Given some of the recent heated discussions, and given that without rotation - banning is pretty much the most efficient way to address problem cards in the LCG envrionment (errat can be missed by players who don't intenralize the FAQ) under what circumstances do you think it is OK for a card to be banned?

Does it have to go through a round of errata?

Is there a time limit on how long it has been in teh environment?

Does there have to be a general consensus among tournament players that it is broken (we're only really discussing competitive torunamwent play here)

Personally - I'm willing to let a card "breathe" for six months or so to egt a feel for it in context fop its cycle and let new carsd emerge that can deal with it, or older carsd come back in favor for the same reason. I'm not big on banning anyhtiing until I have played it for a while and been convinced it isn't good for the environment (see TLS etc) I'd also like to see R&D try and fix it wioth errata forst - and only if that doesn't work: bring the ban hammer.(See Wildling Agenda)

But if those criteria have been met and a card is still affecting the metagame as a whole, restricting game play and deck building options and generally acknowledged as a problem - I think bans are the best way to deal with matters. and as Regionals season approaches and prep really gets underway - i cna say rigth nwo there are at least two ro three carsd we have been dealing with for the past year that really, really need to be looked at. Before we open up that can of worms, I wnated to get a sense if people are generally in afvor or agaisnt teh banning discussion adn teh was R&D has handled bannings to date.

IMO banning should be absolute last resort. I was pretty unhappy that BotFM was banned without an attempted errata to its applicable game text.

I would rather see playable counters to strategies, rather than bannings. Example being Narrow Escape with Paper Shield (or something similar). A good anti-draw card for Val. Etc. I understand this can take some time due to design/printing constraints. I truly think, however, that playtesters know the overly strong cards (wrongly words aside)can design playable counters fairly quickly.

If a card is still is an issue, then an erratta (espeically cards just worded wrongly). TLS is probably my #1 target here (barring a good anti-draw card,better/more ways of perm blanking characters).

If a card is STILL an issue, then banning. Truly though, I would hate to see this. I know some are in favor of banning after one erratta, that just shrinks the cardpooltakes a decent ideamakes it disappear. Take the Wildling Agenda - if it was -1 for the first unique Wilding, the decks would still be very playable,it would have ruined what I thought was a fun idea. I reall don't think anyone would turn their nose up at this type of solution ONLY because it had been erratta'd previously.

All IMHO of course - I can see plussesminus to all the discussions.

I tend to think that if a card is in every deck at regionalsthe world's championship for a year, it is generally complained about being broken(i.e. wildling agenda from last season) then the first resort should be some sort of errata. If that doesn't fix the problem then ban hammer the hell out of it. There are a few other cards(Val, Venemous Blade, TLS, Narrow Escape) that I think should either be nerfedbanned but i would give it until after World's to make a decision on them.

BotNM should have definitely been through an errata first then banned if the problem wasn't fixed. I was pretty happy with my Targ Wildling deck.

double post...oops

I despise bans. I would rather work on finding ways to overcome "broken" than just let the powers that be ban it.

I sort of despise bans as well -I used to be adamant about opposing them. But given there will be no rotation,more to the point - given the structure of the release schedule - you are looking at months if not years of problem cards constricting the metagame beofre R&D can send a fix down the pipeline. How long have we been waiting on event cancel now? .

The only answer is errata then bans unless you want to see players just start skipping tourneys. Seriously - I have already seen itI can't blame people. It is kind of hard ot take organized playcomeptitive tournaments seriously when cards that are quite clearly an issue remain unaddressed for such a long time. Again - my primary criteria here is that they have been in the environment for a whilehave had an appreciable negative effect. That's why I am NOT with rings vis-av-s teh Laughing Storm....yet:

Without rotation, I think we all need to be prepared to accept strategic bannings -i think we all need to become a little more comfortable about it.

I fall in the camp of not liking bans in general. That said, if empirical data shows over time that a certain card is bad for the environment, then I would prefer to see an attempt at errata(s) first,if that still doesn't resolve the issue, then ban as the finallast resort.

I'm guessing I'm in the extreme minority, but I'll share my thoughts just so the point of view is represented.

I think FFG should be MUCH more liberal with its bannings. We DO NOT need to wait six months either. Not only is it unnecessary, but it messes up card design for a full 6 months to one year later. Basically, card design continues with the assumption that all the current cards in the pool will remain in play. If a card is later errata'd, it's very disruptive and messes with the balance of future cards.

I believe that if the card meets certain criteria, it should be removed IMMEDIATELY. Generally speaking, I think the most important criteria on whether not to ban a card should be if it falls into any 1 of the following categories...

1. The card alone results in an extremely fast win or immediate, sustained control of the board. Jaqen fit this perfectly...he could (easily?) win a game on his ownprevent an opponent from winning (or even participating) in challenges. The Red Viper, however, does not...since he's difficult to save and is not particularly strong as a defender. (In other words, cards like TRV need to work in combination with something else.) Venomous Blade also fits the "too powerful alone" definition...though a simple errata to cost "s1" would make the effect much harder to sustain. Castellan is on the edge...he needs to work in combination with other cards every turn after the first he comes into play. That said, pretty much any other Lannister Card triggers his ability,I personally would prefer him banned. (Though Lanni players might object, I actually think the ban of Castellan would be VERY good for them. I strongly suspect FFG currently doesn't want to give Lanni much more control because it would become NPE in combination with cards like Castellan. If Castellan were banned, that would open up a lot of creativity to allow design to take the house in new,much more interesting, control directions than pure Kneel.)

OR

2. A card that severely restricts the use of a broad array of cards. Many people will disagree with this condition...either they think that's how the game *should* work,like Rings they prefer in-game solutions. There are two problems. First, I just don't think it's realistic to wait that long. Second, when in-game solutions are finally introduced, they often have unintended consequences. Narrow Escape as a solution for Valar is a perfect example...we basically just opened up a new can of worms. (I actually don't think Valar is/was ban-worthy, but I do think Narrow Escape was printed as an in-game solution to this powerful effect.) Forgotten Plans as a solution to Fear of Winter is another great example. I don't think many people truly consider Forgotten Plans to be a good solution...it's a sub-par plot that you have to time at the exact right moment just to work. And even when you do, your opponent still has a 2-claim plot and the chance to win initiative. (I'm not saying Forgotten Plans shouldn't exist, but I just don't think it's a real "solution" to Fear of Winter.) And for the record, I still very much would be in support of banning Fear of Winter. (FoW has such a disruptive, distorting effect on the environment by encouraging players to include and avoid all sorts of cards they wouldn't normally. In fact, I think FoW makes it *very* difficult to run the Knights of the Hollow Hill agenda at the competitive level outside of Martell.)

In some cases, a card that fits one of the above categories might be errata'd instead. In most cases though, I think an effective errata would require a complete redesign of the card. For example, as helpful as Val is to Targ decks, I think it's just very bad card design. I can't think of any real way to salvage the design without completely changing how the card is used. (I think one main reason Val is so common these days has less to do with her power levelmore to do with the environment...if weenieslow gold curves weren't so crucial to competitive decks these days, Val would be a lot less attractive. In that sense, I prefer to keep her aroundban the cards that create this environment...like Fear of Winter.)

Stag Lord said:

I actually see this type of sentiment as one of the problems (no offense Stag, I think this is a pretty common approach and I'm in the minority). People ask for something, then wait, and are then really astonished when it doesn't solve the problem.

I agree with Rings/Stag/others that ask for a reprint of Paper Shield...that would be great. But is Paper Shield going to solve the problems caused by Narrow Escape, Burning in the Sand, etc? Not a chance. Even if I now consider Paper Shield an auto-include in every deck (ugh, I hate auto-includes), there's not guarantee that I'll draw into it at the right moment to stop the blatantly overpowered effect of the card I want to stop. Moreover, decks that abuse certain cards have more than one way of getting to those cards (recycling, searching, etc.), so they're going to get the effect off at some point. Do you really think that you're going to stop Martell's event craziness simply by running 3x Paper Shield? Even if you stop one, they're going to outdraw you and likely have their own Paper Shield, etc. in hand to cancel yours.

Basically it comes down to options...waiting for in-game solutions/responses/silver bullets/whatever doesn't broaden the number of options I have for deckbuilding or playing. In fact, I am FURTHER limited. I would rather just ban the problem card to begin with and continue on with the rest of the cards.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post!

Twn2dn said:

Actually, that's the state that I would prefer . I don't want a guaranteed way to completely stop them. That would be exactly the sort of thing that I would find to be a ban-able problem. What I do like, are in-game, partial, non-guaranteed solutions. If we give out absolute solutions, then we don't have the givetake, bluffchance that actually makes the game interestingfun.

Kennon said:

Just the fact that highly playable cards that limit other card's usefulness helps balance the meta. Was Paper Shield an auto-include when it was legal? Not even close,this was in a time with some pretty hefty events. But the threat of it helped lessen the meta reliance on certain cards. Sorry to even bring up PS again, but it is the easiest example. And who says you can't outdraw Martell?

Stag Lord - I do see your sentiments (and totally agree with your logic on the time it takes for 'in-game' cards to hit us), but I have to disagree with the very all-encompasing statement that a card HAS to be played to be considered for erratta/banning. If there a 1 costs character that said 'you win the game', would that need to be played for six months before doing someting about it? Obviously that is silly, but I have a pet peeve for generic 'rules' of things like erratta/bannings,I think if a card is bad enough when it is spoiled, then it is bad enough to erratta quickly before you lose any meaningful # of player's interest (like you said, I have seen it happen as well).

Rings - we disagree, but we have been down that road beforeand there really isn't a point to re-hashing it here. I wnat to discuss bans in general,the community's repsonse to them.

Twn2dn - you may be in the minority, but you are most certainly NOT alone. i think you make the case very well for a more active use of banning from R&D -and I may well be more than half way to joing your faction. It just takes too **** long for "fixes" to percolate -half the time; they are not sufficient anyway. I'm seeing it proved out overover again.

To an extent - this is a matter of tasteopinion, but in a sense it is also testableverfiiable as well. I'm specifcially speaking fo teh tournament scene - which was defitneiyl gatehring momentum thorugh regionals adn Worlds last year - but i know for a fact that in the very competitive Northeast, attendance will eb down this year. i know of several players personally who have dropped the gameare skipping Regionals because problem cards are constraing decksdesignno fixes are readily apparent. I don't wnat to play in a rock/paper/scissors environment -the game has that feel to it much mroe than it ever did in the past - mostly because of a few cards.

i hate like hell to jump on the BAN-wagon. But this is a new world we are living in. I'm more patient than twn2dn - but farnkly, i am getting kind fo sick of suffering through monthsmonths of seeing teh same Plots, the same houses, the same cards at tournaments with little variety.

Banning actually opens up MORE cards to the pool than you lose, paradoxically.

Stag Lord said:

EDIT: Apparently the forums are being dumb *surprise, surprise* so certain words such as "and" are missing from my post

DOUBLE EDIT: I fixed them. At least I don't sound like a (complete) idiot now

No, some cards are just fundamentally bad for the game (in one way or another) and can't really be fixed by errata without completely redesigning the card itself (i.e. Jaqen H'gar). That said, there is nothing wrong with the practice of errata, and many cards can be balanced via the method if done correctly . The first round of errata on The North Agendas and Narrow Escape definitely do not fall under that purview...

Stag Lord said:

To actually errata then ban (or errata again) is a bit silly. I'm not saying that errata cards should never get banned (or errata again), nor am I saying that errata (or future card solutions) shouldn't be considered before ban, but errata is meant to completely fix a problem a card presents. If the card needs banning after that, what was the point of the errata in the first place? Why did the designers "waste our time," so to speak? Couldn't/shouldn't they have the foresight to see the (or a) problem still persisting after the "fix"?

Stag Lord said:

To put your question in perspective, do people think there's a "time limit" on when to alter/throw away a card idea when the cards are being designed and tested? Well, there probably is, but maybe two weeks? A month? I doubt the designers just say, "Sorry guys. I know you're testing reports are coming back negative for this card, but it is what it is. Once a card is designed it should't be altered. We wouldn't have designed it that way if it wasn't balanced and good for the game. Keep on playing with it. You'll come around...*evil laugher*." Point is we expect (and even want) cards to get "errata" or "banned" a myriad of times in design and testing, but once it's printed, "NO TOUCHING!" What makes a piece of cardboard so holy? Isn't the point of editing a card in play testing to balance the game? Why can't a card be balanced (or removed) once it is produced?

Stag Lord said:

The only reason to ban a card is for competitive play since casual players tend to "ban/uban" cards all the time. The same can be said about errata as well; although to a lesser extent, sometimes errata is necessary for rule/mechanical reasons, but I guess we aren't really talking about that kind of errata here.

To answer your question - no - but it certainly doesn't hurt. It's difficult to say when that consensus is met though. It's hard to determine it on a forum where many competitive players don't frequent/post and many posters don't play the game very competitively.

There's also a distinction between being a good competitive player and a good designer; meaning the two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. You can be great designer and not have ever won a single tournament. You can be an amazing player with multiple trophies, but lack the ability to determine/create card (pool) balance. You can be both, you can be neither, or somewhere in between. Point is, a person's skill as a competitive player doesn't have much have much bearing on his or her skill in balance and design, which is the crux of deciding how/when/if a card should be "dealt" with in one way or another.

rings said:

Countering strategies

There's nothing fun about meta-gaming against OP/broken cards that 80%more of players will be running. I mean - I do it - but it's just not fun. I rather play a deck that suits my play style and be able to win with that than have to create and play a deck that will outbeat my opponents' decks. This is why I find the metagame as a whole an annoying concept. Ideally, a game should really just come down to a player's skill. What deck/cards players use should be based on a personal preference for a particular style of play, not because they played with the "right" stuff. I'm not saying that it should be ONLY gameplay skill or that deck building shouldn't be important, but the deck/card archetypes for what's good and what isn't is very apparent at the moment and has been like that for quite some time (there have been shifts, but it's still pretty clear what those shifts have been). It's frankly uninteresting and boring. Were everything more or less equally good and balanced, the idea of running "counter" strategies would dissolve. They would simply becomes strategies as players would play what they like rather than "what do i have to play to win."

Too say is Val is too good, so let's create a bunch of anti-draw cards is just a waste of card slots. Banning her and using those slots to give flavorful, in-House draw is by far a better solution. Even a simple errata of "If you control more than 1 (or 2) Wildling character Val gains..." or "If you control a The North Agenda with the Wilding trait Val gains..." would be MUCH easier and better than trying to design balanced anti-draw cards. Silver bullets are also extremely boring as they risk becoming auto-includes, which is what will happen if/when Paper Shield (not a "pure" silver bullet, but it will act as one) comes back to deal with Narrow Escape. There's also no guarantee a silver bullet will be a good enough solution to address the problems it presents. So yeah, Paper Shield cancels event with no INF or gold cost, but who is to say you'll draw it in time or that your PS won't be cancelled? So players have to gamble and hope the other player doesn't have the card that counters them? if so, man, that's REALLY dumb. I want to play something that involves skill, not just luck.

What I think is interesting is that it seems a significant number of players are extremely eager to defend whatever gets printed. Card A may be better for the game than B, but because B got printed and A didn't we can't talk about A, and no way can we talk about doing anything to B. However, if A was printed instead of B, then A would get all the special treatment. Maybe it's loss aversion, I don't know, but there are many potential (and some pre-existing) cards that would be fantastic replacements for some cards that currently exist (i.e. Outfox over Narrow Escape). Why so many desire to settle for less, I may never fully understand.

In short, banning should be made when it's the simplest, easiest, best solution to address a problem a card presents. Generally speaking, the earlier the better because otherwise it's just going to spoil competitive play. There's no need to let a wound fester. Errata is sometimes inadequate, altering design on future cards too strenuous and wasteful, and having to "meta" against (if possible) is not fun. I would say we have quite a few cards that have been in the environment for quite some time (aka past any sort of "breathing" period) that need to be addressed. Not all of them need ban, but some do and if some were banned rather than errata I wouldn't mind. Maybe the real question should be "When to do SOMETHING?" Because apparently FFG has a realllllllllly long checklist to even *touch* a card

Good general rule. When the game breaks down into "play thisplay the counter to this"...a card need to be dealt with.

I like errata where much of the card is preserved. For instance, Val could be slapped with a (once per turn). Still goodstill inline with the card. If a card cannot be errata'd to do everything is does but not broken...then you ban it. Errata into something different is pointlessconfusing for players.

Here's my initial thoughts on the topic.

Q: WHEN to banerrata a card:

A: After thecard has seen a decent amount of play in the tournament environment.

WHy:The history of the game is

a. strong card gets spoiled in article, game magazine etc.

b. community grabs torchespitchforks because they can creat combos with cards x,y,z to "totally break" the game

c. card gets releasedinfluences the overall feel of the metagame, but the community evolves to the new status quothe game goes on.

The community is fairly resilientinventive on how to create decksstrategies to deal with said problem cards. Give them first crack before banningerrata power cards.

Q:WHAT CRITERIA to BanErrata a Card:

A: No definitive rules here, just some observations that never seem to be addressed.

I remember a couple years ago a guy started a thread about how that Targ burn was overrunning his local gaming group,the overwhelming response was that he need to alter his deckplaystyle to deal with a decent Targ burn deck. NO ONE replied, well, Targ burn is bad for your meta, so you guys need to petition FFG to ban the offending cardsthat the local meta should ban those cards. In fact, half the responses ridiculed him and his meta for not wanting to change their playstyle to adapt to the local problem deck.

But on a larger scale, that is what I keep seeing repeated againagain. I don't like that Fear of Winter makes me build my decks with a good flop. I don't like that Narrow Escape makes me play my resets a certain way. I don't like that Venomous Blade makes me reevaluate characters strength 2lower. But instead of adapting, I start a thread that FFG needs to errataban these cards.

Everyone who plays this game has a certain idea after playing for a while of what's "good" for the gamewhat's "bad" for the game. Alot of this is influenced by your playstylewhy you play the game(competetive, casual, etc). I think autowin challenge,initiative,dominance events/locations are jankybad for the game. I think Heavy control decks that take 6-9 turns to win are bad for the game. I think anything that negates the challenge phase as the primary place where the game is wonlost is bad for the game. But I don't start threads declaring my opinions as the DEFINITIVE OPINION ON WHAT IS GOODBAD FOR THE GAME. Why? Because other people play the game too,my ideas probably differ radically from their ideas on what is goodbad for the game. If you don't like something, speak up. But DON'T CONFUSE YOUR PERSONAL VISION OF THE GAME WITH WHAT IS GOODBAD FOR THE GAME.

Good points papalorax - i almost wholly agree with you.

Fatmouse- i agree with a lot of what you say,i think you aricualte your postion for more active bannings well. I disagree about how long before a ban however. i reject the idea that you can just look at a cardKNOW it is abd for teh agme (again: see TLS) i want to see it in action for a few weeksmonths, see it dominating metastournaments before it gets hammered. I tend to beleive in the wisodm of markets/crowdsI wnat to see that in actual pratcice a card has become unbalancing, as opposed to getting received wisdom form a few. So yeah - i don't think I'd supposrt a ban on a card until its whole cycle ran its course....or until it had been around for six monthsso.

kpmccoy21 said:

I agree with most of what you say - right up until the last paragraph. I'm not getting the sense that folks voicing their opinions on what is good/bad is a negative; I wnat to hearevaluate other poster's opinionsalmsot evryone here makes valuable contributions. Youi both go back a while with this game KP. you are the type of plaeyr I'm trying to touch base with in this thread. I was always opposed to banning - I hated being told what I couldn't play with because Eric Lang thought he knew best. But given the slow pace of sets building up over six months (and now a two month delay with the new cycle) I'm suggesting that we veterans need to chaneg our paradigm thinking a little.

But yeah: let teh cards see tournament play for a while (I promise: TLS isn't going to be the new Loyalist, rings)try errata first (Narrow Escape seems pretty fine by me now, Fatmouse) but I'm ready to accept that after a year without solves - things like CastellanFear might have outlived their shelf life. And if Lanni can get reined in with a Compelled banning, maybe its time Martell gets reined in a little too.

Stag Lord said:

Just out of curiosity, how is being told what you can't play by a developer different then being told what you can play (since developers do this as well, by creating cards)? Design basically tells you what they think is good for the game when they make cards,if they feel that they made a mistake, they can't fix that by telling you not to play the card?

EDIT: But don't think I'm picking on you or anything. I'm really glad someone made this thread

Regardless of balance, when a card is completely contradictory to GRRM's story ("anti-Nedly"), it should be banned - e.g. The Neck

Stag Lord said:

I think kev's point was that people's gut reactions are based on how cards affect their game play (see rings with TLS), that a certain card is more of a pain in the ass to certain play styles (see fatmouse with narrow escape), but when a card that fits their game play comes along they don't want it banned (see me with TLS ). Therefore, the designers need to wait until a card creates a situation where every time you make a deck you have to take into account the card/combo (see wildlings, jaquen). That is one of the reasons why I don't think Castellan needs to be banned (can lanni still kneel you out without him? sure) but is the reason why lanni has been getting less kneel cards. As much I as dislike certain cards (see old school festering wounds, also to an extent burning on the sand) i don't have to take them into account when building a deck, I just usually do as they are on the forefront of my thought process.

its fun making a post without using the conjunction junction words that are not but

FATMOUSE said:

QFT

Nobody likes bans/errata, but sometimes there is no other choice to keep the game fun.

kpmccoy21 said:

I'm not sure what are you thinking: do you mean we should always wait for FFG to find out bad cards by themselfs _OR_ that Jaqen, Compelled by the rock etc. should be unbanned (never banned) _and players should adapt?

Irritating as it is to lose access to your favourite card, Bans / Heavy Errata is surely the best way forward.

Adding one-off cards to balance out problematic cards/combos usually gives rise to one of the following:

1. Super-specialised Silver Bullets like 'Cannot Be Bribed, Cannot be Bought'. Which, while excellent versus the card/style it's meant to screw-over, is absolutely useless against anything else. Net result is either; an incredibly situational card which nobody ever uses (see: CbB,CbB)which has no impact on the meta at all,an auto-include that kills the original offender dead but becomes equally irritatingly ubiquitous.

2. Cards which screw-over not just the original problem card/style, but a whole tranche of similar non-problematic effects. The obvious example being something like Narrow Escape; apparently introduced as a foil to Valar Morghulis, it's ability to allow players to shrug off global resets, high-claim military challengesvolleys of targeted kill effects has made it more hated than the card it was most likely introduced to counter.

In other words, Silver Bullets (the only real card-based way to hold back individual high-powered meta-warping cards) tend to be useless duds that nobody uses because they're too specialised to be seriously used in a meta that has variety (i.e. where less than around 50% of other players are running the NPE card the Bullet counters), super-effective hosers that you see in every deck (usually where the meta is almost exclusively NPE Deck vs Hate On The NPE Deck)which are equally as boring as the card they were introduced to stop,NPE monsters in their own right.

As such, I'd argue that bans/erratas (permanenttemporary) ought to be the first port of call for FFG when dealing with cards that the community regards as genuine NPEs after having had a couple of months to try them out (no point banning based early hysteria, after all). Where tournament results indicate that Annoying Card X is the lynchpin of the majority of the Top-8 decks (like that stupid Wildling agenda used to be) then they should give it a couple of months in the sin bin. If that change improve the meta, then all is well; if not (or if the meta later evolves to a point whereby the NPE Card would be less problematic, given the introduction of new potential solutions), then the decision can always be reversed.

Heck, there's whole MTG formats that involve having participating players communally decide on a banlist of the best 20/50/100 cards in the environment, then playing for a season without them (forcing them to use the second-tier cards that don't otherwise make the cut). Radical suggestion; perhaps having a regularly rotating banlist that seriously changed the capabilities of each of the Houses every 4/6/12 months would be more interesting, dynamicencouraging of variety than a banlist which was intended to be permanentmonolithic? I'm not necessarily advocating that, but it's an interesting idea to ponder.

kpmccoy21 said:

what is this I don't even

You know, I was pretty fascinated by this thread when it was first posted and I've been reading and trying to gather my thoughts to properly refute those I disagree with and still maintain my composure. I keep having to put it off because I suck at that.

That said, in general, I think this thread has been and is continuing to go to a bad place, so I'm going to refrain from posting further. Cheers to those who are able to do so.