Fickle Fans: The worst card in the game.

I honestly see nothing this adds to the game except a large dose of luck. There are villain cards that are more powerful, certainly- Citizen Dawn's ongoing and equipment wipe, Baron Blade (VF) and Friction's cards that allow their entire team to play cards, and about half of Iron Legacy's deck come to mind. But Fickle Fans... It just feels like one of those "Well, looks like I rolled a 1, time to roll a new character." or an "Oh look, I got a 20, I win on no merit of my own." moments whenever it comes out (yes, I understand character building can improve or mitigate the implications of criticals, that's not the point of discussion here). The others- while quite annoying- at least feel like something that's part of the natural flow of the game, and can truly be prepared for. But the only way to prepare for Fickle Fans is to be in the losing position... It is a card that REWARDS YOU FOR DOING POORLY, and PUNISHES YOU FOR DOING WELL, and that should NEVER be the case of ANY card. I may dread when one of those heavy hitters comes out of the deck, but at least they don't make me think "well, if I had done worse up until this point, I'd be winning right now".

Now don't get me wrong; overall, I love Wrath of the Cosmos. Both the heroes and both environments are great, and Infinitor and Deadline were both very enjoyable villains to fight. Even Kaargra Warfang's deck seems very unique and fun- aside from the fact that it has two copies of Fickle Fans in there. But those two copies of that card have instantly made her the worst villain for me to play- even moreso than Dark Watch Gloomweaver and Akash'Buta, both of whom I I find drag on because of their high HP, and moreso than the Vegneful Five which I dislike because of all the extra shuffling that's required, but all of which I still enjoyed to some degree. But Kaargra? Kaargra is the first (and hopefully only) villain I can truly say that I dislike fighting against; the two cards are that bad, and I'd be tempted to try simply playing against her with those two cards removed- if it wasn't for the fact that her deck is already so small, and removing any cards would mean she'd have a deck even smaller than the environment deck. I might just try it anyways.

I'm really curious as to what the playtesters and admins thought of this card; am I crazy with my assessment of it? Or is this truly the worst (or at least amongst the worst) cards in the game?

Honestly, I think it fits the name and the theme really well...they are truly fickle fans who shift their favor at a moment's notice and want to see more sport.  I've played a couple of dozen games with Kaargra (both PT and final) and never had an issue with it, it's much less devastating than That Card or some of the other wipes from other villains.  It feels entirely thematic to me

Yeah, I've always found the various "bring back out all the minions you just spent the entire game killing" cards to be far more arbitrary and annoying than this one. As you say, it sounds like either removing those cards from her deck, or maybe just pretending that they're copies of a different card whenever they come up might help keep you having fun.  

We've found Kargra to be the most popular villain from Wrath, in our play group. Fickle Fans can be frustrating, but it's a lot less frustrating than losing our stuff. I think that's one of the reasons I'm so accepting of it: So many times the answer to setting back the heros is do more damage or take away their stuff, but Kargra creates new design space that allows for a more interesting way to surprise the players in game. As cmschex explained, it's impressively thematic and really builds that tension that makes the game so much fun. 

But that's just us - if you don't like it, that's a completely valid response. 

First off there are plenty of circumstances where doing poorly enough lets you avoid cost, or gain a positive effect for no cost.

and there are plenty of cards that punish you more when you are doing better.

For example anything that causes you to discard your hand when you have no cards, or a devestating Aurora when you have nothing in play.

Or Technological Singularity, which punishes players for having more equipment.

Fickle Fans can be planned for.  I do it frequently.

It also is a big part of the theme of the match, because you can't control the audience, and they frequently turn on the side that is winning.

That is true in any sport where the crowd doesn't have predetermined loyalties.  It adds a lot to the game.

Mechanically it gives the game a way to compensate for ideal hero teams, and less than ideal hero teams.  It avoids games where a big start for the villains is just too much to recover from, and games where you get a lead and the villains can't catch up.

It is a very different card than we've seen before, but it is also a different mechanic than other villains.

Theme and flavor is a 10/10

Fickle Fans is just a card you have to gameplan for, just like Dawn's Aura or Omnitrons Singularity or Voss's Deployment. If the card is really swinging your games, then you need a better game plan right? Part of the fun is figuring out the best ways to handle certain situations.

That's not really punishing the player for doing well. The goal of the game isn't to have a bunch of cards in your hand or to have a lot of equipment in play. They can help, yes, but that's not what the goal is (at least, not with any current villains- who knows? Maybe in a future expansion, it could happen). When fighting Kaargra, the very goal is to get those crowd favor points, then this card punishes you for managing that goal.

Manage to make the points closer together until you can manage a huge swing turn and win the game. Every turn you have to think "Ok, what if the fans turn on me after this round? What can I do?" If the answer is "nothing, im screwed", then you might need to rethink your approach to how you gain points and how you allow Kaaraga to gain them.

You wouldn't empty your entire hand of important equipment cards as Waith against Dawn before you see the first Devestate right (even though you are trying to set up a huge barrage)? Same thing applies to Kaaraga

I'm pretty sure the villain is all about causing us lots of annoyances as we fight them.  In this case, it also can have  a bonus if you're losing.

Think of it as a Devastating Aurora that read like this:

If there are no Environment cards in play, play the top card of the Environment deck. If no Environment cards are played this way, destroy all Environment cards.

If there are no Hero Ongoing cards in play, each player may play 1 Ongoing card now. If no Ongoing cards are played this way, destroy all Ongoing cards.

If there are no Equipment cards in play, each player may play 1 Equipment card now. If no Equipment cards are played this way, destroy all Equipment cards.

(Of course, that's WAY too much text for a card.)

And that would actually make me hate Devastating Aurora more.

I probably wouldn't mind Fickle Fans if it was just something like "Add 5 tokens to the Villains Favor pile" or "Remove 5 tokens from the Heroes Favor pile". Sure, it'd still be annoying, but it wouldn't feel like I'm getting punished for doing what I'm supposed to be doing. Or even a Cheering Crowd replacement that just adds two tokens to whichever pile has more (and doesn't remove it from the other pile).

On an unrelated note, aren't there cards with more text already? Pretty sure a few of Absolute Zero's cards have more text… Or maybe I'm just thinking about the fact that he causes Catapult Turtle Gambits to happen when you get all of his cards out.

300×371 86.7 KB

Wait, you'd hate a Devastating Aurora that let you get some bonus if your team happened to have nothing in play?

Fickle fan indeed. 

Yes; I dislike the idea of villain cards that help the player. It just feels… Antithematic (Is that an actual word? Well, spellcheck isn't complaining, so I guess it is.). It's one thing to have hero cards that can hurt the heroes, because these are usually representive of the hero pushing themselves past their bodily limits at the expense of harming themselves, but to have a villain card randomly let the heroes equips some items? That just feels… Odd.

I guess I just don't like the idea of the villain deck helping the heroes. I'm fine with easy and helpful environments (Time Cataclysm is actually probably my favorite environment, and while it might not be the easiest of them, it's definitely easier than most), but the villain deck helping the heroes in any way just seems backward to me. Beyond that, there's still the fact that it feels like it's punishing you for doing well and rewarding you for doing poorly; a flat out attack against the heroes is one thing, but I've always hated "rubber band mechanics" in any sort of game whatsoever (I'm looking at you Mario Kart).

Just you wait until the Christmas themed expansion! Where you must take on Krampus, there is actually a card the repesents Santa joining the action, where he'll allow every player to play a card, yay!

I can see your point, but I don't find myself agreeing. Now if Fickle Fans just flipped the scores then you'd be right, but it is a maximum of a -5/+5 situation and it is very recoverable.

If you are curb stomping Kaagra, it's a minor annoyance, obviously you've been getting way more points than that. If the game is tight it swings it, but the swing can be more or less severe depending on the score. I think the key to it is, from the little I've played Kaagra (btw solo play with Kaagra and setback is a little too much to keep track of) you can easily recover a loss of 5 points, and villain points don't matter unless they are 17 or higher.

How do you feel about the Potential Sidekick from Spite's deck?

I'm okay with the bystanders giving bonuses because you have to work for them- I feel that since they're essentialy weakpoints that you have to decide whether it's better to protect them to gain their bonuses, I don't really mind that. It requires you to divert resources you would otherwise just use to focus on hammering Spite.

This is also why I don't mind the Title Deck giving bonuses: You don't just get them at random, you work for them, and you earn those bonuses by carrying out specified objectives. I dislike Stonejaw because it essentially just goes to the first target that comes out after it does, but the others all have ways you can manipulate them, and try to race for them before they're taken by the villains- and if you choose to ignore them, chances are the villains will get some of them, especially with how quickly Kaargra fields her cards.

Regardless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Even though we clearly disagree on this matter, it's really awesome to be able to talk directly to one of the designers of one of my favorite games and actually have a conversation with them about why I feel the way I do about it. To me, that shows that you're listening- even if you don't come to the same conclusions, you are obviously taking the time to get my point of view.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, this conversation has made me decide to go ahead and get Sentinels of the Multiverse on Steam; I was going to wait for a big sale before giving in, but this has made me decide to pick up the game and the first season pass today: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

I actually like the villain cards that help the player, and feel like they can be very thematic. I the bystanders from Spite's deck are ag reat example. Sure,. MOST of the villains we have don't fit that sort of idea, but that doesn't mean its possible. There are plenty of examples of honorable opponents, folks that'd rather have a real fight then a blowout, for example. Oh! Plague Rat can be another example! Sure, infection hurts, but that damage amp is tempting...

My only issue with Fickle Fans thus far has been playing advanced mode Kaagra. And even then, my issue was just that so freakin' many were played! Admittedly, she got Chaos Lord early, so it was likely, but it was hard to figure out who was going to win! (it wasn't the good guys, by the by)

Regardless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. Even though we clearly disagree on this matter, it's really awesome to be able to talk directly to one of the designers of one of my favorite games and actually have a conversation with them about why I feel the way I do about it. To me, that shows that you're listening- even if you don't come to the same conclusions, you are obviously taking the time to get my point of view.

My pleasure! I actually engaged in this not to be argumentative, but to dig more into what you do like/do not like about those interactions. 

There will certainly be cards from villain decks in the future which can help the heroes, and so I want to be mindful of how such cards are perceived.

Let's face it: we can strategize as much as we want, but luck always has been, and always will be, a factor in Sentinels. If everything was "fair" then there would be no tension to the game. We'd all play the same heroes in the same way and always win. We've all been crushed by the Chairman a dozen times, only to have a game with those perfect draws where you're prepared and totally crush him. Luck is a thing. We're still having fun.

The randomness is basically WHAT I love about this game. :) My prior favorite game was Cosmic Encounter, which has a similar element of randomness making each game different, yet still stable enough to allow the players to strategize.

I don't mind a degree of randomness that prevents a person from winning by going first all the time, but when it feels more like the game is playing for me than I am playing for it, then it feels like I might as well not even be playing. Sentinels normally doesn't have that feeling for me- yes, there are still good draws and bad draws, but if you know what you're doing, you can win more often than you lose even against the likes of Iron Legacy. Fickle Fans feels like it's enough to make me quesiton that- 5 points is 25% of what's needed for victory or loss, and since it's changing both piles, that amounts to a net change of 50% between the two. That's a pretty big difference.

Although I strangely like Tales of the Arabian Nights... I don't know why, and even those that I play it with know that it goes completely against what I generally enjoy in a game and have commented on such before... For those who don't know, that game is almost entirely luck.

You like Tales of Arabian Nights because it's amazing and hilarious.

Also, it's less of a game, and more of a choose-your-own adventure with a board.  Since there is basically no strategy at all, you play it with a different mindset than you play most other games.

That may well be the reason… I do tend to think of it more as a story than a game, now that you mention it.

Seeing how fast Warfang plays her cards (2 a turn at least), you can be certain that you WILL see Fickle Fans, and Go Back In There, at least once in each game. It WILL happen - you just have to plan accordingly. Just like you do with the Organization's prison break, for instance.

Keep your Favor one point below the villain's at all time except for the last winning turn, and Fickle Fans becomes an advantage. Keep enough wounded Gladiators out so that you can earn the points you need to reach 20 favor as soon as Warfang leaves the arena. This is all about making a good show - and in a good show, the "obvious" winner must lose at the end after a big flip of the situation.

I like this fight. It took me some time to find the above strategy, and it hurts a lot to keep yourself from being too succesful until the very end, but it feels awesome.

Yeah, the one thing that was missing from this discussion at its start is how Fickle Fans can swing things totally around from the villain to the heroes. The crowd might just betray her.

Plus, it helps to put on the Gladiator soundtrack.

'That Card'?

'That Card' always references Devestating Aurora.

Actually, this is what I was referring to by "rewarding you for doing poorly".

I don't agree it's a reward for playing poorly.  Even the best team could have draws that cause them to have slow starts, get overwhelmed early by the Gladiators, have Title deck draws that get pulled immediately by the villains, or be in an environment that disrupts your setup more than the villain.  Because all of those are luck based not skilled based.  Even if it helps you there no guarantee you don't go back down because the second one enters play or because Kaarga herself is out in a tight game making it meaningless as she wins anyways on her turn.  

It's interesting that Christopher brought up Spite. If you don't mind, I'm going to respond to the same question:

"How do you feel about the Potential Sidekick from Spite's deck?"

Answer: I don't feel about it at all.

While the intent in the Safehouse mechanic is for the players to build up and prepare for Spite to flip, functionally Forced Entry comes up so often, that it has become senseless to bother with the Victims at all. I just leave them out there as a Delayed Blast Heal for Spite, and ignore the Safehouse Mechanic. Forced Entry annihilates the cost of protecting the victims in the first place forcing it to be paid again, and the result is the Victim card still heals Spite, just later. Why bother sacrificing for no significant gain? When Spite flipped in the several times we did go with the mechanic, we never had more than 2 Victims in the Safehouse when he flipped. The cost of that strategy is far too high for 5 damage per Victim card, when you count all the costs for all the victims ever put under the Safehouse during the game, because all of those accumulated sacrifices are the Real Cost of feeding the Safehouse.

So if you are looking for a parallel to Fickle Fans in Spite's deck, it isn't Sidekick, it's Forced Entry. The cost players must pay to deal with the card is directly proportional to the success they have had in dealing with Victims. More Victims rescued means more cost to rescue the same victims. By not bothering to save victims, Forced Entry is valueless to Spite. Very Heroic of us, yes?

That might change if I were to have Wraith for IE or DW Visionary to keep Forced Entry out of the game.

Consequently, we just ignore the victims and go straight after Spite, and he gets to continue his serial slaughter until jailed. Potential Sidekick happens if it happens, otherwise, Spite just healed 3-5 again and we mourn an innocent Victim card.

I go one step further and just don't play Spite.

I'd actually forgotten that he even has victims!

We have a house rule that at the end of his turn we can put one victim in the safehouse out of the game, and we use the number out of the game for his flip damage (instead of the safehouse)

It gives reason to save the victims, and keeps the tension of Forced Entry for those we've pulled off the streets but haven't gotten into proper safety yet.

I don't know if that will work for other players, but it works great for us.

We haven't pulled off a game where no victims get destroyed yet, but one day we will.

I like the sound of that house rule. It leaves the victims there long enough to make it chancy, but gives you a way to make real gains.

...I like it.

The best way to save victims against Spite is to do ridiculous amounts of damage.

I can relate to that.  That Samaritan is on his own if we ever do play Spite.  We've had too many Forced Entries or On the Prowls blow him up whie we were saving him.  Hopefully someone wrote down that soup recipe of his…

Potential Sidekick is a pal, though.  Not a close enough pal to save, sadly, but a pal all the same.

Potential sidekick is more valuable on the field he<s like double TLT for free as long as you leave other victims laying around to content Spite. I concur forced entries come by too often to try and save them and the penalty for not saving them is a few HP more on Spite who already heals so much it doesn<t do much difference.

THIS. This is what it's all about. You have to put on a good show for the fans, that's it. You're fighting to win their favor, not to "defeat" the villain.

Sorry for the necro, but we just played Warfang for the first time not that long ago, and we had Fickle Fans play twice. The first time, we were ahead by 3 or so, and we were like, *unimpressed face*. The second time, though, we were down by two, and Warfang had 19 favor, and Fickle Fans won us the game.

I know it was a super-random win, but it felt great, like we were in an arena in hostile territory, fighting for the crowd's favor against some serious hard-pipe-hittin' mofos, everything was stacked against us, and we won by the skin or our teeth. We played our butts off in that game, and the last-minute Fickle Fans win felt more as if we had been rewarded than as if the game had "cheated" in our favor.

Sounds like exactly the right time to shout, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!" at the top of your lungs.

I will say that Kaargra Warfang is one of my favorite villains in the game. She demands a different kind of play, in which you specifically try to meet certain challenges while trying to defeat her, and she all but demands a certain thematic RP feeling as you "level up" and throw down in the arena. Her villain targets really feel like formidable opponents, and it feels great to defeat each one, and calling out how many favor points you got in your turn is great fun.

There is no card I despise more than Recharge Mode, bunker's Ongoing Mode.

When this card enters play, destroy all other Mode cards.

You cannot play cards or use powers.

You may draw an additional card during your draw phase. Reduce damage dealt to Bunker by 1. At the start of your turn, you may destroy this card.

This is just trash. Let's be clear: -1 Damage is NOT worth losing both Play AND Powers. I have used it once. I had no Heavy Plating on Bunker, I knew the player to my right was going to burn down all of The Matriarch's 14 Fowls and that we'd all get Pinged for 14x2 1-Toxic hits. So I Ongoing Moded up. Then immediately destroyed it on my next turn. This required me to NOT have Heavy Plating and to face a very specific foe in a very specific situation, knowing very specifically what my teammate was doing next.

Normally, I will have -1 Damage already (Heavy Plating) and Bunker's default power is Draw A Card. This card is redundant and hampers play.

There's only one more use of it: burying it under Omni-Cannon or throwing it away via Flak Cannon. That's it. So I'm often glad I drew this, so I wouldn't have to make a hard choice about what I was going to trash. When a card's greatest reward is "at least I don't have to trash a good card", it is a bad card.

I can deal damage, reduce damage dealt to Bunker by 2 and draw 3 cards per turn with Recharge mode in play, can you?

EDIT: Ninja'ed!

If you go Heavy Plating, Recharge Mode, Gatling Gun and/or Omni-Cannon, you can build up cards, deal damage, and reduce all damage dealt to Bunker by 2.  This is what I would consider his tanking mode.  

Nin nin nin!

I CAN do that, but I find Turret Mode to be vastly superior for active tanking. "Card Draw" is never an issue, especially if you have Ammo Drop in play. Since neither Recharge nor Turret let you play a card, the only difference is -1 Damage, which is offset by infrequently using Maintenance Unit. You can then put out +1 to all of your damage, still heal if you need it, and nuke people regularly with a variety of weapons (such as the Omni-Cannon, where all my Recharge Modes go).

It's just the least useful Mode. And it requires very specific cards to be minimally effective. To be optimally effective with Turret Mode, you obviously also need specific cards, but to be minimally effective you just need two Power Use cards and you're amazing as a team contributor (even if it's only DPS at that point instead of Tank, which kicks in with Maintenance Unit and Heavy Plating).

I think part of the disconnect is Bunker, to me, is the least effective tank since he needs so many things before he's effective for it, whereas minimal for DPS. I'd rather run Legacy or Naturalist for general tank business. He's just a tough-sonna-witch DPS, in my play style, so perhaps I'm biased.

@EvilToon: You know you draw 2 cards a turn with Recharge Mode, right? That plus the armor plus his equipment that feeds off his handsize (gatling, omnicannon) and Recharge Mode can be really good. That and heavy plating stacks with Recharge Mode with the -1 damage taken. And it's fantastic for trying to find the right cards if your hand is poor. 

Think about how a card can be good instead of focusing on situations when it's bad.

Bunker is deceptively not a straight forward deck.

Everyone has their preferences and every card has its part to play.  For me, Upgrade Mode is the least useful...until all your stuff is nuked but you have a ton of cards in hand.  I also tend to play defensively, so I don't mind soaking 2 damage a turn, dealing 2 a turn, and charging the Omni-Cannon.

I'm aware. But I also know I end up with quite a few cards via Ammo Drop. But unless I'm truly, truly desperate for a stacked -2 damage (which, while nice, is rarely as much a game changer as both Play Card and Power Use in my experience), I can always just use my base power to draw the card to cycle my deck for good cards.

This is the Fickle Fans thread, man! I can be Fickle and Card Negative.

With you 100% on Upgrade Mode for the same reason. No Power Use is miserable! But I still draw a card (if only one now) and Play 2 which is useful when I sometimes have a bunch of great stuff in my hand at the start of the game, or when I'm recovering, but yes, the more stuff you have, the proportionately less useful that card is for sure.

[quote="eviltoon"]

It's just the least useful Mode. And it requires very specific cards to be minimally effective. To be optimally effective with Turret Mode, you obviously also need specific cards, but to be minimally effective you just need two Power Use cards and you're amazing as a team contributor (even if it's only DPS at that point instead of Tank, which kicks in with Maintenance Unit and Heavy Plating).

[/quote]

Turret Mode requires 3 cards in play to efficient at it's specific job (two powers and turret). Thats a lot of setup. Recharge does it's specific job well with just one other (either gatling for damage, omnicannon for setup, or plating for tanking), and is minimally effective with just Recharge in play (for the extra card draw and armor). Just having Turret in play gets absolutely nothing done.

I've had quite a few games with Bunker with either no Ammo Drop or it gets wiped out as soon as it is played.  On those days, when I have a hand full of Adhesive Foam Grenades and External Combustions, Recharge Mode is even more appealing.  Remember that when you skip your play and your power because of Recharge Mode, you can get 3 cards a turn.  And that makes Omni-Cannon happy.

Well, I will bow out of this argument (so as not to clutter this thread) after I handle some responses as not to be rude, as clearly Recharge Mode is loved by everyone but me, so therefore loses for Worst Card.

This is so specific a situation, though, where you gain 3 vs 2. I can't remember any instance where I already had Recharge Mode in play, all the cards in my hand were useless (or gone) when I played it, then I drew two more useless cards and then next turn get to draw 3 cards which hopefully I can play. I admittedly am reluctant to play Turret Mode unless Ammo Drop isn't wiped, but I'm reluctant to play Recharge Mode because it's just so so inactive. Like you said, different play styles. I'd rather play cards or use powers than just draw-and-pass than hope for 3-card-turn-skips. So, different play styles! This is not the Worst Card, just the Worst Card for Me, as it tells me "Go take a smoke break, the rest of the table will handle this", which is (even when the best option as described by you or Foote) the worst designed playstyle, for me.

But Recharge "setting up" with Omnicannon is dubious and choosing to have Gatling be literally the only thing you're capable of doing seems pretty limited. I doubt anyone would play EITHER mode until they had a few cards out. I will concede that Recharge might be used in "I desperately need Plating for upcoming damage but don't have it" situations, but that feels like fighting from a losing position for me. So it can be useful on its own for one turn, or for infinite turns if you just want to do nothing but draw cards, take -1 and do no damage, whereas Turret is useless on its own. That is a factual interpretation I concede to you.

I still would never see myself playing either Mode until I had a few pieces of equipment out.

Fair enough!  I also wouldn't play Turret Mode without at least one damaging power out.  The other could be the repair unit and I'd be fine with that.

I tend to find both Upgrade Mode and Recharge Mode very situational. I'd prefer to actually be doing something with my turns. With Bunker, my preferred mode is Turret Mode with at least two items from the following list (in rough order of preference): Omni-Cannon, Flak Cannon, Grenade Launcher, Maintenance Unit. Ammo Drop is nice to have in this setup, but not mandatory, in my opinion.

Oddly enough, I've recently found myself using External Combustion more often. It's situational at best, but sometimes you just need to burn everything.

I've actually found that I tend to use Gatling Gun less often than other cards. I guess I just don't care for the discard cost.

I think you vastly underrate how good card draw is if you don't see all the potential uses of Recharge Mode. It's not the best card in the game, nor is it the best one in it's particular deck. But it could honestly loose the -1 damage reduction and Recharge Mode would still have a solid place within the context of Bunkers deck.

Recharge mode has much more value with GI Bunker.

Recharge on original bunker gives you damage reduction, and trades your card play for an extra card.  Your first turn you only gain reduction, at the cost of your card play.

Because you have initialize, you can play a card and still draw 2.  Next turn you still have reduction and you gain a card draw in exchange for card play.

In my Bunker games I play recharge when something causes using a power to be unavailable or undesirable, and that is about it.

With EoW Bunker Recharge is great for discarding to destroy an ongoing card.

So far Bunker has been the least effective hero for me. I find myself being loathe to "waste" a turn using a mode, because I never seem to get the cards I need, or I just have a hand full of modes. That's when Recharge mode would come in handy, but it nags at my mind to imagine giving up my play and power phases to get more cards. Especially given that base Bunker can get a free card by using his base power.

I'll be the first to admit I need more Bunker time before I judge him, but I have the least amount of fun when I play him vs. all the other heroes I play (including Scholar, who likewise hasn't "clicked" for me yet).

A while back I posted some house rules I use on Bunker. Small tweaks that bring flexibility that is needed to keep my attention ang get things enjoyable. I could fish it back for those interested.

We use a house rule for when we want Bunker to rock that lets you swap modes at the start of your turn, returning it to hand with the option to put one into play from your hand if you do.

It makes him significantly faster.

I use the same and it irons out the bad without altering bunker too much.

I was very much like you for a long time, I don't like the mechanic of discarding cards (one reason I am not a big fan of NightMist or Parse). Recently, Gatling Gun has become one of my favorite cards, and I wish there were more than 2 in the deck. It offers a somewhat nice replacement as a power for Flak Cannon (a little less for Grenade Launcher). You sacrifice 1 damage for seeing more of your deck.

Given, there are some downsides, you don't do the damage until next turn, and you pay the cost before getting the benefit. However, having both Gatling Gun and Flak Cannon out that's 5 damage every turn (7 or 9 with plus to damage), without your play phase. Honestly, I feel that's quite a bit, especially since you can still play more cards to setup for something else.

The sad thing is that I actually enjoy playing Nightmist and Parse, even with their discard mechanics. The Gatling Gun feels different somehow. I guess it's because it's a passive effect I have to keep paying for rather than an active effect like a power or card play. It feels like paying taxes just to get a smallish hit. 

And yes, I know that this is a completely irrational opinion. I guess I'll have to play him more to get past my dislike of the thing. 

I look at Gatling Gun as an extra use of Ra's base power, at the cost of discarding one of Bunker's copious useless cards. ;)

I agree with this … to an extent.

Bunker is perhaps the ultimate example of the value in playing your hand versus playing your deck, while at the SAME_TIME requiring one to know about the various possibilities of his deck in order to understand what his hand can actually achieve. Bunker is a Tactician and forces me to make a lot of tactical decisions. The very best I can do with my hand at the moment may not be the best way to set up Bunker to be valuable in the future.

All this is true for most if not all of the heroes, but I think Bunker is a prime example. If you've got a Gatling Gun, Flak Cannon, and Turret Mode in hand, do you play the Flak Cannon now in order to do immediate damage with an eye towards possibly getting into Turret Mode, or do you play the Gatling Gun knowing that it won't do anything immediately, but if you draw into Recharge Mode, Omni Cannon, Heavy Plating, and/or Adhesive Foam grenade then you're setting yourself up to be able to do regular damage while still doing something else (tanking, building to a big attack, environment control)? How long do you think the game will last? How important are the various things you can do? What are the other heroes going to do? Like I said, these are questions most if not all of the heroes might ask themself, but Bunker is ALL ABOUT asking these questions.

Earlier today I had a Grenade Launcher, an Omni-Cannon, and Gatling Gun on the table, and a Maintenance Unit and Turret Mode in my hand. Normally I would feed the Cannon and throw a Grenade, but this time I played the MU and followed it the next turn with Turret Mode. I fed the card I got after the MU turn to the Gatling Gun. There was something cool about knowing that for the next little while, I could count on healing for 2HP and blasting things for 3, 3, and 2 damage each round, and I had SS Tachyon throwing things out from under my deck.

After a couple of rounds, I killed Turret Mode and just played it out. It didn't feel like a loss of options, but a guarantee of a specific pattern that would be available to me until I either lost the equipment or decided to get out of that mode.

I think one day I'll play Bunker with the specific goal of playing all three modes as much as possible, and see how it goes. Maybe he'll click to me then.

But I think Andy nailed it above. Bunker seems to be about going to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

And credit to Silverleaf, I think, who, if I recall correctly, was the first to articulate that strategy.

The strategy of balancing strategy against tactics?

When I was creating my hero ranking system I wanted to value different types of damage dealing, and I divided it by amount of setup.

Starting damage: you start your turn with 0-1 card in play.

Mid-range damage: start your turn with 2-3 cards in play.

High End damage:  How crazy can you get with lots of cards in play.

Bunker is interesting because he is solid at any level, but he can excel at mid range setups if you are willing to forego building up any farther.

The number of valid 3-4 card builds are really awesome with Bunker, and weighing between good Turret builds or sticking to no mode is an interesting process.

His drawback is he can really punish a player that cimmits too early or too late.

That was the impetus behind our house rule, making him more forgiving by allowing you to switch modes and keep your modes in hand.

I don't use that house rule anymore, simply because it taught me how to play him well enough to no longer need it.

If you plan to leave Recharge Mode up for any significant amount of time (and you should, most of the time that you play it at all), you'll get *3* card draws per turn, on every turn after the first.  1 extra from Recharge itself, and 1 extra for forgoing (by necessity!) your play and power.

Upgrade Mode got itself upgraded a bit in my opinion when I realized what you can do by (after a few rounds of double-play), playing Turret Mode as the second card.  Extra play *and* two powers on that turn!

Granted, most games I still won't play either of them, but they're not as bad as you think.  A lesson that is true about *most* cards one never plays...

I don't remember if I was the first to present it here, but I'm sure it wasn't my idea originally. I have been somewhat vocal in my support of said strategy though!

FWIW I used to dislike Bunker. I didn't think he was bad, just boring as he didn't fit my preferred play style. Since the app I've warmed to him a fair but - he'll never be a favourite but I don't mind playing him now, especially as I have 2-4 other heroes to keep me entertained in every Bunker game in the app.

He's like visionary to me now. Not my favorite, and I'll never feel like I'm getting the most out of him, but I can play him effectively and he does the job. His 2 main guns are effective, and they do their jobs, but I always feel like I'm missing something

I love the Bunks, but part of that is due to him being my first hero. I tend to go for the cards with a more immediate effect since that fits with my play style more, and so I'm not a fan of Upgrade Mode since you have to wait a whole round to actually benefit from it.  I do actually like Gatling Gun. If I don't have Flak or Grenade, I can do consistant damage while using Initialize to increase my options and feed the Gatling Gun. I like both of Bunker's promos. They're both situational, but they're very useful for those situations. G.I. Bunker is my favorite for both his power and backstory.

This is OT (of the OT tangent we're already on…), but where can you find backstory on the promos?

At least for the promos released on the SotM app it's on the multiverse page for SotM.  http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/multiverse/heroes/bunker

Also, the wiki SotM.wikidot.com also will list out what is known. 

Note that not all Promo bios are avaliable. They seem to be comming out (and old ones being revised) as they are released on the App.

http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/multiverse

You can also find them within the game itself, by going into the Multiverse option, clicking on a hero with a variant you have unlocked and on the top right there will be a variant button you can click.

Having played Kaargra I think that Fickel Fans is a good idea with an average implementation. The idea is to give a catch up to the losing side since the winning side probably has snagged some Titles and is not only winning but getting stronger. And the H in the card makes sense, since more Heroes means more chances of getting additional points and Kaargra and other Villains are doing more damage (so more points).

But, in general, catch up mechanics that when triggered change who is in the lead or decide who is the winner are bad. Catch up mechanics should keep you in the game and avoid lame duck situations, not be exploited or help you win the game by losing (if the game is not about that).

IMO what Fickle Fans should do is either bridge the gap of points between the sides or make it harder for the winning side to gain points. But the losing side should still be either losing or tieing after the card is played. There are a lot of ways to go about this. Like "Move X favour tokens from the pool with the most tokens to the pool with the least tokens, where X = the difference between the winner minus the loser divided by 2, rounded down". While not as simple as just moving H tokens, it's not that bloated or complicated and mitigates game deciding situations (the losing side still needs to do stuff on their own to win).

A different approach, ignoring points and considering Titles: "Remove X favour tokens from each side where X = the number of titles that side has gained". Or maybe even just removing tokens from the pool with the most of them.

Rewarding the players for planning when that card to comes into play, IMO, hurts the experience more than what the mechanic achieves. The focus as a Hero should be kicking butt in the Arena, not thinking about the show's rating or when they are going to commercials.

unless you are using deck manipulation you don't plan on Fickle Fans, esp. when you are close enough that it can end the game.

If you are using deck manipulation then okay, you are outplaying the Arena Master at her own game.  Otherwise you are banking on a card coming at the right time, which is a risky move.

It is a much better approach to get out in front and just push through.  Intentionally staying close but behind can work, but it can cost you the match if the card doesn't come in time.

Waiting for fans while intentionally under earning points is like not playing cards because at any time La Capitan could destroy a few of them.  Getting out in front is almost always the better option.

Your argument hinges on the assumption that Fickle Fans fills a "Catch Up Mechanic" type role.

What if I told you that Fickle Fans isn't a "Catch Up Mechanic" and never was intended to be so?

I'll let you stew on that for a bit.

Yeah, I got the impression that Fickle Fans was meant to be more of a "Screw everything" card, the way That Card is, or Sedative Flechettes, or Devious Disruption. I think the goal is to add some chaos to what would otherwise be a fairly staid game of "Get the lead and just keep playing 'til you win."

I often like to root for the underdog. So, the losing team has a good chance of winning my favor. In the Bloodsworn Colosseum, I guess that’d make them the winning team.
That’s the effect Fickle Fans suggests to me.

Wow, condescension much! I like it. More since your post is quite empty besides that.

Ok, let's "stew" on it a minute, since you are clearly way ahead of me here and I need to catch up. And I'm taking your word here as good as all the designers and delta playtesters, it's not like you are patronizing me just because you felt like it (let's remember this is a firendly forum).

What would I call a card that removes victory points from the winning side side and gives them to the losing side? Well, it's not catch up, ok. Let's call it "pool-token-moving-card-from-winning-to-losing". Now that I have a good label for the mechanic, pool-token-moving-card-from-winning-to-losing, let's see if the arguments I wrote in the post still stand.

Uhm, my points seems to still stand that what the card does hurts the gaming experience more than it helps it, since you can have the winner of the game decided but something different than the rest of the game has been about. It's cool to have something that relates to the crowds vouching for the underdog. But even if we decided it's a "underdog appreciation" mechanic, I still think it was not well implemented and there were better ways to do it (examples mentioned previously). I'm sorry if your playtester ego is hurt because I don't think this was as good as it could have been when I had no participation in it's creation or testing (and here I'm only calling out Foote on this). And I'm pissed that I tried to articulate what was my valuation of the card, what I think was wrong and how would I go to improve it and receive such a dismissive response. I know this is the game's forum, where the biggest fans are, but seriously it would help a lot if criticism to the game was not taken personally and not counter-argued at that level.

Now, that being said, I have no reason to change my mind so far. Phanta added some cool info about what is to plan for that card, silopolis and Trajector added their interpretation about the card. And while I may have nothing in particular to respond to them their post are desirable because they, who seem to not agree with what I posted, provide info which I might have not thought about and might bring our positions closers.

PS: About the "Screw Everything" idea, it doesn't hold. Well, the comparison to the other cards doesn't. Devastating Aurora, Sedative Flechettes, Devious Disruption and others are reset cards to avoid Heroes getting a set up so powerful it makes the rest of the game trivial. The analogy to those cards would be something like removing all titles from Heroes and putting them back in the Title Deck or Title play area. And what I mentioned about other implementations does address the "Get the lead and just keep playing 'til you win" point.

1. Your stew is boiling. Blow on it before you sip it.

2. You didn't label a mechanic as much as you just kinda  restated exactly what the card physically does. Not quite the same thing, though I feel you are just being a bit cheeky.

3. Your argument from the original post is that Fickle Fans doesn't work well as a Catch Up mechanic. And I can't help but to agree with you on that point. However it's not meant as a Catch Up mechanic which still means the entire basis for what you are arguing needed to be rethought. It's a pure Reversal of Fortune mechanic, which aims to serve a totally different purpose. And honestly Fickle Fans fills that particular type of role perfectly. While at the same time, it trys to capture the feeling of how paper thin public opinions can be and how easily they can turn on a dime, which is a theme that strongly resonates with people's real lives (sports, politics, ect) and it applies directly to the backstory and win condition of the Bloodsworn Arena. If you want to discuss the merits of reversal of fortune mechanics I'm all for it, but lets keep in mind what that is trying to accomplish and if there are other ways to do it while still filling a strong thematic need (and I am of the opinion that the thematic pros of the card heavily outweighs the mechanic cons).

...mechanics that when triggered change who is in the lead or decide who is the winner are bad

Please apologise now.

if I see another incendiary post on this thread I'm going to lock it.

I never, ever want to see people being rude. You may well be offended by things people write. I know I have been. Even so, please either find a polite way to point out that you're offended, or don't do it. You are welcome to send a private message to the mods if you don't want to directly engage with someone that has offended you.

Nah, I was being as much as an ass as you had.

]It's a pure Reversal of Fortune mechanic, which aims to serve a totally different purpose.

I am humbled. I was not aware of a "Reversal of Fortune" mechanic existed. Do you have a link were I can read a definition of it? I was not able to find one after a bit of Google search. My appreciation so far from the name and from, huh, a card in Munchkin is that a random event makes the loser win (and/or make the winner lose) just because. And well in Munchkin it rather falls into the "Take That" category.
If that's the case, well, it looks just like a bad version of Catch-Up. I mean "totally different purpose" in this case is to have the loser be the winner (when the card is played) instead of having the loser be closer to the winner and have a chance at a comeback. And that that is a desirable thing. Seriously, what it does is bad howerer you want to call it.

In the end it's subjective if it represents the crowd's favour well or if it doesn't. But if we are drawing comparisons from the real world, in no popular sport the underdog team is awarded free goals just because the crowd feels like it. There are sports with Handicaps, like Polo, but that's related to previous results. The closest we would have is reality-like TV shows were which participant keeps playing and which one is kicked out of the competition is decided by the audience's vote. So the analogy there would be that the crowd always like the one who is 'losing' within the show and wants to make them win. Not my cup of tea, but neither are those shows. And they are not usually about physical competitions but about artistic and/or social performances. So IMO, no, Fickle Fans is not good thematically and it doesn't capture the audience shifts moods in the scenario the heroes are presented.

Why? Happens all the time in games. Especially when one team does something to score points to get ahead of the other team. Is that not a mechanic that triggered a change in who is in the lead?
Because in this case it's a random event, tied to who is winning. Fickle Fans might do nothing or win/lose you the game. It's not someone doing something in particular to put them ahead. Throughout the game you are winning points by dealing damage and earning titles and that has a clear thematic tie in. Now the game might be decided by something totally different. Just because. That's anti-climatic (a game  example was given in this same thread). And that's basically why the card is being called out.

Did you just say rewarding players for strategic planning around potentially bad cards and situations is bad?
Yes, because it pulls you off the theme. Card counting is not a desired behaviour in thematic games. Risk management is, but if players are aware of what's the risk involved. How to convince a player that the crowd will like it better if his Hero just sits around and does nothing that turn, while they have enjoyed see him kicking butt and taking names? Just because you know which is the last card in Kaargra's deck? It's impossible not to reward deck knowledge in this kind of game, more since cards have a variable power. But that knowledge should not steer you to 'game' the system, to take actions totally off the theme. I can get behind Fickle Fans being exploited after deck manipulation because that means that some off-the-arena action was taken by the Heroes to improve their situation.

1. Your stew is boiling. Blow on it before you sip it.[…]

6. No need to appologize for anything buddy, you didn't hurt my feelings about anything. You sound more hurt than me. Sorry if I was dismissive towards you. Lets hug it out.
   There's a difference between being a jerk and being cheeky. And as said before, the thing that is off in both your posts is the lack of actual content.

I would suggest that there are other cards which can be as table-turning as Fickle Fans. Okay, so Fickle Fans can make you lose by bringing about the alternate loss condition of "Kaargra gets too many points" if you were at the "heroes have nearly enough points" status. But Devious Disruption can make you lose if you're at the "heroes have a whole load of equipment/ongoings" status by making you either nuke your stuff and take a bit of damage or nuking some/none of it and taking more/lots of damage and thus probably ending the game through hp incapacitation. Technological Singularity is the same, at least for equipment-heavy heroes who're set up with a lot of stuff, and that one doesn't even give you a choice about whether or not to destroy it. It just does and then you get hit based on how much of your stuff got broken, which can easily incap Omni-10 instantly if he's got most of his stuff out.

I'm not sure how Fickle Fans is really any different - if it comes out in Kaargra's favour then you're just losing by a different way than by running out of hp. And ven then you're not guaranteed to instantly lose, you just might be close to it if the point total is nearly at the victory point.

The issue is not being just table-turning but also random, disconnecting from the rest of the Villain theme, and punishing the side ahead disregardless of how much impact the punishment has. I'm pretty sure this thread would not exist if Fickel Fans said "H-2" instead of H.

The difference with the cards mentioned is that equipment is not a win condition. You can choose to fight Baron Blade and Omnitron with basically no equipment/ongoing and still win (and I mean that ignoring how hard that would be). You can't beat Kaargra without pool tokens.

Devious Disruption and Singularity would fit the analogy if Fickle Fans hit the team that had the most Titles. You don't actually need Titles to beat Kaargra but it's rather diffiult to do it without them.

And the narrative is also different. In BB and Omni thematically they pulled out the big guns and the fight continues, the flow of the story is not interrupted. In Kaargra the audience like to see the gladiators beat each other. No, suddenly they reward the ones who were not giving a good show. And back again liking the ones fighitng. There's a disconnect there.

I mean, what reaction do you have in a game when you see those cards? BB/Omni makes me curse out loud. Fickle Fans made me go "Eh... okay, whatever".

The thing is, you do need hit points in order to win - cards like Devious Disruption and Technological Singularity deprive you of those, as Fickle Fans deprives you of Victory Points (or are they called Favour Points, I can't remember now) and if the numbers go against you enough, you lose. And it's only H - that's three whole points if you only have three heroes. Okay so if you have five that's a quarter of what you need to win, but with five heroes you should in theory have more means in which to earn points back again ;).

I'm not so fussed about it being "thematic". I mean, this is a card game, not an RPG. If I want to be sat at a table pretending to be a character fighting an enemy, I'll play DnD or something ;). I'm not RPing when I play Sentinels, though I am playing a game in which the bad guy's hp has to hit zero before mine do (unless I'm fighting the Dreamer ;)).

Fickle Fans is just that, about the fans being fickle - changing their minds on a whim. I seem to recall that happens in the film "Gladiator" in that scene where MAximus (the main good guy in case you haven't seen it) is among those chained togther with crappy weapons playing the part of the "barbarian horde" intended to be wiped out by the "mighty champions" (or whatever the announcer calls them, I've only seen it once and it was around the time the film came out so I can't fully remember every detail) who're guys in chariots armed with much better weapons which I think include bows and arrows or some other kind of ranged attack. So they get all the cheers. But Maximus, having been a general in the army, gets his fellow slaves to team up and work together and actually win because he knows (or I think someone told him earlier, possibly the trainer guy) that true victory comes from having the audience on your side. So he co-ordinates his team to win the fight and ends with the crowd cheering him ("Are you not entertained?"). So the chariot guys entered the fight with loads of Favour Points but then Maximus and team fought really well and the crowd went "Oh hey, actually those guys are really cool, lol the barbarians are beating the Romans this is kind of funny" and started cheering for them instead. Max got the crowd on-side and wins in another way besides beating all the enemies (though he does that too, of course).

Anyway, there are only two copies of the card in the deck, just as there seem to be two copies of most of the really horrible cards in the game (Devious Disruption, Aurora, Flechettes, Singularity, EPE…), so that's a 2-in-25 chance that one will come out each time a card is played. That's pretty small, less than 10%. And surely you'll only lose if it puts Kaargra to like, 19 points and then she immediately earns another one…which I suppose she might since if it comes out in the Play phase then various gladiators (and herself) probably still get to act in the End phase. Still, if that happens, the reverse could happen in another game. And anyway, it then gives you a reason to fight her again for revenge and kick her arse :D.

I look at Fickle Fans the same way I look at any villain card that heals the villain: It sets back the work the heroes have done. We've had non-Kargra games in which we were on course to win and one healing card from the villain allowed them to survive long enough to finish off the heroes. It's the same situation, it's just using HP as the counter instead of the pools. Admittedly, the HP scenario isn't an instant win, but it can result in a win that can't be stopped when a loss was expected. 

I actually like that Fickle Fans can go both ways, though. 

In the end it's subjective if it represents the crowd's favour well or if it doesn't. But if we are drawing comparisons from the real world, in no popular sport the underdog team is awarded free goals just because the crowd feels like it

You have a thematic disconnect here. The pool in the Arena deck does not represents "points" that we score on a scoreboard. It is supposed to be a representation of how the crowd feels about our heros. Without the "favor of the crowd", they can never leave. 

You're right no team is given free goals because the crowd feels like it in real life. But that's not remotely close to whats being portrayed here.

So the analogy there would be that the crowd always like the one who is 'losing' within the show and wants to make them win

Again, you're really off base here. If someone has higher crowd favor, then the crowd favors them. It's straight forward.  How does an instance of one Fickle Fans represent the crowd "always liking the underdog"? It's really just changing who the crowd starts to cheer for, it has nothing at all to do with who is "winning" or "losing". In fact, there are no points or scores in the arena to figure out a winner or loser. It has everything to do with how the crowd sees you. Crowds can be pretty hard to please sometimes. You could call them fickle, if you will.

Ameena is spot on with her Gladiator reference though. *Thumbs Up*

…and if Fickle Fans causes the heroes to win or lose, it’s just like the times in Gladiator or Spartacus when the official gives a thumbs-up or -down. Often, that gesture comes from the state of the crowd and not what the official actually wants to do.

After a long losing battle, the crowd cheers the heroes, Kaarga gives the heroes grudging respect, and lets them walk with their freedom. Or the heroes were doing well, but at the last minute the crowd sided with their favorite house gladiator…and Kaarga pointed her thumb at the ground.

Honestly, Fickle Fans seems like one of the MORE thematic “That Cards” in the game.

Fickle Fans is also a 2-in-15 chance of appearing due to the unique nature of Kaagra's decks.

Actually I believe a thumbs up was a bad thing, as it meant "Yes, go ahead and kill them". Thumbs down was "No, don't kill them, let them go". It's just that for us nowadays, a thumbs up is a good thing, and since getting killed is generally seen as not-very-good, to us we've come to associate the thumbs up with not getting stuck with a nasty pointy object. Or so I've heard (I think it was on QI) ;).

Well for the crowd at the time, the killing blow was the good thing. So Thumbs up makes sense.

I know this is completely subjective and I understand that what you are actually saying here is that you don't share the thematic considerations I'm bringing up. That's cool. But in a game like this theme is important, subjective, but important.

But this is not the analogy FFans creates. This translated in the game is that the team that had the least tools (in this case Equipment, Ongoing, Targets, Titles apply) beat the other guys (even stole some of those tools) and the crowd cheered when they won, when they earned those 'points' by themselves. The crowd didn't cheered on them when they were losing, bloodied and dying just because they were behind.

What Rabit says about HP healing card is closer to FFans. IMO FFans translates to what Devious Disrpution (or similar card) does would be something like "If the Heroes have more than 15 HP, deal them 20 damage and heal the Villain 20 HP. If they have less than 5 HP, heal them for 20 and deal the Villain 20 damage." Numbers can change but the idea stands. I'm also like that FFans can go either way, I'm just not happy about how it does it.

And I seem to address that exactly after the part you quoted, you know, when I mention it's closer to TV shows, ones I'm not a fan of? And the game has specific rules of how to achieve the crowd's favour, analogous to scoring goals in some sports, and it works as a scoreboard since it determines the winner and you can tell who is closer to winning from looking at it. So the interpretation clash is between FFans and the Favour token rules. You have two different mechanics (dealing damage and who has the most tokens) to represent the same thing and in my case it creates a conflict.

Because of how the card is implemented, it always favours the one who has the least tokens which means it's the one who has, in it's sum, dealt the least damage and earned the least number titles.

Btw, what about that link?

That's cool, but we have a card that depcits that situation, Bloodsworn Judgement, and it has nothing to do with it.

I feel like we are beating a dead horse on this argument.  

Some folks like it and some folks don't for whatever reason. People didn't like Fixer and Expat either for various reasons both understandable and not-so-understandable, but the tide has turned with them recently. Fickle Fans will see it's day as well.

here you go


How about the idea that the crowd likes to see the fight last longer, and don't find it fun when one side steamrollers the other?

I know that's what I want out of a sporting event - an exciting, closely-matched fight. I watched the World Snooker final the other night and while I liked both players I really wanted the "underdog" to win. But I didn't just want him to win, I wanted a good fight. I wanted to feel like he's really achieved something. I often root for the losers and will them to snatch a few points back because sport is more exciting that way.

Going back to Gladiator, I believe that the "are you not entertained?" line comes in when Maximus has slaughtered his opponents in a particularly cocky way but the crowd boo him. He's essentially saying, "I killed people, isn't that what you like?" But that isn't the case really - sure, the audience likes the bloodshed, but what they really want to see is excitement, unpredictability, and "sport".

Some guy mowing everyone down with a machine gun wouldn't be entertaining in a gladiatorial arena, it would be boring. Now if someone fought back against the machine gun guy with their shortsword or something I'd be cheering them on and wanting them to win (not that I'd watch that kind of violent thing, but you know what I mean).

I thought that too and was going to point it out but went back and rewatched it before I did, I was right and wrong. He does do the merciless, no showmanship combat that you remember but his sheer I-don't-give-a-rats-ass-attitude wins the crowd over anyway, his attempt essentially backfires and proves it is what they want when you do it for yourself.

Now I’m just thinking of Mitchell and Webb’s snooker sketches.

They are absolute genius. I can't help but say "And that's a bad miss!" at semi-regular intervals while I'm watching. I do have a huge non-sexual crush on David Mitchell though, so that helps.

For the record Matchstickman, snooker is just an abstract dexterity board game, like Crokinole but with a stick and scoring areas on the edges. It's pretty clever and I enjoy it a lot.

I watch the Snooker too. Not avidly, but my dad has it on when it's on and so I see bits and pieces of it. So I saw maybe half of this year's World Championship and Ja'Ph' told me just as it was about to be over so I quickly logged onto the livestream on the BBC site in time to see Bingham win :D.

As for the Gladiator stuff, I think I've seen that film all the way through once, which was not long after it came out (when was that, like 2005 or something?) but other than that have occasionally seen bits and pieces when someone's been channel-hopping and it's been on or something. So I couldn't remember all the details exactly right ;). Anyway I don't have much more to add about the whole Kaarga deck thing for now, as I've only fought her a couple of times since getting that expansion and I don't recall Fickle Fans being much of a problem when it came out. I think once or twice we were losing so it helped us anyway :D. I know one time we have them both come out within a turn or two of each other so basically the second one negated the effect of the first :).

2000, according to Wikipedia. I know, I was surprised too.

Ah, that's a shame. You are aware that you basically discredited your previous arguments, right? You agreed that "Fickle Fans doesn't work well as a Catch Up" card but then couldn't back up that it was not a Catch Up card beyond changing the label.

And the irony of the link is that I can't be wrong in not liking the card. My valuation of the card may be wrong, but liking it's subjective. Even "bad Catch Up mechanic" is, in the end, subjective since it's based on convention. Bringing this up because of your comment on Fixer/Expat+FFans which makes it looks like you are saying that "People" were wrong in not liking those heroes, realized they were wrong and started appreciating them. And that the same thing will happen with FFans. I can't be wrong in liking/disliking them. I can be wrong in thinking they still suck butt, I can be wrong in thinking FFans is not such relevant card. But I can't be wrong in disliking it, like you can't be wrong in liking it.

I hope it's brought to attention that in this thread you dismissed, patronized and ridiculed me. Just for criticizing a card in the game (in a rather educated way I would add, compared to the OP). And that it got the endorsement of an important member of the community (unless I'm interpreting the image incorrectly). That is not an example of a friendly community but a think-alike community.

Well, that could be an interpretatonion but I can't visuallize it since it doesn't necessarily lenghten the game.

You use the word Irony almost as well as Alanis Morissette

I can be wrong in thinking [Expat/Fixer] still suck butt…

[/quote]

Which you are 

I hope it's brought to attention that in this thread you dismissed, patronized and ridiculed me. Just for criticizing a card in the game (in a rather educated way I would add, compared to the OP).

[/quote]

If you are going to play the martyr here, why would you throw in a cheapshot belittling the OP while you are chiding me for peeing in your cheerios? You kinda lost most of the credibility you had there. Great job.

Ow ow ow!  Guys!  Please relax!  PePe, it's clear tou really don't like Fickle Fans.  Others disagree with you.  Points made, yes?  Please let it go!  It is better to forgive than to keep attacking.  Be friends again.

Thanks, Donner. 

Yes, stop. Congratulations. At this point, if the Mods had the ability to lock a thread, this would be locked. (And when an Admin is available, it will be.)

[modvoice] Accept that we disagree and drop it, folks. You were already warned, once. I'm specifically speaking to both PePe and Foote - you know how to play nice, so do it.  [/ modvoice]

Until the thread is locked, how about we look at a picture of a cute ballerina!



The irony was that the link was to tell me I was wrong when you were proving yourself wrong.

Ah, you know I'm wrong before knowing why I would think that. Pity, it could have been an interesting discussion.

Cheapshot? I didn't use caps or hyperbole to state my arguments, I think it's quite a fair comparison. And you couldn't justify your behaviour in the thread other than again ridicule me.

On my behalf, I apologize for the random insult about your ego after you dismissive response. Clearly much of this discussion wouldn't have taken place if it was not relevant about being right or wrong.

In my opinion, Idesa is worse than FFans. FFans can at least be played around, Idesa is just annoying. Why does THIS get bonus favor? I don’t even get the concept, really. FFans can be annoying, but at least I understand it!