question-circle What should be done with Reversal of Fortune?

10 Apr 2012 19:22 #27613 by Kushiel

Whisker wrote: Option 2. would still allow aformentioned madness + reversal to be played, but would put a serious wrench in its wheels(requiring some sort of card recycling).


Making it harder to play doesn't help. As has been pointed out, the deck is already hard to play, and is unfun for everyone else at the table whether or not the deck wins. Causing it to lose more often doesn't address the issue of not allowing other people to play the game.

I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Apr 2012 19:52 #27614 by Pascal Bertrand

Kushiel wrote:

Whisker wrote: Option 2. would still allow aformentioned madness + reversal to be played, but would put a serious wrench in its wheels(requiring some sort of card recycling).


Making it harder to play doesn't help. As has been pointed out, the deck is already hard to play, and is unfun for everyone else at the table whether or not the deck wins. Causing it to lose more often doesn't address the issue of not allowing other people to play the game.

I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)?

I played the deck twice.
It's really difficult to play. One of the hardest I've had in my hands. Sadly, it's not really my type of deck. It gets too much table hate after 5 mins.
But that's quite irrelevant to the current discussion.

The deck is strong thanks to Madness Network and Reversal of Fortunes. Taking any of those two out removes the deck from the list.

I'm listening to your remarks. I have seen the deck played (mainly by Orian and by Romain, another French player), and it requires at least 3 games of "testing" to get why this vampire should play that action.

The deck itself has weaknesses.
If your predator brings out a rusher on turn 1, he gets to rush one of your two initial vampires (which is quite bad, even if he simply reduces it to 0 blood).
If your prey bring out a cheap titled guy (Victor Pelletier being the easier pick), you're in a bad situation.
Depending on the version played, fortitude combat might be your biggest ennemy.
And, finally, if the table talks, they might get your Malkavian Justicar vote fail by discarding a political action card each.

If you miss your window, or let slip a turn, there are almost no chances of getting a second shot at the GW.

The biggest issue I have with the deck is that it is stored on the Internet without any "Attention! Run this deck at home, alone, first!" warning. It definitely isn't for those who want to test something new.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Brum

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Apr 2012 20:10 - 10 Apr 2012 20:10 #27615 by bakija

Kushiel wrote: I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)?


The appeal is, I suspect, that it is a tricksy puzzle to solve (for the person playing it), and when it goes off, it can be very effective while being "clever". To be fair, I have never played such a deck. Wampler had one that he worked on for years and years, and he always warned us ahead of time that he was playing it. A lot of the time, it didn't work. Sometimes it did, and the two people on the other side of the table literally got to leave the game and go play something else for an hour, checking in once and a while, and either Steve got wiped out due to bad cards or a convenient DT or something, or he wiped everyone out with Smiling Jack.

I'm of the mind that the card is, in the right context, incredibly bad for the game, but given that it is really hard to make work (a few DTs at the right time, or DI, or a bad draw, or some early unexpected vote defense, and it all falls apart), I'm not convinced that it needs any actual action.
Last edit: 10 Apr 2012 20:10 by bakija.
The following user(s) said Thank You: alf

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Apr 2012 16:07 #27658 by Kushiel

bakija wrote: I'm of the mind that the card is, in the right context, incredibly bad for the game, but given that it is really hard to make work (a few DTs at the right time, or DI, or a bad draw, or some early unexpected vote defense, and it all falls apart), I'm not convinced that it needs any actual action.


It sounds like you're describing it as a card which is really hard to play correctly but wins you the game when you do? That's really bad tech for a game that's mostly built on the accumulation of small effects, like VTES. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (because I've never seen either of these in actual play), but isn't that the same kind of card as Return to Innocence, different in degree rather than kind?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Apr 2012 16:26 #27660 by Ohlmann

Kushiel wrote: I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (because I've never seen either of these in actual play), but isn't that the same kind of card as Return to Innocence, different in degree rather than kind?


I don't think a lot of people think that the Reversal of fortune deck is what we want for VtES. It's more that the deck is neither powerful enough nor played enough to warrant something as problematic as a ban. Or maybe even an errata.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Apr 2012 16:51 #27665 by Kushiel

Ohlmann wrote: I don't think a lot of people think that the Reversal of fortune deck is what we want for VtES. It's more that the deck is neither powerful enough nor played enough to warrant something as problematic as a ban. Or maybe even an errata.


To my mind, "it's not played very often" means that banning it would be more or less painless and affect the game very little. That it's apparently very disruptive when it is played is just more evidence in favor of a ban.

I don't really have a horse in the race, just pointing out which side of logic this evidence lands on.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ankha

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.142 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum