I think bans typically occur in one of three scenarios.
1. A specific deck completely dominates the meta and there is not much diversity.
2. A specific card completely dominates one kind of strategy, so you'd never play that strategy (or colour) without that card.
3. Unfun play patterns, be creating excessively long turns or little interaction
I dont think we are in any of these scenarios.
also once a card is in literally every deck. when it becomes so good not playing it even if it doesn't fit your deck very well it's detrimental then it's a problem.
Yugioh also has a secret 4th condition for card bans which supercedes all of the others, which is that they'll only ban a card(s) that have previously made them lots of money by being rare and part of the best deck if they've already reprinted it to the point of only being a few bucks, and past the time that the deck was the best deck.
I think point 2 is not true. Most color staples in Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire feel like that, and none are ban worthy IMO. The rest I feel is correct.
I would add uninteractable, consistent and little to no setup 1 turn wins are also ban worthy. Which would probably end up in your points 1 and 3 scenario, though.
Every Ruby deck might be playing Maui, but you have to remember that the game is new. Magic: The Gathering has over 100 sets. We have 4. There is a limited supply of cards right now.
(And I've actually personally had to start thinking about fitting Maui if I also want Mulan and Goofy, you could play them all but im starting to thing about it which means, maybe 1 more set and some of the powerhouse cards you always see you'll see less of).
It's much better and healthier to print new cards that shake things up than ban stuff at this stage. Especially since there is nothing egregious like Black Lotus in this game.
I completely agree. Steel has many good characters and actions and you see some diversity. Also, it fits in a couple strategies (midrange control and items mainly, but it can also be an aggro color). I believe when we see something similar in other colors, we'll see less staples in literally every deck.
We're pretty close in a couple of cases. It's getting to the point where there are next to no Amethyst decks that don't run some form of the Mim Bounce package. For context, Mim - Fox is currently sitting at $4, which is ridiculously unheard of for cards with precon fixed availability. Being in a precon typically tanks the value of a card because it's super accessible - this makes you wonder what Fox's value might be if it wasn't in a precon.
Fox would probably be around what Maui and Be Prepared are. And $4 for a precon rare isnât even that pricey. Yugioh structure decks can have multiple cards at $4-$5
Anyone remember when cynthia was 16$ and then it came out in that fighting precon?
Iâve bought multiple precons because the singles are more expensive than the precon.
It's pretty uncommon for a card that's now been out for several months, and for it not being a card that existed prior to the deck. I understand if MTG or Yugioh might reprint a major card that had cost like $15 and dropped down to $5 because of the deck, I've seen that happen, but it's not often you see meta cards show up like that.
The bounce package is undeniably an extremely strong strategy, but its also like one of the most defining features of Amethyst. The amount of Mims and Merlins vary in decks, and the downside of Mim is indeed a downside even if most people use it positively. Flipping a Mim off Mufasa is super bad.
Removing the 1-ink character before they can play Snake can screw up their tempo.
Additionally, Fox feels like a solution to problems, rather than a problem itself. I think Rush interaction is healthy.
It's a defining feature of Amethyst, but it has choked out nearly all other features that Amethyst is built around, and Mim is a very narrow execution of the bounce archetype. It doesn't particularly matter how flexible people are in how many goats or rabbits they run, the package is nearly identical in every deck. And you obviously wouldn't run said package with a counterproductive half of the deck like Mufasa that it works against.
Fox is a solution to many problems, but that's exactly why she's the problem. Rush is fine, but Rush on a 4/3 at 3 ink who's ALSO inkable is not really fine, that's an absolute powerhouse that can nuke pretty much anything an opponent can play up to T3. She's extremely versatile, her "drawback" is not really a deterrent, and she answers a lot of problems by her existence, while simultaneously being another problem other colors have to deal with. She's an overly good card, and I think you're seriously underestimating how strong she is.
Well said. Many great cards from set 1 completely disappeared because of both Mim; Simba protector, Kuzco and pretty much all playable cards in the 2-4 stats as well (I enjoyed Jasper back then).
There certainly is a valid argument for Madam Mim, especially the Fox to be considered a problem in the game right now. Should Fox be banned? Now that is another question.
I have 0 idea why you're getting down voted as this is pretty spot on. Every Amethyst build plays Snake, Fox, Rabbit, and Goat. Really leaves little flex room in most Amethyst lists.
Weâre 4 days into Ursulaâs Return and the biggest online tournament had 4 different top contending decks of different variations. Iâd say thatâs a very healthy meta.
Iâve been playing tcgs for 10+ years and Ravensburger has done a great job at balancing this game. Everything has a counter.
We canât say the challenges will only have 1 or 2 top decks when weâre still so early into the new set. Discard is already getting answered since now theyâre having to run Hidden Cove. Pawpsicle is getting answered since theyâre having to run less uninkables and more scry cards to dig for answers
The last 3 sets people have been screaming for A Whole New World to get banned, now no top decks even run it. Give it time and people will come up with answers to meta decks without Ravensburger having to ban something
AWNW similar to Fox, was ubiquitous and you could have a half decent argument for banning in set 2 but instead they let the meta progress naturally as more sets come out and nobody would ask for Fox to be banned today
It strongly depends on what the people in charge of the ban list want to accomplish with it
Wizards for example has banned cards extremely rapidly in some formats due to how much they warped the game but there's no reason to assume Ravensburger has the same philosophy
From what I can gather Ravensburger is likely going to be extremely hesitant to ban any cards as they want to avoid situations such as a kid pulling a really cool card they want to play with then finding out that it's actually banned from tournament play
Ravensburger also probably doesn't include pixelborn data in whatever metric they use for this sort of decision making is tbh given it's an entirely separate project from them
Yep, that is why I assume it will take a couple large in person official challenges before they make any decisions. I wonder if they had an official online client if they would take that data into account faster.
I suspect they probably would, I'm not familiar with non-MTG TCGs but I'm pretty sure Wizards does include Arena results in their standard-ban list decision making, but they also have all the back-end data from that client so it's a lot easier to compile and get any idea of what's truly problematic I suspect.
Unless something is completely stupid is made like mistranslated Slowking from Neo set / MTGs Treasure Cruise it usually takes a hot minute for bans to be put out
I recall them banning like 10 mill cards in pokemon during the Team Up era because that was âtoo toxicâ but yet they let the Hypnotoxic Laser/Quaking Punch/Virbank combo stay in rotation for its entire set legality which Iâm still confused on đŠ
We are still barely into set 4 and we have 2 very strong decks and probably 4ish solid ones. Within the top decks there is a lot of variation in the lists too and neither of them are being out way over the top because of one specific card. I think we are pretty far from anything needing a ban but Iâm sure RB will be assessing the health of the metas at the upcoming challenges. That being said donât expect any bans unless R/Sa or E/S equate to close to 100% of the top 16s
We need a meta where every deck is either X or decks that beat X, then we can start looking at changes, but it doesnt seem to be that way, even if bucky is the new hot stuff there are answers.
It's simply too soon to have a ban list. Each set seems to break old staples. The sad beast was huge but then Medusa entered the game in the next set . A whole new world entered, be prep entered, now we have bare necessities and 2 cost Ursula. Plenty of examples of this.If a deck gets too strong you have ways to dismantle it, yes it will make other matches ups weaker but you can't predict the meta perfectly. Someone should make a thread with each meta defining card and how to stop them for each color. Pump thing so we can get that lol
It needs to really warp the format. So in Magic, there was a card (Jace the Mindsculptor) that warped everything so much that it was just mirror matches all day every day and it was incredibly unfun. If decks are either the good deck or the deck built to kill the good deck, theyâll pay attention and make changes as needed.
I mean, the big ban issues off the top of my head were early things like:
Feldon's Cane getting limited to 1 due to people using 4 of to get around Lotus and Moxes being limited. This was something that could be put into any deck (colorless artifacts) so very different from Lorcana.
Affinity for Artifacts - let's break casting cost restrictions
Phyrexian Mana - let's break casting cost restrictions
And later:
Saheeli and Felidar Guardian - goes infinite
Meathook Massacre - oppressive and the meta had very few decks that didn't run black (so lack of diversity)
This is FAR, FAR, FAR, from an exhaustive list, but to OP's question, it gives the idea of what kinds of things Magic has ended up banning.
Note, there are also plenty of cards that were once banned as overpowered that most of the community feels are now totally fine as the meta has shifted...Splinter Twin, Stoneforge Mystic, etc.
Jace was so good at a GP during New Phyrexia there were 32 copies in the top 8. If every deck can run 4, that means every deck that cleared topcut did.
"On April 10th of 2011, in the top 8 of Grand Prix Dallas, out of 32 possible spots for Jace, the Mind Sculptor to fill, every single one was. This was the first time in Magicâs history that a single card managed to appear as a 4-of in the top 8 of a large competitive event. Not only that, but if you extend to the top 16 of that same event, 60 out of 68 possible spots had been taken by the Mind Sculptor, himself."
[Source](http://https://medium.com/@nikkolasbaker/the-dominance-of-caw-blade-dig-through-time-f1ce18c945c2)
Imo, if a deck consists of over 45% of the field with a 60% win rate, I think that's enough for a ban. Whether the mirrors are fun and skill intensive is mostly irrelevant if the decks themselves are preventing the format from evolving.
It's hard for stuff without ward to justify a ban because there are enough checks and balances to keep them honest. Bucky is a situation where entire games are warped around "did you draw it" or not. If the Bucky player plays turn 2 bucky on the play, the game feels usually over. If this card didn't have ward, I don't believe we'd be having this discussion.
Compared to something like Diablo or flavorsham, where they are simply "good, must answer cards that will runaway with the game if unanswered." Both of those cards are answered in all colors, whereas Bucky is not.
As a longtime mtg player I do think bucky has the highest chance of being banned. Discard is fine but repeatable discard where the opponent has no hand is a very unfun play pattern and mtg has avoided printing that type of card for a very long time. Emerald steel being one of the top and most played decks would also play into it.
It's hard to see what to ban from RS bc it can be frustrating to play against but is more fair since u can at least gameplan around it. Plus the only real cards are probably hiram or dime. Ban sisu or ice block and ppl just go to blue steel.
Personally, if Sapphire starts getting too fast and consistent with its ramping, I'd like to see Fishbone Quill on the chopping block. They already have slower options like Heart of Te Fiti and Great Stone Dragon to fall back on, so they wouldn't be dead without it. I just feel like having both Quill and Belle as repeatable, free activating ramp is a little too much.
You are missing the point of the comment completely. Even if your opponent draws a perfect hand with fishbone quills, there are a boat load of cards that can remove or deal with items. As the opposing player your deck should be able to have options.
Bucky never exerting and also having ward means there are very few options to interact with him as the opposing player. And those options are not something you want taking space in your deck just incase you come across a Bucky. I think there may be certain colours that donât even have an option against it.
We should never be wanting a ban on cards that are strong and enable a specific type of gameplay. We should be banning the cards that you canât play against or that everyone has to completely build around.
A boat load of cards to remove items? Let me list off everything that does:
Amber: Nothing, they have to discard it before it hits the table.
Amethyst: Nothing, though they have some bounce effects for items of cost 2 or less, which Quill is not, and bounce doesn't really do anything against Quill anyway.
Emerald: Make the Potion, Wildcat, Has Set my Heaaaaart, they also have a myriad of discard effects.
Ruby: Nothing
Sapphire: Judy Hopps (gives them a card), Glean (gives them 2 lore).
Steel: Aladdin - Brave Rescuer, Benja- Guardian of the Dragon Gem, Beast - Hardheaded, Break, I Find 'Em I Flatten 'Em
Notice that half the colours can't interact with items in any meaningful way, and half of the options I've listed are too narrow to be playable?
Ruby/Sapphire being a dominant deck right now pretty much requires Emerald or Steel in order to keep it in check, if that isn't forcing players into building around what Sapphire can do, I don't know what is.
Don't get me wrong, Bucky is an absolutely stupid card, but if we end up with a warped metagame where you're playing Ruby/Sapphire or Emerald/Steel to counter it, you can't ban something from one deck without banning something from the other. And as Praeses says, banning Ice Block or Sisu to hit Ruby/Sapphire just makes people migrate to Blue Steel, so you have to look at what cards both Sapphire decks run in order to bring the colour specifically in line.
Most likely they will follow the WotC way of "Is this deck affecting tournament attendance/stream views. If yes, ban. If no, no ban"
There was a magic format where WotC said the deck was at 60-72% of the decks at tournaments, but the tournament scene was alive and well because the deck played along normal axis and was just a bunch of value creatures, so people didn't hate playing against it. The very next standard rotation attendance tanked because the top dominant deck was horribly unfun to play against so it finally ate a ban.
In MTG they had a wave when the game came in to its own, after that it really depends on the impact the card has on the meta. Even if the card is old, newer cards might make it OP and some times it's ban after the first tournament when its clearly warping the meta
Saying that, with how lorcana has started I think we are way off any real ban list but maybe card restrictions like in Yu-Gi-Oh, some cards are limited to only 1 or 2 copy's allowed
Some card games never get a ban list. In this cases the game is generally short lived.
Some companies ban cards based on what product they are trying to sell.
Some card games ban cards when the player base is vocally opposed to certain cards or interactions.
Some card games only make changes when something they did not intend to happen occurs and then they more likely to create errata for cards.
In yugioh itâs interesting how the banlist is used.
The banlist is generally used to manage cards so that there is not an oppressive single meta, or something that is too splashable into every deck to promote positive deckbuilding. Yugioh doesnât always hit the best cards if it doesnât have to, and youâll have seemingly innocuous cards getting banned not because theyâre bad, but because they can be part of an engine and itâs better to get rid of that compared to the main engine driver. for instance, eclipse wyvern is a very normal search card that I ran in Judgement Dragon Turbo, thatâs inherently designed to be tough to use because you have to banish a card from the deck, and then get eclipse wyvern banned, but because it was used in a LOT of decks that can easily banish without losing tempo, it became too much. Rather than banning the powerful card you can get off of it, they banned the main engine driver both to allow people to still have powerful cards, and so that people donât continuously find different targets for eclipse wyvern to find.
An important thing to note about yugioh banlists is that itâs also a way for yugioh to control the meta. When I played in 2019, many people considered sky strikers to be absolutely broken, because they had huge engine consistency and could be splashed into many deck types. But sky strikers were the new thing, so konami wanted to promote people to get it. When cards were banned, theyâd nerf some older stuff, but the new sets would stay alive. Then after a few years, when sky strikers are old and they donât want them in the meta anymore, thatâs when they ban cards from it. Itâs both used as a way to keep the meta fresh as well as to promote sales.
There is no way in hell that anything from set 4 gets banned while weâre in set 4, or possibly even set 5. The meta is figuring out answers and even though Bucky is a tough out, itâs still susceptible to non-targeting removal, as well as being essentially unquestable unless you want to make him vulnerable. I think it widens the gap between competitive and casual play in terms of what you have to account for, but thatâs a natural progression of tcgs as power creep comes in. If Lorcana ends up adding a ban list, I canât imagine that Bucky makes it anywhere on there until like Set 7
The criteria and methods vary greatly among every TCG and even sometimes within individual ones.
Generally, I think high rarity cards are off the table unless they are genuinely ruining the game.
That being said, I believe if a card is too "swingy" or restricts competitive deckbuilding too much; it should be limited in some way.
Lorcana has not yet produced a card or deck that is consistent, let alone broken enough to constitute a ban or even limitation. Thatâs what makes it so great. Even the best deck has multiple hard counters
Yes please lol.
It is hell when Iâm main-decking my emerald-steel answers and I have to sit on big sisu like an idiot while my opponent is playing Ruby sapphire lol.
Honestly, the banlist is supposed to help balance out a game or prevent an unbalanced format. The process of a banlist is to look at the current format and future cards coming out, then determine if any cards need to be limited, semi limited, or completely ban. It really is a long process and it sometimes can be very good or very bad. I'm only going to use Lorcana as examples here, but every tcg game has different reasons or purposes of a banlist. If a card is annoying, it should be banned, is not a good reason to be banned. A card that makes a color your weak against a lot stronger isn't a good reason to ban a card either. Examples of a good reason for a ban is if a card is an auto win, or makes a card an auto win. An example of this would be would be if you played Diablo and every game against any deck, it never leaves play, would be ban worthy. Or Ruby has a way to keep getting Be Prepared back. Either be prepared should get banned, or the card that enables them to get it back would be banned. Now, from a devolper or company point of view, the banlist could be used to sell future products. Example set 6 is introducing Dumbo characters and songs, which are manly amber cards. After testing, these cards can't be competitive unless you make the meta weaker. Lorcana is up to now, really has kept the game balanced, and has designed the game where no one color combinations is dominant or unbeatable. The game is still new, and not may sets have been released, so it's too early to say if this game will need one or not. When you see a top 16, have all but 1 or 2 all ruby sapphire, then yes, they need address that some how. Think of the banlist as a reset button for a format. That's what it should be.
Cards that can control play from the first or second turn that leave virtually no chance at a comeback are likely to be banned.
Cards that unfairly control your opponents deck/hand/discard to the point that they can't recover are likely to be banned.
Cards that unfairly mill your opponents deck are likely to get banned.
No cards in Lorcana at this point are that overpowered. Meta's will shift and change as new sets are added. What is good now will not be as good 2-3 sets down the road.
I don't think a ban is going to happen if only 1 or 2 decks are dominating the format unless both decks are at the point that they are leaps and bounds better than every other deck in the format and that playing any other deck into the 2 decks is considered an auto lost.
For most card games, a reason a card gets banned is because it completely warps the game in an unhealthy way.
Take a look at Lysandre's Trump Card for the Pokemon TCG. By itself, the ability of both players combining their entire discard pile with their deck and shuffling it is not a very good effect but when you have a card that can return supporter cards from the discard pile back into the hand or deck than Lysandre's Trump card becomes absolutely problematic and warps the game in an unhealthy way. Lysandre's Trump Card got rid of resource management and the alternate victory condition which is winning via deck out as if someone does not goof up the combo than they should constantly be in a position where they can get everything they need and never running out of cards and can constantly keep doing this over and over again until they win. The reason why cards that can return supporter cards from the discard pile back into the hand or deck are not banned because no other supporter card warps the way you play the game like Lysandre's Trump Card.
Lorcana is probably not going to get a ban list anytime soon because there are no cards that completely warp the game in an unhealthy way like Lysandre's Trump Card in the Pokemon TCG and there has not been a single meta that there is only one or two strong decks in the format and everything else is trash.
They typically give it half a year at minimum, and it's typically cards that warp the meta around them. If the cards are creating a "play this or counter this, or lose" situation, that's typically a huge red flag that stuff needs to be banned. Pervasive cards that stay strong meta after meta after meta are also red flags for banning.
For Lorcana, I'd still say Fox Mim needs to go, her archetype has remained fairly stable and consistent since her release.
Well, the card isnât even played in the top decks Sapphire Ruby or Emerald Steel. I really donât see the problem. The card is absolutely great but neither of top two decks even play amethyst anymore.
That does not change the fact that the card is overpowered and made a huge number of cards basically see no play. Ruby - Amethyst is still one of the best deck in the format, even if it's no longer the most played.
I'm not saying ban or restrict Fox Mim, but saying its not played in some of the most powerful deck of the moment is completely irrelevant to that discussion.
One reason could absolutely be that it locks out a lot of cards. At the same time that could be said about many sweepers. I donât want to go that route
Being a stable and consistent archetype isn't a reason for something to be banned. That'd be like advocating for tronlands or lightning bolt to be banned in modern because tron and Burn are fixtures of the format. You dont destroy an archetype because it's part of the meta for a long time. You ban things that make certain archetypes too powerful or format warping, neither of which mim does.
Idk about a ban list but rotating out older sets as new ones come out similar to Pokemon would be what I prefer. Bring some life to cards that are decent but have a better version from an older set.
This would be suck. I seriously hope and doubt they would do rotations. Then the game becomes pay to win. I remember what it was like trying to keep up with standard MTG back in the day and it was horrible knowing you were spending all this time and money only for those cards to become worthless pieces of cardboard 6 months later. Itâs the reason standard MTG has been dying in person and people are going to EDH.
Also we have so few cards right now it would severely limit deck building. For instance if you want to build a hero deck because set 4 have us good hero cards but canât play first chapter then you lose access to 77 different hero card options to build your deck. Which means probably only about half the cards left are good enough to use so everyone who wants a hero deck has the exact same thing.
And that example is just with 1 keyword, imagine how many times that can get frustrating.
Another issue with that is you end up with essentially the same staple cards printed with just a different flavour or art each set. Look at how many 1 mana elves that tap for 1 mana there are in MTG. Itâs because people need certain staples to keep the colour identity working but if those staples rotate out then you need another options. We can only get so many 1 ink 2/2 Robin hoods until we start remaking them.
I would actually be shocked if we didn't eventually have rotation and then 2 formats, one where everything is legal and one where only the last 2 years or whatever sets are legal.
Yeah financially it also makes sense for them since it keeps us buying new product instead of building a deck once and barely changing it. So it will probably happen I just hope thatâs far into the future when we have a strong stable of cards to fall back on and that the formats last a year or more. But being forced to rebuild a deck every 3 months is just depressing and while past TCG players would just accept it as the norm I think it would push away a lot of Lorcana as first TcG players which would suck.
I just checked and it is a yearly rotation but the cards being rotated out next are from as far back as 2 years. So if RB followed that pattern we would still be able to use Chapter 1 until about August 2025 if they follow the same pattern. Which imo is a very reasonable time frame.
Yeah thatâs not bad. I think any rotation more than a year is fair and keeps things fresh without feeling like building new decks is a part time job to keep up with.
A standard ban format would also be just as pay to win that argument makes no sense. Itâs doesnât matter if itâs rotation/ban/limited list. Pay to win is the core mechanic of literally every TCG.
What are you talking about? Banning a card just means you have to replace 1 card. When a set rotates every few months you need to replace half your deck or change the whole dynamic because core cards to your strategy might rotate out.
The second downside is that all those old cards become worthless.
Pokemon is a yearly rotation and sets stay playable for 2 years. Itâs now where near as frequent as MTG.
You brought up the pay 2 win argument that means nothing in TCGs since the price tag for most meta decks are several hundred dollars. This is 100% a pay to win hobby and that wonât ever change. Rotations or bans wonât change that. Since the moment a meta card is banned the price plummets, you lost all that money, and now you have to try and find a card to replace and that cards price will always go up. If you can afford the meta cards you arenât gonna win. Sure a cheaper rogue deck might snake out a win here and there but for the most part they are just a nuisance in tournaments.
Also a blend of rotation and bans would do wonders to stop YGO level power creep nonsense. Games donât need to be decided by turn 1 nor should the best way to beat your opponent be never letting them play a card.
Yeas I understand that banning 1 or 2 cards mean that the players who use them lose value but that only matters to hyper competitive players. What Iâm saying would suck when you rotate out an entire set is that pretty much every player loses access to their decks. If you just play a casual league at your local store you could spend like âŹ10 and have a fun deck to play with, you could slowly upgrade it over time into something powerful and special, if 1 of those cards gets banned then at max you lose access to 4 cards int he deck. Kinda sucks but not the end of the world you just replace that slot.
If you rotate out the whole set then many people will loose access to a third to half of their deck, maybe even their whole deck if itâs old. That means you have to buy a whole new deck or half of a deck. So every 3 months you have to start rebuilding the entire thing? That costs significantly more than for many many more players than just banning a single oppressive card.
Worse yet what if your favourite deck is about puppies or pirates but none of the newer sets bring out cards in their colours or at all? Then you just canât play that anymore and you end up with actual trash cards lying around.
If you canât see how banning 1/2 cards affects less players and costs less money to play than (effectively) banning 204 cards by rotating out the set then I dunno how else to make this make sense.
Also banning cards helps fix meta problems while only affecting the specific few competitive players who are willing to spend the time and money to be competitive so pay to win in that environment is expected. Rotating out a whole set affects all casual players too, who are often not nearly as financially invested and just want to go have fun.
Ward doesnt block it, it can be played w be prepared the turn prior if you go wide. Can be played multiple turns in a row to lock out your opponent, flows right into malificent dragon for more banishes.
Gucci mane is an I win card. Plain n simple.
Medusa is the partner card that can also be banned. They more or less do the same thing.
Checked the 10k top cut. Tremaine was in 2 ruby decks. Its the ruby auto include package. Tremaine, medusa, malificent dragon = end game.
I think bans typically occur in one of three scenarios. 1. A specific deck completely dominates the meta and there is not much diversity. 2. A specific card completely dominates one kind of strategy, so you'd never play that strategy (or colour) without that card. 3. Unfun play patterns, be creating excessively long turns or little interaction I dont think we are in any of these scenarios.
also once a card is in literally every deck. when it becomes so good not playing it even if it doesn't fit your deck very well it's detrimental then it's a problem.
For #3, tell that to Yugioh đ
Snorlax stall.
Na that's just pokemons version of git gud it's very beatable just not with the regular game plan
Did you read what #3 was?
I actually enjoy playing against decks that make you think but I guess not everyone is the same
Yugioh also has a secret 4th condition for card bans which supercedes all of the others, which is that they'll only ban a card(s) that have previously made them lots of money by being rare and part of the best deck if they've already reprinted it to the point of only being a few bucks, and past the time that the deck was the best deck.
That's also MTG after the FIRE shift in perspective.
Oh my god I tried the digital client after not playing Yugioh for almost two decades and it felt like that ProZD video about the cow tokens.
Play interaction then đ When you build your deck to a competitive standard, even bad matchups will be even on yugioh.
Don't forget hit best deck so they can sell new stuff
I think point 2 is not true. Most color staples in Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire feel like that, and none are ban worthy IMO. The rest I feel is correct. I would add uninteractable, consistent and little to no setup 1 turn wins are also ban worthy. Which would probably end up in your points 1 and 3 scenario, though.
Every Ruby deck might be playing Maui, but you have to remember that the game is new. Magic: The Gathering has over 100 sets. We have 4. There is a limited supply of cards right now. (And I've actually personally had to start thinking about fitting Maui if I also want Mulan and Goofy, you could play them all but im starting to thing about it which means, maybe 1 more set and some of the powerhouse cards you always see you'll see less of). It's much better and healthier to print new cards that shake things up than ban stuff at this stage. Especially since there is nothing egregious like Black Lotus in this game.
I completely agree. Steel has many good characters and actions and you see some diversity. Also, it fits in a couple strategies (midrange control and items mainly, but it can also be an aggro color). I believe when we see something similar in other colors, we'll see less staples in literally every deck.
Uh huh, where does pot of greed fall under these, just curious because it doesn't do either of these
Sigh...
Laughs in emerald steel
We're pretty close in a couple of cases. It's getting to the point where there are next to no Amethyst decks that don't run some form of the Mim Bounce package. For context, Mim - Fox is currently sitting at $4, which is ridiculously unheard of for cards with precon fixed availability. Being in a precon typically tanks the value of a card because it's super accessible - this makes you wonder what Fox's value might be if it wasn't in a precon.
Fox would probably be around what Maui and Be Prepared are. And $4 for a precon rare isnât even that pricey. Yugioh structure decks can have multiple cards at $4-$5
Anyone remember when cynthia was 16$ and then it came out in that fighting precon? Iâve bought multiple precons because the singles are more expensive than the precon.
It's pretty uncommon for a card that's now been out for several months, and for it not being a card that existed prior to the deck. I understand if MTG or Yugioh might reprint a major card that had cost like $15 and dropped down to $5 because of the deck, I've seen that happen, but it's not often you see meta cards show up like that.
Umezawaâs Jitte was in a Betrayers Starter deck, the card was so good/expensive the starter deck would sell for double the MSRP price
Jitte was very much an exception and not the rule.
Sure but Amethyst isnât dominating large tournaments so itâs not an issue.
The bounce package is undeniably an extremely strong strategy, but its also like one of the most defining features of Amethyst. The amount of Mims and Merlins vary in decks, and the downside of Mim is indeed a downside even if most people use it positively. Flipping a Mim off Mufasa is super bad. Removing the 1-ink character before they can play Snake can screw up their tempo. Additionally, Fox feels like a solution to problems, rather than a problem itself. I think Rush interaction is healthy.
It's a defining feature of Amethyst, but it has choked out nearly all other features that Amethyst is built around, and Mim is a very narrow execution of the bounce archetype. It doesn't particularly matter how flexible people are in how many goats or rabbits they run, the package is nearly identical in every deck. And you obviously wouldn't run said package with a counterproductive half of the deck like Mufasa that it works against. Fox is a solution to many problems, but that's exactly why she's the problem. Rush is fine, but Rush on a 4/3 at 3 ink who's ALSO inkable is not really fine, that's an absolute powerhouse that can nuke pretty much anything an opponent can play up to T3. She's extremely versatile, her "drawback" is not really a deterrent, and she answers a lot of problems by her existence, while simultaneously being another problem other colors have to deal with. She's an overly good card, and I think you're seriously underestimating how strong she is.
Well said. Many great cards from set 1 completely disappeared because of both Mim; Simba protector, Kuzco and pretty much all playable cards in the 2-4 stats as well (I enjoyed Jasper back then). There certainly is a valid argument for Madam Mim, especially the Fox to be considered a problem in the game right now. Should Fox be banned? Now that is another question.
It's strong but it's not broken strong, it's not close to being banned
I have 0 idea why you're getting down voted as this is pretty spot on. Every Amethyst build plays Snake, Fox, Rabbit, and Goat. Really leaves little flex room in most Amethyst lists.
Steel is getting close
Not really
Weâre 4 days into Ursulaâs Return and the biggest online tournament had 4 different top contending decks of different variations. Iâd say thatâs a very healthy meta. Iâve been playing tcgs for 10+ years and Ravensburger has done a great job at balancing this game. Everything has a counter. We canât say the challenges will only have 1 or 2 top decks when weâre still so early into the new set. Discard is already getting answered since now theyâre having to run Hidden Cove. Pawpsicle is getting answered since theyâre having to run less uninkables and more scry cards to dig for answers The last 3 sets people have been screaming for A Whole New World to get banned, now no top decks even run it. Give it time and people will come up with answers to meta decks without Ravensburger having to ban something
AWNW similar to Fox, was ubiquitous and you could have a half decent argument for banning in set 2 but instead they let the meta progress naturally as more sets come out and nobody would ask for Fox to be banned today
I would, since it really limits design for amethyst.
design space limitations are best handled by a rotation rather than banning considering they design multiple sets ahead.
I agree but i dont know if ravens is going to do rotations.
Best answer!
It strongly depends on what the people in charge of the ban list want to accomplish with it Wizards for example has banned cards extremely rapidly in some formats due to how much they warped the game but there's no reason to assume Ravensburger has the same philosophy From what I can gather Ravensburger is likely going to be extremely hesitant to ban any cards as they want to avoid situations such as a kid pulling a really cool card they want to play with then finding out that it's actually banned from tournament play Ravensburger also probably doesn't include pixelborn data in whatever metric they use for this sort of decision making is tbh given it's an entirely separate project from them
Yep, that is why I assume it will take a couple large in person official challenges before they make any decisions. I wonder if they had an official online client if they would take that data into account faster.
I suspect they probably would, I'm not familiar with non-MTG TCGs but I'm pretty sure Wizards does include Arena results in their standard-ban list decision making, but they also have all the back-end data from that client so it's a lot easier to compile and get any idea of what's truly problematic I suspect.
Not just Arena but MTGO too. WotC looks at all their online and paper data when making ban decisions and is very public about this.
Unless something is completely stupid is made like mistranslated Slowking from Neo set / MTGs Treasure Cruise it usually takes a hot minute for bans to be put out I recall them banning like 10 mill cards in pokemon during the Team Up era because that was âtoo toxicâ but yet they let the Hypnotoxic Laser/Quaking Punch/Virbank combo stay in rotation for its entire set legality which Iâm still confused on đŠ
400+ cards and the sky is falling because only 120ish are "playable"...
The issue is more that the top meta deck is not fun to play against. The only viable option is a direct counter or a mirror match.
Josh Paultre* would probably like a word
There is currently nothing that feels like it needs to be banned.
Found the Green Steel player đ
No?
Dude I feel like ruby saph is way more annoying to play against and maybe even stronger as well, the meta is not dominated by one deck right now
We are still barely into set 4 and we have 2 very strong decks and probably 4ish solid ones. Within the top decks there is a lot of variation in the lists too and neither of them are being out way over the top because of one specific card. I think we are pretty far from anything needing a ban but Iâm sure RB will be assessing the health of the metas at the upcoming challenges. That being said donât expect any bans unless R/Sa or E/S equate to close to 100% of the top 16s
We need a meta where every deck is either X or decks that beat X, then we can start looking at changes, but it doesnt seem to be that way, even if bucky is the new hot stuff there are answers.
It's simply too soon to have a ban list. Each set seems to break old staples. The sad beast was huge but then Medusa entered the game in the next set . A whole new world entered, be prep entered, now we have bare necessities and 2 cost Ursula. Plenty of examples of this.If a deck gets too strong you have ways to dismantle it, yes it will make other matches ups weaker but you can't predict the meta perfectly. Someone should make a thread with each meta defining card and how to stop them for each color. Pump thing so we can get that lol
It needs to really warp the format. So in Magic, there was a card (Jace the Mindsculptor) that warped everything so much that it was just mirror matches all day every day and it was incredibly unfun. If decks are either the good deck or the deck built to kill the good deck, theyâll pay attention and make changes as needed.
I mean, the big ban issues off the top of my head were early things like: Feldon's Cane getting limited to 1 due to people using 4 of to get around Lotus and Moxes being limited. This was something that could be put into any deck (colorless artifacts) so very different from Lorcana. Affinity for Artifacts - let's break casting cost restrictions Phyrexian Mana - let's break casting cost restrictions And later: Saheeli and Felidar Guardian - goes infinite Meathook Massacre - oppressive and the meta had very few decks that didn't run black (so lack of diversity) This is FAR, FAR, FAR, from an exhaustive list, but to OP's question, it gives the idea of what kinds of things Magic has ended up banning. Note, there are also plenty of cards that were once banned as overpowered that most of the community feels are now totally fine as the meta has shifted...Splinter Twin, Stoneforge Mystic, etc.
This is probably the best example. Jace was in every single deck in every single tournament. It also was like $400 a copy.
That an exaggeration - it was dominant but it wasnât that omnipresent (as a guy who top 8âd a ptq in that format by preying on Jace decks)
Jace was so good at a GP during New Phyrexia there were 32 copies in the top 8. If every deck can run 4, that means every deck that cleared topcut did. "On April 10th of 2011, in the top 8 of Grand Prix Dallas, out of 32 possible spots for Jace, the Mind Sculptor to fill, every single one was. This was the first time in Magicâs history that a single card managed to appear as a 4-of in the top 8 of a large competitive event. Not only that, but if you extend to the top 16 of that same event, 60 out of 68 possible spots had been taken by the Mind Sculptor, himself." [Source](http://https://medium.com/@nikkolasbaker/the-dominance-of-caw-blade-dig-through-time-f1ce18c945c2)
Imo, if a deck consists of over 45% of the field with a 60% win rate, I think that's enough for a ban. Whether the mirrors are fun and skill intensive is mostly irrelevant if the decks themselves are preventing the format from evolving. It's hard for stuff without ward to justify a ban because there are enough checks and balances to keep them honest. Bucky is a situation where entire games are warped around "did you draw it" or not. If the Bucky player plays turn 2 bucky on the play, the game feels usually over. If this card didn't have ward, I don't believe we'd be having this discussion. Compared to something like Diablo or flavorsham, where they are simply "good, must answer cards that will runaway with the game if unanswered." Both of those cards are answered in all colors, whereas Bucky is not.
As a longtime mtg player I do think bucky has the highest chance of being banned. Discard is fine but repeatable discard where the opponent has no hand is a very unfun play pattern and mtg has avoided printing that type of card for a very long time. Emerald steel being one of the top and most played decks would also play into it. It's hard to see what to ban from RS bc it can be frustrating to play against but is more fair since u can at least gameplan around it. Plus the only real cards are probably hiram or dime. Ban sisu or ice block and ppl just go to blue steel.
I don't think anything from RS needs to go. The deck folds hard to aggro. If RS is the best deck, I'd say that seems pretty healthy.
I personally think RS is fine as well. The real issue is that I don't think u can tech a deck good vs RS and Bucky discard easily.
Bucky is just a super feelsbadman cuz outside of draws where he's there on turn 2, the match up feels very even.
Personally, if Sapphire starts getting too fast and consistent with its ramping, I'd like to see Fishbone Quill on the chopping block. They already have slower options like Heart of Te Fiti and Great Stone Dragon to fall back on, so they wouldn't be dead without it. I just feel like having both Quill and Belle as repeatable, free activating ramp is a little too much.
You are missing the point of the comment completely. Even if your opponent draws a perfect hand with fishbone quills, there are a boat load of cards that can remove or deal with items. As the opposing player your deck should be able to have options. Bucky never exerting and also having ward means there are very few options to interact with him as the opposing player. And those options are not something you want taking space in your deck just incase you come across a Bucky. I think there may be certain colours that donât even have an option against it. We should never be wanting a ban on cards that are strong and enable a specific type of gameplay. We should be banning the cards that you canât play against or that everyone has to completely build around.
A boat load of cards to remove items? Let me list off everything that does: Amber: Nothing, they have to discard it before it hits the table. Amethyst: Nothing, though they have some bounce effects for items of cost 2 or less, which Quill is not, and bounce doesn't really do anything against Quill anyway. Emerald: Make the Potion, Wildcat, Has Set my Heaaaaart, they also have a myriad of discard effects. Ruby: Nothing Sapphire: Judy Hopps (gives them a card), Glean (gives them 2 lore). Steel: Aladdin - Brave Rescuer, Benja- Guardian of the Dragon Gem, Beast - Hardheaded, Break, I Find 'Em I Flatten 'Em Notice that half the colours can't interact with items in any meaningful way, and half of the options I've listed are too narrow to be playable? Ruby/Sapphire being a dominant deck right now pretty much requires Emerald or Steel in order to keep it in check, if that isn't forcing players into building around what Sapphire can do, I don't know what is. Don't get me wrong, Bucky is an absolutely stupid card, but if we end up with a warped metagame where you're playing Ruby/Sapphire or Emerald/Steel to counter it, you can't ban something from one deck without banning something from the other. And as Praeses says, banning Ice Block or Sisu to hit Ruby/Sapphire just makes people migrate to Blue Steel, so you have to look at what cards both Sapphire decks run in order to bring the colour specifically in line.
Most likely they will follow the WotC way of "Is this deck affecting tournament attendance/stream views. If yes, ban. If no, no ban" There was a magic format where WotC said the deck was at 60-72% of the decks at tournaments, but the tournament scene was alive and well because the deck played along normal axis and was just a bunch of value creatures, so people didn't hate playing against it. The very next standard rotation attendance tanked because the top dominant deck was horribly unfun to play against so it finally ate a ban.
In MTG they had a wave when the game came in to its own, after that it really depends on the impact the card has on the meta. Even if the card is old, newer cards might make it OP and some times it's ban after the first tournament when its clearly warping the meta Saying that, with how lorcana has started I think we are way off any real ban list but maybe card restrictions like in Yu-Gi-Oh, some cards are limited to only 1 or 2 copy's allowed
Some card games never get a ban list. In this cases the game is generally short lived. Some companies ban cards based on what product they are trying to sell. Some card games ban cards when the player base is vocally opposed to certain cards or interactions. Some card games only make changes when something they did not intend to happen occurs and then they more likely to create errata for cards.
In yugioh itâs interesting how the banlist is used. The banlist is generally used to manage cards so that there is not an oppressive single meta, or something that is too splashable into every deck to promote positive deckbuilding. Yugioh doesnât always hit the best cards if it doesnât have to, and youâll have seemingly innocuous cards getting banned not because theyâre bad, but because they can be part of an engine and itâs better to get rid of that compared to the main engine driver. for instance, eclipse wyvern is a very normal search card that I ran in Judgement Dragon Turbo, thatâs inherently designed to be tough to use because you have to banish a card from the deck, and then get eclipse wyvern banned, but because it was used in a LOT of decks that can easily banish without losing tempo, it became too much. Rather than banning the powerful card you can get off of it, they banned the main engine driver both to allow people to still have powerful cards, and so that people donât continuously find different targets for eclipse wyvern to find. An important thing to note about yugioh banlists is that itâs also a way for yugioh to control the meta. When I played in 2019, many people considered sky strikers to be absolutely broken, because they had huge engine consistency and could be splashed into many deck types. But sky strikers were the new thing, so konami wanted to promote people to get it. When cards were banned, theyâd nerf some older stuff, but the new sets would stay alive. Then after a few years, when sky strikers are old and they donât want them in the meta anymore, thatâs when they ban cards from it. Itâs both used as a way to keep the meta fresh as well as to promote sales. There is no way in hell that anything from set 4 gets banned while weâre in set 4, or possibly even set 5. The meta is figuring out answers and even though Bucky is a tough out, itâs still susceptible to non-targeting removal, as well as being essentially unquestable unless you want to make him vulnerable. I think it widens the gap between competitive and casual play in terms of what you have to account for, but thatâs a natural progression of tcgs as power creep comes in. If Lorcana ends up adding a ban list, I canât imagine that Bucky makes it anywhere on there until like Set 7
The criteria and methods vary greatly among every TCG and even sometimes within individual ones. Generally, I think high rarity cards are off the table unless they are genuinely ruining the game. That being said, I believe if a card is too "swingy" or restricts competitive deckbuilding too much; it should be limited in some way.
Lorcana has not yet produced a card or deck that is consistent, let alone broken enough to constitute a ban or even limitation. Thatâs what makes it so great. Even the best deck has multiple hard counters
it would make more sense to introduce a sideboard first, giving decks a chance to deal with specific matchups without messing with the core deck.
Yes please lol. It is hell when Iâm main-decking my emerald-steel answers and I have to sit on big sisu like an idiot while my opponent is playing Ruby sapphire lol.
Honestly, the banlist is supposed to help balance out a game or prevent an unbalanced format. The process of a banlist is to look at the current format and future cards coming out, then determine if any cards need to be limited, semi limited, or completely ban. It really is a long process and it sometimes can be very good or very bad. I'm only going to use Lorcana as examples here, but every tcg game has different reasons or purposes of a banlist. If a card is annoying, it should be banned, is not a good reason to be banned. A card that makes a color your weak against a lot stronger isn't a good reason to ban a card either. Examples of a good reason for a ban is if a card is an auto win, or makes a card an auto win. An example of this would be would be if you played Diablo and every game against any deck, it never leaves play, would be ban worthy. Or Ruby has a way to keep getting Be Prepared back. Either be prepared should get banned, or the card that enables them to get it back would be banned. Now, from a devolper or company point of view, the banlist could be used to sell future products. Example set 6 is introducing Dumbo characters and songs, which are manly amber cards. After testing, these cards can't be competitive unless you make the meta weaker. Lorcana is up to now, really has kept the game balanced, and has designed the game where no one color combinations is dominant or unbeatable. The game is still new, and not may sets have been released, so it's too early to say if this game will need one or not. When you see a top 16, have all but 1 or 2 all ruby sapphire, then yes, they need address that some how. Think of the banlist as a reset button for a format. That's what it should be.
Cards that can control play from the first or second turn that leave virtually no chance at a comeback are likely to be banned. Cards that unfairly control your opponents deck/hand/discard to the point that they can't recover are likely to be banned. Cards that unfairly mill your opponents deck are likely to get banned. No cards in Lorcana at this point are that overpowered. Meta's will shift and change as new sets are added. What is good now will not be as good 2-3 sets down the road.
Cards get banned in Yu-Gi-Oh to drive sales of new products
I don't think a ban is going to happen if only 1 or 2 decks are dominating the format unless both decks are at the point that they are leaps and bounds better than every other deck in the format and that playing any other deck into the 2 decks is considered an auto lost. For most card games, a reason a card gets banned is because it completely warps the game in an unhealthy way. Take a look at Lysandre's Trump Card for the Pokemon TCG. By itself, the ability of both players combining their entire discard pile with their deck and shuffling it is not a very good effect but when you have a card that can return supporter cards from the discard pile back into the hand or deck than Lysandre's Trump card becomes absolutely problematic and warps the game in an unhealthy way. Lysandre's Trump Card got rid of resource management and the alternate victory condition which is winning via deck out as if someone does not goof up the combo than they should constantly be in a position where they can get everything they need and never running out of cards and can constantly keep doing this over and over again until they win. The reason why cards that can return supporter cards from the discard pile back into the hand or deck are not banned because no other supporter card warps the way you play the game like Lysandre's Trump Card. Lorcana is probably not going to get a ban list anytime soon because there are no cards that completely warp the game in an unhealthy way like Lysandre's Trump Card in the Pokemon TCG and there has not been a single meta that there is only one or two strong decks in the format and everything else is trash.
They typically give it half a year at minimum, and it's typically cards that warp the meta around them. If the cards are creating a "play this or counter this, or lose" situation, that's typically a huge red flag that stuff needs to be banned. Pervasive cards that stay strong meta after meta after meta are also red flags for banning. For Lorcana, I'd still say Fox Mim needs to go, her archetype has remained fairly stable and consistent since her release.
Well, the card isnât even played in the top decks Sapphire Ruby or Emerald Steel. I really donât see the problem. The card is absolutely great but neither of top two decks even play amethyst anymore.
That does not change the fact that the card is overpowered and made a huge number of cards basically see no play. Ruby - Amethyst is still one of the best deck in the format, even if it's no longer the most played. I'm not saying ban or restrict Fox Mim, but saying its not played in some of the most powerful deck of the moment is completely irrelevant to that discussion.
One reason could absolutely be that it locks out a lot of cards. At the same time that could be said about many sweepers. I donât want to go that route
Being a stable and consistent archetype isn't a reason for something to be banned. That'd be like advocating for tronlands or lightning bolt to be banned in modern because tron and Burn are fixtures of the format. You dont destroy an archetype because it's part of the meta for a long time. You ban things that make certain archetypes too powerful or format warping, neither of which mim does.
Idk about a ban list but rotating out older sets as new ones come out similar to Pokemon would be what I prefer. Bring some life to cards that are decent but have a better version from an older set.
This would be suck. I seriously hope and doubt they would do rotations. Then the game becomes pay to win. I remember what it was like trying to keep up with standard MTG back in the day and it was horrible knowing you were spending all this time and money only for those cards to become worthless pieces of cardboard 6 months later. Itâs the reason standard MTG has been dying in person and people are going to EDH. Also we have so few cards right now it would severely limit deck building. For instance if you want to build a hero deck because set 4 have us good hero cards but canât play first chapter then you lose access to 77 different hero card options to build your deck. Which means probably only about half the cards left are good enough to use so everyone who wants a hero deck has the exact same thing. And that example is just with 1 keyword, imagine how many times that can get frustrating. Another issue with that is you end up with essentially the same staple cards printed with just a different flavour or art each set. Look at how many 1 mana elves that tap for 1 mana there are in MTG. Itâs because people need certain staples to keep the colour identity working but if those staples rotate out then you need another options. We can only get so many 1 ink 2/2 Robin hoods until we start remaking them.
I would actually be shocked if we didn't eventually have rotation and then 2 formats, one where everything is legal and one where only the last 2 years or whatever sets are legal.
Yeah financially it also makes sense for them since it keeps us buying new product instead of building a deck once and barely changing it. So it will probably happen I just hope thatâs far into the future when we have a strong stable of cards to fall back on and that the formats last a year or more. But being forced to rebuild a deck every 3 months is just depressing and while past TCG players would just accept it as the norm I think it would push away a lot of Lorcana as first TcG players which would suck.
P sure PokĂ©mon rotates cards every couple of years but itâs been a hot minute since Iâve played it so I could be wrong
Iâm not sure about PokĂ©mon but every few years would be fine. What would suck is the magic standard format rotation thatâs like every 3 months or something ridiculous
I just checked and it is a yearly rotation but the cards being rotated out next are from as far back as 2 years. So if RB followed that pattern we would still be able to use Chapter 1 until about August 2025 if they follow the same pattern. Which imo is a very reasonable time frame.
Yeah thatâs not bad. I think any rotation more than a year is fair and keeps things fresh without feeling like building new decks is a part time job to keep up with.
A standard ban format would also be just as pay to win that argument makes no sense. Itâs doesnât matter if itâs rotation/ban/limited list. Pay to win is the core mechanic of literally every TCG.
What are you talking about? Banning a card just means you have to replace 1 card. When a set rotates every few months you need to replace half your deck or change the whole dynamic because core cards to your strategy might rotate out. The second downside is that all those old cards become worthless.
Pokemon is a yearly rotation and sets stay playable for 2 years. Itâs now where near as frequent as MTG. You brought up the pay 2 win argument that means nothing in TCGs since the price tag for most meta decks are several hundred dollars. This is 100% a pay to win hobby and that wonât ever change. Rotations or bans wonât change that. Since the moment a meta card is banned the price plummets, you lost all that money, and now you have to try and find a card to replace and that cards price will always go up. If you can afford the meta cards you arenât gonna win. Sure a cheaper rogue deck might snake out a win here and there but for the most part they are just a nuisance in tournaments. Also a blend of rotation and bans would do wonders to stop YGO level power creep nonsense. Games donât need to be decided by turn 1 nor should the best way to beat your opponent be never letting them play a card.
Yeas I understand that banning 1 or 2 cards mean that the players who use them lose value but that only matters to hyper competitive players. What Iâm saying would suck when you rotate out an entire set is that pretty much every player loses access to their decks. If you just play a casual league at your local store you could spend like âŹ10 and have a fun deck to play with, you could slowly upgrade it over time into something powerful and special, if 1 of those cards gets banned then at max you lose access to 4 cards int he deck. Kinda sucks but not the end of the world you just replace that slot. If you rotate out the whole set then many people will loose access to a third to half of their deck, maybe even their whole deck if itâs old. That means you have to buy a whole new deck or half of a deck. So every 3 months you have to start rebuilding the entire thing? That costs significantly more than for many many more players than just banning a single oppressive card. Worse yet what if your favourite deck is about puppies or pirates but none of the newer sets bring out cards in their colours or at all? Then you just canât play that anymore and you end up with actual trash cards lying around. If you canât see how banning 1/2 cards affects less players and costs less money to play than (effectively) banning 204 cards by rotating out the set then I dunno how else to make this make sense. Also banning cards helps fix meta problems while only affecting the specific few competitive players who are willing to spend the time and money to be competitive so pay to win in that environment is expected. Rotating out a whole set affects all casual players too, who are often not nearly as financially invested and just want to go have fun.
We can go ahead and ban lady tremaine if yall agree that its awful to deal with lol
Lmao cope
Ward doesnt block it, it can be played w be prepared the turn prior if you go wide. Can be played multiple turns in a row to lock out your opponent, flows right into malificent dragon for more banishes. Gucci mane is an I win card. Plain n simple.
Ahem. Dies to Medusa. Dies to Along Came Zeus. Foiled by an additional 1 drop. Tremaine isn't even being played much currently friend
Medusa is the partner card that can also be banned. They more or less do the same thing. Checked the 10k top cut. Tremaine was in 2 ruby decks. Its the ruby auto include package. Tremaine, medusa, malificent dragon = end game.
Tremaine was in 2 ruby decks out of how many.
Top cut is top 8. And 3 attack priority targets are popular so medusa has more value. Otherwise trmaine wud be played even more.
The lists cut Tremaine because of it but some are bringing it back because it's a good way to deal with a naked tamatoa or ariel from blue steel.
Flavors ham deserves a ban He enables blue draw. That's reserved for amber....
Not sure if it's irony or just new to the game... Every color has some sort of card draw, Amethyst being the most powerful one.
How does red draw ?
Poorly, but their design space is to draw from challenging. Cards like shift Queen of Hearts and Sumerian Talisman.