CotCT Sanctioning Document - Base

[JohnF]

If you are playing a (PACS) scenario of Curse of the Crimson Throne with a group of characters with widely different prior play experience, the Base doesn't really work all that well.

To take an extreme example, if one (and only one) of the characters has run through most of the first two adventures, while each of the other characters only has access to a different level 0 or level 1 supporter, then it's quite possible that when somebody other than the most experienced character visits the Base none of the top three cards will be the supporter that character has access to.

It would probably be better if characters drawing cards simply got to ignore supporters to whom they did not have access.

[Yewstance]

I don't completely agree, mostly due to the difficulty of just 'ignoring' supporters you don't have access to when drawing (if you don't shuffle the deck, you can basically unveil the entire order of the Base in a single turn. If you do shuffle the deck, you can un-do previous examinations/ordering of Supporters, and also lessen the overall quality of Base explorations).

I also don't think that giving a penalty to players who haven't played much of the AP up to the point is unreasonable. Plus, as-written, players can still draw Supporters they haven't rallied - they just will need to find a way to Give them to someone else at the Base before they can be displayed.

With all that said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another; but I will point out that the issue expands if you consider some players playing Season 6 alongside Sanctioned CotCT, since it lets you rally new, different Supporters. (And yes, no matter which AP your character rallied a Supporter in, it always ends up in the Base regardless of the AP you're playing in - they're explicitly not like Loot which is AP-specific.)

[JohnF]

Yewstance wrote:

I also don't think that giving a penalty to players who haven't played much of the AP up to the point is unreasonable.

OK - let's look at a party running CotCT Adventure 1A.

If the party consists entirely of characters who have only played adventure 1* (earning access to Cressida Kroft), then there will only be that one Supporter at the base.

If, however, they are joined by one character who has previously completed most of Adventures 1 & 2, gaining access to several more supporters, then there is no guarantee that any of the rest of the party would find Cressida Kroft should they choose to visit the Base.

I don't think that would be fair to the other members of the party.

[Yewstance]

But the other members of the party now can explore the Base 3-5 more times than they otherwise could? That's multiple more de-scourges, heals or hand re-cycles as needed. In fact, they could always just chain-explore (the Base self-heals or self-draws anyway) until they hit Cressida.

Sure, they draw 'dead' Supporters in the process, but with the Base's upsides per exploration that's not really harming that individual character; at worst, it's just stealing Supporters away from the higher levelled party member. I would argue the only person being disadvantaged is the person who's overlevelled and bringing high-level resources into a lower-levelled adventure.

[JohnF]

Yewstance wrote:

But the other members of the party now can explore the Base 3-5 more times than they otherwise could?

Not really.

If all you want is the abilities of the base (ignoring the supporter), then there's no limit to the number of times you can visit the base, 'explore', and then draw/heal/recharge/remove. If you don't display the supporter, then when you move away it gets shuffled back into the base.

[Yewstance]

John Francis wrote:

Yewstance wrote:

But the other members of the party now can explore the Base 3-5 more times than they otherwise could?

Not really.

If all you want is the abilities of the base (ignoring the supporter), then there's no limit to the number of times you can visit the base, 'explore', and then draw/heal/recharge/remove. If you don't display the supporter, then when you move away it gets shuffled back into the base.

Ah, I didn't think of that. The limiting factor is the movement, though; once the base is empty you'll need to spend 2 turns (by default) re-using it intentionally. End your turn, move away on the next move step (Supporter gets shuffled back), then move back.

I'm still indifferent, honestly, but I acknowledge that there can be feel-bad moments if a player with 4+ more Supporters than the rest of the party joins in.

[JohnF]

If the consensus is that the players of the less-experienced characters would consider potentially benefiting from supporters they wouldn't have access to (plus a base that might remain open even after all the supporters they do have access to have been displayed) to be adequate compensation for possibly not finding a usable supporter when they explored the base, then I'll withdraw my objection.

[redeux]

IMO:

1. This is similar to traders in season 3/4, which were particularly complicated if a player joined mid-campaign. I used a pre-generated character for season 3 and never got access to Ghoul market. This was in particular an issue at the time because Ultimate Decks were not a thing and the Ghoul Market was the best way to get a "reveal to reduce all damage by X" armor. I don't particularly understand barring access to Traders or supporters if part of the group has it unlocked.

2. I understand that supporter feats could be an issue since a group could all pick different supporter feats and then it could be abused. For just the supporters with no feats though, I don't see much issue with allowing anyone to use those if at least one other person has rallied the supporter. Though I guess there might be an issue if you do something that unrallies a supporter, but then the rest of the party still has that supporter rallied and you wouldn't actually lose access to that supporter. Apart from that though, are there any major issues?