The Red Joker

[Ozz]

I am not trying to pick on you Sandwich and I mean you no disrespect. However, this post is a microcosm of these forums; filled with hyperbole and specious claims.Words have meaning, you can't just throw them around to try and trump up your own point. First, there are no "Professional Tournaments", unless you are ready to supply evidence that there are people out there who make their living playing Malifaux at conventions. The only people who are professionals with respect to Malifaux are the people at Wyrd. Lets not aggrandize our little hobby by adding the word "professional" to it. Tournaments are nothing more than a bunch of grown-ups pushing around toy soldiers trying to beat each other so they can brag about it later. I am not trying to demean the tournament scene, I regularly play in tournaments myself. But to imply that peoples livelihoods are at stake due to an unfair game mechanic is ludicrous.Second, I wasn't there but I have to ask how someone who was "outclassed and outplayed" for FOUR rounds able to win a tournament off of one flip? Wouldn't that person have been at the last table and hence unable to effect the top standings of the tournament? Please people, lets quit throwing around all the hyperbole on these forums. It gets us no where.

I know what you mean with the start of your post, about words have meanings, but depending on the context they are used in the word can be intended in a verity of ways other than their "official" meaning, and so for the post you quoted, i do not believe that the word "professional" was meant as you have taken it, taking every word literally can make very few sentences make sense in English, if you really want to take that route:) But my personal interpretation of the word in the post was to mean, where rankings are involved and prizes are given. Perhaps not the literal meaning of the word, but that was how i read it and it made perfect sense to me. But perhaps instead of professional, competitive environment would have been better to use.As for the "Four Rounds" part, i took that to mean the Four "turns" before, otherwise yes, it does not make much sense to me ether.But before anyone latches onto this and dissects what i have said, this is just my interpretation of what was meant by a post in vast disagreement with the post i have quoted, not intending to derail this thread any further, just hoping that i was correct with my understanding and hoping to help msgfree see it from more sides than the literal meaning of the words i got the impression he was using for his post, and not meaning to speak for anyone or offend anyone, this is just my own opinions and understanding from how i read the two posts involved:)As for the red joker, i have already put what i think could change earlier, but not really said much about what i think of it myself. I do like it in casual games, it amuses me greatly at times and frustrates me at others for reasons others have already said, but for a competitive environment, the extra dmg that can occur from a red joker does seem a little over the top, and yes, you can use some "skill" to predict when you flip it, but you can not really play to recover when it hits your key piece at the wrong time.

[Hatchethead]

I'm trying not to play favorites between models with or without Hard to Wound, as I honestly believe this should apply in all situations of , but I wouldn't argue if the "no additional flip during damage" applied specifically to the H2W rule. "During a damage flip, the red joker counts only as severe. Do not flip for extra damage so long as the fate modifier is negative." Even a H2W model should be susceptible to the rjoker+flip assuming his opponent pushes the modifier into no mod or positive.

Thanks for the insight, Nilus. Personally, I'd rather the RJ still trump in negative flip situations, as I consider that a necessary symmetry with the BJ. I like that the weakest model can land a telling (but not ridiculous) blow, even with the odds stacked against it.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Hatchethead

[Fetid Strumpet]

That's interesting to know Nilus, I wasn't aware the Red Joker didn't always trump the negative flip. If a Red Joker couldn't trump a negative flip I'd be personally behind keeping everything else the same.

(Not that my opinion is likely to sway Wyrd one way or the other) *wink*

[JisaacT]

I like the way it is as in trumping on a negative flip but I would like to see Severe damage but no extra damage flip if on a negative flip. If cheated in or flipped on a positive flip I think it should get severe plus a flip. This has become interesting because hard to wound 2 is now not a very good thing.

When I first started playing I always thought *WOO hard to wound* but now HtW2 not so much. This being said comes from my own experience.

Like Fetid Struped has said he's has Seamus killed off alot because of HtW2 and a RJ pop up on it. I also have as well. I saw it happen to Mcmourning the other day during a double negative flip for damage.

The Red Joker is just too powerful. The Black joker merely makes things fail, while the red Joker on damage makes a crazy hit and then some.

What if Leveticus got a RJ on death touch then flipped severe for the extra flip? 24 damage? seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Edited February 19, 2012 by JisaacT

[msgfree]

I know what you mean with the start of your post, about words have meanings, but depending on the context they are used in the word can be intended in a verity of ways other than their "official" meaning...

Hi Ozz,

I completely understand where you are coming from, really I do. I know what he meant, but that isn't what he said. The context does matter and given the context of his post (specifically the line about "legal tender and prizes" is what set me off) I believe that I have interpreted his words correctly.

The post was not written with an angry intent but should be read with a sense of exasperation.

To the point about what Sandwich meant by "rounds" I will not back down. Wyrd has established a nomenclature for Malifaux. Within the rules, rounds and turns mean two entirely different things. I do not think that I am in the wrong by demanding precision on this point.

I apologize if I diverted the thread or if I came across as aggressive. I think I made my feelings on hyperbole vis a vis the Wyd forums know, that post just set me off and again, I apologize.

[Lucidicide]

This issue will never be resolved on the forums for a few reasons.

What do you mean by resolved on the forums? If you mean "reach a consensus" you are definitely right. If you mean "lead to change" you could very well be wrong. The forum is a great place to gauge the feelings of the general Malifaux community and get a feel for how the game is working. The forum has definitely led to game changes in the past, and there's no reason to discourage discussion.

There is something to be said for possessing the skill and ability to overcome a bad run of luck and still prevail.

True, but...

Being able to think quickly and adjust when things aren't going your way is a measure of skill. Complaining about Red Joker flips isn't.

...sometimes you don't have the ability to think quickly and adjust after a certain flip. Sometimes a flip of the Red Joker destroys a full health Master that stood no chance of dying without it, destroying your Bodyguard and giving them Contain Power. Can you argue that with skill you wouldn't be in line of sight? Sure. But you can't argue that it was skill that brought your Master down like that. So why does only one side need the skill?

Regardless, saying "complaining about Red Joker flips isn't [skill]" is amusing given your later post about language. How can you get on someone's case about using words like "professional" but see it as fine to strongly imply that not liking the Red Joker means you have no skill?

Skilled and unskilled people alike should be able to dislike something without people saying that dislike itself is indicative of lack of skill.

[rancor709]

Those of us who have been here since the beginning remember short time when the Red joker did not trump everything in a negative flip. I really think this is the only change I would like to see back. It would fix the HTW issue. I understand why it was changed but personally I always preferred it the other way.

I think the rest of the mechanics for black and red joker are fine. There should be a chance of extreme success and failure in the game. I understand the frustration with a competitive player setting a up perfect combo only to have the black joker thwart it, but without risk the game would be boring. There needs to be that ever presence small chance of total failure.

Couldn't agree more Nilus, I love the mechanics of the red joker outside of this, and even be happy if it was H2W2 was a single but prevented red joker from trumping, if they didn't want to change the mechanics entirely. From game cinematics stand point current red joker mechanics are awesome, like watching a lone belle hit a giant evil Teddy Bear with her umbrella in the temple and watch them slow twitch til they die, however in a tournament setting some of the cinema as lost, when my desperate move is likely to pay off because i'm barely hitting but i'm putting 4 cards on the table and praying for red joker, the Teddy player should be at the advantage if i'm at :-fate:-fate not me at the advantage because the red joker is still in my deck and I'm fishing for it.

[13th Warrior]

Like Fetid Struped has said he's has Seamus killed off alot because of HtW2 and a RJ pop up on it. I also have as well. I saw it happen to Mcmourning the other day during a double negative flip for damage.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about (please don't take this as a dig at you JisaacT, it really isn't). I agree, it happens, it's pretty nasty when it does, but how many times has Seamus or McMourning survived because of HtW2 causing only Weak damage to be inflicted? Far, far more often I'm guessing.

The Red Joker is just too powerful. The Black joker merely makes things fail, while the red Joker on damage makes a crazy hit and then some.

What if Leveticus got a RJ on death touch then flipped severe for the extra flip? 24 damage? seems a bit ridiculous to me.

True. And in that very, very unlikely situation, it would be horrendous. But what if he gets a Black Joker on Death Touch and does no damage? Isn't that "ridiculous" too? What about if it's a Performer that gets the Red Joker and does double Severe - for 2 points?

It seems to me that this is based on personal perception of something that happens to a handful of models, ignoring the fact that it doesn't happen much more frequently than it does.

The odds are against it happening, when it does in can be anywhere between devastating and meh, and it can also lead to some fun / interesting stories afterwards.

As I said before, I don't believe it needs fixing, and even if it does, there are many more things in Malifaux that need it before this (Bury, I'm looking at you!)

Cheers

Rob

[msgfree]

What do you mean by resolved on the forums? If you mean "reach a consensus" you are definitely right. If you mean "lead to change" you could very well be wrong...

Howdy Lucidicide,

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post, I mean that sincerely. I will address the points you brought up, but I will address them in a slightly different order than you did, hopefully it will make sense.

To your second point about a Red Joker basically one shotting your Master. I agree that your master will not be able to respond. However, I think we are viewing this situation from different reference points. You seem to be interpreting my point about adjusting on a model vs model basis. I meant it on a more game wide basis. This isn't Warmahordes. Having a master killed doesn't preclude the rest of your crew from retaliating nor does it automatically preclude you from winning.

In the scenario you provided, yes your opponent would be gaining a 6 Vp swing due to one Red Joker. But isn't proper scheme selection with respect to strategy also a valuable skill in Malifaux? I posit that selecting Bodyguard knowing that your opponent has Contain Power is not the most efficient scheme choice. You are choosing to create a zero sum game where only one of you will be able to win. Malifaux is not a zero sum game, there are a wide range of other schemes that could be selected which would grant you the opportunity to win, even if your master got Red Jokered (I'm making Red Joker a verb, yeah! ).

To your third point: How would you like me to interpret that statement? Literally? :-P

I meant that complaining about the Red Joker's current function won't make you a better player. Accepting that the current rules are what we have to abide by and learning how to deal with it will make you more skillful. I admit, was being dramatic and I should have been less obtuse but by no means did I mean to imply that complaining about the Red Joker makes one unskilled. I am sorry if that is how you understood it.

That brings me to your first point. You and I both agree that there will never be consensus on the boards. I do not think Wyrd will change the function of the Red Joker because the forums complain. I don not know that for certain, I could easily be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). I am just some random guy on an internet forum, what do I know?! :-P

All that said, I hope you all enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Edited February 19, 2012 by msgfree
fixed a typo

[micahwc]

While we are all complaining about this should we also discuss flipping three severe cards on a double negative? What about three weak flips on a double positive?

[rancor709]

Three weaks on a double postive can happen but you have the ability to cheat fate to up that damage, the potentially more relevant example is on :+fatef:+fate:+fate weak weak weak Black Joker. Now you are prevented from cheating in a higher damage, you also do no damage. A potentially tremendous swing in a lot of circumstances, but if you have the black joker in your hand and the red joker in your deck, you are typically better off flipping more cards postive or negative because you are with every card flip increasing the likelyhood of RJ or high damage being flipped. Just as if you know the location of the RJ as its in your hand you are always better pushing for the postive flip or even flip so that you can cheat it in.

The main point is that a lot of us like the mechanics and think they are fine myself included, but wouldnt' mind a change as it relates to negative flips in some fashion, as I personally don't want to worry as much as I have to currently when my opponent is flipping 4 cards on negative twists and fishing for RJ to come up and bite me and potentially swing the game compeltely in there favor. Is it on me to put myself in a postion where a lucky swing won't break my game, yes but why is an opponent being rewarded for flipping more negative cards then they would be rewarded for flipping a postive or an even flip? As they are increasing the chances of RJ coming up the more cards they flip simply due to the nature of each card having a single instance of occurance in the deck thus each use of cards in a turn ups the odds of a specific result occuring. Therefore if i"m trying to kill something and I don't know the location of the red joker on my side, its better to actually try and tie then get a postive flip. As a double negative twist removes 3 cards from teh deck and gives me three shots at RJ as opposed to 2.

[Fetid Strumpet]

13th Warrior, thanks for commenting.

I appreciate your views, but I don't agree with them. Perhaps your group might differ, but in my, admittedly small, play group being able to cheat for Dmg happens very rarely. The most common result of a duel comes out winning by 1-5, which results in a negative flip, and thus you cannot cheat. Most models with H2W have a lower defense, so it slightly offsets the fact that it is easier for the attacking model to get into the 6-10 victory range. So having H2W rarely provides the ability to "save" a model as you phrased it, as in most situations it doesn't provide anything extra as the models that have it often have lower Def scores than those without, and, if we are purely looking at survivability and not how it is accomplished, a higher def without H2W is even better. I'd honestly take Seamus with a Def of 6 or 7 without any H2W at all because it accomplishes what H2W does, prevents you from cheating Dmg on a successful hit, without that fact that my attempting to prevent you from hitting me I'm actually increasing my chances of a Red Joker coming up. If I cheat to get the highest number I can get to prevent you from hitting and you still hit me it is most likely going to be at the maximum -3 Twist and thus flipping 4 cards.

Perhaps, just as a thought experiment, H2W worked like it does currently, but the Model with H2W could determine when the attacking model had to stop flipping for dmg.

I.E you attack Seamus and hit him, beating him by 5. You have now have a -3 twist to the dmg. You begin flipping cards 1 at a time up to 4. The first card comes up Severe, the Second comes up Moderate, the third is weak and Seamus then instructs you to stop flipping and takes the weak dmg.

Thoughts?

[Lucidicide]

To your second point about a Red Joker basically one shotting your Master. I agree that your master will not be able to respond. However, I think we are viewing this situation from different reference points. You seem to be interpreting my point about adjusting on a model vs model basis. I meant it on a more game wide basis. This isn't Warmahordes. Having a master killed doesn't preclude the rest of your crew from retaliating nor does it automatically preclude you from winning.

In the scenario you provided, yes your opponent would be gaining a 6 Vp swing due to one Red Joker. But isn't proper scheme selection with respect to strategy also a valuable skill in Malifaux? I posit that selecting Bodyguard knowing that your opponent has Contain Power is not the most efficient scheme choice. You are choosing to create a zero sum game where only one of you will be able to win. Malifaux is not a zero sum game, there are a wide range of other schemes that could be selected which would grant you the opportunity to win, even if your master got Red Jokered (I'm making Red Joker a verb, yeah! ).

I agree with you that strategy and scheme selection go into skill. I think my real point got bogged down in that specific example. The point is more that you are saying that skill can overcome the Red Joker. I agree. My point is that overcoming the Red Joker requires skill, flipping the Red Joker does not. This means, all things being equal, if one player flips the RJ and one doesn't, the one that doesn't will win.

In many ways, that an obvious conclusion in an "all things equal" statement. So work with a subtlety of meaning there. The Red Joker requires, I would argue, 'extra' skill to overcome as your opponent didn't need any skill to utilize it. See my earlier posts about the ability to plan for the Black Joker -- it is something someone with skill takes into account in an action. The Red Joker is, in many ways, not worth planning for. It is random randomness in a game that mostly just has randomness.

To your third point: How would you like me to interpret that statement? Literally? :-P

I meant that complaining about the Red Joker's current function won't make you a better player. Accepting that the current rules are what we have to abide by and learning how to deal with it will make you more skillful. I admit, was being dramatic and I should have been less obtuse but by no means did I mean to imply that complaining about the Red Joker makes one unskilled. I am sorry if that is how you understood it.

No worries. I am mostly with you. As I said, I just find it amusing that you went to the (what you yourself describe as) dramatic at the same time as wagging your fingers at people who are doing the same. In either event, no apology necessary.

That brings me to your first point. You and I both agree that there will never be consensus on the boards. I do not think Wyrd will change the function of the Red Joker because the forums complain. I don not know that for certain, I could easily be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). I am just some random guy on an internet forum, what do I know?! :-P

What do any of us know? I doubt Wyrd will change it, too, but they definitely won't change it unless someone brings it up!

All that said, I hope you all enjoy the rest of your weekend.

You too, thanks!

Perhaps, just as a thought experiment, H2W worked like it does currently, but the Model with H2W could determine when the attacking model had to stop flipping for dmg.

I.E you attack Seamus and hit him, beating him by 5. You have now have a -3 twist to the dmg. You begin flipping cards 1 at a time up to 4. The first card comes up Severe, the Second comes up Moderate, the third is weak and Seamus then instructs you to stop flipping and takes the weak dmg.

Thoughts?

I think this is too much of a change to how current mechanics work. I think it would be better to say something like:

Hard to Wound 1 =

Hard to Wound 2 = and no Cb triggers can be resolved from the attacker

Hard to Wound 3 = and no Cb triggers and is counted as having Object 1 (which is essentially just better Armor)

Not really advocating that, but more saying that it's a way to make Hard to Wound levels better without really changing flips.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I agree that it changes the mechanic slightly, but elegance of rules is also something to take into account. It is much easier to explain and implement the phrase: Models with H2W determine when to stop flipping dmg during duels than it is to remember a separate effect which occurs per level of Negative flip. It is one of the things that gets tricky in Design because even logical simple rules additions can be very difficult to implement effectively if it isn't intuitive or easily explained or remembered.

[Turbodog]

I like the Joker mechanics (Red and Black) AS IS. I would not change them. And I do get and have gotten just about every effect you can. i.e. Big wins turn into big losses, Big losses turn into big wins, Big wins turn into moderate wins, Big losses turn into moderate wins, etc.

[msgfree]

I agree with you that strategy and scheme selection go into skill. I think my real point got bogged down in that specific example. The point is more that you are saying that skill can overcome the Red Joker. I agree. My point is that overcoming the Red Joker requires skill, flipping the Red Joker does not. This means, all things being equal, if one player flips the RJ and one doesn't, the one that doesn't will win.

In many ways, that an obvious conclusion in an "all things equal" statement. So work with a subtlety of meaning there. The Red Joker requires, I would argue, 'extra' skill to overcome as your opponent didn't need any skill to utilize it. See my earlier posts about the ability to plan for the Black Joker -- it is something someone with skill takes into account in an action. The Red Joker is, in many ways, not worth planning for. It is random randomness in a game that mostly just has randomness.

I understand what you are saying, I do. The only thing I can really say is that the randomness cuts both ways. Sometimes it will allow you to rise up and overcome an otherwise poor performance. Other times it will bite you in the butt.

All that back and forth just brings us back to my first post in this thread.

Some of us like the randomness, others don't. No one is really going to be swayed one way or the other once their mind is made up.

Allow me a brief tangent. I would argue that the nature of the Red Joker does a great job mimicking the cruel role that randomness plays in our lives. If not for my birth in a prosperous first world nation (a improbable event given how much of the worlds population lives in extreme poverty compared to the US), I would not be having this conversation with you today. What did I do to earn this? Nothing, it was pure random chance. Randomness is uncaring and unfair, which is what I think Wyrd was going for when they decided on the current Joker mechanic. Bad things happen, right?

Edited February 19, 2012 by msgfree
Fixed a typo. Again. I need a copy editor :-)

[Lucidicide]

All that back and forth just brings us back to my first post in this thread.

Yes, and I think you are right in it -- it's people who like the randomness vs people who like to minimize the randomness. No matter what happens (even if the Red Joker disappeared), the fact is that there will be randomness in Malifaux. I find myself on the minimize randomness side, and yet the current Red Joker doesn't really bother me.

It also doesn't really excite me, which is something the Black Joker does do. I don't know why, exactly, but the Black Joker coming up feels a little more like fate than the Red Joker. The Red, because it is on the supremely random side of random, feels like luck.

I guess I just keep going back to the fact that no matter what you're flipping randomly. Sometimes it'll be good. Sometimes it'll be bad. The Black Joker is a more random moment and hits hard, but it is still a controlled random. The Red Joker is equally as random coming up as the Black Joker, but it's impact is nebulous. When I flip, I still have to wait to see what fate lies ahead...

OK, I know I'm rambling now, but I think it helped a bit.

The Black Joker is random, and you only suffer through its effects.

The Red Joker is random, but you suffer through it and often the card that succeeds it. It is a double dose.

That's why I like the Red Joker less than the Black.

[Justin]

Jokers are fine.

However, I can see how it's annoying that an ability which is supposed to make your model harder to kill often ends up killing it.

If anything, I would change hard to wound to nullify the red joker damage effect in addition to causing a minus flip.

[von Clausewitz]

There is a category of people besides those who like or dislike the joker mechanics: those who neither like nor dislike them. To me the jokers are simply known variables that I must account for in my calculations. Doing cost/benefit analyses of your actions is what makes a game a game.

[Lucidicide]

There is a category of people besides those who like or dislike the joker mechanics: those who neither like nor dislike them. To me the jokers are simply known variables that I must account for in my calculations. Doing cost/benefit analyses of your actions is what makes a game a game.

Really? I'd really love to see your calculations on that. It's the top action of turn 2, and you've lost initiative. Your opponent discarded 3 cards, so you're safe for their hand (6), discard (3), and initiative (1). They've won initiative, and attack your Master, flipping a 13. That's now 11 cards gone, none of which was the red joker. It'll be a :-fate:-fate flip for damage, but the only way you can avoid it is soulstoning. Your Master is at full, and you're not even worried about severe damage. In fact, the only concerning outcome is a red joker + severe damage. The odds of that are incredibly small. You don't soulstone. The red joker gets flipped, severe damage for the additional flip.

I appreciate that cost/benefit analyses of actions are what makes a game a game, but you can't realistically account for the Red Joker on damage, at least not it + severe. The odds of it happening are so low that you can't make logical decisions based on the possibility, and therefore cannot realistically account for it.

I'm not saying they need to change, but they are randomness. The Red Joker is particularly random.

[Kadeton]

I find that I don't particularly mind the Red Joker's influence on damage... having a degree of uncertainty in the outcome, even when the odds are heavily skewed in one direction, leaves the hope of the million-to-one shot to keep the losing player interested in an otherwise unwinnable game.

Hard to Wound 2 might be something of a liability when the Red Joker is unaccounted for, but I personally think that's made up for by its power when the Red Joker has already come up or is in the opponent's hand. As others have mentioned, there's plenty you can do to minimise the negative effects when the Joker is a possibility, and everyone remembers that one time their prize model died outright to a Joker + Severe, but not the hundreds of times that the opponent flipped Weak.

A slight derail, but for me the process of flipping for Initiative does far more to 'ruin' the game than the Red Joker could ever do. It feels as though every game I play against evenly-matched opponents comes down to the result of a single critical Initiative flip at some point during the game, and there's almost never anything that can be done about it. The only ways to affect it belong to the Neverborn, which I can't help but think contributes a heck of a lot to their reputation as the most powerful faction.

Initiative is much worse than the Red Joker in terms of the 'randomness' of the outcome of the game, hands down.

[Guardian]

I see, people are flipping only one card for the additional flip of the red jocker...

Isnt that wrong?

So, if you have a 2 negative flip, and flip a RJ, shouldnt you flip 3 cards for the additional damage and take the weakest?

Also, if the damage flip doesnt have a negative modifier, could you cheat in the RJ and then cheat in the severe for additional damage?

[Soundwave]

I like the Joker mechanic.

It feels like this Hard to wound - Joker issue has been very overdramatized.

I like the Joker mechanic.

[aka_hazard]

In all honesty I'm not sure where I stand on this.

I've certainly had the BJ turn up to my disadvantage many times...

- LCB with 3 Tomes in hand flips BJ for last attack and is left stranded in front of opponents crew.

- Apparition with 1 wound left, last attack of the game and if it dies I get 4 points, ++ damage flip and BJ. 0 points

....however having an opponent flip the RJ on -- or --- damage and watching as your model takes severe plus another damage flip somehow feels so much worse.

[Q'iq'el]

I see, people are flipping only one card for the additional flip of the red jocker...

Isnt that wrong?

So, if you have a 2 negative flip, and flip a RJ, shouldnt you flip 3 cards for the additional damage and take the weakest?

Also, if the damage flip doesnt have a negative modifier, could you cheat in the RJ and then cheat in the severe for additional damage?

Negative flip affects only the flip it says it affects (initial duel flip, damage flip etc.) - you flip negative 2, you flip 3 cards and choose the lowest. Black Joker and Red Joker always override the result (and Black Joker wins), so even if you have positive flips, you have to go with Black Joker, and even if you have negative flips, you can choose to go with Red Joker.

At that point the flip affected by the modifier is over and you flip again for the second damage card with no further modifiers.

Also, you can cheat only where the game says you can cheat (which means only in duels, damage flips and in exceptional cases). The secondary flip caused by Red Joker is not a damage flip per se - you cannot cheat it.

But you are right that if there is no negative modifier the player can cheat in the Red Joker for damage flip. That is why it is so important to cause negative modifiers to damage flips (even if you can't win the duel, it still makes sense to cheat high enough to make the damage flip suffer a negative modifier).

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

It never ceases to amaze me how much store people put by totems.

Red and Black Jokers are nothing but such totems - we pour all our frustration on these two cards, because they symbolize something to us - a victory taken away from us at the last moment (or vice versa).

But take off the Red Joker, and people will still flip 1 vs. 13 in duels and loose horribly and it won't be any less random.

Sure, the Jokers have bigger impact, by design, and there are also all sorts of probability calculations that would change if you took them off, but all the probability calculations in the world are irrelevant for a singular random event - which means it doesn't matter how likely something is to happen when you flip a card, because the event is still random (however there is some importance as to how unlikely something is to happen and you can try to track that, in case of the card flip - no point in counting for a very unlikely result or something straight out impossible).