[Brak_]

Can I ask a question - if we've been down this road before of cards have too wide a target base, or being too powerful to use in succession, or not removing themselves from the game after use, or lasting too long through the entire attempt, or not requiring to be facing a dilemma to trigger, how did this get past all of that in design and playtesting?

Isn't there a checklist of things when designing a card to make sure it's not overpowered? If it allows X, then prohibit Y. If it has A, then require B.

Reading through Naetor's breakdown, it looks like a rather large hole has been left in it.

[Marquetry]

Pretty sure it was mentioned in testing that the interrupt could lead to problems with microteaming, or possibly should only last until end of dilemma. Can't speak for the design side of course.

[Caretaker's Guest]

This card most definately needs erratum.

[KillerB]

how did this get past all of that in design and playtesting?

We knew we were making a strong card. It's always been my policy as DD for the desingers to 'start big, work down'.

It clear we didn't 'power down' enough in this card. However, this hasn't created any 'broken' game scenarios, so the testers did their job. Given what I tell my designers to do, I can't blame them either, so the buck stops with me. There's no 'design autopsy' to be had. Failures are on me.

Of course I wish we hit the bullseye on this card, but nobody is perfect. At the same time I don't think having a resurgence at the top is the worst thing to happen to this game.

Josh will handle this, trust the process. As for everyone's frustration, I understand it. I recall wasting lots of money in 2010 going to Germany to see two broken decks.

[Naetor.Ret]

What if the errata team was allowed to increase the power level of existing cards? You might be able to make the case that if Means of Control was just stronger (e.g. gains skills and attributes) TEOME wouldn't be necessary.

I could name off 50 cards that would go off the Recent Decks: none list if their cost was dropped by 1 counter.

[The Prefect]

Pretty sure it was mentioned in testing that the interrupt could lead to problems with microteaming, or possibly should only last until end of dilemma. Can't speak for the design side of course.

I know John typically speaks for Design, but I just wanted to make sure this got addressed.

To the best of my recollection, we tried to address any specific concerns that were backed up with actual game data.

Testers weren't ignored - one of the things that I'm most proud of having been associated with this set is that we were told many times that we were incorporating tester data in a highly receptive manner.

I'll only say further that I agree with DD John's take on this - we were going for powerful, but we overshot.

[KillerB]

The big rat/little rat thread got off-topic...

But Romulans can compete against that nonsense.

I'm not saying it's good to have to play to compete with (nobody like a Rock/Paper/Scissors meta), but it can absolutely blow through certain decks. That's where I think a lot of the frustration is coming from. You're forced to deal with it, via some interrupt prevention (or Romulan removal), and people (let's be honest) hate having to deal with shit in this game.

The errata will bring it down just enough to keep it honest, but it's still going to be a good cheater that can win games.

[Danny]

I don’t think people mind stocking interrupt prevention - they just baulk at having to stock so much (six instances minimum, thanks to TEOME and TCC being auto-includes). And remember, interrupts like this and TCC help win games. Prevention just helps you not to lose; you still need to stock stuff to help you win.

[Naetor.Ret]

I don’t think people mind stocking interrupt prevention - they just baulk at having to stock so much (six instances minimum, thanks to TEOME and TCC being auto-includes). And remember, interrupts like this and TCC help win games. Prevention just helps you not to lose; you still need to stock stuff to help you win.

Interrupts are also just inherently strong because you never know if or how many your opponent is holding. Playing the I expect my opponent may have this interrupt is a good game, playing the oh, my opponent had 3 of those isn't.

[Naetor.Ret]

Isn't there a card that stops people from playing the same interrupt (or maybe event?) multiple times in one turn?

Swashbuckler seems like a good call in the meta. Is there any card that shuffles your opponent's deck?

[Kaiser]

Isn't there a card that stops people from playing the same interrupt (or maybe event?) multiple times in one turn?

That delta mission from Unnatural Selection.

[Armus]

Isn't there a card that stops people from playing the same interrupt (or maybe event?) multiple times in one turn?

That delta mission from Unnatural Selection.

Don't fall for it, it's a trap!

This mission bit me in the ass when I ran it a couple of years ago because when I countered an interrupt, my opponent could play another one but I couldn't play another counter.

[bosskamiura]

Swashbuckler seems like a good call in the meta. Is there any card that shuffles your opponent's deck?

Follow it by SI or Caretaker's Guest.

You should know this. You're losing your edge, Wineinger.

TK

[bosskamiura]

Naetor.Ret for The Errata Team!

He'll get my vote!

TK

[Naetor.Ret]

Isn't there a card that stops people from playing the same interrupt (or maybe event?) multiple times in one turn?

That delta mission from Unnatural Selection.

Don't fall for it, it's a trap!

This mission bit me in the ass when I ran it a couple of years ago because when I countered an interrupt, my opponent could play another one but I couldn't play another counter.

Lol! Sounds like an UnSel card.