How to fix the outrage/retribution controversy

[puschit]

Retributions. They keep on infuriating players. While I am not a fan I also don’t think they are broken or OP, my stance is that the abundance of quality kredit ramp is – but that’s not up to debate here. Initially I planned to do three longer seperate posts about the US and deck design in general but I just can’t find the time and honestly, nobody would read all of that anyway :P

So, this is an attempt to „fix“ the outrage/retribution mechanic without removing them nor changing them too much. The devs clearly like them and they explicitly said multiple times that, yes, they want to keep the element that they are theoretically infinite. So, instead of combatting that I’ll about to make a suggestion that not only keeps their flair, it will actually improve on that:

See, Retributions are generated by Outrage cards and Outrages are generated when certain units die. So, what the devs wanted to achieve is crystal clear: They wanted a mechanic that represents public outcry over some military acts that generates outrage which leads to more public support for retribution. Because, historically, the US wasn’t directly involved and could have decided to stay neutral. They were far away and their homeland safe. war means tremendous effort and sacrifices, so you need to convince the population. So there is a second „war at the home front“ where you need to win over public opinion to fund the war and to get men to enlist. You don’t need to convince anybody if you are directly attacked but the US needed, well, OUTRAGE.
However, the cards we do have reflect this poorly because they just don’t care how they die. The biggest event that allowed the US congress to enter the war was the attack on Pearl Harbour and lost a couple of battleships. When the US attacked Iwo Jima? Not so much, in fact they questioned if that was necessary. And dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a disaster, public relations wise. See the difference there? It only works when you are the victim!

So, my suggestion is as simple as it is straight forward:
Change Outrages so that they are only generated during the opponent’s turn !
That way they won’t trigger when the US player is attacking and intentionally killing his units. It never felt okay that suiciding a 121st Infantry Regiment would cause outrages in favour of the guys that sent them on that suicide mission. This change has three advantages:
A) It weakens retributions over all, something I don’t agree with but it’s what many want to see
B) It means the opponent is now in control if and when to trigger outrages. This not only weakens them, it also makes them less frustrating and makes the game more strategic. Most importantly it will now be important to fight over the frontline because if the opponent occupies the front, the retribution player will have to decide if it’s worth
C) The entire mechanic now works better flavour wise – kill their stuff and you’ll cause outrage and will suffer retribution.

So, what do y’all think of it?

[fluidwill]

I actually think this is a good idea

[romy]

I think this is a really interesting take.

I had not thought about it but it sure makes sense.

I may be repeating myself but this was a really interesting read, thanks for having taken the time to think and write it.

well done !

[Sarina England]

it is not that op
rush deck is much worse

[sushi_komplett]

These are some interesting considerations. I actually never thought of Outrage and Retribution as social-political themes but the reasoning makes a lot of sense. I also like the bottom line proposal very much. Changing Outrages to be generated by the opponent would add some interesting new dimension to the concept.

Any proposals of mine would have gone in the direction of:
Make the Retribution cards more thematic. Limit them to damage dealing. Remove any countermeasures from them etc., so at least it will be easier to know what is coming for you.
But your proposal sounds more creative. And you could combine both approaches.

[Lucky_Star_Fan]

No, that would make the mechanic too weak to play. People just need to get used to running suppression if card text annoys them.

Look at the japanese cards which give effects only if they die on the opponents turn. You would need to make retribution cards much cheaper to play if you made it work that way. the current costs are balanced around current acquiring mechanics.

[puschit]

Originally posted by Lucky_Star_Fan:

No, that would make the mechanic too weak to play. People just need to get used to running suppression if card text annoys them.

Look at the japanese cards which give effects only if they die on the opponents turn. You would need to make retribution cards much cheaper to play if you made it work that way. the current costs are balanced around current acquiring mechanics.

You could reduce the Outrage cost from 2 to 1 to compensate, I have no problem with that.

But to say "just use suppress" is not an argument. Suppress is readily available for US, GER and the Finns. UK got a single card and you also need to pin in order to suppress. Japan, USSR, France, Italy and Poland didn't get a single card with suppress. And even if you stop playing the latter nations and jam-pack your deck with suppress, you won't be able to prevent blitzing units like 121st Infantry before they die or anything else when the US player drops a Blue and Gray and then suicide-attacks with his other units (well, with the exception of Hit the Drop Point).
Maybe in the future when we got more suppress cards across more nations.

[Lucky_Star_Fan]

Originally posted by puschit:

You could reduce the Outrage cost from 2 to 1 to compensate, I have no problem with that.

But to say "just use suppress" is not an argument. Suppress is readily available for US, GER and the Finns. UK got a single card and you also need to pin in order to suppress. Japan, USSR, France, Italy and Poland didn't get a single card with suppress. And even if you stop playing the latter nations and jam-pack your deck with suppress, you won't be able to prevent blitzing units like 121st Infantry before they die or anything else when the US player drops a Blue and Gray and then suicide-attacks with his other units (well, with the exception of Hit the Drop Point).
Maybe in the future when we got more suppress cards across more nations.

It's not the initial outrage cost that would need to be lowered, but all the others too. Again, if you make outrage only work half the time it will kill the archetype. Some of the options(which are random, there's no guarantee you get a useful choice) are 5 or 6 cost. You say there is not enough suppress, but that is a balancing parameter. Guess what I did when commandos were everywhere at this expack's launch? Every deck ran two white deaths. If you find outrage to be too strong, just run finnland ally in every deck. You won't, because it's not common to find outrage and other opponents are more worth teching against.

[prismfuzz]

I think this would be an interesting change. Players must consider positioning and timing which might make retributions dynamic and engaging. Any change that makes Kards less combo chaining like YuGiOh, and more of a strategic conversation like MTG is a good change in my opinion. This enhances the game's thematic elements by aligning the mechanics with historical events, emphasizing that public outrage stems from perceived injustices, particularly when the US was seen as a victim before entering conflicts.

Triggering on the enemy turn also has "flavor synergy" with US' 442nd Infatry Regiment and Kokura's Sword. That overlap with US/Japan would be good thematically and mechanically.

[Rabipelado]

Actually, this seems like a good idea.

[Z0mbie]

That would be nice because the current retribution spam is just embarrassingly stupid. I’m not sure who thought it was a good idea.