Limit master cards?

RoddimusPrime wrote:

My point isn't that X card(s) = Ashur Tablets/MMPA. My point is that I have seen quite a few different things come up along the way in VTES about things being OP, people clamoring for a card to get banned or altered (like the ones I mentioned), and there are few times where it is warranted. The Imbued who were brought into a game when operating on their own mechanics screwed things over a little and with the two cards gone that really gave them an edge (no pun intended) the game was much more balanced.

Oh, you have “seen quite a few different things” and all is fine. That is _not_ an argument for MMPA:s/generic recursion should not be fixed. I have also “seen quite a few different things” and all was _not_ fine. Kindred Restructure was banned. Imbued had cards banned. PTO was banned. Villein was altered. I rest my case.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Keep in mind only so many people visit these forums. And to be honest I am more concerned about keeping people rather than introducing more difficulties or changes in the game at this point. And yes, give enough changes to a now defunct game and you risk shedding a few players.

Why would banning/errata/rule fixes scare away now active players? I experience that both old/returning players and newbies/potential players are more scared of new, complex mechanics that "brakes" the game than if a certain card or rule is altered a bit.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

And like any other tables that declare someone an issue (Imbued Table Poison, Malk 94, etc.), people tend to work together to solve such issues.

This argument is of course interesting. Sure it´s fun with people convincing other people a certain deck at the table is a threat, but this also have alot of drawbacks. People enter weird deals, newbies counting make out of game considerations ("Oh he is my pal" or "Oh he won the last tournament, he must be right), people not getting the chance to play the game etc.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

Further, as someone else pointed out Ashur Tablets are used in decks that don't do the whole MMPA trick with Anthelios/Master tricks.

I have no idea why someone would do this, unless you play with people that don´t own enough cards or not are allowed to use proxy. Decks with MMPA:s would in almost every game win the Tablet-race.

RoddimusPrime wrote:

But, you cannot force others to believe what you do. And while that may not be your goal, it sometimes comes across that only your opinion counts as the truth. Not a good way to convince people.

I am not really sure how to respond to this, but it is a common non-argument that just because someone states an opinion at a web forum, they are trying to "force" people to think that way. I try to use arguments that can be testet and argued against. That´s it.

Lönkka wrote:

Is this the same Sweden that Isak just discussed in a recent C&E episode having following meta: little or no combat as well as little or no intercept, so no serious stealth is really needed?

Well, not really. That is more the Örebro (and possibly Göteborg nowadays) meta, which also have done good at larger tournaments. The Stockholm meta is more diverse, with about 25-50 % Örebro-influenced decks and the rest combat, walls and crap We have quite a bit of players that don´t "evolve" alot, but their decks also has to be taken into consideration when you map the meta.

I absolutely agree that rush/minion removal is good against most MMPA-decks, but I don´t like the paper-rock-scissor-effect of this. OK, say I need a rush-deck to beat deck X. On the other hand, my rush-deck is a obvious threat to most decks, making me forced to threaten people, possibly cross-table oust people. It´s very difficult to win with rush decks. When bad players try them they usually just make a crater and someone else win.

Taken to extremes this “extreme” meta give tables with 5 players holding a hand grenade each and beginning the match by making all sorts of wild assumptions, accusations and deals. Fun, sure, but maybe not so fun for newbies or bad players, which I think also should have a place at our weekly casual games.

Lönkka wrote:

Based on this I sure can understand your concern as people just seem to want to have therr cake and eat it too (ie. play their own deck which does its own thang) without actually diluting the brilliant concept behind it in order to be prepared for certain archetypes and such.

OK, but this is when I would like that we ask ourself: What kind of Vtes do we want? Do we want more extreme/abusive decks (and their "counter-deck") that the "old" decks can´t handle? Or do we want a more smooth evolution of the game? There are alot of design space not used in Vtes - making it a more master-focused game is far from the only option.

Lönkka wrote:

But banning/changing something that bothers your deck isn't really a good an option for the game. It seems that the trend in Sweden is to play only the few tier 1 decks and there ain't that many of those to begin with. Removing one archetype (MMPA) isn't going to help the game's diversity even on the short run

I´m not sure about this. I think that there are possibly worth sacrificing a deck type that gets to strong (ie complex to counter), allowing others to be viable.

Izaak wrote:

Adding 6-9 Ashurs to a crap deck will not make it a winner. It will just make it slower and still crap. You just don't seem to understand there is an actual cost to playing Ashur Tablets. Probably as a result of you never actually playing them.

While I agree with most thinks you say, it´s not really worth continuing the discussion when you keep insulting me like this.