Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: Josh on January 15, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
-
Inspired by this (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/deck-concepts/alternate-win-condition/msg551218/#new) thread.
River of Life - Good Dominant
Revelation 22:1-2
X=Number of your heroes
"If opponent has 0 cards in deck, place in your territory: If you end a turn without attacking or playing a Dominant, add X counters to this card."
Tree of Life - Good Dominant
Revelation 22:1-2
"If opponent has 0 cards in deck, place in your territory: Whenever you add counters to your River of Life, you may remove 12 counters from River of Life to redeem a lost soul."
-
While not strictly an "alternate" win condition (since you're still rescuing souls) I like the idea behind these.
-
For some reason I'm not seeing it... why would I want to use these cards instead of making a traditional deck? Just seems super SLOW to me...
-
For some reason I'm not seeing it... why would I want to use these cards instead of making a traditional deck? Just seems super SLOW to me...
It's not necessarily about having a nationally competitive deck just another fun option to try and win the game in a different way.
-
For some reason I'm not seeing it... why would I want to use these cards instead of making a traditional deck? Just seems super SLOW to me...
Maybe these cards will bring new players into the game who feels that it is un-Christian to attack their opponents.
-
Some people just like to play non-traditional decks. I mean, I don't know anyone personally who does ::) but I'm sure it happens. The only caveat, and I am glad jmhartz has stayed in this realm, is that winning always needs to be tied to Lost Soul rescue. When we say alternate win conditions, what we are really talking about is alternate ways to rescuing. We have had discussions about this lately and the consensus is that getting away from the battle phase more than we already have is not necessarily a good thing. Not saying we won't ever tread where this idea is treading; just saying it won't be this year but maybe soon. 8)
-
I'm all for non traditional decks, anyone who knew me when I was active with the game can attest to this ;D
I love the idea! It just seems like a lot of conditions need to be met before you can start rescuing souls.
-
I'm all for non traditional decks, anyone who knew me when I was active with the game can attest to this ;D
I love the idea! It just seems like a lot of conditions need to be met before you can start rescuing souls.
The idea is that unless your opponent then has a deck that is flexible enough to BEAT your AWC in the endgame, they will lose.
-
The idea is that unless your opponent then has a deck that is flexible enough to BEAT your AWC in the endgame, they will lose.
Why wouldn't I just play Watchful Servant though? Similar conditions to jmhartz's ideas, but much more efficient...
-
The idea is that unless your opponent then has a deck that is flexible enough to BEAT your AWC in the endgame, they will lose.
Why wouldn't I just play Watchful Servant though? Similar conditions to jmhartz's ideas, but much more efficient...
Because... Because... It's not an AWC with Watchful Servant, though!
That, and he gets slaughtered by CM.
-
The idea is that unless your opponent then has a deck that is flexible enough to BEAT your AWC in the endgame, they will lose.
Why wouldn't I just play Watchful Servant though? Similar conditions to jmhartz's ideas, but much more efficient...
Because... Because... It's not an AWC with Watchful Servant, though!
That, and he gets slaughtered by CM.
But neither is this. And WS doesn't require 12 heroes in my territory
-
And WS doesn't require 12 heroes in my territory
Technically, neither does this, it only requires 1 or more. You only need 12 heroes if you want to rescue a soul every turn. ;)
The only caveat, and I am glad jmhartz has stayed in this realm, is that winning always needs to be tied to Lost Soul rescue. When we say alternate win conditions, what we are really talking about is alternate ways to rescuing.
Alternate win condition means exactly that, an alternate way of winning. Other ways to rescue Souls will never constitute an alternate win condition since that is already the primary (and currently only) win condition. I am curious why you are so adamant that this continue to be the only win condition. Why does it "always" need to be tied to Lost Soul rescue? It seems like you're limiting the potential creative growth of certain aspects of the game by having that as a steadfast rule.
-
The only caveat, and I am glad jmhartz has stayed in this realm, is that winning always needs to be tied to Lost Soul rescue. When we say alternate win conditions, what we are really talking about is alternate ways to rescuing.
Alternate win condition means exactly that, an alternate way of winning. Other ways to rescue Souls will never constitute an alternate win condition since that is already the primary (and currently only) win condition. I am curious why you are so adamant that this continue to be the only win condition. Why does it "always" need to be tied to Lost Soul rescue? It seems like you're limiting the potential creative growth of certain aspects of the game by having that as a steadfast rule.
@Browa: I am speaking for where we are as play testers. The reasoning as follows: In other games, your goal is simply to defeat your opponent (initially by eliminating their life points) but more broadly by satisfying some other win condition. In those games, wins are wins and losses are losses. Now, take a look at Redemption. The goal is to be the first to 5 Lost Souls rescued. Here, wins are not registered simply as wins but as a differential. Until we adopt a different way to register wins then we will not be able to adequately record an alternate win. In addition to this, the play test team is just not comfortable with awarding a win outside of rescuing Lost Souls currently. There have been cards in the past that have included alternate win conditions which have been cut or altered so much that they ended up not in the end. We are certainly not trying to limit the potential creative growth but being intentional about what we release. I appreciate your passions and love for the game.
@Everyone: Keep the ideas coming!
-
yeah i agree the objective will always be to rescue lost souls.. i was just thinking it could be cool if there was a combination of cards which could allow for rescuing lost souls as an end game strategy that might be able to be done without heroes for instance which could end up being a way to win through a site lock deck for example like a rapture combination of cards maybe reprints of the seals or trumpets etc
even a flood card could be similar like once you build the ark or meet some goal noah and his family count as 5 lost souls or something.. you know?? like couldn't be played with son of god but can be played with the good dominant 'the flood' just alternate ways to put a spin on the game and make people have to think about certain themes and things outside of just battle phase which could get you to 5 lost souls by the end of the game (and i do mean late/end game with these) so there is plenty of time where someone playing a more traditionally styled deck could throw all kinds of gears in their spokes and win the game before they ever wind up accomplishing their win condition..
just something to chew on really. rapture for nt/angels theme and the flood for ot/genesis maybe who knows! i can just imagine hand control and sites etc becoming more popular anyway since there are more draw counters now and search/the works
-
Those are all excellent and fun ideas. The challenging part with any "alternate rescue condition" is that we still want to encourage player interaction.
The battle phase is the primary place that player interaction happens. It's a small minority of players that enjoy a game where an opponent doesn't participate in the battle phase. Which raises the question, how do we create alternate rescue conditions that still encourage player interaction (in the battle phase or otherwise)?
-
very true and i was just thinking that is a huge appeal of booster draft (and the dom cap), less or no battle winning/game winning dominants which makes for more player interaction throughout the game and really the game more exciting since there aren't or are less 'trump' cards
that's a very good question and i do certainly understand how the above examples could reduce player interaction. it is very important to have i guess i'm kind of just thinking outside the box and further down the road than we are really but i also think that components of these conditions could rely on player interaction in some way in and outside of the battle phase
the idea is absolutely revolving around the cost/benefit of a costly early game with a great payoff near the end (of a 45 minute t1 game) there may be some x variables that make it more difficult with bigger decks for t2 or something.
i like the idea of these kinds of emergences increasing the amount of player interaction in the sense of vulnerabilities they can cause for the person holding out for the long haul while the other person has the opportunity to pick them apart.
a great game example of this is android netrunner. there is a hacker and a corporation. the interaction is entirely the hacker hacking the corporation while the corporation tries to set up. it's an interesting dynamic and i guess i could see that in redemption revolving around rescuing lost souls in some cases increasing player interaction due to those mentioned vulnerabilities and the time it takes to get there
-
I think your examples are exactly where we will look when designing those kinds of cards in the future.
When talking about player interaction, I guess we just don't want the win to be automatic if the condition is met but giving your opponent an out. It will certainly be a costly out, but it will give them a sense that they still have options to dig in one more time against their opponent. In doing that there will end up being epic stories of last stands and crushing defeats which is always exciting.
-
For players in favor of AWC, do you feel cards like Primary Objective are what you are looking for? I.e. something that allows you to rescue a lost soul without necessarily "winning" a battle (but still needing to be played in battle).
Or, are you looking for something that allows you to play down a specific combination of cards (outside of the battle phase) that allows you to rescue a Lost Soul?
Personally, I am very much in favor of coming up with more cards like Primary Objective where they need to be played in battle, and I am not as much in favor of cards that allow a player to rescue a Lost Soul without any battle phase interaction.
-
I would tend to agree. Battle is the main place interaction occurs, and interaction is what makes the game interesting. Unless someone can come up with another way of making players interact in an interesting way using the cards we have now, lost soul rescuing should stay in battle.
-
I don't think ARC or AWC are the best way to go to make the game more balanced, strategic, and competitive. In order to do so you either have to make cards that implement new ways to rescue lost souls or make rules that set up the parameters of new win conditions. First, If you make cards to provide alternate ways of rescuing lost souls the card will be either useless, broken, or balance. If the card is useless or broken it doesn't make the game more balanced/competitive, and if the card is balanced it will not bring balance to the game because it will not be, by definition, universally useful or revolutionary. Second, If you make rules that govern an alternate win condition they are going to change the game in uncontrollable and unforeseeable ways. It is easier to make cards under the existing rules than it is to make rules with the existing cards.
The best way to balance the game is to make balanced cards and balance preexisting cards by exercising executive rights to errata or ban cards. Steps to errata cards and make new cards more balanced have obviously been taken which has brought about a more balanced, strategic, and competitive game but if you want more of a player interaction its not enough to simply make balanced cards and micro-manage current cards. I know this is a minority opinion in Redemption, and even though a rigorous errata and/or ban process has been implemented by the majority of other reputable CCGs, I feel, unfortunately, it is as unrealistic as AWC and ARC for Redemption. What is realistic is to re-evaluate why cards are broken within the mechanics of the game, allowing for the creation of powerful counters* and implementation of erratas**.
*Like Nazereth, Rain Becomes Dust, Golden Cherubim,...etc
** Like the Holy Grail and Mayhem errata