Every one of HJ's bans have been because the player base's reactions were very vocal. I personally do not think we are there yet compared to previous banned cards. I do think unfair strategies are ok to exist when they are not consistent - and it kind of shows HJ is ok with this too. Winning on turn 3, while it produces bad play experiences, if it is only 1 in 20 games (random number) it isn't necessarily a design flaw. I feel like a lot of players are really passionate about this because it either makes them happy or frustrated, but at the end of the day, it is a rare occurrence. Something to also keep in mind is, there will always be powerful cards. Something will always be the best. It really just comes down to what HJ's goals are and how they want to approach the game. This video seems to be towards cards designs and how they were originally intended compared to how they interact differently now and what kind of gameplay occurs, which is fair. That kind of observation is something good to point out, especially when deckbuilding. Cards get better and worse as the game goes on, and identifying their impact is a skill. All of that being said, I personally think that unless something is oppressive, it should not be banned. If something is producing repetitive play patterns or experiences throughout the majority of the game, I think that's something that could be considered oppressive as well. I think Wol7 is the closest we have to that, and while I think we are close to needing something done, in my opinion it still doesn't equate to the previous bans in terms of reasoning just yet. Things they probably think of when making banning or game design decisions (in a general speaking sense): -what turn do we want aggro decks to win? -what turn do we want midrange/control decks to turn the corner? -what turn do we want critical mass decks to assemble all of their pieces (of exodia) and take over the game? -if someone plays their entire hand on turn 1, how powerful do we want it to be? (people have played 2 hasters on turn 1 opus 1-5) -what are the best cards in every element (staples), and do we want that to change? do we need to make better versions or shake it up in some way? -can we break the element color pie, or do we need to introduce something that does in the light/dark elements? Things I think of when deckbuilding: -what are the best cards in the format? what do people like playing? -what synergies exist, and what synergies are popular? -is it better to attack, attrition, combo or go over the top? -how fast is the format? what are the most powerful things to be doing? A lot of cards on your list I feel are "game finishers" or "must answers" and that's ok. Cards that are "must answers" does one of two things, it promotes interaction or it promotes finding something better/over the top. If people choose to go over the top, that promotes aggressive strategies, rock paper scissors etc etc. I also think that the design philosophy does sometimes mirror that of Magic, which makes sense, because Shota Yasooka is a pro Magic player and our lead design.
Thanks for the super thoughtful response. Admittedly, this is something that I 100% avoid thinking about when I’m in tourney mode. When I’m playing games, my focus is on the game as it is, not what it could be. That said, I also like to put myself in the shoes of being a game designer (despite being wholly unqualified to be one). I think FF is a *brilliantly* designed game but can it be better? Are there cards that frustrate me to play against? Is that frustration because of a deck archetype that has sufficient counterplay? Those are generally the ways I try to approach stuff like this which, hey, I very much could be wrong. There’s a reason I play FF beyond the IP and it’s because they get *a lot* right. I do think you might be right that I might be too harsh on must answer threats overall as a gameplay concept - you want there to be reasons to interact with the opponent and a card like Unei or MiB does force interaction, which is the goal of a card game and discourages durdling for control/combo decks. That’s good insight that I probably have underrepresented here. That said, as far as WoL7 goes, in your own video, you stated that the card was not worth interacting with and that, to me, is massively problematic for the game. It’s tough because I recognize the skill ceiling of the deck and the reason it can appeal so much to top players but the sentence and sentiment is extremely scary to me.
Yeah, I think with Wol7, in general cases just let it happen and do something better. I know, that is a HUGE ask 😅 but it is possible. Wol7 decks being usually aggressive means you are setting yourself back when interacting with it in terms of development. Finding something that is better than them or developing while answering the board is much more profitable than amaterasu etc.
I think we are past that point specifically for wind. Not because it is particularly oppressive (tho it is arguably still the best late game deck) but because design space has become moot. The new cards just dont do anything better so feels like you're printing one less element every set. Only extremely busted cards would make it into wind at this point and who knows what THOSE would do.
Massively overreaching on a lot of these imo. A lot of them are past their prime, or only became semi-relevant because of some broken enabler that should be hit instead. I can't point to many single cards that need adjustments, rather, the tempo of the game needs to be less extreme overall. Less free forward generators, less easy search chains. It is definitely time to print some better boardwipes at a minimum. Give more new cards the Shinryu/Kefka discount. I will say that I absolutely do not want to ban or limit 4 color WOL like a lot of people, as it's one of the coolest and most interesting things in the game. However, the abuses have gotten out of hand to where it admittedly might be more trouble than it's worth. Gil FFBE is also a pet card of mine, so I'm hesitant to mess with that. I wish they would fix the general power level and infrastructure of the game so these didn't become too easy to use in the first place. Ice and ice lightning feel pretty much fair to me now, between LB and recent forwards that don't care whether they stand up or not. Good luck playing Lasswell and Rufus into FFVIII. My banlist: Sarah FFL - Banning around 4 color WOL, reining in Wol7 and Refia without diminishing the game. Try banning Aria as well, if this doesn't move the needle. King Tycoon - Banning around 4 color WOL. Skyserpent - A lame, unfun cheese card that is the real culprit for a lot of other "broken" cards, and will be forever difficult to design around. Zidane (multi) - It is absolutely a problem, don't know what game you're playing in your local meta... The mill is the stupidest part of it, but it also just creates more pressure for 2CP than Lasswell does. If it was blockable and/or bottomed the card, I might be ok with it. Luso - Free up wind to get interesting cards again, lower the temptation to print these insane turn 3 win decks in the first place. Mira - You're probably right here. I wouldn't say the game is in a great state, but these are the only individual things I'm sure about.
I dunno. I’m more aggressive but I think that generally, I would enjoy games more with these changes. Which is not perfect admittedly and has my own biases. That said… while you’re right, maybe better card design in the future can mitigate the bad feelings of playing against forward spam decks, I want solutions… now. And the only way to make it a thing is going to be going individually and trying to trim the top off all of those decks in a way that makes them less of a problem moving forward. I really do not think 4C WoL can exist in a healthy state now. And I think that it’s leading to a lack of diversity in viable deck archetypes and building that I think opens up significantly with a ban.
@@GhoulSRL If it were up to me, I'd go back and remove the free forward nonsense as far back as Madam Edel, but this stuff is pretty well entrenched to where it would be like rebooting the game.
I think an alternative that Hobby Japan and Square Enix could explore is the use of choice restrictions. Certain cards just not being allowed to be all in the same deck. So you might have to choose between Luso or Chocobo as one example. Or 7 cost WoL and 4 color WoL for another. I’ve seen games use choice restrictions with some flat bans as tools to bring some decks a bit more in line. It does work, but it does require us to properly identify which combinations of cards are the core problem. If a singular card produces the problem, then bans and normal limited 1 restrictions can apply. But when it’s two or three specific cards in combination that cause the problem, choice restriction becomes a more useful tool.
I’ve never been a fan of this approach for physical games. In digital games like Duel Links? The deck building restriction is imposed by the game itself - easy to maintain and both players know it’s there. It’s a lot easier and harder to enforce in a physical game, on top of having the difficulty of identifying combinations and why they’re problematic in combination.
When it comes to a card like Cid Randell wouldn't it be the responsibility of the opponent to run 1-3 copies of a removal that is not an etb to get rid of him. With your explanation of him you said that none of the top decks are running outs to him. With how strong ice is atm it should be a little obvious that you might run into a Cid Randell so maybe I should run a card to beat it, especially when those cards could also answer a refia/zidane. Now the same doesn't apply to Fealthanos since certain elements don't even have options for that card. Just a thought though.
The only problem is that without a side board, the card becomes a win condition. Which is maybe fine, but, for example, in my retainer deck, I specifically went out of my way to find answers to Cid Randell. The deck has 4 cards that are capable of removing him, two of which are Shantotto. I think a play pattern of “did you draw the exact out for my floodgate” can be tricky but I think there’s an argument he might just be on my “watch list” as a card that could be problematic in the future.
@@GhoulSRL just wanted to start a conversation on that. I feel like that's one of those things that can make deck lists really interesting and just noticing the outs to your deck and playing them, yeah the lack of side deck in this game sucks so you have to make some cuts in the main deck to give yourself the best chance of winning. You saw a threat to how your deck plays so you made a decision to fit X cards into it to beat that threat, which I'm sure can also be used on other targets should the situation arise. So makes you 1 up on a lot of people who wouldn't think otherwise.
Yeah! I appreciate the conversation. This is all hypothetical anyway and I love to think about this stuff (obviously) As a rule of thumb, I refuse to have auto-loss matchups in card games, hence the one copy of Neo Exdeath and accounting for cards like Cid Randell. In YGO, I was the guy that always maintained a single copy of S/T removal in the main deck when Mystic Mine was legal so that it could not auto-win game 1 against me.
Inspired viewing - people really love this kind of speculative content! Big agree on your mentality of cards being addressed if they impact design space or the ability to interact. Glad to see someone else talk about how painful it is to stare down a Kytes. The only minor disagreement I have (and it doesn't really impact the content of what you said at all!) is in the concept of the "watch list". I think a watch list is inherently contradictory and ultimately pointless. What, the developers weren't watching the state of their own game to begin with? O,o
You say love - I’d say it’s been hit or miss. Metrics on this one are interesting to say the least. I will say, if they’re terrified of banning cards so people don’t yell at them for “how could you ban 4 WoL, I just spent 120 dollars on a full art!” having an official list of cards that you’re okay with their current impact but that are one bad day at the pub away from causing problems is a way of at least warning people. I don’t have a problem with losing cards from my card pool personally - starting with YGO means that I know you get your cards early and get your value by playing with them until they’re removed from the format but I understand the occasional bad feel.
Last video and the Atomos part here were interesting since I’d like to see what decks would be like that were not simply cast focussed. And I mean with additional new cards not just what decks would be like using existing cards if luso et al. were banned. It’s a element I literally don’t even touch (from the mostly mono side anyway) since I don’t enjoy storm.
I think there’s a world where Wind shifts to focusing on character count - lots of cantrip-y characters, monsters and backups alongside Shinryu-type punisher effects for the opponent having more forwards than them. I think Ace, Bismarck and Dryad are really interesting places to start looking and I hope those would be the cornerstone effects to try to wean Wind off cast being the only viable way to consider playing the deck.
If you want to play pauper, then just go play pauper. Its amazing how many things youve managed to mention that I disagreed with. Youve listed the best 1-2 from 24 of the most played deck, guaranteeing a hit on anyone who actually plays the game. Its almost as if you made a video with as many bad takes as possible, just to get people to respond to your bad takes. If that was the intent, then you did an impressive job. Kudos. Otherwise, almost every card you mentioned has multiple answers in multiple elements. It's not the game's fault if you decide to just ignore running the answers, in favor for your own single-minded all-in strategy. It is a way to play, and a common one..but not justifiable. The meta is colorful, and fun, and nice. Take these cards out and the next best 20 cards are worse. And Im not here to throw shade, at all. But like I said..genuine..If you want to play pauper, then just go play pauper.
I suppose yes, that does give outs. Regardless, I still think the play pattern of “you either kill Mira on my turn, at which point I will gladly play another or you cannot damage my on your turn” is a frustrating and unhealthy play pattern that she too easily enables.
This video is like "I went to Nats and lost so ban these cards so I can win." Also appreciate you telling me what card combos so I can make those decks. Mira/Zombie. wow. thanks.
This was a little hard for me to follow. I dont enjoy the idea of banning cards because they are frustrating, most of these are enabling a different game flow from what we’re used to and require specific answers. They’re either too aggro or too untouchable. I will continue to say I’d rather see better / more versatile answer cards than bans on things that are trying to be unique and exciting. LB deck is a good avenue for this. LB totto, LB Cloud, and LB Viktora help answer a lot of these, and the pool of answers are only going to grow. I dont think current gamestate is perfect by any means, but banning 60% of things that have meaningful board presence is not a path I would like to go down. If this was how HJ/Square handled the ban list for standard, I would rather they make L6 more prominent
So I’m not really a fan of L6 - I find that it really has all the same issues as standard with basically only fewer answers due to the smaller card pool. That said, I know I’m a bit more opinionated and aggressive on it than most people which is fine! Im glad to see so many interesting takes on the conversation in general. Thanks for listening anyway, even if you disagree with the takes.
I was literally saying yesterday I believe if any card in the game needs to go right now its 4 color Warrior of Light. It enables way too much dumb stuff and without it you don't have an on demand 7 color gilgamesh, Ultimate Shield, you don't have decks that as you said "Play it just because its 4 elements and it fits everywhere".
It sucks because I think it’s a card that’d need an outright ban… but it’s also the chase card of that set *and* the art is sooooooo good. But I think it’s causing such insane ripple effects in the game that I really don’t think it can be allowed to remain at any number of copies, even as a Legend.
No way Squeenix will mess with the main card of a starter set (Lightning) while in production. I do think an errata is needed though. Limiting the various effects to once per turn would help a heck of a lot. Constantly plinking +1k becomes a problem in a hurry and the card draw too.
It’s not in production anymore though. She’s an opus 19 card. We’re in opus 22 - and I’m showing restraint by keeping her at 1 and not banning her which I think is the healthier option in all honesty. >_< I don’t like functional erratas in physical card games because they cause bad play patterns in paper. There’s plenty of ways to make Lightning a less oppressive card but I think even if each effect was once per turn, the card would still be very frustrating.
I know this will sound like, "Halq isn't the problem, we should ban every tuner instead", but I don't think Relm is the problem. Atomos is absolutely the card committing crimes against humanity. I think banning Atomos would instantly make Relm decks fair. Plus, I don't think limiting Relm would do much to her decks tbh. The vast majority of games you are only casting her a single time anyways. It would just make the games she gets ripped by a cait sith or zidane feel awful.
I wouldn’t be opposed to that. I do think she’d have the potential to be a problem in the future with how difficult it is to interact with Monsters, especially if she’s completely repeatable but she might be in the Tilika tier of “she’s not necessarily a problem now, just maybe one for the future”. Relm being a 1 card storm setup that’s nearly impossible to interact with once she resolves though is absolutely ludicrous but killing Atomos probably stops that.
Wow, you want to ban every good card and alot of the meh cards. There are not many exciting cards left in the pool with this ban list, and I don't even know what decks there would be left to play. I'd say limit 4 color WoL, limit Refia, limit Skyserpent, limit light Lightning, probably limit Neo Exdeath, and ban Luso.
I think it’d be a radical shakeup for sure. But hey, opinions are things. I’m personally a fan of being more aggressive than they have been but also can see logic for a conservative approach. The only thing I will say with your personal list is that I don’t like the idea of limiting Skyserpent - I suppose that makes the potential to open him + Rufus significantly smaller but I really don’t like the gameplay pattern and that doesn’t really change, it just happens less often. Thanks for listening, even if you don’t like some of the concepts. :)
I like most of your ideas but I would never ban or restrict a light legend. Enough enablers can be ban instead to make it not a problem. 4WoL should be limited, Sarah FFL banned. It's sad to cut a previously innocent card but now she's what makes both Bartz and WoL7 too consistent. I think most problematic cards could be answered if people ran more summons, such as Zidane 2colors. People deciding to be agressive and all-in with forwards is what makes them weak too such a card and that's ok. Most decks I tried that weren't playing anything meta that had Zidane in was not a problem. Really it's the cards such as WoL4 and Tyro that make it this strong. Tyro allows too many things to happen off color/splashing. I would ban him as well. I think original cards doing strong things are busted because of a package rather than themselves being an issue. That is not the case for Rug, just go. Bad card designs should be removed but I think cards such as Don Cornero is perfectly fine. Same for Mira and all cards with "original" mechanics. Feolthanos doesn't cancel Ex burst or wipes and an obvious out is party attacking. In a world where this card could easily have access to first strike or be cheated into play I could see it go. It costs 7, if your deck loses too it it's worth wasting a wipe paying the same amount of mana to fix the issue. Ark is dark and you might brick so I find it fine. Overall I would only ban bad game design, wrongly costed cards and over-represented decks. Neo Exdeath dark would have been fine if it costed 7 because you would need to dump most of your hand. Most of those bad to interact with cards could be dealt with with easier access to board wipes. Cheers!
I really just don’t see a world where 7WoL isn’t a problem unless it’s limited. I think the burst of value, tempo and aggression is just so far above what the game is currently able to handle that I genuinely don’t think we have sufficient counterplay to the card and I don’t think any amount of bans wouldn’t make the card a similar problem in the future. 3 is a healthy cost to print powerful cards at - so unless they never printed good 3 cost cards again, Giga will always be a strong to broken card.
![Final Fantasy VIII Ending Full [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ucSKdCbteMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Every one of HJ's bans have been because the player base's reactions were very vocal. I personally do not think we are there yet compared to previous banned cards. I do think unfair strategies are ok to exist when they are not consistent - and it kind of shows HJ is ok with this too. Winning on turn 3, while it produces bad play experiences, if it is only 1 in 20 games (random number) it isn't necessarily a design flaw. I feel like a lot of players are really passionate about this because it either makes them happy or frustrated, but at the end of the day, it is a rare occurrence. Something to also keep in mind is, there will always be powerful cards. Something will always be the best. It really just comes down to what HJ's goals are and how they want to approach the game.
This video seems to be towards cards designs and how they were originally intended compared to how they interact differently now and what kind of gameplay occurs, which is fair. That kind of observation is something good to point out, especially when deckbuilding. Cards get better and worse as the game goes on, and identifying their impact is a skill.
All of that being said, I personally think that unless something is oppressive, it should not be banned. If something is producing repetitive play patterns or experiences throughout the majority of the game, I think that's something that could be considered oppressive as well. I think Wol7 is the closest we have to that, and while I think we are close to needing something done, in my opinion it still doesn't equate to the previous bans in terms of reasoning just yet.
Things they probably think of when making banning or game design decisions (in a general speaking sense):
-what turn do we want aggro decks to win?
-what turn do we want midrange/control decks to turn the corner?
-what turn do we want critical mass decks to assemble all of their pieces (of exodia) and take over the game?
-if someone plays their entire hand on turn 1, how powerful do we want it to be? (people have played 2 hasters on turn 1 opus 1-5)
-what are the best cards in every element (staples), and do we want that to change? do we need to make better versions or shake it up in some way?
-can we break the element color pie, or do we need to introduce something that does in the light/dark elements?
Things I think of when deckbuilding:
-what are the best cards in the format? what do people like playing?
-what synergies exist, and what synergies are popular?
-is it better to attack, attrition, combo or go over the top?
-how fast is the format? what are the most powerful things to be doing?
A lot of cards on your list I feel are "game finishers" or "must answers" and that's ok. Cards that are "must answers" does one of two things, it promotes interaction or it promotes finding something better/over the top. If people choose to go over the top, that promotes aggressive strategies, rock paper scissors etc etc. I also think that the design philosophy does sometimes mirror that of Magic, which makes sense, because Shota Yasooka is a pro Magic player and our lead design.
Thanks for the super thoughtful response.
Admittedly, this is something that I 100% avoid thinking about when I’m in tourney mode. When I’m playing games, my focus is on the game as it is, not what it could be. That said, I also like to put myself in the shoes of being a game designer (despite being wholly unqualified to be one). I think FF is a *brilliantly* designed game but can it be better? Are there cards that frustrate me to play against? Is that frustration because of a deck archetype that has sufficient counterplay? Those are generally the ways I try to approach stuff like this which, hey, I very much could be wrong. There’s a reason I play FF beyond the IP and it’s because they get *a lot* right.
I do think you might be right that I might be too harsh on must answer threats overall as a gameplay concept - you want there to be reasons to interact with the opponent and a card like Unei or MiB does force interaction, which is the goal of a card game and discourages durdling for control/combo decks. That’s good insight that I probably have underrepresented here.
That said, as far as WoL7 goes, in your own video, you stated that the card was not worth interacting with and that, to me, is massively problematic for the game. It’s tough because I recognize the skill ceiling of the deck and the reason it can appeal so much to top players but the sentence and sentiment is extremely scary to me.
Yeah, I think with Wol7, in general cases just let it happen and do something better. I know, that is a HUGE ask 😅 but it is possible. Wol7 decks being usually aggressive means you are setting yourself back when interacting with it in terms of development. Finding something that is better than them or developing while answering the board is much more profitable than amaterasu etc.
I think we are past that point specifically for wind. Not because it is particularly oppressive (tho it is arguably still the best late game deck) but because design space has become moot. The new cards just dont do anything better so feels like you're printing one less element every set. Only extremely busted cards would make it into wind at this point and who knows what THOSE would do.
This video is like "Ban the Format" 😂😂😂
Haha I might have been a bit overly aggressive. 😅
Haha its fine, just kinda funny, still good to hear such a strong opinion on pretty much all the best cards in the format.
Massively overreaching on a lot of these imo. A lot of them are past their prime, or only became semi-relevant because of some broken enabler that should be hit instead. I can't point to many single cards that need adjustments, rather, the tempo of the game needs to be less extreme overall. Less free forward generators, less easy search chains. It is definitely time to print some better boardwipes at a minimum. Give more new cards the Shinryu/Kefka discount.
I will say that I absolutely do not want to ban or limit 4 color WOL like a lot of people, as it's one of the coolest and most interesting things in the game. However, the abuses have gotten out of hand to where it admittedly might be more trouble than it's worth. Gil FFBE is also a pet card of mine, so I'm hesitant to mess with that. I wish they would fix the general power level and infrastructure of the game so these didn't become too easy to use in the first place.
Ice and ice lightning feel pretty much fair to me now, between LB and recent forwards that don't care whether they stand up or not. Good luck playing Lasswell and Rufus into FFVIII.
My banlist:
Sarah FFL - Banning around 4 color WOL, reining in Wol7 and Refia without diminishing the game. Try banning Aria as well, if this doesn't move the needle.
King Tycoon - Banning around 4 color WOL.
Skyserpent - A lame, unfun cheese card that is the real culprit for a lot of other "broken" cards, and will be forever difficult to design around.
Zidane (multi) - It is absolutely a problem, don't know what game you're playing in your local meta... The mill is the stupidest part of it, but it also just creates more pressure for 2CP than Lasswell does. If it was blockable and/or bottomed the card, I might be ok with it.
Luso - Free up wind to get interesting cards again, lower the temptation to print these insane turn 3 win decks in the first place.
Mira - You're probably right here.
I wouldn't say the game is in a great state, but these are the only individual things I'm sure about.
I dunno. I’m more aggressive but I think that generally, I would enjoy games more with these changes. Which is not perfect admittedly and has my own biases.
That said… while you’re right, maybe better card design in the future can mitigate the bad feelings of playing against forward spam decks, I want solutions… now. And the only way to make it a thing is going to be going individually and trying to trim the top off all of those decks in a way that makes them less of a problem moving forward.
I really do not think 4C WoL can exist in a healthy state now. And I think that it’s leading to a lack of diversity in viable deck archetypes and building that I think opens up significantly with a ban.
@@GhoulSRL If it were up to me, I'd go back and remove the free forward nonsense as far back as Madam Edel, but this stuff is pretty well entrenched to where it would be like rebooting the game.
I think an alternative that Hobby Japan and Square Enix could explore is the use of choice restrictions. Certain cards just not being allowed to be all in the same deck. So you might have to choose between Luso or Chocobo as one example. Or 7 cost WoL and 4 color WoL for another.
I’ve seen games use choice restrictions with some flat bans as tools to bring some decks a bit more in line. It does work, but it does require us to properly identify which combinations of cards are the core problem. If a singular card produces the problem, then bans and normal limited 1 restrictions can apply. But when it’s two or three specific cards in combination that cause the problem, choice restriction becomes a more useful tool.
I’ve never been a fan of this approach for physical games. In digital games like Duel Links? The deck building restriction is imposed by the game itself - easy to maintain and both players know it’s there. It’s a lot easier and harder to enforce in a physical game, on top of having the difficulty of identifying combinations and why they’re problematic in combination.
When it comes to a card like Cid Randell wouldn't it be the responsibility of the opponent to run 1-3 copies of a removal that is not an etb to get rid of him. With your explanation of him you said that none of the top decks are running outs to him. With how strong ice is atm it should be a little obvious that you might run into a Cid Randell so maybe I should run a card to beat it, especially when those cards could also answer a refia/zidane. Now the same doesn't apply to Fealthanos since certain elements don't even have options for that card. Just a thought though.
The only problem is that without a side board, the card becomes a win condition. Which is maybe fine, but, for example, in my retainer deck, I specifically went out of my way to find answers to Cid Randell. The deck has 4 cards that are capable of removing him, two of which are Shantotto. I think a play pattern of “did you draw the exact out for my floodgate” can be tricky but I think there’s an argument he might just be on my “watch list” as a card that could be problematic in the future.
@@GhoulSRL just wanted to start a conversation on that. I feel like that's one of those things that can make deck lists really interesting and just noticing the outs to your deck and playing them, yeah the lack of side deck in this game sucks so you have to make some cuts in the main deck to give yourself the best chance of winning. You saw a threat to how your deck plays so you made a decision to fit X cards into it to beat that threat, which I'm sure can also be used on other targets should the situation arise. So makes you 1 up on a lot of people who wouldn't think otherwise.
Yeah! I appreciate the conversation. This is all hypothetical anyway and I love to think about this stuff (obviously)
As a rule of thumb, I refuse to have auto-loss matchups in card games, hence the one copy of Neo Exdeath and accounting for cards like Cid Randell. In YGO, I was the guy that always maintained a single copy of S/T removal in the main deck when Mystic Mine was legal so that it could not auto-win game 1 against me.
Inspired viewing - people really love this kind of speculative content!
Big agree on your mentality of cards being addressed if they impact design space or the ability to interact. Glad to see someone else talk about how painful it is to stare down a Kytes.
The only minor disagreement I have (and it doesn't really impact the content of what you said at all!) is in the concept of the "watch list".
I think a watch list is inherently contradictory and ultimately pointless. What, the developers weren't watching the state of their own game to begin with? O,o
You say love - I’d say it’s been hit or miss. Metrics on this one are interesting to say the least.
I will say, if they’re terrified of banning cards so people don’t yell at them for “how could you ban 4 WoL, I just spent 120 dollars on a full art!” having an official list of cards that you’re okay with their current impact but that are one bad day at the pub away from causing problems is a way of at least warning people. I don’t have a problem with losing cards from my card pool personally - starting with YGO means that I know you get your cards early and get your value by playing with them until they’re removed from the format but I understand the occasional bad feel.
A video so nice I watched it Thrice! Great stuff sir. I would LOVE to play the game with these bans/limits.
Last video and the Atomos part here were interesting since I’d like to see what decks would be like that were not simply cast focussed. And I mean with additional new cards not just what decks would be like using existing cards if luso et al. were banned. It’s a element I literally don’t even touch (from the mostly mono side anyway) since I don’t enjoy storm.
I think there’s a world where Wind shifts to focusing on character count - lots of cantrip-y characters, monsters and backups alongside Shinryu-type punisher effects for the opponent having more forwards than them. I think Ace, Bismarck and Dryad are really interesting places to start looking and I hope those would be the cornerstone effects to try to wean Wind off cast being the only viable way to consider playing the deck.
Completely agree with about 90% of what you said but I'd absolutely add Tyro and Yuna to this list. Get them gone.
If you want to play pauper, then just go play pauper.
Its amazing how many things youve managed to mention that I disagreed with. Youve listed the best 1-2 from 24 of the most played deck, guaranteeing a hit on anyone who actually plays the game. Its almost as if you made a video with as many bad takes as possible, just to get people to respond to your bad takes. If that was the intent, then you did an impressive job. Kudos.
Otherwise, almost every card you mentioned has multiple answers in multiple elements. It's not the game's fault if you decide to just ignore running the answers, in favor for your own single-minded all-in strategy. It is a way to play, and a common one..but not justifiable. The meta is colorful, and fun, and nice. Take these cards out and the next best 20 cards are worse.
And Im not here to throw shade, at all. But like I said..genuine..If you want to play pauper, then just go play pauper.
Its a good thing you control the FFTCG ban list lol
I disagree with mono-fire not having answers to mira. Goblin or Brynhildr in the opponents turn utterly shuts them down.
Brynhildr on Mira is very scuffed since you don't get the draw if Mira kills herself in response, but Goblin is very good vs Mira.
I suppose yes, that does give outs. Regardless, I still think the play pattern of “you either kill Mira on my turn, at which point I will gladly play another or you cannot damage my on your turn” is a frustrating and unhealthy play pattern that she too easily enables.
This video is like "I went to Nats and lost so ban these cards so I can win." Also appreciate you telling me what card combos so I can make those decks. Mira/Zombie. wow. thanks.
If you like content of me talking about good decks… you have a large backlog of videos to look at as it turns out lol.
This was a little hard for me to follow. I dont enjoy the idea of banning cards because they are frustrating, most of these are enabling a different game flow from what we’re used to and require specific answers. They’re either too aggro or too untouchable. I will continue to say I’d rather see better / more versatile answer cards than bans on things that are trying to be unique and exciting. LB deck is a good avenue for this. LB totto, LB Cloud, and LB Viktora help answer a lot of these, and the pool of answers are only going to grow. I dont think current gamestate is perfect by any means, but banning 60% of things that have meaningful board presence is not a path I would like to go down.
If this was how HJ/Square handled the ban list for standard, I would rather they make L6 more prominent
So I’m not really a fan of L6 - I find that it really has all the same issues as standard with basically only fewer answers due to the smaller card pool.
That said, I know I’m a bit more opinionated and aggressive on it than most people which is fine! Im glad to see so many interesting takes on the conversation in general. Thanks for listening anyway, even if you disagree with the takes.
I was literally saying yesterday I believe if any card in the game needs to go right now its 4 color Warrior of Light. It enables way too much dumb stuff and without it you don't have an on demand 7 color gilgamesh, Ultimate Shield, you don't have decks that as you said "Play it just because its 4 elements and it fits everywhere".
It sucks because I think it’s a card that’d need an outright ban… but it’s also the chase card of that set *and* the art is sooooooo good. But I think it’s causing such insane ripple effects in the game that I really don’t think it can be allowed to remain at any number of copies, even as a Legend.
No way Squeenix will mess with the main card of a starter set (Lightning) while in production. I do think an errata is needed though. Limiting the various effects to once per turn would help a heck of a lot. Constantly plinking +1k becomes a problem in a hurry and the card draw too.
It’s not in production anymore though. She’s an opus 19 card. We’re in opus 22 - and I’m showing restraint by keeping her at 1 and not banning her which I think is the healthier option in all honesty. >_<
I don’t like functional erratas in physical card games because they cause bad play patterns in paper. There’s plenty of ways to make Lightning a less oppressive card but I think even if each effect was once per turn, the card would still be very frustrating.
Fair enough. I guess I thought since it’s still pretty easy to buy 13 custom when I started it was still being made. Thanks!
I know this will sound like, "Halq isn't the problem, we should ban every tuner instead", but I don't think Relm is the problem. Atomos is absolutely the card committing crimes against humanity. I think banning Atomos would instantly make Relm decks fair. Plus, I don't think limiting Relm would do much to her decks tbh. The vast majority of games you are only casting her a single time anyways. It would just make the games she gets ripped by a cait sith or zidane feel awful.
I wouldn’t be opposed to that. I do think she’d have the potential to be a problem in the future with how difficult it is to interact with Monsters, especially if she’s completely repeatable but she might be in the Tilika tier of “she’s not necessarily a problem now, just maybe one for the future”.
Relm being a 1 card storm setup that’s nearly impossible to interact with once she resolves though is absolutely ludicrous but killing Atomos probably stops that.
Wow, you want to ban every good card and alot of the meh cards. There are not many exciting cards left in the pool with this ban list, and I don't even know what decks there would be left to play.
I'd say limit 4 color WoL, limit Refia, limit Skyserpent, limit light Lightning, probably limit Neo Exdeath, and ban Luso.
I think it’d be a radical shakeup for sure. But hey, opinions are things. I’m personally a fan of being more aggressive than they have been but also can see logic for a conservative approach.
The only thing I will say with your personal list is that I don’t like the idea of limiting Skyserpent - I suppose that makes the potential to open him + Rufus significantly smaller but I really don’t like the gameplay pattern and that doesn’t really change, it just happens less often.
Thanks for listening, even if you don’t like some of the concepts. :)
I like most of your ideas but I would never ban or restrict a light legend. Enough enablers can be ban instead to make it not a problem.
4WoL should be limited, Sarah FFL banned. It's sad to cut a previously innocent card but now she's what makes both Bartz and WoL7 too consistent.
I think most problematic cards could be answered if people ran more summons, such as Zidane 2colors. People deciding to be agressive and all-in with forwards is what makes them weak too such a card and that's ok.
Most decks I tried that weren't playing anything meta that had Zidane in was not a problem.
Really it's the cards such as WoL4 and Tyro that make it this strong. Tyro allows too many things to happen off color/splashing. I would ban him as well.
I think original cards doing strong things are busted because of a package rather than themselves being an issue.
That is not the case for Rug, just go. Bad card designs should be removed but I think cards such as Don Cornero is perfectly fine. Same for Mira and all cards with "original" mechanics.
Feolthanos doesn't cancel Ex burst or wipes and an obvious out is party attacking. In a world where this card could easily have access to first strike or be cheated into play I could see it go. It costs 7, if your deck loses too it it's worth wasting a wipe paying the same amount of mana to fix the issue.
Ark is dark and you might brick so I find it fine. Overall I would only ban bad game design, wrongly costed cards and over-represented decks.
Neo Exdeath dark would have been fine if it costed 7 because you would need to dump most of your hand. Most of those bad to interact with cards could be dealt with with easier access to board wipes.
Cheers!
I really just don’t see a world where 7WoL isn’t a problem unless it’s limited. I think the burst of value, tempo and aggression is just so far above what the game is currently able to handle that I genuinely don’t think we have sufficient counterplay to the card and I don’t think any amount of bans wouldn’t make the card a similar problem in the future. 3 is a healthy cost to print powerful cards at - so unless they never printed good 3 cost cards again, Giga will always be a strong to broken card.