PDA

View Full Version : ban/errata Watch List



jason
06-16-2010, 11:23 AM
For those of you who did not get the message, the following cards are on watch. The new banned/errata list will be up in a few days on the website.

Here is what we are looking at for each format. Note that each format will have separate ban/errata lists, and will not apply to all formats. This IS NOT A BANNED LIST and what does get banned will be in addition to the current Banned list.

Standard Review list:

Path of the Master

**James Hata**

Ultimate Team

*Astrid*

Paul’s Gi

Stand Off

Extended Review List:

Amy’s Assistance

Super Human Strength

Independent Operative

Battle Prowess

Abillia’s Friendship

Blood Runs True

Altered Mind and Body

Prince of Darkness

Criminal Past

*Zi Mei*

Ira Spinta

Defender

Darkness Blade (for ruling purposes)

Tira’s Contract

Make a Difference

Fight or Flight

The ways of Punishment

Mentally Unstable

Reanimated

Program Malfunction

High Plasma Beam

Mysterious Stance

Seal of Cessation



Legacy Review List (The legacy format will have to be updated a lot over time, but for now these are the biggest problem cards):

Kunai

Yoga Mastery

Emptiness



In addition to these cards, we are going to have a close eye on several cards during Worlds this year, Zi Mei's Wheel kick and Financial Troubles to name a few. If we find there are cards that hurt the meta or take away from the playing experience and interaction from the game, we will add those cards to a poll after Worlds. The polling software for the main site is still not developed, but we will be able to take polls on the forums with the forum software soon.

Sincerely,

Jason

P.S.

For those of you who were wondering, I do read the forums, and so does everyone on staff here. We will see your thoughts and opinions if you post. We will not ignore you :)

Nfxon
06-16-2010, 01:03 PM
Personal opinion on the watch list for standard.
Hata is too good. A bonus for doing what cards already do is too powerfull in the limited enviroment presently.
Path of the Master is terribly broken in the Enhance dept and it should go / never should have been printed.
Stand Off drags the game too much and is also over the top in power level. Turning any foundation into a dmg reduction tool is too good.

I could argue alot more about those cards but I'll leave it at that for now.

The rest of the cards I dont find an issue with. But the above three should be banned. Considering they are all promos as well it will help new players in the game as a side effect of making the standard enviroment more healthy.

Viewtiful Joe
06-16-2010, 01:04 PM
First of all, I think it's very important that Yoga Mastery does NOT get banned for Legacy. Without it, all hell will break loose with characters like Adon and Talim being able to roam free playing whatever the heck they like with no drawback whatsoever. I think other than that, my only other comments are that banning Hata might not be the best of ideas, as he'll probably get weaker as more control comes into the game (which NEEDS to happen in Standard, by the way) and he's a champion card after all...

Sketch
06-16-2010, 01:14 PM
In current Standard, Hata wrecks everything, path or standoff or otherwise. A completely free ability that circumvents blocking and adds damage at the same time just by committing stuff is way too good. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a champion card got banned/errataed - Matt Kohls back in the day had errata slapped on him as well.

After doing a bunch of testing, I'm in line with what Nfxon has to say. Path, Standoff and Hata need to go, the rest are fine. Ultimate Team is costed fairly, costs a card from hand and a foundation, and is in a symbol spread without a lot of stun protection. Paul's Gi is fine - it's Unique, it's not unbalancing, and it's nowhere near Path in terms of broken asset-ness. Astrid can be played around - yes, she's good, but she's not Hata-broken.

I'd like to nominate another card for the watch list, and that's For the Money. Card is straight broken in the current format - it paired with a lot of stun means you're completely circumventing checking on attacks, at literally no cost. Way too powerful imho.

Shiros
06-16-2010, 02:21 PM
On Path of the Master, there is absolutely no reason for this card to be around. The game is fast enough as is, there's just no reason for such a powerful card like this. Not a single thing even compares to what this card can do for acceleration and pump. My vote is ban.

James Hata, his E is broken as it feeds into his even more broken R:. E Commit 1 foundation: Change the zone of this attack to any other zone. ? Really? Even though this effect is completely useless as you wont be blocking anything due to his R:, it's incredibly good to be just sitting on a character since turn 1. I definitely vote ban, as I can't be happy with this cards unless both abilities get massive errata.

For Stand Off, I have a love hate relationship with this. Arguably, this is one of the few cards in the format that provides survivability in this very stripped version of UFS, being that it's all "Turn 2: attack attack attack. I win, game two?". Stand Off can be easily errated while remaining it's power yet removing it from broken status. A simple "E Commit, commit 1 foundation:" for both abilities allow a max of 4 times use instead of a potentially infinite times. With keeping in the "commit 2 to cancel" ability, this foundation drops a lot in power as you have to think more instead of blindly feeling safe because your Stand Offs can remain untapped. I don't like this card how it is, but I find it necessary as we do need more survivability in this format. I vote for this errata, granted one I approve of more doesn't come along.

SMazzurco
06-16-2010, 03:36 PM
Path of the Master - It should be "symbols PRINTED on cards in your card pool" and/or "E, destroy this asset: damage pump"

**James Hata** - +1spd OR dmg would probably level him out. Making his E change the zone of YOUR attack would also level him out. Doing both will drop him from top tier to unplayed.

Ultimate Team - Sufficient cost of committing a card and chucking a card. Fine as is.

*Astrid* - Seriously? How many events has she won? She is fine, the only errata i could possibly see is if her static read "while this character is ready". The dmg pump is fine, especially with no built in speed pump.

Paul’s Gi - Giving Stun2 is not game breaking, so i assume the draw is the problem. If it was "if your attack" it would be terrible. As is it forces a hit to get the draw. You use paul's gi, i pump the dmg of my attack. Its a 4 check asset. Fine as is.

Stand Off - Ill be the minority here and say fine as is. Commit out so you don't take dmg, thats fine. Then ill send my big attack and now you have nothing open to block.

NJBrock22
06-16-2010, 03:51 PM
from other boards:


Standard Review list:

Path of the Master

easy errata to it, make it either the # of cards that preceed the attack or the number of cards that share at least 2 resources with your character or something to that nature.


**James Hata**

me and a few people have caused ourselves migraines over this one, just f'n ban the thing, too many interaction problems.


Ultimate Team

nothing wrong with this card, you're trading a Block(Which most of the time you're not gonna pack anything above a 2...) for a marginal effect.


*Astrid*

really, the only thing you can do with her is cap that Damage bonus at double the attack's printed damage or something there's a way to fix it.


Paul’s Gi

as i stated earlier... WHY... there is 0, I REPEAT 0 reason to even think of banning this card, errata to Paul only... well thats an EXTREME measure, if the stun part has people angry, TOUGH S#%^ it's part of the game, get over it, all symbols can deal with stun, and most of the time by the time they use stun... there's nothing to stun anyway...


Stand Off

has a few things going against it... it's a hard to get promo, it doesn't commit itself for a VERY good effect, and well... meh, either errata it to commit itself and lower the negate cost OR ban it.


Extended Review List:

Amy’s Assistance

really one of a few ways to deal with assets, i'd errata it to difficulty or control of the revealed card(Whichever is lower) and that would make it to where -6, -6, -6, -6 ok its -24 damage total can't happen.


Super Human Strength

may add a commit 1 foundation or just commit and the rfg a card to the [Earth] ability, outside of that, really nothing wrong with it, yeah you can have 4 out, but you're gonna run out of resources to keep saving yourself very quickly if ya keep using the [Earth] R.


Independent Operative

One of 2 ways to fix this... either make it only playable durring YOUR attack OR Change it from Enhance to Form, either one will work.


Battle Prowess

either change "Difficulty of any Attack" to "Lowest Difficulty of an Attack" OR make the ability Yuri Only[extreme measure here]


Abillia’s Friendship

may need to be BOTH players gain X vitality, but that's just me on that one.


Blood Runs True

oww... how many times do i have to say it, NOT PLAYABLE Durring the Block step, maybe also add only your OPPONENT draws.


Altered Mind and Body

nothing wrong with this card, YES i am serious


Prince of Darkness

really with the lack of RFG retrieval, not that broken. Besides if you can bait them out to using it early... you can still kill them.


Criminal Past

First E, nuf said.


*Zi Mei*

Add a cost to the Commit to commit ability maybe a (+5) and she's somewhat ballanced.


Ira Spinta

banned.


Defender

Either Trade the E's or just make the whole card Seong Mina only... or ban it.


Darkness Blade (for ruling purposes)

really, simple ruling on this card, it says Commit the Highest Difficulty card, by default if the highest is commited, the next highest is commited(as a commited card by the rules CANNOT be commited) in case of a tie, just rule that the opponent can chose which one(ala stun), ruling confusion cleared.


Tira’s Contract

one of a few ways to deal with Fio only annoying part is yes it kills throw decks and off blocks but still good enough to keep around


Make a Difference

only playable if you have no cards in your hand, only playable if you have X attacks in your card pool... something... i dunno... maybe just First E


Fight or Flight

needs to be clarified that it cannot work if the attack's current damage is BELOW it's printed, it's also one of a few ways to keep out of control damage boosts on your OPPONENT's side down.


The ways of Punishment

Add, you may not play any more enhances this enhance step, and make it a First E, there ya go, ballanced, somewhat.


Mentally Unstable

either define X as the Speed, Control or Damage of your attack or something, OR make it a Destroy itself AND a First E.


Reanimated

Victor Only, yeah it can Reanimate itself but you can negate it... moving on.


Program Malfunction

I'd add this card cannot be readied by any effect until your next ready phase. Keeps the loop of "ready, commit, ready, commit, your opponent has no staging area anymore" from happening to an extent.


High Plasma Beam

Gives low handsizers a Kill Condition, really see nothing wrong with it.


Mysterious Stance

helps against straight discard decks to block attacks, nothing wrong with it.


Seal of Cessation

really needs to have the added text (Not playable durring the block step) that way ok i block with an Action, *negated* doesn't happen anymore, the card is ALMOST too "Easy Button".

Legacy Review List:


Kunai

change it to card from hand not card pool and you keep the constant card pool clearing ability from being TOO Broken and ya break the Chain Throw Loop.


Yoga Mastery

Add either Commit 1 foundation to the cost or change it to card From hand(See Silver Spoon) and it's ballanced out somewhat.


Emptiness

meh, beat emptiness a lot, only really Hugo and a couple others made it dumb(see Ken) but outside of that, i have no problems with it.


N.J.

Judas225
06-16-2010, 04:57 PM
Path - needs to go. Basically what Shiros said.

Hata - Seriously needs to be limited. Speed OR damage should be enough to knock him down a bit, although I don't think he'll be unplayed if both abilities were errataed the speed/damage pump is what pushes him over the top.

Ultimate Team - This can be debated for specific situations and card interactions, but mostly it's one card and one foundation for a one time effect. It costs resources that could otherwise be used to block attacks outright.

Paul's Gi - What SMazzurco said. There's nothing even remotely wrong with this card.

Astrid - I don't think a simple cap would be enough, as the problem I see with Astrid is the ability to throw out several extremely damaging attacks one after another, regardless of whose turn it is and regardless of the difficulty of said attacks. While one or two high damage attacks might seem manageable, it can easily overwhelm most decks when you not only have to defend against high damage reversals but a series of high damage attacks during their turn as well.
I say Astrid should be errataed so her enhance is only playable once per turn or as an E commit. This would still allow her to present a major threat on either player's turn without being overpowered.

Stand Off - The only problem anybody should have with this card is lack of availability. It costs 2 foundations, can be negated, and can be countered often at a cheaper cost. Any general damage pump gives Stand Off basically a two for one effect. Commit two foundations for -4, I commit one for +2. Or one of my favorite interactions, commit Regretful Existence to negate Stand Off then blow up the other committed foundation. Unstoppable Warrior effectively negates Stand Off just for destroying one foundation, plenty of other cards turn sideways for varying amounts of damage boost. It's a card that can be baited, worked around, and pushed through with only a little strategy and willingness to adapt. Sure it slows the game down, but it sort of balances out the ability to throw out several high damage attacks at relatively little cost.

Overall Stand Off is usually little more than an annoyance. It costs two foundations, meaning less chance of blocking, per activation. It can be negated, which actually opens up a few bluffing strategies on offense. It also fails to be a game breaker when your opponent just wants an attack to deal ANY damage. Stand Off to reduce damage, blow a foundation for damage pump, you still have a 2 damage attack coming at you, do you Stand Off (commit 4 cards per attack?) again or do you try to block with 2 less foundations?

I've played with and against Stand Off in several different ways. I have decks that focus on dealing low damage, have low base damage, or focus on one specific kill condition, successfully against this card and have never run into anything that was completely impossible to get through. Sure I've come up short, but that can happen at any time to any player. I've even seen situations where the defender ignored Stand Off in favor of blocking several attacks. The defensive capabilities are necessary for some decks to survive, and it forces more interactions and thoughts to happen between players as well as being an added defense against discard strategies. Altering Stand Off in any way has the potential to force the game to focus more on short games and quick kills and removes a lot of versatility from symbols and characters that need the added defense.

Viewtiful Joe
06-16-2010, 06:10 PM
People need to be very careful about throwing the banhammer about, I agree that some of the stuff needs to go, but I don't think anything, except possibly Path Of The Master should go from standard until after the first new set has been released, as we just don't know how it'll impact the meta, as I'm sure it'll be pretty ground shaking as the first of a new lot.

Taking out too much of the damage reduction from extended and legacy means that some of the strategy that people liked would be unapplicable infuture games. Believe it or not, as much as I was not one of them (you never ever caught me playing a OHKO deck), there were a lot of people who enjoyed the chess-like strategy of having a gray wall down, so it should still be AN option, it just shouldn't be THE option. All I'm saying is that we should be careful saying something is too good. If you ask me, the only things that should go should be:

BRT: Asking your opponents permission to play a card (essentially) is not what I call fun.
Zi Mei. : Far too little effort for far too much reward. Having Fury of the Ancients only augments this. Symbol spread continues the trend.
Darkness Blade: So many rulings that messed around during both last years Worlds and UK Nats means this thing has to go. It's practically untouchable.

I agree that some of the damage reduction should be mitigated. Things like Amy's and Abelia's do make it too easy to stay alive. I therefore think that the entire SCIII promo set should be banned, because it saves a lot of trouble for a) people who couldn't acquire 4 copies of these either broken or worthless cards (how many people do YOU know who played Aurelias' Companionship?) b) people complaining that damage reduction/life gain is too good and c) the games now prefered state of having SCIV over SCIII.

ATLDrew
06-16-2010, 09:51 PM
Okay. Saying Stand Off is little more than an annoyance is probably the most incorrect understatement of the millennia. I'm going to spend the first half of this post going over why Stand Off is not only a broken card and NEEDS to be banned, but explain why it is toxic from a development standpoint.

1. Availability. I concede this point to you 150% to you Judas. The way distribution of this card was handled with FFG was abysmal and could probably be chalked up to moving product off the shelves. A card this powerful and relevant to the format should not only be available in a one time only new player promotion. This card is currently an auto include. SAS, one of the last big regionals before the game died, had 24 copies of this card in top 8 ALONE. The other two decks not playing them were a Chaos Heihachi deck and a Fire Cassy deck that hadn't got a hold of any yet because he missed the promotion (he received a playset for top 8 btw and played them in the event the following day... and top 8'd). If this card were a power ultra rare it would be annoying to grab a set but not impossible. For this reason alone I feel that Stand Off (and Path/James) should go. HOWEVER, this is not the only reason this card is a problem...

2. It makes several decks (even symbols) unplayable or SEVERELY disadvantaged. Stand Off creates such an overwhelming wall that deters poke rush strategies that keeping Stand Off legal forces the design team to come up with answers in future sets just so that strategy remains playable. Say we ban path but keep stand off legal. Outside of Sacrifices for the Cause and Pommel, how does Ivy or Christie beat this card? Im forced to play Sacrifices, pitch two cards, and then try to kill them. I have to play 2 cards down, just so i can attack? Say i dont draw sacrifice or pommel. I go to SSS loop t3, stand off, commit 2. Slippery kick, I commit 2. Samba, i commit 2. Im foundationless on an average build draw and my opponent gets to turn around and kill me next turn. All because they drew a 2 diff foundation. Its worse for Ivy. She has less cards in hand and NEEDS to do damage to get her rhythm going. These arent the only two characters. Non-Taki Life decks get all their pokes stuffed too. Chaos excels at playing multiples and making blocking difficult their opponent. Stand Off just makes the Fire/Earth/Air player not even care. Why block when i can force my opponent's attack to zero damage OR make sure they can't play anything else this turn by tapping them out at enhance speed? Stand off forces R and D fix symbols that can't deal with the card in later sets. The card just does too much. Which brings me to my next point...

3. Stand Off has an ability that says your opponent can commit 2 to negate. I don't really have to tell you guys this as you've probably seen the card. Guess what... people who play Stand Off WANT YOU TO COMMIT YOUR STAGING AREA TO NEGATE THE REDUCTION! Stand Off is the best damage reduction in the format when its ability goes off. When its ability is negated, it is still Psycho Style of Akuma E for 2 on your opponent's turn. If you negate a Stand Off activation while you are on offense, you are doing exactly what your opponent wants you to do. You are tapping out, not playing expensive finishing attacks or combos, and setting yourself up perfectly for a counter attack on their next turn. Playing enough attacks to kill someone on turn 2 or 3 is hard when your opponent is making you commit 2 every time you play one. And even harder when hes making you commit damage pump foundations. Stand Off makes it so that your best play turns 2-4 is build. I dont know if you guys played last block, but the reason we forced rotation is to prevent situations like this. Nobody wants to play build build build build build build into big untouchable attack ftw. They want the game to be dynamic and play like an actual fighting game. Stand Off commits 2 foundations an attack or causes the attack to essentially do nothing. The only other effect that does this is in Standard is Astrid with a reversal pommel or first rite or reversal gut drill and each of those cost high control checks, a successful block, and 2 cards. It also rarely happens more than once or twice a turn with those cards. Stand off is a 2 DIFF FOUNDATION THAT CAN BE ACTIVATED UNTIL YOU ARE OUT OF FOUNDATIONS. It seems very stupid to me to say Astrid is broken when EVERY fire character can do her dumb shenanigans with a 2/5 foundation. This brings me to my next point.

4. Stand Off is severely overwhelming card on offense too. Fire and Earth decks have a lot of stun. A lot of it. With Stand Off in the format the fire decks have to reach a threshold of total stun before they can just start teeing off on you with +4 to all of their attacks. By turn 3, if my opponent have stun 4 on attacks, chances are im getting wrecked by stand off with no answers. My foundations are tapped from stun, i have to commit foundations to reduce damage on attacks i cant block, and the ones i can block are going to be near impossible because i dont have any foundations ready. This is a given if I tried to attack into a ready stand off last turn. Stand Off's existence makes Stun the best key word in the game. There is not reason to run anything else but heavy stun right now simply because your returns with it from Stand Off are so strong. This isn't saying that the stun cards in standard aren't strong on their own. However, if you keep the card in the format then R and D has to make EVERY symbol have access to stun or commit effects JUST to deal with stand off. At this point, its just easier from a design perspective to get rid of the card. It's a toxic card for the game. It's unfun to play against, it's boring to play with, new players won't be able to get them, and the design team has to find a way around it every set and be careful not to make another card that makes it strong again.

Case in point, if anybody has found stand off to be nothing more than a minor annoyance in your metagame, I would LOVE to come play at your shop. Because, for lack of a better word, that card is bull****.

ATLDrew
06-16-2010, 10:08 PM
Anyways... My candidates for banning in Standard are POTM, Stand Off, and James Hata for the exact same reasons everyone else has cited and the essay I posted above. Path is overwhelmingly strong and the fact that Hata decks are rewarded for doing what any other deck would do normally creates a situation where players have to ask "why not play James"? If I can play all the same cards death and fire can but all of them are just better when I play them, then why play any other character? I know James designed his character with no knowledge of early rotation but for right now his character is just too strong in the current environment.

Astrid i feel is strong, but i really haven't seen her be devastating. I mean hell the most OP thing she can do is reversal Pommel for a ton damage but every fire character has defensive commit effects with Stand Off. Paul's Gi and Ultimate Team are just great cards. They are slightly undercosted for their effect but don't single handedly ruin your opponent's day when played. Wheel Kick is strong but is it the problem or the enabler? Is it easier to ban wheel kick or cards like lifter or stand off? I completely feel that the stun cards in standard are very strong and should be addressed in future sets. If wheel kick becomes a design hindrance then axe it. Lord knows most of us won't miss it. But like Joe said, slinging the ban hammer is dangerous when bringing in new players. Unless you're banning cards that players have no way to get (*cough stand off, james hata, and potm*). Sorry something in my throat.

I blame myself for not mentioning this to you Jason but For the Money needs to go. It's going to be so hard to design stun cards in fire all or order as long as that card remains in the format. FTM enables so many t2/t3 kills that it definitely needs looking at.

If just feel that getting rid of POTM, Stand Off, and James puts standard in an open enough field to have a diverse worlds. Yeah fire still has an advantage but the tier discrepancies aren't near as bad with Stand Off and Path out of the way.

With Extended I honestly stayed as far away from grey wars as i could so i am far from the expert on that.

Legacy however will be interesting. It really depends on what people want to see from the format. If they want blinding speed from decks like Adon, Talim, Ukyo, and Tira, then please ban Yoga Mastery. If they want a knife fight control heavy meta game where turns will last a hundred years then keep Yoga Mastery in the format. That being said, Kunai is broken as hell and enables a lot of garbage including several t1 kills in water and evil. If we're looking at characters to get rid of I strongly suggest people take a look at Promo Tira, Promo Ukyo, various Ibukis and Kasumi Suzaku (i know its not a character but its the reason Ibuki is as good as she is).

B-Rad
06-17-2010, 04:04 PM
Path of the Master: I honestly have no idea what the folks who made the card were thinking in the first place, although given the track record of game designers the game had, I shouldn't be surprised. None the less the damage pump in a certain deck (more later) is just too obscene for any sane person to say that this shouldn't go.

Stand Off: Much like Path, terrible card design. And again, much like Path, it doesn't take a sane person much to see that this card is just too abusive.

Astrid: Really? Reverse Pommel bothers you people THAT much? She hasn't won sweet eff all in block 4, and she got very little good support in Quest for Souls. While yes the damage pump is kinda massive, it still means your opponent knows what type of deck their packing. No throws, no real good weeny rush (because while she can throw 3-4 low diff attacks a turn, all the good weapons not named Pommel Smash start at 4 diff).

Hata: What everyone else said. That card is the reason P2P was such a sought after card imo.

And now finally, something I can't believe Jason missed:

King: How the heck is this OP crap not on the watch list? Ask ANYONE in my playgroup, my King deck is just dumb... When I can throw out a free 17 damage throw with Path, can you not see a problem? Even without Path in the enviroment, King will still sit behind Earth's really good defensive wall and slowly kill you with free throws.

SMazzurco
06-17-2010, 04:13 PM
And now finally, something I can't believe Jason missed:

King: How the heck is this OP crap not on the watch list? Ask ANYONE in my playgroup, my King deck is just dumb... When I can throw out a free 17 damage throw with Path, can you not see a problem? Even without Path in the enviroment, King will still sit behind Earth's really good defensive wall and slowly kill you with free throws.

With more cards like strangers of battle (if you block this attack it deals NO dmg) and ones that remove keywords, i don't think King will be OP. If you run too little attacks, you better hope they don't get removed from game. Also one of the Wonderworld assetts (not sure how many ppl have this) removes a card in discard pile from the game, so that can REALLY hurt king.

King is not a problem, path (as worded) is the problem. Path should be symbols printed on cards, the NUMBER of unique symbols that match or E, destroy this asset: or maybe even your non-throw attack gets dmg.

Lots of things could be done to path. As it stands, it IS too powerful, no one is arguing there.

If Hata needs to be toned down, fine. But let's not get all crazy banning/errataing too many characters.

Da_ghetto_gamer
06-17-2010, 07:36 PM
As a matter of fact the only card I don't have a huge problem with on the standard list is ultimate team because it's only overpowered in hata and amy....one of which is probably gone anyways and amy needs it to stay near the top playable

The rest either need errata or ban for reasons already stated so I won't go and repeat things

HypeMan!
06-17-2010, 09:37 PM
I'm going to have to dust cards to make any hard opinions what needs to be corrected. But I do have this to keep in mind with banning, errating, etc. While certain cards seem to be over powered now, much of this needs to be done with an eye to the future, when these cards were made they were done with a bit of over correcting in mind to rebuild the status quo. Things get over powered when looked at in a vacuum, but level out over all. Don't try to get rid of 5 point cards if it causes 4 point cards to go off the deep end and vice versa. Hopefully in the future, such checks and balances will exists with in sets and not across sets.

But don't go banning things if they seem overpowered within themselves but not when things are looked at in groups. Legacy tends to actually be decently balanced because everything is on the extreme end. *shrug* least that's my take on it.

Sato Arashi
06-18-2010, 01:56 PM
I'm not familar with most of the cards and the interactions so this might be short.

Ultimate Team - Ok, Commiting a Foundation plus discarding a block card? I don't really think that it's that bad to be banned or errata. It comes to the players' decision if they want to keep the block to fully block it, or sacrifice the block to save them some health at which not many players are going to run 2+ blocks. I can see why it's on the list if Hilde is mentioned but for Hilde players, most often will not take to the defensive side and try to spike with one blow. At which they pump out stuff like Ostreinburg Throne Room and Amaryllis Spin to maximize damage. That's my view on the card, it does serve the right players good abilities.

makingsenseofus
06-19-2010, 02:30 PM
King is poop without path of the master. Without standoff legal he has crap defense, without path, crap offense.
I'm with ATL drew on standoff. It screws a lot of decks completely and encourages playing foundations in place of attacks.
Ultimate team is only really good in order. Other than that, you discard a card you could use to block an attack to give a pretty mediocre damage reduction.
A possible errata for path of the master: E commit: This attack gets +X damage for each symbol printed on each attack in your cardpool that matches one on your character card. This ensures that characters like king don't get obscene damage bonuses for just playing foundations and multiple copies. I could really care less about whether the card stays or goes though.
Also, I skimmed this thread, but I didn't see anyone mention the card For The Money. Does anyone else feel like this card is just far to OP due to the massive amount of stun in the format? Dropping a for the money and 2 other foundations turn one, followed the next turn with a wheel kick means that you can pretty much play every attack in your hand on turn 2. Fire has stun, it does not need free check pass. I'm just saying.

NJBrock22
06-19-2010, 02:33 PM
or it should as i said: "E: Commit: This attack gets +X Damage. X equals the number of cards that share at least 1 resource with your character.(or just say for each preceeding card in your card pool." Yeah it makes it kinda underwhelming but the rest of the card makes up for it.

N.J.

ShadowDragon
06-19-2010, 03:47 PM
I'm just curious, but has anyone else playtested Path as a Terrain? We did a little in my group and I noticed that it seemed to die within a couple turns because the other person would just drop their own terrain before the person who played Path would get a chance to use it.

Shiros
06-19-2010, 03:53 PM
I'm just curious, but has anyone else playtested Path as a Terrain? We did a little in my group and I noticed that it seemed to die within a couple turns because the other person would just drop their own terrain before the person who played Path would get a chance to use it.

I've honestly found that to be silly. If both players only have path (which happens a fair amount), then it turns into "I get to use it and you don't". Which is totally unfair for such a broken card. Terrain wont fix it, just make it worse.

makingsenseofus
06-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Also, being a terrain means that people can use Tower of Souls to search it out of their deck.

ATLDrew
06-19-2010, 06:49 PM
It is done! Standard is saved! http://www.jascogames.com/official_banned_list

Amano Jacu
06-19-2010, 06:58 PM
I would do the following:

Standar: BAN James Hata, Path of the Master, and Stand Off. Leave alone Pauls' Gi and Ultimate Team. Astrid, I'm not so sure.

Extended: BAN Blood Runs True (new player's can't get them unless they but them from old player anyway), Ira Spinta, Zi Mei and The Ways of Punishment. I would also ban most of the life gain cards, but maybe it's not needed. I'd leave the rest of the list alone, but I would also ban Starter Akuma.

Legacy: BAN Yoga Mastery (Pieces of 8 and No Memories are far more balanced) and Emptiness. Leave Kunai. I would also ban some characters like Promo Nakoruru and Promo Tira, and maybe Reverse Waterfall. And if possible, reverse the ruling about the interaction of M. Bison* and You Will not Escape (turn doesn't end if m.bison's ability doesn't reveal an attack), it can create a very disgusting lock turn 1 quite hard to avoid.

Nekuro
06-22-2010, 03:50 AM
Indeed, I don't quite understand how come starter Akuma::: hasn't been mentioned. His R is a pain in the ass and his First E, on the opponent's turn, is just sick : "You attack? Okay, Akuma E, you're tapped out, your attack hits, oh, you couldn't boost it because your foundations were tapped? Too bad. Play anything else? Oh, you can't attack. Too bad." He was just the king of grey wars and way OP.

ScottGaines
06-22-2010, 02:46 PM
I'm back in ufs baby and let me say i agree with joe on yoga mastery not needing to be banned, for the reasons he said, but let me run down the cards that stop yoga mastery.

Trade Your Passion for Glory
The Curse Broken
Lost Memories
Megalomania
Manifest Destiny
Ring Veteran
Exp Combatant
Nakaruru
Roam the World
Yoga Teleport
Yoga Adept
Akuma (+4)
Ninjitsu(card is super underplayed)
and the many other forms of denial, commital etc.

All the above completely wreck it and it is needed to slow down busted aggro especially with not much protection against aggro in the first place available for a lot of decks. It is more than easy enough for these aggro decks to ignore yoga and just kill the player who has a full card pool with a attack string of 4 and 5 check attakcs mixed in with amazing 3 check ones.

Also i'm glad kunai is banned, card is way to much of an enabler.

Characters in legacy that are too good

Ukyo for sure, seeing 13 cards in one turn is way, way too good. At the same time there is alot of hate on him in the form of MAC, emptiness, tag along, nakaruru, tendon strenght, chinese sword style etc. i'm fine either way with him existing or not.

Ibuki that gives +3, if anyone rem's my deck from 2008 legacy worlds, you will know she is god awfully insane.

ShadowDragon
06-22-2010, 02:54 PM
Glad you're back! You were mentioned in the roll call thread~

ETA: I'm a bit torn on some of the choices. I do think that Hata, being a champion card, should have been errata'd instead of banned, much like Matt Kohls' card was years ago. Since champion cards are very personal to those that win them, I don't think it's fair to ban them.

I do think Astrid was fine without an errata since it takes quite a few turns before her E is even worth using, but I'll still continue to play her. I think Sophitia could have used a "you cannot ready a card that has already been readied by this effect this turn" clause or something to that effect, and that Wheel Kick should have gotten the axe (being a 3/3 with a block and committing 3 cards with a single E is too strong imo).

Da_ghetto_gamer
06-22-2010, 03:19 PM
Im sure that once the meta is tested more cards will become under question and start being watched....akuma for example who is just retarded right now since alot of other decks have gotten stepped on a little bit

wheel kick doesnt bother me too much but i agree with the sophitia saying one that hasnt been readied this turn i havent seen her in action yet but im sure it could get pretty silly with the right foundation maybe even one that will get printed later might as well solve the problem now then wait for it to happen later and it actually be a problem

Tagrineth
06-22-2010, 03:28 PM
I like what I see. After facing an Ultimate Team + Amy's Support deck, that errata was badly needed.

Extended will likely see a resurgence of more aggressive decks (that were rendered almost totally unplayable by Amy's/BRT/Abelia's/Spin lockdowns) that will counteract Akuma and other squishy characters, forcing the format to adjust to new rush tactics. Keep in mind that Akuma lost Amy's and BRT to protect himself.

Also I think you're all underestimating how fast Astrid's pump can become relevant, especially if she has a decent opening draw.

Arch Duke Obvious
06-22-2010, 05:11 PM
I am closing this thread since all relevant discussions regarding the new banned list can be found here: http://forums.jascogames.com/forums/showthread.php?102-Banned-Errata-List-is-up