Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Poll: Should the Veteran Crusader be banned?

Veteran Crusader

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the Veteran Crusader be classified as a banned card in the Living FAQ? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the Veteran Crusader be classified as a banned card in the Living FAQ?

  1. Yes (20 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. No (10 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
Skyknight

Skyknight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts

My two cents: I was a little sad to see this post to begin with, especially so very soon after the card's inception. But now that the post is here there's no more playing ostrich or possum I guess.

I haven't cast a vote because this doesn't affect me directly, seeing as it mainly affects online/OCTGN players (and I have no hope of ever getting my hands on a physical copy, sadly [sigh]), but in my humble opinion we shouldn't ban official cards simply because we don't like them or because they (potentially or otherwise) are extremely powerful. Through the years there's been many calls for cards to be banned or errata'ed, mostly concerning certain Dark Eldar cards (cough) but they're all intrinsic parts of the game, for good or for evil, and have remained as such.

 

There are better ways to address the power level of the Crusader than banning it. It could get its own paragraph in the new errata with limits or adjustments. For instance:

- A maximum of 1x copy can be included in a deck

- Lowering the stats to 0/2/2

- It has the loyal icon

- Increasing its cost to £4 or £5 (the later perhaps as to avoid the inadvertent Neophyte combo)

- The card has the text: ... Each player sacrifices a target army unit at each planet, if able. ... (making it eligible for backlash as counterplay)

 

Personally, I favour the last three options above, but, again, I don't really get a vote.

Varun's post from May 5th is very reasonable I think. And I agree that the designer gets the final say regarding alterations and suggestions for these. Certainly.



#22
SlaaneshDevotee

SlaaneshDevotee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts

I'm only commenting here to clarify the status of the champion card in Netrunner.


Hello! Any chance we may see you in L5R? I miss seeing your contributions!

#23
Caldera

Caldera

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

It's not that simple. When you play the Crusader you have 2 outcomes: A good outcome or a really good outcome.


Well, now that I understand the exact scenario you experienced (2 elites on their own at 2 different planets), I can see why you feel this way about the card's ability: Do you go for the guaranteed bad outcome and lose 1 elite, or do you take a risk knowing that you could have a really bad outcome and lose 2 elites - but with the tanatising possibility of coming out with both elites intact? Sounds almost like a gameshow presented by Noel Edmonds - what's not to like?!

The problem is, as people have stated here, outside of an opponent running an Elite-heavy deck (who in any case is probably paying a heavily-discounted rate for their Elites anyway), the potential rewards for the SM player become increasingly smaller - and so if you were to increase the cost or weaken the stats then the ability is just not good enough, compared to say Anxious Infantry Platoon and its almost negligible drawback

#24
FightingWalloon

FightingWalloon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1271 posts

Hello! Any chance we may see you in L5R? I miss seeing your contributions!

 

Thank you for writing that. I greatly appreciate it.

 

I really can only afford the time for one game. Right now, I'm working at becoming a competent Netrunner player. I will probably pick up an L5R Core set, but if a local meta does not emerge where I can play, I'll likely not continue with it. I picked Netrunner, in part, because I have places I can play it within driving distance of my home.


  • Asklepios, Caldera, SlaaneshDevotee and 1 other like this

#25
Intolerance

Intolerance

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts

The point is that if you're the SM player and are at risk of a significant loss you don't play the card, because that's just stupid, so the issue of a net loss to the SM player is a moot point. Even if they see the card in a Drop Pod and are worried for the outcome they can simply choose to whiff it.

If the result could have devastating outcomes then it's still bad for the SM player since it's a dead card, as compared to something else they could have included that's consistently playable. It's also not 'just stupid', there is always the chance of getting the 3/3 ambush with nothing being sacrificed and the player having assessed that as being their only out to win the game. Because the result is not deterministic there will be situations where it's good or bad depending on their and their opponent's dial selection. Choose to whiff it? There is no such thing, the reaction is forced.

 

Yes, I took the risky choice in the BCL final, but I'd still raise this poll even if it went my way instead. The problem with the mechanic is that if you know the actual player you can guess what they'd pick a lot easier, which makes using the card near trivial within your meta and a coin flip outside it.

This doesn't make sense unless they are inexperienced with the mechanic. It's like saying you will more consistently beat someone you know at RPC, but the same could be said for your opponent since they know you too. If it devolves into randomness then you can take advantage of that, so the player should always think. I've also played numerous games without this card where, in the end, the result was determined by a coin flip of who committed where so it's not dramatically different.

 

I appreciate that people are concerned about the elite meta, but this is not the way to fix it. My sources with links to the internal development team have strongly hinted that little to no playtesting was done for the Champion cards, and given that Jeremy's card for Netrunner was apparently banned as well it's really not beyond reason that this can be banned too.

The card was not introduced by 'peoples concern about the elite meta', it was the world champion prize for a player and the card design they submitted. You stressed in your original post that this wasn't about balance, it was about game fit, but even if it was potentially unbalanced then it wouldn't make sense unless they were all banned since they're all potentially untested. Further, whether or not that person's other card was banned is irrelevant.

 



#26
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 941 posts

 

If the result could have devastating outcomes then it's still bad for the SM player since it's a dead card, as compared to something else they could have included that's consistently playable. It's also not 'just stupid', there is always the chance of getting the 3/3 ambush with nothing being sacrificed and the player having assessed that as being their only out to win the game. Because the result is not deterministic there will be situations where it's good or bad depending on their and their opponent's dial selection. Choose to whiff it? There is no such thing, the reaction is forced.

 

Its no different to including any other direct counter that has little use outside of the intended counter scenario. But this is the thing, the fact that playing the unit can give "the chance of getting the 3/3 ambush with nothing being sacrificed" is one of the main issues I have with the card: it's adding extra randomness to a game that wasn't designed to have much randomness beyond that of cards. If I wanted a random game I'd play Destiny (which I do play, but I play it with the knowledge of randomness is a key component). Regarding the whiff, I was referring to the DPA. You can choose to not trigger it if there's nothing in the 6 worth getting, which if you, say, had an elite on planet 2 alone whilst having played the DPA to 1 it might be a legitimate choice.

 

 

This doesn't make sense unless they are inexperienced with the mechanic. It's like saying you will more consistently beat someone you know at RPC, but the same could be said for your opponent since they know you too. If it devolves into randomness then you can take advantage of that, so the player should always think. I've also played numerous games without this card where, in the end, the result was determined by a coin flip of who committed where so it's not dramatically different.

 

You'd be surprised. In my meta I'd be able guess where my opponent would select probably 8/10 times. I'm rarely surprised by their commitments, for example. The thing is with commitments, though, is that the number of times where the decision is truly a coin flip is quite minimal, whereas the number of times where it isn't with the Crusader is minimal.

 

 

The card was not introduced by 'peoples concern about the elite meta', it was the world champion prize for a player and the card design they submitted. You stressed in your original post that this wasn't about balance, it was about game fit, but even if it was potentially unbalanced then it wouldn't make sense unless they were all banned since they're all potentially untested. Further, whether or not that person's other card was banned is irrelevant.

 

I know that it might not have necessarily been created to counter elites, but plenty of people are treating it as such so I was merely responding to that point. 

 

 

Thing is, I've never been in favour of banning cards before. I've always had the mentality of "learn to beat it" when a strong card has been released (Klaviex, Palace, Barracks, Exarch etc) but the issue here is that the mechanic is fundamentally at odds with the nature of the game. One of the signifying appeals of Conquest is the fact that, beyond card draw, the game relies far more on skill than luck. This weakens that significantly.

 

I'll concede, however, that banning it might be a slightly extreme response, so I'm encouraging everyone to vote in Steinerp's poll and so that we can see if people are interested in an errata instead, however my personal opinion still stands that the ability can't be fixed without a radical overhaul (but I may well be wrong).

 

Regardless, this thread has engaged a debate which can only ever be a good thing.


  • Stefan2581 and SlaaneshDevotee like this

#27
twoshields

twoshields

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

I'll go with whatever Jeremy wants.  I'm interested to know what he thinks about it.  He earned that card. 


  • Ultramarine likes this

#28
Monged4life

Monged4life

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
As an errata option, id be tempted to say each player only sacrifices a unit at the planet his opponent selects. So selecting a planet with your elite on will keep it safe. Completely removes the chance for it to kill two units just by arriving, which a 2 cost card just shouldnt be able to do.

However with its stats id still increase the cost to 3.