18 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Isn't that fundamentally the same thing?

Banning is an active act. Decks being ineligible due to failing to meet a criteria is different.

Meh, I don't see the severely limited deck-building options others are seeing. For starters, ANY initial release is going to have a very limited card pool to begin with meaning limited deck-building anyway. And when Destiny came out, if you wanted to play Poe, 99.9% of the decks paired him with Maz and then every deck was virtually the same aside from maybe one or two card changes due to personal preference.

At least Marvel Champions will have 4 different ways to play Spider-Man right out of the gates (or technically even 5 if one chooses to try a more neutral heavy deck). The aspect card pool will grow over time and there will be more options to choose from, and I'm sure some cards are going to be better to use against certain villains than others. We may even see new additional aspects in the future, who knows?

On 8/23/2019 at 5:18 PM, CitizenKeen said:

Banning is an active act. Decks being ineligible due to failing to meet a criteria is different.

Automated banning is still banning.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Automated banning is still banning.

Agree to disagree.

2 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

Agree to disagree.

You're right that technically "banned" isn't really the same as "eventually retired" but the end result is still the same, i.e. no longer allowed.

2 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

Agree to disagree.

Or maybe you could elaborate and we could discuss it more?

Apart from the end result being identical from a player's perspective, I'm not sure that having a fixed list of reasons to ban a deck means it's not banning the deck. Would it be different if there were a human periodically running through the list and manually matching decks which are no longer allowed to be played because they fail to meet a criteria on that list? Is it that it's a fixed set of criteria?

If a dev team had a piece of paper which said "Any card which appears in 80% or more of Top 8 decks at 3 consecutive major events" would, uhm, fail to meet a criteria, and they remove that card from play, is it banned?

At the very least it feels like a meaningless semantic difference.

On August 23, 2019 at 8:18 PM, CitizenKeen said:

Banning is an active act. Decks being ineligible due to failing to meet a criteria is different.

It's an active act at an earlier point to set it up. Either way, the results are the same, just a slightly different way of getting there.

But how you get there is, itself, important. Active banning requires subjective judgment. Automatic retirement doesn't. Nobody can complain that FFG was unfair to ban Xyzygurk the Masticactor of Dormice when he's no longer a legal deck, because his retirement is completely predictable.

23 hours ago, rsdockery said:

But how you get there is, itself, important. Active banning requires subjective judgment. Automatic retirement doesn't. Nobody can complain that FFG was unfair to ban Xyzygurk the Masticactor of Dormice when he's no longer a legal deck, because his retirement is completely predictable.

We can complain that FFG made a nonsense card named Xyzygurk.

On 8/28/2019 at 10:19 AM, rsdockery said:

But how you get there is, itself, important. Active banning requires subjective judgment. Automatic retirement doesn't.

Automatic retirement most certainly requires subjective judgement, it's just applied at an earlier stage. Or do those criteria materialize whole form out of the aether with no human involvement?

@Buhallin
"Automatic retirement most certainly requires subjective judgement, it's just applied at an earlier stage. Or do those criteria materialize whole form out of the aether with no human involvement? "

Correction, a rule moving up the power level based on wins provides an objective metric. (It's irrelevent how that rule comes into being, what's important is that it's universally applicable; the same events in two locations would result in the same outcome).

Banning, being an active choice removes that objective metric, the same events in two different locations might result in two different outcomes. That's subjectivity in action.

3 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@Buhallin
"Automatic retirement most certainly requires subjective judgement, it's just applied at an earlier stage. Or do those criteria materialize whole form out of the aether with no human involvement? "

Correction, a rule moving up the power level based on wins provides an objective metric. (It's irrelevent how that rule comes into being, what's important is that it's universally applicable; the same events in two locations would result in the same outcome).

Banning, being an active choice removes that objective metric, the same events in two different locations might result in two different outcomes. That's subjectivity in action.

Er, does Keyforge have some multiple rule teams in place that I'm not aware of? Because in every game I've ever played which bans or retires cards, that comes from a single authority. There are no "different locations".

And no, it's not an objective metric. Someone said "X points worth of wins will retire a deck". What should that be? 2 wins? 20? That's subjective. The system which should contribute to it is subjective - what matters? Wins? Top placements? Number of players at the event? Time between plays? Losses? Rank of opponents? All of that is subjective - the entire SYSTEM is chock full of subjective decisions. Those don't vanish just because the end result is a flow chart. There is very much still an active choice, it just happened a year ago. And do you really think that system will never change? That there won't be a point where they realize all the things they missed and that it's not working as intended, and there won't be an update? Once that happens, THEN can we call it banning?

And none of that is even touching whether this is actually a GOOD way to do it, which it really isn't.

I think encounter customizable is neat!

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

Er, does Keyforge have some multiple rule teams in place that I'm not aware of? Because in every game I've ever played which bans or retires cards, that comes from a single authority. There are no "different locations".

And no, it's not an objective metric. Someone said "X points worth of wins will retire a deck". What should that be? 2 wins? 20? That's subjective. The system which should contribute to it is subjective - what matters? Wins? Top placements? Number of players at the event? Time between plays? Losses? Rank of opponents? All of that is subjective - the entire SYSTEM is chock full of subjective decisions. Those don't vanish just because the end result is a flow chart. There is very much still an active choice, it just happened a year ago. And do you really think that system will never change? That there won't be a point where they realize all the things they missed and that it's not working as intended, and there won't be an update? Once that happens, THEN can we call it banning?

And none of that is even touching whether this is actually a GOOD way to do it, which it really isn't.

It’s not a question of how the measurement system was arrived at, it’s how it’s applied.

if someone has to make a decision every time to ban a deck, there’s no guarantees it would be the same decision each time.

Decks getting enough power that they exceed whatever power levels are set for a given tourney are not so arbitrary.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a question of how the measurement system was arrived at, it’s how it’s applied.

if someone has to make a decision every time to ban a deck, there’s no guarantees it would be the same decision each time.

Decks getting enough power that they exceed whatever power levels are set for a given tourney are not so arbitrary.

This is very much not the same thing as the decision being objective or subjective. But wherever you can plant the goalposts to maintain that fictional Keyforge uniqueness, I guess.

36 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

This is very much not the same thing as the decision being objective or subjective. But wherever you can plant the goalposts to maintain that fictional Keyforge uniqueness, I guess.

I mean, if you don’t understand what the distinction between objective and subjective is, then this is a pointless conversation.

As the person who made the original comment, I'm begging you, please, take it to the KeyForge forum.

6 hours ago, Buhallin said:

This is very much not the same thing as the decision being objective or subjective. But wherever you can plant the goalposts to maintain that fictional Keyforge uniqueness, I guess.

Pretty dumb argument. I firmly think Keyforge is a bad game that isn’t fun and is a complete waste of money. However if you can’t understand that an upfront, published, limiting system by performance statistics is different than a reactive limiting system driven by performance is different, then you’re being purposefully ignorant.

As the above says, this isn’t the point of this forum post.

On 9/7/2019 at 12:04 AM, gokubb said:

Pretty dumb argument. I firmly think Keyforge is a bad game that isn’t fun and is a complete waste of money. However if you can’t understand that an upfront, published, limiting system by performance statistics is different than a reactive limiting system driven by performance is different, then you’re being purposefully ignorant.

As the above says, this isn’t the point of this forum post.

I never said it wasn't different - there's those moving goalposts again. But sure - take a look at the dictionary for "banned", find me where how the decision is made matters, then talk some more about purposeful ignorance.

I'll chip in with my $.02. My wife and I have played all the LOTR LCG and Arkham LCG content and loved it. Co-ops are for us.

While playing LOTR LCG, we wished we could simplify and shrink our deck size and deck building. It was usually a chore to play multiple scenarios in an evening. Part of the puzzle was building a deck that could handle the scenerio.

With Arkham LCG, we were very excited to reduce our deck size by 20. Additionally, each investigator had deck-building restrictions. It made deck-building much more focused, but maintained complex decisions due to the smaller deck size. Also, the campaign format, persistent decks, and buying upgraded cards was a home run for us.

We haven't played Marvel LCG yet, but we LOVE what we are reading about constructing a deck. It is great that I can play any hero and that doesn't limit her hero choices. (i.e. in LOTR, with 2 players it was impractical to have 2 Lore heroes each; or in Arkham, it was difficult for me to play Roland if she wanted to play a seeker). In Marvel, if she wants Black Panther and I want Spiderman, since they are not tied to a specific aspect, we can do it. Awesome amount of flexibility. Additionally, if there is an aspect you particularly like, you could play that aspect with any hero, double bonus!

We are personally excited and the deck-building complexity has us very excited.