Cactus Game Design Message Boards

These are rule suggestions everyone will probably hate, but I think they would help minimize some of the frustrations that can come out of Redemption tournament play.

Initiative
"Initiative is granted once your opponent confirms that you have it."

This is only in regards to regular initiative, not special initiative, and really only serves to make a very well understood courtesy an actual rule. As far as I am aware, under the current rule set checking initiative is not required, though it is expected, which can lead to some... ambitious players trying to take advantage of the rules. By making it a formal rule, you minimize the risk of misunderstandings or players playing too quickly and not actually having it.

Turn Length
Players should attempt to keep track of their turn length via a timer. If a Preparation Phase lasts longer than 45 seconds per turn, that player forfeits their Battle Phase for the turn. If a Discard Phase lasts longer than 45 seconds per turn, that player forfeits their Draw Phase next turn (unless their Draw Pile has no cards in it). In the battle phase, players have 30 seconds for each change in initiative. If a turn lasts longer than 30 seconds, initiative is passed, or, if it cannot, the battle immediately resolves.

The most frustrating thing in the world is playing against slow opponents. It means you get less turns, which lowers your chance of avoiding a tie or timeout result, which hurts your chances immensely in larger tournaments. One of the things I believe is missing from the culture of Redemption is real incentive to keep track of turn length. If you were to whip out a timer and keep track of your opponent's turns, you would likely be the only one doing it, and you would likely be considered a not very nice word for it. The first part of this rule would hopefully fix that, by normalizing the use of timers and making the length of a turn a little more standardized. The times proposed in this rule change seem short, but really, 45 seconds is a long time, and players will very quickly get adjusted to the change, especially if timers are widely used. This will overall help avoid having players end up penalized for being paired against slower opponents.

Decking Out
"Every time you would draw cards when your draw pile is empty, your opponent may discard a card from your territory regardless of protection (except a Lost Soul)."

We've been trying to work out some kind of punishment for decking out for ages, and while old-school speed isn't the king it was a few years back, I still believe a rule like this would be valuable. I think that this strikes a good balance between not being too harsh while still strongly discouraging decking out. Some of the wording here is a very specific. "Cards" rather than "card" is important, as it means only one card would be discarded per draw phase, as opposed to three. Additionally, allowing the opponent to execute the discard places more weight by allowing an opponent to dismantle a strategy quickly, further discouraging ever getting to this point.

Dominants
"Dominants may only be played on your turn, or while you have initiative in battle.

This is the biggie, but I think it's time to eliminate slapjack once and for all, and short of banning dominants, this is the best way to do it. It would nerf pretty much every dominant in the game, hopefully leading to more exciting choices and less emphasis on those 7 cards.

Let me say what I like first:

INITIATIVE

All for that, I think it should be stated in the rules even though it has become more or less a de facto rule at higher levels of play.  Asking for initiative should always take place in battle, IMO, since we have things that can happen outside of normal play and we often see a scenario where someone has not finished all abilities on their cards and the other player tries to play an enhancement.  You would allow dominant play to happen and you'd allow for players to be sure that all abilities are done before playing.

DOMINANTS

Very much in favor of this.  No, I LOVE this idea.  Would it fundamentally change the game?  Yes, but I think for the better.  Mayhem on first turn was so powerful that it had to be errata'd to not work then.  Just think on that for a bit.  It is still incredibly powerful on other turns, and a draw->VP is also silly powerful in some scenarios.  Would this mean less ways to block SoG?  Well, yes, but it also eliminates slapjack which I am all for.  We also have no SoG play right after the current player draws some souls, which I have never liked as a mechanic.  This would also stop certain defensive plays in battle, where I use a card to kill one character and then immediately Martyr the other one.  This tactic has always seemed unfair, and I have heard many players confused as to why that is allowed.  You'd also limit the AotL immediately after block, which encourages actual interaction.

Now on to what I like, but think we need to work on:

DECKING OUT

Okay, I agree, there should be a penalty.  HOWEVER, we need to remember that (barring characters that turn themselves into souls) a player needs for their opponent to draw 5 of the 7 (in T1 minimum size) souls in their decks.  This is what makes me hesitate some about imposing penalties, and I want to make sure that they are balanced.  Also, you have it happen each time they would draw cards, but that would essentially give the opponent another Abomb if they are using a mill strategy.  I don't like that.  Since the player would not be actually using draw abilities, I'd limit this to the initial D3 (that is, "If during the Draw Phase a player cannot draw any/all of the cards allotted for that phase, then their opponent may discard a non-soul in their territory or set-aside regardless of protection.")

What I don't like:

TURN LENGTH

Okay, yes, playing a slow person is not fun.  And yes, calling over a judge to enforce the time has a negative stigma attached to it, and you are seen as too competitive or not a nice person.  However, I do not like bringing timers into this at the level you are suggesting.  We have a mechanic, but it is discouraged through social pressures.  That is what we should address going forward, IMO.

Initiative check--for this. With the increase in manually triggered cards this just seems to make sense.

Turn length--honestly, trying to use a timer will probably just add more time. I am all for players having their own timers to track the round length (I usually do if there's no main clock for all to see). It is never unreasonable to politely ask an opponent to speed up for the sake of not timing out.

Decking out--don't like this one. There are ample counters to speed decks, and I think this kind of rule would end up leading to more defense heavy turtle decks whose goal is simply to get the other player to deck out first. Those kind of games would just not be fun at all.

Dominants--definitely do not like this one. We have rules for when multiple dominants hit the table near-simultaneously. I like the direction we've gone in using the dominant cap and creating more dominants to give games more variety. The only dominant I've put in every deck I've ever made is Son of God, which is the way it should be.

Initiative - This is the only way that I play, and it is because of habit. I think implementing this rule would be fine, since everyone would get used to it quickly, then forget that they do it every time anyway.

Turn Length - I have already expressed my opposition to this idea. This kind of rule would exclude people with learning disabilities from being able to play effectively, or even wanting to play at all. Timers also put undue pressure on nervous players as they tend to focus on the countdown rather than the decision-making.

Decking Out - Rather than punish the person who decked out, perhaps reward the player that did not. Maybe the opponent could search their deck and/or discard pile for a card?

Dominants - I don't think dominants should be limited, since this would leave players vulnerable in multiplayer when the game is on the line, but they are not part of the battle.

The problem I have with your Dominant suggestion in its current form is that it makes them barely different than multi-brigade Territory-class enhancements. You may as well just change their card type classification while you're at it.

Also, a lot of you suggestions don't take MP into account, YMT pointed out one such example with the dominant idea. For decking out, who would get to choose what to discard from the player's territory? Each other player? That would basically remove the decked out player from contention, much too high a price. The next player? That gives them an unfair advantage over the other players as they can get rid of something they don't like and will then have a turn before everyone else to make use of it.

To be honest, dominants being their current slightly overpowered state is what helps balance MP categories, in my experience. It means there is at least some recourse if a player takes an early and/or large lead. If they happen to be after the player that's drawing the most souls but the least defense then restricting SoG/NJ or Burial to a player's turn means they'll likely win by default.

I like the jist of the dominant rule but I would change it to while opponent is in battle so you can still use cm burial and doubt.  But that is just me. I like it because it makes game play less chaotic. And if you want to time people it would be best to implement a timer otherwise its such a gray area.

#1 I have no problem with this idea.

#2 Time. I am a slow player because I cannot seem to memorize the cards and usually need to read them each time. Also, I admit to sometimes feeling overwhelmed when a lot of cards are played and I try not to forget what is out there that can make my play dumb/useless/prohibited/limited by a territory/artifact/soul/etc. card in a territory that I had forgotten was out there. I have never deliberately played slowly and never will and believe me it is as frustrating to me as it is to my opponent to time out. I believe if a player feels slow play is deliberate then that player has every right to call a judge to help. However, to put a clock on me will make me decide to never play again which I will miss.  I already have some frustration at errata and when cards do not play the way they are written but I do not know this as I am not an expert or aware when the Elders make decisions that change how a card is interpreted. I believe this change seriously hurts new players or infrequent players like me that cannot recognize a cards SA just by seeing the card. Please do not implement this one.

#3 Decking Out. I admit to not having fun when a player seems to have a million cards out by the second or third turn and I have 3 or 4 out. But the penalty here seems to harsh to me when there are cards you can put in your deck to hurt speed decks. I would like to see other ideas on this...maybe require a deck under 60 cards to have to add one or two souls as a penalty, or only allow a player to draw a max number of cards per turn, or allow a player to interrupt an opponents draw and play a card after so many cards are drawn by that opponent,(eg after each time an opponent draws 6 cards you can interrupt and play a card that may end further draws in some manner maybe by ending the battle or interrupting a key cards ability to allow drawing to renew).

#4. The value of a Dominant should be its SA and not how quickly a player can get it out. I believe most players can tell when the player is slapping a Dominant down as an interrupt and not just because of its' SA. I would say a request for a judge to be called to determine if that was the underlying strategy then the judge can delay the cards implementation until after  the opponent finishes their play....or maybe simply require the Dom be placed back in the deck or discarded without implementation which may serve as a deterrent to a "slapping it down" strategy at the risk of losing it. 

I have really enjoyed this game and the Christian atmosphere it fosters. It seems to me that the last few years have allowed for a lessening of these values and more emphasis on winning and ego rather then how valuable having this Christian game can be. Some of this is likely a result of more non Christian players being introduced to the game. We should be teaching and emphasizing to them the Christian values of the game and not worldly values that foster a "win at all cost" or "defeating the opponent" is the      only value to be sought after. Take care all, Allen