Before we get into today’s details, it’s important to highlight that we know today’s bans will impact many players. Bans are not something we take lightly, especially today’s as they are the first ever bans for Riftbound. Our approach has always been to do what we believe is best for Riftbound’s players, even when it’s difficult. We’re committed to being honest and direct with our players regarding the game, and today we are continuing that by detailing how and why we arrived on our decision to ban these cards and battlefields.
Philosophy
So when do we ban cards? These are the first bans we’re making for Riftbound, so I want to broadly explain when and why we would ban cards. To some degree, this is a work in progress; we’ll be informed by how these impact the Riftbound competitive metagame, and our future decisions will take that and player sentiment into account.
There are a number of factors that matter when we consider whether to ban:
-
Is the card overrepresented in an unhealthy way?
We don’t want our metagame dominated by a single Legend, domain, or play pattern over an extended period of time. To define this, we take many things into consideration such as impacts on organized play at every level and representation at major events.
-
Are the problems with the card likely to get worse over time?
Certain types of problems are more likely to get worse over time. Specifically, cards that are inexpensive and synergy-driven will tend to get stronger as we release more cards, since they can combine with more and more things. If we believe we will have to take action against a certain card eventually, we want to act sooner rather than later.
-
Does this card promote play patterns that negatively affect the game in other ways?
It isn’t all about raw power; player experience matters as well. Riftbound can be complex, and while that’s a big part of what our competitive players enjoy, we don’t want games to feel miserable or tournaments to take forever.
Just because a card or deck runs afoul of one of these factors doesn’t mean we’d take action based on that alone, but depending on the context, each can be a powerful multiplier with the others and lead us to consider banning something.
What about changing the rules or the cards (via errata)?
So rather than ban cards, why don’t we just change them or (if it’s helpful) change the underlying rules to remove power or restore fun? We DO errata cards and change the rules over time – Riftbound is a game where new rules (cards) are added with every new set, and we hope that keeps it fresh and fun.
But the primary purpose of changes like this is long-term health of the game: either the rules can’t support the content properly and changes must be made to provide that support, or to clarify what’s intended to happen with a card or rule. We do not change cards or rules as a “balance lever” to adjust the competitive metagame.
What about restricting or otherwise limiting cards?
When a specific card is a problem, limiting or restricting it can actually make the problem sharper – it can then come down to magnified randomness on who draws their lone copy, for example. We do not have any plans to pursue these in the foreseeable future. Who knows what the long term holds, but it’s not something players should expect to see from us anytime soon.
It’s also important to us for clarity that whatever intervention we make in the competitive metagame, it’s straightforward to describe – “you can’t play that anymore” is a lot clearer and simpler than “you can, but only under these circumstances” or “you can play that, but they totally changed how it works even though that text is not on the card.”
Miracle Decks
Recently, several archetypes have emerged that utilize the same core of Chaos cards to draw through most of their deck and play a series of undercosted units in the same turn – players have been calling these decks “Miracle” decks. These strategies have proven highly successful and they take a large amount of game actions that take a very long time to execute, with the Miracle player navigating a large number of choices. In tournament play, these decks have also contributed to significant round delays due to the time they consume on the clock.
We do not consider this style of deck to be healthy, and we don’t want players to feel like they have to gravitate toward this package every time they play a Chaos Legend. On top of this, as the card pool expands, cards that support this type of strategy will only become more powerful. Because of this, we’re banning Called Shot and Scrapheap, two cards that allow the player to filter through their deck AND get ahead on cards at a pace that’s too efficient (free).
Draven
The second issue is power outliers. Other than the various Miracle builds, the Midrange Draven deck has proven to be both more prevalent and stronger than we’d consider healthy.
Draven decks are more difficult to target because the most obvious card providing power to the deck is the Legend, Glorious Executioner. However, if we ban a legend, we are essentially banning everyone from playing Draven, and we would only do that as a last resort. Draven decks have a combination of a powerful Legend, a strong Champion, a highly efficient card pool, and Battlefields that synergize particularly well with the strategy, without a clear outlier like Called Shot is for Miracle decks. None of these elements would be concerning individually, but together they create a deck whose metagame presence and win rate are higher than we’re comfortable with. To be clear – we made a mistake with Draven’s Legend, and the power of the Draven decks, because making a new game is complicated and we’ve been moving fast.
To address this, we’re banning Draven, Vanquisher. Having guaranteed access to such a strong turn-two play gives Draven deckbuilders considerable freedom while creating early-game pressure that is difficult for opponents to navigate. Because Draven, Showboat from Origins still exists, Draven decks will retain access to a Chosen Champion in each of their Domains.
Lastly we’re also banning Fight or Flight to limit the power of Chaos decks more generally. Its ability to be played from hand or hidden to negate combat or protect a friendly unit makes it a flexible spell that is best in class in too many scenarios. While we want this kind of design to be core to the Chaos experience, this one has proven to be powerful enough to crowd out other reasonable designs. Fight or Flight’s banning will allow Riftbound’s other colors to better compete with Chaos.
Battlefields
Battlefields present unique design challenges because of how they work in Riftbound and that means we have to judge them a little differently from cards in your main deck. They start in play, can’t usually be modified or destroyed, and can be played in any deck regardless of the champion or domains. This ubiquity means they are at greater risk of over representation and repetition than any other type of card in Riftbound.
Given the quantity of battlefields already in Riftbound and that more come with each new set, and given their aforementioned ubiquity, it means players have options to find replacements which still feel rewarding for their deck when we decide to ban them.
In evaluating a battlefield’s impact on Riftbound, there is a difference between “this Battlefield supports a strategy or tactic” and “this Battlefield is defining the game”, and we feel the Battlefields below have crossed over into the latter.
The first is Reaver’s Row, which promotes a noninteractive pattern (especially if both players bring it in the same game) – rather than have meaningful showdowns and interactions between players or situations where a player tries to hold, players will just retreat. It’s also disproportionately strong in Draven decks where their opponent can’t retreat without giving them a card, and in domains where conquering is already stronger than holding.
The second is The Dreaming Tree, which is a battlefield that distorts deckbuilding and provides substantial card flow due to its ability to be used on both players’ turns. Access to this much card flow is a strength (or weakness) of various domains, and the presence of Dreaming Tree in the metagame provides an excessively high level of consistency.
Finally, we’re banning Obelisk of Power for being ubiquitous among the most powerful decks and for reducing interesting deckbuilding decisions. Normally, when building a deck, players needs to account for the games in which they’ll play first and the games in which they’ll play second, which means they want an assortment of energy costs in their decks; with Obelisk of Power, players can bypass this restriction and ensure they always hit the same breakpoints whether they go first or second, which reduces game diversity.
—
Our hope with this set of bans is that Miracle decks in all their forms become less prevalent and less powerful, and that Draven and other Chaos strategies take a slight step back and compete with the rest of the field on more equal footing.
Thank you, and we look forward to seeing what you all do with the new metagame!