Banlist Discussion!

[Duxa_]

Any thoughts on C133: Soldier? If combined with gain Stone cards it can easily do 10+ points.

[Ranior]

I'm currently fine with no new bans for next season.

I agree Archway can get a little annoying, but I really don't think Archway is too strong. Yes 2c for 4vp is good, but the no occupations thing really does balance it out nicely--it's not that strong to spend early actions just for points, and you basically can't play it late for points because you almost certainly have occupations down. I agree it slows things down a bit and occasionally leads to some annoying combos, but that's true of quite a few cards. So personally I'm arguing to leave it.

I think Beer Table may be the strongest non banned card, but I think it's about in the right spot. Yes it leads to strong games and has a lot of support cards to make it work, but I also don't think it's instantly a win nor that much better than some of the other cards in the set. Forest Reviewer exists in a similar spot--yes sometimes it goes really well and is very strong, but other games not so much. I also disagree there's no counterplay with it. I do agree Forest Reviewer is one of the strong unbanned occupations, but I think it's at a good point where it's one of the strongest cards left, but about as good as some of the other best cards.

Stats would really help here with knowing if there are any cards helping to anomalous wins, but I feel like the game is at a pretty nice point with the current ban list.


As for Soldier, I don't think there's any good argument for banning it. Yes you can score quite a bit with it, but the cost to do so is very high--it's not that easy to generate a lot of stone and wood, and you're usually better off spending that stone and wood to do things on your farm. I've not seen many Soldier games even win to be honest, certainly not enough to think it needs a ban.

[Duxa_]

As for Soldier, I don't think there's any good argument for banning it. Yes you can score quite a bit with it, but the cost to do so is very high--it's not that easy to generate a lot of stone and wood, and you're usually better off spending that stone and wood to do things on your farm. I've not seen many Soldier games even win to be honest, certainly not enough to think it needs a ban.

Thanks for the feedback. Had a few nasty losses where I thought I was doing well just for Soldier to pop out of nowhere and 2nd place leapfrog ahead. Wasnt suggesting it needs ban necessarily was just wondering about other's opinion, ive only seen it played 2 or 3 times in my games (I play with all decks so cards tend to not come up often).

Agree Archway seems fine. Its a specific move to grab clay at the start and spend it on Archway instead of a fireplace.

Beer Table can be nasty with how easy it is to play and potential 12 points it can give you.

1 action for wood, 1 action to play, 2 action for grain, 2 action for fields, 1 action for sow. Of course assuming no blocks, but these actions are generally not super fought over (especially since 2 wood would do from the Grove). Thats 7 actions for 16 points (12 from Beer Tale + 4 from fields).

Decent points per action. Comboed with a way to plow fields and/or gain grain it becomes stronger.

You are giving away 3*6 = 18 food to other players (in a 4 player game), but that also means that there is more food on the board for you to take.

You are also spending 7 out of 8 moves before 1st harvest for this. So you will probably have to spend the 8th one to gain food. With late growth may not have much of an effect (especially if you time playing Beer Table with grabbing 1st player). Even forgoing first harvest for Beer Table still 7 actions for 14 points is solid 2 points per action.

Alternatively if you break up sowing 2nd time until later, then its 1 action for wood, 1 action to play, 1 action for field, 1 action for grain, 1 action to sow. 5 of the first 8 actions before growth are used for this. Then later on (before 4th harvest) would need to do another grain and another sow. still 7 actions for 12 points, but 3 points less from fields since you only have one. Meaning 7 actions for 13 points. But may not matter as it can be made up via Cultivation later. But if you go this route you would have 3 actions to grab stuff needed for expansion (1 for wood (possible if first wood move was Forrest and 2nd move is 4+ pieces), 1 for reed 1 for Farm Expansion) this does mean you got no actions for food, so would be hard to pull off in early growth games, but no problem if growth comes round 6 or 7. At the same time, the 12 point gain from Beer Table may be worth it to just grow 2nd.

[EuroGamez]

Would it be possible to have a different ban list for different player counts?

Some cards on the current ban list are only really problematic in 4-player games in my opinion and would be fine in competetive 2 player games.

Some card that imo lose a lot of power lever in two player games, usually due to either:
- Fewer acululation spaces
- Less other players between your actions
- Small house strategies are bad:
- * No R/S/F action space especially no early stone unless playing with additional AS

Examples:
- Work certificate
- Big Country
- Informant *
- Carrige Trip
- Cross Cut Wood
- Pulzerizer plow

[alexwjb]

I also like the idea of different ban lists for different player counts.

In terms of cards to ban, I'm thinking about Forest Clearer. It's so easy to play and very strong in every game that it's played. I would rate it as stronger than Informant, which is banned.

In general I'm against many more cards being banned, and Forest Clearer is fun to have. It's also not really annoying to play against, except for just being generally a great card. So I'd be fine with keeping it. But if we ever get stats again, we should check it isn't busted.

[cranesflyhigh]

I am honestly fine with the current banlist too. I wouldn't mind Archway banned, but not cause of strength, mostly cause it is really annoying on the board and makes the game less fun. I would be okay with Beer Table or Collector banned too as they can increase your score somewhat too easily, but then we could take a look at other cards like Cow Prince. Forest Clearer is very strong, but I would wager that say Kindling Gatherer is comparably strong, I am fine with both of them in the game.

In the current state I would much prefer that really bad cards that are mostly just blank or a trap be changed or removed. The top candidate for trap card imo is Future Building Site, which in 3 out of 3 games that I have seen it played resulted in the game being abandoned or the player playing it quitting, cause they did not understand that you are pretty much locked out of building rooms for a long time. At least it would need a text clarification, so games don't get ruined. Weak cards just dilute the draft. Cards like Loudmouth, Catcher, Minstrel or Elephantgrass Tower (just to name a few) are mostly duds that get left out of drafts anyway. I like niche cards for specific gameplans, but not cards that are so bad that you are better off not taking the action / paying the resource cost.

[alexwjb]

On the wording of Future Building Site. How about adding this text to the end?

"(This will prevent you from building a room.)"

I actually used the card non-ironically yesterday on a very strong table and it was important to my gameplan. But I agree it should be made clearer as it is ruining games.

In terms of banning weak cards. My preferred solution is to increase the draft count to 9 (or even 10), though that is up to the gurus. There aren't that many truly terrible cards in a set of nearly 800, so the draft count is much more important.

Having said that, I wouldn't be sad if we did ban some of the garbage. For fun, here is what my banlist would be of bad cards. My criteria is:

- Cards that I have never seen be good in any combo.
- Not fun to play with.

occs
Catcher
Paymaster
Hunstman
Loudmouth
Curator
Roughcaster
Minstrel

minors
Perennial Rye
Lifting Machine
Growing Farm

[cranesflyhigh]

I think that text would work for Future Building Site. I wouldn't mind it gone, as it is still a junk card in 99% of cases, but it does have its very narrow niche like in your game to have somewhat of a claim for a place.

I agree with the cards you've listed. Out of those only Huntsman was something I used to moderate effectiveness, but it was a very niche case and it still wasn't super good honestly. I listed Elephantgrass cause it is very costly, comes with inherent points and only somewhat okay if the game super reed rich and you couldn't get BMW. Even then it needs to be played somewhat early and is very expensive for a few points. I would need to look over the cards, cause I am sure there are still a lot of junk, but I can't remember top of my head as I mostly forget they even existed past the draft phase.

[alexwjb]

I've made a suggestion for new text on Future Building Site. Anyone who agrees please vote it up - https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=144697

[torvaldur_makan]

In the current state I would much prefer that really bad cards that are mostly just blank or a trap be changed or removed. The top candidate for trap card imo is Future Building Site, which in 3 out of 3 games that I have seen it played resulted in the game being abandoned or the player playing it quitting, cause they did not understand that you are pretty much locked out of building rooms for a long time. At least it would need a text clarification, so games don't get ruined. Weak cards just dilute the draft. Cards like Loudmouth, Catcher, Minstrel or Elephantgrass Tower (just to name a few) are mostly duds that get left out of drafts anyway. I like niche cards for specific gameplans, but not cards that are so bad that you are better off not taking the action / paying the resource cost.

I agree completely.