Two important points:
- Usurper automatically disables any opponent leaders’ abilities.
- Leaders’ abilities are balanced through leaders' provisions.
Issues:
* When opponent leaders’ abilities are disabled by Usurper, Usurper is basically removing provisions from that leader, represented by the leader's provisions. Depending on the leader, Usurper removes less or more provisions. Therefore he cannot be properly balanced through his own provisions.
* Usurper decks are built around not having leader interactions and never have to worry about any influence of the opponent’s leader. There is no counter to Usurper. Also playing Usurper (the worst answer) is not a counter, because it does the same.
Next to that, in my opinion, the game should have some ground rules, values and vision regarding abilities and interactions. Usurper’s ability should be recognized as something that does not fit in the game. It removes the fundamentals of decks that people have built with a specific leader, directly and negatively impacting these people’s fun factor. I’m convinced that there are very few people who find it fun to play against Usurper. As a counter for everything, playing Usurper cannot be called strategic either as there is nothing strategic about an automatic disable of any opponent leader. In general, battle-wise, Usurper's ability makes no sense either.
For the above reasons, the suggestion is to change Usurper’s abilities or remove him from the game. It’s not a leader to relate to anyway.
- Usurper automatically disables any opponent leaders’ abilities.
- Leaders’ abilities are balanced through leaders' provisions.
Issues:
* When opponent leaders’ abilities are disabled by Usurper, Usurper is basically removing provisions from that leader, represented by the leader's provisions. Depending on the leader, Usurper removes less or more provisions. Therefore he cannot be properly balanced through his own provisions.
* Usurper decks are built around not having leader interactions and never have to worry about any influence of the opponent’s leader. There is no counter to Usurper. Also playing Usurper (the worst answer) is not a counter, because it does the same.
Next to that, in my opinion, the game should have some ground rules, values and vision regarding abilities and interactions. Usurper’s ability should be recognized as something that does not fit in the game. It removes the fundamentals of decks that people have built with a specific leader, directly and negatively impacting these people’s fun factor. I’m convinced that there are very few people who find it fun to play against Usurper. As a counter for everything, playing Usurper cannot be called strategic either as there is nothing strategic about an automatic disable of any opponent leader. In general, battle-wise, Usurper's ability makes no sense either.
For the above reasons, the suggestion is to change Usurper’s abilities or remove him from the game. It’s not a leader to relate to anyway.