WhatAboutBob? said:

I know the Calming the Mind bit was unecessary and I apologize. I actually wanted to ttake that part out but when i came back later the edit option was gone. I understand that you were just trying to help but I felt like Cetonis said that most of them felt like you were just looking for ANY card even ones that would probably never be played ever. You are right no one ever said that ranged was overpowered but people did say that it keeps keywords in check and ranged falls under that category.

I know everyone is saying "Oh well it's been out for a Year and hasn't done anything' well up until not it only could discard 6 types of cards. Now it can hit 11 different types. Obviously it is now much more powerful then before so that is not an argument at all. Honestly if James had just given Tien Lei, Iron Thunder and Soul Wave Breaker or something I would have 100% no problems with Bitter Rivals.

And Yeah guys I know that in order for Ranged to ever be viable it will need ot get more support. I am just saying that if it does happen Bitter will just eat it alive.

Link: Yeah the Makai counter is one of the best if you get first E:.

First off, I just wanted to point out that my intent with my post was not to say "Play Spike - Win". While that does happen its not he only way to combat bitter. How bout open up with an ISpin, remove problematic foudnations other than bitter rivals, and then when they look at your hand and realise all you have are big fast non key worded attacks Like GLR to hit them with and they have 2 less useful foundations in play to prevent the smackdown, your in good shape.

How bout Meloncholic into multiples and then play foudnations that prevent life gain, come back next turn and hit them again (note the attacking over the course of multiple turns.)

Also a single negation or committal goes a long way against bitter. Its a lot eaiser to get maifest destiny into play than it is bitter (1 dif versus 3) but more often than not its going to be able to commit that bitter they have. Theres cards like ancient fighting style and will for the fight that not only counter the discard but concievable punish it, as well as the more obvious big cyclone. I think that every symbol has answers at this point, and not just magic bullets but answers that are more than useable in other situations.

...wasn't our games problem too much commit? And we're bitching about Rivals? Holy crap people

Chinese Boxing
Program Malfunction
Manifest Destiny
Hope for One's People

and a whole plethora of other stuff.

What in the EFF is with the hubub?

It's the same hooplah that everyone made about it when it came out. With the same issues and the same complaints.

And...as I've already said numerous times, and as Tag has already said as well.

All the hooplah is for nothing. Just like it was last year.

I was just minding my own business, idling away some time while I fix my broken laptop, but I couldn't resist logging in and replying here.

Protoaddict said:

The argument of "play less keywords" is also total crap. How is that argument any different than the "only play good foundations to counter Olcadan's" bit? It's the exact same, and still just as pointless, silly, and illogical.

The "it's not broken because there's counters" argument also fails, just like it always does, because there are always counters to counters, counters to THOSE counters, and so on into infinity. Fallacious point is fallacious, and best left alone.

Shane's point of Bitter = autowin in high levels of competitive play, however, is spot on. That sort of thing just doesn't work. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play more than 2 copies of Bitter Rivals in a serious, competitive-minded deck before with any success (unless Ivey was running 3 in her Alex deck). The difficulty runs up against too many other cards on its symbols, and its control of 4 also has to contend with other cards. Sine James was mentioned earlier - did he run that in his Worlds deck? (that one is an actual question because I don't remember xD)

Which brings me to my owhn opinion on the card: it's not banworthy in the slightest. It's not broken. It's simply a nuisance. I love the "promote attacking over multiple attacks and turns" concept, but still have a hard time seeing exactly how this is going to work with most attacks having at least one keyword ability and Bitter still being in the format. Not a complaint, really, just an observation. It doesn't affect me on a personal level all that much, since I run few keyword abilities anyway (iSpin being the only real constant, with the occasional Powerful/Multiple/Breaker). However, I do rather like the look of Combo as a way to make the game more interesting, and there are lots of players who aren't going to simply be quaintly amused by Bitter Rivals as it decimates their combo setup (we just got four new players in our group, and they aren't amused).

HolyDragonCloud said:

OOOOH SNAP SON! GIT IT! GIT IT!

MegaGeese said:

Very nice....totally agree with that....the power it has gained is minimul at best if any!

Saying run Different attacks is substantially different than saying run Better ones. I would actually go as far as saying i was recomending running worse attacks because they were immune.

If your attack line up with Feline spike + I spin you have 8 attacks that can all be hit, but in and of itself they provide protection against bitter. Pretty much anything with Ispin is

If your attack line up was all attacks without keywords, your immune to them discarding your attacks, pure and simple.

If your attack line up was a few keyword attacks that you open with followed by non key word attacks, your also mostly immune or at least well padded from the discard.

If your deck was nothing but throws, perhaps you need to reconsider what you run.

I dont see that bitter rivals is so much. Honestly a card like make a differnce in my eyes is MUCH more busted that BR and no one compains about that, probably just cause everyone has been running Fspike for so long.

Protoaddict said:

FSpike being immune to Make a Difference.

Thing is, Make a Difference is good, but it'll save you against one attack. Bitter Rivals can decimate your line-up and enforce your opponent's line-up.

And, of course, there's the ridiculous Bitter Rivals wars as soon as more than one hit the field on the opponent's side of the field.

The card is broken if only because it's an annoying nuisance.

If Bitter Rivals had been printed with a commit cost, nobody, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without a commit cost", and it would still be quite good, just not so ridiculously annoying.

The 3/4 numbers are pretty bad but I don't think that's a serious limititation, specially with a block.

And about counters to it, it's a counter-war all over again. Hell, they could print a 10/1 foundation with "F commit: You win the game" and I could still post 10+ counters to it (this is just an exaggeration example, I know BR is nowhere near that).

What I always say is that a BR in the field breaks so many of the game rules that is like playing a different game, one that is not fun at all. And in a high level of play (that is, one 99% control and 1% attacking), it doesn't matter that much, but you people seem to forget there's supposed to be a player base that starts with few budget on cards and try to learn the game: if they like it enough, they'll try to become a top player. When you explain the game rules to a new player, specially about attack zones, and they see a common card that just changes them at will after seeing your opponent blocks, well, they all want a playset of it since and that level most decks have like 16-20 attacks and play few control. Then they are forced to evolve to tourney-worth decks if they want to win even casual games. Most of the new starter decks feature the combo mechanic that will possibly appeal to new players, to see it decimated by a year-old card.

Finally, if people want protection about keywords I could also list several cards that do that without being that annoying, with the most obvious one being Silver Spoon, which has the same 3 symbols, is reasonably costed (and still, it doesn't need a commit so it is re-usable as long as you can pay a REAL, accumulative cost) and can stop a Feline Spike even if it is the first attack. It just does nothing against regular attacks and preserves privacy of hands.

Last but not least: a simple commit errata would solve this issues and I don't think it would be the world end. Of course, let's not forget there are other cards out there that also bring troubles (specially at tournament high-level) and also should need some attention (with the most obvious ones being OM, BRT and LOTM).

Amano Jacu said:

That argument is just silly. You can say that about a million powerful cards.

If BRT had been printed with a destroy cost, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without having to destroy itself"

If Olcadan's had been printed Unique, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card shouldn't have been unique"

If Chester's had been printed without the response, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should negate stuff too"

If Yoga Mastery had been printed with a commit cost, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without a commit cost"

We can extend that to a bunch of banned cards too. Want me to continue?

Bitter Rivals isn't broken, it never has been broken, and I doubt it's broken now. Let's see a Bitter Rivals-based deck seriously do well at a few tournaments, then we'll start talkin' again. Far as I see it it's a lot of hot air over something that's not a big deal at all in practice. Remember how everyone was worried about how broken Your Mind Is Known To Me was when it came out and we had a several page thread about it? Yeah.

edit: and comparing it on a counter-war level to "F Commit: Win the game" is extremely poor because Bitter Rivals on its own hardly wins games.

edit 2: Brainfarted a card name, go me.

Wait.

People thought Your Mind is Known to Me was broken?
Seriously?
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow

Can some one sum up what their argument was, because I must have missed it. I'm pretty sure that if I had seen it I would have started kicking puppies.

End Note: My opinion regarding Bitter Rivals will be forth coming after testing.

"That argument is just silly. You can say that about a million powerful cards.

If BRT had been printed with a destroy cost, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without having to destroy itself"

If Olcadan's had been printed Unique, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card shouldn't have been unique"

If Chester's had been printed without the response, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should negate stuff too"

If Yoga Mastery had been printed with a commit cost, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without a commit cost"

"

I was talking about commit VS non-commit cost, your examples are not like that. The only one somehow comparable is Yoga, which almost everybody agreed it was quite broken, and still its cost was quite accumulative. The only other example I can think of is Lord of the Makai, which causes other serious issues on its own. In general, free, re-usable abilities can cause lots of trouble.

"Bitter Rivals isn't broken, it never has been broken, and I doubt it's broken now. Let's see a Bitter Rivals-based deck seriously do well at a few tournaments, then we'll start talkin' again. Far as I see it it's a lot of hot air over something that's not a big deal at all in practice. Remember how everyone was worried about how broken Your Mind Is Known To Me was when it came out and we had a several page thread about it? Yeah."

As I said, I am not worried exclusively about high-level tournaments, but casual play as well. If UFS wants to expand its user base it needs to worry about the game's health at all levels, and lessen the label of "hardcore-game you play 100% dedicated or not bother playing at all". I read this new set is supposed to be more newbie-friendly, encouraging decks with several attacks and attacking multiple times (not with multiple keyword) in a turn, and to have the new stellar mechanic (combo) nerfed because of one common card from last year is not that appealing.

About Your Mind is Known to Me, I have never seen it as broken, and it is an action so it isn't re-usable without some effort. By the way, when Bitter Rivals was spoiled it also generated lots of replies.

" edit: and comparing it on a counter-war level to "F Commit: Win the game" is extremely poor because Bitter Rivals on its own hardly wins games."

Ugh, I already said that was an exagerattion example. And believe it or not, I've won and lost games because of Bitter Rivals, it's just that I don't go to Worlds.

Archimedes said:

Because it lets you see their hand and block all their attacks omg

"I was talking about commit VS non-commit cost, your examples are not like that. The only one somehow comparable is Yoga, which almost everybody agreed it was quite broken, and still its cost was quite accumulative. The only other example I can think of is Lord of the Makai, which causes other serious issues on its own. In general, free, re-usable abilities can cause lots of trouble."

My examples are exactly like that - taking balanced concepts and thinking "Hmm let's make this less balanced". You bet nobody would think any of those, so why would you even consider the point that nobody would think "Hmm this shouldn't have been a commit cost". OF COURSE nobody would've thought that. Why would they?

"As I said, I am not worried exclusively about high-level tournaments, but casual play as well. If UFS wants to expand its user base it needs to worry about the game's health at all levels, and lessen the label of "hardcore-game you play 100% dedicated or not bother playing at all". I read this new set is supposed to be more newbie-friendly, encouraging decks with several attacks and attacking multiple times (not with multiple keyword) in a turn, and to have the new stellar mechanic (combo) nerfed because of one common card from last year is not that appealing."

Yeah, and another concept that started up last set and continued this set is powerful-statted attacks that don't have abilities or keywords. I'd like to see Astrid, Ragnar, Yi Shan, or Ivy start caring at all about Bitter Rivals. Combo is a great mechanic and it's doubly great that unlike many other examples of new super powerful cards, there's already a limiting factor on it in the game. How many times has that happened with UFS? Seriously, UFS has up to this point so often been a case of "New cards! Oh crap, they're broken. New cards that counter old cards! Oh crap, new cards are broken. OK new cards that counter those! Crap, now there's more stuff that's broken too... ANSWERS IN THE NEXT SET GUYS"

"And believe it or not, I've won and lost games because of Bitter Rivals, it's just that I don't go to Worlds."

And I've won and lost games because of Quick Elbow, but that doesn't mean it was the most important deciding factor nor was the deck based on Quick Elbow. How did Bitter Rivals guarantee the win in those cases? If it was pushing an attack string through, it's doing a bang-up job of exactly what James wants this game to do.

"My examples are exactly like that - taking balanced concepts and thinking "Hmm let's make this less balanced". You bet nobody would think any of those, so why would you even consider the point that nobody would think "Hmm this shouldn't have been a commit cost". OF COURSE nobody would've thought that. Why would they?"

Balanced? How are those cards "balanced" as printed? Actually, all the examples you said would have been balanced if they had the "corrections" you were proposing. The problem is that UFS is a game with so many unbalanced cards, that balanced immediately means "bad" and doesn't see play.

"Yeah, and another concept that started up last set and continued this set is powerful-statted attacks that don't have abilities or keywords. I'd like to see Astrid, Ragnar, Yi Shan, or Ivy start caring at all about Bitter Rivals. Combo is a great mechanic and it's doubly great that unlike many other examples of new super powerful cards, there's already a limiting factor on it in the game. How many times has that happened with UFS? Seriously, UFS has up to this point so often been a case of "New cards! Oh crap, they're broken. New cards that counter old cards! Oh crap, new cards are broken. OK new cards that counter those! Crap, now there's more stuff that's broken too... ANSWERS IN THE NEXT SET GUYS"

Again, that's another problem in UFS: it gets so many expansions a year and each one neuters what was broken in the previous one, like discard -> anti-discard + momentum -> damage pump + anti-momentum -> committal -> anti-committal -> CC-Hax -> anti-CC-Hax -> etc. If they didn't print broken stuff in the first place they wouldn't need to neuter them in the next expansion. Several players here quit because they couldn't stand that rhythm, when a good deck was totally useless next month unless they started over again.

"And I've won and lost games because of Quick Elbow, but that doesn't mean it was the most important deciding factor nor was the deck based on Quick Elbow. How did Bitter Rivals guarantee the win in those cases? If it was pushing an attack string through, it's doing a bang-up job of exactly what James wants this game to do."

There's better ways to push attacks through that printing a card that breaks so many games mechanics. They could just have changed the game rules regarding attack zones directly. Oh, and I also won games because I could change the opponent's attack zones to suit my blocks, and lost others because an attack was discarded because of BR. And others I won despite of BR because I had another keyword card (like a breaker foundation) in hand to save my keyword attack.

Consensus on BR from what I gather from this thread : It's not powerful, but it's extremely annoying.

No, it's very powerful, too powerful really, so much so that it never should have been allowed to see print in its current form. Base power level is something you evaluate in vacuum; the existence of answers and the impact on the high-level meta only comes into play when you're talking about whether or not it should be banned.

Way, way too many people seem to think overpowered = ban, when that is very far from the case. And I mean it both ways - just because something is overpowered doesn't mean it should automatically be banned, and just because something doesn't need to be banned doesn't mean it isn't stupidly overpowered. There are tons of examples - anyone want to argue that Absurd Strength wasn't an overpowered card? How about Soul Power? Clones? The list is indefinite, cards that were decidedly overpowered and should never have been printed. But the other cards in the environment, the meta at the time, never dictated that these cards be banned. It doesn't make them any less stupid, it's just that they weren't bannable.

One way I like to think about it is, would they ever consider reprinting this card? For instance, would they ever reprint Clones? Not a chance, right? 5-check attacks should have stats like High Tide, not stats that are better than almost every 3-check at its difficulty. It's too powerful to reprint - in other words, overpowered. Even if it wouldn't have a disastrous effect on the top-level meta, overpowered is overpowered. Now, would they ever reprint BR? There's absolutely no way it would ever be brought up as anything but a bad joke. Why on earth would they bring something like that back into the game? If they want to punish keywords, it'd be better to print cards that are actually fair. (see Undisputed Ruler) BR is clearly overpowered, it's not even close. There might be ways to pack answers for it and to meta against it and all that, but that doesn't make it any less of a stupid card. That just means they don't have to ban it.

Never should have been alowed to see print in its current form?

No when it was printed it was not at the level it is now. Back when it was printed it was never a auto include. In general it was looked down on as a ok card but not worth including in a deck for the most part because there was better cards to run. People moaned that it would change everything back then and it didn't make even a slight splash till the hanzo loop, and then it was just that one deck. And its not because there were answers for it, its because it wasn't worth running in general. Now its worth running, and people like you are panicing.

Would I reprint it exactly as is? Probably not. But then again the other "re-prints" that have been done have not been exact reprints. So not exactly the best challenge there.

When on earth did I say I was panicking? For goodness' sakes, don't make assumptions that I'm some crazed idiot. I explicitly said it didn't need to be banned, because there are plenty of ways to deal with it and it's not a meta problem.

Even when it was printed, it was overpowered, on the basis of the free informed zone change on every attack alone. It just so happens that the meta shaped up to be such that attacking in any way other than an unstoppable one-turn kill was bad, so BR wasn't very useful/necessary. That doesn't mean it wasn't overpowered, though. The same way Clones was definitely an overpowered card despite not being very dominant over the past year due to the attack-unfriendly meta, its symbols, Olcadan's, etc.

As for the reprinting thing, that is of course a theoretical question, it doesn't have to have practical translation into the way things are normally done to be logically relevant. If a card could not be considered for reprinting as-is because it's too powerful, then it follows that it is an overpowered card. It's very simple.

Homme Chapeau said:

Much like you

Like clockwork, with every single release since domination, this card has gotten some 7 page thread about its powerlevel and it always just fizzled out near the end of it.

I can honestly say that I feel this card is more or less properly balanced when compaired to the cards that are currently dominating the game. Let me compare it to foundations that match symbols and such.

BRT. Matches 2 symbols with Bitter. Both have the ability to push an important attack through. Both can selectivley stop a card, one thorough discarding but a little less accurate, one through CC hax but a bit more accurate. Now compaire stats: BRT has a better control, lower difficulty, a better block (high zone versus mid i dont think you can say one is better than the other right now, but the number is better), BRT can draw you a card, so one an so forth. Both can be shut down with a wide range of cards. If you had to pick one I think most players would regard BRT as the better of the 2.

King of Fighters 2006. Matches fire. Both can push attacks through (KOF by removing cards to block with.) KOF2006 has a better control value, lower difficulty, second ability (granted not often used but still there), can generate multiple/powerful momentum, and has one more symbol that bitter (for things like manifest destiny, but also helps multi symbol).

Ways of Punishment. Matches Evil. Both push attacks through. Ways can discard a handful of cards at once instead of chipping. Ways can also give a damage pump. Ways has a better control, lower difficulty, better block. Dosent show you thier hand however since it can all together remove it you dont need to and it dosent reveal your hand.

Saikyo-Ryu. Just to get an extreme example, sakyo matches all and is 3 lower difficulty than Bitter. It can only be used once because of it's commital cost and it costs 2 cards from hand, however it can get ANY card in hand, can circumvent some anti discard, Can help strip useless cards from your hand so on your redraw you can see more of your deck, Lets you see thier hand without revealing yours.

Now I know none of these cards are nessasarly directly comprable, what card really is, as all of them fill different niches. Some do more in certian regards and less in others, so on and so forth. WIth that being said i dont see why bitter is that much more attention getting than any of these on the list. And yes ALL off them have answers. Im willing to go as far as saying that there are more answers to bitter than to a lot of these, but thats neither here nor there.

Also consider, more so than anything, that on the symbols bitter has, most decs are running 2 (or 1) check attacks as thier win conditions. That has changed a little since the new release for new characters specifically, but all the same a 3 difficulty foundation in a deck with 2 checks is not a safe first turn drop. We all know what failing the first control check of the game can do. Meaning that draing this card opening hand can go as far as being determental to your health.

Amano Jacu said:

Yeah, and you did the same thing with Bitter Rivals's effect first. YOU said

"If Bitter Rivals had been printed with a commit cost, nobody, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without a commit cost", and it would still be quite good, just not so ridiculously annoying."

I took your line and ran with it.

Amano Jacu said:

And yet you're complaining now that the new mechanic already has an answer in the format?

That cycle of broken -> answers + broken -> answers + broken is part of the growing pains of any CCG. Keep in mind this game is still relatively young.

Tag said:

Yeah, and you did the same thing with Bitter Rivals's effect first. YOU said

"If Bitter Rivals had been printed with a commit cost, nobody, absolutely nobody would have thought "hey, this card should have been printed without a commit cost", and it would still be quite good, just not so ridiculously annoying."

I took your line and ran with it.

----

What I was trying to say that most foundations in this game have a commit cost, and some powerful ones have an additional cost besides commiting (and some directly require destruction). There's few cards that don't require a commital, and they usually are less strong and/or have a another cost like discarding a card or a momentum that severely limits it usage. Most totally free abilities are OK but not great, and some are character-specific and have another ability on the card.

Out of all such foundations, the one that doesn't require a commit and has the most powerful effect I can think of is (after lord of the makai) is BR. Why it doesn't have a commit cost, like the vast majority of foundations do, is totally beyond me, hence my comment.

Maybe BR hasn't had such an impact in top-level competition so far because, as somebody has said and I totally agree, the meta has been totally about decks that kill in a single attack when a player manages to get control over the board since its release. Even Happy Holidays was around for some time, which made hand-seeing and regular aggro decks in general useless.

Another example: Higher Calibur. At first, people in my play area ran it because of its E, which was a God-send against Yoga Mastery and the like. However, when the meta went to reaction wars and commital wars, its free R was totally absurd, and it also surprised me they needed that long to ban it. Of course, because of that meta, Higher Calibur had a much Higher impact in competitve play than BR ever will.

Responses and statics in general will always be broken before E or F abilities because they are not limited like the other 2. The reson HC was so bad is because it could trigger multiple times to the same opening action. Typicaly the best an e or an F can strive to be is "good".

Alright, I am getting sick of this topic. Instead of getting informative insight, all I have managed to read from a few of you is "I am right and my balls are humongous so suck it!" The only ones giving in depth insight is the people on the first five pages and Proto. And still between those pages, a bit of bs to nuke this threads intention.

tag and amano, you both made good points, keyword being MADE, up until you two got into each others grill. Mind you that you guys are not the only ones I know. Regardless by now, I am certain Steve and Company are pretty much ignoring the thread and while we can go on tangents and argue due to bruised ego's it is not going to change a **** thing as it pertains to Bitter Rivals.

Now on a casual front, I can see how BR can mess over new players and new mechanics. From a noobs perspective, I can see them wanting to attack and attack and attack some more. BR could be discouraging for those players who want to try out those keyword mechanics for the first time or enjoy using them. I swear that at times, most of us tend to forget that there is a fun side to this game. We've become so cutt throat and hellbent determined to get to the top that anything goes. But belive it or not there is a casual scene and yes Amano that does need to be kept into consideration.

As it pertains to Shane's original question as to whether or not BR has gained or lost, I would most certainly say gain. I mean I can rip through most keyword abilties cards if i want to, but than there are things that can handle it which I do not need to discuss sense this has been beaten to a bloody pulp. With that said, the new set has brought some answers to the fore and for those of you who feel that this is one of the many problem cards, there are still going to be new sets that are bound to have more answers. Does that mean that I think that everyone should just suck it up and roll? Nope. But this is going to happen again with another card because it is the way it seems to be. When threads like this pop up, I do not need to tell you guys that the battle of the bulge is certain to ensue. Even if the topic asks for a good answer, it will always boil down to whiny emos who think they know it all, rational people stepping in to fix the topic, egoists who need to hear themselves thus screwing us of any good insight, and the dying hiss that kills whatever it was that the topic was aiming for.

Okay. I'm tired of these pages of "I'm right. I'm right. I'm right."

I never mean't for this to be a ***** thread. I just asked for simple opinions on if it gained or lost some power. I wish people wouldn't blow it off topic when I wish for a simple reply, not a full out rant.

I'm done here.