Ban of Conditioning

Oortje wrote:

Remove the 0.5 vp reward for staying alive, and it will in the long run result in less time outs.

Cool idea!

elotar wrote:

As I understand:
7/24(-?) Legendary
8/54 day 1
11/24 day 2

why did the rate of table timeouts nearly triple on day two?

self wrote:

elotar wrote:

As I understand:
7/24(-?) Legendary
8/54 day 1
11/24 day 2

why did the rate of table timeouts nearly triple on day two?

I would say less proportion of vote/bleed decks (from ~70% on day 1 to ~40% on day 2) and "better" players.

Better players means that the table will less likely allow VPs go after the 1st one and harder negotiations (not necessarily stalling).

In my 2nd round there were 4 wall decks in the same table. The one that made the table move a little bit was me, but it ended in time limit anyway.

Not seeing the validity of arguments against timeouts as arguments for Conditioning. The two really have nothing to do with each other, where the argument for Conditioning seems far more of an argument "don't change what exists".

Want to reduce timeouts, eliminate voting. It's not just the possibility for extended negotiations, it's that voting is a great way to bloat, and voting is a great way to prevent someone from ousting someone else through Banishment, Con Boon, or whatever.

Want +2/+3 bleed in the game?

Blood Annihilation
Action Modifier
Cost: 1b
<qui> or <tha>: +2 bleed, don't cheese more bleed after playing this card.
<QUI> or <THA>: +3 bleed, sure go ahead and drop something else to really murder someone.

No, adding +bleed to Qui doesn't matter, so the real card would be more like:

Too Slow
Action Modifier
Cost: 1b
You cannot play another action modifier to increase this bleed amount.
<cel>: +2 bleed.
<CEL>: +3 bleed.

Can just errata Conditioning to require a different discipline, instead, of course.

However, my argument has nothing to do with timeouts as timeouts are a function of metagame, both in terms of deck construction and play style, and not whether Conditioning exists. I don't want Conditioning, Aire of Elation, or Foreshadowing Destruction in the game. I could see a capacity restricted discipline card or title requiring card (hey, Archbishop/Priscus/Cardinal, have a +2 bleed card, burn a blood for +3 bleed), but one grows weary of take 3-6 over and over again because it's so ridiculously easy.

Does this just make Dem that much better? Sure. That's why I don't bother calling for retiring one card in the game but retiring enough cards to remake the environment, an environment with less bloat ability, with less intercept ... and less stealth, etc.

so here's an idea.

Introduce the grouping rule for Library cards (in b4 TEH GROOPING IS le suXX0r5). Have it work the same as for the library as it does for the crypt.

Take ... Scouting Mission and Govern: they go in group 1. The modifiers go in group 2. The redirects go in group three. nothing actually changes aside from what card pool they exist in. I mean you can hedge things so that like... all of the little cards go in group 2, and govern and conditioning go in 1, and deflection goes in group 3.

Moved my contribution to a seperate thread: www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/75401-is-it-time-to-introduce-a-card-limit#79442