The Real Reason Diablo Devoted Herald Needs to be Banned NOW in Disney Lorcana!

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

We have official joined up with Heavy Play! Check out their wonderful Products here and use TFM10 at Checkout! - heavyplay.com/TFM10

[@cybernijntje7837]

Thanks for Ryan (a former TCG World champion) explaining clearly when a card needs to be banned or not

[@mattbell5602]

Just needs to say “whenever opponent draws a card beyond their first.”

[@sixexgames]

Or just once per turn.

[@mattbell5602]

⁠@@sixexgamesYeah, or that, but drawing off a mandatory action is retarded.

[@ruigoncalves11]

An idea, what if it said "If the opponent draws additional cards during their turn". Still a strong card, but much more situational, it would lead to a different play by the enemy. You'd have to get rid of Diablo before using card draw. Again, still a strong control card, you would still lose tempo if you're looking for a way to get rid of Diablo.

[@thegamerslayer21]

This topic is the exact that grinds my gears. Card game players don’t know what they want truly. If you ban diablo it doesn’t open up archetypes it likely closes them. Shimmering skies format had a lot of good interplay between a variety of decks. There will always be a “best deck”/“best card” that must be answered I think people want to pretend there is some magical format in which you don’t need to build with your opponents cards in mind you should have to make sacrifices decks shouldn’t be well oiled machines that don’t care about what they play against.

[@anthonyberry7948]

Diablo used Bucky as a scapegoat. He is truly the devil.

[@renegarcia9420]

Ha I see what you did there 😉 😂😂

[@salenstormwing]

As someone who's spent the last... I want to say 5 months... getting into Lorcana because of my coworker, the fact that he plays Green/Steel Diablo (and Bucky Diablo during Ursula) since before I started playing. I've made my deck work as well as I can against his, but on a good day, I might get a win whereas when he has a bad day, he's still going to probably win against me. And heaven forbid if I want to play something fun for a change. Nope, it's All-Pain All-the-Time. My deck might get me a few wins at a tourney, but how I build a deck has been defined by having that stupid bird (and previously also that stupid squirrel) clobbering into my head that if I don't plan immediately to remove the problem card(s), I /WILL/ lose.

[@tylorraulston713]

@salenstormwing I completely agree. And I feel like most players that aren't playing Diablo (even some of the players that do) all feel this exact pain. Like you said, imagine trying to add in your own ideas and identity into deck creation. But no, thanks to (Cinderella, Diablo, Whole New World) there's absolutely none of that. Tamatoa and Hiram can be annoying. But you can win through them, and there are multiple avenues to deal with them in a timely manor. Shoot even vVonderland who just won the latest DLC said "I didn't even want to play the deck, but its far stronger than all other options, so I had to" like...

[@dewclawz]

Diablo has infinitely more universal answers in every color with the exception of Amber than Hiram as well as counterplay when on board.

[@rudrose_tcg]

Both Hiram and Diablo can be problems. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[@kipofmudd1702]

​@@rudrose_tcgsure but Hiram sees play in more decks and has a higher percent of the meta overall. He literally sees play in the deck that has seen the most play the past few tournaments plus he has less answers and sometimes zero answers on certain colors. Feels like the video should be about that card more than a 2/2 bird

[@SummerAustria]

@@kipofmudd1702 I bet the people that made this BS play a form of blue themselves because that deck is too slow against diablo/discard

[@Nobody6146]

I always said Diablo was the problem, never Bucky or ward. The only point missed was the tempo loss of bricking by keeping a “Diablo answer” hand while their opponent ignores the Diablo line.

[@sh41]

@@Nobody6146 yeah, at least Hiram cost 4 and needs an item, your best case is turn 3 with one jump ahead / tipo, Diablo on turn 2 is crazy. Emerald steel is still a strong deck without it

[@dejanholmstrand3027]

I think the biggest issue for me is that only some colors can remove Diablo and that forces you into a specific color or combination that you might not want to play, like Bricksong.

[@CalciferAngel]

Today: Diablo isn't a problem....not at all... (quickly lists 4 for sale) A day later: Okay now I agree, diablo needs to go!

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@CalciferAngel 😂😂😂

[@KoBaC]

I disagree here. Yes, Diablo is strong. But he is not so broken to the point that he should be adjusted. Perhaps Ravensburger should have dropped him later on due to balance but that is the nature of the game. From the beginning people have been complaining about Ruby/ Amethyst, Hiram, Merlin Rabbit, WNW, and so on. We have to be flexible to how the meta changes each season and modify strategy to deal with it. Steel Song would deal with Diablo more, but Ruby Saph and even Ruby Am is happy to see WNW played so it keeps Steelsong in check. Removing Diablo wouldn't drastically change that. If anything it would charge up Ruby/ Am or Ruby/ Saph to be even more disgusting. Looking at just a few of the latest tournament results on inkdecks shows that Steel/ Emerald isn't even always placing in top 4. Sure, maybe it is winning big challenges and events but it isn't like the meta is to the point that if you don't play Diablo you might as well acknowledge you will lose. You still have to have little Diablo to shift. You still need to be up against a player who doesn't immediately have an answer. He is strong, but so are many other cards (in their own right) and I certainly do not want to see bans becoming rampant. Bucky was beatable and did not deserve the changes he had. Simply removing Ward would have been enough but players screamed so hard they killed the card entirely. Banning should be exceptionally rare and needs to have ample evidence that it is "broken". I do not feel that is the case with Diablo.

[@ChristhianGT]

He’s broken. Top emerald Steel or emerald players are saying the same thing. People complained about those cards but maybe 1 out 1000000 did. But every other or almost every person complain time to remove.

[@bg1020]

The problem is design concept. Emerald is discard. How do you combat discard? By drawing and playing out your hand… Diablo answers that response. The evasive with few evasive challengers means it has to be directly removed most of the time, which warps meta to Steel. New set has a lot of evasive, so we’ll see if that makes any adjustments. But it’s a dumb design concept to give discard the ability to draw off the answer to discard.

[@joshandali13]

The game would probably move on even if diablo stays as it is. Power creep, saying goodbye to old cards etc. All the good stuffs. The comments show another flawed argument, by comparing building decks to answer diablo with building deck to answer other decks. They are not the same. One card shouldn't be greater than an entire deck archetype. It will happen from time to time, they are called design mistakes.

[@Pandaman64]

The game as a whole could use way more synergy pieces and less good stuff.

[@RulerSchoolTCG]

AYYY severing winds reference... good ol fow... Ryan's breakdown here is very solid and I am in agreement with him!

[@LeloRetsam]

I agree 100% with this. Everything Diablo does feels kinda unfair. His shift target is great, he can shift for free, since you draw a card immediately and only some colors are able to deal with him. The fact that you can do this on turn 2 for free, while moving to Cove is bonkers. It’s banworthy, for sure.

[@ReissTube]

Ryan remembers where he came from ;) Shout out to Force of Will

[@SinamonX]

The real issue is that RB gave a purple ability to a green character... Also that RB doesn't understand the cost of the base abilities from each color... Discarding cards is pretty much free for green and bouncing cards is pretty much free for green, they also get ward (which was supposed to be blue) and evasion. Doing one damage for steel costs like 6ink tonsetup and 2 per turn, removal for Ruby is almost always a non inkable high cost or bad tempo card.

[@sixexgames]

Watched the video and get where you're coming from. Maybe a slight nerf to once per turn on your opponents turn. It'd still be very playable.

[@Pandaman64]

You could literally change the effect to 'draw a card at the end of your turn' and it would be fine.

[@adrianparra4442]

LOVE the new graphic designs and logo. Very very nice 10/10

[@iamgoodbuddy]

I can’t say whether the card should be banned or not. But, the most annoying thing to hear is “draw for Diablo”. LOL you know I’m right. I have not met 1 green steel player that is capable of saying that while keeping eye contact with me.

[@Johnoamondo]

Prince John is more of a pain in the ass that should be banned

[@Pokegalelle]

Honestly, I hope they keep this card in the format. There are plenty of answers to Diablo that are versatile into so many matchups. If you use this take on so many other cards then those should be banned too. Merlin Goat, Mim Fox, Lucky Dime, Tamatoa, among many others. Using any answers in any matchup will put you “back” but that’s where strategy and understanding of the matchup comes into play. Just because it won multiple large competitions doesn’t mean that it was just the deck. I have seen many pilot the Diablo decks and fail. It truly comes down to can you pilot the deck and have you practiced the matches to understand how to properly play in a variety of situations.

[@sh41]

From so many years on Magic, there are two main reasons why something is banned: excessive dominance / prevalence and unfun play patterns. If something is overpowered lots of people will try to play it, and therefore the meta suffers from it, less variety, less innovation, and overall, less fun. If something is unfun but not prevalent, it's not that bad of a problem, since you don't be playing against it often Loved seeing Nadu at the end 😂

[@matthiashockertz924]

You asked vVonderland if Diablo should be banned and he said no. And you next video is about banning Diablo.

[@ghostknight1865]

That's not a problem, he's showing both sides of the argument, that's fair. The problem is that Diablo doesn't need to be banned and Ryan's arguments aren't very good.

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@matthiashockertz924 yea like, it’s ok to have different opinions on this lol. Wonder disagrees with Ryan I promise you we’re not getting out pitch forks for one another lol.

[@matthiashockertz924]

@@TheForbiddenMountain thats right its important to hear different point of view

[@matthiashockertz924]

@@ghostknight1865 i agree. diablo is a very good card but no need to ban. inparticular that he shows a obv overpowered card doesnt mean diablo is op

[@darksilver129]

There will always be “the card” that is annoying which needs to be banned or nerfed (like how bucky was). It will be a never ending cycle with players complaining about specific cards. Taking Diablo away is removing a draw engine away from emerald during tournaments. Instead of suggesting a ban, the community should be suggesting potential solutions for other elemental cards to the Lorcana developers. More ways to even the playing field against Diablo. Introduce more Evasive character cards, as well as Action and Item cards. Taking away players’ potential favorite card(s) is just not right. While Bucky was OP, the developers could have introduced low cost cards that affect all characters on the field like Giant Fairy Tinker bell’s ability or Grab Your Sword. In my opinion, Ward has the potential to be OP. Just imagine Ruby’s Flynn Rider having Ward.

[@dewclawz]

@@darksilver129 most colors already have an evasive that could one shot a coved diablo for 3 or less, they just don't think they should have to play answers to 1 card vs my whole deck built around Ruby and Steel *existing*.

[@yancharest2464]

I'm so over people wanting cards to be banned/nerfed.

[@thekidleo1]

🤣🤣

[@xerospades]

Ahh yes. Games should be unbalanced

[@bg1020]

Every TCG has to have bans or erratas on occasion. Otherwise the game dies because of problematic cards.

[@reiverdaemon]

Such a lazy complaint bro

[@Low38]

I feel that the static effect, warded characters are a problem too. You just put them out there, the opponent can't interact with them, and they give benefits.

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@Low38 I think we’re mostly lucky that wandered characters haven’t been more of an issue.

[@Pandaman64]

This is a short term problem, but long term is easily solvable simply by printing more answers. 'banish all characters with ward, all characters lose ward, deal damage to all warded characters' style effects need to be made.

[@theactingfantasy]

Diablo is not the problem. You know what’s worse? Hiram finding a R/Sa player answer after answer, so after they board wipe you, they have enough ink to keep removing your characters turn after turn. You’re locked out of the game. Spend ink to put down a character, and they immediately remove it their next turn. But you don’t see me calling for a deck ban. That’s crazy. It’s really hard for me to win against them, but that just means I need to get good, not call for a nerf. Hiram is harder to remove and hides behind ruby’s massive list of answers. Pretty much every deck out there can answer Diablo. Elsa - the fifth spirit was the latest answer for Diablo in set 5 and she sits happily in R/Ame and Ame/Sa. Ravensburger will keep printing Diablo answers. He’s not invincible, and while there is a tempo loss involved in getting rid of him, it’s negligible because of the immediate blow of not being able to draw cards anymore. If you can draw and stop your opponent from drawing, you win.

[@ghostknight1865]

Most of the "pros" complaining about Diablo play Red Blue or Red Purple, the two decks that would gain the most from banning Diablo, not to mention being massively OP themselves. It's all self-serving. It's not fun to be wiped by a top decked Be Prep and then get Medusa'd, Tremaine'd, and Big Sisu'd consecutively. Hiram doesn't even die to a Zeus!

[@ruigoncalves11]

An idea, what if it said "If the opponent draws additional cards during their turn". Still a strong card, but much more situational, it would lead to a different play by the enemy. You'd have to get rid of Diablo before using card draw. Again, still a strong control card, you would still lose tempo if you're looking for a way to get rid of Diablo.

[@23Foils]

What if you target the cards most decisive edge, and make it have the first ever negative singer affect; this card counts as singer 1.

[@mitchamusalvaroe5160]

I am a squid and I disagree with most of this video except for when you said Hiram.

[@Spamizator]

XD

[@JoeBellenie]

I literally hate that people always just say “only new tcg players think diablo is ok” I’m an experienced magic player and sorry to say it but cards in a meta always sculpt people’s decks. Sorry that you don’t want to have to build with a meta card in mind that you don’t play lol

[@sh41]

@@JoeBellenie the way leyline of Resonance warped best of one was not healthy, Nadu was overpowered and unfun. I think diablo warps a bit too much because the answers all put you behind in tempo. Answering Sheoldred with go for the throat gains you tempo

[@jpram901]

If Diablo is banned Hiram has to goo, literally no other card in the game can check a Hiram effectively

[@LeloRetsam]

They are not even remotely the same. Hiram costs 4 and needs to banish an item. You need to put 8-12 items on your deck to use the Hiram package. But I do agree that Hiram is too strong and he makes cards like Royal Tantrum simply unplayable.

[@jpram901]

@ they don’t have to be the same to be just as powerful lol, Hiram is more limiting to deck building for sapphire then Diablo in emerald.

[@jet_flyer]

Sorry but I still don't see even after the video how a card that has to be exerted to trigger is a problem when there are many cards in any color that can 1 shot it even when it's in cove IMO discard is more toxic than card draw though I see how that can make the problem worse with better card draw. I could see an errata maybe discard 2 cards to shift or something but This is nowhere near as much of an Issue as Bucky was

[@__TyranT__]

Am I experiencing dejavu? Is "the bird" related to " best lance"?

[@bmillz1341]

I have a counter-suggestion that I think might piss less people off. I suggest that instead of banning 3-cost Diablo, I suggest that they ban 1-cost Diablo (in Green). My reasoning is that without the ability to look at your opponent's hand to determine if they have an answer/removal for him, it immediately becomes a much more high-risk play. In addition, it now sort of limits the card to Green/Amethyst (or just Morph) as being a viable option because the unshifted version isn't good enough on its own. If they want to change the 1-cost Green Diablo (ala Bucky) to cost 2 instead of 1 or something relevant like that, I feel like that would be the most balanced approach. Doing this wouldn't kill legendary Diablo outright in every single deck, and banning a common/uncommon feels a lot less bad than banning a Legendary.

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@bmillz1341 Ryan covered this in the video. Yes you can do this, but how long until amethyst emerald is now the problem. I do belive the safest thing to do is ban emerald 1 cost Diablo and you keep the legendary alive. But it’s quite clear that’s your walking on ice potentially and just delaying the inevitable by doing so.

[@bmillz1341]

@@TheForbiddenMountain It is fair that a critical mass of spells may exist in Amethyst to allow it to work, but that ignores two things. The first is that either way, it loses the ability to see your hand to know if Diablo is safe to play making it more risky. The second is that neither color really has removal. Sure there could be some bounce, but as it stands there aren't cards like Storm/Strength that can answer the answers in those colors, and they're a big portion of why steel in particular is so oppressive vs. Emerald/Amber where it also exists, but isn't as strong. Another thing I'd like to consider is if this game will ever (hopefully) have some sort of rotation.

[@sh41]

@@bmillz1341 Banning the enablers is hardly ever a good solution, we have learned that the hard way on Magic several times

[@bmillz1341]

@@sh41 That's fair, but this game is a little different. In Magic there may be several cards that can help enable certain strategies, but here it is a lot more limited simply due to how the shift mechanic works. This only works specifically for Floodborn cards with shift, but Diablo fits in this instance.

[@sh41]

@@bmillz1341 maybe, but also as more sets are available, more enablers appear. It's a tough choice, you want a healthy meta, but you also don't want to ban cards that people invested on, that is very annoying for players too

[@mattmealing9366]

Even with Diablo gone , are the ward characters in green steel still not a huge problem ?

[@rudrose_tcg]

Give Ryan a big thumbs up from me. Very well illustrated visually and vocally. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And he's right. Ban the bird, oh and Diablo as well :P

[@Geoffgeoff18]

The elitism oozes from this video. Cold take and I'm a Ruby amethyst player.

[@jamalgurley3474]

All they have to do to fix it is take away Diablo evasive

[@chrisgray2909]

Still on the fence re: Diablo. There are plenty of other cards in other colors that I feel like I have to run certain cards "in case" I run into them. Also, hate to see it, but there's a bit of a "Pretention Overload" in this video...from assuming that people can't properly talk about card bannings if it's their first TCG to the Top Players agree about this so it must be true. Yikes. "The Bird" example and continuously reducing it's original craziness seemed like a huge stretch to get from point to point, and unfortunately, I don't feel like the point was actually made. At least for me, but this is my first TCG, so I probably can't grasp anything :D

[@Rhulkallos]

Don't touch Diablo! Only because if he gets banned, then people will come after my Hiram next😭😭

[@majobasil]

Great argument with valid points.

[@TheRedspartan99]

Funny how now the best deck currently (green purple) with 2 amazing 1 drop Diablo options doesn’t even use either green Diablo XD

[@woahchuck1306]

Can you make "The Bird" Amber or Steel so I can run it? Thanks!

[@harrijust86]

Video is solid and the most reasoned arguement I have seen, but the baseline arguement is nonsense for one specific reason. The problem of efficiency section assumes that your opponent ALWAYS has all 3 parts to pull this off on turn 1 into 2. Yes, IF you can do the shift on 2 onto a turn 1 diablo, the only card that GAINS efficiency in card advantage while breaking even in ink is FTC, but that actually puts you UP as the FTC player, not even. Any card that answers it on the turn it was played with the shift is gaining card advantage (3-1) but not ink advantage be they actions or or other low cost evasives, songs leave you up in card advantage and ink advantage if sung. And yes, there are other potential answers in the diablo deck for those cards (cove for some actions, ursula for songs, and your own damage songs to take out challengers or singers), but that is now asking for a 4 card combo on turn 2, and not only that, but the RIGHT 4 card combination that answers the specific threat, and that the opponent has only one such answer. I completely agree that a turn 1 diablo, turn 2 shift + threat answer is the strongest opening in the game, but that doesnt make it banable. Hell, Cindy1 plus a song is close to being as oppressive an opening with only 2 cards. Once you get beyond the ideal situation, the efficiency falls off a cliff. Playing it on 3 means there is no protection (from actions) and then no benefit til turn 4 if it isnt answered, at which point there are even more efficient answers. It is still a very strong card that requires answers, but no more so than rabbit, hiram, BePrep, AWNW etc. But hey, new set, new potential, new meta? Ruby Amethyst's reign was more oppressive and longer than Diablo's (1-2-3-4 v. 4.5-5). And green steel isn't even the most played deck durring its supposed reign, that would be the one with BePrep and Hiram and Medusa.

[@bmillz1341]

Having played the deck and against the deck enough, I'd say that with proper mulligan, it feels like they have the combo 35-40% of the time when going first and 45-50% of the time going second. With how powerful that play is, you don't want it to be that consistent. But your math was also wrong with regard to the card advantage. It isn't 3-1 because they're always going to draw a card. If answers on the turn they shift it, they're spending 3 cards and gaining at least one back. If you spend removal they're only down 1 card, not 2. And that requires immediate removal. If they have Cove/Ursula/Songs and are able to remove, discard, or stall your answers (pretty commonplace) that ratio gets worse and worse as the game goes by. If you have an immediate answer in your hand, great. But if you don't, you usually lose the game. Therefore I'd argue that it does require more answers than any other card. It threatens to win the game faster (important) and more consistently than any other card. The fact that it happens as early as Turn 2 and punishes any attempt to draw into an answer is the problem. Cindy happens quickly as well, but doesn't actually draw cards.

[@harrijust86]

@@bmillz1341 "feels like" - great empirical data. I can tell you that in Seattle in 17 games I had it precisely 2 times. Also this common refrain of "if they have it you lose" is also simply not true, it takes 2 turns of survival for it to be as good as playing a single flaversham (which comes out only 1 turn later) or a rabbit play. Both of which are the worst case scenario for those cards. Odd that people don't automatically concede when they see a diablo or flaversham or rabbit. "If you cant answer it, you lose" is true of more than a dozen cards. That's half the point of playing the game. Adjusting to what your opponent is doing. An unchecked flaversham wins you the game. A top deck Be Prep wins you the game. and so on. Diablo on 2 still has plenty of time for answers to happen. you still need to get to 20 lore. It doesn't matter how many cards you draw if they are instantly removed by red, or AWNW'd away. Answers exist and more come out every set. I'll gladly vote to ban diablo if we get a community pole to ban a single card from every color. Say goodbye to AWNW, BE PREP, FLAVERSHAM, RAPUNZEL, MIM FOX.

[@gundamhufflepuff2383]

Banning should only be acceptable in the most extreme situations. This is not one of those times.

[@thundersultan]

Ravensburger would have to outright ban DIABLO cuz they probably can't nerf it and send out Legendarys to stores.

[@fishchips1159]

Ive always thought what made diablo the problem is they draw off a mandatory game interaction is the draw phase Ban the bird or give him an errata

[@willandphil]

exactly. It feels like ravensburger want emerald to have a sort of "catch up" mechanic in some of their design (clarabelle 3 drop, hei hei, clarabelle light on her hooves), and i think diablo was supposed to be in the vein. (it feels like) he was supposed to make the opponent think "do i take it out now and lose tempo, or do i leave it alone and let my opponent gain advantage whenever i do?", and adding another decision point for players. But that is not what he is currently doing

[@rollingwithrob6579]

The real issue with Diablo is only having actions/songs as the only means to remove it. The solution: Errata the Evasive Keyword off. This will open him up to more removal options across ALL colors instantly. Does it make him unplayable? Probably, but as we learned from Bucky; an errata is as good as a ban. However, an errata like this retains the original intention of the card and may be enough to motivate deck builders into finding a way to make it playable again one day.

[@ghostknight1865]

There are tons of Evasive cards and "during your turn" Evasive cards, what are you talking about?

[@anthonyvilla-real6763]

Banning the bird is a slippery slope. After the bird they will come for lucky dime next, the tamatoa so shiny, then tinker bell and so on. Leave the bird alone.

[@heckanice7278]

Easy fix, kill the bird and YOU win the game

[@ChristhianGT]

Let’s not forget the Diablo +hidden cove . 💀.

[@Briggetchu25]

i do think diablo is a problem, i dont think he will be banned atm, and what they did with bucky is a terrible long term solution for a paper card game they should ban diablo, however his power level is not so ridiculous that it mandates a creation of a banlist, even if i disagree with that as an argument, it is what i currently believe is the idea in ravensburger hq, they would like to go as long as possible with only bucky as a blemish on their game diablo is not CED, diablo is not the power nine, the game does not need him banned in order to function, so he wont be banned, that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be banned

[@Pandaman64]

Diablo is the exact kind of card i hate, because theres no real way to play around it. You either have the answer in hand and kill it, or you dont and they run away with the game. Theres no in between. The issue isnt whether the card can be answered. The issue is its SUCH an 'answer on sight or lose' card that your deck must be saturated with, and mulliganed for, answers. All to deal with one card. Preposterous.

[@johnhansche2462]

This video should be taken down, ranting about a card just makes a card game worse if they actually do what your ranting about, sounds like butt hurt to me and card games is all about luck in the first place

[@tmccaskill]

The Bird... , you mean Birds of Paradise? Lol

[@cd9620]

This is terrible content mate. As someone that hates green steel. I strongly disagree with you Diablo has 1000 answers, cards with ward have 3 😂

[@ChubbPirates]

I said the same thing. Lots of budget players in my area and my doablos never live past 2 turns. EVER. Ive actually added other draw in my deck due to them dying so much so fast and even contemplated just taking them out

[@parttimecomix]

@@ChubbPirateswhat are the cards most often answering your Diablo that can’t be stopped by the Diablo deck? I played happy and dwarven mine and fire the cannons and still only 50-50 at best especially if they have cove

[@bmillz1341]

As pointed out in this video, Diablo has exactly one efficient answer. Fire the Cannons. That is all. Every other card that can remove it costs more and hurts in tempo. Furthermore, Diablo is a threat that comes down for a total cost of 1 ink and can also sing songs for free starting on turn 2. If you don't happen to have an immediate answer in your starting hand (that your opponent also will know due to 1-cost Diablo) and need to draw into it, you've already lost the game 90% of the time. It warps both deckbuilding and gameplay to an extent that is unhealthy for the game.

[@ChubbPirates]

@@parttimecomix a lot of people play evasive where i play as well as s decent removal. Ive never had diablo out more then 2 turns. If its ruby saphire, by turn 3 they have 4 mana and easy access to removal and there is a lot of ruby/saphire as well as amethyst/ruby. Its been dying alot to pegasus both in green and in red. Im not saying the card isnt powerful. Im saying just because its played alot and is powerful doesnt mean it should be banned. Ive never seen anyone play a diablo and ot was the cauae for it winning. I play a budget muse song deck and its never out long enough to exert.

[@parttimecomix]

@ fair but I don’t think playing 2 cost red Pegasus, 3 ink Peter pan and 1 ink happy steel is great I have to have so many answers I think this set will tell the tale If we can’t “reasonably” deal with it then it’s going to cause them to print powerful early answers that need aggro I think the real problem was that Diablo came out too early in set 4 and his on color shift should have been vanilla 1/2 at best Or maybe make him a 2/1 so more small evasive can answer Don’t get wrong I have my set and love it, but I think set six is the last flight of the dirty bird

[@tylorraulston713]

Thinking of cards like (Cinderella, Diablo, Whole new World) it's very obvious to see they are too strong/oppressive. I fell in love with this game because it seemed balanced on the surface. I started playing with starter decks. And depending on the player skill, it seemed like no matter the deck, usually the player that put in more thought and time into their play could win. Now that I'm neck deep into the meta, it's glaringly obvious that cards like the ones mentioned above are far too strong. And one has to basically own a copy of every single deck to stay relevant competitively. Or tech their strategy against the above mention cards. Just to possibly end up not playing against those cards at all. While you sit there and miss the true identity of what your deck was, before you were forced to change it completely, otherwise you just auto-lose to those cards.

[@sh41]

@@tylorraulston713 in TCGs you always have to account for the meta, other games have sideboard, on Lorcana you count on having some inkable cards that are going to be better on some matchups and worse on others

[@andreaskoch3934]

The Problem the game has since set 3 is, that starting Player in best of 3 has tremendous advantage It Puzzles me heavily, why this has not been adressed so far

[@-ArcticEden-]

That's one reason why the brought 2 game format. I totally agree. Dice decides mostly who wins. Nothing is worse then a bad match up and losing the dice roll. you can stop playing kinda

[@UnitedMandrakes]

Ehhhhhhhhhh Prince John is worse than Diablo just because of Ward and ability.

[@BrighamMike]

No. As others have summed up many ways. No.

[@jcortes06]

Haven't you, Dan not Ryan, already said that Ruby/Sapphire is the best deck right now? Wouldn't banning Diablo make it just more a more powerful deck? I would love to see the video Ryan said about how banning Diablo makes Ruby/Sapphire weaker

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@jcortes06 maybe, but outcomes could go many ways. Could it. It open the door for aggressive decks to become more meta? Would that help aid in punishing decks for taking 3-4 turns off early. Would people be more likely to play cheap evasive character if they weren’t in constant threat of being removed and then left stranded to fall behind in card advantage? Regardless I think the way Ryan explains how good of a card Diablo truly is, it’s a no brainer to it being removed and we deal with the ramifications after the fact. But as Ryan said I could very easily make a similar video as to why there are other card very close to power level of Diablo, but not any of which that end the game as early as turn 2.

[@jcortes06]

@TheForbiddenMountain I do appreciate the fact that he stated that Diablo is probably the one card every deck needs to have a solution for, which is something I hadn't heard anyone state before, but it's true.

[@Klagar]

Everyone always has to plan for the "best" deck they envision playing against regularly. If Ruby/Sapphire is the de facto best deck and Diablo was gone then other decks no longer have to plan around beating Diablo, they can have counters for Red/Blue which might be very different. Gives room to deck building differently and who knows what pops up as a result.

[@Stewsie111]

Why do I feel that this video could of been based on any metadecks most powerful card? Is that not deckbuilding to work around the metadeck(is ES/AE meta?) key cards. Save yourself 17 mins and go and deckbuild something!

[@SIZZLEBOOM]

Amen

[@jrodz5551]

This guy lost to Diablo to many times lol

[@JamesClemmons-h5y]

You start banning cards it’s gonna make the game stale af

[@timheinrichson]

#banhiram #nerframp

[@ShonenStyle]

Nope.

[@jburkett4262]

Do not rally cry on something so ridiculous. Unbelievable weak & stretch of imagination that Diablo needs to be banned. First off, this is a new TCG and not Magic the Gathering with lots of patterns of banned (& later unbanned). We have one format in Lorcana, so maybe 10,000 cards in we can segment to multiformat but until then we're stuck with here's the Lorcana cards available. Your ploy that we want clearly paths of deckbuilding to beat the meta and Diablo remains a thorn for everyone is obvious, you want to tidy up the tourament scene by removing the early threat of Diablo -- good for the elite tourmanent scene but bad for everyone else. -Not every emerald deck puts in 8 cards (baby diablo & 3 UNINKABLE diablo) because they don't have the space. I personally have tried a variety of decks with & without diablo and I can tell you I like the ones focused on Clarabell (Cowbell Blue/Emeraly) without Big Diablo is fine, I don't "miss Diable" becuase it'll get be less going to something useful like the inkwell. Please stop you campaign, it's utter nonsense until 75% of the submitted decks in tournment auto include a card and then they actually make top 8 or win becuase of said broken card. I'm not saying you are the fun police; you are acting on here's my logic that help have a clearer metagame that Diablo decks are messing up your distopian view of how everything gets better if we just ban Diablo. I can tell you how many times I've faced a Hiram in amesthist and saw a slow glacial murder my chances of winning by the insane drawing of Hiram. At least put in a list of banning Hiram Flaversham and Diablo, and throw in Mr Smee (bumbling mate), Tragic Beast, Rapunzel (gifted with healing), and Fishbone Quill and Sisu (empowering sibling) just to make sure everyone is miserable and are cripped on what cool/ unique cards do. By the way, you arguments are flawed at every turn; who makes you a game-designer that knows what future cards can turn your sad argument into dust?

[@TheDawgFather-e2c]

Diablo is so strong because it’s one of the few reliable draw engines in Lorcana, Hiram being the other major engine. Should rabbit be banned guaranteeing cards if it’s bounced? I don’t think right now there are enough draw engines available for it to be banned, esp since discard is part of the meta

[@RSN_Charizard_Op]

Short answer yes.

[@ChristianZangief]

There are green decks that are highly competitive and don’t even use or want Diablo. The decks that do run Diablo aren’t consistently driving other decks out of the meta. We still have 5+ different high tier meta decks that are viable that don’t run Diablo and all have found a fair amount of success in tournament. Banning legendary cards should be avoided at all costs unless they break the game significantly. Banning the 1 drop green Diablo is far more reasonable if you want to put ES in check. But once again it’s not needed.

[@orlindikov5788]

As a player who mainly runs R/A control decks since set 2 I strongly disagree with the idea of banning Diablo. I can think of 100 different ways of removal for that bird and if you remove it from the game you will be left with 50% capacity for lemon lime as well as green steel … it’s profound to think that because it’s a good card you have to take away from the game… play against it or with it but don’t give soul to something material…. I am playing every single day and I can’t think of a moment when I said to myself “ok this bird has to be banned” where other ppl lack skill there is always the errata or bann solution… the bird can be removed from turn 1 with fire the cannons ( witch makes the player running Diablo loose 3 cards ) up to turn 5 where else evasive comes in handy… just absurd idea to make it bad on Diablo it’s so funny ….

[@kipofmudd1702]

Multiple peiple have already mentioned hiram being literally unanswerable for most colors and having immediate draw so ill just say that I've seen amber steel have way, way more non games than emerald steel. Sure diablo can go nutty on you and turn 2 cove afterwards but cinderella eats your stuff for free while she develops board then they wheel to fill back up. That deck loses hard to red blue, which still sees way more play than other decks, so i guess its not a problem? What colors does diablo lock out that amber steel doesnt?

[@joshandali13]

@@kipofmudd1702 1c cindy and awnw ⚰

[@chriscovey1230]

hiram has to go!!!!

[@GeneralAMF14]

Diablo isn't the biggest problem in Disney Lorcana. Yes, he needs answers, but so does Hiram in Sapphire; the Flynn Rider/Sisu combo in Ruby; and so many other cards. Diablo is a turn 1-3 character that can be easily countered by turn 1-3 removal. Emerald / Steel isn't unbeatable because of Diablo. It's difficult because of the discard package paired with Diablo. When you're forced to discard, you need to draw cards to keep tempo, and Diablo matches that by drawing when you do. This isn't a big deal.

[@parttimecomix]

Diablo is too powerful for the cards available Diablo was WAY too powerful to print in set 4 The game needs powerful cards but I don’t know how they can balance Diablo

[@Chux-Buster]

Red has brawl, steel has whatever, every other color has any evasive character. Diablo has to be exerted in order to be useful and he doesn’t have ward, kill it when you see it. So tired of people complaining about cards.

[@yancharest2464]

Also, let’s be honest, drawing cards is nowhere near as bad as making your opponent discard, let alone preventing them from drawing. In other words, Diablo - Devoted Herald is not broken. Bucky - Squirrel Squeak Tutor (pre nerf) and Yata Garasu (yata lock from Yu-Gi-Oh!, IYKYK), on the other hand… Edit: It appears as though Yata Garasu was banned for like 18 years and Konami decided to unban it, due to them, in part, nerfing Emperor Chaos Dragon - Envoy of the End. I refuse to use the words erratum/errata, since they mean that an error/errors in printing/writing needed to be corrected. Those companies wrote those cards’ texts/attributes and originally printed them like that on purpose. They retroactively decided to nerf them, after caving in to complaints, pressure, etc.

[@justsomeguy4304]

I'm for banning, but will they? The market, the enchanteds. What will it do to steel in general? I want to invest in Beast and Robin Hoods, will they drop in value also if they ban the bird?

[@jpram901]

I’m glad the comments have held it down and are mostly on the no ban side, I would entertain a banning of 1 card from each color though, I’m thinking rabbit Hiram 1drop Cindy awnw Diablo and some ruby card any of there efficient removal lol.

[@timknauer8906]

Good points made. Never put much thought into a banlist before and just realised that answers are there, but not many good ones and not in each ink colour combination.

[@tinynstrong]

Subverting an entire argument just for the sake of saying so is just not a good argument. When aggro was running rampant in 2/3 what did everyone swing to any steel variant. You are having problems with Diablo go steel song run the let the storm rage on with cindy or grab your sword with shift queen or blue steel and run the rise of the titans storm and fire we have answers in the game already. I have yet to encounter a Diablo deck that doesn’t loose to me when I play these decks whether it’s at set champs or other events. Changing set champs or other events.

[@joshandali13]

@@tinynstrong an individual card shouldn't be as powerful as an entire deck archetype. Well it could if it's poorly designed.

[@arwen999]

Banning a expensive legendary card is a bad idea. Sure green steel has won a bunch of challenges but its not like there are not other viable decks.

[@djpairz]

Lorcana is this weird TCG. Where doesn't want to disrupt the collectors, competitive or casual players. If Bucky could not get banned. I don't see a world where Diablo gets banned. Also, RB I don't is in touch with competitive Lorcana or care to change it. If could potential mess with collectors and/or casual players.

[@1269scowyn]

NGL all I hear is I don't want to adapt to a meta card. Same as they did to Bucky but let's not go anywhere near the bounce package which has been dominate and problematic since the start. Stop crying because other colors have options

[@shoot_again2753]

Ban dime, ban Hiram then we can discuss why Diablo was printed with the shift function. Good talk!

[@SummerAustria]

Hiram isnt a threat? I will unsubscribe from your channel and I hope many others will follow

[@bmillz1341]

Comparatively, I'd say Hiram absolutely isn't a threat. There are significant differences between the two that make them very different. Three I'll point to, and all of them are major. The first is that Diablo is played for free. You can still use your 2 ink on turn 2 to play something (often an Ursula to grab removal, or Cove to put it completely out of removal range). The second is that Diablo only needs to be exerted rather than quest to gain the cards. It can still therefore sing songs, or even challenge. The third, and by far the most relevant, is that Diablo happens on Turn 2. There is an enormous gap between Turn 2 and Turn 4 in terms of tempo. If you don't answer Diablo immediately it threatens to snowball out of control and the number of answers at that stage of the game are very limited. You also are punished for trying to draw into them. And they still have the 2 ink available. Hiram happening later in the game means that your opponent is essentially skipping a turn because Hiram has no board presence. Doing nothing on Turn 4 vs. playing a card for free on Turn 2 highlights the difference in Tempo between the two. In a drawn out control vs. control game, Hiram may be a larger threat if it goes 12 turns. But vs. everything else, Diablo is. It warps the meta and deckbuilding more than any other card by a significant amount. IMO the better answer is to ban the 1-cost Emerald Diablo, but I think all of the points made in this video are made with good information.

[@zackjones5873]

Bad take because then the same should be said about the queens castle due to not having good ways to remove it and the amount of draw and lore it ganes, 1 cost Cinderella as a 1 cost that can sing 3 all characters that have built in removeal if you want to count lost tempo as a reason to ban diablo, Hiram flaversham for being over stated for damage removeal and the amount of draw it produces, 4 cost prince naveen is to powerful getting to play a 6 cost song on play and if your response is there are no good 6 cost songs that is a yet response, daisy duck a 1 cost over stated willpower and quest for 2 while pushing anything that is not a character to the bottom of the deck.

[@R__M__BYouTube]

#BanTheBird

[@TheForbiddenMountain]

@@R__M__BKZbin hey hey the bird is the made up card in This video 😂😂

[@ChubbPirates]

I strongly diagree. Most colors have answers early on. Ive never have diablo out more then a turn and ive never seen diablo out more then 2 turns. Blue/red, purple/red, blue steel, even budget options, in my local play, its never out more then a turn or two. You dont need expensive cards to remove it. Its uninkable and must be exerted to play. When i do play him turn 1 or 2, hes gone by turn 3. If you are allowing a diablo to win the game, you need to restructure your deck.

[@joshandali13]

That's exactly the problem. Every decks have to answer one card or they lose.

[@AlbertoDSalas]

Lmao you just described the EXACT problem that they're exemplifying in the video. Deck building around a single card and only 2 colors being able to deal with it (red / steel)

[@ChubbPirates]

@joshandali13 that logic can be applied to most powerful cards. Its seems like many people lose to diablo and they want it banned. If youre goign 3,4,5 turns with absolutely no answer you need to restructure your deck.

[@joshandali13]

@@ChubbPirates there are other poorly designed cards, sure. I suppose if Diablo is gone, they will be more apparent. He mentioned a couple of them actually, Hiram, Medusa, 1 cost Cindy. I wouldn't count Zeus but awnw instead, but sure it has potential. Be prepared is a good example. It is annoying, a convenient way for red players to reset, and can feel oppresive. But people don't need to build their decks to counter it. Instead they changed how they play to make the be prep player in umcomfortable situations.

[@KoBaC]

@@joshandali13 but you have to have answers for so many other things. Are they playing aggro? Then you need something that can be dropped early enough to sing damage songs or wipe out them through challenging. Are they playing Saph and ramping ink? You better start playing characters and quest early (depending on what colors you are running) to get a good lead. Are they playing Emerald? Then you best mulligan your songs so Ursula doesn't throw them away. Part of the game is identifying what your opponent is playing and then modifying your strategy for how you are going to approach that particular matchup. When deckbuilding it is no different. You take cards being aware of Medusa, aggro, Diablo, Hiram, Amber/ Steel, and on and on. That's part of the game.

[@lemonparadise4937]

Why they dont ban diablo. 1. its best card from set 4. Ban it and boosters will not be bought anymore 2. Diablo is the only answer in green for hiram, and even then sometime its not enought. 3. without diablo emerald steel will not see play anymore. 4. more answers where made in set 6 so diablo isnt so powerfull anymore. Now lets talk about your reasoning. You see diablo as 1 cost draw engine, its manipulation. You need to build your deck around it, you need to have that line in hand to make it work and its like 50% or less you have it, without it, you are screw. If oppponent have answer you lost 3 cards for 1 and you are screw. Playing diablo for 3 ink ist that good. Emerald Steel didnt see play before challenge when it won, why if diablo is so op? its drop its price from 50 dollar card to 20. look at Hiram 1/6 for 4 ink and inkable. draws 2 cards on enter and 2 cards every turn. there is so small amount of cards that can remove that. Yes its need item to work, but diablo also need song and uselless 1 cost to work. Another problem is Medusa. that card dont let you play so many legendary cards because of 3 strenght and warps format around its self. So in my opinion diablo is not ban worthy but if its get banned in future for community crying we should ban Hiram and Medusa as well. And Rabbit, if that card would be in MTG it would get banned on the spot.

[@GaborKoros-lc9ue]

I am sad to see you guys jumping on this train, I usually like your content but can't agree with this direction. Diablo is a strong card, but it is not bannable at this moment for gameplay reasons. I hope Ravensburger does not decide which cards should go on the banlist based on public opinion, that is a slippery slope. Diablo is a card you have to learn to play around and into sometimes, I believe mos people are upset because they don't learn how to play against discard and blame it on individual cards, like Bucky and Diablo.

[@ghostknight1865]

The more I see conversation going around, the more I realize "after Diablo" they want to go after Prince John and The Muses. I see a pattern here: non-GS Discard players constantly wanting GS Discard staples banned. Gee, I wonder why! Ryan's arguments were flawed at best, and depend on disregarding the #1 most important thing: there are tons of answers to Diablo. I'll worry about Lorcana when a card has no answer.

[@beardedcat9744]

No Prince John is the issue. There should be no reason you’re making your opponent discard while gaining advantage. It’s unfair and not balanced at all if Prince John didn’t have Ward it’s be a different story but Diablo is super easy to answer from every color except maybe Amber at this moment and time.

[@romainmarcou5402]

There other card that way more dangerous than Diablo for now. A whole new world it's absolute no sens for example. Every TCG so far have ban this type draw card. I agree that Diablo is a problem. But just ban Diablo will not solve the whole problem of lorcana.

[@DickBurnsTFM]

That's why people are cutting Wheel for Sapphire Steel and Amber Steel Aggro. Because its so broken..

[@Andrew-fg2xq]

No it’s not that bad, if you ban this there is 50+ cards you can make arguments for banning

[@TalkThatSassNWordPodcast]

ABSOLUTLY NOT!!

[@LKO_UnpackMTG]

We should ban Cinderella 1 drop then lol

[@TheMoises5646]

Just no.

[@kauisurfer13]

No