War #3 - Feedback

[PlayerOa]

I think it'd be a nice idea to change the lieutenant role a little. At this moment they just don't do anything! (sorry Nils )
How about lieutenants salvage 2 more cards on wins and lsoe 2 more on losses. This in addition to their 3 upped cards.

This would mean generals do well to take the best PvP-player in their team as their lieut.

Interesting.
A PvP role can be good - support!

[Marvaddin]

If there are uneven number of players fighting during a round, the team in last place (least amount of cards in the Vault) gets a bye, meaning that one player in that team will skip the round.

I think this part of the rules really need to be changed. It can interfere a lot in war's final classification. I think one random team could get a bye.

[Higurashi]

The reason a team gets a bye is because seedings are uneven. That means a player doesn't have anyone to fight. Removing the odd one is the only real solution. Giving a bye to a random team would mean a high risk of removing a team with an even number of players (such as 8 ), and thus doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, it could turn the entire War around; a top team getting a bye increases their lead and a mid-range team could get to the top with it.

I see no better solution than the current one.

[Demagog]

Ok, here is an interesting idea: Retreats. How do they work?

Let's say you and your opponent start a game. You have an extremely bad hand, so you tell your opponent you would like to retreat. What this does is allows your opponent to salvage two cards from your deck regardless of the outcome of the match. If they win, they get to salvage those cards on top of what they would normally salvage. If they lose, they just get those cards.

The details could be hashed out, such as how many retreats allowed per player per game/match/team, how many cards salvaged for each retreat, and how many turns after the beginning of a game can pass before a player can't retreat from that battle. For instance, if you salvage 6 cards from your opponent via retreating, you win the match.

It fits perfectly into the nature of the event. Retreating is a common strategy in war.

Edit: You could also go a step further with this. During deck building, each deck could be assigned as offensive or defensive. If you choose offensive, you may not retreat, but you salvage an extra card per retreat. If defensive, you may retreat, but only salvage the normal amount per retreat.

Edit2: Just in case it's not clear, retreating causes that game to restart. If you retreat in the second game of your match, you restart that second game.

[YoungSot]

Ok, here is an interesting idea: Retreats. How do they work?

Let's say you and your opponent start a game. You have an extremely bad hand, so you tell your opponent you would like to retreat. What this does is allows your opponent to salvage two cards from your deck regardless of the outcome of the match. If they win, they get to salvage those cards on top of what they would normally salvage. If they lose, they just get those cards.

The details could be hashed out, such as how many retreats allowed per player per game/match/team, how many cards salvaged for each retreat, and how many turns after the beginning of a game can pass before a player can't retreat from that battle. For instance, if you salvage 6 cards from your opponent via retreating, you win the match.

It fits perfectly into the nature of the event. Retreating is a common strategy in war.

Edit: You could also go a step further with this. During deck building, each deck could be assigned as offensive or defensive. If you choose offensive, you may not retreat, but you salvage an extra card per retreat. If defensive, you may retreat, but only salvage the normal amount per retreat.

Edit2: Just in case it's not clear, retreating causes that game to restart. If you retreat in the second game of your match, you restart that second game.

This is an interesting idea, worthy of being discussed further imo.
It could reduce the RNG factor of matchups, and would also tend to reduce the temptation to desynch on purpose with bad hands.
I would say only one retreat per player per round though. Also, this would be a huge benefit for immo and nova decks (already some of the most popular) because they tend to be extremely effective when you get the right hand, but they are prone to rng fail. I'm worried that this rule might tip the balance further in favor of these decks, by artificially removing one of their main weaknesses.

[Scaredgirl]

Ok, here is an interesting idea: Retreats. How do they work?

Let's say you and your opponent start a game. You have an extremely bad hand, so you tell your opponent you would like to retreat. What this does is allows your opponent to salvage two cards from your deck regardless of the outcome of the match. If they win, they get to salvage those cards on top of what they would normally salvage. If they lose, they just get those cards.

The details could be hashed out, such as how many retreats allowed per player per game/match/team, how many cards salvaged for each retreat, and how many turns after the beginning of a game can pass before a player can't retreat from that battle. For instance, if you salvage 6 cards from your opponent via retreating, you win the match.

It fits perfectly into the nature of the event. Retreating is a common strategy in war.

I'm trying to understand this idea but failing. If I "retreat", what exactly happens right after that? Is that particular duel fought again or what?

Also this sounds to me like those 2 cards just magically appear out of nowhere. If that is the case, then there is huge potential for exploiting. Does the player who retreats, discard those 2 cards?

Ideas like this would be good Event Cards, but I'm not sure if it should be a general rule.

[Kael Hate]

Its not often you hear this from me but "Too Complex"

[PlayerOa]

Its not often you hear this from me but "Too Complex"

I would NEVER think you would say that after the card series in Trials (not the last one, but the one where BS had to drop)

[Demagog]

I'm trying to understand this idea but failing. If I "retreat", what exactly happens right after that? Is that particular duel fought again or what?

Also this sounds to me like those 2 cards just magically appear out of nowhere. If that is the case, then there is huge potential for exploiting. Does the player who retreats, discard those 2 cards?

Ideas like this would be good Event Cards, but I'm not sure if it should be a general rule.

If you retreat, you restart that game. Both players leave the game and start a new one. The two cards (or whatever number is decided on) are taken from the opponent's deck during salvaging. Alternatively, you could give no extra salvage and just force teams to discard X amount of cards per retreat.

As for if the penalty cards are lost upon retreating, that is up to the war organizers (so probably you). Basically, I just think there should be a retreat aspect to the event, as well as a penalty/reward.

Its not often you hear this from me but "Too Complex"

It's actually not complicated at all. It would be extremely easy for players to post how many retreats they used in their match reports. Then the teams themselves would keep track of how many cards they gained/lost (however it works) from retreating in their salvaging/discarding thread.

It might sound complicated for you because you have to keep track of penalties and such. But I assure you, it's an easy rule to understand from the player's perspective.

"Do I want to retreat? If I do, my opponent gets to salvage extra cards."

"They retreated against me twice! We get to salvage four cards from them even though I lost"

That's how simple it is. The idea can be changed, but as I said, I just think there should be a retreating system and penalties/rewards for using it. The offensive/defensive thing I mentioned is simply something extra.

[ffun]

So the retreat would basically be a mulligan in case you had a really bad starting hand? You declare a retreat and start that particular duel again, right?

If so, the match report would probably be something like:

(X) Awesome Player 2 - (Y) Mediocre Player 0 DECK IMG Retreats: Awesome Player: 0 Mediocre Player: 1 Match report etc. etc.

So if it was the 1st round of War, team X would salvage 6 cards and team Y would discard 9 cards (6 + 3 for retreat).

To avoid any exploits, I imagine you would have to declare a retreat right after the coin toss, before anyone plays anything; and for the same reason, it would probably work out better if you discarded extra cards instead of letting the other team salvage extras (to avoid the unlikely but possible event of "even though we didn't retreat, let's both say we retreated once, so both teams can salvage 3 extra cards"). And of course a limit to the number of times you could retreat, as mentioned earlier.

As for keeping track of this, it would be a -3 (or whatever number is decided) modifier for each retreat made by a team on the war spreadsheet for the round.

If implemented, it would let RNG have less of a role in the duels. It might sound complicated, but it seems like an interesting idea to consider.

[Marvaddin]

The reason a team gets a bye is because seedings are uneven. That means a player doesn't have anyone to fight. Removing the odd one is the only real solution. Giving a bye to a random team would mean a high risk of removing a team with an even number of players (such as 8 ), and thus doesn't solve anything. Furthermore, it could turn the entire War around; a top team getting a bye increases their lead and a mid-range team could get to the top with it.

I see no better solution than the current one.

What are you talking about? The last place team can have an even mumber of players (like 2), too. And I simply dont get the situation where a random bye wouldnt solve the problem. Can you give us an example? Changing the war a bit in the order of the top teams during a round is not a problem compared to change the order of the teams in the final results.

[Boingo]

I think this RETREAT idea is worth discussing but I have a feeling I agree with KH on this--a bit complex for the purposes of War.

Can both players declare a retreat on the same game?   Are the total number of cards won/lost the same as with current War settings?  If not, this is a possible exploit--2 mediocre teams collude to allow extra salvage for both teams in order to be more competitive.  Just a thought, not sure I totally get how this works out.