For your consideration, a rules change.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Winner cheats fate/uses soulstone first.

Its a small one, but the implications are mighty. I think it would add an excellent layer of strategy to the game.

[Adran]

Dislike, gives to much of an advantage to the loser of a duel. I prefer winning to mean something.

Its also counter intuative.

[MunkeyKungFu]

We actualy tried this once and I have to say that I much prefer the loser goes first. It works very well this way and really makes the loser of the duel have to think about what to do next.

[Mawdrigen]

Not a fan I think... it means that there is actually a major negative to being the initial winner of a duel.

[WUWU]

This doesn't really differ much than how casting a spell works now.

One thing I've tossed around before is the option to cheat back and forth. The loser still goes first, but you it isn't limited to one time only, both "losers" alternate until there's a clear winner.

I think the system is very good how it is now though

[Sliver Chocobo]

If somthing an't broke, don't fix it

[Mentat_Canis]

Going back and forth sounds like it could work and sometimes wish it happened like that, but I would say I like how the system works now and if you go back and forth then you have to worry about can you use multiple soulstones or when you use them.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

This is not going to happen.

If you play it as a house rule, by all means do it. It will not be an official way to play though.

[VonWyll]

Yeah, sorry Jonas, this seems a bit daft to me. In fact, I'm not sure I see the strategy that it adds being worth the revision.

Also, there is something nice about flipping the high card and getting that "YES!" feeling. If you flip the high card and know your opponent has the advantage, that detracts from the experience a bit.

[Hansel]

One thing I've tossed around before is the option to cheat back and forth. The loser still goes first, but you it isn't limited to one time only, both "losers" alternate until there's a clear winner.

I think the system is very good how it is now though

I think this could potentially make games stretch on too long. You get once chance to cheat, your opponent does, and bam, duel's over.

[nilus]

One thing I've tossed around before is the option to cheat back and forth. The loser still goes first, but you it isn't limited to one time only, both "losers" alternate until there's a clear winner.

On paper this seems okay but in practice it slows the game down quite a lot and makes it start to feel like war. I think the current system is the best streamlined approach. Anything more make it get to busy and slow

[Jonas Albrecht]

This is not going to happen.

If you play it as a house rule, by all means do it. It will not be an official way to play though.

Well of course not. I really had no delusions of changing a fundamental concept of the game with a sparse thread on the internet. It's an idea that's been pawing at my brain in the same way a cat might paw at its recluse owners corpse.

[Justin]

I think it's cooler to make the loser cheat first (as usual) but let him cheat face down. Then flip it up once the attacker has cheated/declined.

Would be a cool individual model ability.

[EricJ]

yep, we toyed around with this LOOONG ago in testing prior to releasing the game...and it was very unpopular then, and therefor lost to the world

[Math Mathonwy]

Winner cheats fate/uses soulstone first.

Its a small one, but the implications are mighty. I think it would add an excellent layer of strategy to the game.

Try it as a scenario condition in a tournament. "The stars of Malifaux have aligned, the cauldron of Zoraida bubbles in colors never before seen, the rich lock up their doors while the paupers strut the streets - this is The Underdog's Day."

Seriously, I've always liked really weird scenarios that mess up things in strange new ways. This one is extremely simple but with far reaching ramifications.