This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
  • 122 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552048
kill it. discard it. iron men destroy it.

Seriously a errate for "Once per game" would be great on it.

And while being on it, remove the "nullifies wind dancer". wind dancer is not an OP card... maybe exchange it with something borg related. like: "nullifes Borg Kiss". Because in my silly head the devil is jealous of data. He wants to be the perfect mate for the Borg Queen himselve... 8)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552050
Mr.Sloan wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:19 pm kill it. discard it. iron men destroy it.

Seriously a errate for "Once per game" would be great on it.

And while being on it, remove the "nullifies wind dancer". wind dancer is not an OP card... maybe exchange it with something borg related. like: "nullifes Borg Kiss". Because in my silly head the devil is jealous of data. He wants to be the perfect mate for the Borg Queen himselve... 8)
Maybe "Once per game per card title, plays to nullify a Treaty, Horag'n or Wind dancer."
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552057
It doesn't need to be banned. Better design & better promotion of the use of counters is what is needed.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552066
Staging Ground gives you the treaty (benefit) and kills free plays (cost).

Make it too easy to kill the benefit and nobody will pay the cost.

(I.e., put some damn treaty protection on Staging Ground)

The Devil in general is fine - at least no worse than any number of interrupts that are annoying once or twice but become obnoxious in mass quantity.
User avatar
 
By Spectre9
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#552067
Don't ban it and just don't make new sets designed around working with treaties then. Problem solved.

I for one will never play a treaty deck again until it's banned.

Is that what we want?
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#552071
so i'm assuming there are two kinds of decks being built right now, Staging Ground and Kill Staging Ground. Granted the kill crowd is going to toss in a bunch of Devils right now to make sure they can get the treaty, and the Kai Winn backup treaty, but once the "flavor of the week" moves on from the post-release Staging Ground meta craze, people aren't going to keep stocking multiple Devils.

So I don't think banning it is necessary. For now, toss in some Amadas to keep your treaty safe. you'll find a use for her even not to nullify a Devil.
User avatar
First Edition Art Manager
By jjh (Johnny Holeva)
 - First Edition Art Manager
 -  
#552075
Does The Devil make 1E games more fun or less fun in 2021?

I'd like to see a change.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#552076
Here are a couple of excerpts from a much longer post I put on the staff boards a couple days ago:
Maybe all treaties shouldn't have protection, but if you're going to take away free reports, then THAT SPECIFIC treaty better have some fucking protection, otherwise we're back to DS9 decks not being played because they're inferior to the alternatives.
And a little further in...
Here's my bottom line: Hey here's an idea. Let's make a new 1e faction that let's everybody work together but not let you play cards for free as a drawback. Then let's just ignore the existence of a Premiere interrupt that completely shuts it down. Then let's wonder why nobody plays our awesome fun new cards.

I'm done with Staging Ground. Is that the result you wanted, Design?
User avatar
 
By Boffo97 (Dave Hines)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Retired Moderator
#552077
Maybe a negative point box on The Devil for the one playing it could be a good thing. That way, it still hits, but there's a cost, and the player gave up points for nothing if their opponent gets their treaty back in play.

After all, in a sense the player playing it is making a deal with The Devil and those can often backfire.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552080
... And I took a quite a few questions about why I would keep the devil out of my cube format entirely....

Like many premiere interrupts, it was unbalanced or generously viewed, balanced if you assume unfettered access to recursion. Since palor toff is banned and we have a better understanding of the dangers of recursion, we can see more clearly that the devil is unbalanced bc the original designers thought getting your treaty back would be easy and of course, the game moved slower then.

The solution imho is
1. Make every treaty seedable and seedable only and a "you maybe only seed one treaty" text.
2. Ban the devil
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552081
Spectre9 wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:11 pm Don't ban it and just don't make new sets designed around working with treaties then. Problem solved.

I for one will never play a treaty deck again until it's banned.

Is that what we want?
Sorry to hear you got such a negative experience with it. I do agree with you. It should have had treaty protection though. Or done something like Kazon/Viidian used to have before they were neutered. Comments like these make me sad that I couldn't get people to listen to my objections about certain aspects of Dogs of War.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552082
Hoss-Drone wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:43 pm ... And I took a quite a few questions about why I would keep the devil out of my cube format entirely....

Like many premiere interrupts, it was unbalanced or generously viewed, balanced if you assume unfettered access to recursion. Since palor toff is banned and we have a better understanding of the dangers of recursion, we can see more clearly that the devil is unbalanced bc the original designers thought getting your treaty back would be easy and of course, the game moved slower then.

The solution imho is
1. Make every treaty seedable and seedable only and a "you maybe only seed one treaty" text.
2. Ban the devil
This isn't a solution at all. It was a fail in the design concerning a card that depends on a treaty card to work.

It is the CC that has caused the fall of counters being used in decks, counters that used to stop The Devil, and a host of other cards. Don't complain about the state of the game when it is the people who are running the game who have made it what it is today.
User avatar
 
By DarkSabre (Austin Chandler)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#552083
Boffo97 wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:50 pm Maybe a negative point box on The Devil for the one playing it could be a good thing. That way, it still hits, but there's a cost, and the player gave up points for nothing if their opponent gets their treaty back in play.

After all, in a sense the player playing it is making a deal with The Devil and those can often backfire.
Interesting idea on the point box, but on the other hand we have seen what happens when you put -points on counters, they start to never be used.

Given what has happened to Amanda/Kevin/Q2, I'm deeply concerned about adding The Devil to having negative points or being banned.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
1EFQ: Game of two halves

First: Rescue Captives is OP, there should[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation