Again, the biggest issue is when your opponent doesn’t remember revealing cheatin’ hand. In a scenario when cards are reshuffled into a deck from discard it is impossible to prove. Also this is potentially first ability of many similar that trigger on various conditions.
Potentially.
Until there is an actual card that is an actual problem, I’m not really concerned. Everything and anything could be a potential problem. They could release a card that required you to track the number of Flush rank hands that have been revealed the entire game. I trust the Design team won’t do something that burdensome though, so I’m really not concerned.
I just think we dont need a comment from the dev team about possible future cards with a similar trigger if this one might not even be an issue, thats all. Lets just see how this pans out before worrying about cards we do not know are actually coming.
We’re testing a card now that says:
“When you play this card, if the number of flush hands revealed by your opponent plus the number of red pulls you have made this game is less than the number of straight hands you have revealed minus the number of black pulls your opponent has made this game gain 1 GR”
the flavour text is “where is your trust now Darguth, WHERE IS IT”
6 Likes
still easier to understand than some L5R cards.
AIRHORN SOUND
2 Likes
Thanks for a teaser, I am going to slap myself with a fish.
2 Likes
Well, you know the rulebook doesn’t EXPLICITLY say that you can’t… 
There is one, potentially we might get more. We just wanted to bring up that tracking few more things in already relatively complex game might become a problem.
No, there isn’t. This card isn’t a problem.
As has been stated tracking this is no more burdensome than tracking a once-per-turn ability. No one would be complaining if a dude, deed, or goods card with an ability (literally any ability without “Repeat”, which is most of them) got printed…because that would require the exact amount of game-state tracking as this card does.
I think there’s a qualitative difference between needing to remember if you used an ability in play, and needing to remember if your opponent (or you) cheated, because the moment you suggest that it be tracked with a token or what have you, you’re tipping your hand. Unless you just track it in every game you play whether you’re playing this card or not.
And if you don’t track it, I agree that the potential for disagreement (hopefully honest, but who knows?) is there. Sure, you can argue that’s a play group trust issue, but in competitive environments, you’re not always going to be playing with your play group, or choosing your opponent.
I like the impulse of the card, and I see why it wasn’t a cheatin’ card – it’d be a high opportunity cost for the effect. Still, not thrilled about the execution. It feels clumsy. Hopefully there won’t be too many more cards that require the tracking of additional game state factors that aren’t otherwise important.
3 Likes
[quote=“BD_Flory, post:50, topic:289”]
I see why it wasn’t a cheatin’ card – it’d be a high opportunity cost for the effect.[/quote]
Why? There are not many effects that give you cards in the middle of turn, so most of the time you’d have this card in hand at the relevant moment - in lowball that is. And if you could play it as a resolution, you could remove their Kidnappin’ or Bounty Hunter before they get a chance to act, even if they won lowball.
I think one of the main issues is that game-state tracking of cheating is not as easy to recollect as card abilities. And I am talking purely unintentionally forgetting of someone cheating. Most effects can be recontructed by both players. “Have you used Mongwau this turn?”, “Well to be honest I don’t remember doing so. But I drew 8 cards during the last shootout, so I guess I have.” Whereas cheating leaves no direct impact on the game by itself.
But I do feel that this is not going to be the big problem some are seeing it as-
The problem isn’t whether you have this card, it’s that you can only play one cheatin’ resolution per hand. I don’t think the effect compares well to other cheatin’ resolutions, which you’d be giving up to play this (if it were a cheatin’ resolution), either in the moment – when you have both in hand – or in deckbuilding, when you can only effectively include a certain number of cards that rely on your opponent cheatin’.
If it were this effect, plus reduce casualties or something else supplemental? Maybe. But this alone, as a cheatin’ resolution, wouldn’t be that good.
True enough. Another way would be to add: “You can play another cheatin’ resolution”.
3 Likes
True, a simple clause like this probably would have made things flow easier without diluting the value of the card too much (if it was formatted as the two separate abilities suggested earlier). It’s slightly weaker because you have to decide in that moment to play it or not, rather than potentially being able to save it, but I don’t think that would have really dented its usability.
I like the card. A lot. There is a lot of potential cheatin’ punishment now which makes some decks less viable. Also, just getting the information from looking at your opponents hand is insanely good imo. Perhaps even a bit too strong compared to telepathy helmet, which gets a bit deluded by this card.
Eh, I don’t really think this is the case too much. They provide 1 similar effect but also have 1 very different effect from one another. They are also different values and card types (meaning one is reusable and the other is a one-use).
On the card I like it hand gaining knowledge is always good. Then tracking cheating I not really worried about it if you are playing it or you aren’t. Just to check them on it could mess with their head for a psychological effect. Heck I even put a bounty hunter token by my deck just to make them think I have a bounty hunter or Hired Help in my deck.
1 Like