Not meaning any card or cards in particular, I would like to know what
a card has to be or demonstrate in order to be banned.
It DOES seem clear that the card has to be pretty over-the-top to make
it. Come on, the list reads:
All players talk in rhymes
Stop sitting by your prey
Everyone stop sitting by your prey
Bleed for +11
Give one player all your stuff.
That's a pretty good list, four absurd effects and one that's just
hugely strong. But was RTI banned based on the empirical evidence that
the card has, in fact, performed exceedingly well in the last year/last
3 years/whatever, or on its abstractly high power level? Or both?
I know in M:TG it's something like "skewed the metagame considerably,
become either the thing to play or the thing to play against", I don't
think they consider abstract power at all, just performance. What is
it for V:TES?
Lastly, is there any way AT ALL for a vampire to be banned? I mean,
reasonably, I don't think so. (Arika would get banned first, if it
were possible, and I don't think that will ever happen.)
-- Brian
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Not meaning any card or cards in particular, I would like to know what
> a card has to be or demonstrate in order to be banned.
>
> It DOES seem clear that the card has to be pretty over-the-top to make
> it. Come on, the list reads:
>
> All players talk in rhymes
> Stop sitting by your prey
> Everyone stop sitting by your prey
> Bleed for +11
> Give one player all your stuff.
>
> That's a pretty good list, four absurd effects and one that's just
> hugely strong.
It's not the 'absurdity' of the effects, it's the disruptive and
unbalancing effect they have on the game (at least in part):
"Talking in Rhymes" is terrible in a tournament environment where a)
not everyone necessarily speaks the same language and b) what
constitutes a 'rhyme' is a matter of subjective opinion (way rhymes
with may, but what about with with 'way' itself? And what does Tzimisce
rhyme with - 'see'? 'say'? 'ski'?)
There's tons of net discussion about the other cards, but in short the
two 'rearranging the table' cards destroy the basic predator-prey
relationships, and Succubus Club allows for some really disruptive
effects and borderline-collusion across tables.
> But was RTI banned based on the empirical evidence that
> the card has, in fact, performed exceedingly well in the last year/last
> 3 years/whatever, or on its abstractly high power level? Or both?
At the time RTI was banned (1999), it was grossly unbalanced and 'ripe
for abuse', especially when combined with minion-stealing effects like
Mind Rape. Since that time, it's never been enough of a priority to fix
the card (considering that several previously suggested or attempted
fixes were either ineffective or confusing.)
> -- Brian
-John Flournoy
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Not meaning any card or cards in particular, I would like to know what
> a card has to be or demonstrate in order to be banned.
It's like infractions in tournament play -- you just have to convince
the judge.
> But was RTI banned based on the empirical evidence that
> the card has, in fact, performed exceedingly well in the last year/last
> 3 years/whatever, or on its abstractly high power level? Or both?
It rose to a level that attracted the attention of the then-current
powers that be.
> I know in M:TG it's something like "skewed the metagame considerably,
> become either the thing to play or the thing to play against", I don't
> think they consider abstract power at all, just performance. What is
> it for V:TES?
Abstract power, performance (in play, in shaping the metagame, &c.)
> Lastly, is there any way AT ALL for a vampire to be banned? I mean,
> reasonably, I don't think so. (Arika would get banned first, if it
> were possible, and I don't think that will ever happen.)
Well, vampires by nature avail themselves to adjustment more easily
than some effects. But sure -- if there's ever a vampire than can't
be suitably reined in with textual adjustment, then banning is
an option.