With the introduction of the Undaunted Aegis, we have a moderate exacerbation of what some perceive as a degenerate strategy. When fighting the adversary, it has been pointed out that if you have no corruptions and two adversary cards left, you've basically won. There are a few adversaries that might take extra planning or have an outside chance to hand out more than just the two corruptions to the fighting player, but the majority of the time it's a safe bet. Now that the Undaunted Aegis is in the mix, that's potentially 3 cards that can be tanked. Obviously, they themselves have 3 spaces, but the arguably better option is that they use their virtue to intercept a corruption for a different player (possibly more than one other player) doing the adversary battle.
I'm on the fence about the strategy on the whole. On the one hand, I think it's a bit cheesy, on the other hand I still do it so I guess it doesn't bother me that much. What do other people think about corruption tanking on the adversary broadly and specifically the way the Undaunted Aegis figures into it now?
I've toyed with the idea of a house rule that taking a corruption forces you out of the adversary battle, meaning at most, you could only take one on the final card. Though, you could argue that if the Aegis took one for you, you could proceed. As Justin has pointed out elsewhere, something like this would largely serve to extend the game, which isn't an inherently good thing. On the flip side, I think my favorite Adversary fight so far has been Utuk-Ku where the number of advantages we could spend got severely reduced, so we had to hot potato him around. We'd run in, knock one, maybe two, of his cards down then have to bail because we didn't want to risk going through the rest of the cards at maximum penalty. I don't remember how many engagements it took, but we eventually pulled some previously reduced cards and were able to bring it home. This was in stark contrast to what often ends up with us one-shotting the boss through stacking one hero to the nines and sending them in like a nuke.
I'm on the fence about the strategy on the whole. On the one hand, I think it's a bit cheesy, on the other hand I still do it so I guess it doesn't bother me that much. What do other people think about corruption tanking on the adversary broadly and specifically the way the Undaunted Aegis figures into it now?
I've toyed with the idea of a house rule that taking a corruption forces you out of the adversary battle, meaning at most, you could only take one on the final card. Though, you could argue that if the Aegis took one for you, you could proceed. As Justin has pointed out elsewhere, something like this would largely serve to extend the game, which isn't an inherently good thing. On the flip side, I think my favorite Adversary fight so far has been Utuk-Ku where the number of advantages we could spend got severely reduced, so we had to hot potato him around. We'd run in, knock one, maybe two, of his cards down then have to bail because we didn't want to risk going through the rest of the cards at maximum penalty. I don't remember how many engagements it took, but we eventually pulled some previously reduced cards and were able to bring it home. This was in stark contrast to what often ends up with us one-shotting the boss through stacking one hero to the nines and sending them in like a nuke.