Among the apocalyptic prophets who think this card will ruin the game and should be banned and some who try to show PD as a balanced and with a fair cost card, I'm glad to see that many, regardless of which clan they defend, realize that it is not.

All the strong cards of the game have some cost, to mention some of the main ones, Charge, Banzai, Captive Audience, Mirumotos, Reprieve, etc ... All these cards have a cost of honor or fate, and none of them gives the possibility of evading this costs as is the case of policy debate. The opportunity cost between a free and a 1 cost card is huge.

Policy Debate is fully comparable to these cards in strength / effect. To refer to the Kitsuki Investigator, which is the only card that has the same effect (see and discard) is a character with high cost for his stats and still requires you to spend 1 fate, which demonstrates the impact of this action. Any player knows that looking to your opponents hand can not only ruin their plans but can save you from wasting your own cards and how this is valuable.

I have not seen here a plausible argument to justify the bully duels. We all know that this card will not be banned and FFG will not change the dueling system just because of it, and so it becomes ugly to say that there are several ways to play around it or that the 0 cost is ok when those who are saying this are running this card on their decks and know the true value of it, at least those who are playing the game are not so ingenuous. I run it in most of my decks and I know I'll never call a duel to loose and how easy is to make a bully duel with this card.

I think it's likely that increased risk for dueling will come about with things such as the release of Crane or Dragon Clan pack releases. Things such as reactionary cards that will change the duel stat or change the dueling characters could counter the seeming problems with dueling. Problem however would be that these cards wouldn't see wide use if they didn't serve a dual purpose or if actions that create duels weren't commonplace.

On 2/12/2018 at 9:05 AM, Silverfox13 said:

If that is how you took my response then communication about this topic may be falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes).

Most of what I have been reading is that Policy Debate is too Strong because it is 0 cost and is a duel. I just completely disagree.

Whether or not you want to take other peoples responses as "obligatory and unnecessary "git gud" response" doesn't change the fact that there are cards that can stop it, and to be fair you actually asked for them here: "Then for the good of the community, please share with us lesser skilled players how you would neutralize Policy Debate, especially when played by Scorpion that runs counters to both events and attachments........".

All I can ascertain from your response is that you don't want to build your deck to have an answer for strong cards in the current environment. How can anyone even debate that?

People don't really think that anytime players have a hard time playing around some card that it should receive an errata or bad? Or maybe players really think that they can make decks that have an answer for everything?

Sorry I'm at a complete loss as how you came to any of those conclusions from my response. I never said I wanted an answer to everything. I never said I refuse to build a deck with the cards necessary to answer the strong cards of the meta. I think if you're honest with yourself, you know your response was a little "dickish." I'm cool with that. I deserved it I was also a bit dickish in my previous response.

I think what we are all circling at this point is that there is one particular clan that is simply better suited to handle a meta game that currently favors PD. Several people that play that clan are extremely dimissive to others when it's pointed out that their clan is clearly at an advantage. Those people just tend to disagree and hand out generic "LTP" comments.

I have no problems with one clan being the top dog. It helps give us a clearly defined meta and makes for some pretty easy games when I know I can load up a deck built to counter that clan and have a good shot at winning. So when other players that don't play that clan are looking to improve and they get a response teeling them to use cards from the clan that is the top dog, It somewhat puts out this vibe of "if you're not playing clan x then you're not good."

Did you actually say that? No, but I'm pretty sure we all know the current issues that a lot of people have with this game go beyond PD.

On topic I've never said PD was broken or that dueling was broken. Only that PD being a duel is poor card design because the attempt to balance the effect of PD with the duel as the "cost" is way out of proportion

12 hours ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

Simply not true.

There are two "costs" to playing PD. One is that, as a duel, you usually aren't guaranteed to win (the vast majority of playable characters have stats within a couple points of one another) without potentially risking a variable amount of Honor, and the other is that the characters on the field will determine when you can/should actually play PD (if everyone across from you has similar Political scores as what you're showing, it's incredibly risky to drop a PD, which is in and of itself a play restriction).

This is likely what the design team had in mind. However the reality is that these "costs" are essentially irrelevant. Going into a duel, the best strategy is to remove the honor dial from the equation, won the duel and get the effect. The problem here is that design failed to anticipate how easy it would be for players to remove the honor dial's impact on PD. If you load up on a duelist with a printed ability you are investing more fate up front and you opponent has knowledge in advance that the duel is coming. Oh you want to send that 7 military Niten Master with Duelist Training.....ok well at least I know what I'm up against.

PD is hidden. The up front investment is non-existent because you are naturally playing a good states character. Not all the clans are equally equipped to put out characters with strong political stats. And only one clan is equipped with the tools to mitigate the honor loss from not defending poorly and putting yourself into a conflict where PD can wreck you.

41 minutes ago, L5RBr said:

I have not seen here a plausible argument to justify the bully duels. We all know that this card will not be banned and FFG will not change the dueling system just because of it, and so it becomes ugly to say that there are several ways to play around it or that the 0 cost is ok when those who are saying this are running this card on their decks and know the true value of it, at least those who are playing the game are not so ingenuous. I run it in most of my decks and I know I'll never call a duel to loose and how easy is to make a bully duel with this card.

I personally have no problem with bully dueling. It's smart strategy. However, the cost for someone to generate a situation where they can bully duel someone should be high. The characters and attachments with duels all have rather steep up front costs to build a unit capable of bully dueling someone. The duel is known information to all since it's on the board and allows both players to prepare. PD does not follow this same design. The intent was there, but, the end result is a card with an over the top effect for the cost involved to play it.

35 minutes ago, HirumaShigure said:

I think it's likely that increased risk for dueling will come about with things such as the release of Crane or Dragon Clan pack releases. Things such as reactionary cards that will change the duel stat or change the dueling characters could counter the seeming problems with dueling. Problem however would be that these cards wouldn't see wide use if they didn't serve a dual purpose or if actions that create duels weren't commonplace.

One can hope

1 hour ago, L5RBr said:

Among the apocalyptic prophets who think this card will ruin the game and should be banned and some who try to show PD as a balanced and with a fair cost card, I'm glad to see that many, regardless of which clan they defend, realize that it is not.

All the strong cards of the game have some cost, to mention some of the main ones, Charge, Banzai, Captive Audience, Mirumotos, Reprieve, etc ... All these cards have a cost of honor or fate, and none of them gives the possibility of evading this costs as is the case of policy debate. The opportunity cost between a free and a 1 cost card is huge.

Policy Debate is fully comparable to these cards in strength / effect. To refer to the Kitsuki Investigator, which is the only card that has the same effect (see and discard) is a character with high cost for his stats and still requires you to spend 1 fate, which demonstrates the impact of this action. Any player knows that looking to your opponents hand can not only ruin their plans but can save you from wasting your own cards and how this is valuable.

.....

Three of the best paragraphs that I’ve read concerning PD. I could have spent a week coming up with a reply such as L5RBr posted above, but I wouldn’t be able to. If there was a way to tap ‘Like’ more than once in a post, the above post would be it.

11 hours ago, shineyorkboy said:

I think the concern with the 5+ skill is that almost all of those characters are Scorpions and Cranes. Though I'd point out that those are all 5+ fate uniques. I mean if your opponent has a Shoju or a Kachiko on the field potentially getting hit with a PD is probably the least of your concerns.

Those with base skills of 5+ are mostly uniques but it only requires attaching a Ornate Fan/Kitsuki's Method/Court Mask/Kakita Blade to character with a 3 Political to get to 5. There are also a fair number of characters with enough glory to push them over 5 when honored.

11 hours ago, L5RBr said:

sAmong the apocalyptic prophets who think this card will ruin the game and should be banned and some who try to show PD as a balanced and with a fair cost card, I'm glad to see that many, regardless of which clan they defend, realize that it is not.

All the strong cards of the game have some cost, to mention some of the main ones, Charge, Banzai, Captive Audience, Mirumotos, Reprieve, etc ... All these cards have a cost of honor or fate, and none of them gives the possibility of evading this costs as is the case of policy debate. The opportunity cost between a free and a 1 cost card is huge.

Policy Debate is fully comparable to these cards in strength / effect. To refer to the Kitsuki Investigator, which is the only card that has the same effect (see and discard) is a character with high cost for his stats and still requires you to spend 1 fate, which demonstrates the impact of this action. Any player knows that looking to your opponents hand can not only ruin their plans but can save you from wasting your own cards and how this is valuable.

I have not seen here a plausible argument to justify the bully duels. We all know that this card will not be banned and FFG will not change the dueling system just because of it, and so it becomes ugly to say that there are several ways to play around it or that the 0 cost is ok when those who are saying this are running this card on their decks and know the true value of it, at least those who are playing the game are not so ingenuous. I run it in most of my decks and I know I'll never call a duel to loose and how easy is to make a bully duel with this card.

I'm not the best player around, but I maintain that the fixation on Policy Debate is still a temporary trend. It occupies a unique slot in the environment, partially because it is preemptive, and can cherry-pick other problem cards. So it becomes somewhat of a PD arms race. Maybe it could have had a parenthetical "once per conflict" clause like Bonsai! or Court Games. That might have kept it in check. Or fate/honor cost, like you say. But I don't think it'll be a forever problem. Everyone but Unicorn is pretty darn good. It's currently an incredibly balanced environment, considering the complexity of the game. I hope we don't lose sight of that.

Btw, as an aside, Kitsuki Investigator is not altogether different. Load him up with fate, and that one action is usable multiple times. Play him smart, and that fate-to-ring cost is non existent (paid to your next conflict declaration). Slap a Way of the Dragon on him, or Indomitable Will, play smart, and you've got two PD's per turn.

3 hours ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

Maybe it could have had a parenthetical "once per conflict" clause like Bonsai! or Court Games.

One of the thing I enjoy the most with PD is when someone is silly enough to hit me 3 times in the same conflict with it.

You are a=sacrificing 3 extremely good cards to lost the advantage of seeing my hand every other turns? Thanks!

7 hours ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

Btw, as an aside, Kitsuki Investigator is not altogether different. Load him up with fate, and that one action is usable multiple times. Play him smart, and that fate-to-ring cost is non existent (paid to your next conflict declaration). Slap a Way of the Dragon on him, or Indomitable Will, play smart, and you've got two PD's per turn.

Yes Teddy but in this case you need the fate to trigger the action, if you have 0 you can't use him. This is the opportunity cost I was talking about, the Kitsuki requires great fate investment and even more if you want to attach a way of dragon, so there's no problem with him if you are denying yourself to use another cards (with fate cost). For example the fate you spend can be your last and then you can't use your mirumoto's fury in that conflict. In the same situation with PD you can see your opponents hand, and discard a card (ready for battle for example), and beyond being able to use your mirumoto's you can be sure you are not wasting it against a ready for battle, plus knowing all your opponent possibilities in that conflict and making a better use of your own cards.

There's another question about PD and all cards that show opponents hands that displeases me that is: In first turns you don't know whats your opponent splash clan. This put all of us in a careful position when choosing our actions, we all know how the game punish bad decisions. Is nice, a surprise factor but it can be easily crashed in the first action of the game with PD.

Can we stop talking as if PD read: "Action: Look at your opponent's hand. Discard a card from it,"?

That's not the card. Stop ignoring the duel. It's not a guaranteed win. That's where the "cost" of the card exists.

21 minutes ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

That's not the card. Stop ignoring the duel. It's not a guaranteed win. That's where the "cost" of the card exists.

But it is. I’ve never lost a duel with PD (that I didn’t intend to), and I have never paid more than 2 honor for the bid. That’s pretty cheap for seeing your hand and discarding your best card.

Compare it to Assassination: 0 Fate, but you pay an honor cost (3) and discard a character, with a restriction (2 cost or lower). And everybody agrees is a good card

Now, with PD, I’m basically Assassinating your best cards, but at a lower honor cost, without restriction, and as a bonus, I get to see your hand.

43 minutes ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

Can we stop talking as if PD read: "Action: Look at your opponent's hand. Discard a card from it,"?

That's not the card. Stop ignoring the duel. It's not a guaranteed win. That's where the "cost" of the card exists.

In effect, by design and common usage, PD might as well read “Action: Look at opponent’s hand. Discard a card.” Yes, that’s the inevitable manner in which this card plays out. Please, let’s not be coy.

I'm in no way being coy here.
Honor is not free. Honor is directly tied to a win condition. If you want your card-played-from-hand to be guaranteed to work, it will cost you honor. If you want it to be free, you have to literally gamble on your opponent tanking their bid.

As for comparisons to Assassination; a 2-cost character can take a province. Losing a card from your hand is really not comparable to losing a character asset that's already been paid for and in play. The tempo swing from Assassination is waaay bigger than the tempo swing from PD. In fact, the only reason there is even a tempo swing from PD at all is because you get to choose the card that is discarded. Otherwise, it would be a totally neutral exchange (both players end up 1 card from hand down).

Yes, PD is a very good card. It is not a free card. It is not a sure thing. It is not unfairly balanced.

23 minutes ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

I'm in no way being coy here.
Honor is not free. Honor is directly tied to a win condition. If you want your card-played-from-hand to be guaranteed to work, it will cost you honor. If you want it to be free, you have to literally gamble on your opponent tanking their bid.

As for comparisons to Assassination; a 2-cost character can take a province. Losing a card from your hand is really not comparable to losing a character asset that's already been paid for and in play. The tempo swing from Assassination is waaay bigger than the tempo swing from PD. In fact, the only reason there is even a tempo swing from PD at all is because you get to choose the card that is discarded. Otherwise, it would be a totally neutral exchange (both players end up 1 card from hand down).

Yes, PD is a very good card. It is not a free card. It is not a sure thing. It is not unfairly balanced.

As someone with Bayushi in the name you know that loosing 1-2 honor is nothing for Scorpion for example, indeed it can be benefit for you... But Tabris did not say it usually pay 2 honor for it, he just put the worst scenario for it. This is not the most common, you can easily challenge that 1 POL character with any 4 POL char, in competitive scenario this already guarantee the win, if your foe bid 5-1 you just win more, specially playing Scorpion, if you say 2 honor for this card is expensive, imagine paying 4 and against a dishonor deck. don't want to put this as a point against scorpion, since almost any deck can make use of bully as has been said by Ultimatecalibur , just an attach, an honored stats or in some cases not even that.

But if you play scorpion or dragon you know all of that, as we do, and in more than 90% of the cases it generates a 1-1 bid, so usually there's no risk at all, this not seem fairly balanced to me.

13 minutes ago, L5RBr said:

This is not the most common, you can easily challenge that 1 POL character with any 4 POL char

Here's my issue with the argument: This isn't very common either. It's exaggerating the commonality of a worst case scenario to make a statement.

As for investing to bully duel harder with honoring or attachments, that goes both ways (both players have the option to attach a Fan, or Honor a character, etc).

[Since it's pretty accepted that Dishonor likes PD the best, and Scorpion are the political clan best suited for Dishonor, let's look at the available characters with 4 Pol or higher: Bayushi Shoju (unique, 5 Fate), Bayushi Kachiko (unique, 5 Fate), Yogo Hiroue (unique, 4 Fate). That's it. All uniques, all expensive. The majority of the clan actually sits at 2 Pol, with fewer at 3. In fact, the average Pol over the whole clan is 2.4 - that's it, even with two Political monsters like Shoju and Kachiko skewing the numbers. That's the big scary political clan. It's also a low-Glory clan, so Honoring isn't much of a bump, and attachment political bumps are, again, a wash.

This is what people are so concerned about, and the numbers just don't add up to something overly concerning. They just don't.]

1 hour ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

Here's my issue with the argument: This isn't very common either. It's exaggerating a worst case scenario to make a statement.

As for investing to bully duel harder with honoring or attachments, that goes both ways (both players have the option to attach a Fan, or Honor a character, etc).

You know your arguments are weak. I was not exagerating a worst case scenario, I commented a very common scenario, just 3 difference in skills. The worst is 4-5 or more difference.

For the investing in characters argument, the challenger just need to invest in 1 guy (or invest nothing you just need a high political skill character), and the opponent will have to invest in all their low skill characters, putting attachments or honoring low cost chars, not smart at all..

Anyway I think is pretty clear you want to believe this card is fairly balanced, and even with all arguments of many moderate members of the community with opinions that are not defending the best for they clans but whats the best for the game, even Crane and Scorpion players.

So I'll finish here, in my country theres a dictation that says "you can order a horse to drink water, you can even force him to drink, but you can't give him thirst" so believe in what you want to..

8 hours ago, L5RBr said:

You know your arguments are weak. I was not exagerating a worst case scenario, I commented a very common scenario, just 3 difference in skills. The worst is 4-5 or more difference.

For the investing in characters argument, the challenger just need to invest in 1 guy (or invest nothing you just need a high political skill character), and the opponent will have to invest in all their low skill characters, putting attachments or honoring low cost chars, not smart at all..

Anyway I think is pretty clear you want to believe this card is fairly balanced, and even with all arguments of many moderate members of the community with opinions that are not defending the best for they clans but whats the best for the game, even Crane and Scorpion players.

So I'll finish here, in my country theres a dictation that says "you can order a horse to drink water, you can even force him to drink, but you can't give him thirst" so believe in what you want to..

There's another saying we have over here (which according to Wikipedia actually originated in England): "Don't flog a dead horse."

You have your opinions about Policy Debate. Other people have theirs. It's a great card, and we all have to learn to live with it. Undercosted or balanced, it'll be seeing play for the foreseeable future. As has been noted, FFG tends to have a hands-off approach, unless it entails functional errata.