Homme Chapeau said:

i'm glad i kept this one. om nom nom nom

Zeratul90 said:

did you go out of your way to make sure every other word had an R so you could capatalize them? I seriously didnt even read though what you thought, i got 10 words in and gave up.

Admiral Ren said:

Gotta have oil to do proper popcorn. It tastes better with butter.

My basis on the BR dilemma is this. Did promo Mai become "so" broken with BR? No.... eventhough Mais ability would make most attacks susceptible to BR there are plenty of answers to stop BR. It is what you make it. Is it very good yes. Should it be for having craptacular of stats of 3/4 yes.

Protoaddict said:

im soRRy a few R's a thRough off youR tRain of thought. i now see the mental capacity im dealing with...... >.>

RegaRless of how much you like my typing pRefeRences, my points are valid. im not tRying to say anyone else point not as valid. im just putting in my two cents in.

Zeratul90 said:

regarless? so what is bitter rivals so broken that its broken the english language to?

but that does bring up a valid point of playing bitter rivals with promo mai? that just means every attack can be discarded and was that a problem.....i never thought of it and never played against it so it must of not been so bad

and besides i always end up running some kind of answer to foundations but maybe thats just me if you dont want to play a game thats interactive and where you have to worry about what your opponent does and answer them occasionally then go and play pokemon with the little kids geez.....

Well, in terms of promo Mai, you also have to figure that it was a character-particular thing - now you could have the abilities of something like promo Alex *and* the BR powerup. So that's probably not the fairest comparison.

In any case, please stop belittling everyone who argues for action on a card as a bunch of whining idiots. They're (for the most part) reasonably intelligent people, who just have a different idea of what it takes to constitute a need for action on a card. I, and I'm sure most others, would readily agree that under the reigning philosophy of only banning things when strictly necessary for the health of the top-level meta, BR is absolutely fine. There are numerous answers now, and probably quite a few on the way. It shouldn't be a major problem for any player that's been around for the past several sets and/or buys a couple boxes of each.

However, I also think FFG should at least consider making exceptions to that philosophy in order to clean up the lingering mistakes from the pre-Hata era. One of my biggest concerns with the 3rd anniversary sealed/draft is that I can very well see a large number of people being chased away from the game by the likes of Rejection and BR. Even if there are answers out there, they won't have them in ready supply, and won't want to hear they need to buy 2 boxes of Set X to get some uncommon, or stalk eBay for certain promos, or force themselves to track down and always find a way to play some specific common, just so that they don't lose to cards that very obviously should not have been made in the first place. I know seeing lots of cards on a ban list is scary too, but given the relative assurance we have that there will be few if any major mistake cards in the future, it's more important for FFG to assure prospective new players that they care about people other than the most hardcore of the base. For the most part, the same thinking applies not only to pure newbies, but anyone who plays with more of a casual interest. If FFG is serious about expanding the playerbase, this is something that needs to at least be looked into.

I know UFS is a hardcore game, but what makes it hardcore are things like the fast pace, the fact that every "land" card has abilites, you play several cards and abilities each turn, or that there's no "my monster is bigger than yours" dynamic to simplify things. It's more than hardcore enough on that sort of basis alone; it has nothing to do with forcing players to deal with cards that should not have been made.

[As an aside, it is also true that the less disparity there is in power level, the tougher deckbuilding - and as a consequence metagaming - becomes. Of course, having some disparity is unavoidable, (though with the UFS game mechanics a tighter power curve is a much more realizable goal than it is for other games) but nonetheless dealing with the clear outliers can be healthy in this sense, and actually serve to make the game *more* hardcore.]

Cetonis,

I respect that you feel for your meta, which is a casual meta, that Bitter Rivals should be banned. We get it. You've said it multiple times. We've heard you. <Speaking as someone who has been reading the thread since it's inception>

The meta at my shop is a very casual meta. Players will randomly grab a pile of cards from a booster box they just bought, and build that as their deck for the day. If that isn't a casual meta, I really don't know what is.

My players wanted Talbain banned, they felt he was an NPE. I've yet to have one of my players ask for Rejection or Bitter Rivals to be banned. Are they the biggest fans of either card, I wouldn't say that either, but they certainly haven't said "this card is over powered, ban it."

While you feel that FFG only cares about the highest level meta, that is not true. They listen to the stores, they listen to the players. What they have asked us to stop doing is posting the same thing repeatedly over and over again in the forum.

You have now written the same post three different times. This is exactly what Steve has asked us to stop doing. If you desperately feel that action MUST be taken, writing it in the forum is not the place to do it. If you feel so strongly that action MUST be taken, email [email protected]

Everything that can be said on this topic has been said. For, against, and in several instances, neither.

Please understand that for every card that is banned, the balance is shifted. If Bitter rivals is removed, how many cards become overpowered because Bitter Rivals was a balancing factor? If Bitter Rivals is removed, how many cards become useless because in part they were designed to interact with it?

More damning is the fact that if Bitter Rivals was banned tomorrow, someone else would be up on the soapbox, demanding that some other card should be banned. The UFS player base has demonstrated, that within an hour of one card being banned, there is another heinous offender that MUST be banned.

Here is the most important piece - I am assuming that you are the scout of your area. Each shop has the option to have their own banned list. If you and your player genuinely feel that Bitter Rivals is too strong - ban it locally. Fantasy Flight will support you in that as long as you clearly indicate that for your events it is banned.

How many other games actively state that stores can have their own banned list? If FFG didn't care about the casual environment, they wouldn't support this option. I have played other games where if you did something like that, you ceased to receive prize support.

I think it's fairly safe to say that Bitter Rivals will be watched. However I think FFG wants to see what happens when ALL the cards are in play.

Regarding players being chased away by rejection and bitter rivals, cards like that I have found draw players in. People like spiffy sweeping effects. They like action. If they wanted a perfectly balanced game, where the playing field is completely level, they'd be playing chess, checkers, go, or a similar game.

I'd just like to point out that in this thread there are people calling for the banning of bitter rivals yet in another thread people are asking for Rejection and Defender to be banned. Last time I checked bitter rivals discarded both thoes other supposed broken cards.

Also I cant remember the last time I heard anyone who truly believed that all, fire, or evil were anything but moderate symbols right now under the shadow of order, chaos, and air. Why would you take away answers that the downtrodden symbols have?

Their are a number of cards that deal with bitter rivals that have:
A) Better stats
B) More synergistic symbols
C) Other useful abilities

So I dont see how we arent complaining about them. I know it's apples and oranges but lets do a side to side with lord of the makai shall we. Even after the change to keywords lord has:

+2 control, -1 difficult, better block, 2 abilities that work with each other, 2 abilities that are not dependent on what your opponent is playing, more symbols for chaining in multi symbols decks, unending use (makai is always a momentum, bitter will eventually stop being a discard.)

See my point here. A lord of the makai will never be useless to a player running it (they obviously have a reason to include it, such as multiples and recursion) and will always be the best possible check in the game while a bitter rivals can be completly useless against a deck with no keywords and already optimal block zones. Granted I feel LOTM should be banned, but that aside if something of its unheard of power level is ok with being legal I see no justification to ban bitter.

-------------------------------------------

Also Zeratul90, type however you want, but if you actually want people to read and respect your posts you should behave in line with the rest of us. Who's post is the average person going to read, one with normal capitalization or one that looks like it was typed by the same type of person who jumps into online games, types silly crap and screams a lot, and team kills. The boards here may get pretty heated at times but we all respect each other for the most part and l33t speak is not respected at all here, often shunned, and mostly ignored. You can become a productive member of these boards if you participate in the same discussion we are all having observing the same respect we all give each other and the english language. And I dont know that your points are valid or not, because i still havent read your thread because of the typing problems.

Antigoth said:

- I know I've posted those thoughts three times, and am more irritated at myself for it than you are Just tired of seeing every ban discussion muddled in the endless "there are answers" vs "it's clearly overpowered argument" and for some reason felt it wasn't futile to try and end it and bring the discussion to the theory behind all that. I'm trying to decide if e-mailing Steve wouldn't just annoy him more after having to read this stuff multiple times already.

- I actually have no local meta right now -.-' Been playing in a shop an hour an a half away from college a couple times a month. My local store is going to try the third anniversary thing in hopes of getting players, for which of course I've been planning a local banlist from the outset. (though I'm not actually the scout; but Ramongoroth dropped of the face of the earth, so...) But some stores/scouts don't agree with the concept, or don't think of it or know about the suggestion because they're new to the game too, etc. I'm not speaking for the sake of my own ambitions here, just trying to look at the big picture. Please stop making such assumptions.

- Never said it absolutely had to be done, or needed to be done immediately. When I said "look into it" that's all I meant. You could be right that most newer/casual players like stuff like Rejection; I'm no market expert. Though there is also a difference between players liking a card when they have it versus liking a card when they have to play against it and have no realistic means, or no non-hugely-expensive means, of getting it. (i.e. BRT, LoTM) In any case few individual players, you or I, will have any more than their own small experiences to go by. Plus there are different types of prospective new players or "casual" ones. (perhaps I meant "light" or "occasional" players moreso than "casual") It would naturally need to be researched a bit and there'd need to be weighing of pros and cons and all that such stuff, including ripple effects with other cards being whined about or rising to power like you mentioned. I'd be somewhat upset too if BR was banned by its lonesome, as it's a precious rare answer to Rejection; not really talking about dealing with the card individually. Though I do believe there are about 8 cards that are so far above everything else on the power curve that there'd be nothing close in power left to point to should they all be dealt with. I've been talking about that sort of swooping action from the outset.

- Obviously, in terms of banning for meta balance reasons the wait-and-see philosophy is entirely in effect, but you know that's not what I'm talking about here. The presence or plenty of answers doesn't change the fact that certain cards are completely game-dominating when not answered, as many new and lightweight players are apt to be unable to do.

Protoaddict said:

seRiously, did you Read my post and not the first one? i typed them the exact same way. at this point i think you'Re not Reading out of spite lol.

im not typing in "1337 speak". also im not upset, if thats what you think. im also not upset that eveRyone doesnt agRee with what i say. please dont compare me to w/e online jerks you've played with because if you had Read my post, you would see i am only stating my opinion on the matteR at hand. honestly if you'Re too childish to Read what i wRite then thats fine. i dont caRe if you dont want to and i have yet to do anything out of line. i respect what people have to say no matteR how much i disagRee with it and Right now you'Re the one not Respecting otheRs on the foRums.

also ghetto gameR, that was a cheap shot you took. i misspelled one woRd. could you cut me some slack?

Bitter Rivals needed an errata or ban since the very day it was spoiled. It has ruined so many games to me it's not even funny. It totally destroys 2 pillars of the game: privacy of hands and zones, in the most devastating order (first I see hand, the I change zones) and can be used over and over. Now it might be even more predominant.

Of course there are answers to it ad maybe there will be more on the new set, but still there's answers to answers, or you will have to spend so much resources to neutralize a basically free card that will open yourself to other potential threats.

Amano Jacu said:

If bitter rivals was a ban worthy card you would have seen it more in tournaments throughout last season . I barely saw it all through out the season where as card like higher caliber , military rank , addes were everywhere so good reason their gone for how they affected the game .

Scubadude said:

All the cards you mention (but addes) were released before Bitter Rivals and needed quite some time to be banned. Maybe Bitter's time has come now.

Maybe Bitter Rivals isn't that much broken in high-level tournaments, since those are normaly much more control-oriented and attacks are few and sparse among them so bitter isn't that important, but it totally destroys casual games and makes them extremely boring. Having to reveal hands on each attack and with the bitter owner changing zones after seeing them, or discarding important cads, ruins the game for me. That's actually one of the reasons I haven't run bitter rivals in some decks that could: just to make the game more fun even if less competitive.

Amano Jacu said:

ok Then the card isn't ban-wothy. If you want to ban it locally you can. Ask your friends not to play the card in casual play.

on the side note: I love the changes. I can see some games becoming Terrian wars. Now I can't spam Ancient Training Ground . I will be a sad panda.

If bitter rivals was a ban worthy card you would have seen it more in tournaments throughout last season . I barely saw it all through out the season where as card like higher caliber , military rank , addes were everywhere so good reason their gone for how they affected the game .

yeah sure, since every *good* players only pack 10 attacks or less. and oh, please, stop telling that X card isn't powerfull because you saw few of thems in high tournament. its lame. maybe you should go trough every player's decks and SIDEBOARD next time. maybe you would see more.

thanks

kimano said:

I would ban Bitter and other cards in my area if that was in my hand, but that isn't the case and it would open a very dangerous can of worms. What happens is that Bitter Rivals is a common in a base set, widely available in starter decks, so it's one of the few cards even players that don't spend that much money can abuse (as opposed to, say, Blood Runs True, another banable card in my opinion) to compensate the power cards other players have and they don't have access to.

Some players in my area are so used to abusing Bitter Rivals that they won't renounce to it unless it is specifically banned.

And about "Command the Sand Storm" being an answer to Bitter Rivals, wll, I'd say it is muche better against continuous abilities. However, as it has been said, against that card you first need to have a throw, then avoid the Bitter discard during the throw (maybe sacrificing another keyword card), and then you need to make the 4 speed mid attack to deal damage, when Bitter Rivals can still change its zone to use the best block.

I'm going to say this about Combo...

Although it looks like a new invention, it is quite akin to, "you may not play this attack unless there are attacks preceding it" that we've seen on Shoulder Rush and, recently, Spinning Beat. The exception, of course, is that, unlike with those two, combo specifically demands a certain type.

This is a good thing, of course, as it promotes the use of certain attack types.

Good stuff all-around. Blank text boxes? Reminds me of my fan-made Xiaoyu who flipped cards upside-down (giving them no effect). Very good James.

lets just discuss the rammifications of banning a card like bitter rivals shall we? Let's assume that the card is banned tomarrow. What happens to the game.

- Well it's symbols absolutley take a dive in power, that's for sure. I mean best case scenario is the symbols it has retain their current powerlevel, and that isnt much to speak about in the terms of symbol balance. And since thoes symbols are already in the shadow of order, chaos, etc you effectivley make thoes symbols stronger.

- You take a away a common tourney card and raise the entry bar to the game even higher. It makes it harder to recruit new players for sure as they need to spend even more money to get cards they can use on a tournament level.

- You increase the power of everything with a keyword, which as we all know is a lot more cards now.

- Cards that the community has issue with other than this one, namley rejection, defender, and feline spike, become that much more powerful and arguably more broken because you just took away one of the best tools to fight them with.

I say leave it.

The issue is that with the current sets out is that 60% of all attacks in Block 3 can be discarded with Bitter Rivals.

That's not just making up numbers, go check out TWD and do the crunching yourself... 60%.

If I've got to add attacks to my deck, then I either have to get rid of all keyword abilities (an option), or I have to play with cards that have nothing but keyword abilities on them. Right now, I'd rather add more cards with keywords, since it's not that hard to add ranged or throw to a deck. If you don't have a deck with keywords, the *only* way you can kill people is Tiger Fury.

Protoaddict said:

How so? Evil is still beastly now and will still be in B3. It's got Chester's Backing, BRT, Ways of Punishment, Charismatic, Red Lotus...The list goes on...Seriously other than an AMAZING kill card I don't see it lacking much. and Tsurane Kiri makes nearly any attack a kill card.

And yeah like Nyobari said more than half of the attacks in the game are now discardable with Bitter.

Amano Jacu said:

Now I mean no disrespect but who ever said that Command the sandstorm was a answer to BR didn't look at Command the sandstorm closely did they since it can be discarded by BR simply because of it's other keyword. Just saying.

I think that if people are serious about having Bitter Rivals banned, which it seems a lot of people are, I would suggest playing casual games without Bitter Rivals in the meta to see whether it makes a difference for the better or for worse. Would it's absence cause Feline Spike to run even further across the board, or would it open up the game to sch a degree that banning it would be a good idea?

I think that without Set 12 actually IN the meta, and without people having tested to see if Bitter Rivals really is banworthy, we'll never know. So if it's something people want to happen, I think those people should test the water without it and tell us how it affected their game. I'm not particularly bothered either way, although at a push, I'd say to ban it, but only because I like an ever-shifting meta

Nyobari said:

Their are other variables this does not account for. Players who run big cyclone, even though it can be discarded, it most likley will protect you, as a for instance. Likewise if your opener is a keywork and your following stuff is not your going to be protected. A deck that throws reppa and then pitches thier hand to ways of punishment may draw any number of keywords after that and they wouldnt be hit by bitter.

That being said i think thiers other discard out there that is much more powerful than bitter even though the costs are MUCH higher. Sakyo Ryu is amazing and has won me more games than bitter ever will.

deathcritis1 said:

Who ever said that, has alreasy posted his response earlier in the thread saying that "he fully understand that Bitter could discard a combo card."

Does everyone understand that when bitter chooses "Keyword" the player who does the discarding chooses which keyword is discarded?

Is that the challenge? Are folks actually playing Bitter Rivals like a comissioner rules from Raw Deal, where the player with the bitter chooses which card gets discarded? Because if that's what's happening, I can understand why people would be bothered.