Forbidden cards? Yes or no? And, above all, why?

For players of digital card games, talking about forbidden cards can seem very strange. On the contrary, for players accustomed to collectible card games in physical format it is something completely normal. The explanation is simple: once a letter has been printed, it is impossible to modify the copies that exist; however, in digital format there is no such limit. Now then what happens in Gods Unchained? Have you stopped to think about it?

I am JFA, promoter of GU Masters, and I invite you to reflect together on a A question of real significance for the future of this game Web3 pioneer.

Why are cards banned in trading card games?

As more and more cards are introduced into a trading card game, the likelihood of problematic interactions that can even seriously interfere with the development of the game increases. Let's say that sooner or later it is likely that cards will emerge that, combined, will "break" the game for the interactions they make possible. Ideally, this would never happen, but the reality is that it does.

What happens then? At that point, those cards are banned (in a printed card game), modified (in a digital card game), or restricted in use (something that is possible in both cases, for example, by reducing the number of copies of the card in question that can be included in a deck). Obviously, these types of measures have an impact on the players who used and/or owned those cards and, by extension, on the meta. They are "perks of the trade", as they say.

What is the situation in Gods Unchained?

In Gods Unchained, interestingly, Both models coexist . Let's take a look:

• On the one hand, the game features Cards that can always be modified : The cards from the Welcome and Core expansions. If any of them cause headaches, it is changed and that's it.
• On the other hand, expansion cards are subject to a "trial" period in which they are susceptible to being modified, but this period is limited in time. Once it expires, those cards become "immutable" assets and inscribed on the blockchain (hence the name of the company that develops Gods Unchained: Immutable).

Consequence? For better or for worse, Sooner rather than later there will be expansion cards that need to be banned or restricted . Now, forbidden or restricted... how? Truth be told, there are already cards that are in this situation, but only in certain game modes and temporarily. What has yet to happen is a total and definitive ban on a card in all game modes.

As you may have already guessed, there is a Problem unavoidable in terms of the prohibition or restriction of the use of cards in a game that has as its value proposition "own your assets". The Gods Unchained team has been reluctant to ban or restrict the use of cards because the impact of a measure like this is not something to be underestimated... The adoption of such a drastic measure can deteriorate the confidence of the players (today it is one card, but tomorrow it can be another, and another later... you get the idea, don't you?).

In my view, the use of a card should never be prohibited as long as there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the card retains value, even partially. A natural way to achieve this, to give an obvious example, is the existence of incentives for collecting. Thus, the card retains value even though it can no longer be used in a game.

What options are there?

The most "radical" option is to prohibit the use of a card in any game mode and for an indefinite period of time. However, there are also less drastic options, such as:

• Temporary ban : lists of forbidden cards that rotate.
• Circumstantial prohibition : it is only allowed to be used in certain game modes or only a smaller number of copies is allowed than would be normal for that type of card (for example, a non-Legendary card of which only one copy is allowed to be included in the deck, instead of two as would be usual).

So far the Options available for a physical collectible card game (or "immutable", as in the case of Gods Unchained).

At this point it's worth remembering why Gods Unchained is such a special game: The Web3 environment opens up options that are unfeasible in others . Thus, an "intermediate" state could be implemented: instead of banning a card, its use could be penalized. What does this mean? For example, that the penalized card can be used, but a deck that includes it will not generate rewards of any kind (not even in the Play&Earn , nor in competitions such as Weekend Ranked , or tournaments, etc.).

Let's see the Advantages of this approach:

• Even without a collector incentive system, The letter preserves part of its value . Players who really enjoy using it can continue to use it (e.g., after their games of the Play&Earn ), but the fact that its usefulness is reduced will force its popularity to decline.
• In addition it can be a transitory measure , so that the penalty is lifted if in the future the conditions are met to be able to do so (i.e. solutions have been introduced for the problems caused by the penalized card, so it is no longer a headache). Usually, a forbidden card is never recovered; In this case, that possibility would be much less remote.

Naturally, this intermediate solution is not valid for cards that really "break" the game, but it is valid for many others that are problematic. Virtues of the web3 universe , don't you think?

And you, what do you think about it?

Have you already asked yourself this question? What perspectives do you have on this? How would you prefer it to be addressed? This is a fascinating subject, no doubt, and one that will have a great importance in the future of Gods Unchained .

Before I say goodbye, I want to take this opportunity to remind you that you can support GU Masters by purchasing your cards through the TokenTrove referral link (which has no cost for you) and invite you to join all the players who already receive the GU Masters newsletter to stay on top of what's new in the Gods Unchained universe: The Herald . Thank you for being there.

Images courtesy of Gods Unchained Pty Ltd.