War #11 - Planned Changes (Work In Progress) (Discussion)

[mathman101]

Added another small rule: "Teams will face at most 2 generals in a round." We decided we were ok with a team having to face 2 generals several times or consecutively, but not having to face 3/4 generals in one round.

I'll more thoroughly read the rest later, but I think there is one fundamental flaw here: what if team ranked first can send 3(or more, just not enough opponents) decks, with ranks 2, 3 and 4 each having 1 deck? Do you want 2 matches with only 1 of them involving the top team? It's a fringe case, but it can make or break the end result of war.

If they have not changed the Section 3 Determining Opponents table from the Rules of previous wars, there could be no less than 2 players from 1 team playing otherwise they would be considered eliminated. So in your example ranks 2,3 and 4 would each have at least 2 players which could help spread out who faces the 2 Gens max.

[ddevans96]

I agree with everything dd said, except I don't see why Generals shouldn't be allowed to pick Master-cum-soldiers of their own element, because the reason dd gave makes no difference which way round it is. If the Master was the general, they'd simply 'agree' to go for the vet they would have chosen, it doesn't stop other teams trying to get them too, i don't see how any advantage is gained by this

Master is General, gets player in auction - the player was able to be pursued by the other teams.
Master appoints General, that player gets the Master - the player is guaranteed on the team.

Both ways do require the other player actually be obtained successfully in auction, so the agreement can be made both ways, but it's stronger in the latter, since it is two-way - both sides would be making a sacrifice, as opposed to just the Master-General in the former, and so both sides have an incentive to keep the agreement. And Generals will often spend less to get someone outside their element.

Furthermore, for better or for worse, General is seen as the most important responsibility of a Master. Until this is not the case, declining that responsibility should have a drawback.

That being said, this isn't a huge deal to me, like hydras being transparent is. Just explaining my preferences since my reasoning was not clear - 6am post game weak

[Zawadx]

Spoiler for Discards:

To shorten War from 16 rounds to a more suitable 10-12, our options are to either reduce the number of initial points for vaultbuilding, or to increase discards per round. Since having a larger and more flexible vault makes for a more entertaining event, we think increasing discards per round is the more suitable method for shortening War.

Round	Discards from deck	Discards from vault	Total Discards	Salvage
1+	15	9	24	6

• "Vault discards" can also be picked from the losing deck.

The distribution of discards from deck and vault might be changed. Thoughts?

This will be changed to 12 discards round 1, and 24 starting round 2 to give -some- breathing space. Thoughts?

[MyNameIsJoey]

+1

[ddevans96]

This will be changed to 12 discards round 1, and 24 starting round 2 to give -some- breathing space. Thoughts?

Good change.

Any response to my concerns about hydras - that is, they need to be completely public knowledge, and still restricted to only one game account allowed for War, declared in the application?

[RapidStar_]

What happened to 4 discards round 1

now a round 1 loss is gonna be a hefty one

[JonathanCrazyJ]

I'd support discards at 6, 12, 24, 24, 24, etc

[worldwideweb3]

TBH, I liked the way discards were. The gradual increase is better, as there's very little info to go on in earlier rounds.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

TBH, I liked the way discards were. The gradual increase is better, as there's very little info to go on in earlier rounds.

Me too, but if they are intent on changing it I'm sure a compromise can be achieved

[ARTHANASIOS]

This will be changed to 12 discards round 1, and 24 starting round 2 to give -some- breathing space. Thoughts?

I personally suggest to keep it as it is (24 discards right away from round 1) because a victory must be a victory and a loss must be a loss, no matter the round you are in.
About having less info about the vaults of your opponents in earlier rounds, I think this is just a part of War.

[iancudorinmarian]

This will be changed to 12 discards round 1, and 24 starting round 2 to give -some- breathing space. Thoughts?

I personally suggest to keep it as it is (24 discards right away from round 1) because a victory must be a victory and a loss must be a loss, no matter the round you are in.
About having less info about the vaults of your opponents in earlier rounds, I think this is just a part of War.

Horrible idea. First few rounds, especially Round 1, are just RNG, pure and simple. There's really not much mindgating you can do, since you have no idea what your opponent has. I'd rather have war reward mindgating and deckbuidling skills in the long run rather than early RNG deciding the outcome of the war. That wouldn't be fun at all, I'd rather play rock, paper, scissors.

I'd support discards at 6, 12, 24, 24, 24, etc

+1

[mathman101]

I support the 12 discards R1, and 24 discards R2+. I think it is a nice compromise between the 24 discards starting right at R1 and taking 3-4 rounds to ramp up to the max discards.