Cactus Game Design Message Boards

1. What do you think Redemption would look like if characters did not have special abilities?
          Would the game be more fun? More broken?
          Would the game have survived for this long with this type of game mechanic?
In this way, only enhancements, forts, artifacts, etc. could make the hero/EC better.

2. What if heroes were limited to only the "banding" ability if supported in the Bible?
          (like famous duos: Priscilla and Aquila, Barnabas and Paul, Jonathan and David, etc.)

3. Would low initiative characters be too powerful?

1. That's an interesting question. Personally, I think it'd be more fun, as it'd be much more of a challenge to balance ratios in deck building. I think it's helped expand Redemption though...it'd be really strange to not have characters have abilities.

2. I'd be all for that, so long as there were a few more cards like Gathering of Angels. I don't want to be too restrictive, but HT+Banding would be pretty sweet.

3. Not really. Decrease would be more popular, making the game balanced.

I find it interesting that you would find it dumb Pol.

Is not some heroes/EC abilities consistently complained about?
Don't people like Covenant with Death?

I assume 3 things would have developed if heroes did not have SAs (or at least limited to banding):
    1. Enhancements (especially rarely used ones) would get used more often.
    2. Super Splashes like "The Deck" would be more rare.
    3. More thought to balance (ratios like Westy mentioned) and battles would be given.

In essence, I wonder if the evolution of Character SAs is not slowly eliminating the battle phase?
   Clearly conjecture, but I gather this from the popular Defenses and Offenses.  Their popularity is what got me to pondering this in the first place.

No special abilities on heroes/EC's. Been there done that with A/B starters. No thanks. Game is sooo much better with the special abilities.

Quote from: Westy on October 03, 2012, 03:23:37 PM

If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.

The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.

Disagree. I can play DoN on CWD, or any number of enhancements in battle. I can use CBN characters. There are ways around CwD. There are no ways around not having abilities...except print some.

Quote from: Westy on October 03, 2012, 04:54:39 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on October 03, 2012, 04:41:07 PM

Quote from: Westy on October 03, 2012, 03:23:37 PM

If no character abilities would be CBN, then that'd be perfect. CwD is a card and can be manipulated like one. A game design lacking character abilities is absolute.

The same thing is easily said of CWD. It forces everything into an absolute, a simplified game state. Absolutes are always bad game design.

Disagree. I can play DoN on CWD, or any number of enhancements in battle. I can use CBN characters. There are ways around CwD. There are no ways around not having abilities...except print some.

A lot of decks don't include DoN anymore, because of the dom cap, and few decks actually use non-territory class enhancements to deal with CWD, because other cards tend to be more important to the deck.  The only cards I see reliably used to stop CWD is captured ark and CBN/P characters, but the characters still don't get rid of CWD, so still greatly hampers most decks.  Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with CWD if they hadn't put the restrict ability on it (which makes it, imo too hard to get rid of) or the CBN on it.  As it is, I think its a too powerful and poorly designed card.

You've pretty much summed up exactly what I've stated in the ROOT thread about this card and from extensive playtesting. A card that forces the game into a simplified gamestate with little to no practical answers is still treading heavily into an absolute. Far too many unchecked powerful abilities with far too little answers. A very poorly designed card.

There are plenty of cards that counter CwD.

I can count the names of practical answers pre-battle to CWD on two fingers. One isn't even used hardly anymore. A far cry from 'plenty'.

That's been the discussion here the whole time. Obviously the most impairing function of the card itself is simplifying the gamestate pre-battle. I think everyone here grasps that. What we are saying is it creates an absolute by doing so. Restrict and CBN severely limits your viable choices to tech against the card. Any tech played in battle require initiative and are by no means the most practical and consistent ways to counter CWD.

So you're trying to suggest not having character abilities at all is an absolute 'over the entire game', something supposedly in stark contrast to my example with CWD?  They're both exactly 'mini-absolutes', as you put it; they both only affect very specific areas of the game. An absolute that is within a specific area is still an absolute, however which way you choose to frame it. An absolute has always been any entity that remains unchecked by anything else. The argument of 'plentiful' counters towards this absolute is a fallacy and has already been busted. There is nothing anymore consistent and practical outside Captured Ark and the slim possibility of a DoN drop that will circumvent what CWD was designed to do, which pushes it considerably into absolute territory.

CBN heroes (specifically the plethora of ones contained in Daniel n' Fwiends) also get around CWD, but is a counter that is contained within only one theme that other archetypes cannot possibly take advantage of. Which makes me severely wonder why no one piloting the deck even used CWD.

CWD is truly busted. Maybe not to the extent MKC is leading on but it is truly too good.

What exactly has been exaggerated? The facts have been laid out, it is what it is. It matters zero towards the discussion if CWD is a reactive or preemptive card, as it easily fits both roles quite well. What matters is the damage it does to the current gamestate with the checks and balances it receives, which is virtually non-existent. I honestly don't even understand how this is at all any different from the absolute a non-sa Character game design would produce (and the extreme distaste for such a vanilla gamestate)...yet lets also throw in no non-battle enhancements/answers and ice it with CBN for good measure. Yup, I suppose I can see how that wouldn't be an absolute. -_-

I am failing to understand how Love of Money would make any difference towards the problem. The fact it needs to be played in battle shoes it in with the other sub-par but tremendously more useful counters to CWD, such as Live Coal and Abes Kid. The major problem with these types of answers however stems from the fact it repairs the gamestate after the damage has already been done. It does not repair the damage for the current turn (or battle, more specifically) that CWD was designed to do.

That's negligible when you have banders that are completely unaffected by it. Any deck that has a win condition capable of working through CWD would benefit tremendously from running it. So you have dead draws with Jake and Sim. Oak, Seraph, Seraph w/ Live Coal, Abednego, Daniel, Isaiah, and Sam are still online. Is that not enough to make solid rescues with? Especially considering you run through almost every meta defense with CWD as well?

So play your searchers, then turn up CWD. That's another problem with the card...the fact you choose when you want to simplify the gamestate at will. Generate massive advantage, then neg your opponent by locking everything down when you flip it up. Hmm, I wonder what other card did that in recent years before it was sightly nerfed?