Red Joker on minus flips?

[Chevynova]

I'm not a fan - it reduces the effectiveness of an ability (hard to wound) that I am paying for (either directly or by having something like my wounds reduced because I am hard to wound).

I don't play much but it has happened to me a few times already.

Personally I think that if it is a negative flip because of small attack values it's alright (vagaries of chance and all that) but if you've got an ability that you're paying for that is supposed to help reduce damage it shouldn't.

[Marcalla]

I'm not a fan - it reduces the effectiveness of an ability (hard to wound) that I am paying for (either directly or by having something like my wounds reduced because I am hard to wound).

I don't play much but it has happened to me a few times already.

Personally I think that if it is a negative flip because of small attack values it's alright (vagaries of chance and all that) but if you've got an ability that you're paying for that is supposed to help reduce damage it shouldn't.

By that same logic then the Black Joker shouldn't count if I'm turning positive flips. If your paying for say a greatsword that has +1 to flips, what is the difference? Or even more to the point if you've spent a soulstone and cheated to get max damage flips, why should a black joker trump that expenditure of resources. (the odds of turning it are the same as the odds of turning a red joker in a negative flip)

If anything, I would be more willing to see a change to "cheating down" an attack over the removal of red joker on negative flips. Though this would remove some other tactical moves such as cheating down in hopes of keeping a model alive so that they could be killed by another model that has a trigger you want to use. IE: cheating down a death marshal attack (softening up a target) so that the executioner can kill the model (with any level damage) and heal all his wounds.

[paperbag4]

A change like that would also eliminate cheating down to get the trigger you want.

[higherbrow]

I'm all for fluff, but I think that allowing the Red Joker to be taken on down flips is important. It may be against the rules as intended, but there are always going to be a few plays that are sometimes the most skilled play in a situation that will be correct. Cheating down to let the Executioner kill, using Sonnia Criid's Violation of Magic on a Witchling to make a new Witchling (explain THAT in fluff terms), and cheating down to try to flip the Red Joker.

I think it's important for symmetry: if the BJ must be taken on up flips, I think it's important that the RJ must be taken on down flips. Particularly since it's no fun to be swinging Lady Justice's Greatsword at an Ice Golem with his Df 2, be at triple up flip, pull the black joker and the red joker, and not do any damage. That feels terrible. Even when my opponent has a clear killshot on me and gets Black Jokered, I feel bad for him/her. The Red Joker feels great when you pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

I don't think it disrupts game balance. Yes, Hard to Wound could technically be a liability, but I'd argue that the number of times it's strategically correct to force a down flip to dig for your Red Joker are vanishingly small. And besides that, it's symmetry. As was pointed out, adding flips to your attack/damage should be all upside, but it gives you additional chances to find the BJ.

As for randomness, I agree with Lalochezia. Every resource at your disposal as far as cards is mostly random (ignoring, for now, abilities like Arcane Reservoir, Hero's Gamble, etc.). Most of your strategy is based on probabilities, and how you can adjust them. I guarantee you that if you let me stack the decks, my totem can fight most Masters and win. It's just not likely. The Red Joker being taken on down flips simply reinforces what the Jokers are in the deck to do: they're there to be wild cards. They are distinct probabilities that you have to be ready for. Sometimes you can play around them, sometimes you're in a tight spot and you can't, sometimes you're in a very very tight spot and you have to play around them.

I don't really see a viable reason not to say Red Jokers have to be taken. And incidentally, I think it SHOULD be mandatory, uncheatable and unadjustable. As a Sonnia player, having my Violation get resisted because my own Witchling at 1 wd flips a Red Joker would be a blowout, and I'm okay with that. It's something I have to account for and prepare for. Likewise, it means I can't put something to 1 Wd so my Executioner can finish it off. After all, sometimes you really don't want to blow out a flip.

[jmp_mydog]

I wasn't a huge fan of it being changed, but as a representation of fate sh***ing in your cherrios I'm cool with it. It won't happen often and when it does bad things happen.

[N0rdicNinja]

as a representation of fate sh***ing in your cherrios I'm cool with it.

Quote of the day right there, you my good sir get a cookie.

[paperbag4]

put the cookie in with his cheerios

[DangerousBeans]

I don't mind it, the fact that you can get a triple negative flip on your opponent, have a red joker in your hand and are assured that that bloody guild &*$%^ is going to die only to flip the black joker is infuriating! It's not happened yet but I'm sure the opposite would be quite exhilarating!

[nightgaunt98c]

I like the change. It's frustrating looking at that red joker, and not being able to use it. It's a small chance to turn something bad into something good.

[Amarel]

Happened against me tonight. The red joker trumping the negative flip was fine, the extra damage flip on it after that felt like too much.