Had a game today. Very unfun.

Game's going well, both doing our thing. I empty my hand to 1 card (was a DIS card), then draw a magic hand: 5 other DIS cards! Can't believe my luck!

Then my opponent clears the board with his own DIS cards and plays restringutus and says "dis". "Great game, was fun" was not the first thing that came to mind.

I was on a lockdown: Can't discard anything, can't play anything. I had a single key forged. My single artefact on the board was a DIS-co ball.

And it's not like the opponent was skilled with that play honestly: The chances of drawing a full 5 dis cards on my 3rd turn of play (having already played 3 cards and having an other one in hand) are just ludicrously low. I wasn't hoarding, I didn't do anything wrong, but still lost.

Not the most fun match I've had.

Happens, even with decks where it is possible it doesn't happen all that often, though. Just move on to the next game!

Some people find this fun. Some people are strange.

If the goal is to actually play the game, interact with the other player, react to their choices and make choices of your own, Restringuntus is a terrible, terrible card and was a terrible, terrible design choice that causes the game to come to crashing halt and was a huge mistake. But as I said, only if the goal of the design of the game was to have people actually play.

If the goal was to allow someone to win out of pure luck, play a single card and simply win regardless of how the game had progressed up to that point, in other words design a game where, "Ha ha, I win, you lose!" was to be considered a feature, then Restringuntus is a perfectly brilliant card.

So ask yourself, is playing for the sake of enjoying the act of playing important to you, or is winning at the cost of creating a negative player experience more important to you? If the latter, KeyForge is the game for you. If the former, well, KeyForge will, from time to time, be very disappointing.

That actually sounds hilarious. That exact scenario will probably never happen again to you. So I wouldn't worry about it too much?

2 hours ago, dperello said:

So ask yourself, is playing for the sake of enjoying the act of playing important to you, or is winning at the cost of creating a negative player experience more important to you? If the latter, KeyForge is the game for you. If the former, well, KeyForge will, from time to time, be very disappointing. 

This certainly makes you sound like a jovial fellow. I bet you're the hit of all the holiday parties.

There is no game on the face of this earth in which you will not, from time to time, be steamrolled. I wouldn't dare to imply that it should be 'fun' when you're getting lit up, but it's a game and sometime learning how to lose with dignity is part of life.

In this case, maybe there are more sides of the situation than just "Restringuntus is a terrible design choice."

If I see Restringuntus in a deck list, I'm trying real hard not to have a bingo hand that leaves me without options. I can't always control it, but you do the best you can. RG and FFG both have emphasized that part of the flavor of this game is the "Whoa! You could do that?" feeling. Restringuntus, like him or not, contributes to that swingy flavor. When he 'hits', he can dominate a game. When he misses and someone's built their plan around him, he can be a big miss.

And, I seriously hope that, if you're willing to make comments like this, that you would naturally NEVER feel good about playing a particularly strong combo or card that makes you dominate a game. After all, you don't want the other person to have a bad experience.

Richard Garfield himself admitted Restringuntus may have been a poor design choice, so there's that.

And I did say there was more than one side to this argument. I personally don't like Restringuntus in very specific situations, others think it's hilarious. Everyone is entitled their own perspective.

I have no issue with strong combos or inventive play. I enjoy losing a well played game as much as I enjoy winning a well played game. It's the play that is important to me. Restringuntus can, by accident, end a game. If you find that type of situation fun, great! Enjoy. Try not to misquote and belittle others that may disagree though. Or do. Whatever. You be you.

Restringuntus should be errataed to allow discarding cards from the chosen house.

Part of the problem I feel is the synergy it has with the game mechanic of not being able to mulligan your card in such a scenario. With how the rules work, it is broken because you can't pick the house. If it prevented your from playing cards of that house, it would be OK because you could just select that house and discard your whole hand.

ATM you can't. because of a quirk in the design, and because it's permanent (unlike other similar cards)

16 hours ago, TopHatGorilla said:

Restringuntus should be errataed to allow discarding cards from the chosen house.

Even if your opponent can do nothing else to stop you killing Restringuntus this is a three turn cycle to discard and draw, play and attack.

I would suggest if at the draw cards step, if your opponent has played no cards or discarded no cards they may purge Restinguntus. Skipping just one turn is bad enough in most cases.

On 2/2/2019 at 5:15 PM, dperello said:

Try not to misquote and belittle others that may disagree though. Or do. Whatever. You be you.

I'm not sure in what way you contend I misquoted you. And my intent wasn't to belittle you, though I did think your "either/or" setup for the game in your closing statement was being a killjoy. I tried to say that cheekily to _avoid_ being too confrontational. I stand by my point though I admit that _how_ I said it could've been perceived as a high-handed swipe. I apologize for that.

If you're referring to my parting shot, I think it was entirely fair... I've watched people (not you, obviously) get beat by some particular deck/condition and feel grumpy about it. I don't blame them. But it is amusing to me how many of them then seek out - or 'netdeck', insofar as it goes in the current online world - a deck with the exact same card conditions so they can foist it on someone else.

"It's only fun when _I_ get to do it" is a strange value position.

I'm curious about a source for your quote re: Garfield on Restringuntus as I've specifically heard him defend that card (and other lockout combinations) in other contexts.

Anyway, I stand by my quotations and arguments while apologizing if my tone was more jab than rib.

I guess I am the only person that will smile and after the game say "great move, you locked me down."

It feels like a silly thing to type, but it's not a negative experience if you don't let it be one. I'd even still play the game out, you never know if your opponent will make a mistake and accidentally (or maybe even intentionally) wipe that creature.

There's a lot of randomness in this game. You could even argue that each game session is as unique as the decks that are in them. You just never know what is going to happen. It's just a game and as much as I admittedly want to win it is not worth it to get super competitive while playing. There are always going to be better decks and worse decks, you are going to steamroll, get steamrolled, and have intense back and forth games that are amazing. It's just the way it goes. Keeping a positive reaction to each of these instances is easier said than done but also very important.

It stinks getting steamrolled; A lot of the people I play against are very friendly and I consider myself super friendly so believe me when I say this: It is not nearly as fun playing to steamroll someone. For me it's not the game I want. At the same time, you get the perfect draw, you play the cards just right, your opponent can't react and it all comes together. Then your opponent does that sigh or that grump sound and it's awkward. It's a negative experience on both sides, and I apologize because I don't mean to shame those that have reacted so.

If you can laugh, joke have fun, even when you're getting rolled, and if you can compliment your opponent on how things turned out so well for them that game, I tell you what it goes a long way in building a friendly environment at your store.

Granted this also only applies to face to face games and speaks to why I don't play on the Crucible, so if you're playing there this may not apply to you. I'd recommend getting out of it and playing exclusively in-person, but that's a different topic. Cheers.

12 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

Granted this also only applies to face to face games and speaks to why I don't play on the Crucible, so if you're playing there this may not apply to you....

The way the game has been established with respect to art, card text and and marketing is that this game is all about being fun. If a play causes you to "GG" in a face to face game why would taking the game online change the way you view things?

I think there are a handful of cards that were they not in the game you would not have to make this caveat. As such I think these cards are ill considered as to the desired outcomes of the game.

3 hours ago, HeavyDluxe said:

I'm not sure in what way you contend I misquoted you. And my intent wasn't to belittle you, though I did think your "either/or" setup for the game in your closing statement was being a killjoy. I tried to say that cheekily to _avoid_ being too confrontational. I stand by my point though I admit that _how_ I said it could've been perceived as a high-handed swipe. I apologize for that.

If you're referring to my parting shot, I think it was entirely fair... I've watched people (not you, obviously) get beat by some particular deck/condition and feel grumpy about it. I don't blame them. But it is amusing to me how many of them then seek out - or 'netdeck', insofar as it goes in the current online world - a deck with the exact same card conditions so they can foist it on someone else.

"It's only fun when _I_ get to do it" is a strange value position.

I'm curious about a source for your quote re: Garfield on Restringuntus as I've specifically heard him defend that card (and other lockout combinations) in other contexts.

Anyway, I stand by my quotations and arguments while apologizing if my tone was more jab than rib.

Ah, I apologize too. I just seems that every time I bring up that Restringuntus can cause a one card, pure fluke, instant win and that just maybe that isn't the best in game design someone comes along and says there are all sorts of powerful combos in the game, etc, etc. I just wish people would actually read what I said and respond to my overall points and not look for statements that can be taken out of context and accuse me of things I both never said nor implied.

The Garfield bit came from BBG, but I've read so many threads over the past six months that unfortunately I can't remember the exact thread it was in. In your sentence asking about it though you directly stated my problem with Restringuntus. You said, "and other lockout combinations," but Restringuntus isn't a combo. I have no issue with combos that win you the game that take several turns to set up. Your opponent can see them coming and try to prepare for them. Restringuntus can hit the table entirely by himself and instantly end the game, no combos, no set up, no clever play, just, "Oops, I guess you lose." Fun.

On 2/2/2019 at 12:34 PM, HeavyDluxe said:

This certainly makes you sound like a jovial fellow. I bet you're the hit of all the holiday parties.

These are the types of argumentum ad hominem statements you may want to avoid in the future if you genuinely want to discuss the points of the argument.

48 minutes ago, Amanal said:

The way the game has been established with respect to art, card text and and marketing is that this game is all about being fun. If a play causes you to "GG" in a face to face game why would taking the game online change the way you view things?

I think there are a handful of cards that were they not in the game you would not have to make this caveat. As such I think these cards are ill considered as to the desired outcomes of the game.

Fair point. Nothing changes for me from face to face to online. I think I was unnecessarily looking for a way to sneak in mentioning that I don't play online, but I meant no disrespect to those that do.

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it is not my opponent's fault if they have cards that I don't like. I might mention that after the game but I don't ever want my opponent thinking I am frustrated at them for making the best play they have available.

Restringuntus is one of those cards that obviously cause an opponent to lose. It just sits there, keeping cards from being played, while you take the game from your opponent. I've played cards like Arise! or Gateway to Dis where the sheer amount of card advantage means that I *WILL* win the game, but not for a few turns, and when the card that won the game is in the discard pile under 7 other cards. I wouldn't say Restringuntus is the worst Keyforge card, but it is the most obnoxiously in-your-face card.

Either way you cut it, I think Restringuntus' big shutdown is part of that 'Age of Discovery' that Keyforge promised. We didn't know what would happen, and now we do. Hopefully, any expansions will utilize some of the 'softer' locks people on this thread have mentioned.

13 hours ago, dperello said:

I have no issue with combos that win you the game that take several turns to set up. Your opponent can see them coming and try to prepare for them. Restringuntus can hit the table entirely by himself and instantly end the game, no combos, no set up, no clever play, just, "Oops, I guess you lose."

I have to disagree here that it was not a combo. If they player had just put out Restringuntus and nothing else it would not have been a lock down.

On 2/2/2019 at 3:06 AM, Deuzerre said:

Then my opponent clears the board with his own DIS cards and plays restringutus and says "dis". 

The opponent was able to first clear the board of Dis creatures. Granted this was not as complex a combo as using two houses to put it into action. But it also was predicated on luck that the OP had only Dis cards in hand, certainly not a common occurrence in of itself. This was a perfect storm, just someone willy-nilly playing Restringuntus.

5 hours ago, Krashwire said:

I have to disagree here that it was not a combo. If they player had just put out Restringuntus and nothing else it would not have been a lock down.

The opponent was able to first clear the board of Dis creatures. Granted this was not as complex a combo as using two houses to put it into action. But it also was predicated on luck that the OP had only Dis cards in hand, certainly not a common occurrence in of itself. This was a perfect storm, just someone willy-nilly playing Restringuntus.

And I never said it was. All I've been saying is that Restringuntus can be a single card fluke win, not that it will be all the time, or even often. In fact I even say it will only happen in very specific situations, in other words, very rarely. That still doesn't make it a good experience for everyone when it does happen. Some people like it, more do not. (And I say, "more," here because while it used to be fairly common in games, single card, "you lose!" plays are very, very uncommon in modern game design. If it was a popular mechanism it would be appearing more, not less often.)

I think the biggest problem with this game is that is already has a greater level if non-interaction than several other similar games, so when you take that basic design and add a few cards that create even more scenarios where all the interaction is removed, you end up with a pretty bad experience.

I think it's still a really good game to play casually, maybe one of the best casual games out there. Treating it any other way is a mistake IMO.

I'd say the opposite. Getting beaten by Restringuntus, when deck lists are available for opponents and playing around it is possible for any deck, is a sign that you're playing casually. I'm guilty of it myself. I have a playstyle that I use with all my decks and against all opponents, and because it works 90% of the time, I'm often on autopilot. I lost a game earlier this week because I tossed away a card on my first turn that would've won me the game on turn 15. That's on me, not on the game. I'm looking forward to seeing pros crafting higher-level strategies where you play 4 turns ahead, because I think Keyforge is primed for it.

4 hours ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

I'd say the opposite. Getting beaten by Restringuntus, when deck lists are available for opponents and playing around it is possible for any deck, is a sign that you're playing casually. I'm guilty of it myself. I have a playstyle that I use with all my decks and against all opponents, and because it works 90% of the time, I'm often on autopilot. I lost a game earlier this week because I tossed away a card on my first turn that would've won me the game on turn 15. That's on me, not on the game. I'm looking forward to seeing pros crafting higher-level strategies where you play 4 turns ahead, because I think Keyforge is primed for it.

What card was that? I can't really see a situation where I'd play with a smaller hand for 14 turns and wouldn't run into other issues.

15 hours ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

I'd say the opposite. Getting beaten by Restringuntus, when deck lists are available for opponents and playing around it is possible for any deck, is a sign that you're playing casually. I'm guilty of it myself. I have a playstyle that I use with all my decks and against all opponents, and because it works 90% of the time, I'm often on autopilot. I lost a game earlier this week because I tossed away a card on my first turn that would've won me the game on turn 15. That's on me, not on the game. I'm looking forward to seeing pros crafting higher-level strategies where you play 4 turns ahead, because I think Keyforge is primed for it.

I don't doubt better players will be able to play more optimally, but, when there is no deck construction and no sideboarding, you will fall victim to deck match ups and rng more frequently than in a game where you can control all the cards in your deck. We are all still victims of chance or aftermarket deck purchasing, we can only get so close to a certain strategy we want, and even then it could be a strategy that is weak to something else.

If you get stuck in a bad match up or get stuck in the perfect storm where your hand is only one faction and you're locked out by Restringuntus, or your opponent draws into their key accelerating combo before you can do anything, there is no amount of skill that gets you out of that scenario.

10 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

What card was that? I can't really see a situation where I'd play with a smaller hand for 14 turns and wouldn't run into other issues.

I also don't see how after cycling cards for 14 turns that a player wouldn't be able to reshuffle and draw back into it.

There are games that go to 15 turns?! 😋

4 hours ago, Palpster said:

There are games that go to 15 turns?! 😋

Many of my online matches go 15 turns, and that's not counting the sealed matches that go 20 turns because the first few turns are learning the deck.

8 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I don't doubt better players will be able to play more optimally, but, when there is no deck construction and no sideboarding, you will fall victim to deck match ups and rng more frequently than in a game where you can control all the cards in your deck. We are all still victims of chance or aftermarket deck purchasing, we can only get so close to a certain strategy we want, and even then it could be a strategy that is weak to something else.

If you get stuck in a bad match up or get stuck in the perfect storm where your hand is only one faction and you're locked out by Restringuntus, or your opponent draws into their key accelerating combo before you can do anything, there is no amount of skill that gets you out of that scenario.

I definitely agree that there are bad match-ups out there, perhaps insurmountably so. But I think "permalocked by a 1 power creature without elusive" is something that every deck can beat, if played around.