Inquisitor/Contessa interaction change(?)

[__Mac__]

Firstly, im NOT claiming to have been the first to propose this idea/change. That being said..

A change i'd like to propose to bgas coup is (if playing with inquisitor) then it should be counterable/blockable by contessa (if the inquisitor targets YOU). If the inquisitor wants to exchange with the deck then it can only be challenged (not blockable by contessa in this case).

This would make the normally somewhat underwhelming contessa more viable against what is universally agreed upon as the most powerful (too strong?) inquisitor.
I know in bgg's coup forums the creator Rikki Tahta agreed that this would be a great idea.
(Can find link if needed/wanted).

[quietmint]

I believe you're referring to this BGG thread, which suggests a variant where the Inquisitor's Examine action can be blocked by the Contessa.

I'll think about it a bit more, but with Rikki's support for the idea I'm not opposed to this change.

[__Mac__]

That would be awesome and I feel it'd not only prompt more people to play with inquisitor but it would add more interaction = more mind games

[quietmint]

Implemented in version 200808-1912

[__Mac__]

Awesome! Nice work Mint!

[CB Droege]

Wait. Is this an official rule somewhere?

[quietmint]

Well the Inquisitor isn't part of any "official" rules, it's not included in the physical game sold in the US by Indie Boards & Cards. Further, the company refuses to publish any official version of the game rules online.

If you're playing with the Inquisitor, you're already off-book. Having said that, I agree with the basic premise that the Examine action is too strong during late game when your opponents have just a single card. It makes bluffing impossible for that opponent, which is the whole point of the game. A post from the game designer himself acknowledging this problem and accepting this as an improvement is as "official" as anything else.

[RicardoRix]

The Inquisitor and factions are part of the expansion. That's pretty official even if they've not online published the rules. I have the rules in the box it came in.

If it's a game variant then shouldn't it be added as such...?

The game designer also says that it 'sounds like a good idea' without actually trying it. This is a very loose argument to make a permanent change.

Bluffing is central to the game but not the be all and end all, as the designer suggests the late game is much more about positioning.

So my opponent has the inquisitor, so what - I have 7 coins!

[__Mac__]

So youre main counter to someone having/using an Inquisitor.. is to have 7 coins.. which is pretty situational, I feel (having 7 coins AND KNOWING someone has inquisitor). Idk if I agree with that

In the handful of games ive played (on here and irl) ive played with both rule sets (Contessa able to block Inquisitors examine action and not) and I strongly feel this way is balanced (as given my reasoning above) tho these are based on my OPINIONS (and the majority of all the people ive played with) q:

I should also care to mention that in all honesty I prefer to just play play with the Ambassador rather than the Inquisitor (as do most people in general including the different play groups ive tested this variant with but they do feel like two different games to me (in a good way) which makes it an interesting way to sort of mixup things (if you play this game TOO much, like me)

Just my thoughts. Im sure they can revert the Inquisitor back to the way it was if enough feedback is given(?) Tho again, IF/WHEN im playing with Inquisitor then I also let Contessa block its examine action.
Interestingly enough, thoughtout my somewhat obsession (before) of looking for variants of the game this one seems the most popular/agreed upon (theres a few different sites that care to mention this variation as official/unofficial) @_@

Edit: Also, would you do if say TWO or more players have/claim Inquisitor? Kill one even tho it might put you in an unfavorable position? Attempt to call out theur POSSIBLE bluff? Or.. maybe NOW use/claim Contessa (and now THEY are stuck in the hotseat of whether to call YOUR possible bluff OR leave you alone believing you might have Contessa) q:

Double edit: Wow! Awesome collection of games played (on your profile)

[RicardoRix]

I'm saying it should be added as a game variant.

In the year of the dragon had an official rule change from 6 to 7 to buy a privilege. On BGA you can play either option: new edition or old edition.

I'm not totally against the rule change per se, but the evidence as quoted is pretty weak. The rest of this post is superfluous to the argument, but if you're interested on my take on the game:

If it's 1 on 1 then the duke, assassin or generally getting first to 7 coins will make the inquisitor look stupid.

The reason I don't play coup on BGA is the need to be able to look your opponents in the eye, and being able to debate and back stab. This is a social interaction game, that does not translate at all well on BGA and it is the real meat to the game. A common tactic to use maybe to say 'if you steal from me then I'll assassinate you next', which may well get you banned from playing on BGA for kingmaking or otherwise offending people.
As the game designer suggests it's positioning which is all important. If someone has the best position then they're a natural target to be eliminated first. The power of cards and abilities is secondary. If it was, then surely the duke's action should be block-able to counter balance the ability, but there isn't because that's not the point of the game.

Maybe the inquisitor 'spoils' the bluffing element which could be seen as ruining the fun, that much I understand, but as it stands over-powered / under-powered is not relevant, anyone can pretend to be anyone and you should have talked your way out of a losing situation before-hand.