 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
| Pojo's Naruto news, tips, strategies and more! | |||||
|
|
|||||
 |
|||||
 |
|||||
Pojo's Naruto Site
Naruto Home
Button Ads |
 |
Pojo's Naruto Fan Tips
Gaara in the Metagame
Before I begin, I
should note that this is a long read. It's worth reading
though, especially for those who play Naruto
competitively.
I made this thread to
give an insight into why some bans are necessary in card
games. In the current metagame there is one card that
fits into this exact category: Gaara of the Desert
[Tragic Name]. Now the reasons I will get into further
down, but let me bring up a card from a completely
different game to prove some bans are necessary.
I'm sure you've all
heard of Magic: The Gathering. The game is known for
it's long life and very little amount of banned cards. A
set of M:TG came out called Darksteel and in it a card
called Skullclamp (now all you who play M:TG can
probably stop reading as you know where I'm going). It
was a card that made it past the Wizards R&D and
playtesters with no problems. Not too long after that it
became a staple in every deck. Seeing the obvious
problem that became of that, Wizards made a step in the
right direction and banned it. Below are some excerpts
of an article I was reading on the Wizards website about
why Skullclamp got banned (which I might point out was
the first ban Wizards did for thier main format in 4
years) and some parts of the article draw parallels to
Gaara of the Desert [Tragic Name].
First I came
across this paragraph right here:
[Let's talk about Standard first. Skullclamp was banned in Standard, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck, had four in the sideboard, or was built to try and defend against it. And there were a lot more successful decks in the first two categories than in the third. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format. Your deck has to either have Skullclamps, or have Skullclamp in its crosshairs—a definitive case of a card “warping the metagame."]
Now take that article
and compare it to Gaara.
Seen everywhere?
Check.
Every competitive deck played with it? Check. Every competitive deck that didn't play it tries to counter it? Check. Either have to play with or against it? Check.
Now we get to the
"warping the metagame" part. It's exactly what Gaara is
doing to Naruto, warping the current metagame. You
either have to be playing it or trying to play against
it, and like the article says, you have much more
success playing with it rather than against.
Now, we get to
this part of the article:
[We did not ban Skullclamp to “hurt Affinity decks,” as some players believe. We weren't out to kill one specific deck (and if we were, we would have chosen a different card), but rather to salvage the entire format. Some decks are just naturally going to be better than others, and if Affinity is one of the better decks, we're ok with that. What we're not ok with is having one card be the focal point of every viable strategy.]
Here we can draw more
parallels to Gaara. It created it's own decktype (as did
Skullclamp) and banning it wouldn't be to kill that
decktype, but rather to salvage the metagame.
Lastly (please
stick with me, we're almost done), we get to the end of
the article:
[Who Loses Out The thing about this banning that I feel bad about is that the card in question was much more widely used and enjoyed than cards that have been banned in the past were. Very few people had fun with stuff like Mind over Matter and Memory Jar. But everyone can find a use for Skullclamp. Players at cardshops and kitchen tables around the world are slapping it on everything from Auriok Glaivemaster to Bottle Gnomes to Fallen Angels. And to them the card isn't “broken” or “environment-warping,” but rather only very good and quite fun. I'm sure the card is responsible for making many iffy Friday Night Magic decks into contenders—heck, even a Bird or Dwarf tribal deck can laugh off mass removal with some Skullclamps handy.]
This paragraph also
draws more parallels to Gaara. It is a card that
everyone can find a use for. It is a card that people
all around are putting into many different types of
decks and some don't consider it "broken" or
"environment-warping" because it's not a problem where
they play. Lastly, it's a card that helps make some iffy
decks into contenders.
With Gaara matching
much of what's been said about Skullclamp, it's becoming
obvious that something must be done about it. Banning is
only one of the solutions, but it is the best one. One
card being banned doesn't ruin the game but extends the
life of the game by making a variety of decks being able
to be played again.
I suggest you take
some time to read the full article about Skullclamp
right here:
I can almost
guarentee that halfway through the article you will be
reading "Gaara of the Desert [Tragic Name]" instead of
Skullclamp.
If you have any
questions or comments or want to tell me how much you
like it or hate it, drop me a PM over on the Pojo
Forums.
-Alucard of the Abyss
(my Pojo forum name)
|
|||
|
Copyright© 1998-2006 pojo.com
This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise affiliated with any of the companies or products featured on this site. This is not an Official Site. |
|||||