question-circle What should be done with Reversal of Fortune?

12 Apr 2012 01:56 #27703 by Klaital
RoF doesn't do anything about the mechanic of people taking turns one after another, its Madness Network that enables that to happen. Thats the whole point of Madness Network to allow you to take extra turns so to speak, and RoF isn't nearly the only card it is abused with, see the various Rachel Brandywine decks for example. If you want to remove the someone taking extra turns thing you should ban Madness Network.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2012 02:38 - 12 Apr 2012 02:39 #27704 by Kushiel

Klaital wrote: RoF doesn't do anything about the mechanic of people taking turns one after another, its Madness Network that enables that to happen. Thats the whole point of Madness Network to allow you to take extra turns so to speak, and RoF isn't nearly the only card it is abused with, see the various Rachel Brandywine decks for example. If you want to remove the someone taking extra turns thing you should ban Madness Network.


Madness Network doesn't give anyone at the table any more phases (untap, master, minion, influence, discard), even in the purely optimal circumstance of no one removing it and having all your Malks untapped every turn. MN/RoF gives two players more phases while taking away all phases from other players at the table. See the difference?

You're right that MN is usable in more decks than MN/RoF (though I think "abusable" is too strong a word for it). That's why, if the MN/RoF deck needs to be removed from the tournament environment, RoF is the card that should go, because that'll have no impact on the tournament scene other than removing the MN/RoF deck, which is the goal of the proposed errata'ing/banning. Changing or banning MN would have much wider implications, and disallow perfectly balanced decks. That's the opposite of the desired outcome here, for everyone.
Last edit: 12 Apr 2012 02:39 by Kushiel.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ankha

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2012 04:01 #27706 by direwolf
You cite a very specific example of Madness Network and Reversal of Fortune causing a problem.

Each of those cards on their own is fine. Part of any collectible card game is the possibility that a player will find a combination of cards that produces an undesirable effect.

In the case of "turbo" decks it's generally acceptable, because it's fairly hard to do.

It could be argued that Madness Network + Reversal of Fortune goes well beyond what is "acceptable." But as I mentioned above, both cards are fine by themselves, so it would be prudent to find a solution that hoses the combination without wallpapering either card.

Reversal of Fortune was printed in the original set: It was intended to be common enough that the counter to it was the card itself.

After X number of expansions, that is no longer relevant.

A simple solution could be to add "Another Reversal of Fortune cannot be called until each Methuselah has taken his or her turn."

Or "This Methuselah may not call another Reversal of Fortune until another players calls a Reversal of Fortune."

Please, keep it simple, keep it elegant.

:tore: :pre: :tem: :aus: Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2012 04:10 #27707 by Marcus Vitel
What about "only usable by a vampire above 7" ? or "unique, put in play, during your untap phase burn this card ?" or "only 2 Rof can be played in a game"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2012 07:46 - 12 Apr 2012 08:33 #27727 by alf
Hi guys,

I've played like 5 or 6 tournament games against Una and had to wait between 30 and 60 minutes in most of them after Una went viral.
I've played maybe 8 to 10 tournament games against turbo-type or Tupdog decks which really screwed the table dynamics.
I've played numerous tournament games against weenies which ousted me or someone else in less then 30 minutes or left a screwed table dynamics.
I've played zero tournament games against Reversal of Fortune.
In case I had, maybe I would have to wait an hour or would experience a screwed table.

Nothing from this above would made me
- stop playing the game
- cry for banning card X
- hope that card Y gets errata.

Maybe that's just me.

Cheers
Alf

<INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>
Last edit: 12 Apr 2012 08:33 by alf.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, acbishop, Boris The Blade, Pendargon, Poci

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2012 10:15 #27732 by Izaak
Well, good for you and the 3 people that "liked" your post. I'm glad for you that you don't feel having broken strategies and decks possible is harmful for the game.

It's very nice for you and the people you play with that they don't mind traveling 3-4 hours to a tournament only to get 2 of their 3 games getting messed up by aforementioned broken decks. It's wonderful that these people still return to tournaments even if it's just a complete waste of their free saturday or sunday.

However, for everyone else, I'd MUCH prefer these three specific zero-fun decks to go. Not because I hate them personally (which I still do), but also because I want people to have a good time at my tournaments and return next time because they had FUN.

I have "lost" at least two new players from returning to a tournament three years ago because they both had to sit with an Una deck in two of their three games. These two people decided that tournaments were stupid, unfun and a waste of their time. Only because they had to sit next to Una for 45 minutes. I never heard from them again. This is BAD FOR THE GAME.

That alone is enough reason to fix Una (once per turn Una can..., see also Nergal), ban Reversal of Fortunes (nobody plays it anyway unless it's in a stupid deck) and ban Tupdog (because the card by its very design is broken).

The collateral damage would be so minimal it's not even worth discussing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.160 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum