#583339
I really like the idea of the Dyson Sphere Door. Unfortunately it's not compatible with The Squire's Rules, and I like that one even more...
patrick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:18 am I really like the idea of the Dyson Sphere Door. Unfortunately it's not compatible with The Squire's Rules, and I like that one even more...Empok nor isn't compatible with Squire either.
EHCCGPP wrote:Only in this game is nuking whales from orbit considered a completely legitimate strategy.
EHCCGPP wrote:Continued Existence + Pretty Cards > Continued Existence
EHCCGPP wrote:Only in this game is nuking whales from orbit considered a completely legitimate strategy.
EHCCGPP wrote:Continued Existence + Pretty Cards > Continued Existence
winterflames wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:48 am tribunal and referee don't guarantee anything. They grant access to tools. If your opponent shows you a situation that you have a tool for, are you not going to reach for it? So when your opponent shows up on your Headquarters and attacks, you ref download Stratagema. Then he plays out the rest of his turn and wins the game another way. You grabbed the wrong tool. Because his deck is designed to get you to use the wrong tool.
He played a psychological game and won, betting that nobody will bring refs and if they did he could psych them into burning their ref downloads for the wrong cards. He won because he planned, gambled, and made a well oiled machine, not because his deck is bonkers broken.
Armus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:04 pm Ummm.... @Hoss-Drone ....Thats what i get for writing that post in anger filled haste. I misremember something.
Scorched Hand is immune to Amanda Rogers, and by extension, Quinn...
I hadn't even thought of Revolving Door on the Civil War tent. I think I thought it was immune, but it's apparently... not?!
Oh wait... does Tribunal of Q's text make RevDoor irrelevant for card downloads? That might explain it.
Dukat wrote: As it has been said: No one at Kaiserfest actually complained. We were fascinated by how the deck works.Why are you trying to turn this into some kind of intercontinental warfare? You are seriously being a dick a right now. This isnt quarks bar, stop carrying your personal political grudges about how much you hate america into a legit discussion about whether or not cards that allow "unlimited X" are good or bad, and whether or not the Ref mechanic is a good or bad for the game.
Americans however shit their pants and become cry babys 'meh meh meh ... bad deck ... ban cards ... do not likey playing with toys ... can make my deck bad bad'.
Come on guys, grow a pair and accept the fact that Peter's deck was not based on ONE card being overpowered, but the fact that he forced opponent's into making mistakes.
His deck could easily be countered with several cards in fact.
This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous, just because the American continent likes their shitty 1E solitaire ...
Dukat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 3:47 amThat framing implies that no card should be banned ever because calling for a ban is wrong.Armus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:05 amI am not the loud voice that cries 'BAAAN'. I am just responding to it, so don't try this Jordan Peterson stuff on me.Caretaker's Guest wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:54 am Most vocal voices are not necessarily always right...*Reads Dukat's above post*
Yup. Indeed.
JeBuS wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:11 am I applaud Peter for the gamesmanship and planning it took to pull off the win!I am uncertain about the monikers, but I understand the sentiment and can agree with this statement.
Unfortunately, I think a game where a Turn 1 win is possible is fundamentally broken. It is, plainly stated, a result of bad game design. You can't win chess in one turn, you can't win a baseball game in the first inning, you can't win a footy match in the first minute. You can certainly set yourself up for success in all of those games at the opening, but those games are designed to give the opponents the chance to continue playing.
If this was a board game, I believe it'd be termed 'Ameritrash'; high on theme, but low on design balance. As opposed to 'Eurogame', which is high on balance (and generally, doesn't knock-out players).
A turn 1 win scenario means our game is fundamentally broken.
EHCCGPP wrote:Only in this game is nuking whales from orbit considered a completely legitimate strategy.
EHCCGPP wrote:Continued Existence + Pretty Cards > Continued Existence
Kaiser wrote:Logic does not really factor into it; only game rules matter. Happily, the two often coincide.
BCSWowbagger wrote:This is a post for people who get excited about interoffice memos!What Should I Play Next in 2E?
Professor Scott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:03 am For the record, you can win Chess on turn 2 though. It of course requires a total blunder on your opponent's turn 1 though. Even Scholar's Mate in 4 moves is rare to pull off and requires significant blunders.Definitely. You will get no disagreement from me that when you win well ahead of the norm because of an opponent's blunder, that's on the player, not the game.
JeBuS wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:09 amAgreed, and let me be clear, my post was not intended to support a 1st turn or quick win. I was trying to point out that a fast win is only possible due to opponent's mistake and you capitalizing on it, not your superior gamesmanship. I am strongly in support of removing this possibility from the OTF game. I suspect that Balance will finally pull the trigger on some sort of report with crew cap. I also believe the unlimited DL of is also OP.Professor Scott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:03 am For the record, you can win Chess on turn 2 though. It of course requires a total blunder on your opponent's turn 1 though. Even Scholar's Mate in 4 moves is rare to pull off and requires significant blunders.Definitely. You will get no disagreement from me that when you win well ahead of the norm because of an opponent's blunder, that's on the player, not the game.
However, the possibility of winning before the opponent gets a chance to play their turn just shouldn't be a thing. (And it's entirely possible that Peter's deck can do so, even if some [or all] of his games he may have gone 2nd.)
No matter what game it is, if one player can win before the other player can take a turn, that game is fundamentally broken. Full stop.
Open is broken. That's fine. We all know how broken it is. Those of us who lived through the end of the Decipher era are well aware how broken 1E can be.
We don't want that for OTF. We don't want to go back to those days.
If you want to play broken 1E, play Open.
winterflames wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:48 am He played a psychological game and won, betting that nobody will bring refs and if they did he could psych them into burning their ref downloads for the wrong cards. He won because he planned, gambled, and made a well oiled machine, not because his deck is bonkers broken.So this gets to the heart of why I'm so surprised by the resistance to some balance here. Consider the following:
boromirofborg wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:57 pm Some of the responses to be seem to be a little defensive over the validity of the deck and the win by extension. I don't see it that way at all. The deck is a thing of beauty, amazing, excellent playing and gamesmanship by Peter.I love jank. I love when people find it and play it. But I don't think it should be allowed to live on once proven. Peter did a phenomenal job. Now his last reward is that the deck should be squashed (like most high-level tournament winning decks).
I am glad it existed, he deserved his win, and no on e should think poorly of him or the deck.
*dramatic noise* *suspends play* 0KF19 Kaiserfe[…]