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

12 Apr 2012 14:19 #27752 by M.Schumacher

Izaak wrote:

The Una deck can be stopped several ways, and rarely wins tournaments.


Wrong on both accounts. It's not easy to stop and requires some bad luck on Una's part. It also *does* win a tournaments somewhat regularly.


There are 4 Una Freak Show decks in the TWDA.
2011 16 players
2011 10 players
2010 35 players
2008 12 players

Not an opinion, just the facts.

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

More
12 Apr 2012 15:53 #27758 by ICL
Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network. Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play where RoF is usually awful, sometimes quirky, and only problematic enough to generate this thread because of the far better card.

I could also point out that Madness Network isn't the only "act of turn" card that can be annoying, though I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks.

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

More
12 Apr 2012 16:07 #27759 by Kushiel

ICL wrote: Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network.


RoF/MN gets you extra untaps, MPAs, transfers, discards and actions, and prevents other people from having any of same. Since all the cards in the game are balanced around the premise that players will take turns in order, bypassing that premise throws everything out of whack.

MN alone just gets you extra actions. That those actions take place on other players' turns doesn't overturn the basic structure of the game, it just makes minion phases more complicated (and, interestingly, has the potential to increase interactivity between players by adding a small minigame that doesn't exist otherwise).

Since an RoF ban affects one game-breaking deck, but a MN ban affects loads of non-game-breaking decks, it's unfair to ruin non-game-breaking decks as collateral damage when there's a much more elegant solution.

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

More
12 Apr 2012 16:08 #27760 by Ohlmann

ICL wrote: Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play.


Well, Madness network alone is also arguably less powerful than, for example, Freak Drive, Govern the unaligned, or deflection. And less disruptive to play than, say, Direct Intervention or First Tradition. And as you say there is a lot of deck that can play Madness Network as a regular, non broken card.

Reversal of fortune is the main target because it's not exactly widely used outside of combo decks. As would say Izaak, it's not that the card is powerful that cause trouble here : it's that it's bad for the game.

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

More
12 Apr 2012 16:13 - 12 Apr 2012 16:16 #27761 by Surreal

ICL wrote: Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network. Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play where RoF is usually awful, sometimes quirky, and only problematic enough to generate this thread because of the far better card.

I could also point out that Madness Network isn't the only "act of turn" card that can be annoying, though I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks.


This has been already discussed in this topic so I don't say it again. I don't think your reasoning is right. I think Madness Network is a example of a good card designed which bends the rules but doesn't break the game.

Kushiel said:

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.


I don't understand this opinion of yours "I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks."

Malks make very good S+B deck but MN will not benefit that deck a lot. MN offers completely new strategy and deck type for the game. That is the best card design in my book. I would be totally up for giving strong combat deck for Malks also if it would bring new interesting decks to table and not make the existing malk decks stronger at same time.
Last edit: 12 Apr 2012 16:16 by Surreal.

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

More
12 Apr 2012 16:53 #27764 by TorranceCircle

Surreal wrote:
I don't understand this opinion of yours "I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks."

Malks make very good S+B deck but MN will not benefit that deck a lot. MN offers completely new strategy and deck type for the game. That is the best card design in my book. I would be totally up for giving strong combat deck for Malks also if it would bring new interesting decks to table and not make the existing malk decks stronger at same time.


I think he was being facetious. I don't think he really thinks Malks have a hard time winning. Sometimes communicative intent is lost on the internet. I hope he was being facetious ;)

fa·ce·tious [fuh-see-shuhs]
adjective
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.

2. amusing; humorous.

3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.188 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum