Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events

Amenophobis wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility [] and an ability to interfere with Events.

There could be cheap minions which could have the ability to sacrifice themselves in order to burn events in play. This burn-ability should not be an action (The Unmasking would create a natural barrier here), but rather "instead of taking an action, burn this <minion> to burn an event in play".
You could use the minion for actions and blocking, and if the need arises burn an event with it.

By making the burning of an event not an action, you reduce interaction between minions. It becomes a trivial matter of putting Wider View into almost every deck, one or two copies of Dave-the-Event-Killer and then shredding your crypt until he turns up. Spend a couple of pool (probably 2 or so since you mentioned cheap) and then it's done. Another Silver Bullet that does not increase minion interaction.

Same proposal wearing new clothes. Emperor's New Clothes.

Jeff wrote:

Apparently you didn't read my post. I am proposing a rules-based solution to the VTES problem that is poor access to event removal, since many of them are over-powered, global events. I think it's a stretch to claim that events encourage minion interaction. What they really do is fundamentally change the rules of the game.

A Silver Bullet in the rules is still a Silver Bullet. Putting it in the rules doesn't change the Silver Bullet nature of the response, just where it is recorded.

Jeff wrote:

Actually, my suggestion gives everyone *another* silver bullet for the problem they expect to have, if they want it. Azel's original solution was even more far-reaching. A bit too far in my opinion, but nonetheless a great kernel of an idea.

See above. Silver Bullet is a Silver Bullet.

Jeff wrote:

Actually, as you may know, events are put into play outside of normal minion interaction. As such, there should be ways outside of normal minion interaction to counter or burn them. The solutions that exist are too weak for the strength of existing event cards.

So what you are saying is that we should push the game away from minion interactions even for cards that are put into play without minion interactions. We should ban Arson and Rampage then because they are minion interaction solutions to potentially non-minion-based problems.

Jeff wrote:

And just the way that Camera Phone was Laptop Computer v2, and Scouting Mission was Govern the Unaligned v2. Ere Ibeji was designed quite quite a few synergies in mind, not least of which were African cultural and spiritual references.

I can't really stop the poor decisions made in the past to duplicate cards with a blood-cost difference (GtU & Scouting Mission, Social Charm & Legal Manipulation, etc) or the subtle variations such as the 3 or so discipline-less Enter Combat cards. What I can say, is that they aren't particularly inspiring card design. There is a functional difference between Camera Phone and Laptop Computer, because the Laptop is a bonus on all bleed actions but Camera Phone provides the action; not a huge difference but not terrible.

Jeff wrote:

Go read my post again. It is very clearly my opinion. Good vs bad. Some events are over powered, some are useless, some are in between. You know, like all cards?

If they are opinion, what causes us to accept that list? Is there some kind of statistical analysis you have done on which Events are the most problematic?

Jeff wrote:

Um, re-read my post again. In fact, re-read the whole thread again, starting with the title "Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events". My proposal follows of the original post and tries to modify the idea to something I find a bit more targeted.

See the "Make a Silver Bullet" critiques above.

I think there is merit to the suggestion by others to "ban all events" because it is a clean solution to a large problem. And that suggestion is by no means a knee jerk reaction--we've had events for almost ten years now (May 17, 2004)--despite how much you may want to ascribe that motive or trait to me by implication. Keep trying, I know you will.

And I would have the almost entirely opposing position. There are so few events regularly played that banning all events is a stupidity. Of course it is a knee-jerk reaction... the logic you are advocating is "An event has once made my game difficult, we should ban all of them." That would be a knee-jerk reaction.

Jeff wrote:

Azel wants to fix the event mechanic, not one particular event. I agree with him that something should be done. The currently existing methods of removing events are way too weak compared to the strength of the event cards that exist.

The Event Mechanic is to put in a global once-per-game effect into play as a Discard Phase Action. Not a terrible option. Probably not much worse than Antidiluvian Awakening or Tensions in the Ranks.

Jeff wrote:

Either proposed rules change would provide players with more opportunities to counter events which they believe are too powerful overall, or at the very least too disruptive to their deck's ability to win a table. The beauty of a rules change is that it doesn't require creation of a new card to implement. Better still, the more powerful an event card is, the more incentive there is for players to use the new and better countermeasures available to them.

As mentioned a couple of times, your rules change promotes a Silver Bullet Arms Race. You are suggesting that any deck that doesn't want to see Anthelios in play puts Anthelios in the deck and then waits for the card to turn up. Ditto for things such as The Unmasking and so on.


Minion Interactive solutions could be...

Pushing out the Deadline
Action
As a action burn any Event in play or instead you may put this card in play and move any amount of blood from the acting minion to this card. You may use counters on this card instead of pool for bleed actions against you. You may only have one copy of this card in play. Burn it when it has 0 counters.


Dave-the-Event-Killer
Caitiff
3 cap
[aus]
Dave may take a +1 stealth action that costs 3 blood to burn an Event in play.

TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote:

Decks that play Wormwood are "event decks" and they lose, often horribly, but in a painful process. These are usually the ones people hate - it's difficult to handle on a bookkeeping level and the events tend to restrict peoples' ability to play (and therefore, to have fun).

Darby gets it. This is why he's a genius and I am a forum troll. Anyway I would gladly trade unmasking and anthelios (the "good" ones) if it meant all the fun-ruining events never saw play again.

Off-the-cuff terrible idea:

what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost.

I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed.

Dorrinal wrote:

Darby gets it.

Perhaps not.

Last year, I put together a "Helsinki Syndrome" deck - Wormwood vampires to 3 cap with Carver's in play, then drop 4th Cycle and send everything to torpor with hostage counters

Too bad I didn't read the sequencing on 4th Cycle well enough Not to mention that I got 4th Cycled by other players before I could drop my own in both rounds of the tournament.

The block denial Wormwood + Project module worked well enough that I'm actually considering keeping that part to get people to exactly 6 cap with non-poison events. But experience (and this thread) suggest the Imbued-event stigma ensures the deck gets gang-raped.