Re Plotting Ruin:

Where the Virtual Boyz plan their latest capers

Moderator: Virtual Card Development

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:20 am

If people think it won't be too powerful, I can go with that. I do like the idea of it making your companies overt since that has the potential for some late game excitement. Should burning down border-holds also make a company overt? I might suggest only making this the case for burning down free-holds. One could either just remove the effect of Burning Rick, Cot, and Tree or perhaps make it something like this:
Playable if you have at least 5 stage points. Your Burning Rick, Cot, and Tree and Smoke on the Wind are worth full marshalling points. If you have at least one Burning Rick, Cot, and Tree in play, you must use minion site cards for Border-holds, Free-holds and hero Havens. If you have at least one Smoke on the Wind in play, all of your companies are considered overt.
This is quite nice since it opens up even more strategies if you want to actually use minion border-holds or free-holds for playing things, or you can still play it last turn to avoid minion sites. Thorsten is right in that the potential to have a combination of both is harder to build a deck around than when you're always using hero or minion sites.

Bandobras Took
Rules Wizard
Posts: 2429
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm

Post by Bandobras Took » Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:07 pm

I like Jambo's version. Clear, simple, and not too wordy.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:16 pm

i'll give my shot on this one:

Playable if you have at least 5 stage points. Your Burning Rick, Cot, and Tree and Smoke on the Wind are worth full marshalling points. If you have 10 or more stage points, all your companies are considered overt and all attack against them attacks normally. Cannot be duplicated as a Virtual card.

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:13 am

marcos wrote:i'll give my shot on this one:

Playable if you have at least 5 stage points. Your Burning Rick, Cot, and Tree and Smoke on the Wind are worth full marshalling points. If you have 10 or more stage points, all your companies are considered overt and all attacks against them attack normally. Cannot be duplicated as a Virtual card.
That's an interesting alternative marcos! Although I must admit it's hard to gauge just what sort of impact something like this will have on the game given the diversity of FWs. Are you able to provide some examples?

For instance, after this is played, the minimum number of stage points a FW will have is 8. Is it entirely possible for a FW deck to be designed around burning sites and never reaching 10 stage points? If so, won't players just design their decks around never reaching this 10?

Still, it might make In the Grip of Ambition a slightly less rubbish hazard... On that thought, maybe more cards should be designed with a nasty stage point limit to encourage just such hazard play against FWs, e.g. a SP limit which allows FW to be attacked at his wizardhavens! ;)

One last thing - why unable to be duplicated? Normal PR can be duplicated, and there didn't seem any immediately obvious reason why this version couldn't be duplicated...

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1534
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:04 am

If so, won't players just design their decks around never reaching this 10?
that shouldn't be too hard, no. Legacy/Gatherer/Patron is 9 sp. So reaching 10 is easy as well. Of course if you want to go for the big stage, you need the sp's, but for the moment burning strat doesnt really combine well with those big cards, at least not in a competitive fast deck (alatar maybe). At any rate, it will occur late in the game, so the site alignment change is less important, hence I would not favour this.

the idea is that burning is inherently recognised as evil, regardless how many SP. if someone set fire to my house after I invited him in, I would consider that evil...

I like the wizardhaven attack idea, that should be possible. Of course there is Nature's Revenge to deal with unprotected havens.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:34 pm

For instance, after this is played, the minimum number of stage points a FW will have is 8. Is it entirely possible for a FW deck to be designed around burning sites and never reaching 10 stage points? If so, won't players just design their decks around never reaching this 10?
we can reduce that limit even more, like 8 or 9...
One last thing - why unable to be duplicated? Normal PR can be duplicated, and there didn't seem any immediately obvious reason why this version couldn't be duplicated...
because you might actuaññy want to be overt, so multiple copies of this single card will help getting the 10 SP
Still, it might make In the Grip of Ambition a slightly less rubbish hazard... On that thought, maybe more cards should be designed with a nasty stage point limit to encourage just such hazard play against FWs, e.g. a SP limit which allows FW to be attacked at his wizardhavens!
agreed
Thorsten the Traveller wrote:Of course if you want to go for the big stage, you need the sp's, but for the moment burning strat doesnt really combine well with those big cards, at least not in a competitive fast deck (alatar maybe). At any rate, it will occur late in the game, so the site alignment change is.
My rady deck did burn sites and girdle and worked pretty well...
I like the wizardhaven attack idea, that should be possible. Of course there is Nature's Revenge to deal with unprotected havens.
i like this too

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1534
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:56 pm

My rady deck did burn sites and girdle and worked pretty well...
ah, that's why you'd hate to have to use minion sites, I see... :wink:
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:09 pm

well in a first time, yes, that is why :lol:

After all this post tournament corrections i will have to modify all of my decks :cry:

But anyway, aside of my deck, i don't see any reason to make a FW use minion sites for burn cards, after all, that is what is going to make a FW burn deck different from a minion burn deck...

Frodo
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: NYC, NY

Post by Frodo » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:49 am

All right, let's vote on these two options, Jambo's last version above, or Marcos's version (with 10 SP, and no need for "cannot be duplicated").

I'm going with Jambo's--it's pretty nice!

Frodo

Jambo
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Post by Jambo » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:58 am

I do like the premise of Marcos' idea, and the way the hazard player can interact more by using a card like In the Grip of Ambition. However, I'm not convinced that the potential of this card alone will actually make In the Grip of Ambition see any more play! It really needs more cards which interact with SP limits to be around first (something to thing about). Plus I think it's entirely likely that players will design their FW decks around never reaching this interesting 10 point limit, which would be no fun, and defeat the purpose. Burning down free-holds, and receiving full MPs should come with a price.

In that sense I do like the way the other version is more straightforward and more concrete about the effects of burning down border-holds and free-holds. Ok, companies don't become overt or have to use minion sites until the FW reveals himself, but that has to happen at some point even it isn't until the last turn.

If there had been more FW resources designed around the idea of interesting and hazardous SP limits, I might have gone with Marcos' idea, but in the absence of these I'll go with the other version.

Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1534
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:52 am

I see little point in changing it if there's no need to play it early.

But, I seem to have lost that battle, so I'll go with Jambo's version then.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

marcos
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Córdoba, Argentina

Post by marcos » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:50 pm

ok, it seems that the majority of votes has spoken :)

Jambo's version will be the one i guess

Locked

Return to “Development”