108 Worldly Desires Ban

So, that is interesting…


I’ll post my thoughts later, but for now I think this has made @swider the happiest man in the world today :slight_smile:


I cannot be the happiest man in the world as Arsene Wenger signed a new contract few days ago :).
Regarding WD ban, as I said in other places the only thing I do not like about it the fact that 108’s have only two homes to chose from, but since both are strong it shouldn’t be a big issue.

Hopefully we won’t be waiting too long for a new home, but I don’t see anything happening before the Kickstarter and tournament series. Until then when building 108 decks we’ll just have to pretend it’s a couple of years ago, when having two homes to choose from was exciting and new :smiley:

We might see people exploring decks using the original home and Drunken Masters more now, as even without Worldly Desires the 108 still have plenty of strong options.


I think it is good that the thinking behind this has been laid out clearly and that Pinebox are considering the issue of how to get errata cards to players in cases where this is necessary. As somebody who used this home in a Sheriff deck it felt too strong to me.

Also good to see this: “This basically took erratas off the table. While this means that 108 now has 2 legal outfits, we remain committed to expanding 108’s outfit options to equal that of the other factions.”

Plus this means we’ll see new decks and ideas as people experiment with the original 108 home and the Drunken Master home (these were squeezed out by the strength of 108 Worldly). :+1:


I don’t like bans, but overall I support this decision.

Primarily because of the first reason cited - logistical issues getting an errata version out in time for upcoming organized play. Reading this article makes me feel the decision reflects a commitment to quality control rather then a mere reaction.

That said, I can’t help myself. Here is a proposed after-Gencon errata to consider that attempts to retain and build upon the spirit of the card while simultaneously incentivizing interactivity.

Wordly Desires
“Repeat React: After you draw a draw hand, if you have less ghost rock than all other players, and if none of your dudes are at your home, draw an additional card into your draw hand and then discard a card. You can only use this ability once per draw hand.”

So, if you want to dominate lowball, you can’t do it on the first turn, and afterwards must spread your dudes out like guerrilla bohemians. Similarly, you can’t send out volleys of 1-cost 8-card drunkards without staging similar board risk. The incentive becomes to “go forth and experience the pleasures of the world” - whether piling into Companhurst’s, the Town Square, or opposing deeds.



Jordan Caldwell’s proposed 108 WD also hard nerfs Longwei - which gets the home down to 1 invisi-Stud from 2.


I’m trying really hard to not be super disappointed by this. I know you guys probably can’t go into all the little details, but I’m curious what the main driver was to push for ban over a really simple change like removing the ‘repeat’ word. It’s a clear, strong nerf that doesn’t fundamentally change the card in any way, so playtesting seems not a big concern (this coming from someone who has never designed cards…)

Obviously my main concern is my most favorite deck of all time, with Putting The Pieces Together. Believe me when I say I’ve tried a dozen various decks with that card, and the only one that stood up to the test of time was 108 WD. I really hope we see some sort of home that allows you to avoid cheating in lowball, but chances are even with that any PTPT deck will likely have major trouble being competitive.

I’m not saying it can’t win a tournament here and there, but it will require a good amount of -consistent- luck to make it happen. Even with 108 WD AND henry moran on the board, PTPT is still a very risky card, but now without 108 WD the risks are far too great.

Maybe that was the point, and PTPT is now relegated to casual only. Maybe I simply need to brew harder to find something that works. Either way, it might be for the best. Not having a ‘go-to’ tournament deck any more will put my brewing mode into high gear, so I look forward to that!


Here’s a link to a Putting the Pieces Together (PTPT) deck that the former lead designer piloted in the EU Marshal. It demonstrates that PTPT can work well in a competitive field outside 108 Worldly (this is in fact the occasion I ran in to db0 without realising who it was, as I’m the EW player he has his final two matches against):

The "How can this be winning so much?" EU Marshall Bicycle · DoomtownDB - he’s beating a bunch of Sheriff winners, people who place highly in the Euro Marshal and playtesters with this! :slight_smile:

  • In fact, his only loss during the tournament proper was to 108 Worldly Holster (double Sheriff winner Jimi May) pre errata, so this PTPT deck is now even better. :wink: The losses to me and Anders came after the tournament.

Plus Henry Moran is available and I think his timing works out with PTPT to protect you (?), so your dream isn’t dead!

  • I’ve leave any decision making commentary to Pinebox folk or other playtesters, but if you have the time and energy then some testing with the “repeat” element might show some persistent issues, particularly with Legendary Holster decks, where you can win lowball consistently (huge economic advantage) and then still shoot well (particularly as you’ll often aces a key opposing dude and then run away). Such a change does have a good impact on Shooting Slide at least. Even small changes need to have theory rigorously applied and then be even more thoroughly playtested (there is a reason the Playtest picture on Pinebox’s site is the weeping Henry Moran)! :slight_smile:
  • Glad you’re taking the right attitude and that the change (while a source of frustration) is getting you thinking of new decks, happy to kick ideas around.
  • Thanks for being so frank in your thinking, sometimes people are disappointed by something but can’t articulate why, making it harder to talk through the issue.
1 Like

Oh I am quite familiar with that deck :slight_smile: it’s the one that inspired me to give PTPT another try after my initial one didn’t work out. Db0 is one of my favorite designers of all time, and I know he’s an equally good player… but to be honest that deck requires both a lot of luck and a lot of bluffing to be able to have any chance at a tournament. I do appreciate the inspiration, either way, and yes henry moran definitely works and is basically the only hope any post-WD PTPT deck has. I also agree and am happy with the slight tone-down on shooting slide.

I’ve said it before, but I think half the problem is people often don’t know the best strategy to fight 108 WD. Most people try to maximize their economy, at all times, no matter what (unless putting down a CP is too risky) and you simply can’t do that against 108 WD if lowball is a priority. Most decks have the ability to at least shut off the 108 WD home half the time, if not more - depending if the opponent has and keeps control of companhursts.

Anyway, I won’t go into it any more - the decision has been made and I’m looking forward to how it spices up the meta.

@Pr0digy - on the topic of removing “repeat” as an errata - this doesn’t really solve the problem of WD, the majority of the outfit’s strength comes from it almost always winning lowball, effectively making it a 19/4, or 16/5 with Companhursts, outfit while your opponent is reduced to playing with an X/2 outfit. Because of how strong this economic advantage is removing the repeat doesn’t fix the economy and first action priority as players will almost always choose to use the effect in lowball.


Rats, sorry that deck wasn’t a novelty to you @Pr0digy, hope it is at least of use to some others. :slight_smile:

Shutting off 108 Worldly can be tough, particularly if your opponent has Companhurts and Clementine Lepp, a not uncommon pairing.

One other thing I wondered about with your comment about bluffing and needing time to build with some PTPT decks (which I totally agree with) - I sometimes wonder if the different nature of tournament games and OCTGN (online) matches drives some key differences. After all, tournament games are generally “Blind” and it is easier to surprise people, while the same tricks might not work in OCTGN which features repeated games in a smaller pool? The surprises with the Morgan deck linked in my previous post and that another Edinburgh player pulled off with his shootout avoiding Fourth Ring conditions deck perhaps perform better in tournaments than they would in repeated online play.

Also seconding the comment from @TomTheOlympian on the economic advantages and first action superiority from anything that influences lowball. Such effects are very hard to balance.

Its not just winning lowball its also stopping yourself cheating which a number of law dogs cards care about and stopping your jokers being aced in lowball.


That said, I could see a “win lowball” mechanic being thematically cast out of either a new Morgan or Eagle home - reminiscent of the Classic Sweetrock home - perhaps tied to influence in some way(?) - so long as there was a common strategy that the opposition could play to negate the effect situated within the fundamental axiom “incentivize interactivity through the town square.”

When I think of winning lowball, I think of the outfit’s dudes as having “woken up first” kind of like the adage “early bird gets the worm” - and this never sat particularly well with my view of the Worldly Desires theme - as far as being hungover is conducive to waking up earlier than everyone else.

But even still, weighing the negative impact of invalidating whole decks vs. restoring the balance to the concept of Cost (which WD “broke”), I think this is the right decision for the time being.

I’m just glad that various erratas were playtested before being released - even if this time around it resulted in a “ban,” which, as far as “calling a spade a spade” is concerned, sits much better with me than some of the (in my opinion) kneejerk errata treatment cards like Hot Lead Flyin’ and Paralysis Mark received, where the “errata” was so heavy-handed it became a “de facto ban” and removed whole archetypes from the meta.

Speaking to Neramoor’s point, I remember playing Classic with my friend Manny who ran Sweetrock (which had a similar lowball home ability to WD) who never fought until, through meticulous “saving” and subsequent card-counting of Death’s Head Jokers, only started a fight when his deck was down to 5 cards or less and he knew a DHJ was a certain draw: “Sandra Harris calls out Rachel Sumner…”


I disagree that lowball is where a majority of its power came from. I think the ‘effective +1 permanent stud in every shootout’ equivalent is nearly equally as powerful. I suppose it depends on the deck, though, as some decks can more heavily benefit with the lowball portion. By removing the repeat, you’re basically shutting off either one or the other instead of both being available, which I think was where the ‘overpowered’ part came in. Perhaps the best balance, in addition to removing the repeat word, would be that they’d have to call use of the ability BEFORE the draw hand is seen, so you have to really want to win lowball if you’re going to use it.

But if people are of the opinion that even having it only available for lowball is still too powerful, then there’s no easy errata to fix that.

@Harlath That may play a small part, but overall I don’t think that is the case. All it takes is one, maybe 2 rounds at most before you should see their discard and realize their draw structure is weak, and their bluff is up. Then again I heard the UK folks don’t like to ask to see their opponents discards, as it is perhaps perceived as rude - how prevalent is that line of thinking? I remember a thread on here somewhere where folks were posting about that topic…

A couple of rounds isn’t too bad for bluffing, you can start to get set up by then with replacements for any dudes you lose while you wait for more copies of PTPT/Gambler’s Gun or some other gimmickry. :slight_smile:

I remember seeing a similar comment about looking through discard piles being something they don’t bother with from a UK player, but I’ll confess it is something I tend to do in tournament play (depending on how seriously I’m taking things). For example, my final Swiss match was against @NuFenix in the EU Marshal, where I was the only person all day to review his discard pile and realise he had no cheatin’ punishment. He was playing a hit and run deck but thankfully for me the “Run” part of the equation largely went missing, here’s what he had to say about it on dtdb:

“Having you be the only person to realise I wasn’t running any cheating resolutions allowed you to go for aggressive hands that I couldn’t compete with meant when we did get to looking at hands I was in trouble. Sadly the point of my deck where I kill you and then get out before drawing a hand never happened”.

I don’t mind people running through my discard and I’m often counting cards myself so I often volunteer what cheatin’ punishment has gone past. Helps keep the game fast.

1 Like

Umm… is it (less?) rude if you ask politely and offer your own discard over in exchange?

Also, I can corroborate that US players sometimes decline this exact offer. While I don’t think it’s considered “rude” here, I think the decline is more for “sexy” points…

I wouldn’t find that rude at all. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I have to say all the fan potential-erratas I have heard regarding this ban have been fascinating. If anyone at Pinebox is at liberty to discuss the issue, I would love to read an article about the erratas they tried/why they failed.

As for WD, I am glad it got banned but not changed. At least I still have the card and can play it casually(It always feels “wrong” to casually play cards like Hot Lead Flying without their errata. Almost like I am playing without a bug fix installed). I really hope the replacement home for the 108 focuses a lot more on the “poor and downtrodden taking back Gomorra” robin-hood angle, I always loved that theme. May I suggest “108 Stolen Riches” as a potential name, I mean… if anyone is asking…


I think it depends on a deck, but I agree with anyone who says that lowball is major problem.


I like “109” world desires" possible with the 8 scored out or a 9 nailed accross it