I have a short game review which I'll be using in this post to highlight the degenerative, degrading, effects of overpowered cards.

Opponent goes first, Chooses Red Eagle and Rajhin
I go second, Choose Druid King and Almalexia

Opponent opens on a board with an obvious play. They purchase Druid King Vestments and turn their War Song into a Writ of Coin.

Opponents second turn with an obvious play. They purchase Briarheart Ritual.

Opponents third turn with an obvious play. They purchase Eldertide Fenwitch.

My plays are the following.

First turn, I'm scummed out from being able to purchase Eldertide Fenwitch, which would be proper compensation for going second in this horrible game state, because I drew a first turn non-gold generating starter card, the War Song. I then must by Wispheart Totem to prevent the opponent from getting early combo. Briarheart Ritual, which I would have taken, was revealed.

Second turn I make a Writ of Coin because I can't do anything else.

Third turn I concede because the opponent has deterministic ways to make large amount of gold and essenetially do anything that they want by their 4th turn. I have no opportunities relative to them and would slowly lose.

Here are where some pieces of analysis come in. This is how I inform my balance ideas. Why did the above sequence of events happen resulting in a non-game?

The opponent had 1st turn advantage. That doesn't mean anything in and of itself, but they were able to leverage that virtual advantage into a material advantage by purchasing one of the best cards in the game, because it only costs 2 gold, and making a Writ of Coin to set them up for buying the other power card in the Tavern, Fenwitch, on their 3rd or 4th turn.

That is to say that they were able to make multiple economically advantageous moves with just 4 gold which would guarantee future activity.

That is to say that the line of play of buying a 2 cost economy booster and then making a Writ of Coin is somewhat problematic from the standpoint of doing too much and creating deterministic game states.

That is to say that the 2 cost card they purchased, Druid King Vestments, is undercosted.

The second piece of analysis I have is regard to the 2nd turn advantage. The second turn advantage involves having an extra gold. I did get to use that extra gold to make a Writ of Coin, but ultimately, that play was not enough compensation for going second since the opponent had another back breaker that couldn't be responded to on their next turn. Fenwitch, on the other hand, would have been proper compensation, but purchasing it was denied by the non-gold generating starter card.

That is to say that a 50% coin flip happened at the start of the game and failing it caused a determinist outcome.

That is to say that variance in the opening hand made by base starter cards (cards ubiquitous to every game) created a problematic situation.

And that is where the designers duty comes into play. They should be stewards of the game who ensure that each game is as good as it possible can be. In this case, the answer is simple. Make early economy boosters cost more gold to purchase so that first player doesn't get too much of a material advantage. Make all of the starter cards give one gold upon first use so that second player is likely to receive appropriate compensation for being on the backfoot. And we could talk about other cards like Briarheart Ritual too, but let's leave that one alone for now.

The last thing that I'd like to discuss is why it's important for designers to take their duty seriously. I'd also like to point out why they shouldn't rely on contextless data which I suspect is being done if data is being used at all.

The context of the game that I played is that it was a non-game because of core game mechanics. Because I'm personally able to identify the issues that were happening, I conceded and didn't waste my time getting to the situation where the opponent would have infinitie gold and I would be struggling to do anything. The added play context that the designers must think of though when considering their duty to the game and players is that not everyone will recognize what happened. They should recognize that their are a large swath of different types of players who are playing Tales of Tribute and therefore see how the category amongst those players of lesser familiar players will have a terrible experience due to the mechanics that I pointed out. One of the biggest complaint is from these players and it is that games take too long. How long would have my game been if I hadn't quit. It would have taken forever...

And don't get me wrong. I have had terrible experience after terrible experience in Tales. The game that I described was loathsome. That isn't good and the thoughts of players such as myself should matter too. But I recognize that there are all of these other players without the experience to understand the game in the same way and will ultimately harbor negative feelings towards Tales for the simple reason that poorly balanced game pieces and mechanics were not reigned in, but where allowed to flourish under the design team's vision instead. Poor balance marginalizes everyone and even if some don't recognize that their issues are caused by poor balance.

End of thread.