file I really don't like ashur tablets

14 Dec 2012 17:33 - 14 Dec 2012 17:36 #42903 by Count Orlok
I really can't stand the tablets myself, admittedly in part because I was only able to buy one box of keepers and ended with only two of them. Traded them off, because I didn't feel like hunting for more.

Now, how about some new :NEC: or :THN: that play off Ashur Tablets in play? How about a :nec: to steal a tablet? Something like (totally off the top of my head):

Ashur's Inheritance. Action.
:nec: (d) Bleed with +1 bleed.
:NEC: (d) Take control of an Ashur Tablet in play or burn an Ashur Tablet from your prey's ash heap to cause your prey to burn two pool.
:THN: As above but untap after a successful action.

We don't necessarily want to errata, but we could add some risk to playing them and give the necro folk some toys. If Ashur was a Capadocian doesn't it make some sense with the fluff?

:same: :FOR: :NEC: :THN: :pre: Baron of Berkeley :bl: :cap8:
Last edit: 14 Dec 2012 17:36 by Count Orlok.

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

More
14 Dec 2012 17:34 #42904 by Ohlmann

In what sense, then, has the card spoiled anything? It seems to me like it's just a net addition to the number of different deck building strategies available.


For two reasons.

First, deckbuilding that use Ashur is just easier and with less constraint. It have also made burnable card quite a bit more powerful (since the reduced library size can be overcomed easily)

And then, remember that any deck with a late game plan tend to perform extremely badly against anything with Ashur. Because, since the other deck run Ashur, he will draw mainly useful card at the end, where you will still draw from the same mix. That's why it does reduce options, making deck that can't run it (because they already use a lot of master or simply because their owner have no set of Ashur) forced trying to oust ashur one fast. Which is not something all deck can do, especially cross table.

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

More
15 Dec 2012 10:17 #42920 by LunaSlave
I agree that they're problematic, but I'd much, much rather see the issue solved through errata instead of bringing down the banhammer.

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

More
15 Dec 2012 14:10 #42927 by wastaz
This is probably a bad idea, but Im just going to throw it inhere anyway to see if it sparks any reaction.

I also play a lot of the Game of Thrones LCG, and in this game you have both a banned and a restrivcted list. The ban list is quite small (2-3 cards or so), but the restricted list is a bit larger. The Agot lcg has a card limit of 3, which vtes obviously does not and should not have. But the restricted list works in the way that you may have any number of copies (up to the card limit) of any single card on that list. So if for example both anson and ashurs tablet was on the list, you could play a deck of 90 tablets, ot a crypt of 12 ansons, but not a deck with both anson and ashurs.

What would happen to the game if we could put all mmpa cards and ashurs on a similiarrestricted list? What impact would this make? Would all mmpa decks die then, or would tablets no longer be played? Would decks as the ones posted earlier in this thread still be able to work, but things abusing the tablets be less viable?

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

More
15 Dec 2012 14:17 #42928 by Pendargon

This is probably a bad idea, but Im just going to throw it inhere anyway to see if it sparks any reaction.

I also play a lot of the Game of Thrones LCG, and in this game you have both a banned and a restrivcted list. The ban list is quite small (2-3 cards or so), but the restricted list is a bit larger. The Agot lcg has a card limit of 3, which vtes obviously does not and should not have. But the restricted list works in the way that you may have any number of copies (up to the card limit) of any single card on that list. So if for example both anson and ashurs tablet was on the list, you could play a deck of 90 tablets, ot a crypt of 12 ansons, but not a deck with both anson and ashurs.

What would happen to the game if we could put all mmpa cards and ashurs on a similiarrestricted list? What impact would this make? Would all mmpa decks die then, or would tablets no longer be played? Would decks as the ones posted earlier in this thread still be able to work, but things abusing the tablets be less viable?


ummm nope. card limits have noting to do with vtes.

also, it adds unnecessary complexity to the game

:QUI: :POT: :OBE: :CEL: :OBF: :tore: :assa:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka

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

More
15 Dec 2012 14:26 #42929 by wastaz

This is probably a bad idea, but Im just going to throw it inhere anyway to see if it sparks any reaction.

I also play a lot of the Game of Thrones LCG, and in this game you have both a banned and a restrivcted list. The ban list is quite small (2-3 cards or so), but the restricted list is a bit larger. The Agot lcg has a card limit of 3, which vtes obviously does not and should not have. But the restricted list works in the way that you may have any number of copies (up to the card limit) of any single card on that list. So if for example both anson and ashurs tablet was on the list, you could play a deck of 90 tablets, ot a crypt of 12 ansons, but not a deck with both anson and ashurs.

What would happen to the game if we could put all mmpa cards and ashurs on a similiarrestricted list? What impact would this make? Would all mmpa decks die then, or would tablets no longer be played? Would decks as the ones posted earlier in this thread still be able to work, but things abusing the tablets be less viable?


ummm nope. card limits have noting to do with vtes.

also, it adds unnecessary complexity to the game


Well, my point wasnt that we should have card limits. Quite the opposite actually. But rather that bannings isnt the necessary solution to all problems and that there can be "ways around that" that does not involve actual bans of single cards but rather restrictions on combinations, but not the number of cards.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.099 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum