Defender needs an eratta!!!

By Lord Hamara, in UFS General Discussion

Posted at

guitalex2008 said:

FenMiHuo said:

If you really want to get into this here (which I guess being a defender erratta thread is the right place)
Theres at least an answer to defender in almost every symbol as can be find in that other random thread, its a fragile loop

As for rejection looping it is because rejection is dumb, its not defenders fault.

Except that then we're forced to pack an answer to a single card in every deck if we ever want it to remain competitive, which kind of reminds me of a certain banned asset that shut decks down.

It is Rejection now, but at any point that any damage reduction actions are ever released, it will be them. While it's also true that Rejection does too much, ANY damage reduction action made between now and the moment when Defender rotates can and will be abused.

(Also let this be a warning for those who want You Will Not Escape back... Defender can loop it if you do pass the check for the attack), after Forethought and BRT)

If not that, then any block with Breaker. A Tag Along used to shut your character down. Really, anything.

Damage reduction actions are a lot more obvious uses, but it doesn't stop there. Addes had answers on most symbols as well, and it has them available now if it didn't back then, so why not unban it? For the same reason that Defender SHOULD be banned. Because no single card should affect the meta as much as forcing everyone to pack answers to it, thus losing consistency.

Honestly while reading this I was thinking olcadans :-P

Its true no deck should have to pack answers to every card, and they dont, if you cant out run it or get around it, you sb for it, or if you have general destruction.

Its just like any other kill condition, honestly, I'd say stopping defender looping is a lot easier then stoping a ways of the punishment/30 damage attack to the face

I actually see defender as weaker then some other win conditions, in my air/chaos Fio deck, I actually run it as a backup win condition, its just kinda there if I ever need it

Posted at

guitalex2008 said:

that then we're forced to pack an answer to a single card in every deck if we ever want it to remain competitive.
Because no single card should affect the meta as much as forcing everyone to pack answers to it, thus losing consistency.

Cutted and trimmed for the point I wish to make. *cough* Olcodan's *cough*

But back on topic. Killing with defender is one thing, loopin rejection is the reason multi attack decks dont work. But its not really defender's fault in this case. Rejection is the real offender IMO.

And sorry I had to show you that Hamararamamamrarrammamaa.

Posted at

Once again the problem REALLY is LOTM. For the same reason everyone wanted Shinobi tradition banned back in the day because of what it did to commit costs, makai does to momentum costs. The big different though is that foundations are usually used for good effects, momentum is used for kill effects...

Posted at

Protoaddict said:

Once again the problem REALLY is LOTM. For the same reason everyone wanted Shinobi tradition banned back in the day because of what it did to commit costs, makai does to momentum costs. The big different though is that foundations are usually used for good effects, momentum is used for kill effects...

Precedence shows that if they're banning something, it'll be Defender, Rejection, or whatever, and NOT Lord of the Makai.

Not that they will, but precedence shows that. Also, Defender needs only to have all copies in my hand so that I may burn them. With fire.

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

Protoaddict said:

Once again the problem REALLY is LOTM. For the same reason everyone wanted Shinobi tradition banned back in the day because of what it did to commit costs, makai does to momentum costs. The big different though is that foundations are usually used for good effects, momentum is used for kill effects...

Precedence shows that if they're banning something, it'll be Defender, Rejection, or whatever, and NOT Lord of the Makai.

Not that they will, but precedence shows that. Also, Defender needs only to have all copies in my hand so that I may burn them. With fire.

so wait why wouldnt they ban lord of the makai? it makes all that stuff work....you cant loop anything without it(or at least momentum) but i dont think that any other momentum generation makes it so bad

id say down with Makai and then see how the meta goes.......i believe it would change alot

Posted at

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

Homme Chapeau said:

Protoaddict said:

Once again the problem REALLY is LOTM. For the same reason everyone wanted Shinobi tradition banned back in the day because of what it did to commit costs, makai does to momentum costs. The big different though is that foundations are usually used for good effects, momentum is used for kill effects...

Precedence shows that if they're banning something, it'll be Defender, Rejection, or whatever, and NOT Lord of the Makai.

Not that they will, but precedence shows that. Also, Defender needs only to have all copies in my hand so that I may burn them. With fire.

so wait why wouldnt they ban lord of the makai? it makes all that stuff work....you cant loop anything without it(or at least momentum) but i dont think that any other momentum generation makes it so bad

id say down with Makai and then see how the meta goes.......i believe it would change alot

for the same reason they waited a very long time before banning higher calibur. Box topper that actually made people buy the full box?

Posted at

Admiral Ren said:

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

Homme Chapeau said:

Protoaddict said:

Once again the problem REALLY is LOTM. For the same reason everyone wanted Shinobi tradition banned back in the day because of what it did to commit costs, makai does to momentum costs. The big different though is that foundations are usually used for good effects, momentum is used for kill effects...

Precedence shows that if they're banning something, it'll be Defender, Rejection, or whatever, and NOT Lord of the Makai.

Not that they will, but precedence shows that. Also, Defender needs only to have all copies in my hand so that I may burn them. With fire.

so wait why wouldnt they ban lord of the makai? it makes all that stuff work....you cant loop anything without it(or at least momentum) but i dont think that any other momentum generation makes it so bad

id say down with Makai and then see how the meta goes.......i believe it would change alot

for the same reason they waited a very long time before banning higher calibur. Box topper that actually made people buy the full box?

Set=sold out anyways so how can you buy more boxes anyway but on that note they needed to ban higher caliber just like they need to do something now

Posted at

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

Set=sold out anyways so how can you buy more boxes anyway but on that note they needed to ban higher caliber just like they need to do something now

SC: Flash of the Blade is sold out?

That's news to me.

Posted at

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

Posted at

Protoaddict said:

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

It certainly did not : I mean, Feline Spike, well nobody wants that. Great Gerdenheim? Rubbish. A Cat's Reflexes? PISH-POSH. Midnight Pleasure? Now really. High Plasma Beam? Pfft.

etc. etc. etc.

Posted at

Protoaddict said:

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

lord of the makai is slightly broken. ban it now.

Posted at

trane said:

lord of the makai is slightly broken. ban it now.

thanks for the new content in your post. It greatly help.

Posted at

trane said:

Protoaddict said:

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

lord of the makai is slightly broken. ban it now.

How can something be Slightly Broken. Either it is or it isnt. You cant be slightly dead. Slightly broken is still broken.

Posted at

trane said:

Protoaddict said:

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

lord of the makai is slightly broken. ban it now.

If FFG banned every card that was slightly better then others our ban lists would be insane.

Posted at

Protoaddict said:

trane said:

Protoaddict said:

just like it is similar to shinobi in that it removes costs, for the same whatever reason it wont be banned just like shinobi never was. One would imagine they dont wanna ban it because it was the box topper and they will annoy a lot of people, but its not like that set didnt have anything else worth owning.

lord of the makai is slightly broken. ban it now.

How can something be Slightly Broken. Either it is or it isnt. You cant be slightly dead. Slightly broken is still broken.

You may not be able to be slighty dead but you can be mostly dead.......lol. anyway back to the topic once again this is a case where the format makes a card incredibly good. Id like to think that if defender had been in a format BEFORE rejection and lotm, ppl wouldnt have an issue with it. Defender is a problem to face down true enough, but there were so many cards before it that were much more troublesome and thus recieved bannings/erratas (insert higher calibur, promo hugo, etc.) The meta will shift to a point one day when defender is no longer a worried about card.

Posted at

Wait, people actually lose to that combo? I'm not sure about block 3 since we're either waiting for the next set or switching to it this week in ol' P-cola, but there seem to be about 1000 ways to stop it, on top of the millions of cards for each way to stop it. I could be exaggerating a bit though =P

PS - I'm usually all about hating on obviously overpowered cards and the people who always go "lol you can destroy/negate it so it's fine", but not this time. This just seems to be the Talim decks all over again (aka everyone bitched but no one here ever lost to them).

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

Set=sold out anyways so how can you buy more boxes anyway but on that note they needed to ban higher caliber just like they need to do something now

SC: Flash of the Blade is sold out?

That's news to me.

no realm of midnight we were talking about buying boxes to get lord of the makais and thats why they wouldnt ban LotM(because it was making them money)

Posted at

FFTARoxorz05 said:

Wait, people actually lose to that combo? I'm not sure about block 3 since we're either waiting for the next set or switching to it this week in ol' P-cola, but there seem to be about 1000 ways to stop it, on top of the millions of cards for each way to stop it. I could be exaggerating a bit though =P

PS - I'm usually all about hating on obviously overpowered cards and the people who always go "lol you can destroy/negate it so it's fine", but not this time. This just seems to be the Talim decks all over again (aka everyone bitched but no one here ever lost to them).

[/quote

Honestly, it's a factor a lot of people seem to be forgetting when Theory Fighting System : Viability of the counter piece. For example : Gaishiki Lunar Rebellion. In order to destroy the asset, the effect must be activated and it must not be negated. Granted, that's a wrong example considering negating an E on an attack is the stuff of No Memories and things of that nature, but still, you get where I'm going.

Personally, I hear about a whole mess of counters to the Defender Loop/Defender and Makai times Whatever, yet honestly, I've tried them and the one time you desperately need them, they never come out. In the sense that you will not feel pressured by the Defender loop if you are prepared to nip it in the bud (about the only way to stop it), but the one time you fall victim to it is the one time you remember.

Posted at

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

no realm of midnight we were talking about buying boxes to get lord of the makais and thats why they wouldnt ban LotM(because it was making them money)

You know that Realm of Midnight has been sold out since like September?

Posted at

Antigoth said:

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

no realm of midnight we were talking about buying boxes to get lord of the makais and thats why they wouldnt ban LotM(because it was making them money)

You know that Realm of Midnight has been sold out since like September?

I do but what im saying is that they shouldnt have a problem banning LotM because it isnt being sold in boxes anymore because its sold out so its not moving product.....same as when they didnt want to ban Higher Caliber because it was something you get when you buy boxes

Posted at

Following the Original Post: Whether it needs an errata is debatable. But it could use one. Specifically, change "this attack deals damage" to "your attack deals damage," and it's still a powerful attack looper, but cuts out Rejection loops and other silliness.

Following the previous post: You make a very good point. There's nothing wrong with banning Lord of the Makai from a financial standpoint. It's not like anyone's buying boxes for the card--they can't. There's also nothing wrong with banning it from a play perspective. It give momentum cheap as free, and getting that kinda crap outta the game will make people want to attack more to build momentum for finishers.

Posted at

ARMed_PIrate said:

Following the previous post: You make a very good point. There's nothing wrong with banning Lord of the Makai from a financial standpoint. It's not like anyone's buying boxes for the card--they can't. There's also nothing wrong with banning it from a play perspective. It give momentum cheap as free, and getting that kinda crap outta the game will make people want to attack more to build momentum for finishers.

Previous post was my "oh god I am so drunk" rant of "Hey guys counter pieces don't exactly work in every scenario, it is not a 'if you play this I play this back to neutral' thing you have to take into account actual play data", you meant the one before it. In fact, I was so out there that the forum program detected this and screwed up my post in consequence.

Posted at

Changing to "your attack" takes away from the whole defensive angle =/

"Only playable on your opponent's turn" would be the only sensible errata, if it were to have one (which is has no need or use for).

Posted at

MegaGeese said:

Changing to "your attack" takes away from the whole defensive angle =/

"Only playable on your opponent's turn" would be the only sensible errata, if it were to have one (which is has no need or use for).

Honestly, if you add that, change the card's effect to read : "If this attack deals damage, take one card from your card pool and add it to hand. Only playable on your opponent's turn." Getting rid of the other makes the card read clearer.

But it won't. It'll either outright get banned or stay.

Posted at

I'm not so bothered by by defender being used to loop attacks, I mean there are tons of combos that can do that. It's the rejection looping that bothers me. The rejection loop could be stoped or weakened if rejection were to be eratted. They could take away the gain 3 life ability so that a least you could do some damage to you opponent instead to him going back to full after you attacked him, or they could make rejection reduce the attack's damage to 0 which would completely kill the stupid combo, and would no one could complain about cards getting made worthless through banning and eratta.

On a side note, last week I killed my friends defender four times in one turniment using gaishiki lunar rebellion (twice in prelims and twice in finals) three of those times I killed it the turn after he got it out two. He was so pissed that after the fourth time he quite and gave me the win. lol.