I don’t think any of these warrant a ban or errata. I’d prefer they release answers. Provide a way to control opponents items for example exert opponents item it doesn’t ready at the start of their turn. Or similar to Pete but for items that prevent your opponent from exerting/using their items next turn.
On the Queen’s Castle - it’s clearly a strong location, if not the best in the game, but often I find that it just solidifies an already good position. What I mean is that, rarely does the Castle help you win when your chances are already low. For it to really have significant influence, you need at least 2 characters in the castle when it comes back around to you, unless of course you’re just fishing for 1 particular card to turn the tides. What I mean is that if you’re in a position where you can play the castle, pay to move there, AND have both the castle and your characters survive, you were likely already doing pretty well. The exception being when playing against discard decks with low strength characters, because even with multiple characters on board, they don’t have much removal nor are they strong enough to take out the castle in one turn), and a reasonable chunk of the time against Ruby/Sapphire ramp decks where they are quite weak to locations unless they pull an early Kuzco. I’ve become a big fan of the Library. I find it helps you scrap in more even positions, and preserves your card count in many situations. Being cheaper and having 1 more willpower is so massive. There are a lot of frail characters that you get so so much more out of by dumping them into the library, such as Tipo. It forces your opponent to leave your characters or waste time removing them, just for you to replace your hand. And because it has 8 willpower on a 3 drop, it lasts a while and that 1 passive lore isn’t insignificant. Hard to compare the two because they are so different despite being bulky card draw locations, but I’ve been running Libraries over Castles in certain builds with a lot of success. It’s nice to have a location that often yields immediate value rather than having to wait until it’s “safe” to play. If you play a Castle, move over, and it gets removed immediately, you often just lost the game.
Appreciate the long comment. I think that's how locations in general work in the game. If you are behind, they aren't going to save you or bring you back into it. BUT if you are ahead then tend to put you that much further ahead.
The most annoying card to face is AWNW, in my opinion. And especially when in Steel/Amber, because it essentially makes Daisy’s downside a total non issue. You can quest with Daisy and just AWNW those extra character cards away. AWNW paired with Ariel/Naveen also doesn’t allow you to make use of your mulliganed starting hand very effectively unless you’re playing hyper aggro, because you can’t ramp up effectively when all your cards get whisked away on turn 4. And if you aggressively ink your cards, the Amber/Steel player isn’t forced to play AWNW, so they can play with card advantage if they pulled Rapunzel + Smee early while you emptied most of your hand with low cost, easily dealt with characters. Perhaps the issue is characters exerting to sing songs, like you mentioned. Cards that counter this effect are either expensive and arrive too late (Ursula), or are cards that make your opponent discard cards (Bare Necessities). But when Ariel just fishes for songs anyway, and you’re playing 20 songs in your deck, you’ll always have songs to sing. You think limiting one character exertion to sing per turn could be a potential fix?
That would be an interesting adjustment to it. Could also try something like singing reducing the cost of a song but not making it entirely free. Something like You get a 3 or 2 cost ink reduction when singing. Then Ariel can sing AWNW, but it still costs 2 ink. Still an advantage to sing it but not the outrageous, it's completely FREE that it is currently. Singing as a mechanic deserves it's own video, ha ha. A Buddy mentioned what if AWNW was optional for the opponent? So if they chose not to, they could keep their hand and not draw new cards. Would be a fun place to explore.
Lorcana's mechanics and dynamics are a lot of fun. When you complain about the core mechanics based on personal preference... it doesn't really justify a ban. Bucky was a true menace and you can see the meta open up because of it with all the cards you listed being used since the change. After seeing what's been out there for an entire year, it's a balanced game.
Bucky was a menace because he had ward. They couldve just taken ward and maybe even made him 3 cost but shifting as a requirement as well was too much.
Man where I play I can't get Flynn to resolve Lore at all. He might as well say, your opponent uses a removal card next turn and banish Flynn. Assuming you are taking about the Red one.
imo there are no cards currently that should be banned. I think that may be there could be cards with limited slots (eg 2 be prepareds). I also see some kind of saltyness against steelsong but I really dont think it is that op right now. I think that the devs have shown a lot of kindness towards sapphire in shimmering skies. Lucky Dime is not a problem as well imo. I think that the quill could be limited in 2 copies or there could be an errata that the ink enters exerted. That could slow things down a bit and make it fair. For me it is crazy how an aggroish deck like steelsong loses to sapphire/steel and sapphire/ruby. That should not be the case but you are right that they made sapphire to ramp so fast and efficiently that now it is out of control. For Amethyst I think it is fine. For ruby may be it worths to limit one or 2 cards but that's all. In amber I think that all cards are ok. For green my opinion is that if Diablo would be banned then Bucky would be ok. Now that Bucky was banned I think that Diablo is strong but not that strong to make the game totally unfair. Again they could limit Diablo to 2 cards per deck. Generally I understand what is told about the non-interactive cards but the game has to have some more efficient combos in order not to be just challenges with a bit of combo.
Thanks for the long comment. Limiting can be an effective way to curb cards without ditching them entirely. I'd be curious to see how that would work out in the meta.
I hope they add new cards that spread the abilities to handle these across the different inks or make players have more options in certain inks (instead of feeling, like you said, they have to include cards like Fishbone, Bounce Package, Smee, etc because in 9/10 decks there isn't anything better to replace them with). If you look at the "must-consider" cards or most expensive cards, many have some form of card draw/look at top x cards from the deck or damage/banish all characters. For example, the new amethyst Anna who exerts all characters could allow you to challenge cards like Cogsworth (and pre-errata Bucky). Another solution is cards that give characters with Ward reckless, similar to what "Captain Hook - Ruthless Pirate" does with Evasives. Also, with card drawing being an integral part of this game, having more card draw in all the ink colors could help tremendously. We see this in the new set with the Emerald Clarabelle being one of the most talked about cards simply because of the power of drawing so many cards.
Well said. A friend was talking about how most of the removal is in two inks (red and gray) So that tends to shape a lot of decks around those in some form. Usually you have one color for draw and another for removal. Probably why colors like Blue Yellow have never really taken off.
@rudrose_entertainment I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. The only blue-yellow combinations that come to mind are Blue Alice or Grand Pabble healing, but they don't seem like strong contenders, especially against meta decks. This also explains why mono-ink decks are usually red, gray, or green whenever I see someone attempt one.
@@zenrir1344 I'm curious if we will ever see strong enough cards to make mono decks but with no color restrictions on individual cards(you don't need 5 of 7 ink to be RUBY INK to cast Be Prepared) I doubt there will ever be much reason to.
@@rudrose_tcg Probably not anytime soon. I could see after a couple years when the card pool for each ink is so large, but even then why would you, like you said? Even when I've made decks that are mostly 1 ink, I usually add at least a splatter of another to smooth out the cracks.
@@rudrose_tcg it's awful to out a really nice board and change the tide of the game to just lose to a top deck goat, snake, goat. Or play Tamatoa, dime for 5+
@@DixonCiderr A situation I forgot to mention in the video is when they have a goat on the field and are on 19 Lore. Even with Be Prepared in hand, you lose the game by answering their board. Haha, that just feels wrong.
@@rudrose_tcg absolutely. Should change wording on goat and rabbit to "if this card is banished or returned to hand". Think you shouldn't get the draw/lore if sent to inkwell or back to deck.
I don’t think any of these warrant a ban or errata. I’d prefer they release answers. Provide a way to control opponents items for example exert opponents item it doesn’t ready at the start of their turn. Or similar to Pete but for items that prevent your opponent from exerting/using their items next turn.
I'd prefer that as well. Would be nice to have a way to answer Lucky Dime in Ruby/Amethyst. But will they? We shall see.
@@rudrose_tcgR/A does almost everything else so well that I think it’s okay for certain ink pairs to have weaknesses 🤷♂️
Bruh this is really funny, ive come from other card games and none of the cards listed are overly oppressive
Agreed
On the Queen’s Castle - it’s clearly a strong location, if not the best in the game, but often I find that it just solidifies an already good position. What I mean is that, rarely does the Castle help you win when your chances are already low. For it to really have significant influence, you need at least 2 characters in the castle when it comes back around to you, unless of course you’re just fishing for 1 particular card to turn the tides. What I mean is that if you’re in a position where you can play the castle, pay to move there, AND have both the castle and your characters survive, you were likely already doing pretty well. The exception being when playing against discard decks with low strength characters, because even with multiple characters on board, they don’t have much removal nor are they strong enough to take out the castle in one turn), and a reasonable chunk of the time against Ruby/Sapphire ramp decks where they are quite weak to locations unless they pull an early Kuzco.
I’ve become a big fan of the Library. I find it helps you scrap in more even positions, and preserves your card count in many situations. Being cheaper and having 1 more willpower is so massive. There are a lot of frail characters that you get so so much more out of by dumping them into the library, such as Tipo. It forces your opponent to leave your characters or waste time removing them, just for you to replace your hand. And because it has 8 willpower on a 3 drop, it lasts a while and that 1 passive lore isn’t insignificant.
Hard to compare the two because they are so different despite being bulky card draw locations, but I’ve been running Libraries over Castles in certain builds with a lot of success. It’s nice to have a location that often yields immediate value rather than having to wait until it’s “safe” to play. If you play a Castle, move over, and it gets removed immediately, you often just lost the game.
Appreciate the long comment. I think that's how locations in general work in the game. If you are behind, they aren't going to save you or bring you back into it. BUT if you are ahead then tend to put you that much further ahead.
I don't get why Lorcana players are so impacient to get something banned.
Bear necessities is a terrible version of thoughtseize
The most annoying card to face is AWNW, in my opinion. And especially when in Steel/Amber, because it essentially makes Daisy’s downside a total non issue. You can quest with Daisy and just AWNW those extra character cards away. AWNW paired with Ariel/Naveen also doesn’t allow you to make use of your mulliganed starting hand very effectively unless you’re playing hyper aggro, because you can’t ramp up effectively when all your cards get whisked away on turn 4. And if you aggressively ink your cards, the Amber/Steel player isn’t forced to play AWNW, so they can play with card advantage if they pulled Rapunzel + Smee early while you emptied most of your hand with low cost, easily dealt with characters.
Perhaps the issue is characters exerting to sing songs, like you mentioned. Cards that counter this effect are either expensive and arrive too late (Ursula), or are cards that make your opponent discard cards (Bare Necessities). But when Ariel just fishes for songs anyway, and you’re playing 20 songs in your deck, you’ll always have songs to sing. You think limiting one character exertion to sing per turn could be a potential fix?
That would be an interesting adjustment to it. Could also try something like singing reducing the cost of a song but not making it entirely free. Something like You get a 3 or 2 cost ink reduction when singing. Then Ariel can sing AWNW, but it still costs 2 ink. Still an advantage to sing it but not the outrageous, it's completely FREE that it is currently. Singing as a mechanic deserves it's own video, ha ha.
A Buddy mentioned what if AWNW was optional for the opponent? So if they chose not to, they could keep their hand and not draw new cards. Would be a fun place to explore.
Lorcana's mechanics and dynamics are a lot of fun. When you complain about the core mechanics based on personal preference... it doesn't really justify a ban. Bucky was a true menace and you can see the meta open up because of it with all the cards you listed being used since the change. After seeing what's been out there for an entire year, it's a balanced game.
Bucky was a menace because he had ward. They couldve just taken ward and maybe even made him 3 cost but shifting as a requirement as well was too much.
Cogsworth is a nightmare. 5 whole Inks can't touch him, it's too much.
@@lorcanaPT yeah he's very miserable sans one ink color
No Flynn is crazy
Man where I play I can't get Flynn to resolve Lore at all. He might as well say, your opponent uses a removal card next turn and banish Flynn. Assuming you are taking about the Red one.
imo there are no cards currently that should be banned. I think that may be there could be cards with limited slots (eg 2 be prepareds). I also see some kind of saltyness against steelsong but I really dont think it is that op right now. I think that the devs have shown a lot of kindness towards sapphire in shimmering skies. Lucky Dime is not a problem as well imo. I think that the quill could be limited in 2 copies or there could be an errata that the ink enters exerted. That could slow things down a bit and make it fair. For me it is crazy how an aggroish deck like steelsong loses to sapphire/steel and sapphire/ruby. That should not be the case but you are right that they made sapphire to ramp so fast and efficiently that now it is out of control. For Amethyst I think it is fine. For ruby may be it worths to limit one or 2 cards but that's all. In amber I think that all cards are ok. For green my opinion is that if Diablo would be banned then Bucky would be ok. Now that Bucky was banned I think that Diablo is strong but not that strong to make the game totally unfair. Again they could limit Diablo to 2 cards per deck. Generally I understand what is told about the non-interactive cards but the game has to have some more efficient combos in order not to be just challenges with a bit of combo.
Thanks for the long comment. Limiting can be an effective way to curb cards without ditching them entirely. I'd be curious to see how that would work out in the meta.
I hope they add new cards that spread the abilities to handle these across the different inks or make players have more options in certain inks (instead of feeling, like you said, they have to include cards like Fishbone, Bounce Package, Smee, etc because in 9/10 decks there isn't anything better to replace them with).
If you look at the "must-consider" cards or most expensive cards, many have some form of card draw/look at top x cards from the deck or damage/banish all characters.
For example, the new amethyst Anna who exerts all characters could allow you to challenge cards like Cogsworth (and pre-errata Bucky).
Another solution is cards that give characters with Ward reckless, similar to what "Captain Hook - Ruthless Pirate" does with Evasives.
Also, with card drawing being an integral part of this game, having more card draw in all the ink colors could help tremendously. We see this in the new set with the Emerald Clarabelle being one of the most talked about cards simply because of the power of drawing so many cards.
Well said. A friend was talking about how most of the removal is in two inks (red and gray) So that tends to shape a lot of decks around those in some form. Usually you have one color for draw and another for removal. Probably why colors like Blue Yellow have never really taken off.
@rudrose_entertainment I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. The only blue-yellow combinations that come to mind are Blue Alice or Grand Pabble healing, but they don't seem like strong contenders, especially against meta decks. This also explains why mono-ink decks are usually red, gray, or green whenever I see someone attempt one.
@@zenrir1344 I'm curious if we will ever see strong enough cards to make mono decks but with no color restrictions on individual cards(you don't need 5 of 7 ink to be RUBY INK to cast Be Prepared) I doubt there will ever be much reason to.
@@rudrose_tcg Probably not anytime soon. I could see after a couple years when the card pool for each ink is so large, but even then why would you, like you said? Even when I've made decks that are mostly 1 ink, I usually add at least a splatter of another to smooth out the cracks.
The only cards that warrant a ban are cheating out lore cards. Dime, goat, flute etc
I would not be sad to see any of those go.
@@rudrose_tcg it's awful to out a really nice board and change the tide of the game to just lose to a top deck goat, snake, goat. Or play Tamatoa, dime for 5+
@@DixonCiderr A situation I forgot to mention in the video is when they have a goat on the field and are on 19 Lore. Even with Be Prepared in hand, you lose the game by answering their board. Haha, that just feels wrong.
@@rudrose_tcg absolutely. Should change wording on goat and rabbit to "if this card is banished or returned to hand". Think you shouldn't get the draw/lore if sent to inkwell or back to deck.
They just need to add answers to other colors, and that will solve the problem to keep the strong cards in check