Banlist Discussion!

[alexwjb]

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.

Completely agree, great idea!

Have an overpowered cards list and a weak cards list. Then they can be chosen by players for games, and voted on by Gurus.

Ok! So what do people think of the list of bad cards?

[cranesflyhigh]

I agree with the set of bad cards, and the different lists feels right too. Is there a list somewhere of the existing cards in the set? Might want to look over for more chaff, as they are pretty much irrelevant after the draft.

On a related note: I just had a game with draft consisting of Furniture Carpenter, Roughcaster and Loudmouth in a single pack. It does not give basically blank occs to the last 2 ppl in the draft getting it, it also limits the choices of previous players with occs that probably does not fit their gameplan all that much.

[alexwjb]

I agree with the set of bad cards, and the different lists feels right too. Is there a list somewhere of the existing cards in the set? Might want to look over for more chaff, as they are pretty much irrelevant after the draft.

On a related note: I just had a game with draft consisting of Furniture Carpenter, Roughcaster and Loudmouth in a single pack. It does not give basically blank occs to the last 2 ppl in the draft getting it, it also limits the choices of previous players with occs that probably does not fit their gameplan all that much.

To look at all the cards, I start a solo game with the drafting option to choose a hand from all of the cards.

Then quit the game. If you concede, you will get an entry in your game history calling you "Loser". No one needs that.

[cranesflyhigh]

To look at all the cards, I start a solo game with the drafting option to choose a hand from all of the cards.

Then quit the game. If you concede, you will get an entry in your game history calling you "Loser". No one needs that.

Oh, good to know, thanks! Game history sounds like a bully!

[Acerbic]

Hi, just wanted to address a few points quickly

- Custom banlists are not feasible from a technical standpoint, from what I can tell this is impossible on BGA
- Different banlists for different player counts are inadvisable IMO, this fragments the discussion and will create confusion
- Banning X amount of weak cards is a valid suggestion that has a good amount of support behind it. I'm personally in favor, but we might need to check with the publisher. There's more real-life precedence for banning strong cards, so I would want their approval
- If approved and implemented, I am also in favor of having this as a separate option from the banlist that's already in place

[cranesflyhigh]

Hi, just wanted to address a few points quickly

- Custom banlists are not feasible from a technical standpoint, from what I can tell this is impossible on BGA
- Different banlists for different player counts are inadvisable IMO, this fragments the discussion and will create confusion
- Banning X amount of weak cards is a valid suggestion that has a good amount of support behind it. I'm personally in favor, but we might need to check with the publisher. There's more real-life precedence for banning strong cards, so I would want their approval
- If approved and implemented, I am also in favor of having this as a separate option from the banlist that's already in place

Woohoo, that is good to hear! :3

I am going to go an sift through the cards, maybe get some discussion going on them. Bans in this thread had some reasoning behind it too, so this might as well.

[alexwjb]

There is now a dedicated thread for a weak card banlist here: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39894

[alexwjb]

It's been a long time now since any changes to the Strong banlist, which is a good thing. But I thought I'd open the discussion as there are a few cards I propose change status, which overall would reduce the number of banned cards.

1) Lodger (proposal: ban for annoyance)
This card is certainly not overpowered, but my heart sinks when I see it in a draft. It is so often played badly in a way which strongly hurts other peoples' games. I think the game overall would be more fun without it.

2) Guest Room (proposal: remove from banlist)
Guest Room is a very strong card, but not overpowered (it ranked 39th for PWR out of 402 minors in the last stats drop). It's a card which encourages less conventional play, and where committing to it does not arbitrarily ruin other peoples' games.

3) Pulverizer Plow (proposal: remove from banlist)
This card was similarly ranked to Guest Room last time (36th for PWR). My current sense is the clay action space cards are all a bit underpowered (Collier, Mineralogist, Clay Deposit etc). Pulverizer Plow is very good, but again I like that it encourages different play.

4) Garden Designer (proposal: remove from banlist)
This one I am least sure on. In the last stats drop it was only very briefly in play, so it has very small numbers. It's interesting because its average draft position was not actually very high (picked at position 3.73 on average), but its PWR was nevertheless comparable to the strongest non-banned occs (similar to Childless and Full Farmer). I again like it encouraging less usual strats (massive food hoarding + empty fields), but I might be underestimating just how strong it is.

[cranesflyhigh]

Lodger: I am very okay with it being banned. Exactly due to annoyance factors.

Guest room: I am also fine with it being unbanned.

Pulverizer plow: This we disagree on. I would prefer it staying banned, not just due to strength, but how it warps the game around clay spots for everyone. Dislike the dynamics of it.

Garden designer: I have no strong opinions this, as I have never played with the card. Unsure.

[silverriver]

Hi Alex, I agree on removing Guest Room and Pulverizer Plow from the banlist. They are somewhat akin to lover and forest plow (1 clay vs 2 wood) which aren't currently banned. I'm in favor of keeping lodger in the game and not banning it solely for annoyance.