Banlist Discussion!

[Midilobusim]

Is it that hard to create an optional banlist, chosen by game host?
I like some of the banned cards, but some (caravan and work certificate/nightworker) just annoy the heck out of the table.

[cranesflyhigh]

I would assume there issues with that judging by how earlier this year the game went down for several days once they rearranged cards by decks. Might also be too finicky - not sure, Acerbic could tell you more I think.

[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

It was pointed out to me that there are some other unplayable cards missing from my list. So an expanded list:

occs
Catcher
Paymaster
Hunstman
Loudmouth
Curator
Roughcaster
Minstrel
Breeder Buyer
Resource Analyzer
Twin Researcher
Pig Stalker
Hardworking Man
Furniture Carpenter
Blackberry Farmer

minors
Perennial Rye
Lifting Machine
Growing Farm


There are various other bad cards that could be considered and the stats suggest are terrible, like:

Sugar Baker
Forest Scientist
Cooperative Plower
Heart of Stone

But they don't meet my criteria, as I have seen situations where they were playable.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of banning some bad cards. I don't see how having dross in the draft makes the game more interesting or fun.

[cranesflyhigh]

Oh, I completely forgot about Resource Analyzer! That might be the single worst card in the game

But I do second this. I would prefer the cards to be buffed in a dream scenario, but as that is highly unlikely, getting rid of this garbage would be nice. Not great to see when in round 6 draft you have the choice between resource analyzer, roughcaster and loudmouth.

[torvaldur_makan]

I'm a proponent of banning the very worst cards. What is happening now is that you draft and you can end up with a bunch of these low power cards and none really good. If you're at a high-level table and an opponent gets something like Childless, you are pretty much screwed.

Yes, people will argue that you can play higher draft formats, which I do, but these situations still occur. Getting 8/400 vs. 10/400 in your first pack is still not that big a difference.

I like cards to have power, which is why I don't argue that Childless and the like should be banned. I rather have the bottom banned. I hate ending up in a game where I don't want to play any of the cards in my hand and end up at 37 points.

[cranesflyhigh]

I like 8 or 9 btoh, although I prefer 8. 10 for me seems like overkill. The amount of possible quality just forces people to overfocus on the cards and ignore the board more, which I feel makes the games kinda wonky. I do not want superior quality cards flooding the game, therefore cutting the chaff seems a good solution. I have no idea if something like this was ever implemented, nor do I know if buffing said weak cards would be an option - does anyone know how cards like Furnisher got "UPDATED"?

[alexwjb]

I like 8 or 9 btoh, although I prefer 8. 10 for me seems like overkill. The amount of possible quality just forces people to overfocus on the cards and ignore the board more, which I feel makes the games kinda wonky. I do not want superior quality cards flooding the game, therefore cutting the chaff seems a good solution. I have no idea if something like this was ever implemented, nor do I know if buffing said weak cards would be an option - does anyone know how cards like Furnisher got "UPDATED"?

Furnisher

Digging into the history of bugs, maybe this was the one that let to it being updated? https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=51078

It looks like when it was first implemented, the card only gave you one extra improvement when you built multiple rooms at the same time. My guess is that the text was updated to make it completely clear you could build an improvement for each new room you built (once this was fixed).

I think as a general rule BGA does not support cards being changed, unless the publisher agrees that the card is not working as intended. I hope that isn't true, as I would love it if we could balance some of the wonky cards. There are all kinds of improvements that could be made. Lots of the bad cards could be made playable and interesting, and lots of the busted cards could be made reasonable. But unless I hear otherwise I don't think it is possible.

Draft Count

I support a higher draft count now that the banlist has got rid of Teacher's Desk, Craft Teacher, Freshman and so on, which were all broken when there were more cards to choose from. Without them, I think the game would be more fun with more options in the draft. So I'm hoping for draft 7/9 next season.

Either way, I also support banning the trash. I can't see an argument for having unplayable cards in a draft. All it does is randomly make some players' choices worse arbitrarily. Put another way - if these cards weren't currently in the game, would anyone be pushing to include Resource Analyzer, Catcher etc? I don't think so. But let's see if others agree.

[cranesflyhigh]

Ah, so Furnisher is more like updated to accurately reflect how the card was intended to function. I assume straight up changing cards is out of the question then? I know there are proposals to implement on this site that people can vote, but I have never seen anything of this sort before. If someone who has deeper insight into inner workings of this lurks here (maybe acerbic?): is something like this possible?

We could also a theory buffing card thread even if something like buffing on the site isn't an option. I think that could be a fun mental exercise.

[natsumeg]

The current ban list for strong cards and the ban list for weak cards are required for different reasons, so if it were to be implemented, I would like it to be a different option.

[torvaldur_makan]

The current ban list for strong cards and the ban list for weak cards are required for different reasons, so if it were to be implemented, I would like it to be a different option.

That's a great suggestion.

A top banlist and a bottom banlist. You can select to use either or both.