Author Topic: What if we drew 10 in the opening hand? (Read 17769 times)

jbeers285 · « **on:** June 19, 2015, 01:07:11 AM »

I was contimplating the idea of both players drawing 10 cards to start off the game instead of 8. Initially I thought to myself 'no, that's a bad idea it will enable speed to become an even bigger issue'. After considering the ramifications of such a change I find myself thinking 'this could really help the game'.

Just to clarify this wouldn't effect any other current rules. Hand limit is still 8 and the Dom cap still exsists ect.

Here is why I believe it's a good idea
1. It helps avoid soul drought. (All of us hate soul drought)
2. It gives offenses a chance to set up faster which I believe is needed with the strength of defense in the game today.
3. It gives you a better chance to come up with a first turn block.
4. It forces a player to play at least 2 cards down immediately This gets the game rolling.
5. It enables players to use larger decks more effectively.
6. Avoid timeouts.
7. Benefits speed and Turtles (counter the balanced meta)

I am curious about what others think about this idea.

Gabe · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2015, 03:19:47 AM »

I like the idea of starting with 1/5 of my deck in my opening hand. This would be a fun format to test (maybe through TLG tournaments?) in the future.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2015, 07:40:12 AM »

My initial response is that this may be a good idea as well. Consider the fact that, as everyone says, you cannot counter speed unless you draw the counter. Having that counter by your first draw is a much better possibility in this situation, even if it is only 2 additional cards.

Further, I absolutely agree that forcing cards to be played immediately is a good thing.

I wouldn't mind testing this at all.

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2015, 07:42:59 AM »

I think that the idea warrants testing. I can agree with the "pros" listed above.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2015, 08:07:47 AM »

I am generally in favor of this idea. I would especially like it if the start with 10 were coupled with an intro-prep phase. This would allow for the setup benefits jbeers mentions without kicking off the race to three.

Since no one has mentioned any cons, however, let me start that list...

I feel like this would really penalize the player who goes second (i.e., draws first). I would now draw three and have to put down over a third of my hand on turn one.

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2015, 08:58:43 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 19, 2015, 08:07:47 AM

I feel like this would really penalize the player who goes second (i.e., draws first). I would now draw three and have to put down over a third of my hand on turn one.

Why not put down your whole hand and play Mayhem?

...oh wait, we errated that.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:11:40 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 19, 2015, 08:07:47 AM

I am generally in favor of this idea. I would especially like it if the start with 10 were coupled with an intro-prep phase. This would allow for the setup benefits jbeers mentions without kicking off the race to three.

Since no one has mentioned any cons, however, let me start that list...

I feel like this would really penalize the player who goes second (i.e., draws first). I would now draw three and have to put down over a third of my hand on turn one.

I think that both of your points should be combined. I like the idea of drawing 10, but if we are going to make a change, let's go all-in. I propose:

1. Draw 10
2. Intro-Prep Phase
3. Everyone draws on their first turn

Having different rules for who draws first based on the category is confusing to new players. I would like consistency, and I think #1 and #2 help balance the scale enough.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:24:10 AM »

YMT, in your scenario, how would you balance the benefits of going first in that case? There is a distinct advantage in going first in every game, and Redemption may be even more so of an advantage. How do we keep things balanced between the players?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:36:30 AM »

Personally, I think that the Intro Prep Phase eliminates some of that advantage. Besides, why does going second get to have any advantages that going first would have had?

The Guardian · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:39:38 AM »

Quote

I feel like this would really penalize the player who goes second (i.e., draws first). I would now draw three and have to put down over a third of my hand on turn one.

This is a good point to consider, especially if the player who went first did not draw any souls.

I am definitely interested in testing though.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:50:42 AM »

Good thoughts guys. This has been put in the TLG bank of ideas to try in the future.

Redoubter · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:51:43 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 19, 2015, 09:36:30 AM

Personally, I think that the Intro Prep Phase eliminates some of that advantage. Besides, why does going second get to have any advantages that going first would have had?

Going first puts you at an advantage in a greater portion of games regardless of intro prep because you get to rescue first. Most games don't let the first player draw because going first puts you at an inherent advantage in almost all win conditions, and Redemption is no exception.

The Guardian · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2015, 09:59:20 AM »

Technically, the advantage goes to the player who can make the first rescue attempt, which isn't always possible during the first round. I also think certain decks benefit from going first whereas others are better off going second.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:00:02 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 19, 2015, 09:51:43 AM

Going first puts you at an advantage in a greater portion of games regardless of intro prep because you get to rescue first.

I'm still perplexed as to why there should not be an inherent advantage to going first. I am just as likely to draw a bad hand as a good hand, and my opponent has a similar likelihood of drawing defense that can stop me. Isn't this more of a question of deck-building once a draw10/intoprep is introduced?

The Guardian · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:07:02 AM »

The second player drawing first was one of the best rule changes the game has seen (perhaps second only to dom cap). I would be willing to test your idea as well, but I really think the current rule brings a lot of balance to the early game.

Gabe · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:25:00 AM »

I'm in favor of testing one thing at a time so we can see the impact that one thing has before we introduce other changes.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:33:21 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 19, 2015, 10:00:02 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on June 19, 2015, 09:51:43 AM
Going first puts you at an advantage in a greater portion of games regardless of intro prep because you get to rescue first.

I'm still perplexed as to why there should not be an inherent advantage to going first. I am just as likely to draw a bad hand as a good hand, and my opponent has a similar likelihood of drawing defense that can stop me. Isn't this more of a question of deck-building once a draw10/intoprep is introduced?

There is still an inherent advantage to going first, as there is in any game with a first to X win condition. However before the second player draws first rule that was established, there was never any reason why a person would choose to go second. With the rule, there is a legitimate strategic choice, whether you want the first chance to play your cards, or the first chance to draw. I don't have your experience teaching new players, but I would think that the idea of an intro-prep phase would be more complicated for new players than the 2nd player draws first option.

As for intro-prep, I used to be in favor of it for 2P categories, because it helps players using primarily responsive decks (using Gabes article's definitions), and that has always been my preferred deck type. However, now that I've seen games between 2 balanced decks go to time nearly every round of a tournament, I just don't know if it is feasible, or even a benefit to the game to make those deck types better. It might be worth another testing phase, but the awkwardness of the intro-prep phase in TEAMS is one of the reasons I prefer to not play it (the main reason of course is that it is usually up against Booster, but overall I'm just not a fan of intro prep).

Redoubter · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:41:07 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 19, 2015, 10:00:02 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on June 19, 2015, 09:51:43 AM
Going first puts you at an advantage in a greater portion of games regardless of intro prep because you get to rescue first.

I'm still perplexed as to why there should not be an inherent advantage to going first.

As others have said, it is not a question of whether there is an advantage, there is an inherent one in going first. It is a question of how to balance it so that each player has equal footing at the start of the game, even if it isn't perfect. The rule to allow only the second player to draw is that balance, and as pointed out it is more strategic (and the fact that people choose either shows that it is a good balance).

On the other points, I'm with Gabe about testing one thing at a time.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2015, 11:41:11 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 19, 2015, 10:25:00 AM

I'm in favor of testing one thing at a time so we can see the impact that one thing has before we introduce other changes.

I can definitely see the wisdom in this.

If given a choice, I would prefer that intro-prep would get the testing nod over 10 card starting hands.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2015, 11:43:11 AM »

I am personally not a fan of Intro prep phase in 2p format. I believe the opportunity to pop off a 4dc, www, angelic guidance, angelic news, Zaddok's anoints, Pentecost, first fruits, ect is a huge benefit and almost requires that several of these cards get in a deck. Intro Prep phase has made the disciples far and away the best choice in teams due to all the initial drawing you can do. I am afraid an intro prep phase would lead to 80% + disciples meta, especially if combined with 10 card opening hands.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2015, 12:09:36 PM »

Intro-Prep phase would prevent preblock ignore like TGT. It would also aid defenses that require more of their civilization to be in play (i.e. if another Babylonian is in play). Right now the first turn rescue can get freebies, and a 10-card draw will only enhance that.

I'll support testing a 10-card draw either way, but I don't see this helping to create more variety and creativity, but rather enhancing the current metas so they win more quickly.

The Guardian · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2015, 12:13:27 PM »

Quote

Intro-Prep phase would prevent preblock ignore like TGT

If a player gets off a TGT pre-block ignore on his first turn then that means he's taking the second turn so his opponent would have had the chance to put down ECs.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2015, 12:19:42 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 19, 2015, 12:13:27 PM

If a player gets off a TGT pre-block ignore on his first turn then that means he's taking the second turn so his opponent would have had the chance to put down ECs.

I forgot about the rescued LS requirement.

I don't actually use TGT.

However, my point is that several defenses require cards to be out first, and those defenses are put at a disadvantage when the other player goes first and attacks right away. Drawing 10 will increase the likelihood of a LS being available on the first turn, so I still think an Intro-Prep phase would be beneficial, especially for new players.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2015, 12:24:39 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 19, 2015, 12:19:42 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on June 19, 2015, 12:13:27 PM
If a player gets off a TGT pre-block ignore on his first turn then that means he's taking the second turn so his opponent would have had the chance to put down ECs.

I forgot about the rescued LS requirement. I don't actually use TGT.

However, my point is that several defenses require cards to be out first, and those defenses are put at a disadvantage when the other player goes first and attacks right away. Drawing 10 will increase the likelihood of a LS being available on the first turn, so I still think an Intro-Prep phase would be beneficial, especially for new players.

An intro prep phrase complicates the game even further for new players. Not to mention how frustrated they will be to watch their opponent play MtM, Holy Grail and Angel of the Lord to completely wipe the 3 EC's the put down in intro prep phase. Putting EC's down is not really the key to setting up defensively in most cases. Really you want to get your protection in play or possibly activate a charms or unholy writ during a intro prep phase.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2015, 12:29:18 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on June 19, 2015, 12:24:39 PM

Really you want to get your protection in play or possibly activate a charms or unholy writ during a intro prep phase.

That is what I was referring to with this statement:

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 19, 2015, 12:19:42 PM

However, my point is that several defenses require cards to be out first, and those defenses are put at a disadvantage when the other player goes first and attacks right away

I was also referring to getting sites out for a site-lock defense, for example.

News:

Author Topic: What if we drew 10 in the opening hand? (Read 17769 times)