Redemption discussion

[SirNobody]

Hey,

a couple Plots to shut down a huge offense ... --those are all epic.

I'm sorry Justin, that's not epic, it's evil.

Nathan, while one player not drawing any lost souls does lead to unfun and uncompetitive games, the manipulation of lost souls does add an interesting wrinkle to the game.  Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.

The issue I see with draw and search abilities is how hard they are to stop.  How do you stop Gifts of the Magi/Hur other than Destruction of Nehushtan?  How do you stop Pentecost other than Rain becomes Dust?  And while Magic the Gathering banned the first (and I think only) "search your draw pile for any card" card, Redemption has in recent sets made False Peace and Search harder to negate and easier to recur.  Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.

Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster.  Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?

The discussion was civil and productive until this point.  I am deleting the flames with the hope we can continue a productive discussion without the spleen venting and sarcasm.  Thank you, Rob.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

[The Schaef]

Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.

Gold NT offense?

Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.

Given the nature and purpose of the game, I disagree with the notion that the cards are "inherently overpowered".  Their power seems exactly right for their intent.

[Isildur]

Well I consider myself an Old School player since ive been playing for around 10 years (Has it been 10 already?) I still use 63 card decks as the norm. and I think Teal is evil. Redemption in how its played has changed much from what it was preKings, and as Hobbit has stated the epic battles that decided how a game would turn out are now gone (any one remeber Second Seal, Fallen Warrior and Siege hahaha good times) and it has been replaced by preblocker ignore, Zeal CBN style kills and other crazy cheapness moves. The game has imo modernized itsself which for the better or worse is how the game has turned out. And im sad to say this but the days of epic battles that decide a game are gone and it has been replaced by themes and a plethora of other things, though there are still those of us out there that will still use ANB, Primary Objective and 63+ card decks to help remind every one how the game used to be  

[Isildur]

How are you getting this impression?

[Master KChief]

Perhaps if we created more effective but different ways to generate lost souls (a la Harvest Time and Hopper) it would help keep lost soul manipulation as a strength and not a drawback for Redemption.

Gold NT offense?

...so what do the other 7 good brigades fall on then?

Which is asking for trouble in a game that has dominants that are inherently overpowered cards that everyone uses.

Given the nature and purpose of the game, I disagree with the notion that the cards are "inherently overpowered".  Their power seems exactly right for their intent.

if this was the 'nature' and 'purpose' of the game, why doesnt every card have dominant status? and yes, im sure their power is exactly right for their intent...which are incredibly powerful broken cards with hardly any counter. trust me, nix dominants and this game becomes BOUNDS more balanced.

[sk]

I can't find the thread (I think it was lost in the plurge), but I think your guesses were pretty accurate.  The ol' "Black is weak" came up a few times, but I'm not really sure that they really wanted that changed...

[Isildur]

Black is not weak nor is red 

[YourMathTeacher]

pokemon also has a whopping zero cards banned.

...apart from every card made by Wizards of the Coast. But that's not because of being OP'd. That's just because they wanted Churches to stop calling Pokemon "from the devil." 

[Bryon]

Hobbit, thanks for the post.  And thanks for the thoughtfulness and good intentions and careful tone.  Couching your constructive criticism as you did goes a long way in making your voice heard.

Every fall, I sit down with players here and we chat about what the new set has brought to the game.  We discuss what we think are the weak points of the game (what cards are too strong, etc.).  I take notes.  I watch closely at the top tables of tournaments to see what wins during that tournament year.  I take notes.  I listen to what is being said on the boards.  Almost every year, I post about brigade/theme weaknesses and collect the more thoughtful insights from players.  Gabe and others have given TONS of very valuable insights and suggestions in the last couple years.

Of course the game is not perfect.  No game is.  I understand what the current weak points are.  I play Redemption almost every day, and usually twice or three times a day, so I know personally what it feels like to face certain kinds of decks.  (Gabe's nats-winning deck and Tim Mierz's nats-winning deck are common enemies).  I host a tournament every 4 weeks, and see what strategies win and what strategies make opponents frown about the most.  I read a ton of posts and get a ton of advice from players here, and a couple of the top players here have been extremely helpful.  You need only read the articles about the new set to see that the playtesters have listened.  We know your concerns.

Tim Maly, I think you'd get more playtesters talking as you did if most of these threads remained as civil as Hobbit's first post.  There are some who don't understand that rudeness and exageration do not help to move a conversation in a positive direction.  Further, that exageration tends to weaken the credibility of those complaints, and of the complainer.

However, I think this discussion is better tabled until AFTER the new set releases.  First, since it is too late to do anything about the cards, since their release is only 5 weeks away!  But also because the new set will address many of the issues here, and will (likely) being about its own concerns.  If we could have this discussion in September through January, that would be the ideal time, as it gives us a better picture of the game while still giving us a chance to do something about it.

Thanks again, Hobbit.

[TheKarazyvicePresidentRR]

if this was the 'nature' and 'purpose' of the game, why doesnt every card have dominant status? and yes, im sure their power is exactly right for their intent...which are incredibly powerful broken cards with hardly any counter. trust me, nix dominants and this game becomes BOUNDS more balanced.

Ever played type nw?

[TheHobbit13]

Tim Maly, I think you'd get more playtesters talking as you did if most of these threads remained as civil as Hobbit's first post.  There are some who don't understand that rudeness and exageration do not help to move a conversation in a positive direction.  Further, that exageration tends to weaken the credibility of those complaints, and of the complainer.

Thanks again, Hobbit.

I don't see much different in Shaef's post. Besides Tim Maly is practically a playtester, he has such a vast and extensive knowledge of the rules and how the game functions, not to mention he is an extraordinary player who is leagues above most people in gameplay and deck strategy.  Therefore, any "rude" comment ( given the situation I don't think it was terrible or un-called for) should be taken and recieved more openly then the politest comments of a mediocre player. Furthermore,  Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.

Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster.  Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?

[Red]

I played garden tomb and zemple together it hurt bad.

[TheHobbit13]

I don't know why it's sad that one of the most popular card games on the planet, backed by one of the largest entertainment companies on the planet, would have a good battle phase.  I don't begrudge them that.

It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people  laugh at  (it is more or less a childrens ccg), yet there is more fun battles in pokemon then there is in Redemption. pokemon and Redemption are battle oriented games, Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has  unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO. The battle phase in pokemon is simple yet more interactive battle phase of Redemption, making it better than the Redemption battle phase IMO.

[YourMathTeacher]

Pokemon doesn't have a "Battle Phase." You do one attack per turn, which ends your turn. Besides, Pokemon has had its issues with battles that were over before they started, immediately after the first set was released. If your Active Pokemon is Asleep or Paralyzed, you can do nothing. That was very frustrating when your opponent's Gastly could knock out your Charizard before you could even attack just because you couldn't flip a stinkin' heads (not that I'm bitter or anything  ).

I think the Pokemon analogy does not work in a comparison to Redemption, so it should just be dropped.

[The Schaef]

I don't see much different in Shaef's post... Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.

Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster.  Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?

Can you point out to me what is rude about that comment or not moving the conversation?  You made two specific claims that X mechanic leads to Y conclusion.  All I did was ask you if Y conclusion came out of the inclusion of either of these mechanics to this point.  It is a simple and reasonable question to ask if the things you say will happen, have in fact happened.

It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people  laugh at  (it is more or less a childrens ccg)

No more so a child's game than ours, or just about any other that is not deliberately targeting adult players (I would submit that Magic and Vampyre are examples of ones that do).  But the battle mechanics basically boil down to a combination of War and Rock-Paper-Scissors, with initiative based on "speed", and Redemption was widely regarded as being at its least fun when it was little more than glorified War (pre-Women).

Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has  unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO.

And as I said, that's perfectly fine.  It's a long-standing well-developed game from a huge company, so I applaud their system for being as good as it is.  I simply don't think it's sad that you consider theirs better than ours.  We can't be the best at everything, and everybody cannot be the best at something.

[Prof Underwood]

...constructive criticism...goes a long way in making your voice heard...Gabe and others have given TONS of very valuable insights and suggestions in the last couple years...If we could have this discussion in September through January, that would be the ideal time...

I agree with all of this.  Unfortunately, last year there was a severe lack of playtester presence on the boards from September to January.  Bryon, Mike B., Justin, Maly, and Rob were all basically non-existent during those months due to various life issues.  I'm hoping that this fall will be different

[EmJayBee83]

Pokemon doesn't have a "Battle Phase." You do one attack per turn, which ends your turn.

Knowing little beyond the basic game mechanics of Pokemon, I don't understand what you are saying. The attack is the last thing you can do, but there are at least two other phases that occur before the attack phase. First you draw a card. Then you can do a whole bunch of things like play new Pokemon, evolve them, energize them, etc. Lastly you make your attack. In what way is the pre-slotted portion of your turn dedicated to attack not the equivalent of a "battle phase?"

I think the Pokemon analogy does not work in a comparison to Redemption, so it should just be dropped.

Can you explain this claim?

[YourMathTeacher]

The Redemption Battle Phase is a back-and-forth dynamic that allows both players a chance to play and counter. That is what I though Hobbit was saying he missed.

Pokemon has no such dynamic. The prior phases that you are talking about are akin to the Prep Phase. There really is no Battle Phase in Pokemon. You just choose which attack you are going to use if you have enough Energy attached and nothing is stopping you (i.e. Special Conditions).

The comparison that I saw used was that Pokemon doesn't share the same "dilemma" as Redemption, in that you don't get to do anything to stop your opponent (no back-and-forth). Pokemon has had the equivalent of "pre-block ignore" since its inception.

[The Guardian]

Why is Pokemon even relevant? I want to play Redemption thank you very much.  

[YourMathTeacher]

Why is Pokemon even relevant? I want to play Redemption thank you very much. 

That is essentially my point. Pokemon should not have been brought into this discussion.

[Captain Kirk]

I will agree with YMT.  I know how much he used to play the game so I believe he is one of the most qualified persons on this forum to talk about it. 

He will try to convince you that he played the game so much because of his son, but we all know the truth... 

Kirk

[YourMathTeacher]

I guess I shouldn't mention the Halloween that my wife and I wore matching white t-shirts with a big "R" on them, and I painted my hair blue while my wife painted her's red....

He will try to convince you that he played the game so much because of his son, but we all know the truth...  

Actually I only played so that I could have a "better connection" to the Junior Highers at the church I was youth pastoring. Of course, the connection was lost after I beat all of their best decks with my Hit-n-Run deck.

I didn't discover Redemption until I was just about to leave that church position.

[Captain Kirk]

I stand corrected.

[EmJayBee83]

The comparison that I saw used was that Pokemon doesn't share the same "dilemma" as Redemption, in that you don't get to do anything to stop your opponent (no back-and-forth). Pokemon has had the equivalent of "pre-block ignore" since its inception.

If that's the case and Redemption's battle phase truly is currently less interesting that Pokemon's, the Hobbit is correct that this is sad situation. (And it really doesn't matter how much money is spent on Pokemon design or marketing or whatever.)

Thanks for the explanation, YMT.

 

[TheHobbit13]

I don't see much different in Shaef's post... Tim Maly is not being rude, he is simply fighting fire with fire.

Limiting draw cards stops games from breaking, and no cost is a recipe for disaster.  Is Redemption broken, and/or is it in a disastrous state?

Can you point out to me what is rude about that comment or not moving the conversation?  You made two specific claims that X mechanic leads to Y conclusion.  All I did was ask you if Y conclusion came out of the inclusion of either of these mechanics to this point.  It is a simple and reasonable question to ask if the things you say will happen, have in fact happened.

It is sad because Pokemon uses basic battle mechanics that people  laugh at  (it is more or less a childrens ccg)

No more so a child's game than ours, or just about any other that is not deliberately targeting adult players (I would submit that Magic and Vampyre are examples of ones that do).  But the battle mechanics basically boil down to a combination of War and Rock-Paper-Scissors, with initiative based on "speed", and Redemption was widely regarded as being at its least fun when it was little more than glorified War (pre-Women).

Redemption (which has a good battle phase) through the newer sets has  unitentionally taken away from the battle phase, pokemon hasn't (from the little knowledge I have about pokemon) and that is why their battle phase is better IMO.

And as I said, that's perfectly fine.  It's a long-standing well-developed game from a huge company, so I applaud their system for being as good as it is.  I simply don't think it's sad that you consider theirs better than ours.  We can't be the best at everything, and everybody cannot be the best at something.

I did not find that your post was out of line I was just looking at it through Tims possible point of view, were he could have taken it the wrong way.

(I ment to answer your question in an earlier post) Broken? perhaps, but certainly the drawing and search stuff has gotten really good which I think hurts the game. Unplayable, no. Totally warped and Broken, no.  In retrospect to other games, Redemption is most certainly broken ( due to the gameplay and mechanincal layouts),  but in itself, I don't belive that Redemption is broken in terms of "unplayable". OR severvly damaged. I personally think that it needs a tune up here and there by banning select cards.  "Cough" U&T "Cough"