:

Pavilion SCIV02 77/99 has the following errata applied it now has the terrain keyword.

Here's what methinks:

I think that bans aren't unplausible TBH, and as such i think that any of these following could possibly be banned or errate'd: Stand off, Financial troubles, Hilde, Astrid, path of the master, King

Admittedly, non of the charcters are banworthy in that they are easily ammendable by a quick errata, the others however are quite problematic and have set a power curve in the meta since their inception IMO.

Just my 0.02

Dan

Personally.... I dont really think there even needs to be a SotG this month.... unless there is some news that is completely surprising.

There doesnt need to be any new bans. period.

Also it would be nice if they say Paid to Protect is going to be mass distributed.....

>_>; Can we have one thread go without the idea of banning/errataing something? Just once?

Tagrineth said:

No.

Bloodrunstrue said:

These cards are fine, none of the them truly make the game NPE in my opinion. Yes they are all very good cards, but the only card in my mind that deserves any sort of errata or ban is Paid to Protect. It is too powerful right now with some cards having up to 4 keywords printed on them. If you were to change it to each card that has a keyword it would be fine.

I think Financial just needs to be unique. 1 per turn is manageable. Sitting across from 4 of them is an NPE, and I don't think anyone would really disagree... except the insane...

call me crazy....i dont think any of those cards need touched at all...except maybe the terrain one...just think if they get touched then you people will have nothing to ***** about

Awaken said:

Actually... no. History has proven that no matter what gets fixed, someone will find something to complain about. Then everyone rallies around them. It's quite innane actually.

Not really.

You have group A who doesn't like the status quo and group B that does. When you make the change, if you are lucky Group A is now happy, and B is not. If you make a poor change then everyone is unhappy. You can't expect to make everyone happy ever though.

Antigoth said:

Only thing I'd want errated/banned is Xianghua into "that you could normally play" if only because she might as well not have any symbols and say "You may play every foundation ever."

Not that it's too strong or can't be dealt with (ohai Immovable Object) - it'd just allow her to make more sense with the rest of the game.

Homme Chapeau said:

Except she doesn't say that at all. What if you build her that way, and draw an opening hand of 7 foundations you can't play with 0 attacks? Or even worse, mulligan into said hand - you're now completely screwed.

And you don't need fancy crap answers like Immovable Object - the answer to her ability for the most part can be summarized as "Blocking".

My prediction is people will complain about cards that should be banned or errated that have no business being banned or errated, just because they are too lazy to change their strategy a bit or don't think out side the box and actually play/use the cards to counter the cards they constantly complain about. Whats new huh?

now i might have just missed it but did we even get one for november?

Tagrineth said:

Tag, check your sig.

Here's my prediction for the SOTG:

1) Mention of how well SCIV is selling/preselling.
2) Optimism about new year.
3) Hint at what the next set is.
4) Prize support for December mentioned.
5) No new bans because none are needed.

Do I win now?

guitalex2008 said:

No and here's why.

1) Easy to see because hey it's a good set with a lot of characters that haven't been present in a while making a comeback (Xianghua not being there since Set 6, etc.)

2) With how well they're handling business now (get rid of stock they're stuck with at a price rather than giving it away so you can recoup possible losses), they have good reason to be optimistic.

3) Considering no info is out about it, I'd say they'll a possible date OR one of the two licenses if it's a base set. So yeah that one was somewhat easy.

4) Again obvious mention is obvious but DDM already posted the December support in another thread.

5) WHAT BUT IMMOVABLE OBJECT REQUIRES A BAN.

It should be criminal for a card to have so little use and be a rare. I'd still run it in Evil Zhao Daiyu though especially with Xianghua now coming in.

So while you do not win you are accurate in your predictions.

i can see xianghua getting a erata adding "that you could play normally" to the R

Another one? Jesus, why does she warrant any kind of errata at all? ...

How about you try it before you cry about it? Has ANYONE taken it past "OH MY GOD LIKE SHE CAN PLAY FINANCIAL TROUBLES AND FOR THE MONEY" like it's some revolutionary concept that no Fire character has ever done before anyway

hoestly, the only thing about PoTM that needs fixed is not the card, but a ruling made a long time ago. About multiple copoes having all symbols that the original attack had. that's how you abuse it, not by spamming 4 or 5 attacks then popping it.

X girl does need to say "cards you could normally play". otherwise she's almost worse than banned talbain.

Prize support is still going to suck until they get a REAL team together to fix things. Also, has anyone noticed that everyone with PS problems is having the SAME **** PROBLEM. This is why FFG DOES need to at least check the forums once a week. or at least make a new furm to post PS problems and what not, so Steve and James are not having to find a needle in a hay stack.

Cardwise, nothing needs banned, just a minor fix or two. But nothing major.

I really think that SCV2 and the next set, what ever it may be, will determine where this game is going, and so far I'm loving it. I really wish fire could get toned down a little, the first 3 sets gave it great attacks and damage pumps, and this new set gave it the speed it was missing.

that's all, you may proceed with the bashing

Seriously...i love this game right now, as-is. I definitely do NOT thing there needs to be any bans or erratas, with the exception of Pavillion, which we all know is going to happen.

My only hope is to catch word of what the next Set is going to be. For realz, these last 4 sets have been off the hook and crazy good (i digress). Can't wait for the next one!!

Tagrineth said:

Not when there are cards that need to be banned.

Also...

...um, there hasn't even been a November SOTG (and won't be).

Tagrineth said:

i am not complaining about her. all i am saying is it could have been a mistake.

mastermajora said:

What makes you think it was a mistake? There are other cards in the set that do the same thing.

Also. "X girl does need to say "cards you could normally play". otherwise she's almost worse than banned talbain."

OK WHAT? Where is the correlation between her ability and J.Talbain3? Okay, they both foundations directly from your hand into play. Fine. There's a HUGE number of non-trivial differences between the two though.

Talbain's ability revolved entirely around foundation play, and was a continuous ability.

Xianghua's ability requires that her attacks deal damage. It also requires a control check. It's also not a continuous ability.

Xianghua's ability revolves around ATTACKING, which is the fundamental basis of this game and what we're trying to focus the game on again (since in Talbain's era, they WEREN'T the focus, and Talbain was the epitome of format-breakers because of his gamebreaking ability).

Not to mention the HUGE difference of Xianghua's ability being COUNTERED BY A BASIC GAME MECHANIC (blocking).

but yes OH MY GOD YOU GUYS ARE SO RIGHT, SHE'S BROKEN.

Antigoth said:

I remember that one batch of bannings, the one that included Defender of the Empire and a whole host of bannings.

I don't think a single person complained about the list of cards that got banned that day...

Also, more often than not, people are okay with what gets banned. I know your point is that people will still complain, but really, we're at a point in this game where nothing is too terribly overpowered. The only real exception has been Path of the Master, a common crutch for victory (and an otherwise unnecessary catalyst to winning), as well as the oft-considered NPE Stand Off. See, what makes a card broken isn't necessarily what it does, but how the card ends up affecting the metagame.

Path of the Master, from what all I've seen and heard, is slapped into virtually every deck that can run it, and for obvious reason. The days of Tiamat (attack, attack, play Tiamat and win) are almost re-created with Path of the Master, except this time around, Tiamat has the Infinite symbol instead of just Death (because really, few people played it off Earth or Void). Now sure, different circumstances are different (it's not longer Spin Knuckle Shoulder Rush Tiamat), however, in this current metagame, attack strings can be seen similar to Tiamat in the following scenarios:

Stun attack + Stun attack + Stun attack + Path
High speed attack + high speed attack + high speed attack + Path
High damage attack + high damage attack + high damage attack + Path
Throw + Throw + Throw + Path
(King exclusive) Attack times X + Foundations times X + King F + Path

By the time Ka Technique or Controller of Souls can stop it, they've likely been Pommel'd/Sirens'd/Stunned/Ka Technique'd/etc, and even if they weren't, that still wouldn't make Path any less dangerous than it already is.

Either way, sorry if this thread becomes a giant argument of why Path is or is not bannable, simply pointing out the way it dumbs down kills, and that, as I've said repeatedly, nothing in this game is TRULY overpowered with the EXCEPTION of Path that simply seals FAR too many games, and Stand Off which is simply too advantage-generating and NPE for modern gameplay.

Finally, as per all this Xianghua talk...

I remember thinking to myself, "OK, so Kasumi Gaki can play off-symbol foundations, so what? Nobody will do that, because what if they draw a hand of unplayable foundations?"

...and then everybody went and played off-symbol foundations, completely disproving my point, and was a key factoring to allowing Gaki's ban.

Tagrineth said:

i am just saying it's a possibility. i am also not saying that she should have errata it is just another possibility.