Avallac'h after pass

[Ingsoc85]

Avallac'h after pass

Currently you can play Avallac'h after the opponent has pass and it will still function the same, that mean is that given a big enough CA you could draw two cards and your opponent could use his.

I suggest to change the function of the card in such scenario to only draw one card and this could only be bronze - that seem to be a fair trade with giving your opponent a 8 gold card.

 

[Ruthless95]

Currently you can play Avallac'h after the opponent has pass and it will still function the same, that mean is that given a big enough CA you could draw two cards and your opponent could use his.

I suggest to change the function of the card in such scenario to only draw one card and this could only be bronze - that seem to be a fair trade with giving your opponent a 8 gold card.

avallach is the only CA card of monsters. sensitive AF matter for MS. i wish it remains the way it is.

 

[Tamacountry13]

The thing about Avallach is you need to have a +2 CA for it to happen, Avallach also being the only Monster card that gives CA.
I include Avallach in everyone of my Monster decks and have only ever used him once after my opponent passed in which I would've won anyway.

Tbh I don't think his effect can be changed unless he got reworked (He's perfectly fine currently btw)

A change I can see working is if both players play the top card of thier deck while the person who plays Avallach draws a card.
It still allows both players to thin their deck and allows your opponent to still get value after they passed. The only problem is it does add an RNG effect to the card.

As for your suggestion, drawing the top bronze card is a bad idea. Unless they get lucky with a Ghoul eating something high, a high value Lacerate/Venom or pulling a unit that consumed while you've got a Behemoth/Nekker on the field it'll always be worse then an 8 Str Gold (10 for NR)

 

[arz0]

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...assed-game-avallac-gets-2-card-is-this-normal

here is an existing thread.

---

Tamacountry13 Avallac'h wouldn't need to be reworked to 'fix' this.
The solution is just simply if your opponent has passed he will only draw you 1 card and your opponent none.

Draw 2 cards, the opposing player draws 1 card. If the opposing player has passed, draw 1 card only.

 

[Archpriest]

Ruthless95 and Tamacountry13 are absolutely correct and provided excellent arguments against the notion. Leave that poor bastard Avallac'h alone...

 

[frbfree]

First off, no other spy in the game, under any circumstance, says you can only draw a bronze card. Second, I assume you are only talking about after you've passed in Round 3 (or Round 2 if you lost Round 1), because otherwise, you would still get the card due to you for play later, and standard CA rules would apply. Third, if your opponent plays Avallac'h after you've passed in Round 3, then odd are he doesn't need it, and if he does, then kudos to him for his patience.

I can see your problem in a very very very limited circumstance. But your suggested solution is, quite honestly, absurd. Even if he only draws one, you can't put a restriction on it, when no other spy card is so restricted.

 

[RickMelethron]

well, making avallach on par with other "your opponent draws" effects would be nothing more than expected. cahir, milva, and vilgeforts get the "if your opponent has not passed" condition for that exact reason, i don't see why avallach shouldn't.

simply reducing the draw to 1 (if the opponent passed) would be more than fair.

 

[Archpriest]

well, making avallach on par with other "your opponent draws" effects would be nothing more than expected. cahir, milva, and vilgeforts get the "if your opponent has not passed" condition for that exact reason, i don't see why avallach shouldn't.

simply reducing the draw to 1 (if the opponent passed) would be more than fair.

While I understand the notion, I also disagree. Avallac'h is Monsters' only mean to get a card advantage and usually he just makes up for the disadvantage. You never get to play Avallac'h last in the 3rd. So I think he needs to be left alone.

 

[arz0]

I'm surprised by your view here HenryGrosmont Because you have consistently maintained in multiple threads and in threads you have made yourself that you want all these cards that can be played to a greater effect once your opponent has passed to be consistent with each other.
and it does apply to avallac'h, which you just acknowledged.

You arguments when it came to Milva vs Cahir were fine and justified IMO, now suddenly your argument with Avallac'h is this:

Spoiler

Leave Avallac'h Alone!

I don't see why Avallac'h should be an exception, to the very valid arguments you yourself made.

Just because you "never get to play him last in round 3" (which isn't true) doesn't mean he is exempt from the same treatment as Cahir, Milva, Cynthia, Albrich, Vilgefortz and Tibor.
and also operator is in the same boat with a needed change.
In fact any card that has the potential to put a card in your opponents hand needs to have a player pass condition.

 

[Archpriest]

I'm surprised by your view here HenryGrosmont Because you have consistently maintained in multiple threads and in threads you have made yourself that you want all these cards that can be played to a greater effect once your opponent has passed to be consistent with each other.
and it does apply to avallac'h, which you just acknowledged.

You arguments when it came to Milva vs Cahir were fine and justified IMO, now suddenly your argument with Avallac'h is this:

Spoiler

Leave Avallac'h Alone!

I don't see why Avallac'h should be an exception, to the very valid arguments you yourself made.

Just because you "never get to play him last in round 3" (which isn't true) doesn't mean he is exempt from the same treatment as Cahir, Milva, Cynthia, Albrich, Vilgefortz and Tibor.
and also operator is in the same boat with a needed change.
In fact any card that has the potential to put a card in your opponents hand needs to have a player pass condition.

I'll quote myself from another thread and hope that will shut down this personal attack once and for all, capish?

...I'm always reluctant to look a the cards in the vacuum...

Does this solve your problem with my position?

 

[arz0]

I'll quote myself from another thread and hope that will shut down this personal attack once and for all, capish?

Wow.. I'm not personally attacking you. Chill
You are being inconstant with your arguments, that is all.

Does this solve your problem with my position?

No.

I do agree with your argument from that post you quoted, that leaders cannot be compared in a vaccum and are dependent on their respective faction.
This is because their abilities widely differ.

The cards mentioned (milva, cahir etc...) can be compared in a vacuum because they all give your opponent a card they cannot play, once your opponent passes.
Can you explain why in this case they shouldn't be compared in this way?

 

[RickMelethron]

While I understand the notion, I also disagree. Avallac'h is Monsters' only mean to get a card advantage and usually he just makes up for the disadvantage. You never get to play Avallac'h last in the 3rd. So I think he needs to be left alone.

if avallach isn't used to cheese round 3 wins, then what is the problem with making him unable to do it? 99.99999% of times the monster player won't be having any negative impact whatsoever, right?

seems like just more of a reason to add the condition; it would only be relevant when the avallach player would be able to cheese a victory... thus having the exact benefit it's intended, without any downside.

the whole "better safe than sorry" thing...

 

[Ingsoc85]

While I understand the notion, I also disagree. Avallac'h is Monsters' only mean to get a card advantage and usually he just makes up for the disadvantage. You never get to play Avallac'h last in the 3rd. So I think he needs to be left alone.

This actually just happen to me.

I had 2 CA but I was still loosing since my opponent play Grave Hag and since his graveyard was full of monsters the card got 41 strength, after he had no more cards and pass I play Avallac'h and got a Succubus, which allow me to snatch his Grave Hag and thus win.

 

[Treefur]

I've tried using him to get the super advantage round 3. Every time, I already won, since I was 2 cards up and it was just for fun.

 

[NlelithZ44]

It occured only once, but I won a match by playing Avallach after my opponent ran out of cards and passed. I believe I also used Ciri and Ocvist in that deck to gain CA. Just saying.

I would be fine with Avallach if he stays the same ('cause he almost never gets to be played last) or if he gets in line with other "if your opponent has passed" cards ('cause it's only fair).

 

[Archpriest]

Wow.. I'm not personally attacking you. Chill
You are being inconstant with your arguments, that is all.

If you don't understand the difference and I'll shortly explain it to you, then your post was

Spoiler

The cards mentioned (milva, cahir etc...) can be compared in a vacuum because they all give your opponent a card they cannot play, once your opponent passes.
Can you explain why in this case they shouldn't be compared in this way?

If the difference between spying card and cards like Milva or Cahir alludes you, I'll gladly come to help:
with Milva and Cahir you place a card on your side of the board, giving yourself 8 and 10 respectively. With spy cards you place it on the other side of the board, giving the opponent the value of that card.
So, unless you're going to talk about changing spy mechanics, I'm being perfectly consistent.

About cards in a vacuum, I wanna see you playing Milva in Skellige deck. I dare you... You don't think that Butterfly Triss will be insanely strong in Scoia? Or that Aglais is absolutely useless in NR?

Glad I could help

if avallach isn't used to cheese round 3 wins, then what is the problem with making him unable to do it? 99.99999% of times the monster player won't be having any negative impact whatsoever, right?

seems like just more of a reason to add the condition; it would only be relevant when the avallach player would be able to cheese a victory... thus having the exact benefit it's intended, without any downside.

the whole "better safe than sorry" thing...

Then why not go the whole way with making Stannis draw you a random card, Donar and Birna do the same, Yaevinn not wounding those already on the board. No these changes specifically but something like that...
As I wrote, I understand the premise I just disagree with it. Not too strongly though...

To the contrary of what some assumed here, I'm completely consistent: if we're going to change the spy card mechanics then we should apply it to all spy cards.

This actually just happen to me.

I had 2 CA but I was still loosing since my opponent play Grave Hag and since his graveyard was full of monsters the card got 41 strength, after he had no more cards and pass I play Avallac'h and got a Succubus, which allow me to snatch his Grave Hag and thus win.

That's on you, I'm afraid. You pass when he can play and you have 2 card advantage. And you made my point of Avallac'h being Monsters only mean to try and make up for constant card disadvantage.

It occured only once, but I won a match by playing Avallach after my opponent ran out of cards and passed. I believe I also used Ciri and Ocvist in that deck to gain CA. Just saying.

I would be fine with Avallach if he stays the same ('cause he almost never gets to be played last) or if he gets in line with other "if your opponent has passed" cards ('cause it's only fair).

Hypothetically you have: Birna, Sigrdrifa and Igni in your hand, somewhere at the end of round 3. Opponent is in the lead but no row allows you to play Igni and you have no units to res with Sigrdrifa. Let's also pretend that for some reason, the opponent passed.
You play Birna, draw Donar and put Jutta in the graveyard. Then you play Donar and put, let's say, Tuirsceach Skirmisher in the Graveyard while drawing Priestess of Freya. Play Igni, res Jutta and Skirmisher and get a win.
Should we make changes to that too because this almost never happens?

 

[4RM3D]

HenryGrosmont

Card advantage is still card advantage, no matter if it came from spies or other means. Milva and Cahir were used differently than their intended purpose and the same can apply to Avallac'h. The reason why Milva and Cahir sparked a bigger revolt was because they were easier to 'abuse'. Though, for discussion's sake, it doesn't matter if it's more difficult for Monsters to pull off. It's about consistency. But if you look at the practical impact instead, then you're looking at it from a different angle. You aren't wrong, but you aren't right either. It's just a different way of looking at things. That why the discussion has become moot. Both you and Lim3zer0 made valid points, but they apply to different aspects.

The only thing I disagree with is your hypothetical example. We aren't talking about possible exotic combinations. None of the cards mentioned have any inherent issues, unlike Avallac'h.

As for my opinion on this matter. I like consistency. However, Avallac'h's abuse is a fringe case, so I am not that bothered by it.

 

[Archpriest]

The only thing I disagree with is your hypothetical example. We aren't talking about possible exotic combinations. None of the cards mentioned have any inherent issues, unlike Avallac'h.[/QUOTE]
This can happen though... same as Avallac'h played dead last in the 3rd.

Also, different types of cards are different. If we're going to change one from that type, we'll need to revisit the rest as well.

 

[NlelithZ44]

Should we make changes to that too because this almost never happens?

Umm, what was that apple to oranges comparison rampage about, when I told that I'm fine with Avallach as he is now...? I can even add one more point to "leave Avallach alone" camp: when comparing him to Milva or Cahir, let's not forget that they are loyal units.

 

[Archpriest]

Umm, what was that apple to oranges comparison rampage about, when I told that I'm fine with Avallach as he is now...? I can even add one more point to "leave Avallach alone" camp: when comparing him to Milva or Cahir, let's not forget that they are loyal units.

My post you quoted has the very same argument in it....