But Val is killed by VB? Or, what if Val flips VB, double brokeness?
Either way, every house has an answer and it does not kill any major characters? The card can also be a real liability against a lot of decks.
So overall, who cares?
Venomous Blade in need of an errata?
I care because I don't think cards should have such a strong effect on the metagame, regardless of that effect being good or bad for the game/metagame, and be unbalanced.
There actually is a distinction developing on this thread -- game vs. metagame. Most people seem to be suggesting that VB’s impact on the game isn’t “game breaking,” is simply “annoying,” “will not win games by itself,” etc. If a player keeps up with the metagame, that person will find these things to be true when encountering VB. If a player doesn’t keep up with the metagame, that person will most certainly be very disappointed (as rings alluded to).
Since Val was brought up, she probably has a much larger impact on the game than the metagame. This makes her seem more powerful and “game breaking” than VB, but if Val is more “game breaking” than VB, than VB is certainly more “metagame breaking” than Val. Given Val’s stats and how her ability forces you to play the drawn card, if able, I find her balanced. Ergo, no need for errata (or ban, which is completely different from errata). I can’t say the same about VB’s stats and abilities.
As for VB having to be ran out of Martell or with the Shadow Agenda, I don’t find them to be significant/sufficient drawbacks. The Shadow Agenda is it’s own card, and is balanced due to the additional s1 cost and unopposed power claim restriction. As for Martell, each House has it’s own little tricks as others have said. I think VB is an appropriate one for Martell, but this card could be restricted or unrestricted to and for any House, and I would still find it unbalanced and have the same effect on the metagame. VB being a House only card doesn’t balance it enough. It really only limits it’s “game breakingness.”
ktom, you would certainly know much more about FFG’s history with errata than I do. If what you’re saying is true, I find that to be rather unfortunate. I agree that VB's leverage on the metagame is probably a good thing, but I find it very unsettling that it's "OK" for a card so unbalanced to have so much leverage; even if that leverage is deemed to be "positive."
I personally find it to be poor game design to have unbalanced cards. I think it's even poorer design to have unbalanced cards have a large impact on the metagame. I don't expect designers to be perfect and perfectly balance every single card. Heck, sometimes cards are overbalanced (i.e. s4 cost for Mance's Men). But I do expect unbalanced and/or over powered cards (again, I don’t find VB to be over powered) that significantly impact the game and/or metagame to be addressed. I don’t think I’m asking for too much or anything unreasonable (see bolded terms), but maybe I expect too much.
[de-cloaking]
Why?
Why is it bad design, versus purposeful design?
Why is a card affecting game balance less of a problem than one affecting metagame balance?
How and why is a card effecting metagame balance in a positive way a bad thing?
Honetly it sounds like the card is doing what it is supposed to be doing, that it is acting as a bit of a check on low strength characters, causing people to question the over-abundance of them in their decks because about 1/5 of the decks out there are probably going to be running VB. Generally speaking anything that promotes balanced representation of card types, costs, and strengths in decks is good for the game and the metagame. It appears to be flaw in your logic that something with a positive effect is bad design. It may be more accurate to say that it is a design choice you do not like.
Low STR characters are utility characters, meant to be played, gotten a little use out of them, and then to die as meatshields to protect the big guns. If they are there to die (Hail Caeser!) then what unbalancing impact can any card that can only target one at a time really have to the meta-game if it is not significantly impacting actual game play? The argument seems to be that the card is too efficient. Is this the only card like this? I'm not talking about FK or BI, or even another character control card, I'm talking about any card that is incredibly efficient. If we have multiple examplesl of extremely efficient cards in different categories spread through the houses, then that further weakens the "bad design" argument, as in unintended accident, and moves it into purposeful design that you don't like.
Asking for errata because you don't like it is the slipperiest of slopes.
It's the metagame impact that concerns me. Any one card that effectively drives players to disregard a large swath of cards is not good in my opinion. That was why I was pleased when Compelled by the Rock got banned as that card was for me and I believe many other players scaring them away from playing pretty much all character attachments. I'm not sure VB is there yet; I'm still running 2 STR characters in decent quantity. But I worry it could get there if VB is a staple in every 3rd or 4th deck I play against.
I'm sympathetic to those who like some sort of check on "swarm" decks, but I'd rather see it in a form that punishes both players for going the swarm route (this card doesn't discourage the Martell player using it from playing swarm), is not so cost-free and repeatable, or goes after cheap characters rather than low STR characters. The printed STR condition means that some decidedly not weenie characters are vulnerable and, furthermore, "investing" in them by adding attachments is no cure. More and more I think it's the printed STR / lack of "with no attachments" aspect that troubles me.
Bleh, Compelled wasn't even played much.
This game is defined by meta-defining cards (which is why I love the game). Valar certainly defines a lot of my deck, but I am not clamoring for its removal. I LOVED First Snow because it:
1. Made the 3/2 characters with cool abilities a little more risky.
2. Made the 2/3 characters a little stronger.
It just added a small twinge to the development of cards.
My only issue is the repeated (free!) use of this card, and the fact that it is one house only.
ktom said:
FATMOUSE said:
That's how I look at VB. I like the card a lot. I think the effectS (it's not just kill, there's also recursion) of the card are really good and should stick around in the environment, but it's so unbalanced that it's almost disgusting.
[...]
I don't think any card wins games by itself, but I think a card can certainly make a difference in a game. VB probably has a bigger impact on the metagame than it does the game itself. Many players will try to avoid printed 2 STR or lower cards because of cards like VB, which is maybe why, "it will not win games by itself." Consider how much of an impact VB has on the metagame, realize how easy it is to use the card, and how there is virtually no limitation or drawback. Doing this makes it much easier to see that the card is unbalanced.
Here's my thing. It may be unbalanced, but it is not overpowered. So all this discussion is not passing my "so what?" test.
There are drawbacks and limitations to the card. You have to play Martell or the Shadow Agenda. With the Shadow Agenda, it becomes "s1" and Martell is not tearing up the scene in a charge headed by VB. So, if the facts are that the card itself is unbalanced but not over-powered...so what?
As Stag mentioned, it gives people pause when loading their decks with 2STR characters. Is that really a bad thing? It's no worse than Threat from the North for 1 STR characters...or House Targaryen with all their burn (a Targ deck can pretty much kill a 2-STR character at will far more readily that Martell with VB can). And even there, people can (and do) plan for it in their "if I face a Martell deck, I'll need something that..." considerations. That's what makes the game a "living" card game. You have to constantly think about how you're going to play situations that might arise. And that means there have to be cards that make situations arise. VB leverages the metagame, but ultimately, that's probably a good thing!
FFG has long shown a willingness to not mess with "unbalanced" cards until it can be shown that they unbalance the environment or metagame as a whole. Everything that has been said about VB has yet to convince me that it is a wide-spread, unbalancing force on the game as a whole, so again...so what? Why are we calling for errata - whether to balance or to nerf - something that, while annoying in individual games, doesn't really change much in the environment?
Agreed competely with ktom here. My concern here is that Martell is competitive in large part because of this card. You take it away, and there will be a serious in power level for the house, which is going to leave them without a good control build. I was for the errata to Guild Hall precisely because it didn't mean Lannister was going to be greatly affected in terms of their overall power level.
So yeah, the card is undercosted. But I tend to look at the metagame as a whole rather than individual cards, and as long as Martell is not dominating every tournament, I'm fine with VB being undercosted. As has been mentioned, each house has its undercosted cards. Typically those are the fun cards which make us excited about playing particular houses. Let's not mess with those unless they are breaking the overall metagame.
Fair enough. However Martell players are a check on themselves, since the popularity of the House, card, and Shadows decks means they are just as likely to see it used against them as everyone else is, and they have no attachment hate cards that can touch it either... and they have a number of low STR utility characters to boot.
Restricting it to one House may seem unfair, but it also ensures that the overall impact on the meta-game is somewhat blunted. If every house had it or the card hit their characters too wouldn't we see precisely what you are talking about in the meta-game shift away from 2 STR characters that people say they experienced with First Snow of Winter, or is the card not as powerful and therefor going to have less of an impact than that card apparently had?
I think swarm should be a viable deck type. I also think there should be some checks on it. I find this to be a good compromise at present.
Honestly, I'm with Longclaw here. Every house has powerful and unbalanced cards. Sure there are certainly ones that I hate seeing out of each house (particularly the ones I don't play) but it has to have a very strong effect on the games that I play for me to really worry about it.
Penfold said:
Restricting it to one House may seem unfair, but it also ensures that the overall impact on the meta-game is somewhat blunted. If every house had it or the card hit their characters too wouldn't we see precisely what you are talking about in the meta-game shift away from 2 STR characters that people say they experienced with First Snow of Winter, or is the card not as powerful and therefor going to have less of an impact than that card apparently had?
I think swarm should be a viable deck type. I also think there should be some checks on it. I find this to be a good compromise at present.
In THIS game, I don't know if I like swarm to be viable...but I guess I am more of a Ned. It is fine in Magic I guess...
First Snow didn't affect the meta that much, other than swarm got weaker a little which needed to happen (Threat didn't exist). People liked to complain about it since it made flopping a little more strategic ("what, I can't 5-6 cards on the flop - First Snow is broken!!!"), and heaven help us if we can't flop 5 every game
I'd consider myself a "Ned" as well if I understand the term correctly. The books are full of armies and nameless characters doing the dirty work and dying over the decisions of those playing the game of thrones. While definitely think cool and powerful abilities should be reserved for the unique characters, the utility abilities rightly should be placed on the cheaper weaker cards, and if someone can build a deck that leverages those characters and their abilities into a viable deck, I see no need to work the game to make that impossible. I think it means the unique characters may need to be more impactful.
Personally I think a Greyjoy deck that uses saves, resets, and milling would be an excellent solution to swarm decks. Each time the board is wiped, each group of cards that get discarded from their deck vastly limits their ability to out swarm you. Too bad that isn't a viable deck type right now. How much longer to the expansions roll back around to Greyjoy? Who do I have to start gathering blackmail material on to get this to be a competitive deck? Does anyone know if the raider cards in the current packs being released will explore this enough to make it so? I mean I'm more of a direct control player, but I think this could be fun.
Penfold said:
Personally I think a Greyjoy deck that uses saves, resets, and milling would be an excellent solution to swarm decks. Each time the board is wiped, each group of cards that get discarded from their deck vastly limits their ability to out swarm you. Too bad that isn't a viable deck type right now. How much longer to the expansions roll back around to Greyjoy? Who do I have to start gathering blackmail material on to get this to be a competitive deck? Does anyone know if the raider cards in the current packs being released will explore this enough to make it so? I mean I'm more of a direct control player, but I think this could be fun.
My Greyjoy Raid-n-Save deck is doing pretty well - and it took first place in the GenCon 2-on-2 Teams Tournament - and seems to get slightly better with new releases. And when A Song of Silence releases and I get a Euron with Renown I will be even happier.
Back to Topic
Penfold said:
I'd consider myself a "Ned" as well if I understand the term correctly. The books are full of armies and nameless characters doing the dirty work and dying over the decisions of those playing the game of thrones. While definitely think cool and powerful abilities should be reserved for the unique characters, the utility abilities rightly should be placed on the cheaper weaker cards, and if someone can build a deck that leverages those characters and their abilities into a viable deck, I see no need to work the game to make that impossible. I think it means the unique characters may need to be more impactful.
Truly, you enjoy playing "House Tully Chud #8" to counter my "Loyal House Dayne Noname" on the battlefield?
Or the chapters in the book from the point of view of that one knight on that horse that got hit by an arrow that one time?
rings said:
Or the chapters in the book from the point of view of that one knight on that horse that got hit by an arrow that one time?
~Ooo, that was my favorite! It like reading scenes from CSI. "The arrow pierced the knight in the upper thigh. It's flight pased through the meat of the leg, leaving a smooth cut that would cripple the leg, and no amount of healing would make him the same. The force of the bow pushed it all the way through his leg, impaling the horse beneath and trapping the leg." Some of Martin's best work.
You can make light of it, but that is not a refutation of my point. Being a Ned doesn't start and stop with named characters, it is the mebrace of the entire series and every page, not just the parts you happen to like best.
One of the heavily stressed themes of the book is how the small folk suffer for the decisions the nobles and knights make. A deck that completely disregards them and a game where an army is constantly foiled by the actions of a singular man in a military challenge is hopelessly un-Nedly.
The type of swarm decks I'd like to see would be led by a unique character. Some captain/lord/commander who enables their forces to overwhelm. Euron and Robb are good examples of cards that work in this fashion.
Penfold said:
You can make light of it, but that is not a refutation of my point. Being a Ned doesn't start and stop with named characters, it is the mebrace of the entire series and every page, not just the parts you happen to like best.
I am totally on board with you, but in reality you don't like those characters as much as the ones you actually know. Quick, tell me your favorite character that wasn't named in the book. Quick! ~Was it that one gal in the front row of the execution? Me too!
We can both be stubborn, but you can't - with a straight face - tell me you like the nameless masses more than Tyrion or Shagga (or whomever), and I can't say that the books would be as good without the masses and background. No issues.
rings said:
acters as much as the ones you actually know. Quick, tell me your favorite character that wasn't named in the book. Quick! ~Was it that one gal in the front row of the execution? Me too!
Actually, I think it was that one that beat Preston Greenfield to death.
I don't know. I just think it's bad to have unbalanced cards; especially ones that so strongly affect the game and/or metagame. The argument that every House has overpowered and/or unbalanced (or undercosted as longclaw puts it) cards is a weak one, in my opinion. From the perspective of good game design, overpowered (not the same as very powerful) cards shouldn't really exist, and unbalanced cards should be balanced. I'm not even convinced that every House has overpowered/unbalanced cards. Very powerful ones yes, but that's it. The only other card that really comes to mind when thinking of unbalanced cards is GTM. It's not even as unbalanced as it is extremely powerful; so powerful, that I think if you had to choose one overpowered card in the game, it would be GTM.
The counter argument I have most respect for is that a VB errata would would hurt Martell's competitiveness. Putting aside that argument implies that VB is more of a "game winner" than people are giving it credit for, I don't think that would necessarily happen. It depends on how the card is balanced. It's possible that making VB s1 may be a bit too much. If that's the case, something to the effect "attach to HM character only," "attach to a printed 3 STR or higher character," "after you lose a challenge as a defender , " etc. could be enough to balance VB and still have it a be a strong card. I really don't want to VB to be "nerfed." I like it's power, but I don't like it's balance since there really isn't any. If raising costs would decrease VB's power, then consider the other ways to balance a card that I've previously listed. I just gave a few examples of play restriction.
The second argument I have a bit of respect for is the "so what?" argument. That is, VB isn't ruining the metagame; if anything, it's helping it. "So what" if it's unbalanced, it's doing a good thing for the game in general. I certainly understand the point of view, but I think it's bad practice to have unbalanced cards. I don't find it necessary to have unbalanced and/or overpowered cards to push the game in a certain direction. The same "push" can be achieved with cards that are balanced and/or very powerful. Allowing for unbalanced and/or overpowered cards is being "sloppy" if you ask me. I'm not saying that VB was knowingly printed unbalanced (PoTs wasn't even out yet when it was released, so it probably couldn't really be tested), but it's never too late to fix something
There have been "unbalanced" cards in this game since it rolled out in 2002 - its part of the design effect and intentional on the part of Eric Lang and Nate French.
Welcome to Westeros.
That is more or less what I've been trying to say.
Fatmouse you are placing a judgment on what is and is not good design, based on your personal views regarding what makes a good game, what makes a good environment, and what makes a good card. The fact that the card by all appearances seems to be filling the niche it was designed for properly, not only not unbalancing games, or the meta, but putting a proper check that many players feel the game needs seems to indicate that it is well designed, if only by these rather arbitrary but, I suspect, universally recognized positive categories.
A card should receive errata, IMO, not if it is unbalanced itself, but it is unbalancing. That hasn't been shown to be the case. It is entirely possible that at some point there will be enough cards that wipe out 2 STR characters, or Martell gets an over abundance of easy and repeatable character control that it needs to receive errata or be banned (is that the new form of rotation?), but until such a time, I'd leave it alone.
Stag Lord said:
Welcome to Westeros.
Where unbalanced characters such as Jaime Lannister...(SPOILER ALERT)
...gets errataed with a lefty.
This is Westeros.