Red Joker on minus flips?

[Omadon]

Right, untill recently - we've been playing at my store as though that didn't happen, and looking at it, I think I really prefer it that way. The idea that having hard to wound 2 and having a solid defensive flip could potentially screw you really doesnt feel right. One of the reasons I like this game is the apparent abscense of dice-esque randomness. Having the Black around to worry about is one thing, but you can account for that - if you draw it, you can hold it. Suffer the loss of a card but avoid potential oblivion. The opponent's Red however - isn't something you can account for.

What do other people think? I'm aware that bad things are clearly supposed to happen, but I feel it kindof violates the pace of the game when something attacking a killjoy/seamus/whatever arbitrarily benefits from their defensive mechanisms. I think that getting hold of, and forcing through a Red on somebody is a really solid play, but by the looks of it - it'll often be better to just leave it to fate.

[Justin]

Hmmm...

I like the old way better; only taking the black joker all the time. However, I must abstain from the poll if the whole problem is an added random element to the game. Because, really, the control you have in this game is an illusion. Sure, you can cheat. But you drew those cards randomly. And you flip randomly. I mean, it's a cool mechanic, and although it does add an element of strategy (when to play your hand) at its heart, its no less random since you didn't choose that hand.

Ok, all that said, I do find it annoying when Spudstarch cheats his attacks lower against Seamus so he flips an extra card in hopes of getting the red joke, knowing that at best with hard to wound 2 he's going to get weak damage anyway without it.

[karn987]

I 100% liked it the old way better. The Red Joker is powerful enough on attack to begin with, we dont need it also taking presidence on negative flips. It was better with the black being the one to be always taken.

Lalo's example is the exact reason it should not be this way, thats utterly stupid that you have a better chance of doing more damage by making your hit weaker. I really think it needs to go back to the old way for a. strategic reasons, b. balance reasons c. fun.

[dgraz]

The Black Joker still trumps the Red if you flip them both iirc. So the Red can only be used in a neg flip over normal cards. At my club we were actually saying that the Red never really gets used because it gets flipped on neg flips most of the time. In our first 6-8 games I think the Red flipped once that could be used. So we like this idea since it lets the Red be effective a little more.

[gru6y]

Why was it changed in the first place?

I did like it more the way it was...

[redstripe]

The black joker can bork your positive flips, why shouldn't the red joker have the same effect on negative?

[gru6y]

Lalo has stated a good reason, I guess.

[ispep]

The Red Joker is only one card in the deck. Sometimes you get lucky, other times it is your opponent.

If there is any problem with the mechanic, its that players can do d-bag things like cheat their attack down, but once again, luck factors into it, and while it might end good for them, it can also end poorly.

[Gremlin Luv]

Yea, it doesn't feel to me that cheating an attack down is really a terrible thing. Some people do it to get a proc or something else, so if he wants to take the risk of likely doing low damage versus MAYBE doing great damage...I think that's stupid, not d-bag. Plus, it's one card. And in all honesty, 1/~48 cards (assuming 6 in hand and nothing else has happened) is not the best chance...6% maybe?

[agorfein]

I prefer it the old way. Getting to use it on negative flips can mean that having "hard to wound 2" can be worse in some situations than "hard to wound 1." For example, if the black joker is in your hand or out of play and a lot of cards have already been gone through, why not take a weak shot at a "hard to wound 2" model? If there are only 24 cards left in the deck and you get a hit in the 1-5 range you have a 1 in 6 chance of severe damage plus another damage draw.

I took Teddy out like this the other day early in the game (not in a planned way, just got lucky) and it basically made the rest of the battle really unbalanced.

While there is a lot of randomness in many games, the red joker on negative flips just seems to me to be too uncontrollable.

[ispep]

Yea, it doesn't feel to me that cheating an attack down is really a terrible thing. Some people do it to get a proc or something else, so if he wants to take the risk of likely doing low damage versus MAYBE doing great damage...I think that's stupid, not d-bag. Plus, it's one card. And in all honesty, 1/~48 cards (assuming 6 in hand and nothing else has happened) is not the best chance...6% maybe?

What makes it d-baggery is the difference in Rules as Written and Rules as Intended (and my personal perception of that intent). The intent is that even if you are in a tough spot (a negative twist) you can still get lucky. By choosing to cheat your attack to a negative twist, you are using the RaW to take advantage of something that is supposed to be bad, with the sole purpose of making it good. You are abusing a rule that is meant to potentially get you out of a tight spot, when you are standing in an open field.

[Justin]

Yea, it doesn't feel to me that cheating an attack down is really a terrible thing. Some people do it to get a proc or something else, so if he wants to take the risk of likely doing low damage versus MAYBE doing great damage...I think that's stupid, not d-bag. Plus, it's one card. And in all honesty, 1/~48 cards (assuming 6 in hand and nothing else has happened) is not the best chance...6% maybe?

Well, assuming 6 cards in hand and nothing else has happened, (and assuming the exact situation I mentioned, cheating lower on a hard to wound 2 model) Spudstarch has actually increased his odds of flipping the red joker by 2.2%. Considerably lower than you calculated (also you should remember to calculate 1 out of 45 because we're assuming that the last card flipped, the one he forced himself to flip by cheating, was the red joker. This means that the first three he flipped weren't the red joker.)

That doesn't seem like very good odds, does it? It's not.

But let's look at how he hurt himself.

While flipping three cards for damage the odds of flipping no weak damage is ~6.5%. While flipping four cards it's ~2.5%. Now, I'm too lazy to break down the odds of doing moderate versus severe damage, but I'm going to tell you right now the odds (assuming you hit that lucky 6.5%) of doing moderate are ASTRONOMICALLY higher. Ok, so he just decreased his odds of doing moderate damage by 4%, to increase his odds of doing severe damage + another unmodified flip by 2%. Now the odds are starting to sound better.

Now the only question is: what is the difference in damage for your model between moderate and severe +? You just lowered your odds of doing moderate by twice the amount you raised your odds of doing severe +. However, if the damage you are going to do with severe + is equal to or greater than twice the amount of damage you would do with moderate (and it probably is) then it is worth it. Pot odds. Potential gain > potential risk.

Also keep in mind, these odds greatly swing in the favor of cheating down if you already have burned through a bunch of cards and know none were the red joker. Even better if you do know one was the black joker.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Justin

[Justin]

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I mind this change.

I don't really buy that it makes the game rely too much on luck because, really, you could draw the red joker into your hand. A lot of people wouldn't count that as luck when they drop it on an opponent, but it was: you were lucky to draw it in the first place. Even luckier than randomly flipping it, since you got to choose where it went. So, the luck is already there.

And, although it seems against the spirit and intent of the rules to cheat your hit down for a potential gain, you are paying a cost for that gain. You have to ditch a card, a resource, from your hand for the potential benefit. That's fine by me. And it has to be a very specific card at that, hitting that magic 5 range that gets you just one minus flip.

So, although I think we can all agree Spudstarch is a total douchebag and the mechanic is outside the intent of the rules, it is in no way broken.

So, I will continue to abstain. Unless you want to make a, "is spudstarch a douchebag" poll, in which case my vote is a resounding, "Yes!"

Edited January 24, 2010 by Justin

[n0signal]

I much prefer the new handling of a Red Joker; but it may be a persona issue - basically I've had the Red Joker come up in a negative far too many times, and every time it happens it royally pisses me off!!

I accept that, even when I've worked my ass off blowing my hand of cards to ensure I hit my target accurately and with enough bonuses and modifiers to ensure I'm on a , :+fate, or even :+fate:+fate... and then the Black Joker pops out and ruins my day. It is only fair that occasionally from the depths of despair, the Red Joker turns up on a negative flip and lifts my spirits back up.

I like the change. It's one card in 54 and it won't happen very often.

[lbd]

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I mind this change.

I don't really buy that it makes the game rely too much on luck because, really, you could draw the red joker into your hand. A lot of people wouldn't count that as luck when they drop it on an opponent, but it was: you were lucky to draw it in the first place. Even luckier than randomly flipping it, since you got to choose where it went. So, the luck is already there.

And, although it seems against the spirit and intent of the rules to cheat your hit down for a potential gain, you are paying a cost for that gain. You have to ditch a card, a resource, from your hand for the potential benefit. That's fine by me. And it has to be a very specific card at that, hitting that magic 5 range that gets you just one minus flip.

So, although I think we can all agree Spudstarch is a total douchebag and the mechanic is outside the intent of the rules, it is in no way broken.

So, I will continue to abstain. Unless you want to make a, "is spudstarch a douchebag" poll, in which case my vote is a resounding, "Yes!"

I thought you were friends and a regular opponent of ol Spud? Is this all sarcasm? In which case hilarious:amen:

[Justin]

I thought you were friends and a regular opponent of ol Spud? Is this all sarcasm? In which case hilarious:amen:

Oh yeah, we're friends, no worries. Plenty of sarcasm.

[higherbrow]

I like RJ taking precedence on a flip. If there's a loophole that allows a scenario where the Written Rules violate the Spirit of the Rules, then taking that loophole is shady. If your friends allow it, fine, awesome, more power to you. If they don't, that's cool too. The game is young, and stuff like this can be taken care of with Errata until the next edition of the rulebook. And if it really ticks you off, house rules aren't that big of a deal. Easy hotfix here would be: If an attack flip is cheated to have a lower result, the defender may choose to forgo any additional fate twists caused by the modified difference.

[The Mortificator]

I personally like that the Red Joker can be taken on negative flips again. Though, I have the good fortune to play at an LGS where the people I play with are more interested in a fun, thematic game over counting cards. I've never used the tactic of cheating down for Red Joker and never would, even if it cost me the game. Unless, of course, it was employed on me first by a less-than-friendly opponent.

That said, Dumb Luck isn't just for gremlins.

[Justin]

Just because it is against the intent of the rules, is it really such a cardinal sin of gaming? I mean, it's not broken and you have to pay a cost to gain a benefit. It's a calculated choice, as all choices should be in the game.

Sure it doesn't fit the theme, but neither does painting Killjoy like a clown. Would you refuse to play me if I did that?

I mean, as far as intent goes, if they were really concerned about this, why not keep the rules for jokers the way they were? Why should a player be looked down on for taking advantage of something that was built into the game (intentionally or not) and is clearly legal? Admittedly, I like the old way better, but that's not the way it is now, so why blame people for adapting?

Edited January 24, 2010 by Justin

[Omadon]

To be honest, intent of rules can fuck themselves - we're gamers. Breaking these sort of things is what were for.

In short though, my arguement stands - the less random this game is, the better. You can, in some ways, account for a black joker. Draw it at some point and you can hold it to prevent that fate. However - you cannot account for the red. There is litterally nothing you can do about it. At some point, somewhere, at least once a game. Something that shouldent die, more than likley will. No matter how rare it is, no matter how low the % chance of it happening is, it will destroy the flow of the game. I came to this game to avoid the pure randomness of dice rolls, and this is the most backwards step I think it's taken in my mind in a long time.

That said - it seems a little weird. The feel I got from most of the errata was that the game was moving away from the unavoidable. Things like Master of Malifaux or Bullet Bending made things difficult/impossible to prevent. I liked that they went. Please god don't compensate by adding a random unpredictable death to every game I play >.>

EDIT: Just had a thought. How about a compromise -

Red Joker would work on -flips, but wouldent flip an extra card on damage, it would just work as a severe damage. That's managable, and doesn't trivialize defensive abilitys nearly as much as it does in it's current state.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Omadon

[AoM]

Fate's extremes are powerful indeed. They will trump all others, and the awesome Voodoo Doll art ultimately trumps even the Red Joker. Such are the whims of fate.

[paperbag4]

EDIT: Just had a thought. How about a compromise -

Red Joker would work on -flips, but wouldent flip an extra card on damage, it would just work as a severe damage. That's managable, and doesn't trivialize defensive abilitys nearly as much as it does in it's current state.

I think it would be needlessly complex to have two different rules for damage on the Red Joker. To be honest, I don't see any difference between dealing more damage when you shouldn't, and healing all the damage you've taken so far this game on a damage PREVENTION flip. The Red Joker is a powerful force. Let it be a powerful force.

[perplexiti]

I like the change, when we started I thought it was strange that the black joker trumped all but the red didn't. It wasn't untill we had read the rulebook a few times that we realised that you couldn't use the red.

[Spudstarch]

Well, assuming 6 cards in hand and nothing else has happened, (and assuming the exact situation I mentioned, cheating lower on a hard to wound 2 model) Spudstarch has actually increased his odds of flipping the red joker by 2.2%. Considerably lower than you calculated (also you should remember to calculate 1 out of 45 because we're assuming that the last card flipped, the one he forced himself to flip by cheating, was the red joker. This means that the first three he flipped weren't the red joker.)

That doesn't seem like very good odds, does it? It's not.

But let's look at how he hurt himself.

While flipping three cards for damage the odds of flipping no weak damage is ~6.5%. While flipping four cards it's ~2.5%. Now, I'm too lazy to break down the odds of doing moderate versus severe damage, but I'm going to tell you right now the odds (assuming you hit that lucky 6.5%) of doing moderate are ASTRONOMICALLY higher. Ok, so he just decreased his odds of doing moderate damage by 4%, to increase his odds of doing severe damage + another unmodified flip by 2%. Now the odds are starting to sound better.

Now the only question is: what is the difference in damage for your model between moderate and severe +? You just lowered your odds of doing moderate by twice the amount you raised your odds of doing severe +. However, if the damage you are going to do with severe + is equal to or greater than twice the amount of damage you would do with moderate (and it probably is) then it is worth it. Pot odds. Potential gain > potential risk.

Also keep in mind, these odds greatly swing in the favor of cheating down if you already have burned through a bunch of cards and know none were the red joker. Even better if you do know one was the black joker.

Your math amuses me, but the odds have nothing to do with it. Especially if you know the Red Joker is 15 cards down...

The Douchebag has spoken!

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Don't even get me started on this topic...

:frusty: