Cactus Game Design Message Boards

As far as a list of playtesters, I think that Rob, Bryon, Mike B., Justin A., Eric "playtester" Largent, Schaef, RedemptionTom, Kludy, Kevin Shride, Chris Bany, and most recently Tim Maly are all in that group.

As RDT says, add John and Roy to the list and it is complete.

John M.

Man, you didn't even try.

Quote from: MJB

...it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players...

And why would I disagree with that contention?

I don't think you would disagree with that contention, which is why the statement is made in the opening section, and not directed at you. There are other who have expressed a "tough nookies" attitude, however, and I was trying to explain to them why this issue appears to frustrate Matt and others.

Just to be crystal clear--using your post from April of last year was not meant as a swipe at you. Even had I understood your post earlier this morning as I do now, I would still have used it* because it was the clearest articulation of where I thought we stood a year ago. I intentionally kept the second paragraph because it demonstrated the most important point--as I see it--which was the belief (that everyone seemed to hold) that huge rule changes don't get handed down once the major tournament season began.

*Although I wouldn't have misinterpreted your first comment posted, and I am sorry about that.

I can't spell shuhshevsky, you know that.

*Michaliszyn.
And he's awesome.

This is never ending

Well his last name is long, but "never ending" is a bit over the top, don't you think?

As good of an idea as a petition is.
Cactus probally likes their ruling system the way it is then the way everyone else wants it.

Normally I'm all for change, but I don't want to go rocking the boat this early.  (Though that's probably the most hypocritical statement I've put up here)

1. Matthew Archibald (crustpope)
2. Master KChief
3. Minister Polaris
4.
5.
6.
7. YourMathTeacher
8.
9.
10.

Woo-hoo!!!! I'm #7 !!!!!!

Uh,what the hay.

Sign me up!

A humans LOVE to complain B C only reason I haven't signed is I haven't read through the 7 plus pages, Have any addendums to the first page been made?

I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting.

I am dissapointed as well, but then again, I just wanted to see how many feel as strongly as I do.  The way this Highway ruling was handled was really frustrating to me, especially since it has a long history of discussion...and a long history of inaction.  It is quite likely that this situation will never be repeated given the amount of feathers that have been ruffled here.

But I would like to see some safeguards put in place.  Specifically when major changes should be made (before tournament season) and the establishment of an official ruling council.  They can all be appointed by Rob, I think it should be limited to 5-7 people (A smaller group can get answers quicker and more decisively) and you can rotate these people in and out of this group in whatever terms Rob thinks appropriate.

I have been thinking of the "not nerfing decks at Nat's Rule."  I think that anyone who has a deck that makes use of a "questionable" combo should submit it to the Ruling Council before it is used.  If it has not been sumbitted for review then I would say that it is open season to ban the deck if it proves to be problematic, but this type of action should only be used for those types of decks that involve some sort of "lock out" or stalemate battle to do unlimited damage.

Personally I LIKE those types of decks and I like playing against them and trying to beat them.  I hear all this talk about how it is "unsportsmanlike " and "bad for the game" but in my opinioin it is just the nature of the Beast that is type II.  It's not for rookies since it demands alot more cards.  I just think there should be a disclaimer for anyone entering type II that you could end up getting locked out or have something else "not nice" happen to you.

I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting. Seems just about everyone was complaining about the way rulings are handled last week. Then, a rational, intelligent solution is proposed and instead of jumping on board, everyone just gets cold feet and switches from complaining about the PTB to complaining about the complaining about the PTB. What, do you just like complaining? I complain because I want things to get better, but it seems like we're in the minority there.

Well, so far most of my posts have been spam. I might sign up for this, but honestly, I'm not even sure what the implications of this are.

If I could get some kind of a summary...

Well, so far most of my posts have been spam. I might sign up for this, but honestly, I'm not even sure what the implications of this are.

If I could get some kind of a summary...

Summary is in my first post.

@Crustpope
 And if your new way is better (and not totally game breaking), than why can't we use it?

The problem is the definition of the phrase "game breaking".  The recent trend by the PTB has been that id it involved any sort of "lock out" (Speed Camp) or any form of stalemate Battle that makes use of an infinite loop, then it is "bad for the game."

I understand where they are coming from but I tend to see type 1 as the Jv and type 2 as the varsity.  and if you are going to play in the big leagues you should be prepared to get roughed up.  The first time I came across a SitC deck I was at KC nats in 2007.  I was literally in awe of that deck because it had locked me out and it was ingenious.  True I didnt like getting so close to placing at nats only to get locked out in my final game, but I couldn't stop thining about the deck and trying to figure out a way to beat it.  and actually, it is a pretty fragile deck once you understand the mechanics.

I think that many of these decks have counters that can be developed to them if we let people play against them and let them start thinking of counters to them.  A real quick way to defeat the deck Jonathan pewquinot and I have been playing ts to get coat in the d/c pile and then hit it with a "remove x cards fromthe d/c pile" card.  Once you kill coat, the combo is basically broken. because yo ucannot play warriors spearand/or book of jashar on a hero tha tcould recurr them through highway.  I added two gideons call to help portect against this but that is three cards in the deck that are essential and if they are all removed my deck is basically impotent.

But we will never have counters develop against this deck because it is now illegal.