Re: Alternative to self-ousting
- From: "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwendt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
On 12 Maj, 18:55, LSJ <vtes...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 6:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
The first two require you to play specific cards from your hand.
True. But that is beside the point. This is a TCG.
It is exactly the point (for me at least, and apparently Aaron and
others as well). One requires cards and effects in game, that can be
countered, prevented or helped. The other uses a fundamental game
mechanic that is realistically impossible to counter.
Many players (there are no statistics I know, but the number of times
this discussion pops up seems to indicate that it is a reasonable
amount) are unhappy with this aspect of the game. It seems that the
only way to completely make sure people will not selfoust out of
spite, requires your deck to be able to burn 1 vampire in another
players uncontrolled area per turn, while at the same time giving him
1 pool per turn.
I think that is bad for the game in general.
What's more, you have to have a torpored minion in order
for Dragonbound to kill you when you have only one pool.
What's more, you have to have a minion in your uncontrolled region to
Easily accomplished and unless you want the scenario from above, its
not realistic that decks will be able to prevent that.
Transferring out for the self-oust requires no cards played and cannot
be blocked or prevented by other Methusalehs, short of a specifically
timed Life Boon.
Yes. It's a matter of degree. That's the point.
The examples you've given illustrate the point of people who are
against self-ousting: if someone can't self-oust with transfers, they
would have to play cards or rely on played cards + game state combos
in order to self-oust. These cards and game states are all things
that other players have a chance of preventing. Other players can't
prevent self-ousts through transfers.
? Life Boon, as you already noted.
Would the situation be different if we didnt have Life Boon or
Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
True. Transferring out is just one of the many examples of another
player's decision that can actually cost you a game win, but there is
essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
As mentioned above all the examples you gave leave me multiple options
of preventing the self oust.
Transfering/spending your last pool, leaves me only one. And one that
is so corner case, that no one reliably uses it.
The game is immensely fun and entertaining. There is a lot of user
feedback in these threads, indicating that this one aspect is causing
problems in playgroups and at tournaments all over the world. I think
it is worth it to consider other options.
- Re: Alternative to self-ousting
- From: LSJ
- Re: Alternative to self-ousting
- Prev by Date: Re: Alternative to self-ousting
- Next by Date: Re: Speed of Play
- Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to self-ousting
- Next by thread: Re: Alternative to self-ousting