Author Topic: Standardized Territory Layout... (Read 7455 times)

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #25 on:** August 27, 2010, 09:15:51 PM »

Quote from: drb1200 on August 27, 2010, 09:14:34 PM

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...

TheJaylor · « **Reply #26 on:** August 27, 2010, 09:49:06 PM »

you definitely shouldn't put your LS behind your deck and discard pile

SomeKittens · « **Reply #27 on:** August 27, 2010, 10:05:29 PM »

"Back of Van style". It gets worse as games go on.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2010, 12:08:21 AM »

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...

lightningninja · « **Reply #29 on:** August 28, 2010, 12:17:49 AM »

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!

I'm curious, for those of you who like this... what would change to make it better?

Master KChief · « **Reply #30 on:** August 28, 2010, 12:19:52 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 28, 2010, 12:08:21 AM

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!

SomeKittens · « **Reply #31 on:** August 28, 2010, 09:43:45 AM »

A whole new definition of "Nationals"

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #32 on:** August 28, 2010, 01:23:32 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on August 28, 2010, 12:17:49 AM

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.

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 27, 2010, 01:29:55 PM

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.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #33 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:43:54 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on August 28, 2010, 12:17:49 AM

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?

lightningninja · « **Reply #34 on:** August 28, 2010, 09:10:57 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** August 28, 2010, 11:43:36 PM »

I run contrary to the "nothing behind deck" crowd. I've had my Discard Pile behind my deck at a right angle since Warriors.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #36 on:** August 28, 2010, 11:57:30 PM »

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

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** August 29, 2010, 12:04:52 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 28, 2010, 11:57:30 PM

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..."

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #38 on:** August 30, 2010, 10:29:00 AM »

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!

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #39 on:** August 30, 2010, 04:34:48 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 30, 2010, 10:29:00 AM

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.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #40 on:** August 30, 2010, 05:42:34 PM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #41 on:** August 30, 2010, 06:52:26 PM »

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** August 30, 2010, 07:26:12 PM »

Some card games include playmats with Starter Decks.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #43 on:** August 30, 2010, 07:35:56 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 30, 2010, 07:26:12 PM

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.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #44 on:** August 31, 2010, 10:02:11 AM »

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

SomeKittens · « **Reply #45 on:** August 31, 2010, 12:25:41 PM »

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.

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #46 on:** August 31, 2010, 01:12:24 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 31, 2010, 10:02:11 AM

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.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #47 on:** August 31, 2010, 01:14:08 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 31, 2010, 10:02:11 AM

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.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #48 on:** August 31, 2010, 02:22:11 PM »

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...

sk · « **Reply #49 on:** August 31, 2010, 03:17:52 PM »

I'm mostly confused why people want mats.

News:

Author Topic: Standardized Territory Layout... (Read 7455 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!