Some of the tactics and deck combinations in the deck building section seem really overpowered, unstoppable, and otherwise just "Flawless Victory!".

So I was wondering if, for tournament play, there would ever be a list of regulations and guidelines for all decks to follow (other then the standard 3 card copy limit). For Example, Someone who bought only one of each set/pack would be at a HUGE disadvantage vs someone who bought 3 of each set/pack and even signing up for a tournament would be laughable. I'm not saying its impossible to win, just saying that its another case of "he who has more money wins more" which is the standard trademark of CCGs (which almost ALL have ban list for tournament play).

There are currently no overpowered cards that need to be banned, there are certainly some strong deck builds but it is the synergy of the cards that make the best decks... well the best decks, and it is the best player who can improvise, adapt, and overcome their opponents who win the most.

If any card proves to be to unbalanced you can expect FFG to keep a strict eye on it and ban it if necessary.

i agree with dormouse
there is nothing much wrong with cards at the moments....

and as for the money argument... this isnt a CCG..... its a LCG... its not THAT expencive when compared to other card games....

I'm not so sure that Wauughhh! isn't badly over-powered. Were it to only give a single power icon to each unit, I think it'd be more balanced. But I'd rather not see any cards banned - I hate that.

See the difference in LCG and CCG is that he who has the most money has a monetary cap. That monetary cap is much smaller in LCGs than CCGs, which have no set cap. In LCGs its eactly, 3x of each expansion released. In WAR:Inv terms that's 30 dollars a month.

I too do not feel there are any cards in the current card pool available to us that warrent bannings. I understand each person has there own limits as to what they can afford/spend each month towards games and other such things but justifying banning a card based on what people can afford or not afford is not productive towards the health of a game. Now I will say I am the type of person that will be buying 3xBP everytime they are released and also have 3x all of the 1xcards from the core set that I want (this was done by splitting a core set with a friend trading cards and recieving a core set for christmas to split up between myself and another friend). This is the approach I take towards any game I play but not something I expect of everyone who wants to play a game. That being said I do feel if one wants to be competative this is usually the stance one must take and punishing the people who want to be as competitive as possible by justifying bannings because not everyone will have 3xWhatevergoodcard.com is not productive.

In this game though I still feel it is easy to be very competitive with 1xcore 1xbp etc. and don't feel you should have much to worry about. In magic Banslayer Angels are currently selling on ebay for around 46 us dollars (a few weeks prior they were even fetching 60$). This is because it is one of the best creatures EVER printed for its casting cost no questions asked. This card steals games if it goes un answered. so if you wanted to play the maximum amount allowed of this card in a single deck it would cost you 172$ for 4 cards!! HOWEVER the point I'm trying to get to is the current standard format ( 2 most current blocks of boosters and most recent core set) consists of a single deck that is taking up about 60% of the format, and guess what? The best deck in the format does NOT use baneslayer angel. You can in fact almost build the entire deck for the price of 4 baneslayer angels (which is relatively cheap in magic terms). So I feel if you have a good grasp of the game are a good player and have some pretty good intuition when building your decks you should have no problem dealing with any "awsome" card in this game currently.

I am always strongly opposed to bannings unless they are absolutely warrented. Just because something is really good doesnt mean it needs banned. When something is so good no one else is playing anything else than and only than should a card be discussed as a potential banning.

As more cards come out, theres bound to be a few OP cards that deserve a tournament ban slot.

Maybe I shouldn't have been so specific as to Ban, but limited cards as well. As in only 1 or 2 copies of a single card per deck.

It is conceivable that there will be such a list at somepoint in the future... but I'd be surprised if there was more than one or two cards that escaped the dev and play test teams in 2010.

Wolfie6407 said:

I think the development of limited/ban/errata lists is as good of a sign as it is a bad one. Why? The creation of a banlist would only mean the game had grown to the extent that enough players care to address the powerlevel of cards, and at the tournament level.

Of course, I don't see anything particularly banworthy at the moment. And I'm not advocating that bannings are good things, just that the existence of them is not 'entirely' a bad thing, mistakes are inevitable and with a large enough playerbase people will find ways to break what plyatesters considered to be strong cards, making them a little 'too' consistent to be healthy for the environment.

I don't think $ have/has anything to do with bannings, not in any game, and definately not in an LCG.

- dut

I think you missed the point entirely dut....

I really don't care what anyway says, In my opinion, 3 Troll Vomit in one deck shouldn't be allowed in tournaments.

I'll give you a real world example that I experienced. A Card shop in Rosenberg Texas was hosting its own tournament for Yu-Gi-Oh, was a 10 dollar entry fee and the winner would get half the money from that and a few boosters. when I got there there was around 30 ppl entered. I won the first round and the second round against 2 pretty tough opponents (these were matches btw so 3 games, best 2 out of 3). In the 3rd round I was facing the shop owners son. He beat me twice on the third turn 2 games in a row. Needless to say, he won the tournament and every other tournament I ever participated in (12) hosted by that shop. But after they started applying the banlist to them, he didn't win anymore and the shop stopped hosting tournaments.

The Entire purpose of banning and limiting cards only becomes necessary when new cards come out that can be combined with older cards in a possible overpowered (and probably overlooked) way.

Wolfie6407 said:

Comments like this is far off base imo. By no means should there be a restriction on a card like this or any other card that is considered good for the sake of it just being a good card. If you have a legitimate reason for thinking cards like troll vomit or maybe vereenas judgement than I would like to hear it. This game has seen zero cards so far that need restrictions or bannings. If a card came along that would ruin the game to the point where it would stifle any room for growth or creativity because it hindered any other strategy from being viable than yes I would support a banning or restriction.

I can assure you if there was a legitimate tournament that gave a decent sample size of what people were playing it would not be overran with troll vomit, and even if 40% of the player base was using troll vomit this still wouldn't justify banning.

blah blah blah cards like troll vomit and vareenas judgement >>SHOULD BE BANNED<< blah blah would like to hear it.

noticed that missing from that sentence :-P. WTB an edit button on these forums.

Wolfie6407 said:

Don't think I missed the point entirely, my post is basically saying that I think there will be bans and or limits if the game is sucessful enough to warrant them.

To be honest, your OP strikes me with two points, neither of which I missed, both of which I chose to ignore because they border on whining. The latter being preemptive complaint elaborated on by your most recent post in which you cite Yugioh...

Point 1. You think there are already some combinations that, at least, 'seem' really overpowered.

Point 2. You don't want to lose to someone simply because they have better cards than you, and you'd rather protect the interests of the player that cannot invest as much as another who can. This doesn't make sense however, granted the Company selling the product wouldn't want to deliberately alienate the person who buys more of its product... It would make sense in the case where there were very few players with sets of cards, so few that the majority of the sales go to players that only buy enough to have access to few of the cards. But let's be honest, this is an LCG, I buy a core/boost you buy a core/boost we play different factions and we have sets of all the cards.

I don't know why 3 Troll Vomit is a problem, especially since 3 of the damage canceller or 3 of something equally powerful is also available. Every side will likely have a strong tactic, a card like Troll Vomit is a 'container' card, one that deters decks that solely rely on units for growth, i.e. it ensure benefits going out to using support cards and a variety of card types in decks.

And you obviously do care what people say or else you wouldn't be posting here to hear about it. Note that, your opinion, being an opinion, is a valid one.

- dut

edit (see there is an edit button ^^ ), be realistic, a card that says 'destroy' all armies including your own... always going to exist in a card game - thankfully it is costed quite properly imo.

I can assure you I see no such Edit button ( unless your screwing with me and just added that at the end to look like a edit :-P)

Anyways Excellent post dutpotd

There are a few things I want to reiterate here.

1.) You were concerned about getting pwned because you are not Mr. Suitcase. However, teh cost of being Mr Suitcase is much less in this game than others. There have been cost comparison's done before and its HUNDREDS of dollars less, and also a gaurentee, rather than working averages and chance. Hence, anyone can easily be Mr Suitcase and own 3 copies of every card in the game.

2.) Banning things usually only happens if EVERYONE is running it THE CARD ITSELF wins games or is nigh unstoppable and as a VERY NEARLY direct result wins you a game. Then FFG is usually ok with banning things. Ask yourself, have they banned anything in CoC or AGoT yet?

3.) Limited cards is always bad. If a card is so good as to be so good that it wins you the game, making it less likely you're going to draw one just makes the game LESS STABLE. If the problem with the card was that it made the game unreliable and less reliant on strategy and more reliant on drawing that one card and that would qual win, then really the only difference between 1 copy or three copies is how often it will absolutely mess the game balance. If the card is a problem, let it be the same chance of a problem as the rest of the cards are. Limiting it to only happening in 1/however big your deck is vs. 3/deck changes very little about the card. He who draws it wins it. Making that one rather than three just exagerates the instabilty of the card's existence in the first place. BAN it or don't.

4.) I'm sorry what were you saying about some banning of a card in YuGi? So... this group was running tournaments, people were having fun, and suddently a card is banned, and they stop running tournements? ... what was this an argument for or against banning of cards? Seems like bannage and limits are bad for the game... And it seems that even things like Troll Vomit, or any future vomit-esque things wlill can can be dealt with by in game ways (other easily accesible cards and /or stretegies).

Game on!

dutpotd said:

Fortunately, this isn't true (I can name a few CCGs that don't have such "global effect" cards). Personnaly, I don't like gamebreakers (cards that by their own effect deny all your careful moves toward victory) ; but since such cards exist in WH:I, I see no point in banning them.

I agree about all what Vermillian wrote. And if money is a problem to gather the cards needed for a deck, one can always ask the other players to borrow them.

Last, if it happens to be cards which are (or become) "broken", the best move is to alter their gametexts rather than banning them.

Martin_fr said:

Not that I don't believe you re: the CCGs without globals, I do. I just can't come up with any off the top of my head, can you help my memory for discussions sake?

I'm not in favor with changing card text unless it is an interpretation issue, if a card is overpowered then it should probably just go and a toned down version released in the next chapter of cards thus avoiding carrying around a list of ammendments to games.

- dut

edit: the edit is along the right border of your post in light grey.

The edit feature is only available for the first five minutes after creating a post unless you leave the window open, in which case it is available until you close that window.

Alternatively you can click the report to moderator button on your post and then go to the address bar in your browser and change the word reportar to editar and then open that up and voila, you can now edit your post to your heart's content.

Regarding the topic at hand...

Banning for anything less than a card that violates the spirit of the game, should be avoided. A card that is too efficient as to become detrimental to the game, be it cards that are currently available or those which cannot be created because of this, would qualify. Errata is a better way to handle this when it is really just a tweak the card needs, say putting a limit on an effect or making it order only or other such thing.

Most competitive CCGs have a rotation policy, as much based on classic card availability as it is on restriction of design space. LCG's do not have the former problem in any meaningful way. I suspect that instead of rotatin entire BAttle Pack cycles they may create a banned list to remove specific cards from the environment as the game progresses. I think this would be an infinitely better way of solving the problem than to suddenly remove a large chunk of the card base, though some people will still complain mostly because it will likely target their favorite killer cards.

There is no reason to limit Troll Vomit. If you keep losing games because of this card you are overextending or not properly building your deck. If your deck has support cards which you are playing to supplement your units in your Quest and Kingdom Zones o maintain a more predictable level of draw and resources, Troll Vomit has a much reduced effect. If you are not retaining a few cheap units in your hand in case your Destruction foe plays a Troll Vomit then you simply misplayed. Not fundamentally different than Judgment of Verena taking out your units because you didn't bother to develop your zones. This is the game. Ignore these cards if you want to when you build and play, but don't complain about losing because of those choices.

A +1 to the discussion of 'playing around a card'. For a while I was upset about this concept. Wrath of God in MtG for instance, Yoga Mastery in UFS, Put to the Sword in AGoT (game defining in the first sets!). These things kinda annoy you at first, but then you remember again what game you're playing. A TCG (or LCG) whose base rules are set up to be a template, and whose rules are utterly destroyed by every new card that is printed.

The way to play the game is DEFINED BY what other cards exist in the game. To ignore those, is to ignore the fact that you can collect a pool during your untap phase if you have the Edge (In Vampire the Eternal Struggle) for instance.

There are no cards that need a ban. There are some, that seem to be overpowered, but there is a solution to everything:

Waaagh! , Spider Riders and other beatsticks: Master Rune of Valaya , cards that move units and Counterstrikers are a solution here.

Bloodthirster / Rip dere 'eads off combo: Unit movers, Master Rune of Valaya , attack preventers etc.

Troll Vomit and Judgment of Verena : don't play all your units on the table

massive card draw: Infiltrate and the Chaos quest

I could go on and on about powerful combos and solutions. The point is that gamebreaker combos do exist , but there is always a solution to them. You cannot cover everything with one deck, but you can prepare for a great range of power cards.

At this point there is nothing that screams "Ban me, I am too powerful!" since every race has its powerful combos and strategies. The crucial thing in this game is to be fast and prepared. If your deck is slow, you deserve to lose. Quite simple. Also don't bother too much about losing a zone, concentrate on the remaining two. ;-)

OK I want this to be clear...

Solutions should always be in TYPES of cards one could put in your deck, or a well played out strategy.

It is not, and SHOULD not ever be "Oh well if you have this ONE card in your hand against this one player that might be playing that kind of deck, then you'll be fine...". No sir. Such solutions are too narrow and corner case. At the moment I don't think warhammer invasion has such... requirements in meta gaming. Hopefully it never will.

However it might for a time. I remember in UFS Yoga Mastery was only dealable by few conditions 1.) Ring Veteran 2.) Killing them without Enhances (which Yoga Mastery canceled). However even in the next set, new strategies formes...

W:I may have momentary problems for a battle pack or two. That's about all I suspect.

Sir Blackadder said:

Once BT is out there, can't cancel damage. MRoV uses the word "cancel", so I guess it won't work anymore (even though it cancels assigned damage, doesn't cancel like Toughness).

You're right. But still, I think that you got the message, that there are solutions to the "problem cards" in the game. You could as well corrupt the Bloodthirster , so I gave you another solution.

vermillian said:

I gave examples that instantly came to mind. I am sure that there are far more ways to counter the "tough guys". You have to keep in mind that if you play Empire, for example, you cannot play an Orc winning tactic. If you focus on your strength (in this case: control), you can always beat your opponent.

What does an Orc player do, who has plenty of cheap units on the table but can't get a sufficient supply on his hand after turn 2?

This is an evergreen discussion where people see cards they can't handle because they don't see the possibilities. Of course, Orcs look daunting with all their cheap units and Skaven support, but after all they follow a straight forward strategy: KILL QUICKLY! If you can stall them, you can win.

For MtG we have far more powerful cards and card combinations in the standard format tournaments at the moment.

So I guess the reason why players complain about broken cards is that they are new to the world of living/collectible card games. I can only tell the people who demand bans: you don't know what you're asking for! Once we start banning cards, demands for further bans will skyrocket. Rather try to analyze the cards and come up with a solution yourself.

dutpotd said:

Too bad I can't find out how to send PM. So, sorry to anyone about the out of topic, but here are a few CCGs without global effects : NetRunner, Middle-earth:CCG, Doomtown, and Stargate. Fortunately, none of these games are still running, so your statement could be considered correct in some ways.

IIRC, There's also L5R, but I didn't play much that one, so I may be wrong.

End of the out of topic.