Winn81 wrote: ↑15 April 2024, 16:52
Two of my last 3 opponents ended the game with 5 lady's maids. They lost, but it's really off-putting. While it might be a losing strategy, if they do it against new players it could scare them away from the game. There's no reason they need to do it other than to be mean. I don't see how upstairs downstairs helps, the housekeeper's room might not even come out.
I suggest a rule change - your last servant of each type can't be stolen. That would solve the problem. Let's call it the "last loyal servant" variant.
If a player is aware of this playstyle, it shouldn't typically end with all 5 servants in another's possession, unless you willingly sacrificed the servant for an advantage. At worst, you'll both tussle back and forth for a purple.
I have mixed feelings on the suggested rule - on the one hand, servant stealing is too easy in U/D. The game would benefit from that move being slightly more limited. On the other, without the expansion, it's a high cost move (an effectively wasted turn) that's pretty much only worth it to punish a greedy, overextended opponent by taking a servant needed for a key event. It adds a fair bit of depth to the game and the rule change would remove that.
I would like to suggest an alternate, optional rule - stealing a servant comes with a cost of ~$200.
This isn't prohibitive, but I think it would encourage more tactical decision-making. Right now, in U/D, stealing a servant seems like the obvious, almost necessary play in mid to late game.
There's no reason they need to do it other than to be mean.
I respectfully disagree. It's situational, but it can be a fairly strong play if you know when to do so. Men and women each provide different ratios of benefits, and I've found my own strategy consistently benefits from playing women more often than men. The gender ratio of my cards rarely changes this unless I draw an unlikely number of high-scoring men - at which point I can usually pivot without many issues. Hence I'm likely to take extra ladies maids. I don't usually go all out unless there's strong reason to do so, but it can be situationally useful to slow down an opponent who gained multiple powerful draws if they got careless in the process.
I do think the game should discourage aggressive stealing a bit more, as it isn't fun to be on the wrong end of it. I'm unlikely to play in such a way in a friendly setting outside arena or tournaments - which are environments where the game ought to be played more competitively - for that reason.
Hence why I think paying a fee to hire a servant is reasonable. It's a deterrent, but still allows a player to make the play if they're willing and able to pay the cost. Perhaps the fee could be waived if the person you are stealing from has more of that type of servant than you do, but I'm unsure if that would be an unwelcome inconsistency or not.
Two of my last 3 opponents ended the game with 5 lady's maids. They lost, but it's really off-putting.
EDIT: I see I was one of those opponents. While I cannot remember the exact details, in our game, both you and I had primarily high-scoring female cards and at some point you went from a solid to a prohibitive lead on the final courtship. I recall I didn't expect to win, but slowing down your usage of your best guests while increasing my own ability to play my best guests seemed like my one shot at turning the game around.
It didn't work out in the end. It was in no way malicious. You played that one well and congratulations on the win.
