Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: uthminister [BR] on August 26, 2010, 10:59:10 PM
-
I noticed at Nationals that people put their cards in all kinds of different places on the table when they play...which for me caused quite a bit of confusion. Just out of curiosity, what territory layout do you use? Do you use the layout on the rule card included in starter decks or do you use a different one? Please explain your layout instead of using a term that I may not be privy to...thanks!
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi708.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww83%2FI_Am_Rawrlolsauce%2FRawrStyle.jpg&hash=17e50be4a5c6f6a2f011909f3e4374a62c9b582a)
-
Nice...so basically the way the rule card shows it with a few variations...
-
set-aside redeemed souls
Forts heroes arts
EC's deck
LS discard
i switch around the set-asides, redeemed souls, and the Forts sometimes, the rest mainly stays the same.
-
I use what Sauce uses. probably because that's how I taught him to play. :P
-
Sometimes I put my set asides really far right. As far as I can reach.
-
yay another one of these threads
I use the CA Style except with a more "current" version of it then what Bryon has on his Website.
Evil Characters are on the Left with Land of Bondage under them. Good is on the Right. Discard pile is placed under the deck which is placed in between the Good and Evil Sides. Arts, Forts, Set Aside, Rescued and anything else under the sun is placed tilted 90 degrees to the right of the Good Cards. This Varies from Player to player as some of us put arts and forts in front of our decks instead of on the far right.
-
Keeping in mind that I'm left handed here is how I align my cards:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi838.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz306%2FRed_Dragon_Thorn%2FRDTStyle2.jpg&hash=e09adac814347c5cf3e831a7b41ddfc458467084)
-
This is all very interesting and lets me know that I had a very different but not that different view of the CA style. I have been working with a printer, trying to put together playmats for Redemption. That is the whole reason I am asking the most common set-up of your territory. What do you think about the idea of having one standardized way of setting up the game so that playmats could be produced? I have two layouts that I have been working with which I will post shortly once I put them on photobucket...
-
Redemption isn't playmat friendly due to a lack of limits on the numbers of cards on the field.
-
Redemption isn't playmat friendly due to a lack of limits on the numbers of cards on the field.
I agree. Maybe just an insert card in all the new sets would be easier and more people would get those than the mats anyways.
-
I certainly think it is not doable with Type-2, but for Type-1 I think that it could work. I have some mock-up playmats that we have been playing around with and it makes the game so much more organized and makes it easier to recognize what you opponent has out...
Here are the two layouts we have been using...
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi233.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee268%2Futhminister%2FPlaymat%2520layouts%2FRegularplaymatblank.gif&hash=bd46512be51046168f97d06bbdfa040a003940b6)
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi233.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee268%2Futhminister%2FPlaymat%2520layouts%2FCaliforniaStyleMatBlank.gif&hash=0684b468d79a21b030e054c212ad425973ea865a)
-
Nothing should ever go behind the deck IMO.
-
So it doesn't hide stuff behind it or for another reason?
-
right. I think that the first one you posted should be standardized. I made a thread like this as well...
-
I put my deck out, d/c pile on my left of the draw pile. All forts/unused sites/artifact pile go in a vertical line that is perpendicular to my deck. The heroes go in front, EC's behind them, occupied sites and land of bondage under that. Set aside's to the side, land of redemption clearly out of the way. Sometimes I put an important fortress in my territory, such as a protect fort so I know not to d/c the ones being protected.
-
So there is a clear division between the top one I posted (original layout on rule cards) and the bottom one I posted (CA style or at least my version of it)...
What are the pros and cons of the two styles?
Pros for Original:
I like the straight lines and organization it creates.
Cons for Original:
Pros for CA style:
I like the fact that your evil lines up with your opponents good.
I like that you don't have to move cards over other cards to push into battle.
Cons for CA style:
-
I use basically the layout that RTS suggests, with my Evil Forts lined up with my EC's and my Good Forts lined up with my GC's. Temples next to Art Pile. In a physical game, the other three areas look like this to the right of the Hero/EC/LoB setup:
LoR
Deck
Discard
-
I use something similar to RDT's and Travis' 1st layout.
Redeemed Souls (turned sideways) Temple/Artifact Pile Good Forts Good characters
Discard Pile Draw Pile Evil Forts Evil Characters
Extra Sites Lost Souls Set Aside
-
I agree nothing should EVER go behind the deck with the exception of the removed from game pile. I know I mentioned that on the other thread.
-
Right, my removed from game pile is face down, underneath my discard.
-
Alright, so I know I will change that part of my layout putting nothing behind the deck...
-
Right, my removed from game pile is face down, underneath my discard.
i don't like doing that because i always forget they are there at the end of the game and thay are face-up for the next game.
-
I use the same set up as RDT
-
I use my own set up. It looks sort of like this...
Arts/Forts/etc.
Heroes Deck Discard Pile/Removal Set aside
Evil Characters Lost Souls
-
I use my own set up. It looks sort of like this...
Arts/Forts/etc.
Heroes Deck Discard Pile/Removal Set aside
Evil Characters Lost Souls
wow. you must lose all your games, since you don't have a Land of Redemption...
-
you definitely shouldn't put your LS behind your deck and discard pile
-
"Back of Van style". It gets worse as games go on.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1040.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb409%2FRandall_Koutnik%2Fred.jpg&hash=17ef65f198da03f575c23821eb1100733d1dc5e5)
-
Looks like our van on the way to Nats but we had sorter box lids to play on...playing in the first every official mobile local tournament...
-
Evil Fortresses Artifacts Good Fortresses
Evil Characters Deck Good Characters
Land of Bondage Discard Pile Land of Redemption (Turned Sideways, always with Guardian because I haxerz)
This one should be the layout... we found a winner! ;D
I'm curious, for those of you who like this... what would change to make it better?
-
Looks like our van on the way to Nats but we had sorter box lids to play on...playing in the first every official mobile local tournament...
local? try cross-country! :laugh:
-
A whole new definition of "Nationals"
-
Evil Fortresses Artifacts Good Fortresses
Evil Characters Deck Good Characters
Land of Bondage Discard Pile Land of Redemption (Turned Sideways, always with Guardian because I haxerz)
Idk.... this seems really simple to me.
I agree nothing should EVER go behind the deck with the exception of the removed from game pile. I know I mentioned that on the other thread.
-
Evil Fortresses Artifacts Good Fortresses
Evil Characters Deck Good Characters
Land of Bondage Discard Pile Land of Redemption (Turned Sideways, always with Guardian because I haxerz)
I actually like this layout a lot and it is very similar to what my second example was. Why wouldn't you put the fortresses behind the characters since you would then be able to just push into battle instead of having to maneuver them around or over fortresses?
-
Idk... that's probably a good point and that would probably be more efficient. I've just always kind of done it this way, and after going to Bryon's tournies for over 6 years, everyone is used to it. :D
-
I run contrary to the "nothing behind deck" crowd. I've had my Discard Pile behind my deck at a right angle since Warriors.
-
I think we should be careful if we are considering having a "standardized territory layout" as the title of this thread suggests. People are mentioning "the other thread," which I have not read, but hopefully we are just discussing what we do, rather than what we should do. If there is a consideration to make a "standard" layout for tournaments, then I would be opposed to such a rule.
I don't think I do the same layout every time. I change the layout based on certain factors:
1. Two-Player or Multiplayer - five people at the same table means that room is limited, so my setup changes accordingly
2. Table Shape - my layout is different on a round table than on a rectangular table
3. Opponent - new players tend to not notice certain important cards even if they are in a prescribed location
-
I don't think I do the same layout every time. I change the layout based on certain factors:
1. Two-Player or Multiplayer - five people at the same table means that room is limited, so my setup changes accordingly
2. Table Shape - my layout is different on a round table than on a rectangular table
3. Opponent - new players tend to not notice certain important cards even if they are in a prescribed location
this is a good point.
as for the first part of your post, my thread was more about whether we should have one, and which one should it be. there were a few "I think we should, but only if it was my lay out..."
-
Admittedly getting the entire Redemption community to agree upon one layout will be a challenge. Is it worth the effort? I really think it is if only to make the game easier for younger/less experienced players to catch on to.and to make tournaments which bring lots of different playgroups with their unique layouts together cause less confusion. Perhaps the only way for this to happen is for it to come from Rob, either solidifying the original layout or endorsing a new layout to be used across the board. As for different layouts for different situations, I can see your point. However if you had a layout that was prescribed then in each of the situations you described you could adjust accordingly while staying within those guidelines. Let's keep this conversation going with this question... What is a layout we could all agree upon? Someone make a suggestion and then as a community, lets make changes until we can agree upon it. This will require some if not all people to compromise a bit but I believe will benefit the game as a whole!
-
However if you had a layout that was prescribed then in each of the situations you described you could adjust accordingly while staying within those guidelines.
I disagree. If you have a multiplayer game, on a small table, with one person having an extraordinary amount of ECs (Josh Kopp), one person having an extraordinary number of heroes (Speed deckers), one person having an extraordinary number of fortresses, one person having an extraordinary number of sites (Prof Underwood), and one person having an extraordinary number of set-asides (Captain Kirk), then there will likely not be enough space to keep everything else in its "prescribed" location.
Although I see the potential help this would be to new players, I think that we all do our own thing (whether personally or regionally), and have done it long enough that a mandatory format would cause more problems than it would solve.
Besides, I have my kitchen table engraved with the appropriate regions and I don't want to buy a new table to start all over again.
-
OK,,,YMT isn't interested, so anyone want to play ball with me here or is it just not even something we can entertain for the sake of continuity.
-
I think that the best way to handle this would be to:
1 - come up with a new standard here on this thread
2 - present it to Rob for any changes that he wants to make
3 - start making the playmats and get them to playgroup leaders
4 - with Rob's endorsement, encourage all new players to use the mats
5 - over time all the old fogeys (like YMT and I) will either join the new trend or die of old age
6 - then the "standard" will be universal without ever having to be mandated
The key problem here is actually #3. You can't make the mats for free, but I doubt that playgroup leaders (or players for that matter) would be willing to shell out for them. Maybe if you could get Rob to include one in each tournament packet he sends out (possibly instead of the 3 posters currently sent), then it might work, but that would cost Cactus and so he might not go for that either.
-
Some card games include playmats with Starter Decks.
-
Some card games include playmats with Starter Decks.
This would also be a good idea, but again the problem arises of who pays for it.
-
Other games actually make the playmats the prize for winning so that at the next tournament the guy with the winner playmat has something that no one else has...which I think would be better at this point than a Harvest Time or a Chariot of Fire tournament winner card...IMO
-
Sending it out to tournament hosts would probably be the best idea, as they are responsible for many of the newcomers to Redemption. We're considering printing out cards in greyscale and taping them to our table to teach others.
-
Other games actually make the playmats the prize for winning so that at the next tournament the guy with the winner playmat has something that no one else has...which I think would be better at this point than a Harvest Time or a Chariot of Fire tournament winner card...IMO
or a random texp. But i agree with the fact that there needs to be another prise for winners because the value of the cards are gonna go down. Maybe when enough comes in we could do a di card at random for the winner. or something different ya know.
-
Other games actually make the playmats the prize for winning so that at the next tournament the guy with the winner playmat has something that no one else has...which I think would be better at this point than a Harvest Time or a Chariot of Fire tournament winner card...IMO
I don't like that idea. New players are the ones that need the mats, and usually they don't win tournaments. Experienced players win tournaments, and don't need the mats.
-
That is why I also liked the idea of distributing paper mats in starter decks as well...sorry I just noticed that I only liked that in my head and it never was conveyed in my previous post... ;D
-
I'm mostly confused why people want mats.
-
I'm mostly confused why people want mats.
I am not a fan but iff it helps keep people more organized and the field of play more noticable, i'm all for it. I don't want standard territories, i just want everything to be organized.
-
This discussion is motivated almost entirely based on what is best for the self. Why should Johnny be forced to set his cards in the way that Bobby likes best? If the table gets all cluttered and makes it so that cards are hidden and players cannot see them in order to make game decisions that's one thing, but no player should be forced to use a specific placement style just to appease somebody else.
-
This discussion is motivated almost entirely based on what is best for the self. Why should Johnny be forced to set his cards in the way that Bobby likes best? If the table gets all cluttered and makes it so that cards are hidden and players cannot see them in order to make game decisions that's one thing, but no player should be forced to use a specific placement style just to appease somebody else.
+1
-
Ironically, if players are continually being "confused" by other's layouts, then shouldn't we put "self" aside and do what is best for the game rather than the tradition we have been acustomed to. Also, the layout that Rob originally suggested was exactly for the purpose of keeping territories organized since there are so many kinds of card that can be out in different places. I see your point of not wanting to change something you have become accustomed to, but it is not like everyone is keeping their layout and you are the only one being asked to change. I am suggesting that we all give a little to get clarity in return. Who knew trying to get a group of people to budge on such a simple thing would be so difficult... :P
-
Its weird that we are talking about the whole playmat idea b/c i too have been thinking about making some. The one i have now looks like this:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mananation.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fplaymat_hugeangel.jpg&hash=6bb3ee42ec91779200dd56a12fbc6089bafc5dc9)
and i will soon be creating custom playmats that you can buy fairly cheap in bundles. But im not planning on making places to put cards on them until later. I really just want to make mats that people say "WOW, i'll pay money for that!"
-
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg (http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg)
-
Wow, nice work! Thats exactly what im talking about.
-
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg (http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg)
You won the rights to some of the best art in the game? AWESOME.(Oh BTW cool playmat!)
-
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
So, a mandatory layout with playmats could be very profitable for you.
-
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg (http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg)
I would buy one. What's it made of? If Cactus could make these and they were made with a softer material, like a mouse pad.... that's be freaking awesome.
-
There is no reason to make a new standard when everybody can just open up their rulebook and look at the picture that lies within it.
-
If I could thumbs down concepts instead of posts, I'd thumbs down mandatory standardization. And spandex.
-
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
So, a mandatory layout with playmats could be very profitable for you.
Actually I have not found a way to make them profitable at all. The four I had made ran me $24 each and I am pretty sure no one would buy a playmat for that much money. I honestly don't have any desire for personal gain in this endeavor or in Redemption as a whole. If anything I would love to make these and just make them available if my funds would allow it. I am currently exploring options now with Clift's suggestions to me to see if I can't get them made for between $5 and $10 a piece and then sell them for that price...
I actually bought the rights to the art used on Mayhem and Grapes and have made a sweet CA style playmat...
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg (http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee268/uthminister/Playmat%20layouts/?action=view¤t=RedemptionPlayMatversion8.jpg)
I would buy one. What's it made of? If Cactus could make these and they were made with a softer material, like a mouse pad.... that's be freaking awesome.
They are on the same type of material that mousepads are made of, but only about half the thickness so they can be rolled/folede easily...
There is no reason to make a new standard when everybody can just open up their rulebook and look at the picture that lies within it.
I agree, but people simply don't do that...
If I could thumbs down concepts instead of posts, I'd thumbs down mandatory standardization. And spandex.
I know the "mandatory" word has been thrown around in this thread a bunch, but the reality is that it would be everyone's own personal choice as to whether or not they used a layout that would promote an easier recognition of what is in your territory...
-
i don't like playing people who have their territory set up differently then i because i always think that's what right for them is wrong for me and i can't tell what's set aside or discarded. So we should create a territory set up that is approved by most people on the boards because the person i'm playing also has that some issue and it sometimes messes up strategies and set-ups.
-
the reality is that it would be everyone's own personal choice as to whether or not they used a layout that would promote an easier recognition of what is in your territory...
So...we're back to the beginning of the thread then? OK, let's start the argument over and see if going through it again will change the outcome. Ready...go!
-
Simply bringing us back to the initial point...LOCKED :-*