Cactus Game Design Message Boards

...if Cactus had banned cards?  It appears to me that, instead of banning cards, they print cards that counter overly used/difficult to bypass strategies:  FBTN(B), Standalone defenses, Speed, etc.  Even now they're printing more fort killers, since taking out forts can be difficult, even though many of these forts were made to counter the aforementioned overly used strategies.  In my mind, this kind of process makes the viability of every strategy questionable, since in order to maintain any one of them, you have to consider all possible scenarios, include sufficient counters for them, and include sufficient counters for your opponents' counters, all the while trying to keep your deck unique to your person.  Eventually, I see it being difficult for people to maintain the central ideas of their decks and include all the counters they need at the same time.  But I digress.

So what if Cactus had banned cards like AoCp, NJ, big FBTN(B) guys, etc.?  Where do you think we would be now?  What cards would we have or not have?  Would we be better or worse off?

LoL @ Sean's joke...that was great!

I think a slippery slope would have been started.  Banning those would have led to the asking of banning other cards.  When you combine the creative, imaginative mind that God has blessed us with and the competitive spirit of finding the absolute best way to win...you get a deck that maximizes every card to use it to inflict pain.  Then as that deck succeeds, you get copycat decks to come along to follow...because after all everyone wants to succeed.
   Where would we be now? 
People like to complain because of the above statement.  There will always be a top card.  When you take away one top card, then another card will become the top card by sheer default.  Someone will always be on top of the food chain.  People will continue to cry foul as each new top card inflicts "pain & suffering".
   What cards would we have?
Worst case scenario:  we will only have cards with numbers (basically unlimited, with a few of the prophets cards)..then the complaining will start about how the game is boring and allows no creativity.
   Would we be better or worse off?
Frankly, I think we would be worse off.  Not only will creativity be stifled, but in addition there will STILL be complaining about the current top card!  Plus, you would have cards that are totally worthless....a waste of ink and cardboard [a poor tree's death  ] 

Do I find some cards annoying...absolutely!  However, banning is never the solution.  Ever.

Hey,

If Cactus didn't have a policy of not banning cards, I think the biggest difference would be that we'd have a lot of threads on these boards with people complaining that "I lost a game because of card X, it's too powerful and needs to be banned."

There's not that many cards that have merited banning over the years, Authority of Christ Promo and Provisions being the two most obvious exceptions.  If you take multiplayer seriously False Peace and Search should have been banned too.  Other than that you can make an argument for New Jerusalem, Falling Away, and Haman's Plot but that's about it.  As Soul Seeker said, we can't get too ban happy or there wouldn't be anything left.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

All of the other cards require you to play that color or style.

In my mind one of the things that makes a card worthy of being banned if when it is so good that players begin to feel obligated to play the color or style it is a part of so that they can use the card because they don't feel they can be competitive without it.

False Peace in Type 2 - Multi is the best example of this.  It is not uncommon to see all four players at a T2-MP table with gray defenses, because so many players feel like they can't win T2-MP if they aren't using False Peaces.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on December 17, 2009, 12:00:43 PM

All of the other cards require you to play that color or style.

In my mind one of the things that makes a card worthy of being banned if when it is so good that players begin to feel obligated to play the color or style it is a part of so that they can use the card because they don't feel they can be competitive without it.

False Peace in Type 2 - Multi is the best example of this.  It is not uncommon to see all four players at a T2-MP table with gray defenses, because so many players feel like they can't win T2-MP if they aren't using False Peaces.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

For me it's kind of the other way around.  I see a lot of the powerful cards being printed nowadays that require me to be playing a particular pre-defined style.  I just don't see much creativity in picking a style.  I would much rather come up with my own style.  That's how styles used to be created.  Speed, heroless, stonewall, and probably others were all the fruits of some individual's creativity.  Personally, I believe that if Cactus had banned cards instead of doing what they're doing, we might not have went down the Cactus-defined theme route, since many of the cards they printed (particularly protection forts) to combat top strategies, came with theme restrictions.

Hey,

If you don't like the predefined themes then don't use them.  I never do (or at least very rarely).  I actually built a deck last year that had a prophets offense and a crimson defense, but I didn't use any green heroes or Babylonians just to spite the themes  You don't have to use themes to win.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I can see it now! A home-made solution:

Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay

I can see it now! A home-made solution:

Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay

And a picture:

Touche to Ring Wraith! However, did you read the full ability? Maybe this would work:

Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed or banned.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay

Thanks for the pic, Cameron, that would fit nicely!

Mario FTW. Norse gods in Redemption?

Also, 'Banned Card' would necessitate another REG entry on what it means to ban a card. And we'd have arguments on whether 'ban' is harm or negative effect. Also, where does a 'banned' card go? Is it removed? Why not just say removed then? So many questions...

Hey,

If you don't like the predefined themes then don't use them.  I never do (or at least very rarely).  I actually built a deck last year that had a prophets offense and a crimson defense, but I didn't use any green heroes or Babylonians just to spite the themes  You don't have to use themes to win.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Yeah, watch out for my Red N.T. Heroes, and my Peter who walks by you because of the Garden Tomb!

Shush, that's actually a good deck. Well, red/purple, anyway.

Well of course, but it doesn't fit with any current strategy.