2 minutes ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

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.

Nearly every deck can play around it, but whether it's sound strategy remains to be seen. If the opponent doesn't have Dis (57% of decks), there's no point in playing around it. If the opponent does have Dis, it may help to prioritize having two cards in hand from differing houses (or an Onmi: in play that can deal with it) around, but it may slow down your deck too much to do so, especially if you find out later there is no Restringuntus to play around.

1 minute ago, Rabbitball said:

Nearly every deck can play around it, but whether it's sound strategy remains to be seen. If the opponent doesn't have Dis (57% of decks), there's no point in playing around it. If the opponent does have Dis, it may help to prioritize having two cards in hand from differing houses (or an Onmi: in play that can deal with it) around, but it may slow down your deck too much to do so, especially if you find out later there is no Restringuntus to play around.

Obviously, you don't play around every single card that exists in every single game. For a format that allows opponents to see their decklist, players should check for obvious problem cards that require playing around.

2 minutes ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

Obviously, you don't play around every single card that exists in every single game. For a format that allows opponents to see their decklist, players should check for obvious problem cards that require playing around.

Even though it would be easy enough to put my opponent's deck name into the Master Vault or Keyforge Compendium and look at the decklist, I don't do so in online games mainly because I want to practice being prepared for anything. So when I play against a Dis, I assume there's a Restringuntus waiting to be dropped at an inconvenient moment; when I play against Shadows, I assume a Bait and Switch is coming; and so on. Sometimes, though, the needs of the board state lead me to say, "If he's got it, I'm screwed, but playing this way is the only chance I have to win" and I'm fine with that if it happens.

36 minutes ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

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.

In a sealed event maybe not. Certainly it's something to be aware of when you're able to look at your opponent's decklist, but there are those random games where you are holding 2 cards of one house and you just happen to get 4 more of the same house and your opponent locks you out on the next turn.

The only thing you can really do is be aware it's out there, because not all decks can maintain a board presence, especially when Restringuntus is in a house with a very good sweeper to wipe out any board presence you thought you could have to deal with it.....forcing you to hold back cards and take a suboptimal line of play, which usually leads to losing.

I have one deck that is pretty bad, but, it wins a lot with 3 Control the Weak and some logos draw to help me chain them in back to back turns. When I string 3-5 turns of Control the Weak lock after waiting for the right time to play it and picking the house with the least odds of being played I'd argue that is skill on my part because I worked to get that scenario........but when I'm randomly throwing out Control the Weak in turn 2 with no set up and my opponent just passed the next turn.....that's not anything close to skill.

The game has both skill and rng plays, unfortunately I've seen more of the latter when it comes to "competitive" play because many people are scrubbing decks that aren't blatantly powerful which reduces the game to more of a "draw the nuts" kind of affair.

Which is why I don't take competitive play seriously at this point of the game. Once chains and rankings start kicking it, I think it will improve, but for now It's really not much of a test of skill, imo

On 2/2/2019 at 7:02 PM, dperello said:

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.

I completely agree that they designed Restringuntus very poorly, but I don't think they intentionally tought to have game end this way; I think this was just a not so tested card like Biomatrix Backup where they missed this type of interaction.

IMHO they just wanted to avoind a player using card of one use, but they didn't realize the lockdown possibility this will bring.

On 2/3/2019 at 3:59 AM, TopHatGorilla said:

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

This would be a perfect balance for the card and an excellent solution for the feeling of a "stole" game and an unfair loss.

4 hours ago, Synnaq said:

I completely agree that they designed Restringuntus very poorly, but I don't think they intentionally tought to have game end this way; I think this was just a not so tested card like Biomatrix Backup where they missed this type of interaction.

IMHO they just wanted to avoind a player using card of one use, but they didn't realize the lockdown possibility this will bring.

I wish this was accurate, but comments by Richard Garfield contradict these ideas. On Biomatrix Backup he has said it was simply a typo and the word "may" was not supposed to appear in any Destroyed effects.

With Restringuntus, he has said he likes lockouts. This is something I have trouble understanding as it seems, to me, that any game state that prevents someone from actually playing the game is working counter to the whole point of any game's existence, to be played. There are obviously others that disagree with me, even beyond the example just given of Richard Garfield, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with conflicting opinions. No one has yet been able to explain to me why not being able to play a game is a good design choice beyond that they like it, but maybe that's enough.

4 hours ago, dperello said:

I wish this was accurate, but comments by Richard Garfield contradict these ideas. On Biomatrix Backup he has said it was simply a typo and the word "may" was not supposed to appear in any Destroyed effects.

With Restringuntus, he has said he likes lockouts. This is something I have trouble understanding as it seems, to me, that any game state that prevents someone from actually playing the game is working counter to the whole point of any game's existence, to be played. There are obviously others that disagree with me, even beyond the example just given of Richard Garfield, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with conflicting opinions. No one has yet been able to explain to me why not being able to play a game is a good design choice beyond that they like it, but maybe that's enough.

Here's my best attempt at explaining why such a design might be seen as favorable:

1. It can be played around. If I see Dis in the opponent's house list, there are plays that (for the most part) avoid the current lockout condition. Changing your strategy based on what might be in your opponent's deck (or something you know is in the deck either because of a decklist view or a previous play) could be seen as a viable and necessary play skill.
2. It's nominally a rare event. You have to have no board presence worth mentioning and all cards in your hand of the affected house in order to be completely locked out.
3. In tournaments, it may be that round time is a consideration. As a marshal, I would frown on a player who is locked out stalling out the game, but if we are near the end of the round, I would certainly allow the locked out player to say, "I'm passing throughout; beat me in the remaining time in the game" especially if the lockout happens when the helpless player has two keys forged and the other player has none.
4. There is always the possibility the other player makes a mistake, such as dropping a Horseman of Famine and accidentally being forced to eat the Restringuntus.

I too dislike lockouts, but I am willing to at least consider that one or more of these might be seen as good design in some circles.

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 6:36 PM, Rabbitball said:

Even though it would be easy enough to put my opponent's deck name into the Master Vault or Keyforge Compendium and look at the decklist, I don't do so in online games mainly because I want to practice being prepared for anything. So when I play against a Dis, I assume there's a Restringuntus waiting to be dropped at an inconvenient moment; when I play against Shadows, I assume a Bait and Switch is coming; and so on. Sometimes, though, the needs of the board state lead me to say, "If he's got it, I'm screwed, but playing this way is the only chance I have to win" and I'm fine with that if it happens.

Playing for the best outcome instead of avoiding the worst outcome is a good playstyle. And I admire you going into games blind. But I think you're depriving yourself of another level of play, of planning for the powerful rare instead of reacting to it.

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 6:52 PM, Ishi Tonu said:

In a sealed event maybe not. Certainly it's something to be aware of when you're able to look at your opponent's decklist, but there are those random games where you are holding 2 cards of one house and you just happen to get 4 more of the same house and your opponent locks you out on the next turn.

The only thing you can really do is be aware it's out there, because not all decks can maintain a board presence, especially when Restringuntus is in a house with a very good sweeper to wipe out any board presence you thought you could have to deal with it.....forcing you to hold back cards and take a suboptimal line of play, which usually leads to losing.

For certain, dumping your hand is a very good strategy is Keyforge. Putting free AEmber on a lot of actions makes it okay to dump them when it's not optimal. But I think it's understated how valuable it can be to holding back certain valuable cards when it's drawn early. For cards like Effervescent Principle, it's worth it to hold onto it even if you're otherwise choosing House Logos. I'd say that there are a lot of cards that are worth holding on to for several turns, even without the worry of Restringuntus. To say that holding onto a card for several turns is a non-starter for options? I don't think that's always the case.

Planning several turns in advance is a useful skill in Keyforge. My guess is that the people who pull off the Restringuntus lock aren't just being lucky. They hold back the lock until they see their opponent spending several turns playing out cards in 2 out of their 3 houses. What looks like lucky wins could be higher-level planning. Similarly, playing against Restringuntus involves thinking several turns ahead. Taking your example of going from 2 cards to 6 on the draw, that would have involved playing 4 cards of the same House. That kind of greedy play is what makes people lose to this. If you know you're going to face cards like Control the Weak, keeping your hand with a spread of all 3 Houses is a valid strategy. Avoiding Restringuntus can involve preparing for it several turns before it hits.

14 minutes ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

Playing for the best outcome instead of avoiding the worst outcome is a good playstyle. And I admire you going into games blind. But I think you're depriving yourself of another level of play, of planning for the powerful rare instead of reacting to it.

I would argue that it's another style of play as opposed to another level. Remember that in competitive sealed play, there is no review of the decklist prior to the game. So I'm simulating one method of play. while you are simulating another.

10 hours ago, dperello said:

With Restringuntus, he has said he likes lockouts. This is something I have trouble understanding as it seems, to me, that any game state that prevents someone from actually playing the game is working counter to the whole point of any game's existence, to be played. There are obviously others that disagree with me, even beyond the example just given of Richard Garfield, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with conflicting opinions. No one has yet been able to explain to me why not being able to play a game is a good design choice beyond that they like it, but maybe that's enough.

Because every game of Keyforge is about making the other player stop playing the game. You do it by forging the third key. You do it by having an army of heavily-shielded fighters. You do it by stealing every AEmber they make. The difference with the last two examples is that the opponent is given the illusion that they still have a chance of winning. You can be allowed to play all the cards in your hand and use every card in play, but still lose the game next turn if your opponent has a better board and position. Being locked out by Restringuntus is perhaps the most merciful form of lockout, in that you're not given false hope of winning.

Over the past decade, M:TG has moved from favouring control decks to creature decks, as a response to people disliking having all their permanents destroyed and not being able to play the game. Their response to this was to weaken removal spells and strengthen the durability of creatures. The result of this was that creatures had become oppressive, and removal was unable to moderate them. Like a genie's wish, they got what they wanted in the worst possible way. Turns out, letting people use whatever they wanted to meant people played the best creatures possible, which steamrolled over weaker creatures; essentially, creatures were doing to other creatures what removal used to do. Like I said at the beginning, every play is designed to lock out your opponent. Some are more subtle about it than others. You're never going to get rid of 'lockdown', it's just going to change form.

33 minutes ago, Rabbitball said:

I would argue that it's another style of play as opposed to another level. Remember that in competitive sealed play, there is no review of the decklist prior to the game. So I'm simulating one method of play. while you are simulating another.

Do you go in blind with the deck you're using, to simulate how a Sealed tournament would play out?

1 minute ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

Do you go in blind with the deck you're using, to simulate how a Sealed tournament would play out?

I have. For the first 10 games with a deck, I play knowing what I'm playing Now that I've done that for my entire lineup, I either go in sealed or pick a random deck just because. In some ways, not peeking at my opponent's list is similar to playing with chains on my deck.

1 hour ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

Because every game of Keyforge is about making the other player stop playing the game.

No, it really isn't. There is a distinct and important difference between winning a game by completing a win condition and having one player unable to play while any win condition is nowhere near being met.

The vast majority of game designers and players feel that "lose a turn" is an outdated and poor design choice. Of course there are some that disagree, to the point where "lose all your turns" is actually defended. I've been involved in this hobby, on and off professionally (peripherally) and as an enthusiast, for 40+ years. I've seen game design grow and evolve in incredible ways over the years. "Lose a turn" is not a well respected mechanism anymore. "Oops, I guess I win then" is much, much worse. Welcome to Restringuntus.

Again, some people like the card. That's great. Enjoy. Just understand that game design has moved well beyond this type of situation. Give the player a sense of agency, even if it's illusory. If Restringuntus was a common card this game would likely be dead in the water. Making it rare doesn't make it good, it just makes the bad experience less likely to occur, but it's still bad. (For some, the majority, but not all.)

3 hours ago, dperello said:

There is a distinct and important difference between winning a game by completing a win condition and having one player unable to play while any win condition is nowhere near being met.

There isn't. There's win conditions and alternative, less common win conditions.

6 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

There isn't. There's win conditions and alternative, less common win conditions.

Please show me where these "alternative, less common win conditions" are listed in the rules. I only see first to forge three keys.

15 hours ago, Whiz Canmaj said:

For certain, dumping your hand is a very good strategy is Keyforge. Putting free AEmber on a lot of actions makes it okay to dump them when it's not optimal. But I think it's understated how valuable it can be to holding back certain valuable cards when it's drawn early. For cards like Effervescent Principle, it's worth it to hold onto it even if you're otherwise choosing House Logos. I'd say that there are a lot of cards that are worth holding on to for several turns, even without the worry of Restringuntus. To say that holding onto a card for several turns is a non-starter for options? I don't think that's always the case.

Planning several turns in advance is a useful skill in Keyforge. My guess is that the people who pull off the Restringuntus lock aren't just being lucky. They hold back the lock until they see their opponent spending several turns playing out cards in 2 out of their 3 houses. What looks like lucky wins could be higher-level planning. Similarly, playing against Restringuntus involves thinking several turns ahead. Taking your example of going from 2 cards to 6 on the draw, that would have involved playing 4 cards of the same House. That kind of greedy play is what makes people lose to this. If you know you're going to face cards like Control the Weak, keeping your hand with a spread of all 3 Houses is a valid strategy. Avoiding Restringuntus can involve preparing for it several turns before it hits.

If you're holding back cards to avoid a lock, you are likely falling behind.....unless you have an unbelievably strong deck.

The typical deck generally has some duds, which makes holding back a bad option in most cases. If I'm holding back cards to prevent a lock out while my opponent ripping through their deck, the chances of me winning are generally not good.

So let's say I have that same hand of 4 cards of one house and 2 of another. Some of those cards are going to be somewhat low impact and I need to get rid of them so I can better my position somehow. So do I just discard/play the garbage cards that effectively gain me nothing and fall further behind, just to try and keep a balanced hand and avoid a lock out?

I'd say the answer is almost always no. Unless I know for a fact that my opponent's only way to beat me is to lock me out, I have to play to win instead of playing not to lose.

I never said people who successfully lock up their opponent's are always getting lucky, but, it does happen and it's because the design of the game rewards you for playing more cards.

In a tournament setting if I were to get locked out I would take as much time as I am normally allowed and try to force my opponent to time, since they can only win by gaining aember and forging keys.