I can respect what you’re looking for in UPF, but those are the same things I was pleased to see missing in UPF as a breath of fresh air. I’ve played too many games of Commander that sprawled on for ages as players build up enormous boardstates, and particularly in a game where cards that destroy in-play cards are so few and far between I’d worry about that spiralling out of control. I’ve enjoyed that UPF is as proactive as it is, and that games of it are over surprisingly quickly so that we can rerack and go again. That said, obviously that’s not for everyone either, so I can get wanting UPF to feel more like the currently most popular social gaming format in a TCG. Two quick notes I wanted to make that you might find helpful: 1) If UPF-only cards are to be printed, the Special Use Promo system already works quite well for that with things like Taylor. I do hope they dip their toes into what you’re looking for somewhat there while maintaining the feeling of “cards are either CC/Blitz legal, or they aren’t”. To be honest, when news of the product was first leaked, I had assumed at least some portion of the product *was* going to be designated as Special Use Promo, and was a bit surprised (though pleasantly so) that it is not. 2) The juggernaut mech suit idea you had mentioned is pretty ripe for making use of the Demi-Hero card type introduced in DtD. Modelling off of Levia, Redeemed’s method of entering play is probably a good starting point. Either way, good luck with experimenting with designs, I find it a pretty good way to better learn the ins and outs of a card game :)
I appreciate the long and well thought out response! I feel there's a balance to find for sure. With the nature of FAB, I don't see a board state build-up leading to something as asinine as Magic can get to (and I don't feel I'd want "the board state of endless triggers" either), and the hand refreshing puts everyone in a good spot to keep the speed up. If it's a breath of fresh air, then definitely don't let me stop you! With our community it's a bit of a red-headed step-child, and I feel that's a similar vibe when I regularly talk about UPF with others. It's a nervous chuckle, like "yeah, that's...a thing that exists in my history, yes." On your notes: 1. Given that Taylor is a $2K-3K card, it's difficult to appreciate that system being a good one. Heck, the most "notorious" moment for UPF required a rules change because someone actually brought a Ru'udi all-graded deck and that was more of a meme. I do agree that I'm glad that nothing is in "Special Use Promo" territory for a $70 product (see the Classic Battles problem - little different, same result). I'd honestly love to see supplemental set just go absolutely nuts. Blend of both. If anything, the spoiler season will probably see the community having a blast thinking about the insanity and it may inspire more people to try it out. 2. That's actually a fantastic thought and yeah, I 100% agree. That would be really really cool and I think that is a really good starting point! May be fun to play around with!
@@DecksandDraughts Oh, the *accessibility* of Special Use Promos is terrible, I don’t mean to suggest relying on that unchanged. I’m moreso referring to the category of card legality, and appreciating that Flesh and Blood is a “everything is legal, with these few exceptions” kind of game, as opposed to a game with many different formats with nested or rotating card legality like Magic (or to pull from other games I’ve played, Netrunner or the original Legend of the Five Rings CCG). However, that structure of card legality does come with trade-offs, and I think design limitations on how wild cards can get are one of those that not everyone’s going to want to be around, There’s nothing wrong with that sort of disagreement, I’d honestly call it healthy. I agree that UPF is definitely the odd format out, as far as play interest goes. If LSS does intend for it to be an active part of their design philosophy and organized social play, it will need regular touching up with follow-up products like this one since they seem to be moving away from the other best-fitting product for these cards (supplementary sets) in their future set planning. That said, I’m pretty content to let the format be what it is for now, but hopefully this and future products bring others like you more of what you’re after without impacting what I like about the format too much. I just worry about stronger build-up phases and periodic removal making more games feel like watching Arakni v Dromai matches, and that’s just where I don’t want UPF to end up. Tons of ways to make those changes without that happening though, and at the moment I trust LSS to not flub that too badly if they start going a bit more wild with UPF. I’m certainly excited to do that Copper build-up/Final Act/Encore setup with a customized version of the Bard deck we’ve seen so far., and hopefully the product inspires more of the same. Thanks for being so receptive, and hopefully we’re both more excited by this product, and the future of UPF, by the time we know everything that’s inside.
@@Anaxiamander Absolutely! I appreciate the conversation as well - that's why I do these. What makes them fun. I do like "everything is legal, with these few exceptions," but I'm still going to hold to the joy of a format shouldn't come solely from players "trying to make something work." EDH/Commander was exactly that, but as soon as WOTC took it on and REALLY owned it, the format became unstoppable (in both good and bad ways). I'd challenge also why I like the "UPF-only" concept is because it doesn't damage the game design integrity as a whole if something doesn't work. It's like Seasons with Diablo 4, it's a separate opportunity to experiment and test without people having to look and say "wait, this is under the same model as what the core game was designed with? Uhhhh..." It kind of opens the door for it to be a scapegoat for things that don't function well and create a bit of a testing model without people worried if, in doing so, it's going to demolish an entire competitive season (see Starvo). On the note of build-up, perhaps "built-up" does have a clearer bar here, and it doesn't have to mean "Allies" (a concept I've hated from the beginning and continue to hate). It can also come with restrictions and balances like "If you are attacked, draw 3 cards. You may not attack the same hero more than once next turn." "Gain 5 life. All other heroes gain 3 life." "If you have 3 or more tokens, destroy them all and give your next attack +X, where X is the number of differently named tokens destroyed this way." "The next time you would take damage, prevent all of it. Skip your next turn." I'd also like to see a lot more Generics that do this as well. Everyone should have access and honestly, I want a reason to have like...5 decks to play with and I want cards that are so interesting and out there that I'm not really thinking about "which one gets my CnCs." I feel that's another little flaw is "I just don't want to build a deck because my staples are accounted for and I don't want to move them, and I don't want to play with a deck I know is inferior without."
@@DecksandDraughts I think the first part you've noted is at the crux of the difference of what we're looking for in the format; I'm hoping that it manages to remain a format for players to feel out making things work, instead of being overly designed towards. Likewise, I prefer when the ways in which social formats change rely mainly on player innovation as opposed to direct design decisions, which leads me to not enjoy things like Seasonal rules design like your D4 example. Those design paradigms allow a great deal more experimentation and less risk when failures occur, which are not values to be easily dismissed! I just don't value the experiences they result in as much, personally. Yeah, given those examples there was definitely some misunderstanding on my part as to what you meant by "build-up", from taking your comments on the EVO Mech and Bard decks too literally I think. All of those examples seem fine, balance aside, but also feel like they could be made to work well enough in a two-player design context as well (whether as a card designed for cube, like many in DtD, or as a competitively-minded card for Blitz/CC). Heck, as a Shiyana player I love the idea of that multi-token attack buff card as encouraging more out-there patterns of play. Definitely with you in wanting more mindbending, out-there cards, just not as down with locking them behind the UPF format. It *would* be nice to not have to worry about moving staples like CnC around, and I feel like that's likely only to be resolved by a cardbase that continues to grow horizontally (and not just with good-enough, lower-rarity versions of staples, like happened with Wreck Havoc). Funnily enough, I feel like a lot of that problem comes from those great cards being generic in the first place, but their not being so would cripple some design creativity so it's a tricky tightrope. My pie-in-the-sky solution to the cost of moving around staples would be to just design card games to be built within fixed-rarity LCG model, but obviously that draws a very different audience and level of investment. Maybe that's part of why I'm excited by this product in particular: I know exactly what I'm going to get, and how much of it I need, and how much it will cost.
@@Anaxiamander Totally fair and yeah, the "build up" was more an exploration of the biggest box that Commander checks that UPF just can't and I'd like to see the needle swing, but certainly not rely on it. Same with bonkers cards, doesn't just have to be UPF-only. I'm just thinking about some options and compromises (I can see your point on Season rules, and I'll admit it would suck to mimic as if to suggest it just "turns off" like a rotation). I'd love for a card that makes me not think so much about CnC. I'd love for it not to be Majestic. (Wreak Havoc was neat as an idea, but in such a competitive setting, rarely does "poor man's CnC" really get you that far...so I don't think it actually solved anything). I almost wouldn't want anything truly out there to be Majestic or higher unless you get into "variant" territory. This is what I HATE (with a passion) with Dusk 'Til Dawn. What a wildly fun...miserably inaccessible product for Prism. Man she looks fun...why even buy a box for it? I'm going straight to the secondary 'cause those cards are just not going to be found in even a case, let alone one box! I agree that the card base growing horizontally will solve a lot of these problems, but Round the Table takes a hefty swing at one thing with one goal in mind. I figure if you're going to go THAT hard for something specific, you recognized a need for it, set your goal posts, and this is your kick. I just don't have a lot of confidence in why the goal posts are where they are and from what we've seen, doesn't feel like they've really moved either - they instead went with a different ball.
I’ve wanted something for UPF that backs up your Smash Bros analogy: pit items. These would exist in a deck meant for the entire pit / board and similar to MtG Planechase cards, can alter the way the game plays whenever a player pitches to use one. It’s thematic too, because the visible threat is in the pit and heroes need to choose whether to go for it or defend against it.
@@DecksandDraughts it would be instant-speed, with one being dropped face up each round. Just like a group of heroes fighting in a pit, players would need to choose whether to go for it. A couple of each could be in each supplemental set and would add unique and thematic fun to the social format.
Oh probably not, but I don't entirely know if PvE gets their either unless it does something truly out there. "I get to play my 1v1 in a different setting" doesn't change much. I'm really stuck on "what kinds of things would make me want to build 5-7 decks and have me deciding based just on what sounds fun."
Fab is a fighting game. I believe the issue is that people want FAB to be something it is not. FAB is never going to replicate commander and it should never try to do so because it will fail. Only way pve will work is if they are able to replicate Path of Exile/Diablo cooperative hack and loot in card form. Everything else will fail.
The guardian is the same way him building up Might tokens till he gets that three for seven that just slices through blocking if it has six might counters on it. I think several of the heroes have persistent state win conditions
I love listening to Flesh and Blood channels because it makes me realise this is what MTG must sound like to non MTG people. Some really interesting points here, great vid. The reason lots of people play commander is exactly because of the nonsense.
For some of the topics, especially from Magic, it's really all about the presentation half the time. FAB and MTG operate in such different worlds in their typical "day to day" play, it's like apples and oranges, but for some reason, our communities don't want to appreciate that unless it's convenient. This time...really need to appreciate the apples and oranges... It's how to solution better.
Interested to see how/if your opinion changes when we get more details about the product. I play MTG commander mostly and was looking for opinions on the format. I was having trouble finding any content creator talking about the format.
I'm definitely going to try it out and I am hoping to be wrong and this sparks up a lot of people trying the format. Time will tell. We've now seen the decks which are...neat, lol. They're neat.
@davidiswhat they're interesting but not inspiring. I will follow up those once I try it. Don't want to do the dick move of sparking all this chatter and then not actually see if I enjoy it when it comes out, heh.
I'm hearing people say "wait for the decklists to form an opinion" but I think what you are getting at is that Flesh and Blood by design isn't really meant to capture a multiplayer experience. I agree that a "UPF in a box" experience to rival Commander would take some radically different thinking and for sure would have to ignore the official competitive formats. Team Blitz events are a much more fun idea for Flesh and Blood players looking for a more social style of play. I appreciate the effort LSS put into this product after the bomb that was the Dori vs Rhinar box but honestly this is just a bundle of 4 blitz legal decks with a playmat and they slapped the Professor's face on it for marketing.
The Coaxing this year is a Team 3v3 CC off of this exact thought process. If the moves to "change the game" off of "all CC all the time" seem lackluster at best, how about we not change the game, but change its impact ever so slightly in a team format? Does the vibe change enough that maybe we can start introducing new ideas that way? Like "team only" buffs or some craziness like that? If you've ever played the Bughouse format in chess, you'll know what I'm thinking about there.
Finally got a chance to watch it after interacting with you on Twitter. What I think is also a little sad is they created Brevant bc they wanted to bring in the most used "House rule". Instead, they could have just made the house rule actually a part of it and made Brevant run with that a little better. Now you are basically at a disadvantage if you use that rule since Chivalry is just a blue 3 block that makes your hammer slightly better. At which point you might as well just run any other guardian, through some of his cards in that deck and go. That being said, still gonna buy it since it fits perfectly with Unofficial FaB PvE.
Once again with the guardian forcing the conversation, an important aspect of his conversation is do you want his help? Those might tokens don't go away and if he spends his entire hand blocking for everybody else. When it gets to be his turn he will flatten somebody
This was an awesome video! If you don't mind, I'm going to respond and expound on some of your points with my own video. I'll link it to you, of course.
Of course! I made it, if anything, to encourage conversation! I'd love to see this format succeed, I'm almost thinking about trying to make some cards nyself, heh. Reach out if you need anything from me!
Late to this video. Came back to FaB after a year and although I agree with some of your points and would like to see more Prism type permanents threaten the table there is something to say about hand size in this format. Looking at Red Zone rogue’s Valda gives you an idea of the design space they have to work with. It’s not ONLY about the board state. It’s about the next players turn. Are you going to allow them to start with a full grip? Did someone let that player draw before or during your turn? I’ve played quite a bit of UPF with my play group between commander and there is definitely a feeling of a back and forth tug of war. The ninja player definitely gets shit on every time. 😂 I’ve seen wins from the other three heroes though. Melody can almost two for one players with god draw.
TL;DR: I created a ruleset for team-based UPF, link in the bottom I agree to most of your arguments, especially to the FaB being just a copy of EDH with a restriction on whom you can attack. However, I do not necessarily agree that UPF should be building towards a board state like EDH, because that would make it just EDH in FaB, which is what I specifically do not want. I like the idea of UPF because I want to play multiplayer FaB. The reason I do not like its current implementation is not because UPF is missing something that EDH has -- one can always go and play it, I just lost interest in that format. The reason I do not like UPF in its current state is because the best social experiences I had in EDH were created in games where every player at some point almost won the game but was stopped by others, and the realisation that you were _this_ close to winning is what was keeping the flame of interest alive. FaB doesn't have that, and I believe it can't really have that just because of how swingy the Blitz format can be due to lower life totals and lack of direct interaction like counterspells. I am not saying that FaB needs counterspells, just that the game doesn't have the tools to provide the level of interactivity that players who want to have a fun multiplayer experiemce might be looking for in UPF. Another reason UPF fails is to be fun for me is that everyone is aware that the game can only end with the last man standing. There are no sudden win conditions because you've accumulated an infinite combo, no "you win the game" cards and literally no other way of winning other than reducing your last opponent's life total to 0. All of that made me think about creating custom rules for UPF which would help make it something unique to FaB that Magic's EDH simply can't have, and I came up with a draft ruleset for a team-based UPF format. A regular 4-player UPF game will naturally have people sitting diagonally form temporary alliances as can't really damage each another (we don't talk about Wizards here), so why not just make them permanent? The biggest difference is that each team chooses who will be the defending player this round, and players on the same team take turns being the turn player. If you want to have a look at the full ruleset, check this post on the Purple Discord: discord.com/channels/625953788343091200/879030363979132968/1219978150948245524
It would be great to hear your opinions after the product releases and you actually play it. Right now you are just being reactive without actually understanding the product. Hard to review something you actually know very little about. This would have been a much better as a feedback piece if you actually played and spoke about your experiences, instead I am questioning why you even spent the time on this video. With that being said, I agree with your sentiment of UPF. UPF was created as an afterthought, and no real development time went into it until recently. I really think it sprung up because the comunity wanted commander for FAB and LSS said okay why not. Hense why upf is so flawed. They are only beginning to develop their social play. Hence them hiring a whole team just for social play. To me this just seems like a fun intro product to get more people introduced to fab. But I'll hold my judgement until all the decks and cards are shown and I get a chance to play.
Oh, I agree - this certainly wasn't a product review, but I don't think it's that fair to say "something I know very little about." They showed off A LOT about how the heroes are going to come together. I'd be shocked if there's some weird spicy tech they're just hiding that changes everything we've seen. In that, it sparks a conversation about what UPF needs and why I don't feel it has connected, and that's why "I spent the time on this video." I'd rather a conversation around the format as a whole instead of mitigated by a review that I already know is just going to be me saying "it'll be for some people and not for others..." and that's why I've hoped to bring here. So far, so good :) I agree that it was created as an afterthought and I kind of wish it wasn't. In another comment you mentioned people trying to make FAB something it's not, and that's kind of what LSS did to their own game here, so if anything, this is me taking a bit of a look at where they set the goal posts and responding.
Uggg twice now you've taken all the criticisms I have of FaB and given them the words I didn't have. I stopped playing around Dynasty because everything is geared around one type of competitive play. I kept hoping we'd get some weird, niche cards or crazy nonsense you get in Commander games. After 7 or 8 sets of being told that an amazing character driven PvE game was just around the corner I realized that they found where their press and profit was coming from: tight competitive play. There's so much potential for capturing a wider audience but there's just no will to take it there. This UPF offering feels like a cynical PR move from LSS 🤷 If they really cared about UPF then where's the store prize support? Where's the coveted gold foil Prof card? That's the incentive structure that the FaB community has been taught.
I don't think I can join you in "cynical PR move," but it does feel like a format that was just shoved into the offering instead of given any real deep thought. "FAB is one of the best games on the market" always needs the caveat of "for a specific kind of gamer." Its mechanics are brilliant, and its depth is incredible. Because it deals in moments, though, it's really hard to "not be on your game" for the fun of the opportunity. You either have your moment or you miss it. FAB needs to find a middle, and I think off the wall silliness does it.
@@DecksandDraughts I think a little silliness could help and also what you said about format specific cards. Competitive cards deal in such small numbers and advantages, you can't have a win more bomb or Shahrazad because it would destroy that balance and be too much fun :p
Upf is a sham, its only a format because the community wanted a multilayer format. FAB is designed as a Vs game. Have you ever played a good fighting game with 4 or more people? Upf is forced. However, I like what I see so far with this product, but only as a standalone one.
@birdsflapatnighttogether2304 again, I'll point to Smash Bros, but what makes it a blast is the insanity and that people aren't hard-core trying to take it seriously (unless they are and turn off all settings and make it kind of a sad version of itself...but it's at least a little fun). I won't go with "sham," more than "shoved in via some feeling of obligation to make it work."
I've never liked Upf and honestly feel like v it should really be dropped as a format. From the games i have played it either artificially prolongs the Game or lends itself to very long uninteresting turns
too much bubbles in that beer - pour it down from high to get the gasses out p.s. social means noone can play and some terrible noobs want to pretend for a bit (;
