A Single Red Joker

[gunpowder saint]

So long story short, I was about Turn 5 in a game and was definitely on my back barely making it through. Pandora, and Teddy were the only troops left on her side while I had Sonnia, and Two Witchling Stalkers.

Teddy Activated, Charged Sonnia and put her down to 2 wounds. Sonnia Activated, I had to get Teddy off me or Pandora was going to finish me off. I flip for the Attack, end total of combat was 17/17. Hard to Wound 2, and Combat total of Zero put me at :-fate :-fate for the Damage, and what's the first card I flip over?

THE RED JOKER

Instant Five Damage, and then I flip the rest, no black I'm safe. Then I flip for my additional damage, and what do you know? The Thirteen of Crows! Instant 10 Damage to Teddy's Face. Killing the lovable Bear instantly.

now here's the important part...

Do you think that's total bullshit? Because I believe it is :\ Although I'll admit, the only way I could've killed teddy at all that entire game was with Mr. Hopkins who my opponent knew all about and decided to chew on his face first. With my powerhouse gone the Red Joker was my only means of doing enough damage that I might weaken him. but really? first activation? first attack? It just seems unfair. I know the balance is if I can do it to him, he can do it to me, but seriously, I won that game between me and Pandora when in all rights, I should never have lasted the end of the 6th turn. I may be bias because my friend playing Pandora was super pissed and I'm honestly sort of on his side.

what do you think?

[Justin]

[ame]

[/ame]

[gru6y]

I think you can't have more than :-fate:-fate: or :+fate:+fate at a time.

Also, the Red Joker on negative twists has already been discussed.

I personaly don't like it, but have already got used to it.

It can save your butt sometimes, or screw you over in a sure-win situation.

C'est la vie.

Edited August 24, 2010 by gru6y

[Poko]

Contrary to what people think, the cards do not make the game any less random than the dice. The hand can mitigate it to a degree, but luck is still a factor. Like in this case. This was one such case, and if anything, I think it makes for a great moment in the game, like my opponent drawing red joker on his first damage roll against Lilith, then severe again, and literraly cleaved her in two with first strike. I lost the game, but it was still awesome, and this one is equally awesome, with Sonnia kicking poor teddy's ass against overwhelming odds.

[gru6y]

Oh, the cards definitely make the game less random as they give you more control over your actions. Or at least show, you won't have any control whatsoever this turn

That is less random in my book.

[Justin]

Oh, the cards definitely make the game less random as they give you more control over your actions. Or at least show, you won't have any control whatsoever this turn

That is less random in my book.

Not really.

Sure, you can replace a random flip with a card from your hand. But those cards in your hand are drawn randomly.

It definitely adds another level of thought and strategy, but all the luck is still there.

Not a bad thing though, if I was through with luck I'd play chess, or go....or connect four. Hell, I do.

[Omadon]

Contrary to what people think, the cards do not make the game any less random than the dice. The hand can mitigate it to a degree, but luck is still a factor. Like in this case. This was one such case, and if anything, I think it makes for a great moment in the game, like my opponent drawing red joker on his first damage roll against Lilith, then severe again, and literraly cleaved her in two with first strike. I lost the game, but it was still awesome, and this one is equally awesome, with Sonnia kicking poor teddy's ass against overwhelming odds.

Now, you see - I don't get how that's awesome. I've always been a huge advocate of red not working on -flips. Sure, it's funny from an observers point of view, but how does that make for a good game? Your defensive ability being the death of you. If I'm playing seamus, and people at my shop know that they havent had the red for ages, they will pile every crappy thing they have into him in a bid to force the red, and you know what - it works. The black joker - you can keep tabs on. If you draw it, and hold it, sure you're down a card for most of the game, but you won't critically fail something important. You can't do that to their red. The only thing you can do is pray it doesn't come out early, and if they only have about 10 cards left and it still hasn't come, then either avoid them, or poke them with random stuff till it happens.

Similarly - holding the red, and finding a situation to be able to force it's use feels like such a more skillful application than lolz-you've-got-H2W. However, I've been rebuffed on this topic many times before, so I'm aware I'm somewhat isolated in my views. Such is life!

[gru6y]

Not really.

Sure, you can replace a random flip with a card from your hand. But those cards in your hand are drawn randomly.

It definitely adds another level of thought and strategy, but all the luck is still there.

Well, not sure if we're not getting into pure semantics here, but for me the fact that on a given turn, I know if I'll be able to influence my flips or not, already makes the game less random. Even if the possibility to influence is random itself.

[Poko]

Well, not sure if we're not getting into pure semantics here, but for me the fact that on a given turn, I know if I'll be able to influence my flips or not, already makes the game less random. Even if the possibility to influence is random itself.

We are arguing semantics here.

But I'll put it like that, last game, my opponent got ALL the good cards above 10, bar one 13 in his hand, right there on the bottom of the deck.

I got like, three 13's and nothing else below 10 on hand. I won initiative, he reflipped with 1. It was turn 3, I had most of my models in charge range. I freaking slaughtered all but one model of his that turn, not because of my grand tactical acumen, but because he got nothing over 10 ALL THE TIME, while I was flipping 10's, 11's like crazy and cheating 13's when needed. As far as I'm concerned, it was even MORE random than dice, because dice have no memory so every roll has equal chance, and here when you shuffle it and something like that happens you're screwed for the entire turn. So maybe not so much "more random", but "with far less control over your models" than dice would give you. It was rare chance, naturally, but it can happen, and even a short bad streak will gut you.

[Justin]

We are arguing semantics here.

But I'll put it like that, last game, my opponent got ALL the good cards above 10, bar one 13 in his hand, right there on the bottom of the deck.

I got like, three 13's and nothing else below 10 on hand. I won initiative, he reflipped with 1. It was turn 3, I had most of my models in charge range. I freaking slaughtered all but one model of his that turn, not because of my grand tactical acumen, but because he got nothing over 10 ALL THE TIME, while I was flipping 10's, 11's like crazy and cheating 13's when needed. As far as I'm concerned, it was even MORE random than dice, because dice have no memory so every roll has equal chance, and here when you shuffle it and something like that happens you're screwed for the entire turn. So maybe not so much "more random", but "with far less control over your models" than dice would give you. It was rare chance, naturally, but it can happen, and even a short bad streak will gut you.

Actually, the depletion of the deck is probably the single valid argument in favor of cards being less random than dice.

The fate hand gives the illusion of control, when it is itself random.

But the ability to count cards actually does take some chance from the game. However, more often than not this doesn't really come into play.

[gru6y]

EDIT: Got kind of ninja'd by Lalo.

Your opponent was very unlucky, but still, definitely had more control, than dice would have given him.

Assuming the worst case scenario with all the good cards at the bottom of the deck and a crappy hand, with every shitty flip, your friend's chances of actually flipping something good grew bigger. You can pretty much get screwed by dice in the same way, but will never be able to judge with growing probability of being right what your next throw is going to be (well apart from the expected result of 3.5 for a 6-side dice).

[Jonas Albrecht]

When I roll a die, even if I keep track of all previous results, I still don't know what I will roll.

By keep track of what's in my hand and discard pile, I know the odds of what I will and will not pull.

By no means is the deck more certain, but it is much less random.

[Berman]

I personally love the sudden reversal a drawn red joker presents for damage.

[Svenn]

Actually, the depletion of the deck is probably the single valid argument in favor of cards being less random than dice.

The fate hand gives the illusion of control, when it is itself random.

But the ability to count cards actually does take some chance from the game. However, more often than not this doesn't really come into play.

It's not even so much the ability to count cards, but the fact that you are guaranteed 4 of every number to show up if you go through the entire deck. It's impossible to get 4 2s without reshuffling your deck. It's also impossible to get 4 13s without reshuffling your deck.

Yes, it is still random, but your chances change every time you flip a card. When you roll a die, you have the exact same chances to roll any number every single time, but it's possible to roll a 1 60 times in a row. With the cards every time you draw a card your chances of getting any given number change based on what you drew. Draw a low card and that reduces the number of low cards left, increasing your chances at getting a higher card.

[gregdorf]

I really do not understand the problem with the red joker trumping a negative flip for damage. If you do not have that trumping action then the value of that card drops dramatically. Sure it can do a boatload of damage, but it does not happen very often, I think I have seen it 3 times in about a dozen or more games, and the Black Joker has the same odds of coming into play.

The most memorable moment for my red joker damage was when I was running Teeth. I was shooting at Nico and I triggered dumb luck. I was on a negative damage flip and rolled my cards over to see the red joker, I followed that flip with a severe damage. Neither master survived the attack.

[nilus]

I really do not understand the problem with the red joker trumping a negative flip for damage. If you do not have that trumping action then the value of that card drops dramatically.

The problem is that it hurts players with very high negative fate flips for damage(mostly Res but some neverborn too). Since one good card trumps all but one bad it means that the more cards you flip(no matter if you get to keep the best or worse), you are increasing the odds of getting the trump card. I know its still a pretty lucky shot but it can be gamed.

I'm not a fan but its the official rule. That being said you can always play what I dubbed "HARDCORE" rules where red jokers are treated like any other card in a negative flip(IE you wont get to use it). But you'd have to get your opponent to agree to that.

[LoboStele]

I could possibly see it working where if you have a negative flip and you pull the red joker, that you just get the Severe damage for the red joker, but NOT the additional damage card as well. I really don't much care either way, because for the most part, I'm very entertained when there are massive twists in the gameplay like that.

The strategy in it is just to pay attention to the cards your opponent has flipped so far, and if his deck is low and the Red Joker has still not shown it's face, then run your crew in such a way the rest of that turn so they don't get to flip too many cards. Try to make it to the next round and make him reshuffle the deck.

The other thing you could've been done, would be to cheat that 17/17 so that he beats the defense by a higher amount. Although, in this case it wouldn't have mattered much, since he flipped the Red Joker on the first card. But if you don't want him flipping a lot of cards, cheat in something low, so that he gets a from the Duel, then the:-fate from Hard to wound, for a total of only . Then he only flips two cards, and goes through the remainder of his deck much slower.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I think that though this generally isn't a huge problem and can even reflect something about the nature of undead (the most common victims of this phenomenon); the way they often ignore attacks that would cripple or weaken a living opponent until their killed in a spectacular fashion.

On the other hand Omadon makes a valid point about your opponent metagaming when he knows a red is coming by throwing lots of attacks at his most valuable hard to wound figure.

It's a common occurence across gaming that sufficient metagame thinking leads to an interesting quirk in the rules can becoming a semi-broken mechanic that can ruin the fun of one player. The question is whether this needs to be fixed or not since outside the box metagame thinking is a big part of wargames and ccgs.

[Buhallin]

Many many years ago I played Decipher Star Wars CCG. Tracking cards through the cycle of your Force Pile was an essential skill if you wanted to be good at the game.

I don't really see this as being any different. Can someone game what should be long shot attacks, hoping to get the Red Joker? Sure they can.

Aaand..... So what?

Is it a thematic problem? The desperation strike that Fate intervenes on seems very Malifaux to me. Is it a balance problem? I tend to think not, as it's a very unreliable strategy that can affect, AT BEST, one attack per turn and likely far less than that. Is it completely beyond your control? Not really - either limit opportunities for it, or take actions which force your opponent through their deck faster to try and get rid of it.

There isn't anything in the broader scope of the game that makes it a problem, which leaves only players who dislike taking a long-shot hit in a situation where they feel like they've got the advantage. <shrug> Since I fall into the "Pulling off something desperate like that is pretty awesome" category, I think they just need to get over it.

Every game with an element of chance is about controlling that chance to your advantage. Go spend some time playing Blood Bowl, it'll really put this sort of thing in perspective.

[LoboStele]

I think that though this generally isn't a huge problem and can even reflect something about the nature of undead (the most common victims of this phenomenon); the way they often ignore attacks that would cripple or weaken a living opponent until their killed in a spectacular fashion.

On the other hand Omadon makes a valid point about your opponent metagaming when he knows a red is coming by throwing lots of attacks at his most valuable hard to wound figure.

It's a common occurence across gaming that sufficient metagame thinking leads to an interesting quirk in the rules can becoming a semi-broken mechanic that can ruin the fun of one player. The question is whether this needs to be fixed or not since outside the box metagame thinking is a big part of wargames and ccgs.

I don't see the metagaming aspect of it as being too much of a problem though. Take for instance a different game that I've played for years: Star Wars Miniatures. In that game, many characters have Force Points that they can spend for special abilities, such as Deflect, which negates incoming damage. Most characters have a limited pool of Force Points, so yes, a popular technique is to throw a bunch of small pieces at that bigger piece, and get them to waste their Force Points trying to survive the little damage hits. Then, when they are low or out of Force Points, your big hitters move in and attack the more vulnerable enemy.

The meta-gaming is never going to go away. IMO, if you're facing undead and flipping tons of cards all the time, you're just as likely to pull the Red Joker very early in the round as you are late in the round. At that point, if you pull it early, then again, you meta game by attempting to avoid combat as much as possible, unless you are fairly certain you can get decent damage flips and/or cheat things in your favor.

EDIT: actually, an even worse case is possible too, that you pull the red joker for your fate hand at some point in the game. You'd have very little use for it beyond just using it as a '14' in an attack duel, because if you're getting :-fate on most of your damage, you'd never be able to use it to cheat your damage flip.

Edited August 24, 2010 by LoboStele

[Poko]

where red jokers are treated like any other card in a negative flip

So...easymodo?

[Fool]

Replace everything that people have said about the red joker, and insert black joker. I guess I don't see the difference. Also with all those minus flips, how come no one talks about the black joker comming up and they get zero damage...even if the red comes up too.

I like it as is. Can you count cards, sure. Are you sure that you will go through the whole deck in one round...not every turn.

[gregdorf]

That is why I do not see it as being a problem. there is the same odds of the black joker popping up as the red, and the fact you cannot cheat negative damage flips is still a huge advantage for damage soaking an undead list.

I also play Undead, and my main opponent is a Nico player. I am glad there is there is a chance for a critical damage that bypass the mind numbing slug fests that we usually have.

[Justin]

It's not even so much the ability to count cards, but the fact that you are guaranteed 4 of every number to show up if you go through the entire deck. It's impossible to get 4 2s without reshuffling your deck. It's also impossible to get 4 13s without reshuffling your deck.

Yes, it is still random, but your chances change every time you flip a card. When you roll a die, you have the exact same chances to roll any number every single time, but it's possible to roll a 1 60 times in a row. With the cards every time you draw a card your chances of getting any given number change based on what you drew. Draw a low card and that reduces the number of low cards left, increasing your chances at getting a higher card.

Yes, I know.

But that's irrelevant unless you use it in some way, i.e., count the cards.

Also, any single flip is equally as random as the throw of a die. Just because the probability changes with each flip does not make any one flip less random. The order starts coming in over the course of the entire turn when you've used your whole deck and flipped 4 13s, 4 1s, etc. But, if you do not use your entire deck, all of your 13s could be stacked at the bottom. So you could indeed flip all the 1s and none of the 13s. So to really even see the spread you have to use the whole deck in one turn. So, as I said, not really all that relevant.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Justin

[Satyrwyld]

Yes, I know.

But that's irrelevant unless you use it in some way, i.e., count the cards.

Not that hard for a specific purpose. "Well, I've seen the 10, 11, and 13 of crows, so Seamus probably isn't raising a belle this turn." "My opponent's flipped all his 12s and 13s, he can't possibly cheat above an 18." The trick is to remember a small subset of cards, not every single card that's come out of the deck.