What about an errata that raises the loyalty cost of Verena? As far as I remember every bomb that came out after the Core Set had a minimum loyalty cost of three. Perhaps Troll Vomit should have a loyalty cost of three too.

Ellyrik said:

Since the beginning of the game, imperial units have been limited by the tremendous power of that card. If you limit it, should return that lost power to the empire players taking 3 or 4 units witth 3P or 4P, as have all other races (the empire only have Friedrich).If to play innovation I haven`t Verena and 80% of my units have 1P, will not get to burn your zones to within 3 days. In addtion Verena usuually needs to be played with tactics that moving developments, the other resets work alone.

I dont think Imperial units have always had low power only because of Verena. Empire's strength has been mobility and versatility, they have good tactics and some good support cards. Giving them strong units would have taken them overboard. Mobile and versatile units WITH high power would have been BAD and gone overboard.

Please be aware that restricing (or even banning) a card is ony necessary when the meta is affected in a way that the card either boosts a single deck type or forces to play a special counter deck type.

Neither is happening with Judgement of Verena. "Verena decks" were not even popular at the GenCon. And here in Germany there was not a single Verena deck making it first at a qualifiers for the German Championships.

So, the meta is not Verena-contaminated.

Mobility is of little me, if as a result of moving my unit to prevent burn my area, my defender 1P and 3HP dies, and the attacking unit of same cost (and usually have more power) remains in play. I am , tehn, spending my resources on units with net loss in the battle.

In my opinion, is the ability to reset my adversary that does not allow the empire hold strongest units. Also as we discussed IS NOT a card that unbalanced the game. I think, empire is not the dominant deck. The DE and orcs are far supperior, having a much higher winning %. Why then, limit Verena...Better limit slave pen and/or Wight Lord; or Troll vomit

Don't you think the problem is the existence of the 3 resets? Why not banning or restricting Troll Vomit, Judgement of Verena and Flames of the Phoenix?

Or at least making a ruling stating that they *target* all units.

About resets, if you decide to ban/restrict/errata them, then you and your opponent "only" have to play all his units to win. The point is you know your opponent plays orc capital, so you guess he might play "Troll VOmit", so you don't want to put into play all your units, and keep some in hand for a good post-vomit restart.

If you want to ban resets, you may also ban Plague Bomb and other sniping effects, since unit removal outside combat seems an issue to you (and then, enevyrone would play dwarves decks...).

So I am against to limit VERENA

does anyone no if in future reprintings of omens of ruin is visit still gonna be inclueded because im still in the enemy cycle i might just order omens then finish off the enemy cycle

Budmilka_fr said:

Completely agree on this one. As bad as resets can be, I think they are needed. From the casual point of view I often heard words like "unfair" or "imbalanced" but whi isn't just a build-up game it's more than that like Budmilka_fr said. Rush decks are similar to resets in that regard because they are kind of needed as a natural danger to decks with lockdown or auto-win setups.

@ Ellyrik:

Troll Vomit is fine as it is now because orcs otherwise have little focus on unit control and it has a build-in drawback so there is no real cause for restricting it. Verena is only strong when going with the full (tactic) package and then you have to trade of damage potential or other mobility/control stuff. Some fractions also have natural protection against Verena when going into development control. Again no real points that justify a restriction. Only Soul Stealer stands out in the restricted list for being questionable. The other cards are mostly cards that greatly speed the game up or are strong in itself like Wilhelm or Reclaim. Derricksburg Forge would fit into the list stylewise but that doesn't mean I want that. It's more that I could understand it if ffg decided to do so.

I also read about restricting Wight Lord or Slave Pen. That can only be shortsighted way of thinking. Dark Elves are quite slow when it comes to establishing economy. Take Slave Pen/Warpstone away and it will get even worse. Be happy that the restricted list is as short as now and that all fractions have at least one good deck archetype that is competitive at the moment.

Then limit Wight Lord. The problem is that this combination allows to destroy 1 unit per round while also increasing your resource production. The recurrence of this combo is the problem, not slave pen. Add it to Offering to hetarki and... to play against a DE is boring most of the time. You now what will happen. He will destroy all your units and win easily

Vamosamorir said:

Then to play against Chaos/Empire/Dwarf would be the same or not? It's your own fault for not playing a versatile deck or either you have no fun at all playing this game.

Then, if i have a deck that wins 70% of the games vds a imperial deck with VTHC (and this deck exits, i've see it) is the fault of all that requested the ban of VTH???

I Think don't understand me. I talk about is not needed ban or limit so much cards, only that the game progresses in a balanced way as it exits further expansion. Is a LCG game that produce 20 new cards each month. Should not have to many changes on the old cards, if you work in the right way with the future expansions

DE cards don't have strong support non-attachment cards : Slave Pen is an exception. Banning or restricting their only strong support would be bad for DE decks. Most decks plays anti-support cards, and most of the time they save them for Slave Pen against a DE deck.

About Wight Lord, he is strong indeed, but very expensive. You usually play it alone, when you have 5-6 ressources this turn, considering your opponent have striked your kingdom.

I think they should ban "Dark Zealot", because this card is an insult to Chaos players ^^.