17 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Price of Failure was/is a major component in the Rainbow 9s builds which have been dominant lately. If you're going to make statements about the use rate of a card, you should at least understand what the larger meta is doing outside your area.

Pretty crippling uses off the top of my head:

- Leadership costs a full activation (Noble Sacrifice requires you to kill a character to get the same result)
- Quick Escape and Day is Ours are turn enders
- Every removal card becomes both a massive tempo boost and forces suboptimal use of the card. Best Defense is especially bad.
- Reckless Re-Entry can become a high-probability support removal
- Any events which depend on your opponent having dice are wasted (e.g. My Ally is the Force, No Mercy)
- Sabotage, Confiscation, Disarm... force an opponent to pay the cost and discard their own support/upgrade
- Trickery. Complete hand removal.

Not all of these are great cards and likely to see play, obviously, but they demonstrate the crazy impact Coercion could have.

In the absolute worst case, it will reveal your opponent's hand, cost them a card, and probably a resource or three. It's very likely to give you a solid tempo boost, guarantee you will claim that turn, and force a suboptimal use of whatever card you target. Even without being able to sculpt a truly devastating effect, that would be a pretty powerful card. Friends in Low Places is considered a very solid card for doing a third of that. Add in that it basically puts certain events back in the box because they're simply too risky to ever play again, and it's a stupidly powerful card.

14 hours ago, Palpster said:

I've forced people to Buy-Out for only 2 resources, to kneel a character with Leadership, to make an opponent waste 2 resources on Abandon All Hope when I had no resources left, to Fairtrade giving me 4 and them gaining 1 or 0, to waste their It's a Trap on their lone Rookie Pilot that was rolled in... This card is bonkers good, possibly the best in the set.

100% agree and borderline OP (It's ok, but might eventually need a rule on that kind of card, not errata, but eventually a limitation)

I use it in every of my yellow villain deck, even if it doesnt fit with the deck's theme.

For example, i use it in FN/IG (Don't juge me too much on this one, just a little), even if it does'nt really bellongs there. It makes IG looks good, the same as putting IG's next to FN...

Chak

18 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Price of Failure was/is a major component in the Rainbow 9s builds which have been dominant lately. If you're going to make statements about the use rate of a card, you should at least understand what the larger meta is doing outside your area.

Pretty crippling uses off the top of my head:

- Leadership costs a full activation (Noble Sacrifice requires you to kill a character to get the same result)
- Quick Escape and Day is Ours are turn enders
- Every removal card becomes both a massive tempo boost and forces suboptimal use of the card. Best Defense is especially bad.
- Reckless Re-Entry can become a high-probability support removal
- Any events which depend on your opponent having dice are wasted (e.g. My Ally is the Force, No Mercy)
- Sabotage, Confiscation, Disarm... force an opponent to pay the cost and discard their own support/upgrade
- Trickery. Complete hand removal.

Not all of these are great cards and likely to see play, obviously, but they demonstrate the crazy impact Coercion could have.

In the absolute worst case, it will reveal your opponent's hand, cost them a card, and probably a resource or three. It's very likely to give you a solid tempo boost, guarantee you will claim that turn, and force a suboptimal use of whatever card you target. Even without being able to sculpt a truly devastating effect, that would be a pretty powerful card. Friends in Low Places is considered a very solid card for doing a third of that. Add in that it basically puts certain events back in the box because they're simply too risky to ever play again, and it's a stupidly powerful card.

Rainbow 9's was a beast, you're right, and I forgot that it it played Price of Failure, but I'm not talking about the Meta from more than a month ago. We don't know what the meta is right now, it's still shaping up. We haven't had a major event since the release of EAW (at least not one where EAW was legal), and with rumors of impending erratas coming, the meta will shift even more.

There are good targets, I agree. But, I guess my point was that in any given deck how many targets will they be playing that you actually want to choose? With a majority of events in decks being removal, I don't think very many. We're going to have to disagree on choosing removal, most times I don't see that as the optimal choice. You're paying to make them do something they were likely going to do anyway, remove you best die when they have the chance. Yes, you have the opportunity to gain some tempo, but is it worth it? Maybe sometimes, but not always.

You're right in that the existence of Coercion is going to force a lot of cards out of the meta and make them unplayable, however I think that makes Coercion less of an auto-include as the meta develops. We'll see I guess.

5 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

Rainbow 9's was a beast, you're right, and I forgot that it it played Price of Failure, but I'm not talking about the Meta from more than a month ago. We don't know what the meta is right now, it's still shaping up. We haven't had a major event since the release of EAW (at least not one where EAW was legal), and with rumors of impending erratas coming, the meta will shift even more.

You certainly seemed confident enough to declare that it wasn't played. Still, I think people have woken up to the insanity that is Price of Failure, and it's showing up in a great many blue villain decks. If you want to handwave about how we can't possibly know if people will still keep using it, fine, whatever - but I don't really see any reason it's going to be less awesome in EaW.

Except Coercion, of course.

5 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

Yes, you have the opportunity to gain some tempo, but is it worth it? Maybe sometimes, but not always.

A 1-cost event that did nothing but effectively guarantee you'll claim that round would still be good enough to be worth playing. Does it have to be ALWAYS to make the card crazy good? That's a ludicrous standard for evaluating card quality.

5 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

You're right in that the existence of Coercion is going to force a lot of cards out of the meta and make them unplayable, however I think that makes Coercion less of an auto-include as the meta develops. We'll see I guess.

As I've been trying to say, Coercion is pretty effective even in its worst case. There is no meta cycle for Coercion, where it will go away so powerful events can start reappearing. It's a solid, usable card against pretty much any deck, the big targets are just a bonus.

You know netrunner just had to banned a bunch of cards that were release in just the past 6 months. Wrong cards happen, Coercion is one of them.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

You know netrunner just had to banned a bunch of cards that were release in just the past 6 months. Wrong cards happen, Coercion is one of them.

The sad part is that it could have been just as cool, but relatively balanced. "Pick an event from your opponenet's hand and play that card for free." Boom. Same theme, no rules mess, not nearly as super-mega-broken.

There are broken cards that are subtle, and have weird interactions that truly would be hard to predict. Outer Rim Smuggler - Return of the Jedi was a rare card, I can see how that interaction could be missed. But this? Coercion should have had glaring alarm bells all over it.

11 hours ago, Buhallin said:

The sad part is that it could have been just as cool, but relatively balanced. "Pick an event from your opponenet's hand and play that card for free." Boom. Same theme, no rules mess, not nearly as super-mega-broken.

There are broken cards that are subtle, and have weird interactions that truly would be hard to predict. Outer Rim Smuggler - Return of the Jedi was a rare card, I can see how that interaction could be missed. But this? Coercion should have had glaring alarm bells all over it.

Your change...do you mean play it as if it were your own, or force your opponent to play it? Because the second is cool, although possibly OP (Play Endless Ranks for the cost of Coercion?), but the second is actually worse than the current card.

And I agree, how this card was not seen as potentially game breaking is worrisome. Like with some of the RRG explanations, it suggests that FFG staff in charge of the game don't fully understand their own ruleset. The idea that Coercion can be avoided by passing I think supports this. It's the only way to allow the card to continue in the game, as running the card as written leads to an unbalanced play experience.

4 hours ago, kingbobb said:

Your change...do you mean play it as if it were your own, or force your opponent to play it? Because the second is cool, although possibly OP (Play Endless Ranks for the cost of Coercion?), but the second is actually worse than the current card.

Play it as your own. And I don't think it's worse. It basically makes Coercion a one-shot wild card limited by what's in your opponent's hand. A Cunning for events. It should probably have cost two instead of one as well, but I don't think it's game-breaking because it can't do anything that you wouldn't be able to do if you had that card in the first place.

The real problem with Coercion is that forcing your opponent to play the card hits them on multiple different fronts - you discard the card, and you force them to pay the costs (which may often be extreme). Playing the card as if it were your own shifts any additional costs to you and limits the effects based on what you get (you might not be able to spot for many cards, or have supports).

19 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Play it as your own. And I don't think it's worse. It basically makes Coercion a one-shot wild card limited by what's in your opponent's hand. A Cunning for events. It should probably have cost two instead of one as well, but I don't think it's game-breaking because it can't do anything that you wouldn't be able to do if you had that card in the first place.

The real problem with Coercion is that forcing your opponent to play the card hits them on multiple different fronts - you discard the card, and you force them to pay the costs (which may often be extreme). Playing the card as if it were your own shifts any additional costs to you and limits the effects based on what you get (you might not be able to spot for many cards, or have supports).

I mistyped, the first (your change) is cool. Steal a card for yourself, matches mechanics that are already in the game. Only the second is bad. It's what Coercion and RI have in common, I think. Forcing your opponent from doing something...or preventing them...is a huge amount of control in a game like this, where action efficiency is huge. Taking a card or a dice might prevent their optimal play, but it still leaves them with a full range of regular options aside from that optimal play. Forcing them into a worst case play, or preventing them from making a play entirely, is a terrible direction for a game to go in, and I think it's speaks very badly of the design team that they either didn't see this, or saw it and thought it made a good addition to the game.

So I can for instance coerce a person to play a rend even if there are no valid targets and they still play it even if it has no effect ?

I think the consensus was that yes, you can do that. You can play the card for no effect.

However, you have to try to follow the card text, so if someone forces you to play Rend with Coersion, you can be forced to remove your own Force Speed.

On 10/2/2017 at 8:17 AM, netherspirit1982 said:

It's not as strong as you think. Passing isn't an action so your opponent could pass until an optimal time to play the card you selected is presented to them or the round ends.

Passing isn't an action, but after playing with the card a few times it looks to me like the" if able" at the end of coercion has two meanings.

First being that if able you must. Second being that if you cannot fulfill the requirements it has no effect.

God we need a FAQ.

21 hours ago, ozmodon said:

Passing isn't an action, but after playing with the card a few times it looks to me like the" if able" at the end of coercion has two meanings.

First being that if able you must. Second being that if you cannot fulfill the requirements it has no effect.

God we need a FAQ.

Sorry for everyone that think that this card is not ultra powerfull, but FAQ won't help, this card is clear, your opponent must play the card, the only card that can resist Coersion are event that starts with: "Play only..." and that play only don't match. What we need is probably a rule change or complete add-on in rulebook on "When can you play an event...".

Chak

2 hours ago, Chakan99939 said:

Sorry for everyone that think that this card is not ultra powerfull, but FAQ won't help, this card is clear, your opponent must play the card, the only card that can resist Coersion are event that starts with: "Play only..." and that play only don't match. What we need is probably a rule change or complete add-on in rulebook on "When can you play an event...".

Chak

That's the way I understand it. That IF ABLE means must if able! Not pass until the end of time. If able means now do it if able or you don't have to if the you cannot meet the requirements. I ran into a local tournament where a Sabine player insisted he could just pass until the turn ended then not have to do his event at the beginning of the next turn because he could no longer meet the requirements.

24 minutes ago, ozmodon said:

That's the way I understand it. That IF ABLE means must if able! Not pass until the end of time. If able means now do it if able or you don't have to if the you cannot meet the requirements. I ran into a local tournament where a Sabine player insisted he could just pass until the turn ended then not have to do his event at the beginning of the next turn because he could no longer meet the requirements.

Until a new FAQ says otherwise, that matches the current understanding of Coercion's effect. When you play Coercion you get to decide what your opponent's next action is going to be, but it doesn't force your opponent to take an action at all. Because if it did, imagine Coercion hitting a Price of Failure.

1 hour ago, TheNameWasTaken said:

Until a new FAQ says otherwise, that matches the current understanding of Coercion's effect. When you play Coercion you get to decide what your opponent's next action is going to be, but it doesn't force your opponent to take an action at all. Because if it did, imagine Coercion hitting a Price of Failure.

1 hour ago, TheNameWasTaken said:

Until a new FAQ says otherwise, that matches the current understanding of Coercion's effect. When you play Coercion you get to decide what your opponent's next action is going to be, but it doesn't force your opponent to take an action at all. Because if it did, imagine Coercion hitting a Price of Failure.

I think it is supposed to force his next action if he's able to do so. Price of failure may have been the very card they designed it to counter. With Lukas leaving I'm sure it threw the FAQ behind. The new person in charge is probably going threw everything with a fine tooth comb, before releasing the next FAQ.

From listening to the Chance Cube's podcast, Lukas said that latest errata needed to be approved. I'm not sure by who, but it has been taking a while. Hopefully this week or next. I look forward to seeing what they come up with in response to the current meta.

6 hours ago, ozmodon said:

That's the way I understand it. That IF ABLE means must if able! Not pass until the end of time. If able means now do it if able or you don't have to if the you cannot meet the requirements. I ran into a local tournament where a Sabine player insisted he could just pass until the turn ended then not have to do his event at the beginning of the next turn because he could no longer meet the requirements.

I should have added when I said this card is clear: "Passing is not an action"

The: "If able" only apply if you choose tomdo an action. You always have the right to pass, since passing is not an action at all. However, by passing you eventually take the risk that your opponent pass and you basically skipped your entire turn because you didn't eant to play an event.

What is clear is if you take an action, you must play that event, only the lack of ressources or restriction like: "Play only" will prevent you from playing that event. "Spot something" that don't match, remove a dice when there is no dice, "heal 5" when you have 0 damage won't prevent you from playing that event, you have to play it, if you really don't want, there is the PASS option...

Chak

13 hours ago, ozmodon said:

I think it is supposed to force his next action if he's able to do so. Price of failure may have been the very card they designed it to counter. With Lukas leaving I'm sure it threw the FAQ behind. The new person in charge is probably going threw everything with a fine tooth comb, before releasing the next FAQ.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Imagine Coercion hitting Price of Failure on the first round. Because Coercion is a strong card, so you might mulligan for it (or at least not shuffle it away), and it's fairly easy for the other guy to mulligan into Price of Failure. And now your first action may very well end up being spend one resource to defeat an opponent's character before it has done literally anything in the game. I get that Destiny is supposed to be random and swingy, but that's like 300% too much random and swingy. Price of Failure is a strong card, but it's nowhere near gamebreaking enough to deserve this level of counter.

1 hour ago, TheNameWasTaken said:

Okay, let me rephrase that. Imagine Coercion hitting Price of Failure on the first round. Because Coercion is a strong card, so you might mulligan for it (or at least not shuffle it away), and it's fairly easy for the other guy to mulligan into Price of Failure. And now your first action may very well end up being spend one resource to defeat an opponent's character before it has done literally anything in the game. I get that Destiny is supposed to be random and swingy, but that's like 300% too much random and swingy. Price of Failure is a strong card, but it's nowhere near gamebreaking enough to deserve this level of counter.

I wrote eralier on this post on this subject:

Strategically speaking, you could PASS until opponent does several damage on a character, the use action and price of failure to kill your character (Already damaged), that way, at least you don't lose you entire turn.

However, coersion is still unthinkably strong in this context. Just be carefull when opponent plays yellow villain, mulligan your price of failure in oppening hand if possible...

Chak

1 hour ago, Chakan99939 said:

I wrote eralier on this post on this subject:

Strategically speaking, you could PASS until opponent does several damage on a character, the use action and price of failure to kill your character (Already damaged), that way, at least you don't lose you entire turn.

However, coersion is still unthinkably strong in this context. Just be carefull when opponent plays yellow villain, mulligan your price of failure in oppening hand if possible...

Chak

Unless I'm misreading something, ozmodon is suggesting Coercion is not intended to allow the targeted opponent to pass. I was just pointing out how disastrous that could be.

18 minutes ago, TheNameWasTaken said:

Unless I'm misreading something, ozmodon is suggesting Coercion is not intended to allow the targeted opponent to pass. I was just pointing out how disastrous that could be.

A second-hand "I heard it from the devs but can't say how or why" comment in the Destiny Facebook group says that you can pass instead of taking the forced action.

IMHO it's more of a "Wait, we made what??"-inspired bit of creative interpretation than anything else, and it of course isn't official until we get an FAQ, but there you go.

ACTIONS (p13):
Actions are taken by a player whenever it is their turn. On a player’s turn, they must take an action or pass. The different actions are listed below and described in detail on the following page:

• Play a card from hand
• Activate a character or support
• Resolve dice
• Discard a card to re-roll dice
• Use a card action
• Claim the battlefield

As passing is not listed as an action you can pass and thus have no next action for as long as you continue to pass. Coercion does not force you to take an action, it just forces you to play the card when you act next, so passing is allowable.

1 hour ago, Amanal said:

ACTIONS (p13):
Actions are taken by a player whenever it is their turn. On a player’s turn, they must take an action or pass. The different actions are listed below and described in detail on the following page:

• Play a card from hand
• Activate a character or support
• Resolve dice
• Discard a card to re-roll dice
• Use a card action
• Claim the battlefield

As passing is not listed as an action you can pass and thus have no next action for as long as you continue to pass. Coercion does not force you to take an action, it just forces you to play the card when you act next, so passing is allowable.

So I guess IF the new FAQ adds pass to the actions list, then problem solved! Then we still have Sabine, Old Ray, and FN to deal with.

1 hour ago, Amanal said:

ACTIONS (p13):
Actions are taken by a player whenever it is their turn. On a player’s turn, they must take an action or pass. The different actions are listed below and described in detail on the following page:

• Play a card from hand
• Activate a character or support
• Resolve dice
• Discard a card to re-roll dice
• Use a card action
• Claim the battlefield

As passing is not listed as an action you can pass and thus have no next action for as long as you continue to pass. Coercion does not force you to take an action, it just forces you to play the card when you act next, so passing is allowable.

100% agree, PASSING is not an action at all, and most importantly it's written on coercion:

"They must play that event as their next action, if able."

IF they wanted you to mandatory play this event, it would have been spelled:

"They must play that event."

Also, after 3 hours of searching the internet, i finally found the french version of Coercion, called Coercition:

In english, the word "as" can cause some confusion, but on the french card, a more clear word is used: "Lors"

If I translate the french card to english, it would be read as:

"They must play that event when they do their next action, if able."

I consider there is no confusion at all, you can choose to do action (Then you have to play event) OR PASS

Chak

39 minutes ago, ozmodon said:

So I guess IF the new FAQ adds pass to the actions list, then problem solved! Then we still have Sabine, Old Ray, and FN to deal with.

Problem solved? No, you can now create a lock with Running Interference as passing is now an action.