Author Topic: Where would we be... (Read 21272 times)

STAMP · « **Reply #100 on:** December 20, 2009, 11:19:51 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 20, 2009, 03:44:14 AM

I'm seeing a lot of territory protection in the next set.

Multiple cards that protect ECs in territory from capture, conversion, and hero abilities. That takes care of WaS, HG, and Jephthah. Activate DD, and you are golden.

Sweet! Nothing protecting against shuffle.

...wait...oh yeah, whoop-de-doo, they neutered ANewbadoobadoo.

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #101 on:** December 20, 2009, 11:31:45 PM »

ikr...?

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #102 on:** December 20, 2009, 11:44:37 PM »

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on December 20, 2009, 09:49:31 PM

Dear Cactus,

To save the most time honored and loved deck strategy of heroless, please make a card to protect a hero from shuffle.

Love,
Me

I has 2 HG uses.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #103 on:** December 20, 2009, 11:57:53 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 20, 2009, 11:44:37 PM

I has 2 HG uses.

I hopes you has 2 uses of each set aside* also.

*I know your heroless didn't usually rely on set asides, but Grapes totally destroys the Saul/Paul Rambo decks, which is kind of sad.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #104 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:02:55 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 20, 2009, 11:57:53 PM

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 20, 2009, 11:44:37 PM
I has 2 HG uses.
I hopes you has 2 uses of each set aside* also.

*I know your heroless didn't usually rely on set asides, but Grapes totally destroys the Saul/Paul Rambo decks, which is kind of sad.

Yes it does

but no worries. I has a new one in progress.

Master KChief · « **Reply #105 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:03:50 AM »

i thought heroless used built on a rock?

Bryon · « **Reply #106 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:10:15 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on December 20, 2009, 01:16:00 PM

If that's the case, why were none of the eight people that played Gabe at nationals able to destroy his TGT deck?

1) None of them had 9-10 ECs in their deck, which is what I said could beat TGT.
2) He won with Z's Temple. The splash of TGT probably didn't win the majority of his rescues.
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said.

As to the point about speed, that is not unique to territory destruction vs protection. The same argument for using speed could just as easily be used to talk about the relationship between sites vs access, Guardian vs Falling Away, getting character+ enhancement combos first, and simply getting to Son of God first.

And as to the point about not rescuing, I have won games because I waited one extra turn to rescue my first lost soul. My opponent had TGT. I could have rescued. I waited one turn so I could pull off a block with my lone EC the next turn. I Confusioned his Women as Snares (Son of God in another game and Holy Grail in another game), and I was good for the game. There is a chance I could have won if I had rescued first, but waiting certainly helped in those instances. If the TGT decks you have faced could beat you without TGT - so badly that you simply CANNOT afford to wait one turn to begin your rescue attempts, then TGT isn't the chief problem.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #107 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:12:53 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 21, 2009, 12:03:50 AM

i thought heroless used built on a rock?

Red'Rocks was playing heroless before there was a Built on the Rock. I think he built his first heroless deck shortly after Holy Grail was released in Warriors.

To your question--some heroless do use BotR and some don't. Towards the end of the heroless wave a number of decks built upon Saul/Paul and BotR were all the rage.

Heroless first became top-class (meaning a heroless deck could win tournaments at any level) playable archetype following the release of Priests. For reasons that escape me the subsequent three releases (FoOF, RoA, and TexP) have all hit the heroless archetype pretty hard. One example of this was mentioned earlier--Grapes totally destroys Saul/Paul decks--and since Grapes is a versatile Dominant it is going to be found in a most competitive decks,

Master KChief · « **Reply #108 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:22:33 AM »

9-10 ec's still doesnt beat tgt. in a normal 56 card deck, thats only roughly 2 ec's every 3 turns. tgt can consistently snipe anything every turn given the plethora of territory destruction/removal.

Bryon · « **Reply #109 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:23:12 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on December 21, 2009, 12:22:33 AM

tgt can consistently snipe anything every turn given the plethora of territory destruction/removal.

tgt can't snipe anything.

Territory destruction can't hurt you if you have your protection. Most of the protect forts have a character that can search for it. The protection artifacts are not bad either.

My Philistine deck does very well, since Temple and Altar of Dagon protect them so well.

I know the next comment already: "but I don't have aprotect fort for my ECs!" The answer is coming. It was a few years after Warriors before every evil brigade could beat a FBN deck consistently.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #110 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:27:20 AM »

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #111 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:30:30 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:10:15 AM

3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said.

Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2

Master KChief · « **Reply #112 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:33:40 AM »

protect forts do not protect from every possible situation. phillies have no protection against discard or shuffle. even so, a properly built tgt deck will have answers for protect forts (high places + set fire = woops, there goes all your so-called protection). after that, its curtains.

and what if a person doesnt want to submit to a culture (and who really does, it doesnt exactly encourage creative deck building)? they're pretty much left out to dry unless they use brown or orange?

Bryon · « **Reply #113 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:42:05 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 12:30:30 AM

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:10:15 AM
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said.
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2

I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #114 on:** December 21, 2009, 01:34:17 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:42:05 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 12:30:30 AM
Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:10:15 AM
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said.
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2
I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand.

Then why didn't the PtB try to come up with additional cards to counter to combo decks as opposed to taking the easy way out and change a fundamental game mechanic (i.e., imposing hand limits) that has effects far beyond stopping combo decks? Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?

These are serious questions because I am curious about how we got to where we are, and this seems like a good thread to ask about it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #115 on:** December 21, 2009, 01:50:27 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 01:34:17 AM

These are serious questions ...

Your current picture ... SQUIRREL!! .... makes it difficult to take you ... SQUIRREL!! .... seriously.

Bryon · « **Reply #116 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:04:55 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 01:34:17 AM

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:42:05 AM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 12:30:30 AM
Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 12:10:15 AM
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said.
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2
I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand.

Then why didn't the PtB try to come up with additional cards to counter to combo decks as opposed to taking the easy way out and change a fundamental game mechanic (i.e., imposing hand limits) that has effects far beyond stopping combo decks? Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?

These are serious questions because I am curious about how we got to where we are, and this seems like a good thread to ask about it.

Those are great questions.

When LotR released its first few sets, players quickly came up with a way to draw out many, many cards during a fellowship phase (akin to our Preparation phase). Rather than ban cards immediately and/or create counters (to which there would inevitably be counter-counters, etc.), they decided to institute "The Rule of Four," which meant players could draw (or take into hand from a deck or discard pile) no more than 4 cards during the preparation phase. I was playing this game heavily at the time, read the thought processes given by the game designers and official rules gurus on the Decipher boards, and witnessed the perfect fix this became. Some players wished they'd made the "rule of 5" or the like, but in general, the rule was met with positive reactions by top players.

When Rob and Chris Bany and I (and others) discussed this, we knew that a basic rule fix was needed. For years, players have been complaining about rediculous speed decks, and having a 56-card hand give a player too many options for piecing together game-breaking combos.

My first thought was to create a "cap" on the number of cards you could draw per phase, just as Lord of the Rings had done. Except raise the number to 7, I thought. And make allowances for shuffle+draws, like Hur and Love at First Sight. But this seemed a little clunky, and required players to keep track of how many cards they'd drawn. I think it was Chris (though it might have been Rob) suggested a hand cap instead. I immediately saw the benefits of this and agreed that it was the best way to go.

Deck building is another area where rule changes can be made. But this MUST be kept simple. We have no interest in forcing players keep their defenses to a certain number of brigades. We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #117 on:** December 21, 2009, 10:21:35 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 03:04:55 AM

We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.

It all made sense except the quote above. Getting players to use only 1 or 2 defense colors is not most EASILY accomplished by making cards that push that way. It is much EASIER to simply make a rule that says you are only allowed to use 1 or 2 colors. Then you're done. Doing it with cards allows players the flexibility to continue using more than 2 colors if they either don't mind being at a disadvantage, or if they are creative enough to figure out a way to do it without being at a disadvantage.

Given the choices above, I'm glad that the PTB chose to encourage deckbuilding in a certain direction rather than mandating it. It's not easier for them, but it is more freeing for us players

Bryon · « **Reply #118 on:** December 21, 2009, 10:30:37 AM »

Let me clarify. By "steering" I just meant "encouraging." Not mandating, and not making it impossible to win with just stand alones. Just making it dangerous. We want SOME decks to be able to win the vast majority of games against stand alones. Currently, we have given tools to Judges, Genesis, and TGT decks to beat stand alone defenses rather easily. Other offenses will have a harder time.

By "that is more easily accomplished with cards" I meant that it is easier to accomplish the steering with cards than it is to put a cap on hand size with cards.

STAMP · « **Reply #119 on:** December 21, 2009, 11:07:13 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 01:34:17 AM

Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?

Quote from: Bryon on December 21, 2009, 03:04:55 AM

We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 21, 2009, 10:21:35 AM

It is much EASIER to simply make a rule that says you are only allowed to use 1 or 2 colors. Then you're done. Doing it with cards allows players the flexibility to continue using more than 2 colors if they either don't mind being at a disadvantage, or if they are creative enough to figure out a way to do it without being at a disadvantage.

Given the choices above, I'm glad that the PTB chose to encourage deckbuilding in a certain direction rather than mandating it. It's not easier for them, but it is more freeing for us players

Odd. Some of the new orange cards encourage the use of many brigades. $:-\$

I agree with Prof in that I would hate to see the creativity taken out of deckbuilding.

Bryon · « **Reply #120 on:** December 21, 2009, 11:20:49 AM »

Right. There are cards to encourage players to use 2 evil brigades. Orange + culture decks are encouraged. Cards like RTC encourage the use of a second evil brigade. However, there are cards that punish you for having a large number of brigades. Judge's Seat, Shibboleth, and Elon are examples from the Judges theme. Genesis/Job has its share of examples, and TGT is an obvious one.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #121 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:03:24 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 21, 2009, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on December 21, 2009, 12:03:50 AM
i thought heroless used built on a rock?

Red'Rocks was playing heroless before there was a Built on the Rock. I think he built his first heroless deck shortly after Holy Grail was released in Warriors.

To your question--some heroless do use BotR and some don't. Towards the end of the heroless wave a number of decks built upon Saul/Paul and BotR were all the rage.

Heroless first became top-class (meaning a heroless deck could win tournaments at any level) playable archetype following the release of Priests. For reasons that escape me the subsequent three releases (FoOF, RoA, and TexP) have all hit the heroless archetype pretty hard. One example of this was mentioned earlier--Grapes totally destroys Saul/Paul decks--and since Grapes is a versatile Dominant it is going to be found in a most competitive decks,

Now I feel old.... I made the first heroless after kings and as said it became a full archtype after priests. Why must they pick on my heroless?

My original heroless didn't use Built on the rock (because it wasn't out) nor saul/paul. It used babylon the great (7/2) and I feel this sort of blatant creativity is what is going to be needed to get heroless back to a playable archtype. I honestly have NOT used heroless in TEXP but I feel even s/p could do well if you play it right. /End rant

I am RR, and I may or may not approve of this message.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #122 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:05:09 PM »

I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.

Master KChief · « **Reply #123 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:07:38 PM »

i feel grapes is an incredibly balanced card. some games its useful, and some games its downright useless.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #124 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:11:08 PM »

Bryon, thanks for answering my question. It's always interesting (at least to me) to get a glimpse at the thinking behind certain decisions.

News:

Author Topic: Where would we be... (Read 21272 times)