Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!

[gameplan.exe]

BBH have you thought about simply changing vertigo from 'may' to 'must'?   Would that fix it?

That's an interesting idea.  I'm not if it would stop vertigo from being used to load up specific characters (X babies) but, I think it would be a fairly good nerf as it would only let you have shift to 2 characters and not 3 (assuming all attacks go to the same character).

How could they load up the x-babies?  For any attack that the Marauders would chose to shift the new target hero 'must' defend it. It's basically to take away letting someone just spread hits around in the most convenient way and require defensive action to also be played.

I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

[Nostalgic]

I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?

[drdeath25]

I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?

If I wanted to play the card less powerful in this set of rules, I would change it to 'Must' defend. But thats just me...

[BigBadHarve]

I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?

If I wanted to play the card less powerful in this set of rules, I would change it to 'Must' defend. But thats just me...

Interesting ideas... sort of the Four Freedoms solution applied to the Vertigo.

If I were to nerf it from as written, I'd probably keep it as an OPD, but also add in the official errata of 'play on your turn' (which is something we considered, but ultimately decided that OPD was enough.)

Double Whammy, so to speak. Even so it's still a worthwhile card.

-BBH

[Nostalgic]

Interesting ideas... sort of the Four Freedoms solution applied to the Vertigo.

If I were to nerf it from as written, I'd probably keep it as an OPD, but also add in the official errata of 'play on your turn' (which is something we considered, but ultimately decided that OPD was enough.)

Double Whammy, so to speak. Even so it's still a worthwhile card.

-BBH

I like to build consensus.    

Perhaps on more tweak will remove the '1 per deck.'  
First change it to 'must' defend as we said.
In errata you could say the defense must be with an unmodified power card.
Finally keep it offensive only as you mentioned.

Notice that I didn't say power card based defense.  So that limits the type of attacks that could be shifted and limits how big of an attack could be defended if shifted.  I think that sufficiently 'nerfs' the card to still be quite useful, but not as ridiculous as it was.  The only exception may be someone who has an inherent ability that grants a bonus to power cards.

[Onslaught]

Anways, I'll keep testing, but I suspect Onslaught could [be] correct about this being 10 pages on how basic universe are now recyclable (sorry BBH!)

Yup, after the necessary changes are made that's mainly what remains. BBH, be honest, how much did you test these rules?

Just to be a shithead I wanted to try to maximize use of the broken version of Power Leech. I didn't intend for it to be competitive, but it was winning a lot based solely on how often I was able to draw Vertigo. Anyway, the gimmick was:

Malice, Photographic Reflexes, Power Mimic, and a placed Leech. Ahahahaa....

[BigBadHarve]

Anways, I'll keep testing, but I suspect Onslaught could [be] correct about this being 10 pages on how basic universe are now recyclable (sorry BBH!)

Yup, after the necessary changes are made that's mainly what remains. BBH, be honest, how much did you test these rules?

Just to be a shithead I wanted to try to maximize use of the broken version of Power Leech. I didn't intend for it to be competitive, but it was winning a lot based solely on how often I was able to draw Vertigo. Anyway, the gimmick was:

Malice, Photographic Reflexes, Power Mimic, and a placed Leech. Ahahahaa....

Solids tests, I'll outline below each rule and when we came up with them. The process has taken years, and we didn't think of it all at once. Did we test every single possibility under the sun? No. But we assessed what we thought might be broken and tried out everything we could. Your build on the Citadel wasn't one I'd tried, but we did play out the Citadel in other combinations. I've been trying your Citadel team this past week, with middling success (which suggests that it's not broken), but that's why I'd like to see how you would build it.

I like your Morph deck, it's interesting because it DOES make potential use of two characters who go largely unused, and creates a potentially powerful trick. But go ahead, a lucky perfect draw notwithstanding, try and keep those characters alive long enough to get that trick out... especially as an anyhero team! Remember - vertigo is OPD in our system.

As for it being a ten page document about recycling cards - You've only mentioned going back to Leech as target, and nerfing vertigo and restoring Citadel... you haven't even touched on any of the other notes. That's scratching the surface.

Do I think they're perfect? Well, I like them but I am ALWAYS open to suggestions. The goal is to make the game intuitive, fluid, and consistent without the need for the Meta-rule guide. You guys have brought up fantastic points. Don't get me wrong, I have considered everything you say. If there is something broken, I will fix it. BUT I don't want theories. I want hard evidence.

If you can make a broken deck, send me the specs and I'll test it out myself (Or if you're local and we meet up occasionally *coughcough HOTROD coughcough*). If the deck can be countered easily, then it's not broken, even if it's got a killer trick. (I have more than a few decks with killer tricks under official rules, and yet somehow that's not considered broken...)

Anyway, rule by rule, here are notes about the progression of our ideas: (Sorry, it's a long one, but you did ask...)

Lorne (the co-author of our house rules) and I have, on average gotten together once a month for ten years since the game died... (this is the average, of course, there were prolonged periods where we didn't play, and other times when we managed once a week.) to play anywhere between 12 and 16 games. Our standard format is to have between 4 and 6 distinct teams and round robin them to gauge the results.
Now, were we able to try EVERY single possibility? Of course not. But we isolated things we thought would be broken and tested them.

Obviously we had various stages of what came into being -

1.   Cards played as written is about 2 years old now. We got fed up with the meta rules and wanted a simple way of playing the game. So we tried everything as written. No errata, no metas, just to see what would happen. First we scoured the cards to see what needed to be looked at. Naturally we came to the conclusion that many errata had to either remain or be altered, then we removed the rest.

2.   The recycling rule is about 6 years old. We felt that recycling the cards made them more playable, without making them mandatory to a deck. It also made certain aspects and specials a little more appealing. (IE: Mojoworld, Captain Britain) Certainly not game breaking, but more worthy of consideration.

3.   The doubleshot rules are about as old as the recycling rules. I've always felt they should be able to defend the whole team, thus increasing their versatility, especially since they are a pain in the ass to use. Like the basic universe cards, it makes them more appealing, but not necessarily mandatory.

4.   Removing the any-hero restrictions came with the 'as written' testing 2 years ago. It was about playing what was on the text of the cards as much as possible.

And we had the same reservations about Leech as written as most people do – but in practice it really wasn't that broken, except when it came to BQ specials. Which meant we had to either find a solution that went with our 'play as written', or go back to official rules for Any Heroes.

I wanted to put them into the dead heroes pile, but Lorne hated that idea.

That was one issue we fought about until I built a broken team of (believe it or not): Wonder Woman, Scarlet Spider, Spider Girl and Hawkeye. It's heavily defensive, with decent attacks, and being able to BQ the leech up to 4 times in a round was one thing (though it never happened) – but with placed BQs, Leeching up to 4 consecutive rounds WAS a problem. That team had a 80% - 90% win ratio.

So, into the dead heroes pile they went, and solved that issue. That decision is the most recent, but it's been on the table for a while. The team remained strong, but only marginally stronger than it would have been under official rules.

It should be noted that, Any heroes only go the defeated heroes pile after being used. This means you can BQ an any hero back for a 2nd chance if it was pitched without being played.

5.   The shift rule is recent. About a year.  We adjusted it to accomplish two things – 1) to make shifting a little more intuitive , and 2) to make things like certain EB specials a little more useful. The idea of shifting attacks 'behind' existing cards always seemed dumb to me. It's more logical that you simply cannot shift to a character who was blocked off anyway, or more importantly, shift an attack to a character with an EB protecting them, and absorb it with the EB.

6.   The Absent character rule/Pseudo aspects are also fairly new. About 6 months. So yes, this is the least tested of the rules. I have yet to see it broken though – so I'm all open for ideas. I've tried Your Citadel idea a couple of times in the past few days. Most certainly not broken, but then I don't know precisely what you had in mind. I'm still waiting on your build so I can see it. I will tell you one thing – in our tests with the Citadel drawing 8 vs draw 7. Being able to draw 8 makes the Citadel playable and competitive, but not broken. Drawing 7, the team has a 100% loss ratio. That's broken in the wrong direction.

Aside from that - pseudo aspects are really the boost many homebases need. Results vary, but you can't deny that almost all homebases are improved (even if only marginally) by this ability. The only ones that lose out are the ones that are missing two characters. But there's nothing I can do about that short of making homemades, and the purpose of this rule set was to make more use of existing cards.

7.   Inherent Abilities. I'll confess, we never tested this one. We were simply removing an arbitrary rule that only applied to certain inherent abilities. If you can break this one, go ahead.

8.   Battlesites and variants – we've actually played this way since the game died, but strangely it rarely comes up. At most, you can get two acrobatics specials in play at the same time for a lock down, but that's not really game breaking, as lock down decks are easily constructed a dozen times over in other ways already.

9.   Top of a player's action. This is, for the most part, official. The only thing we did (ironically!) is to depower training and Basic universe by saying you couldn't use them as follow ups. The only reason we did this was for rule consistency in terms of what could be played and when.

10.   Combining cards. This came with the 'play as written' testing as well 2 years ago. Most AE specials don't say combine with a 'power' card, it simply says 'card.' Which, going as written without any reference guide would imply any card of the specified type, not just power cards. So at first, we considered the possibilities. An AE combined with a doubleshot added up to a 3 icon level 12 attack for a one hit kill (not that it ever happend! AE's combined with teamworks were also interesting. But ultimately, we decided that official rules here regarding combines with universe and tactics should stand, but there was no reason a character couldn't combine an AE with another special. It really is a minor ruling, and rarely comes up. But some characters get a little boost. We just wanted it clear what could be done, so it was added to our list.

11.   Now, here's the big one no one has talked about yet – defensive actions. Everyone has been so focused on the Leech, Vertigo and Onslaught's Citadel, that not one person has addressed the issue of the broad range of cards now playable defensively. Not just cards like trick transport being returned to defensive status, but other cards like 'Asian Connections' or 'Flabby Fighter' (Allow me to share how much more useful Asian Connections is playable defensively!) Or how about KC specials? More characters with cards usable defensively increases your options.

12.   Card selection etiquette. That was given to me by Hot Rod. I'd never played like that, but I liked it.

13.   The Cheating Death rule we've been using for 5 years. Some great combos, and possibilities, but nothing broken. (You could theoretically use Kirigi to keep a character alive after being KO'd, then mercilessly conquer him to remove all the hits and abuse the cheating death rule... we did think of that, but getting it into play isn't as easy as it seems.)

14.   Ending a Battle. Again, fairly new, 1 year old, but it makes things more interesting. Tested thoroughly, and nothing broken. What it does, however, is make a player think twice before employing the much hated 'cheese win.' If I think my opponent can do something after my character's are gone to screw with my venture, then I might not be so quick to sacrifice my entire team in order to take venture.

15.   Duration rule. We just took the official rule and applied it to EVERYTHING. Not the arbitrary rules in place. Again, it made so many cards more playable. You give me something broken with this, and I'll look at it.

16.   Universe cards as damage. We simply changed it from Any Power to an icon therefore Spectrum. Tested a couple of times, makes a slightly better use of cards that allow Bu's to count for damage, but most certainly does not break the game.

As for our errata. Well, we've talked the vertigo to death already. I'm all for nerfing it further, but we didn't find it broken one bit as being defensible. If you have Marauders on your team, it's OPD. Powerful, but still OPD. If you are using it in your site, that's your OPD, and you're limited to Morlock Tunnels or the Vault. Both are okay sites, but you get Vertigo once, and that's it, you're done. If you're relying on Vertigo, you'd better hope your opponent doesn't DoW you before you get it. There are just so many variables.

Aside from a few others, most of them are official anyway.

You asked why only the Citadel got a fix when there are other homebases that also have penalties. I answered before, but I'll repeat – Citadel is the only base with a truly crippling inherent ability. Every other homebase with a penalty has an inherent that can be worked around with a little strategy. The penalties do not affect your actual draws. The Citadel's cannot. They even ruled that a Pym Particles doesn't negate your inherent! You must draw 1 less than your opponent. Citadel can be a tough team, yes. But all you need is one clown to play Assault on Onslaught against you and you're done. That even works thematically.



Sorry for the lengthy post...

I really don't want to come off as 'I'm right, and my rules are superior' and if I have, please accept my apologies. I am thankful for all consideration and thoughts. I am looking to create new options for the game without the need to create homemades. We have found it fun trying out old, previously worthless cards, in new ways. If something is broken, I want to address it.

That's one of the reasons I want to run the tournament with these rules, to see what people come up with! I've already talked to a few people who have interesting ideas that they wouldn't have bothered with under official rules. A few people thinking about using homebases (I won't say which ones, but not the usual ones!) How often do you see that in a tournament?

If there's something we've missed, let me know it will be addressed. But if ten different people each say that have a broken team... well, that indicates to me that things might not be broken after all.

-BBH

[Onslaught]

"Years of testing" is hard to swallow when I've played 10 games (and I won't waste any more time testing these) and HotRod has played 15 games and we've both come to the same conclusions. Unerrataed Leech is too swingy, defensive Vertigo is way too good from a battlesite, the mini-aspects thing doesn't make any underpowered homebases more playable (just slightly less sucky), blah blah blah.

You need me to hand you a decklist for that Citadel lineup? Uhm, 6 negates, 9f, 8m, 11m, EE x3, 4m AA, Illusory, Vault with whatever configuration as long as you have 3 Marauders activators, Merciless Conqueror, Mastermold. Or put Sentinels in reserve and change Mastermold for Obfuscate and use a tricky event with it.

[rucker73]

BBH...  If I were you, I would stop banging my head against the brick wall that is Onslaught.  Some people will never be open to others ideas of opinions.  Those who want to try your rules will try them out in April, we will see what kind of feedback you get then.  But from what I have seen so far, the people who regularly go to the Toronto meetups thus far, are not complaining about giving your ideas a test run.

in summation:  you can not please everyone

especially Onslaught

[Onslaught]

I have a closed mind because I was willing to actually test out these rules and play with them for several matches? What is closed minded minded about that? I was willing to try them, and I gave valuable input on my reasons for believing that they don't work.

In what reality is theorycrafting a way to loop non-negatable Leech four times in one game considered to be closed minded?

[rucker73]

I was willing to try them, and I gave valuable input on my reasons for believing that they don't work.

Not everyone would consider your opinions to be valuable.

Congratulations to you Onslaught you tried them.  You did not like them, and therefore you announced to everyone that they are no good. 

Someone else put a lot of time and effort into them, trying to re-invigorate the game for old and new  players.  Just because someone else`s ideas don`t work for you does not mean that they don`t work for others.

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

[drdeath25]

Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.

[Nostalgic]

"Years of testing" is hard to swallow when I've played 10 games (and I won't waste any more time testing these) and HotRod has played 15 games and we've both come to the same conclusions. Unerrataed Leech is too swingy, defensive Vertigo is way too good from a battlesite, the mini-aspects thing doesn't make any underpowered homebases more playable (just slightly less sucky), blah blah blah.

You need me to hand you a decklist for that Citadel lineup? Uhm, 6 negates, 9f, 8m, 11m, EE x3, 4m AA, Illusory, Vault with whatever configuration as long as you have 3 Marauders activators, Merciless Conqueror, Mastermold. Or put Sentinels in reserve and change Mastermold for Obfuscate and use a tricky event with it.

You seem quite 'cagy' about your deck build. Is it copywrited or something?

Why so Serious?! LoL!

[rucker73]

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.

Please apply my previous statement to Dr.Death as well.  I have grown very tired of you both.

[Nostalgic]

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.

Please apply my previous statement to Dr.Death as well.  I have grown very tired of you both.