PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Worlds Errata and Rules



jason
07-07-2012, 11:22 PM
I am creating this post as a space saver for when I get back to Texas in a few days. We are working on some pre-worlds rulings and errata's that will form the final stretch of updates for GenCon this year.

Please stay tuned. Some corrections you can expect to see are "Once per turn" vs "Only playable once per turn", Allahra and Syrithe errata (under discussion) and the completed living AGR book.

-Jason

dutpotd
07-08-2012, 12:40 AM
Yay! Also a space saver for eventual comments. Thanks for the update Jason.

Sketch
07-08-2012, 08:06 AM
Can't wait!

wafflecopter
07-08-2012, 08:48 AM
Pleasepleaseplease don't errata Angels, unless you're actually just fixing how they work within the rules. It's one of the coolest character designs that have been released for the game, and an errata will damage the ability for me to show that coolness to new players, both those who have never played and those who returned.

sonic
07-08-2012, 09:07 AM
I agree with wafflecopter. It will damn near kill me since I'm just starting to get the hang of them.

Cetonis
07-08-2012, 09:14 AM
I doubt it would be a guillotine errata if anything is done. Probably something that just stops them from making you lose 2 on all of your attacks. Angels would hardly be unplayable, they would just have to attack more.

wafflecopter
07-08-2012, 09:23 AM
That doesn't matter -- not to put too fine a point on it, but how much will people take? "We just had our second new set in as many years." "Your favorite cards might get errata'd out from under you." On top of the fairly high complexity of the game...

Cetonis
07-08-2012, 09:57 AM
Neither of us have seen the life angel deck out in the wild enough to really speak on whether an errata is needed or not, but if it's needed, then it's needed. By your logic they could reprint Kasumi-Suzaku for Truong, and when it proved to be an issue, they'd have no choice but to leave it alone because some people out there might enjoy the deck - even if several times more people are getting frustrated from having to face it. (I know, straw man and all that; if Omniel's their-turn Rs are an issue, it sure isn't nearly as grave as that would be) You know I hate power level errata as much as you do, but we both know a ban is well out of the question here. If they do judge that something needs to be done, I'd rather see something done than nothing.

Birch
07-08-2012, 10:03 AM
+1 to Tim Keefe for using a logical argument and this resorting to bashing. *high-five*

S_OBrien
07-08-2012, 11:05 AM
This thread makes me extremely uneasy 5 weeks before GenCon. Just to elaborate:

1)In my opinion, it may be a better idea to make these changes after the big event. People are playtesting where the rules stand.
2)As annoying at the angels are, I would rather see a banning than an errata. During these times where getting new players is extremely difficult, it's very disheartening to have them find a character they like, have them build a deck for the weekly, then get there and find out it doesn't work the way they thought. It gets even worse if a new player shows up to a major event (because I encourage new players to do so to learn about more deck types), where they will sit for six rounds with a deck not working. It cost me a player with Astrid.
3)It is very difficult to prevent #2 without an errata and rules document. I do appreciate the forums. They help out. But, there is so much to weed through. I think it would be a good idea to make a PDF or word for each format with errata and rulings in it. Then every month, release an update with the changes in it so we can all stay on the same page.

I just want to make it clear though, I am not blaming anyone or yelling at anyone, just pointing out some concerns.
Sincerely,

A concerned player, scout, and retailer

Mekjian
07-08-2012, 11:14 AM
I'm hoping that when you refer to...

"Once per turn" vs "Only playable once per turn"

...that you are referring to clearing up the differences between the two wordings.

I heard through the grapevine that it is really just an errata to Skull Man's Form (so so so disappointing).

Please don't make me put Open Road in a Skull Man deck... -_-

-Mekjian

generalreaction2.0
07-08-2012, 11:21 AM
Please stay tuned. Some corrections you can expect to see are "Once per turn" vs "Only playable once per turn", Allahra and Syrithe errata (under discussion) and the completed living AGR book.

-Jason

Thank you base-Jason

failed2k
07-08-2012, 12:49 PM
Count me on board the "I would hate to see Angels get a errata, especially this close to worlds" , I'm still not exactly convinced they are a huge issue, and nerfing characters less then 2 months from a sets release, and 1 month before the biggest tourney of the year seems clunky and punishing to players who have worked very hard on them.

I also hate Character errata in general, especially for a set character, things not working as printed is a terrible thing for new players and generally bad for the game.

JavelinChimera
07-08-2012, 01:46 PM
I realize that erratas suck for new players, but they happen in pretty much EVERY card game, and most of the time to a much much much larger extent than what we've seen in this block of UFS (I mean look at the Naruto ccg). The errata's are available online, they have been for years, and if you are going to an event (especially a major) it is your responsibility to know what the current erratas are, even if you are a new player. If you don't look up which cards are errata'd, how do you know which ones are banned?? I guess my point is, if there are already erratas that people have to look up anyways, using the "erratas are bad for newbies, mkay" reason is pretty much moot.

I would much rather see an errata in this particular case (angels) than a ban that would basically trash 4 whole cards from the new set, at the very least a rare and an ultra rare. This post is not trying to bash anyone. I would be heartbroken if there was a ban though, as much as I don't like playing against them.

dutpotd
07-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Count me on board the "I would hate to see Angels get a errata, especially this close to worlds" , I'm still not exactly convinced they are a huge issue, and nerfing characters less then 2 months from a sets release, and 1 month before the biggest tourney of the year seems clunky and punishing to players who have worked very hard on them.

I also hate Character errata in general, especially for a set character, things not working as printed is a terrible thing for new players and generally bad for the game.

I have mixed feelings with respect to your statements here.

First of all, I agree, errata's are not good in general. However, they are better than bannings, and if you are a serious player of a game you go look up errata's and figure them out.

If you are a new player and playing casually, then it means far less to you. And, in the case of the angels, if a new player picked up and built the deck (not knowing the errata) within a few weeks of playing casually, like new players do, against their friends they would agree something is wrong with the powerlevel of their deck.

And this is where I have the biggest issue with your statement because, in my opinion, 'it doesn't punish players who have worked very hard on them' because most of the players who have 'worked very hard on them' are the ones agreeing an errata needs to be made or have friends/players in their immediate vicinity making those claims and they can't really deny the truth in their reasoning and requests.

Finally, I do agree that they are not a 'huge' issue in that a player playing the angels deck is gauranteed to win worlds. Hell, I don't even think one will top 8.

The problem I have with angels are that they are extremely matchup based in that, with builds I have played/tested, they have close to 100% win rates against decks that don't kill or deal large amounts of damage turn 2-3 or have an end game plan that specifically locks their character out. What this means to me is that a player playing a well built angel deck plays the game less than everyone else because in significantly many of their pairings their win is gauranteed, almost all they have to do is go through the motions. To me, this means a card needs to be addressed - before or after worlds is really just a moot point to me, as long as it is addressed in due course (which I believe after a major event like worlds would be) then I am happy for the health of the game.

Strictly speaking though, the only card that needs an errata/ban for power level reasons is Piercing Howl - the card literally does what 3 foundations comitted do (1 gain momentum, 2 clear pool, and 3 plus or minus damage on enhance). How can a card that is an attack +3 foundations not need a powerlevel errata/ban? Counterpoints would be - but what if it's blocked? Really, you think someone playing the 3 best discard symbols in the game are gonna let you block a Piericing Howl? lol fix Piercing Howl damnit! (I'm allowed to rant in an errata/ban thread aren't I ? :) ^^)

Theo7
07-08-2012, 01:55 PM
I also would hate to see an errata on angles. I am really loving my deck as it is atm, but im not sure how far id be willing to play the deck after errata, if its something that fixes them i suppose il be ok but if it really changes them, id probably stop playing them.
And anyone who thinks that the angels should be banned, I doubt that would ever happen. On the subject of new players if Omniel got banned 2 UR, and a R in Tides would be dead pulls. I seriously doubt that Jasco would ever let that happen.



During these times where getting new players is extremely difficult, it's very disheartening to have them find a character they like, have them build a deck for the weekly, then get there and find out it doesn't work the way they thought. It gets even worse if a new player shows up to a major event (because I encourage new players to do so to learn about more deck types), where they will sit for six rounds with a deck not working. It cost me a player with Astrid.

I personally am planning to print off a master copy of the new living rules and leave it at my local store for everyones use so that any errata is at everybodys disposal and no one is at a disadvantage due to updates.

dutpotd
07-08-2012, 02:08 PM
I also would hate to see an errata ... if its something that fixes them i suppose il be ok

Wouldn't you love it if everything was fixed and not broken? I understand the problems with erratas but progress oft involves admitting ones errors and paying the cost to move forward in the healthiest way possible.

Doji_Mike
07-08-2012, 02:42 PM
I would definately like to see an errata to angels as I have been playing them for several months now (originally with the previews and then with actual cards) and I have built them off of every symbol and at the moment I feel that they are exceptionally hard to beat, and they punish the opponent far too much for playing attacks and that is something that most definately should not happen.

Grizzlegrom
07-08-2012, 02:54 PM
I don't think skull man should be able to add his whole deck to the top on a kill turn and angels shouldn't be able to drain life on your attacks (perhaps even your turn)

dutpotd
07-08-2012, 04:24 PM
I would definately like to see an errata to angels as I have been playing them for several months now (originally with the previews and then with actual cards) and I have built them off of every symbol and at the moment I feel that they are exceptionally hard to beat, and they punish the opponent far too much for playing attacks and that is something that most definately should not happen.

I think the majority of people see the vitality loss as the crux of the problem. And, frankly, Omniel is still incredibly powerful without the life drain R, face down and -2 damage to all attacks is a substantial free enhance, add to it the other two free enhances and you still have a very rewarding character earned by playing the animate fusion game.

What I find telling is that it is the people that have played the Angels that really understand the headlock they put their opponent in after a turn 2 Omniel is played. And, I'll be honest, I didn't fully capture the issue until playing against and watching it multiple times in a tournament setting.

I'd like to reiterate though that I don't see them as exceptionally hard to beat, I find them impossible to beat with certain decks (this is my problem), and possible (but still not 'easy') to beat with other decks that are either insanely agressive or control the character's ready state. The reason they will need to be addressed at some point, not necessarily before gencon, is just that - the full proverbial cat will be out of the bag after gencon, and anyone and everyone will need to buld certain decks in order to gaurantee they don't find themselves in impossible situations from the get go. Or worse, card design will have to go the way of attacking characters because the players will call for it.

Competitive standard deckbuilding is stifled because of the angels at the moment, and as a guy who builds a ton of different decks I know it will detract from the game if it goes on for any extended period of time.

generalreaction2.0
07-08-2012, 04:32 PM
I would definately like to see an errata to angels as I have been playing them for several months now (originally with the previews and then with actual cards) and I have built them off of every symbol and at the moment I feel that they are exceptionally hard to beat, and they punish the opponent far too much for playing attacks and that is something that most definately should not happen.


I concur with this statement. Punishing a person so much for taking part in a core part of the game, ie attacking, is ridiculous. Remember a card called penetrating lunge? It punished you for blocking an attack the same way angels punish you for playing an attack. And penetrating lunge got hit with a ban

ATLDrew
07-08-2012, 05:53 PM
Gentleman... we really can't be snap errata'ing things every time something wins a regional. And on top of that, PLEASE don't do it 5 weeks before Worlds. I will not be attending Worlds, but i know a lot of people who have been grinding and testing their decks all season and would really be discouraged by a monumental, functional errata to a few of the characters.

As much as i love that Jascogames listens to its player base, I feel that there is such a thing as listening too much. Please let the data prove how broken Angels and Skullman are before we jump on changing them. You set a REALLY bad precedent when there is a set of changes every time enough people complain about it. If Angels are a problem, let them win Worlds.

Just my two cents. Chinese food time!

Shinji Mimura
07-08-2012, 06:03 PM
Erratas need to happen if they need to happen. We don't need something that is broken to ruin worlds to realize what you already knew.

That, and we don't actually KNOW what said errata is; it could just be something as simple as like, giving a cost (+4) or something.

guitalex2010
07-08-2012, 06:24 PM
Jesus, I just noticed the problem with Super Skull Man. You can pay the cost as many times as you want, even when it only resolves once.

Yeah, no, that's stupid. "Once per turn" should be the exact same thing functionally as "only playable once per turn", and I would approve of this decision.

Michael
07-08-2012, 06:29 PM
Im fully for an errata on angels, but agree if it happens it should happen after worlds. We already have diversity to discourage poeple running popular decks, and most poeple will be packing answers to them (altho i think the fact most poeple will be planning for the angel matchup is reason enough to take a look at how they work) I kno I'd be gutted if I'd spent so long prepping for a tourney (investing money in both cards travel and accomodation) as well as time in play testing, to then have it changed in some way just before. I dont think theyl wreck worlds but i do think 1 will get to top 8 (not top 4 tho). I respect what other poeple are saying tho as it is a horrible asituation to be in when your sat accross from an omniel whos eyeing u up like his next meal. These are my vues anyways.

vaporgecko
07-09-2012, 01:24 AM
Another vote for DON'T Change a gorram thing until post-Gencon.

Clarify the once per turn thing, yes, but don't go changing card text before a major event when the playerbase hasn't even had a chance to adapt to a new Meta.

Archimedes
07-09-2012, 02:48 AM
Erratas need to happen if they need to happen. We don't need something that is broken to ruin worlds to realize what you already knew.

That, and we don't actually KNOW what said errata is; it could just be something as simple as like, giving a cost (+4) or something.

So long as it's not a control check cost. Giving it a control check cost would only encourage them to turtle more so as to have foundations open to pass the check every time.

Omniel's E should probably have a momentum cost attached to it.

alderian
07-09-2012, 06:20 AM
For now , even if the angels are strong , they are not unbeatable so i don't think an errata is needed for now.
If an errata or a ban is needed , make it after the worlds , because only a large tournament can show if a card is broken or not.
For mtg , wizard only do ban or errata after a lot of data on tournament , not because some people want .

Cetonis
07-09-2012, 07:07 AM
If five weeks isn't enough time to adapt to card actions, what is? If it was six weeks, would that be enough? Any earlier than that and people would have been complaining that it was way too close to some PTC. I've always felt that post-worlds/nats was the worst possible time to do bans/erratas, because it can leave an ugly stain on the game for years to come.

Newer, less in the loop, or - worst of all - prospective players will see somebody's character card and naturally ask what deck they won with, and then you have to explain that they won with character such-and-such who was then banned promptly afterwards, and it reflects horribly on Jasco for letting the biggest tournament of the year get taken over by something that was judged to be unfair. It makes it look like they're unreliable and bad at keeping an eye on the meta, and discourages people from thinking about playing UFS competitively, or even at all.

S_OBrien
07-09-2012, 08:00 AM
If five weeks isn't enough time to adapt to card actions, what is? If it was six weeks, would that be enough? Any earlier than that and people would have been complaining that it was way too close to some PTC. I've always felt that post-worlds/nats was the worst possible time to do bans/erratas, because it can leave an ugly stain on the game for years to come.

Newer, less in the loop, or - worst of all - prospective players will see somebody's character card and naturally ask what deck they won with, and then you have to explain that they won with character such-and-such who was then banned promptly afterwards, and it reflects horribly on Jasco for letting the biggest tournament of the year get taken over by something that was judged to be unfair. It makes it look like they're unreliable and bad at keeping an eye on the meta, and discourages people from thinking about playing UFS competitively, or even at all.

Looks like a catch-22 for everyone involved. That being said, we all know I don't care for the angels. I just feel this is the wrong time. As far as cards that don't work right, there in no mention of the sacred cow Truong.

sunwentai
07-09-2012, 08:51 AM
If it's not broken, don't fix it.

If it's broken, fix it.

failed2k
07-09-2012, 08:54 AM
If five weeks isn't enough time to adapt to card actions, what is? If it was six weeks, would that be enough? Any earlier than that and people would have been complaining that it was way too close to some PTC. I've always felt that post-worlds/nats was the worst possible time to do bans/erratas, because it can leave an ugly stain on the game for years to come.

Newer, less in the loop, or - worst of all - prospective players will see somebody's character card and naturally ask what deck they won with, and then you have to explain that they won with character such-and-such who was then banned promptly afterwards, and it reflects horribly on Jasco for letting the biggest tournament of the year get taken over by something that was judged to be unfair. It makes it look like they're unreliable and bad at keeping an eye on the meta, and discourages people from thinking about playing UFS competitively, or even at all.

Your entire gripe with it keys on the angels actually dominating everything and winning worlds, which is a pretty delicate ledge to balance a point on. I'm the complete opposite, to me when worlds ends that tournament season is "over" and it's the perfect time to ban/errata, because worlds will have passed, giving months for new playstyles to develop a errata can happen post worlds to angels, even if they don't do so well, for the sake of future npe prevention(especially in casual play) but no, 6 weeks is not enough time, in my eyes, you should make sure any major bannings errata's happen at least 3 months prior to the 2 big majors(nats and Worlds) I don't think impacting a PTC should be a huge concern(try not to ban something like, the day before a ptc obviously) and try to make sure players who have spent months and months playing the same deck have some sense of security going into a major, because listen, Hotels and plane tickets are already bought, if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game.

dutpotd
07-09-2012, 10:00 AM
in my eyes, you should make sure any major bannings errata's happen at least 3 months prior to the 2 big majors(nats and Worlds) I don't think impacting a PTC should be a huge concern(try not to ban something like, the day before a ptc obviously) and try to make sure players who have spent months and months playing the same deck have some sense of security going into a major, because listen, Hotels and plane tickets are already bought, if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game.

Here's the problem - with UK nats, Can Nats, and US Nats, etc. you are never going to find that 'perfect' time to errata/ban something that doesn't provide for a situation that you are describing above.

You explain the situation where a select 'few' players get angry because 'their' deck of choice is impacted before a big event. The flip side is the situation where many players get mad because the game producer doesn't change something that is obviously in need of a fix and they all wasted all their money, time, etc. going to an event where they sat across from countless decks that aren't even legal days after for reasons previously understood to be issues.

You can't please everyone here. But what I find interesting is that the few players that would be impacted by an Angel errata aren't speaking up, and those that are speaking up are Angel players that say 'yes- one needs to be made'.

The bottom line is that good players play with what is available to them for a major event. They aren't so fickle as to pick up and drop a game because changes that are for the better of the game are made prior to or after events. Players that do get seriously upset about changes to the game aren't playing the game for the right reasons; they are playing with their priority being to win, they aren't playing to enjoy the competitive/fair spirit of the game which the changes are all about protecting.

This statement is fairly bold, and certainly unfair, but if you can't accept changes that producers and the majority of players feel are better for the game, and primarily because you were the one using the unaturally over-the-top card, then I think it makes sense to make that observation.

I want to reiterate I don't feel any changes are necessary at this time, but they certainly are necessary in the foreseeable future. So it just becomes a matter of if they are made pre Gen-Con or not, and whether they are or not actually impacts a player like me just as much as someone who was going to straight up be playing the card getting changed. So, to complain about having to adapt 5 weeks before an event... kind of moot - everyone else has to as well!

Birch
07-09-2012, 11:16 AM
I'm for the change of rule to make once per turn and only playable Once per turn synonymous. I feel like its dumb that they ever had different meanings before. So I am in favor of the skull man thing being a once per turn, because I know that it doesn't cripple him.

The Angels are another story, I've seen them work, and when they do it's very hard to beat, but I've also seen them run cold and do absolutely nothing for an entire PTC. I say we see what a proposed errata would be then we judge Wheter or not it is really crippling. If its just a change like making Omnom only playable during their attacks I'd support it. I think decks that don't have to attack should be changed. I quit once because of 4 attack grey wars and I dont want to be punished again for running attacks.

Just my two cents

RockStar
07-09-2012, 11:20 AM
As the resident West Coast Angel player who actually won a PTC event playing an Angels deck, I thought it high-time I chime in with my 2 cents. Firstly, I see that most of the hullabaloo in 4 pages is in direct reference to whether or not The Angels should or should not be errata'd, and if so, this should or should not occur before Gen Con.

So first, should or should they not be errata'd: My gut reaction tells me that they should. Believe me when I say that I'm not a fan of denying myself 'toys' that enable me to win regional or major events, so you can be sure that I'm being as honest as I can with my assessment of The Angels. I think dutpotd's made some great statements as to the why an errata would need to occur: The Angels have an ability that discourages opponents from playing attacks by veritably issuing additional costs for them to do so, namely they must burn for 2 vitality and forfeit one of their foundations. This leads to an incredibly NPE experience if one's deck is not hyper-aggressive and cannot consistently confirm KO by T3 at the latest, or if their deck isn't hyper-controlling (think an extremely well-built Alice, Vespera, or Nina Williams deck). The real problem lay in how polarizing this deck is for the overall Meta. Right now, The Angels say that if you aren't running one or the other arch-type decks, you will lose. One of the main reasons I came to hate the previous Blocks was that overly half of one's deck was already conscripted: If you wanted to win, you either ran the most powerful Meta cards, or you were running anti-Meta cards, and so you were left with perhaps 8 - 12 'free' choices in which to personalize your deck; it's incredibly stifling. The Angels force an opponent to do this, and it's not good for the overall health of the game.

Now, should this errata occur before Gen Con... No, it should NOT. As much as my gut tells me that The Angels are in need of an errata, the reality is we simply haven't seen them perform enough on the biggest stages UFS provides. As yet, they are still largely untested in situations where they will be facing the most diverse play styles and card pools. They have yet to make Top 8 at a Worlds or Nats event. And so, saying that The Angels definitively need to be errata'd at this point is premature. I think the same argument can be said that if The Angels, as aforementioned a still largely un-tested deck in Major competition, need to be errata'd, then something would certainly need to be done about SliceKick decks, which have not only made Top 8 at the prior Nats and Worlds competition, but have also won a PTC and made Top 8 at every Regional event they were played.

Lastly, a proposed errata for The Angels, should one be needed: Most people assume that Omniel is the problem and should be errata'd so his E is only playable on-turn. This is incorrect. The real NPE comes from the The Angels ability to issue that 'additonal cost' of playing an attack against them. So, the NPE is not created by Omniel, but by Allahra's and Syrithe's R, which is playable on any attack. In my opinion, both Rs should have the following text added: "Not playable during the Enhance Step of your opponent's attack." This fixes the 'additional cost', while still keeping intact the potency of Omniel (which, let's admit it, takes A LOT of work to get into play). Further, it encourages players to play even more attacks, because if the Angel Pilot wants to get that extra burn and blank off-turn, they will need to run Reversals (which Life and Chaos and Death have a few 'decent' ones at the moment, or so I'm told).

So, to summarize: Yes, I genuinely feel the Angels will eventually need to be errata'd. I also think that this errata should be post-poned to AFTER Gen Con, to allow the Angels a chance to perform as-is. In this way, we will all be able to get a better gauge on their power-level on the biggest UFS stage.

To close, I also need to say that during my PTC experience with them, I didn't go undefeated and there were a few close-calls. I fully believe the Angels are beatable, and that there is a lot of over-hyping of them at the moment which will be lessened AFTER Gen Con. I DO expect to see an (un-errata'd) Angels deck in Top 16, and even in Top 8 (sorry, Garret!).

My 2 Cents,
RockStar

dutpotd
07-09-2012, 11:56 AM
and even in Top 8 (sorry, Garret!).

I'm deeply offended... But aside from this horrible prediction and the spelling of my name I can't help but agree with the rest of your post :)

dwolf52000
07-09-2012, 12:10 PM
Rockstar, thank you for this and I hope we never get to this point again - it speaks to how I felt about BRT:

"One of the main reasons I came to hate the previous Blocks was that overly half of one's deck was already conscripted: If you wanted to win, you either ran the most powerful Meta cards, or you were running anti-Meta cards, and so you were left with perhaps 8 - 12 'free' choices in which to personalize your deck; it's incredibly stifling."

First: Can we please stop threatening to rage-quit? It does not enhance your argument and just sounds childish. - Referencing Failed2k: "if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game. "

Second: If the cards need errata to make the environment more enjoyable by the greater majority of players, then why wait? The argument of needing a certain card/archetype to destroy at a major tournament is akin to waiting until a pedestrian gets splatted by a car before putting in a light at a busy intersection. A couple of months of standard play, after a set comes out, should identify the cards that need some "extra love" from the editor and those cards that players were needlessly hyperventilating and wetting themselves over. Unfortunately, for TOV, that time is around now. If the environment is broken, then why are we allowing ourselves to continue with it through Worlds? Are we seriously at the point where we want the victory of: "congradulations, you won with a broken card/archetype" (golf claps)?

Third: At Rochester, I head the argument against errata/bans, "They should design their cards better". If only reality were that simple. There is a maxim of development, whether it is on the computer or a trading card game, "No matter how well you test, someone out there is going to break it". Errata is going to be a part of the game and we just have to deal with it. What Jasco could do is to make it easy to find cards on the ban/errata list. That means helping incorporate it into UFS Ultra and sorting it by set, not date, on the printable page.

Rider kick
07-09-2012, 01:02 PM
Here's the problem - with UK nats, Can Nats, and US Nats, etc. you are never going to find that 'perfect' time to errata/ban something that doesn't provide for a situation that you are describing above.

You explain the situation where a select 'few' players get angry because 'their' deck of choice is impacted before a big event. The flip side is the situation where many players get mad because the game producer doesn't change something that is obviously in need of a fix and they all wasted all their money, time, etc. going to an event where they sat across from countless decks that aren't even legal days after for reasons previously understood to be issues.

You can't please everyone here. But what I find interesting is that the few players that would be impacted by an Angel errata aren't speaking up, and those that are speaking up are Angel players that say 'yes- one needs to be made'.

The bottom line is that good players play with what is available to them for a major event. They aren't so fickle as to pick up and drop a game because changes that are for the better of the game are made prior to or after events. Players that do get seriously upset about changes to the game aren't playing the game for the right reasons; they are playing with their priority being to win, they aren't playing to enjoy the competitive/fair spirit of the game which the changes are all about protecting.

This statement is fairly bold, and certainly unfair, but if you can't accept changes that producers and the majority of players feel are better for the game, and primarily because you were the one using the unaturally over-the-top card, then I think it makes sense to make that observation.

I want to reiterate I don't feel any changes are necessary at this time, but they certainly are necessary in the foreseeable future. So it just becomes a matter of if they are made pre Gen-Con or not, and whether they are or not actually impacts a player like me just as much as someone who was going to straight up be playing the card getting changed. So, to complain about having to adapt 5 weeks before an event... kind of moot - everyone else has to as well!

Well said Garret.

RockStar
07-09-2012, 01:25 PM
Rockstar, thank you for this and I hope we never get to this point again - it speaks to how I felt about BRT:

"One of the main reasons I came to hate the previous Blocks was that overly half of one's deck was already conscripted: If you wanted to win, you either ran the most powerful Meta cards, or you were running anti-Meta cards, and so you were left with perhaps 8 - 12 'free' choices in which to personalize your deck; it's incredibly stifling."

First: Can we please stop threatening to rage-quit? It does not enhance your argument and just sounds childish.

Uhm...I hope you didn't take anything I said to equate to me threatening to rage quit. I did not say nor did I imply anywhere in my post that I would. :/

dwolf52000
07-09-2012, 01:32 PM
Uhm...I hope you didn't take anything I said to equate to me threatening to rage quit. I did not say nor did I imply anywhere in my post that I would. :/

No - Sorry about the implication. That was totally unintentional. The internet ate my first response and I short cutted this re-write.

I realize that I was being hyper-critical and need to be more careful about the quotes I use.


I was actually referring to failed2k's post: "if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game."

Shinguyi
07-09-2012, 03:22 PM
I was actually referring to failed2k's post: "if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game."

It does go along a little with what Dutpotd in how one invests a lot on a deck right before GenCon to play it, and right when GenCon begins the errata happens. No time to playtest, no time to get new cards to make a new deck and if you paid for the trip and in the end didn't know of the change, its a tad unfair. I think it may be best to see what happens in GenCon and then decide.

Shinji Mimura
07-09-2012, 04:05 PM
While I realize most of you are of the consensus that no cards are WORTHY of errata (besides clarification errata, like Skull Man), I'm of the opinion that you should save your essays on why errata'ing would be bad until after we learn what the proposed errata actually is.

I'm more than certain the Jasco team keeps an active eye on tournament results as well as the very cards they themselves are creating. If they are stewing over the possibility of an errata, and it's a possibility, not a probability, then there might be a valid reason.

Stay frosty is what I'm saying. Let's see what they have in mind, even if that ultimately doesn't change anyone's opinion.

dutpotd
07-09-2012, 04:15 PM
Serious question, could we also get a list - including the details - of any and all champion cards coming out at/before gencon that are legal for said event? I tend to find the addition of cards to the card pool just as influential as the change of pre-existing cards in the card pool prior to events.

- dut

failed2k
07-09-2012, 04:19 PM
No - Sorry about the implication. That was totally unintentional. The internet ate my first response and I short cutted this re-write.

I realize that I was being hyper-critical and need to be more careful about the quotes I use.


I was actually referring to failed2k's post: "if you ban/change my deck after I've already invested large amounts of money into making the trip, I'm quitting on the spot, selling my stuff at Gencon, and using all those wonderful booths to find a new game."

I'm not playing angels and im not planning on quitting, I'm talking about putting a game with a already fairly small playerbase into a position where they no longer trust the company and quit the game, if you think that poi9nt is childish then you have a LOT to learn about running a business. Not only is my situation not childish or unfounded, its happen plenty of times in this history of this very game, and it something that is easily avoidable.

We are NOT sure the enviroment is broken either, that is a assumption a bunch of people are making, there is plenty of people who think the angels are not a big deal powerlevelwise and just capable of producing a bad NPE. So can people who are in support of the angels seeing a change now please stop pretending if the angels go unchanged they will surely win worlds?

To Dut -
Uk nats and Can Nats are not "the Big Two" and don't deserve the same kind of treatment, I said exactly what I meant, there is only 2 tournaments that should be banning/errata safety bubbled Nats and Worlds. They have the highest number of traveling players investing good money into a trip to play the game, changing things less then 6 weeks from them is just a bad idea, and can easily lead to player loss.

And also what are you going on about good players are going to play whatever is available, and playing for the right reasons? As the makers of the Game, what reasons people have to play the game are their own, and if people are playing my game to win rather then to play with heart/love of the game or whatever that isn't a person "playing the game wrong" in my eyes, that is another dedicated customer. Based on that logic, people should never ever play decks from character they don't love and that's it. Players SHOULD be upset when their deck gets changed, especially if they LOVE that deck, it's human, and it shows a emotional investment into the game, that means people care, and that is a good thing.

My stance is simple, and considers the health of the playerbase,
Angels are not Hugo stop pretending in all the "pro errata posts" they are they will not dominate and ruin worlds and please stop acting like players will have worlds ruined and quit by losing to them, people lose to NPE's at all levels of play and Truong is no less of a NPE, at worlds it should be a bit expected. Changes should not happen within a 3 months period before worlds/nats(NOT PTC's CNA NATS US NATS) at that point people have made financial commitments to attend and you should not risk alienating those players no matter "how they play the game" by changing things they have put a lot of love and work into.

Dancing around or twisting what im saying is fun, but so far that seems to be the name of the game.

dutpotd
07-09-2012, 04:37 PM
And also what are you going on about good players are going to play whatever is available, and playing for the right reasons? As the makers of the Game, what reasons people have to play the game are their own, and if people are playing my game to win rather then to play with heart/love of the game or whatever that isn't a person "playing the game wrong" in my eyes, that is another dedicated customer. Based on that logic, people should never ever play decks from character they don't love and that's it. Players SHOULD be upset when their deck gets changed, especially if they LOVE that deck, it's human, and it shows a emotional investment into the game, that means people care, and that is a good thing.


You know exactly what I'm talking about, and it's not about playing the game 'right' or 'wrong', it is simply my interpretation of playing a game period. And yes, I said it was a fairly bold statement so not surprised its been taken out of context.

I don't want to play a game that isn't fair. I'm not talking about 'fun', I'm talking about competitive spirit/balance/fairness etc., a bunch of crazy ideals that can never actually be reached. So no, always playing your favorite character has nothing to do with my statement. Granted, I understand why you took this from it because I specifically mentioned playing to win at all costs.

You are right of course, I understand why players should be upset when their decks get changed. All I am offering is the flipside of the coin which is players should be upset when they are forced to play against something that was notably needing a fix and didn't get one before the main event that they also paid money and planned to attend...

I'm not twisting your words. I am adding my own.

ps. We aren't even discussing the potential erratas any more, we are talking about 'when and why erratas should be made', and my only point is that there is no correct way to do so to save all players from harm once it is determined an errata is for the betterment of the game, that's it. I am just offering up the counterpoint to those who don't want errata's period, or specifically at certain times.

KodiakZero
07-09-2012, 04:48 PM
About dem Angels; Proficient Sniper Omniel. GG lol.

Grizzlegrom
07-09-2012, 04:49 PM
About dem Angels; Proficient Sniper Omniel. GG lol.

that doesn't work because you search all zones for him lol

KodiakZero
07-09-2012, 04:53 PM
that doesn't work because you search all zones for him lol

Aww lol. Tbh i didnt even read either card yet :3 i just assumed Proficient Sniper did something LOL

Grizzlegrom
07-09-2012, 05:05 PM
Aww lol. Tbh i didnt even read either card yet :3 i just assumed Proficient Sniper did something LOL

nope the card is still worthless :P lol

Cetonis
07-09-2012, 05:44 PM
Your entire gripe with it keys on the angels actually dominating everything and winning worlds, which is a pretty delicate ledge to balance a point on.

That's fair, it is unlikely simply due to mathematics if nothing else, but still a threat that makes me uncomfortable. Personally I have angels in the Mitsurugi category, kind of always in top cuts yet not often winning, but without having truly seen the deck in action save for a little bit of playing around with my own build it isn't really for me to say. I defer to people who were actually at the events in question as to whether or not a change is truly needed. If it's judged to be necessary more for principle reasons than for raw power level reasons, I have no complaint of waiting until after Gencon for it.


Dancing around or twisting what im saying is fun, but so far that seems to be the name of the game.

I do believe you know better than this. This is the internet, where anything you say can and will be taken literally by people who don't know you so well. Even I wasn't exactly sure if you were trying to set up an example or actually threatening to quit like you did in Nick's thread.

KodiakZero
07-09-2012, 05:56 PM
That's fair, it is unlikely simply due to mathematics if nothing else, but still a threat that makes me uncomfortable. Personally I have angels in the Mitsurugi category, kind of always in top cuts yet not often winning, but without having truly seen the deck in action save for a little bit of playing around with my own build it isn't really for me to say. I defer to people who were actually at the events in question as to whether or not a change is truly needed. If it's judged to be necessary more for principle reasons than for raw power level reasons, I have no complaint of waiting until after Gencon for it.



I do believe you know better than this. This is the internet, where anything you say can and will be taken literally by people who don't know you so well. Even I wasn't exactly sure if you were trying to set up an example or actually threatening to quit like you did in Nick's thread.

Love reading your posts. They're explanations, not bull:):):):) :).

Shinji Mimura
07-09-2012, 06:06 PM
That's fair, it is unlikely simply due to mathematics if nothing else, but still a threat that makes me uncomfortable. Personally I have angels in the Mitsurugi category, kind of always in top cuts yet not often winning, but without having truly seen the deck in action save for a little bit of playing around with my own build it isn't really for me to say.

Just to put this out there, Mitsurugi has been out there far longer than the angels have. Not only that, but never was Mitsurugi ever feared in the ways the angels are. Whether or not said fear is legitimate or not is a whole 'nother issue. I totally see your point, but I'm really thinking apples and oranges here.

Michael
07-09-2012, 06:11 PM
I have a question for any players planning to attend worlds with angels. If (hypothetically) an errata was to happen pre worlds, is there not a single errata that has been mentioned or suggested that sorts the dillema out but in your opinions maintiains a high enough power leval on the deck to justify you still running it at worlds. Like a compromise :)

Cetonis
07-09-2012, 06:50 PM
Just to put this out there, Mitsurugi has been out there far longer than the angels have. Not only that, but never was Mitsurugi ever feared in the ways the angels are. Whether or not said fear is legitimate or not is a whole 'nother issue. I totally see your point, but I'm really thinking apples and oranges here.

Yeah, I'm just talking end results here. And to some extent the way both decks can be a little more vulnerable to having One Of Those Games than most, and against a well-prepared deck in the top cuts that often leads ultimately to a match loss.

dwolf52000
07-09-2012, 07:01 PM
It does go along a little with what Dutpotd in how one invests a lot on a deck right before GenCon to play it, and right when GenCon begins the errata happens. No time to playtest, no time to get new cards to make a new deck and if you paid for the trip and in the end didn't know of the change, its a tad unfair. I think it may be best to see what happens in GenCon and then decide.

I understand. If you put a lot of time, cash, and effort into a deck based on the card effects as they currently are, then it would be quite disappointing to see that your deck no longer works based on a ruling a couple weeks out from a major tournament. However I feel like I am in the same situation as I was in "grey wars". I can't build the best deck I can. I have to build a deck that can handle one card (in this case a set of cards) that works too well. Or I play from the menu of viable decks: Angel, Slice Kick, Kazuya, or water reversal. This totally kills one of the aspects of the game, deck building.

KodiakZero
07-09-2012, 07:04 PM
Wait for results on Errata id say (or severe errata at that).

Grizzlegrom
07-09-2012, 07:24 PM
I understand. If you put a lot of time, cash, and effort into a deck based on the card effects as they currently are, then it would be quite disappointing to see that your deck no longer works based on a ruling a couple weeks out from a major tournament. However I feel like I am in the same situation as I was in "grey wars". I can't build the best deck I can. I have to build a deck that can handle one card (in this case a set of cards) that works too well. Or I play from the menu of viable decks: Angel, Slice Kick, Kazuya, or water reversal. This totally kills one of the aspects of the game, deck building.

another issue with angels that I don't know if its been brought up yet is two angel decks can make top cuts one with each starter character
They are pretty npe but truong should be on the list as well

Once per turn and only playable once per turn should be changed to what it should be only one attempt per turn

TripsEX
07-09-2012, 07:48 PM
Do the angels need an errata (I am quite fond of Iari's suggestion), yes. Do they need it while people are booking plane tickets or getting ready to travel to the largest UFS even of the year (much like with Jeremy Ray), no. I don't think it will be bad if you pull a Chun-Li or Hilde on the card, just wait until after Worlds to actually change the power level of them then it will be fine. If they do however win the whole thing, it won't be a big deal.

How many people say Mike Lowe is a bad player and mean it, because he played Chun Li?

How many people say Andrew Olexa is a bad player and mean it, because he played Hilde?

Fscking no one, that's who. Just fix them after Worlds, but everyone needs to understand that they are a problem by creating a NPE.

dwolf52000
07-09-2012, 08:10 PM
I'm not playing angels and im not planning on quitting, I'm talking about putting a game with a already fairly small playerbase into a position where they no longer trust the company and quit the game, if you think that poi9nt is childish then you have a LOT to learn about running a business. Not only is my situation not childish or unfounded, its happen plenty of times in this history of this very game, and it something that is easily avoidable.


Cetonis is right. I don't know you. So I did not realize that you just throw this stuff out there without really meaning it. If you don't want to be considered a rage quitter, then don't put it out there. Honestly you don't need the added hyperbole to make your points.

As for your point on businesses:

I travel a lot for business and every time a plane gets delayed for 5 or 10 minutes, I hear several people get on their phones to customer service for the airline and say that they are never going to fly this airline again. They are so pissed off even when it is not the airline's fault - weather / air traffic control issues. Should those businesses hop at every one of their complaints? Because I know that no one has the magic powers to instantly transport anything (such as planes) from one location to another, yet that is what those customers want the airlines to do. I wish I was exaggerating.

What about if two people complain that they are going to quit because of mutually exclusive reasons. How should the business handle that situation?

Person A: I am going to rage-quit because Character Card 1 is being errata'd
Person B: I am going to rage-quit because Character Card 1 makes the play environment not fun.

By the way - no mass market business caters to one person. While no business wants to lose customers, because it is far more expensive to get them back than keep them (aside from the lost revenue); there is a point where keeping a particular customer becomes a liability to the larger group of customers or more expensive than the revenue that customer brings in. In that case it is better to drop that customer. That is what those "squeaky wheel" business travelers often find out. If you get a chance, listen in on the conversations between the flight attendants. It is often entertaining.

And thanks for allowing me to use some of what I learned while getting my bachelor's degree.

Grizzlegrom
07-09-2012, 08:16 PM
This needs to be updated asap so people playing the affected decks can make the needed adjustments...

JavelinChimera
07-09-2012, 08:35 PM
How many people say Mike Lowe is a bad player and mean it, because he played Chun Li?

What? I thought everyone considered Mike Lowe freeee :p

DabalRowRaizah
07-09-2012, 09:25 PM
How many people say Mike Lowe is a bad player and mean it, because he played Chun Li?


its one of the few things i don't joke about.

RockStar
07-09-2012, 10:40 PM
Do the angels need an errata (I am quite fond of Iari's suggestion), yes.

Why, thank you, Nick! Should The Angels in fact get an errata, then I think it would the correct one.

guitalex2010
07-09-2012, 10:58 PM
nope the card is still worthless :P lolUnless you use Proficient Sniper on the only way Omniel can be put into play...

Man, you guys need to think outside the box. Remove Animate Fusion?:p

GG.

failed2k
07-09-2012, 11:02 PM
Cetonis is right. I don't know you. So I did not realize that you just throw this stuff out there without really meaning it. If you don't want to be considered a rage quitter, then don't put it out there. Honestly you don't need the added hyperbole to make your points.

As for your point on businesses:

I travel a lot for business and every time a plane gets delayed for 5 or 10 minutes, I hear several people get on their phones to customer service for the airline and say that they are never going to fly this airline again. They are so pissed off even when it is not the airline's fault - weather / air traffic control issues. Should those businesses hop at every one of their complaints? Because I know that no one has the magic powers to instantly transport anything (such as planes) from one location to another, yet that is what those customers want the airlines to do. I wish I was exaggerating.

What about if two people complain that they are going to quit because of mutually exclusive reasons. How should the business handle that situation?

Person A: I am going to rage-quit because Character Card 1 is being errata'd
Person B: I am going to rage-quit because Character Card 1 makes the play environment not fun.

By the way - no mass market business caters to one person. While no business wants to lose customers, because it is far more expensive to get them back than keep them (aside from the lost revenue); there is a point where keeping a particular customer becomes a liability to the larger group of customers or more expensive than the revenue that customer brings in. In that case it is better to drop that customer. That is what those "squeaky wheel" business travelers often find out. If you get a chance, listen in on the conversations between the flight attendants. It is often entertaining.

And thanks for allowing me to use some of what I learned while getting my bachelor's degree.


I put the situation forth that way because in that situation, if it was me, I would quit, I've had plenty of my decks hacked into the ground, but never within such a short window of a major event, and in the past the game has lost players to situations like this. I don't think it's a childish or stupid stance, its a very understandable and realistic way to feel for people.

The situation you put forth doesn't really apply here, this situation has a clear and obvious solution that risks doing the least amount of damage to the playerbase, say that the angels are being looked at, but nothing will happen pre-worlds. These are not mutually exclusive goals as your example suggested. You can fix the problem without alienating your dedicated players. It makes the best business sense by far rather then putting forth a situation that has a very high probability of isolating at least a few players, and putting a sour taste in the mouths of many many more. Everyone going to worlds planned to, and has stayed commited to going to worlds based on the current enviroment, we are far past the point of backing out of those plans, and the company should respect that investment, because those players are a major driving force behind the growth and health of the game.

Competitive players have been, and will be prepared for the angels at worlds, and that is who is (mainly) attending worlds. Afterwards, do what is needed for the playerbase as a whole, in the mean time, you can even say right now "Post worlds, this will be the angels errata" so casual play can start playing them that way right now. This is a compromise that holds the lowest risk for the company and therefore makes the most sense.

Also, comparing our tiny game to a mass market business is a bit silly, We are talking about a playerbase that is 4 figures at most, maybe even only 3. This is not the kind of game that can willingly sacrifice "squeaky wheels".

HypeMan!
07-10-2012, 01:44 AM
I still think people are complaining about Angels just because it's the thing to do. It's just the latest ban wagon (lol pun?) people are hopping on unnecessarily. Angels are just a type of play style that people need to adjust to and play around. Immediately calling for a ban, errata, or something of the like just encourages an environment where if something is just a little outside of the norm then it needs to be fixed. This is how you stagnate an environment and potential hurt the growth of a game, from the violent, knee jerk reactions of a vocal minority. Sure, there's the argument that the Angels can potentially be NPE and hurt the game the same way, but you should never go off what can potentially happen. Angels can potential be powerful, or they can suck out loud. They are not running a muck wrecking everything that looks at them funny or by their shear existence causing the game to suck entirely. They are a deck you either blindly rush down ASAP or, more importantly, strategically have to play against. People have gotten so aggro combo crazy that you're forgetting how to play around things. This game is more than simply play orange cards derherher and expect to win. And that's what this complaining amounts too, I can't win against the Angels playing business as usual derp therefore they need fixing, oops I'm butthurt because I lost to one deck so errata the character immediately, etc etc.

Personally I don't really agree with the argument I've invested money in this game don't change stuff on me. I think that argument has been used before in the past and the response is basically its a game and things change, cards get errata'd etc etc. But, I do agree that even so much as considering an errata before Worlds is a poor, knee jerk reaction that could considerably screw up a character that isn't broken. In MI Angels aren't really worried about, in ATL apparently Angels are rape face but didn't make it in the PTC, and on the West Coast they won one PTC. I guess another viable option if you don't like Angels is move to MI, apparently the cold neuters them some how. Sure if over a third of people are running Angels and there's a 12 way diversity for the top spot, then there's an argument to be made. But until that happens it's regional bs to me. I cannot express how much I've gotten tired of this Angels whining. I don't even play the flipping things. I've considered it, but I think I've got stronger tech and there's more important characters to worry about. Angels are gimmicky and rewarding on their best day, and meh to passable on their worst. Even in a game built around as much consistency as UFS I don't think Angels could be consistent enough to be considered a threat to the game as a whole or warrant an errata of any type. Maybe they'll get there one day, but like I said, making big judgement calls and altering cards based on potential problems is stupid and irresponsible. What happens if the change ends up screwing them over? I really doubt people will be as vocal to get an errata dropped, and then congrats, you've ruined a perfectly good character and made a large chunk of card board, money, and design time investment worthless. Go to worlds, play Angels and see how far you get, I dare you. Good players will always be good players, if Angels are run by good players, they'll probably go far, but it's the players that are rendering the cards good, they don't just win games because you put them down like some of the real NPE problems of the past that needed erratas or bans and didn't get any and life went on and people figured out how to play around them an no one cared anymore.

Grizzlegrom
07-10-2012, 02:32 AM
Hypeman the man the myth the legend :) lol

Shenron
07-10-2012, 02:53 AM
Another vote for DON'T Change a gorram thing until post-Gencon.

Clarify the once per turn thing, yes, but don't go changing card text before a major event when the playerbase hasn't even had a chance to adapt to a new Meta.

What he said

Grizzlegrom
07-10-2012, 04:02 AM
Unless you use Proficient Sniper on the only way Omniel can be put into play...

Man, you guys need to think outside the box. Remove Animate Fusion?:p

GG.

It only removes one copy so good luck playing 4 snipers before they draw 1 fusion lol

KodiakZero
07-10-2012, 04:29 AM
Unless you use Proficient Sniper on the only way Omniel can be put into play...

Man, you guys need to think outside the box. Remove Animate Fusion?:p

GG.

Way too much trouble. I'd rather use 4 Character cards of completely different symbols :p

Cetonis
07-10-2012, 07:33 AM
Hypeman: There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings in your post, and while I don't know as much about the deck as Cali or ATL, I do purport to know something more than zero having done some work on the deck myself, so I'm going to try and clear some things up. Not in order to be a jerk, just trying to help you and others who are confused maybe get a sense about what exactly the concern is. I'll start by referring to the deck as "life angel wall" instead of simply "angels", because it paints a clearer picture of what the complaints are - and are not - about.

First of all, it's not about being unable to beat life angel wall playing derp decks. In fact that's one of the few options you have, to try and rush them down to low single digits (if not zero) before Omniel comes. You talk about playing around the wall, but when you stare down Omniel plus a couple Crime Fighters/KWTTs plus Templar/Revoke plus Torn Hero, etc., and know that you can probably only afford one attack string before you're too low on vitality to survive their throws and Allahra, (as opposed to good wall, where you don't necessarily lose the game just for trying to beat it down) there's not a whole lot of "strategically playing against" that to do. Most non-derp decks, and even some that are, are pretty screwed at that point.

Barring Showdown, which will sometimes do little more than buy you a turn, or simply praying that your Pommel/Twilight can catch them without Hero+momentum, (and that you'll draw into a hand that can, and have the foundations available to, punch through the rest of the wall) you don't really have much of a choice but to go aggro-crazy if you want to stand a chance against the deck.

Secondly, nobody played life angel wall in Michigan, so it's an irrelevant point. Chaos/death angels don't have the capacity to surround Omniel with an impregnable fortress, and nobody has a problem with them. And in ATL they ran face first into a Paul Phoenix, who can not only go aggro-crazy but also has an infinite supply of Pommel Smashes, making him pretty much their worst matchup. So it's hard to derive much from that other than, hey, Paul can be pretty good against them if you can make it work in your sideboard. (Saying two events isn't enough to base something off of certainly isn't unfair of course, though depending on how bad it is sometimes that is all you need.)

Third, if you don't think life angel wall could possibly be consistent enough to compete, I'll promise you that they can be. Turn 2-4 Omniel is very much the norm, with turn 4 being the least common of the three options. This I can know even without my game experience, as it's just a mostly non-interactive clock that can be gauged from fishing.


This isn't meant to change your mind, nor do I posit to have a particular stance on whether I myself think something needs to be done. I haven't seen the deck in enough actual games to tell, in particular because the best strategy against LAW is probably to just go derp with whatever you have as fast as you can before Omnom shows up, and it's hard to tell how effective that may or may not be for decks that aren't built to be derp. There's also the Mitsurugi factor I mention earlier. However, it is intended to hopefully give you and others some idea of what the proposed problem is, so that people can stop theorycrafting opinions based on misconceptions about the situation.

dutpotd
07-10-2012, 10:50 AM
First of all, it's not about being unable to beat life angel wall playing derp decks. In fact that's one of the few options you have, to try and rush them down to low single digits (if not zero) before Omniel comes. You talk about playing around the wall, but when you stare down Omniel plus a couple Crime Fighters/KWTTs plus Templar/Revoke plus Torn Hero, etc., and know that you can probably only afford one attack string before you're too low on vitality to survive their throws and Allahra, (as opposed to good wall, where you don't necessarily lose the game just for trying to beat it down) there's not a whole lot of "strategically playing against" that to do. Most non-derp decks, and even some that are, are pretty screwed at that point.

I should note that the more I test the more I find the same thing, the answers to Angels are so few and far between that the only real answer is to be insanely agressive which really is pidgeonholing what I can or can't play going into worlds. I can also 'hope' to be lucky meaning they don't draw or find their character card until turn 3, but this isn't enough for me heading into a competitive event.

For instance, my action card and Pommel Smash may seem like a good answer but it is strongly undermined by Torn Hero, so now you also need to factor in the momentum issue. The other issue is that my action card actually stops 'more' than 2 Angel actions a turn, i.e. it responds after they play the enhance to add a second angel, so they still add the Angel (it is a cost) and they still get -4/+4 vit and two foundations of mine gone. Assuming they hit my damage pump foundations I am needing a hand of at least 3, probably 4 attacks, and my action card to do damage after negating the Angels enhance. This type of hand is much more commonly drawn by a 7hs character, but a 7hs character has far less vitality and burns out faster. Add to the fact my action card is now smack in the middle of my card pool and had to be checked on two 5s, and that they have the Crime Fighters and KWTT in some cases and this is a very difficult wall to break, and I know my walls.

My action card not being an answer, the best non-agressive answer to Angels is 4X Showdown in a 7hs character, but then you are still a 7hs character and you are still susceptible to an Angel life throw deck, which is what I am testing against for the most part, and you are forced to play the same game as them to an extent - mulliganing for bullet cards. This is viable sideboard strategy to improve your chances against the Angels, but that's all it is.

To a lesser extent I am having some success with Familiar Faces, but because this is unique it becomes a bit more tricky. It actually depends on this front, if Omniel isn't turn 2 coming out you can attack and bring back this foundation with my action card enough to hard lock the Angels from coming out (assuming you can keep it ready/etc.). If you are willing to run a complete anti-angel deck this may be your best bet, but know that if you don't see Familiar Faces turn 1 or 2 you may be out of luck.

Long story short, derp deck (by this I presume you mean a crazy attack deck like Truong/Mitsu/etc.) here I come. And unless someone can explain to me why I am running out of creativity, I really don't think I am.

I said I was on the fence about pre gen-con errata because there are pros and cons to either side. I still am, but I am not enjoying the deckbuilding process with 'him' in the mix.

And no, I don't buy the arguments that there is 100% certainty that the best thing to do for the game and players is to not errata over a month before worlds. And no, I don't buy the arguments that it is 100% necessary to errata cards that do have a marked impact on the game before a major competition. There is no easy answer and I gaurantee you that some players will be frustrated either way the coin lands so I'd appreciate it if people stop Black and White-ing the issue and face the facts that no matter what is decided some players will be happy and others not.

RockStar
07-10-2012, 10:55 AM
Well said, Tim!

I'm not sure what I can further add to the discussion that hasn't already been added, except maybe for what the thought process was going into my match-ups at the Cali PTC event:

Rd 1 vs Nehtali (6hs) -- This match up doesn't necessarily scare me, because I know that the deck likes to run with only a few foundations. Also, it's one of those decks that likes to only throw out one or three BIG attacks, and not string together a 6+ of 4 or 5 dmg attacks. So, going into this match-up, I know that if I can draw into a Templar/Revoke or have even 1 Crime Fighter in hand/board by my T1, I'm good to go. Also, I know that the opposing player is brand new to the game and most likely to make a major play mistake (which he does by calling S:2 on Chasm Buster when I have 2 Torn Hero's on the board, for example). I just have to wait to capitalize. I win both games handily, I'm 1 - 0.

Rd 2 vs Evil Alice -- Again, I'm up against a new-ish player who even goes so-far as to admit that this deck would probably be better with someone ELSE piloting it. So, half of my work is going to be done for me by a play-mistake, and I'm just waiting to see how it will play out (game 1 ends when I play a Divine Trib and call multiple. He scoops, forgetting he has Revoke in-hand. o.0). Other than that, I know this is going to be a very interesting match-up, as Alice can make playing certain cards incredibly painful. Also, I know that he's running a full compliment of Ballistic Snap Kicks, so whenever he blocks, it's going to be painful as well. This forces me to have to play somewhat backward, as I have to count the cards I have on every attack turn before attacking. Still, I know that Alice is a slower deck, and Life Angels eat slow decks for breakfast. I win game one (as aforementioned), and the second game goes to time. I'm 2 - 0.

Rd 3 vs Air Lowe -- Okay. This match up made me nervous, because I'm playing against The Hurricane, who is a top flight player on the West Coast. I know his deck inside and out, and he knows mine, so there's no guess work as to what's going to happen. He's going to try and rush me down ASAP, and I'm going to try and get Omnom on the board, because Air Lowe likes to throw out a gazzilion attacks, and I want to burn and blank him every time he does. Game one, I throw out a Divine Trib for 9 dmg on T2 which he eats in full. I play Syrithe and a foundation and pass turn. He burns for another 2 vitality during my end phase. T3 I play a Throw to get him down to 4 and then play 2 more characters and end turn. I burn him to death during my end phase. Game 2, going first he rushes me down on his T3. Game 3, I get Omnom out early (T2, methinks), but he manages to achieve victory when he commits Omnom with a When the Moon, and then plays like a champ by needing to pass 5 cards at a 5 difficulty with no cards open to commit to help checks. He does, and hands me my first loss in the tournament, and actually my first loss at this point in over 12 PT matches. I'm 2 - 1.

Rd 4 vs Evil Truong/Alice -- Okay...so I go from one top flight player to another, this time vs the reigning US National Champ, dutpotd! Truong is actually a match-up that I think is a bad one for a Life Angels deck, because Angels don't typically string together 4+ attacks a turn. Sometimes, it's only playing that one throw for guaranteed damage and momentum that allows them to upgrade their defense enough to win. Truong has the obvious ability to make them HAVE to play more than one attack a turn, something they don't/can't always do. Plus, Truong has a free +2 dmg pump to any attack, and his rush-down capability is a well known commodity in UFS, off any of his symbols. Garrett doesn't disappoint, and kills the Angels early during Game 1. Game 2, he sides into Alice as an experiment. This is actually a better match-up for the Angels, because Alice is a slower deck who can't out right nerf a single attack I'll play. This game goes long and I end up lucking into a very rare play mistake from a really excellent player: I have Omnom activated and I'm forced to play out my all or nothing gambit by string together 4 attacks and a multiple. He blocks the last attack before the multiple and reverses with Surprise Punishment, and he's at 2 vitality and I have a character card in my discard pile. Oops. I manage a draw, so I'm 2 - 1 - 1.

Rd 5 vs Fire Nehtali -- Again, I'm very comfortable with this match up. I know that I only have to block one or two attacks a turn, and be able to disrupt them enough to end their turn early. Getting Omnom out early will be a bonus. I win this one very handily and manage myself into Top Cuts.

So... with the exception of Truong and Mike Lowe, no one deck gave me pause or concern. As an experienced player and an Angels player, knowing I'm going up against either A) a newer player or B) a slower deck, means that I feel very confident about my chances of getting a W for that round. Decks that can consistently rush-down with 30+ damage by T2 or even T3 are scary to play against, and I have to have a clear mulligan and defensive strategy in hand at the start of my T1. This only becomes more nerve-wracking when faced against players who are as good as AJ or Garrett. Piloting an Angel deck is NOT as auto-pilot as most people think.

For what it's worth, I stand by my assessment: I think The Angels will be in need of an errata, and I also believe they should be given a chance to perform at Worlds as-is to see if my assessment, and everyone else's concerns, are truly valid, or if we're all just jumping at shadows. There's a saying that goes the seven words of a dying church are: "We've never done it that way before". I think this is a truism in any business or even in a smaller microcosm such as a CCG. I'd HATE for the Angels to get nerfed needlessly, simply because they force the Meta to start playing differently. It's the differences that can really add some spice to an already great game! But, what I still dislike is that The Angels seemingly punish opponents for even playing attacks in the first place. That part, no so good.

My 2 Cents,
RockStar

HypeMan!
07-10-2012, 11:50 AM
Thanks for mentioning life wall, that is something to consider, but is that more of the problem than Angels themselves?

The more I hear the more it seems like A) It's player dependent on how good the deck is and B) A little match up dependent, which I don't think is grounds for errata at this point.

Paul is an underutilized character that seems to be a good silver bullet but can get beaten by other decks or using a 7 handsizer which I see and hear more and more just get beat out against other 6 handers. Not saying it's a rock-paper-scissors argument or environment, but that sounds like a pretty healthy meta to me, some decks beat other decks while losing to others. I mean, my deck seemed to give low life, high handsize (and E dependent decks) fits, but those can out rush Omnom (I like this moniker). I also think that with arguing against Angels you're (the royal you) are discounting the legitimacy and viability of a large amount of the cast. Right now there's probably the largest amount of very competitive characters across the board and in all different HS categories that the game has ever seen, and it's far past being anti-Angels (I'm just going to keep saying Angels meaning Life-wall Angels at this point), anti-anti Angels, and Angels.

But I'll be completely honest, if I can build a life Angels deck and slop my way into to Top 8 then we'll know there's a problem.

dutpotd
07-10-2012, 12:20 PM
Thanks for mentioning life wall, that is something to consider, but is that more of the problem than Angels themselves?

But I'll be completely honest, if I can build a life Angels deck and slop my way into to Top 8 then we'll know there's a problem.

It's not the wall that is the main problem, although addressing the Angel's specific wall cards which are very strong in them, Crime Fighter and Keepers of the Gate, would definitely impact the ability for decks to break through once Onniel and character stacking is well underway.

And no, you could not just build an Angels deck and top 8. Because they are a defensive deck-type they require a knowledge of their matchups and the skillful execution of their defensive abilities.

The issue is that, assuming a base knowledge and skill level, they will win at a very high rate against a LOT of decks, the statement that it is impossible to beat them with some decks is not really an understatement.

Seeing Lu Chen vs. Allahra final at the PTC in the Bay Area, knowing that Rockstar has at least, actually more, than the base knowledge and skill level - I would have bet my house on the Angel deck winning and I am NOT exaggerating, and Vapor is a great player so that is no knock to him.

Being able to say outright who will win a match is not good UFS and is my sole concern for worlds, i.e. why I would be on the fence for errata pre gen-con. Not having an incentive to watch the game between two players is not just a NPE, it is worse.

HypeMan!
07-10-2012, 02:50 PM
And no, you could not just build an Angels deck and top 8. Because they are a defensive deck-type they require a knowledge of their matchups and the skillful execution of their defensive abilities.

The issue is that, assuming a base knowledge and skill level, they will win at a very high rate against a LOT of decks, the statement that it is impossible to beat them with some decks is not really an understatement.


In my mind, that first statement is a good argument against an errata at least at the current time.

Though with the second, I can see why some people are worried.

Still I stand by the don't do anything till after Worlds. Who can say how the match ups and brackets will fall and how Angels will do. But, if you play smart, strategic, and well, you deserve to win. Bar none.

Or how about this, if you play an Angels deck you have to take a shot for every other angel character card present in all of singles. (I'm excluding Teams cause we don't want anyone to die)

guitalex2010
07-10-2012, 04:20 PM
OK, having thought about this a long time I can give a thorough answer.

This is too close to Worlds. As much sense as "Once per turn" makes in my head (should be the same as "only playable once per turn"), and as much as people are complaining about the Angels, people have put in too much money into the game to go to its biggest event since the release of RH and RH2.

Let's see how they fare in Worlds before we swing the banhammer on the Angels (although SHAME to everyone who is playing SSM33 incorrectly... SHAME).

Grizzlegrom
07-10-2012, 05:06 PM
Skull man needs the flavor text:

"Rules were meant to be broken."

since he is an evil super hero :p lol

HypeMan!
07-10-2012, 05:36 PM
I really hope that SSM33 lets him stack foundations regularly. It's just a cool ability and play style that's not broken like Zas and not worthless like Wess Victory from way back.

Shinji Mimura
07-10-2012, 07:08 PM
Paul is an underutilized character that seems to be a good silver bullet but can get beaten by other decks or using a 7 handsizer which I see and hear more and more just get beat out against other 6 handers. Not saying it's a rock-paper-scissors argument or environment, but that sounds like a pretty healthy meta to me, some decks beat other decks while losing to others.

Well, UFS is finally moving away from its rather kusoge "everything is broken and therefore works" format to a format similar to actual fighitng games where characters have legitimate match-ups.

That said, Paul Phoenix is fortunate enough to be able to side into many characters off his given symbols since his only real gimmick is running a fair amount of Stun attacks, the likes of which were probably being ran in whichever character you'd be siding into's respective decks.

I've been talking about how Paul is one of the premier anti-meta characters since his release, and now, thankfully, people are seeing that, and I really hope to see more of him since he can be a huge stop to a large list of the top tier cast.

JavelinChimera
07-10-2012, 09:33 PM
The other issue is that my action card actually stops 'more' than 2 Angel actions a turn, i.e. it responds after they play the enhance to add a second angel, so they still add the Angel (it is a cost) and they still get -4/+4 vit and two foundations of mine gone.

NVM, I reread it, but why not use the Response on your action after they play one of their "Add" responses the second time? Either way, once you've used it you can commit Omnitron, right? Obviously still not the best answer, but I don't see them getting "-4/+4 vit and two blanks" ever if you have that in your hand.

lazylantern
07-10-2012, 09:42 PM
thing is the "character added" window happened before the "played" as you are still in the paying costs time window and the ability is not played yet,
so you do negate the -2 damage on the second attack but he still got allahara and syrithe twice each

JavelinChimera
07-10-2012, 09:44 PM
That's what I'm saying, use it after the opponent has played one of the two responses a second time to cancel that and commit Omniel. When the Moon's R just specifies that they have to play an ability, not necessarily an E

Let them add all the +2 or -2 damage they want, as long as you have them afraid to Respond with the twins.

NJBrock22
07-10-2012, 09:47 PM
ok this thread has probably gone on way too long now guys... let's just wait for Dave or Jason to post what the proposed changes are THEN we can start complaining/thanking them, OK?

N.J.

HypeMan!
07-10-2012, 09:56 PM
No. That is not our way.

dutpotd
07-10-2012, 10:53 PM
That's what I'm saying, use it after the opponent has played one of the two responses a second time to cancel that and commit Omniel. When the Moon's R just specifies that they have to play an ability, not necessarily an E

Let them add all the +2 or -2 damage they want, as long as you have them afraid to Respond with the twins.

You are absolutely right, the best way to do it is to respond to the second playing of the R ability to cancel it, seeing as how it needs to be played before/during the payment of the cost is complete. I was wondering after posting this morning if anyone would catch that - proof someone is actually reading what I write, I like it :)

Grizzlegrom
07-11-2012, 12:56 AM
No. That is not our way.

That's why you never leave someone on a cliffhanger cuz they will always want to assume what they want or dont want to happen just tell us what is up so we don't have to guess ;) lol

jason
07-11-2012, 02:30 PM
On the original post, we have decided to wait on any action for errata to the angels until after worlds.

-Jason

Birch
07-11-2012, 04:14 PM
I feel like the decision came based on the communities out cry, but nonetheless I'm glad a decision was reached fairly quickly.

dutpotd
07-11-2012, 06:22 PM
I feel like the decision came based on the communities out cry, but nonetheless I'm glad a decision was reached fairly quickly.

Yup, crybabies. Kidding! It's a good decision, they won't even top 8 after all :)

Grizzlegrom
07-11-2012, 07:08 PM
Yup, crybabies. Kidding! It's a good decision, they won't even top 8 after all :)

its gonna be an angels finals lol

dutpotd
07-11-2012, 07:21 PM
its gonna be an angels finals lol

Allahra vs. Syrithe, wouldn't that be 'divine' :) Won't happen btw, won't even top 8. You heard it hear first. Although, I have eaten my words before lol!

HypeMan!
07-11-2012, 09:18 PM
I'll get you a pint at the Ram if they do top 8 dut, fair?

But not if you're playing them.

Grizzlegrom
07-11-2012, 11:19 PM
I'll get you a pint at the Ram if they do top 8 dut, fair?

But not if you're playing them.

lol come on his version of angels would win worlds :p lol dont back out now hypeman :p

HypeMan!
07-12-2012, 01:13 AM
lol come on his version of angels would win worlds :p lol dont back out now hypeman :p

It's like shaving points. Can't bet on yourself, or unnecessarily stack the result in your favor.

Grizzlegrom
07-12-2012, 01:24 AM
It's like shaving points. Can't bet on yourself, or unnecessarily stack the result in your favor.

seeing him play angels would be worth it lol unless you played against it :p

Vanguard
07-12-2012, 02:30 AM
So, basically, if a dozen people cry loud enough on these boards, they have a good chance to actually get what they want...

I'm kinda disappointed that Jason would ban / errata cards based on the (circumstancial) opinions of so few people...

Birch
07-12-2012, 02:42 AM
Its not a dozen people. Its about 7-8 of the top players of the game and a couple of casual players. If there is a problem, and the current consensus is that their might just be one, then the best measure is for an errata.

failed2k
07-12-2012, 03:10 AM
So, basically, if a dozen people cry loud enough on these boards, they have a good chance to actually get what they want...

I'm kinda disappointed that Jason would ban / errata cards based on the (circumstancial) opinions of so few people...

At no point did he say that they weren't going to do the same errata(who said anything about banning?) they were planning, he just said they were going to wait till after worlds, which makes a ton of sense given the fact that worlds is about a month away at this point.

You're disappointed, but I'm glad that he thought what some of us were saying made sense and changed his mind, I don't think this is exactly "folding under the pressure" of all 7 of us who wanted ot hold off the change, someone at some point must of said something that made sense for the situation.

dutpotd
07-12-2012, 03:24 AM
So, basically, if a dozen people cry loud enough on these boards, they have a good chance to actually get what they want...

I'm kinda disappointed that Jason would ban / errata cards based on the (circumstancial) opinions of so few people...

This is actually another case of you will see what you want and some people will be happy and others sad (just like the errata before worlds istelf). If he erratas everyone says he doesn't care what some players thinks and/or puts other's opinions above the rest, if he doesn't everyone says he folds under the pressure of the 'don't errata so close to cryers' and doesn't care that an errata might actually improve the experience of the majority at gencon as would be evidenced by an errata therafter.

Long story short, damned if he does, damned if he don't. I think he made a fine decision either way - oh wait I am just fence sitting to always be somewhat right, RIGHT?

Don't be critical of Jason or the board dwellers. We all want the same thing, a great game of UFS.

Vanguard
07-12-2012, 05:31 AM
Don't be critical of Jason or the board dwellers. We all want the same thing, a great game of UFS.
I want more sets, more cards and less errata. What has MTG errata'd in Standard last year ? Not a thing. Enough cards are released each year to keep the "overpowered" cards in check.

Are we really going to be playing the AoPs, and same old Tekken / QoS cards for three or four more years in Standard UFS ? This can't be serious. One set a year is definitely not enough. One consequence will be that people endlessy discuss errata and bans, since the card pool availabale for deckbuilding hardly evolves...

I have nothing against "board dwellers" or Jason, really. It just seems to me that this game is going nowhere. And it's my favorite card game... Urgh !

Vanguard
07-12-2012, 05:33 AM
Its about 7-8 of the top players of the game
Meaning, people who win tournaments where 30 or 40 people show up ? That means I'm a top MtG player if I win every other local MtG tournament where 40 people attend ?

Sorry, just being rude and angry. It'll pass (hopefully !) :D

generalreaction2.0
07-12-2012, 07:19 AM
Can we agree that if angels make top 8 we will put garret in a trash can?

NJBrock22
07-12-2012, 08:07 AM
I want more sets, more cards and less errata. What has MTG errata'd in Standard last year ? Not a thing. Enough cards are released each year to keep the "overpowered" cards in check.

Are we really going to be playing the AoPs, and same old Tekken / QoS cards for three or four more years in Standard UFS ? This can't be serious. One set a year is definitely not enough. One consequence will be that people endlessy discuss errata and bans, since the card pool availabale for deckbuilding hardly evolves...

I have nothing against "board dwellers" or Jason, really. It just seems to me that this game is going nowhere. And it's my favorite card game... Urgh !


1) i think that's enough comparing magic to UFS... would we all like more sets, yes... but we know with the way the economy is and if we REALLY want this game to keep growing 2-3 sets a year maximum(no double sets like the old days) is probably best, otherwise then you have people complaining about their being TOO many cards in play that they have to somehow get... yeah...

2) as to the errata/ban discussion, welcome to the forums, remember the majority of the players B****ing and moaning at the moment are either the Top players in the US or they're playtesters/have access to pt thru other means and want to try to curb the meta so it doesn't get back to what we had from mid 08 thru early '10, i do NOT think we want that again now do we... and besides as stated above... we have not even SEEN the proposed errata, if jason really wanted to as stated above he could just tell us "be damned what the majority think" and issue the errata immediately, but we're allowed to voice our opinion and he respected that and decided that it'll be issued at after or at gencon(after the tournament is over).

3) The Game IS going somewhere... many people just choose not to pop up on the forums to show that it is outside of the occasional introduction post... this game will probably start going even FURTHER once KOF13 drops later this year(barring printer delays again).

4) This thread should FOR NOW be locked till jason posts what he's gonna issue for the rules changes before this gets any more out of control...

4a) Marco, dont just put Garrett in the trashcan... put Garrett + whoever won with the Angels in the trashcan...

N.J.

Birch
07-12-2012, 10:29 AM
Meaning, people who win tournaments where 30 or 40 people show up ? That means I'm a top MtG player if I win every other local MtG tournament where 40 people attend ?

Sorry, just being rude and angry. It'll pass (hopefully !) :D

Thus is UFS. The top players are the ones traveling to all the events who consistently make top cut or even win these events. If you put the whole 800ish player community together these players would still make tops, but this is a smaller game do you can't expect a turnout of more than 40+ people, but these people were winning when the tournaments in the US were over 100 so don't belittle their acheivements.

generalreaction2.0
07-12-2012, 11:06 AM
1) i think that's enough comparing magic to UFS... would we all like more sets, yes... but we know with the way the economy is and if we REALLY want this game to keep growing 2-3 sets a year maximum(no double sets like the old days) is probably best, otherwise then you have people complaining about their being TOO many cards in play that they have to somehow get... yeah...

2) as to the errata/ban discussion, welcome to the forums, remember the majority of the players B****ing and moaning at the moment are either the Top players in the US or they're playtesters/have access to pt thru other means and want to try to curb the meta so it doesn't get back to what we had from mid 08 thru early '10, i do NOT think we want that again now do we... and besides as stated above... we have not even SEEN the proposed errata, if jason really wanted to as stated above he could just tell us "be damned what the majority think" and issue the errata immediately, but we're allowed to voice our opinion and he respected that and decided that it'll be issued at after or at gencon(after the tournament is over).

3) The Game IS going somewhere... many people just choose not to pop up on the forums to show that it is outside of the occasional introduction post... this game will probably start going even FURTHER once KOF13 drops later this year(barring printer delays again).

4) This thread should FOR NOW be locked till jason posts what he's gonna issue for the rules changes before this gets any more out of control...

4a) Marco, dont just put Garrett in the trashcan... put Garrett + whoever won with the Angels in the trashcan...

N.J.

Its a goal of mine to put atleast one Canadian in a trashcan per worlds

HypeMan!
07-12-2012, 11:14 AM
Haggar style?

generalreaction2.0
07-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Haggar style?

very much so. the ol' piledriver into a dumpster plan

dutpotd
07-12-2012, 11:31 AM
4a) Marco, dont just put Garrett in the trashcan... put Garrett + whoever won with the Angels in the trashcan...



Um, not nice. And, what if it's me who wins with the Angels deck, what then NJ? Got ya there!!!

generalreaction2.0
07-12-2012, 11:52 AM
then we cut you in half and put you in two trash cans!

Vanguard
07-12-2012, 12:07 PM
1) i think that's enough comparing magic to UFS... would we all like more sets, yes... but we know with the way the economy is and if we REALLY want this game to keep growing 2-3 sets a year maximum(no double sets like the old days) is probably best, otherwise then you have people complaining about their being TOO many cards in play that they have to somehow get... yeah...
Having Jasco release as many sets as MtG would indeed be too much for a game with such a confidential audience, but I think 2 sets a year is a bare minimum. If KoF is released in June 2013 (printer delays even affect the ToV restock !), I can guarantee that we won't have any players left in my town by then...

HypeMan!
07-12-2012, 02:50 PM
I feel like it's bad luck or something to bisect a Canadian....

generalreaction2.0
07-13-2012, 12:14 AM
I feel like it's bad luck or something to bisect a Canadian....

Not if you do it in the name of America!

HypeMan!
07-13-2012, 12:42 AM
Or a possibly racist coke machine.

Shinji Mimura
07-13-2012, 01:05 AM
I want to point out that all this hubub about angels, errata, etc, is all rather pointless. There's no doubt that top players are thinking of ways to stop them, decks to run against them, etc. Most important of all...

Truong is going to win worlds. Duh.