A Change to Deflection: Case Study

Shockwave wrote:

Assorted thoughts:
1. People would bounce just as much.
2. Bleed modifiers would handjam people, as they wouldn't get to play them.
3. AUS / Disciplineless bounce would see more play (especially AUS)
4. KS would be stronger, because it would be used to overwhelm DOM bounce.
5. DOM decks would include more blood gain, to offset the additional cost.

The acting (bleeding) minion can play action modifiers before askiong for blocks, you know. You've never played a Govern, redrew, played a Conditioning, redrew, and announced, "Bleed for 6, block"? I'm sad for you.

Interestingly, none of those things that you mentioned seem to bother me.

#3 and #4 would bother me a lot, so there you go. And in general, you're still going to want to drop your modifier afterward, even knowing you might increase the cost of Deflection. It's just not worth accidentally ousting your grandprey irresponsibly, or depleting his blood bouncing it on again.

KevinM wrote:

Shockwave wrote:

Assorted thoughts:
1. People would bounce just as much.

Interestingly, none of those things that you mentioned seem to bother me.

What was the point in changing Deflection?

Pascal wrote:

Sounds like the CE Awe - you're paying 2X.

Did I not parse it correctly? Well, I think everyone knows what I meant to say, so I'll leave it for the cardsmiths to reword correctly for me.

Pascal wrote:

Usually, you're waiting for the lunge to play your KJMDeflection, so you wouldn't use it on a bleed for 1 (except in some weird situations involving Helena adv).

I'd use it all the time when it got down to 3-player, if I thought that my prey could or would block. That, by itself, seems quite interesting.

Pascal wrote:

I think that, if you increase the cost of Deflection (and Deflection only)
- AUS is going to get played a lot (and Tel Misd would be the next one you'd change)

Deflection is the "problem" card, not TM. TM is absolutely, stunningly balanced, and doesn't need to be touched. Ever.

Pascal wrote:

- Redirection would get played a bit more
But most importantly, there would be a lot more decks that bleed for 3 (GtU with THA/OBF/OBT/PRO), KS DEM/obf).

There are already, essentially, an infinite number of decks at any tournament that "bleed for 3". I see at least one on every single table. So, nothing changed.

Pascal wrote:

In your proposition, you're having player X and her prey lose X blood/pool when X's predator is bleeding. Do you really think this will increase X's chances to get the GW? I don't. I think it's too expensive. Actually, I think I wouldn't even put the card in a deck.

So, you're saying that changing Deflection to have a cost of X blood, where X is the bleed amount, is too expensive? Ok.

KevinM wrote:

Deflection is the "problem" card, not TM. TM is absolutely, stunningly balanced, and doesn't need to be touched. Ever.

Maybe you should first define the problem so that people know what you are trying to do.