General Discussion

[xdude]

Yes... I was thinking we could use that next time, but banning 2 in-element cards might be a little too much.

It's not even closely as bad as you make it sound.
Only the most annoying card ev0r (EQ) and and the best hitter (Grabo) are out.
There is still plenty left to mess with. CC, PC, strong creatures, fast creatures, strong AND fast creatures, stalling and healing... did I miss something?

It's as if someone said: Now that banned Miracle and Pegasus, the deck creating of Light has nothing much to offer. I can imagine you would be laughing tears after hearing that statement

You must think at all elements. For example, if you ban Time's Dragons and Ghosts you basically turn the game into a stall. I think I'll ask the future Masters what they think though, as them should know better.

[Kakerlake]

Well then just give each element unique rules ^^

[xdude]

Well then just give each element unique rules ^^

Sure. You think at rules for a couple of hours and then you listen to people's rants

[Kakerlake]

Well then just give each element unique rules ^^

Sure. You think at rules for a couple of hours and then you listen to people's rants

Well then just start a poll for each element asking which rules folks want to have.

[xdude]

Well then just give each element unique rules ^^

Sure. You think at rules for a couple of hours and then you listen to people's rants

Well then just start a poll for each element asking which rules folks want to have.

...Let me rephrase this

No.

[kev]

You must think at all elements. For example, if you ban Time's Dragons and Ghosts you basically turn the game into a stall. I think I'll ask the future Masters what they think though, as them should know better.

The problem with that is you can't really ask one athlete in a race how long he'd like the run to be.  It's why the Council didn't have much input for these Trials.  A better option is to fill this thread with ideas by both challengers and Masters either now or just after the Trials conclude.

I don't mind saying that I preferred the Final Battle rules for last Trials, specifically because I wanted to ban a Fire card.  I could have built a strategy that recognized the possibility of Napalm using immo.  That's what some other combatants did (Light can use Miracle, etc).  But I really just felt it'd be less fun.  The in-element ban is essential to promote creative deckbuilding... at least for Fire.

It sounds like future Trials could just autoban SoG, though I don't think the status quo of allowing but not requiring the ban doesn't hurt things.  Autobanning SoG just does a little to promote creative deckbuilding.

I'd love to hear a boatload of players weigh in on this.  It'll help future Trials.

Well then just give each element unique rules ^^

Except this.  This is unnecessary and will lead to a whole mess of problems.

[MrBlonde]

I too preferred being able to ban a card in-element. The autoban of SoG seems unnecessary though. 6 bans are more then enough to ban what you want including SoG. Some competitors just don't see it as a critical ban. Although if it was autobanned I would be fine with that as well.

[MyNameIsJoey]

what the hell woul it change to auto-ban SoG and then let the players ban 5 other cards? I honestly think auto-ban is not needed, and that banning **outside the rules** wasn't needed either. 5 bans ( if you count you added SoG) is more than enough, you should be able to deal with your element's weaknesses, not to just ban the problems away.

[Higurashi]

Sounds like you've completely misinterpreted why people auto-ban SoG, or you just assume too much. I agreed to pika's suggestion to ban it for one reason: it's boring. With more bans, you have to get more creative in deck-building, which is fun. Challenges are that.

[MrBlonde]

Sounds like you've completely misinterpreted why people auto-ban SoG, or you just assume too much. I agreed to pika's suggestion to ban it for one reason: it's boring. With more bans, you have to get more creative in deck-building, which is fun. Challenges are that.

Although on the flip side too many bans would really limit decks. IMO 6 seems like a good number. Banning too many of the good synergy cards would make the competition meh because masters should be able to overcome certain types of "strong" decks.

[Higurashi]

For some elements, that's certainly true. For Aether, not so much. We could get 10 bans and still be able to make amazing decks due to cards like Fractal and PU.
Of course, it's up to the people to ban more or less. I can certainly see it pointless with some elements.

[Xinef]

You must think at all elements. For example, if you ban Time's Dragons and Ghosts you basically turn the game into a stall. I think I'll ask the future Masters what they think though, as them should know better.

The difference between the Masters' Tournament and Trials is that here you are facing an opponent of the same element. So, forcing your opponent to use a stall is not nearly as bad. In Masters' Tournament it was a problem, because eg. Fire can force you into a stall, then bolt you/fahrenheit you to death. With mono it was kinda hard to counter, because they only need to ban one card (now 2, after the addition of GotP), while you'd have to ban 2-3 to counter it.

On the other hand, during trials, the fact that someone can force you to stall always means that you can also force him to stall, thus it is a balanced solution. If you ban eg. Aether's Phase Shields and Lightnings thus forcing Aether to 'rush', it is also balanced because your opponent will always be able to do the same to you.

Although it might be quite boring, limiting the available decks like that.

But... the 50% off-element rule, or anything similar 30% off-element etc. solves the problem.





As for SoG, I think it is auto-banned in too many PvP events. Some stall decks need SoG to work, and I don't see a reason why those decks should be banned from nearly all PvP events, as long as they are not brokenly OP. And personally, I find quantum denial decks to be much more boring to face than SoG stall decks, so I'm not sure why so many people accuse SoG of making boring decks. TBH I enjoy pwning SoG based rage quit decks, while quantum denial is the only thing that could possibly make me rage quit.
In other words, it's much better if SoG can be banned strategically, but does not have to be. I would usually ban EQ and Discord before SoG, for example, since with a proper Time stall I can outdamage even Permafrost+6*SoG, while EQ and Discord are much more likely to cause trouble to both Time stall and Time rush.