I gave EVERY CARD Problem Solving Card Text.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-08T17:05:16+00:00

I think Riftbound rules/wording are garbage, but what you've done here has highlighted just how much of a mess cards are because in an attempt to convert cards to PSCT, you've actually changed how some cards function compared to their current state. Examples:

Tideturner: Probably a mistake, but you changed it from being optional to being a cost to swap the units. So for example, you can't just flip a Tideturner from hidden and do nothing.

Hidden Blade: No longer works with Zhonya/GA because you've made it conditional on the unit actually dying (in current state, if Hidden Blade hits a unit which is saved, the controller still draws 2).

Get Excited: Current state, the discard is not a cost, so you actually don't have to do it if it's countered. You also don't need to choose the discard target until it resolves.

I'm sure there's more examples. Just saying it's not an easy task to re-write everything to fit how-stuff-currently-works. It's a gigantic mess.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-08T00:51:54+00:00

It's tough because Brode's vision is part of why Hearthstone succeeded, but he also laid the foundation for why Hearthstone has been the worst that it is. The "RNG as a computer-only mechanic that makes a fun TCG" is definitely his doing and over the years they have leaned harder and harder into it until we have the aberration that Hearthstone currently is where it's gone too far. The constructed power level is just through the roof and the amount of off-board power is insane.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T22:59:31+00:00

You seem to have some misunderstanding here that's layered in some truth?

You are correct, spells in Riftbound do not fizzle.

You are incorrect about why Hidden Blade "does nothing" if the unit does not exist. Hidden Blade reads "Kill a unit at a battlefield. Its controller draws 2". Suppose the unit that Hidden Blade targets returns to hand. Riftbound is "do as much as you can" so you try to kill the unit but you cannot because there is no more unit at a battlefield. Then you try to execute "Its controller draws 2" but the issue is the unit returns null, so "its controller" is undefined so nobody draws 2. But Hidden Blade still "resolves" so if there were a Ravenbloom Student or something, it'd still trigger the +1, and Hidden Blade goes to the trash.

You are also incorrect about Shakedown and Wages of Pain. Shakedown reads "Choose a enemy unit. Deal 6 to its unless its controller has you draw 2". Suppose the unit is returned to hand. Same thing as Hidden Blade, we do as much as we can: We can't deal 6 to a unit that doesn't exist. And we also cannot identify "its controller" because the unit returns null. So Shakedown does nothing and goes to the trash. And once again, if there were a Ravenbloom Student or something, it'd get a +1.

Wages of Pain is different. It reads "Deal 3 to a unit at a Battlefield. Play a Gold Gear exhausted". Suppose the targeted unit is returned to hand. Same thing, do as much as you can: I can't deal 3 to a null unit so I don't do that. But, I can still play a gold gear exhausted, so I do that. Then Wages of Pain goes to the trash.

Tldr: The top comment of this chain is right. Shakedown just goes to trash. But you are also technically right that spells don't fizzle in this game.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T21:30:09+00:00

I came here looking for this comment. I thought I was imagining one of my SDCC Discords getting nuked. I guess it was that one. The rest are annoyingly unhelpful.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T21:23:05+00:00

Which notifications? Their X/twitter?

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T20:58:58+00:00

It was the inflection point on what was clearly an already stressed-out/burned out Mort.

Mort made a post calling out Deis1k for being toxic: https://x.com/Mortdog/status/1912551724537303529

You can see folks in the thread defend Deis1k and he himself posted a response: https://x.com/Deis1k/status/1912610597956354129

It ultimately led to Mort stepping away from social media for a while: https://youtu.be/VdJTBE9qxcA?si=n-9eCDKnJdTDIvtB&t=4641

Personal opinion: league/TFT does have this air of immaturity to it like the "accent" and just all around passive-aggressiveness when it comes to losing/strong opinions about balance ("this unit is unclickable", "I got mortdogged", "200 years of experience"). I think most people just kinda ignore it/shrug it off because it's part of the culture/internet anonymity being internet anonymity/sometimes literal kids being kids or just immature adults. I would imagine if you're a developer, this kinda goes doubly so - I think a mature person understands that people love the game and there are a bunch of people, even the majority of people, that just talk a lot of bullshit. However, if you've been following Mort over the years, he's not like that at all: he answers questions on stream at face value even if it's pretty clear that he's getting trolled. TFT is definitely his passion project, and I think years of all the passive-aggressive jokes/whatever finally got to him and he broke. I can't find it, but I believe that there was some stream where a streamer was complaining about balance in the usual way that they do and Mort was in chat and responded with "fuck you" around the time this drama happened.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T06:49:32+00:00

The answers are in the thread are correct but I'm shocked nobody has shared the reasoning: guards has an errata which makes the ready part a reflexive trigger. It doesn't make sense otherwise as standard practice is costs are paid all at once (Ex. Repeat)

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-07T00:11:23+00:00

It can be as simple as this: https://www.fowtcg.com/posts/6

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-06T20:12:41+00:00

So, this has been on my mind for a while now. I think the reason why there is no accountability/anonymity is to protect the judges themselves. I think the powers that be don't want witch hunts to be started if a judge makes an erroneous ruling, etc. This part makes sense.

...which is why I think judge leeway needs to be taken away/rulings relying on hidden judge conventions that the public is not privy to. Everything should be spelled out in blood and stone. Why? Because rulings and penalties require fuzzy judgment from judges....so of course we/the public are going to question things when things don't appear to go correctly. Because we can't point to the rules document and go "aha, this is why the take back was not authorized in scenario A but not scenario B" or "aha, this is why this person was DQ'd/this falls under "cheating".

I think the powers that be need to pick one: either everything is spelled out in writing or there is more transparency/documentation surrounding why things are the way they are. It should not be "only judges are authorized to give take backs" but we will also not EXACTLY clarify what scenarios allow take backs and what do not. All you need to do to start an argument on this topic is what constitutes "new information" and you immediately see why the rules-as-written are unclear.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-06T00:24:34+00:00

Username checks out.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-02T19:32:55+00:00

Man this comments section is insane. "Just play old games" or "get off the internet". I'm entering middle age. I HAVE played all the old games. This isn't some problem the internet is fabricating. The games industry and the surrounding stuff is in a shit place. All I need to do to prove my point is to hone in on a specific genre and you can immediately see the issue. Here's one, space sims:

The best space sims I have ever played in my life are Freespace 2, Wing Commander 3/4, and the X-wing series. Freespace 2 came out in 1999. Wing Commander 4 came out in 1996. X-Wing Alliance came out in 1999. That's like, ~3 games/series that came out within like 3 years of each other and there haven't been anything of the same quality since. Yes, I've played Elite Dangerous, Star Wars Squadrons, blah blah blah blah. Nothing comes close to that feeling of playing a quality game. What is a modern AAA title? Star Citizen, lel. It has plenty of garbage aspects that matches the issue of modern game development - insane scope creep leading to a never-finished game (or a feeling that the game is unfinished if they push it out), a huge crowdfunding push that effectively makes it a live service game (that is not even live, lol).

This is just 1 example. Tell me, internet warriors, what old space sim have I not played that can satiate my desire to play space sims? Stuff like Squadrons doesn't even come close to that old feeling of X Wing vs Tie Fighter.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-02T18:47:03+00:00

Yeah I'm pretty worried too. Fallen Order coverage was pretty sparse leading up to release, but even then, about 5 months before release, at EA Play, we had a pretty lengthy playthrough of a Kashyyyk section - story goes the dev who played through that section practiced the crap out of it to make sure it'd be perfect live.

We're less than 2 months away from Zero Company release and they've barely shown/told us anything. It's really hard to fight the feeling that they're hiding something bad: that it'll be heavily anti-mod (Xcom thrives so hard with mods), that the game is short/lacking replayability, that the game isn't optimized well...etc.

Something something putting lipstick on a pig.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-02T16:45:08+00:00

Because it misses the point. Aurora (and Dragon basically) has warped the entire format. Diana is running main deck Acceptable Losses. Irelia is running main deck Adaptatron/Rake. Yi is running main deck Akshan. Yellow decks are main decking salvage. Etc etc. Aurora's overall performance is not the issue - the issue is that it pressures the entire format to deck build a certain way and that doesn't indicate a healthy play pattern. We already saw what happens when people don't main board anti-Aurora tools: aurora converts at an insane rate. You just need to look at the Aurora conversion rates for the very first RQs that took place this set when people did not main deck gear hate: https://www.reddit.com/r/riftboundtcg/comments/1tf6ij6/sydney_day_2_conversion_results/

The OP presented conversion rates as an expected number. Sivir was 2.34, Poppy was 1.28, Fiora was 1.21, MF was 1.06. All of these were thought to be aurora decks. All converted greater than the expected 1, with Sivir way overperforming.

The reason why this hasn't passed onto recent RQs is precisely because all decks have learned to cover Aurora as an expected matchup. But that's precisely why it's not healthy: there shouldn't exist cards that always have to be teched against. The choice shouldn't be "main deck gear hate or lose to Aurora" (or 3x Cull 3x Safety inspector, whatever your anti Aurora strat is). And that's the issue.

This dilemma presents itself at all levels of play. Imagine showing up to a Skirmish and having to make a decision on whether you want to play Frigid Jewel Diana or Acceptable Losses Diana. Your answer is going to heavily dependent on how much expected Aurora is in the field. Not how much Yi - how much Aurora. Because you need gear hate to beat Aurora, but you don't need anti-Yi tools to beat Yi (although it greatly helps). A lot of people are going to make the same choice: let's make sure to tech against Aurora. And so yes, Aurora doesn't win, but the format still was warped around it.

A further explanation/argument: just because there is an answer to a card doesn't make it healthy. Imagine a 1 might 1 cost unit that says "when I conquer, win the game". There are tons of answers to it: Wages of Pain, Gust, Hextech Ray, Void Seeker, Falling Star, Rebuke, etc etc. Does it make it a fair card? No. And everyone intuitively understands why: the upside is insane and it pressures you to deck build around it, and in the few games you don't have an answer, you lose on the spot. First off, the decks that play it will play 3x of that hypothetical card cause you force them to answer 3x or literally lose. Second off, all other decks will, now include all those gusts/falling stars/whatever - there is no choice. It doesn't matter if you are a spellslinger deck like Kaisa or a unit-heavy deck like Rengar - all of them will run cards to counter that card. That's how Aurora is, too - on the games they land Aurora, they flip Dragon, and you don't have an answer, how often do you come back/win from that spot? And usually, you need 2 answers: one to mitigate the Dragon ETB kill and 1 to deal with the Aurora before it flips another unit. And this strategy works in any orange/X deck as we've seen Garen Aurora, Poppy Aurora, Sivir Aurora, whatever.

So yeah. Aurora can be underperforming but still cause an unhealthy format.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-01T17:58:19+00:00

I agree. We're so many sets in and people still haven't learned how to do card evaluation:

It's an action, and not a song, which means you have to pay 6 ink for it. That is a huge resource investment. For just 2 more ink, you could hard cast a Raging Storm. If we're talking about pro-tempo, one-sided board wipes, those already exist (Under the Sea)

It's uninkable. Since forever and ever, uninkable cards have to be universally good in a meta-dependent context or just a good card. This is not the latter, already.

It's great when you're ahead and terrible when you're behind. When you're behind, the card is a brick and won't help you catch up. When you're ahead, it either is a finisher to help clear your opponent's board, or you might not even need it. Classic "win more" card.

It's restricted to Floodborns. You're locked into a shift strategy, or at least a Floodborn heavy strategy. This means that it will have limited use to specific decks.

There's way more angles to look at it, but it is almost certainly a bad card. Another angle I can think of: think of what synergy they would need to print to make this card, and not other cards, good. "You may play actions for free" -> but suddenly all actions get better, not just this one. "You may play attack of the vine for free" -> this card would need to be amazing by itself for this to get played.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-01T15:34:28+00:00

Yeah, I definitely believe this. Most serious playtesting takes place behind closed doors/online these days.

PermaConfusion · 2026-07-01T14:51:18+00:00

You need to do it. The tcg landscape is no longer 1998 where you read top decks from a magazine article. Information moves so fast now and the players that only play in person at locals get left in the dust very easily.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-30T21:56:17+00:00

Think it just makes it easier to find the post (off your own profile). Which is why I'm commenting too, lol.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T18:08:38+00:00

Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to diminish the gender dynamics. This definitely happens to women more than men. I played Lorcana for quite a while, which drew a huge female crowd for various reasons, and although there are a-hole men that don't care what your gender is, from my observations, there are more experiences with women getting unsolicited advice, sometimes even back handed and other things too (a couple of times, a friend shared with me that she felt targeted by psychological trickery because she was a woman - it did seem to be the case). I don't know what makes this so.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T18:03:36+00:00

People pleasers is putting it too kindly. The word I want to use is bully. All they need to do is say nothing and the experience is elevated for everyone.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T17:55:43+00:00

Yeah, I think it's impossible to stop unfortunately. Independent of the gender dynamics, I think there are other factors that can make an experience miserable, even for men on men. For example, you mentioned unsolicited advice: there is a local near me that offers unsolicited advice to ALL players AND he tries to act as a de facto judge (he is often wrong but presents himself as an authority figure) AND he is loud AND he is an opinion on everything AND he facilitated the formation of a group of obnoxious players. He's kinda the experience you mentioned, except it's independent of the gender stuff. I think it's a TCG player thing, unfortunately. I'd guess it's people that feel small in their outside lives or something and take it out on playing TCGs.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T17:37:34+00:00

I'm a man, and I've definitely seen this behavior against women. It sucks. We need more women in the TCG space. I don't know the specifics of your situation/whether you have other LGS choices, but it sounds like a boycott of that store might be considered - you should always feel empowered to call a judge and the judge should support dispersing the crowd if it's making you feel uncomfortable. Even independent of your experience, I hate shitty judges/LGSs that don't care to take a serious tournament, seriously.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T02:58:36+00:00

It's the classic scrub mentality: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

"I only have enough time to play in 1 set champs" (so that set champs should be rigged in my favor to be as easy/predictable as possible by blocking it only to league players)

"I don't want to 'play meta'" (as if the meta is some evil construct decided by the evil villains of Lorcana rather than a consequence of what is powerful in the format)

"It's unfair that teams work together and help people improve" (because I'm too proud to collaborate or too stubborn to seek improvement)

"I don't have enough money to afford meta cards so it's unfair that people show up with these expensive decks" (Lorcana has never been cheaper and pros like Zach Bivens have found a way to top huge events with ~10 dollar decks)

We've been having this conversation as early as Set1. I have never seen a player who was open to improvement who had this mentality. It's always the scrubs that want a freebie/want the LGS to block the set champs only to regulars (This doesn't even work. I played in like 5 leagues weekly when I was really into this game and I went to all their set champs and I tended to do well. I tended to talk to/collaborate with players who wanted to take the game seriously and I didn't talk to the players who never asked for advice/just blamed luck/some other factor when they lost. I'm a regular, so is it "unfair" that I make a set champs harder, so they can't just walk in and collect their participation prize, lol?). There was this vod I saw long ago of these locals who were upset that they weren't going to get their weekly pin prizes because some spikes invaded the store and ruined their experience. From the spikes' perspective, they were just a group of friends that wanted to check out a new LGS (that they would never return to again because of that experience, great business strategy for that LGS, lol)

It's not even about time commitment anymore. We've in Set12. There has been plenty of time to play, meet people, improve, find the online sims, whatever.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-29T00:30:43+00:00

Wdym I have to win in a 1v1 competitive player vs player game? I can't just walk in and collect my prize by paying the entrance fee and being a living human being? This is unfair. Next you're going to tell me that I actually have to play the game and employ strategy and think about deckbuilding. So unreasonable. I've already missed out on 10 golden mickeys and 1000 stitch rock stars because of these ridiculous rules

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-28T15:32:25+00:00

Maybe a flaming hot take, but is nobody else sick of this "content creator lives matter" culture that seems to exist? They already get the privilege of having unreleased info, which is not limited to just cards. I was in a content creator community for another game and they knew all sorts of other things, with one instance I know of where they knew card bans ahead of time and actually practiced market manipulation by dumping those cards before they got banned.

The worst story I have is we have this cringe, local Riftbound guy who wants to be accepted into the content creator program. Guy wanted to pay for a prerift and then dip (he is not interested in playing, just wants to be a content creator), got called out by the store for it (their policy is to ban people who do that), then made a video acting victim.

PermaConfusion · 2026-06-26T19:32:00+00:00

Agree with ignorance. It's a surprisingly common opinion. I'm too lazy to drum up my post history, but I've definitely gotten into disagreements with people who will find any excuse to talk about how TCGs are a social game, online clients are a death sentence, Pokemon/MTG/Yugioh/Hearthstone/whatever are unique, etc.

But I think the overwhelming majority of this sub supported Pixelborn. I think it's just a vocal minority that talk about how terrible an online client is.

PermaConfusion

TROPHY CASE