The Mad Science of Making Cards: Part I

[RichCarter]

Can I ask?

[Lapp]

Sure thing!

[Neramoor]

Really anyone can ask?

[Lapp]

Of course!

[Doomdog]

I wonder where this is going...

[Neramoor]

Then can you tell us the story of Shan fan showdown.

[Harlath]

I'd like to hear the story behind the below please:

• Virginia Ann Earp as a startable meta option.
• Valeria Batten as a card influenced by the global playerbase's participation in a storyline event.
• Ricochet/I'm Your Huckelberry as both have seen a lot of play since coming out and are some of the stronger cheatin' punishment released since the base set/It's Not What You Know.

Albeit my requests are lower priority as part of playtest! I've picked things that hopefully have interesting stories/have had an impact on the broader play environment. The also have good art and interesting titles/flavour text.

[Findegil]

I have a question here: Is it a deliberate design choice (and if so, driven by mechanics, theme, or both) that the face-value (J-Q-K) Anarchist Dudes are so heavily slanted towards smaller dudes?

I know that all outfits (moreso in Reloaded than in Classic) have some dudes that break the standard "higher value = bigger dudes" progression, but it seems especially pronounced for Anarchists, with Buskers, Taiyari, Stevie Lyndon, Brother Petrovic - and no really big dudes apart from Chow himself.

[Findegil]

Another question: What's the reasoning linking the name of the Agent Provocateur with the card text? Because the card text suggests to me a situation where (say) a Law Dog is keeping his head down at home and operating as incognito as possible until the time is right to remove the mask and reveal his true identity - but this doesn't really seem to fit with the common definition of an "agent provocateur"?

[Harlath]

As well as the common meeting, Agent Provocateurs (capitalised!) are servants of the Reckoners in Deadlands that stir up trouble and disappear, represented by them bringing bigger dudes in to the conflict and then disappearing.

[Findegil]

Ah, thanks for the explanation - so you're saying that if I start an AP and then ace him after a coupla turns to play (say) Wylie Jenks, then this doesn't represent "Ah ha, it was Wylie Jenks all along!" but rather that that I hired some random drifter on the cheap, not knowing that he was engaged in some behind-the-scenes shenanigans to attract Wylie's to come to Tombstone, before skipping town to move on to go troublemaking elsewhere?

[Findegil]

Another quick question: Was Wang Men Wu's weird ability specifically and solely designed to allow him to start a shootout alone and have the gunslinger hold the posse open while he Rabbits back and forth, or is there some other combo here I haven't thought of?

[Lapp]

I definitely recall it having something to do with Rabbit-Fu.

@BeastEG any further insights on that design?

[Findegil]

Another quick one: Was exp Wendy Cheng deliberately designed so that her trait and her ability do not combine to help you discard larger dudes (except in those rare cases where you're fighting at their home so they stay under the effect after being whipped), or was this an oversight?

[Lapp]

There were some tricky issues with the wording on Wendy that resulted in that interaction that unfortunately led to that synergy only working at home.

[Findegil]

Thanks - what was the problem that cropped up if it had been worded "Shootout, Boot: Choose an opposing dude.If they have bounty greater than their grit, discard them. Otherwise, send them home booted."?

[Findegil]

Yet another question: Was it a deliberate design choice to put so many strong shootout-oriented deeds (Charlie's Place, Shane & Graves Security, Epitaph Branch Office, Hart's Tea Shoppe, Pearly's Palace) on 5?

[Lapp]

Paging @BeastEG to provide some insight!

[BeastEG]

@Findegil - apologies for not responding sooner. It's been a hell of a year for me!

To your questions

1) Wang Men Mu was indeed designed to allow him to use Rabbit Fu solo. We purposefully wanted to streamline the rules so combo'ing was a sequence of actions that fully resolved and lead into the next one, as opposed to being an entire singular action that had multiple cards being played. Chief among this was that it helped newer players since it was extremely confusing for people why shootouts would end if the opposing posse "vanished" during Shootout actions or Resolution actions except when Rabbit Fu chains were occurring. In terms of other combos, he wasn't designed with that intention in mind, but that's not to say people won't figure other things our or future cards won't potentially interact with his ability.

2) Regarding Deeds on Value 5 being strong shootout oriented, yes that is intentional. Values A-4 tend to be fuel for Legendary Holster, which is a very powerful shootout action so it doesn't really need more gas so to speak. As you increase values (usually 7 or above), they become more resilient to negative effects and help with fueling pull decks. This leaves value 5 and 6 as values that don't tend to make either cut so those abilities tend to be very powerful to compensate a little for the fact that 5 and 6 tend to be difficult to run if your deck is based on making pulls.

3) Regarding Wendy XP's wording - it's been a long time so I can't say I remember clearly anymore. I think there was an wording issue that came up regarding effect sequencing since we were trying to streamline a lot of the rules at the time and Wendy's wording was constantly being adjusted to account for this. It's possible that where the rules ended up versus the wording that ended up on Wendy XP didn't end up aligning, which would be my fault as lead designer at the time (and no one else's). Looking back on it with where the rules ended up, something akin to "Shootout, Boot: Choose an opposing dude. If they have bounty greater than their grit, discard them. Otherwise, send them home booted." would have made more sense.

[jordan_caldwell]

@BeastEG,
Any chance you could share "lessons learned" as regards kung-fu?

My experience is two-fold: First, I love the idea of "Ebb and Flow" where the strength of Combinations varies with the size of the discard, which is to say that being able to use Combinations to play cards from the discard pile as a single Play - ie. a Combo! - is a really cool idea. And to those that remember, I was not really a fan of Classic kung-fu, as all it really felt like was Spell cards that were made permanent with card memory. The Reloaded iteration of is really novel by comparison.

That said, even as an experienced player, Combinations are incredibly "clunky" as the cognitive load to not only understand the mechanics - let alone to strategize with them! - is tremendous so as to completely halt a game to a stop when they are employed beyond a single Technique pull.

So, in addition to lessons learned, do you think it would be possible to keep these same or similar thematic elements while minimizing the overwhelming cognitive load? Or do you feel Kung-fu would essentially warrant a complete redesign?

Cheers.