Armus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:54 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:28 am
I decided I want another thing for Christmas. Let’s get rid of or change the rules that allow for dilemma skeezing. Specifically cards like Nilz Baris and Anastasia komananov. Yes I get there are counters but their mechanic just really does break the game and tilt the favor even more the feds way. What I would like is a simple errata that says that special downloads cannot interrupt dilemma.
I definitely agree with the sentiment in principle, but I've started to question whether (very limited) "bugouts" aren't a good thing.
The fact is that there are some dilemma combos that are literally unbeatable if you can't interrupt them. If there's zero bugouts, then these combos will dominate the meta and render a whole bunch of other dilemma combos useless. The result could easily be a devolution of the game into a more limited meta where you can only fight fire with marshmallows and deckbuilding becomes a function of who can rebuild their marshmallows the fastest.
So while it sucks to have your awesome combo cracked by a bugout, in this case I'd say be careful what you wish for...
I actually have a really good reason. Maybe a couple.
 Limited bugouts wouldn't and aren't a bad thing in of itself. BUT, combined with turbo bonus point scoring, it's a VERY bad thing. A 2-mission win seems to be in the current meta, and doesn't seem to be going away. So, If I can bug out of two dilemma sequences with the aforementioned cards, then I am essentially rendering 1/2 of the game (dilemma building) inconsequential. Even I can do it just ONCE, than that is a huge boon to me if I can also spot where the dead end is. I do agree that bugging out with a card like The Needs of the Many
or Polarize Hull Plating
or even Not Programmed to Respond
make sense, but being able to see, then completely stop an attempt makes the game silly to some extent. I have the same argument for a card like Mortal Q/Mortal Quinn that completely deletes multiple dilemma. I think CC agrees with me to some extent, given errata to cards like McCoy or Sato that used to nullify dilemma all day.
2. Forcing or encouraging the game to need 3-4 missions to win is a GOOD thing. It actually levels the playing field in the same way a shooter video game having a medium "time to kill" levels their game genre. Honestly, the game has gotten a little out of hand with 2 mission win decks. Yes, they should still exist, but they should not be so easy to do. I'd say that the Genesis Device should be on the chopping block for the same reason. By allowing and even forcing a player to encounter 3-4 dilemma combos, it actually validates that part of the deck building process. It could be argued that the reason that most decks (including mine) are running 12+ seed cards that arent dilemma is because we kinda know the opponent will only see 2/6 combos anyway, so that part is less important than turbocharging my start. I know that I have fewer chances to stop my opponent if they are scoring 50+ with every mission.
3. Not to be naïve or argumentative, but I haven't seen any combos that are absolute stops and need to be cheesed to pass. I'm open to learning something new, but I pay attention and the super lock dilemma combos aren't really a thing mostly because the CC has done a good job preventing or errata'ing them out of game. Too, I'd rather see creativity and thought of the players going into coming up with these dilemma rather than the super cheesy Nilz and Anastasia work-arounds which take absolutely no thinking other than put them in your tent or stock multiple copies or have a hologram door to download. I think those cards, specifically, and cards that stop a dilemma combo after seeing it should be stopped. Dilemma is such a crucial part of the game and it should be respected as such.