Cactus Game Design Message Boards

You want a "yes" or "no" because you have already discussed it. I'll admit that I never saw this question coming, and feel completely blindsided by it. I think we should be considering all possibilities before making a MAJOR change to an existing category.

We are constantly reviewing rules, rulings, and potential ways to improve the game in any number of ways.  Almost none of those result in a change, and very few even make it to this side for opinions.  We are looking for input from the players on something that we have discussed, yes, but consider that we have discussed just about everything imaginable at some point or another (the others far more than me).  And I'm a little offended that you personally would assume we wouldn't discuss all possibilities, when you know how we think and operate, and can see that not all Elders even agree with the proposal.  Trust me when I say that we discuss far more than is necessary in most cases (there are plenty of long-winded arguments...too many...).

There is constant complaint on the boards about how the Elders do not listen to the players (I can say that's not true).  So in this case we had a discussion about a potential change and genuinely asked for input (and again, I don't believe Gabe is looking at a 'majority rules' from this thread to make a final decision).  Now we get complaints about that.

I'm not sure what we can do to appease everyone, but know that we are actually, actively trying to improve the game.  If you disagree with the proposed change being discussed, we want to hear about it.  But complaints about us wanting to have a discussion with the players is simply not helpful.

You want to change a problem that you are having. Nothing in that statement is a problem (or has ever been a problem) in my playgroups.

You yourself have said on multiple occasions that your playgroup operates differently   In all seriousness, just because we don't see something happen in literally every playgroup does not mean that we don't examine the entirety of the category everywhere.

I also encourage you to read through my previous post if you still believe that we don't actually discuss all of the options or how things play out in different areas.

And I'm a little offended that you personally would assume we wouldn't discuss all possibilities, ...

I meant that you have not discussed other possibilities with the rest of us. Sometimes those of us in more obscure parts of the country can come up with ideas that you have not considered. 

FWIW, I am sorry if I offended you (or Gabe). I really am caught in a bit of shock by this. My son really likes TEAMS, so I may be taking it a bit personally.

I really am caught in a bit of shock by this. My son really likes TEAMS, so I may be taking it a bit personally.

I get it, and honestly I'm happy to see passion about the game.  As pointed out by others, removing intro-prep from the only category it is in is something we can discuss at this point as a potential option, as Rob has indicated that a change could occur and it would bring it to be the same as other categories.  Adding it to all categories is just not something that is on the table now, so that is why we wanted to focus on what could actually change instead of what else could change in the further future.

One additional note to emphasize from an earlier post: This would NOT change any rules for this season (including Nats).

Since I am the only one that used the term "blindsided," this comment was apparently meant for me. Please note that your sarcasm does not promote a sense of "discussion," but rather, disdain. Why would I want to post my thoughts if I am just going to be the butt of your jokes?

You make more jokes here than anyone. If I'm not allowed bad attempts at humor I'll cease immediately after this post.

I think that is part of the concern for me. Why is there no other possibility under discussion? This thread seems to be the after-effect of discussions that some of you have had, that the rest of us were not privy to. And now, we are thrust into this "vote," which fits well into the USA version of voting: the Democrats people who support nixing Intro-Prep and the Republicans people who oppose a change have already locked in their vote and will not be swayed. We're not really having an open discussion here. Your minds are already made up. We just need to see who has the most hands raised after the voting is done.

Not so!  I am on here reading the thread and contemplating everyone's views. Let's please try to deal with each other in good faith.

You make more jokes here than anyone. If I'm not allowed bad attempts at humor I'll cease immediately after this post.

Except that my jokes do not target people personally. I would like to think that I do not use sarcasm at all, but I guess I would have to go back and check my posts individually to be sure that I am not delusional.

Not so!  I am on here reading the thread and contemplating everyone's views. Let's please try to deal with each other in good faith.

As I stated in a later post (see above), some of what I said was reactionary because I do not want to see a change to one of my son's favorite categories. It seemed a bit tedious to go back and revise all my posts, but if people are going to keep quoting them, I guess I should. 

I get it, and honestly I'm happy to see passion about the game.

Thank you for your continued attempts to keep me on track, rather than make fun of my passion. 

One additional note to emphasize from an earlier post: This would NOT change any rules for this season (including Nats).

I think this is part of what got me on edge. This season is pretty much over. We're running all the major tournaments now, and Nats is only a month and a half away. This is just one thing that is being considered behind the scenes, so I would guess that there won't be a whole lot of time spent on it. I could simply be wrong, but it seems like you were working on major rules overhauls, then this was just thrown in as a "Oh, by the way."

And yet, the consideration of other ideas has been met with "We'll have to wait until next season." I don't understand why this change is being rushed to the forefront when there are much more important, overarching issues that can be attempted with the rules overhaul (like mulligans).

Thank you again for your continued patience with me, Dayne. 

I'm happy to report (and hopefully you will be too) that you are wrong

Just like Malcolm from Jurassic Park, there are indeed times when I am happy to be wrong. 

First, there is nothing in these posts that indicated that we would not consider other rules for next season as well.

I think this idea should wait until next season like the rest of them. 

I think that's what I've been trying to guide you to, is that this is just an issue that we feel that we have discussed deeply enough among the playtesters and seen the impact (been used for years, we have data and experience with it) that we can talk about whether to implement a change at this point.

I don't agree with this assertion. I don't think we have enough research on the impact of NO Intro-Prep, since we have only ever been using Intro-Prep in TEAMS. We need time to research the effects of removal.

Mulligans, side-decks, intro-prep into non-TEAMS categories, and other such issues have not been ignored;

FWIW, I did not say the others were "ignored," but rather "put off until next season."

So very easily in TEAMS...everyone trying to discuss their strategies without their opponents knowing what they have and talking about.

"Should I put the banana peel down?"
"I don't know...I have shortcake, so...hrm..."
"Wait, shortcake?"
"Yeah you know the one that...um if you want to...well can you pull stuff...from not your hand?  Or do you want to?"
"Wait do you have Naz?"
"USE THE CODE WORDS!"
"I CAN'T REMEMBER THE STUPID CODE WORDS!"
"WELL SHOULD I PUT DOWN NAZ NOW?!"
"NO I HAVE PUDDING!"
"...what was pudding again?"

Now of course this is a dramatization, but 99% of the time spent in TEAMS in my experience is hilarious attempts at communicating without revealing information to the opponents, and intro-prep is not immune to this since you don't want to duplicate certain effects or turn off your teammate's options (such as Naz when they have their few draws available early, or Lampstand when they have Shipwreck and Falling Away already in hand).  That's a whole other issue that we can discuss with TEAMS, but I can tell you that intro-prep can easily take up that time.

Ok, I laughed really hard when I read this, and if a conversation such as this actually transpires during a TEAMS game, I would gladly give up 5 minutes of gametime to witness it   

Maybe my experiences with TEAMS cloud my judgment...  At OH States, Matt and I developed no code words, and we pretty much only talked with each other when deciding how to attack or defend (which, obviously, wasn't happening during Intro Prep).  The decks we used also didn't have much at all in the way of "conflicting abilities" (like Lampstand/Falling Away or Naz/TC search abilities), so there wasn't much to discuss in terms of harming each other's decks.

I agree that this decision could use more research and could wait until next season.

I would consider this a major change to teams because I also consider it one of the defining aspect of teams.  I really like the additional ability to work together that the intro-prep facilitates.  You could argue that teams allows that anyway, you just have to wait until your turn.  The problem with teams is that if you go last that 2/3 of the game could already be over and that the other team wins on the 1st players second turn. 

In a regular 2 player game, if I have unholy writ, unknown nation, etc in my opening hand and my opponent goes first, then I might miss the chance to block their 1st rescue attempt.  They still have to make at least 2 more rescues where I will get the chance to have those answers ready.  If I have those answers in teams and go last then they can potentially get 2 rescues before I can play those answers.  The possibility for the opposing team to have SoG/NJ is also higher if they both run it in small decks.

As a side effect, I think no intro-prep would make decks using a lot of support cards (arts, forts, sites) less viable and those decks is part of what I like about teams.

I know we don't want timeouts but was also don't want teams to end up like type1 multiplayer but worse.  Besides, I don't think timeouts is a team issue; it is a Redemption issue that could use help across all categories.  I now encourage any teammate to forgo all "code" and just plainly say what they want to speed things up.  What you gain by cooperation is more than what you lose by no secrecy.  While "code" can be hilarious in friendly games, it quickly gets old when 50% of timed team games are consumed by it.

Adding it to all categories is just not something that is on the table now, so that is why we wanted to focus on what could actually change instead of what else could change in the further future.

I understand the desire to be pragmatic and only focus on the now.  However if you limit the discussion to yes/no then you eliminate the discussion of various ideas which could lead to potential solutions which might bring us to the ideal endpoint.  If you are under time constraints then sometimes you have to eliminate that discussion to make a decision but I just don't see that here. 

I know that you are not currently considering changing all categories but I don't think this issues is a simple a/b scenario.  Why not talk about what would be ideal and what could currently happen?

If I have those answers in teams and go last then they can potentially get 2 rescues before I can play those answers.  The possibility for the opposing team to have SoG/NJ is also higher if they both run it in small decks.

As a side effect, I think no intro-prep would make decks using a lot of support cards (arts, forts, sites) less viable and those decks is part of what I like about teams.

1, You have to draw those cards in the opening hand.
2. Your teammate did not draw his own (or similar).
3. Both of you have to not have blocks in your hand (can't say that the possibility of SoG/NJ is higher in two small decks but that the same can't apply to blocks).
4. Your team has to have fewer souls.
5. The other team has to choose you going last (which also means your team draws first).  This is the real point of contention I have with this argument, because the majority of the games I see teams that win the soul count choose to go second so that they can draw.  If the winning team did not do that, and just happened to pick the player with the counters to go last somehow, they also have fewer cards with which to make their rescue than the other players do on their first rescue.

It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).

On the second point, I have seen winning decks make use of sits/forts/arts offensively more than anything.  Changing intro-prep would not change that fact because of the sharing aspect of TEAMS.

Quote

It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).

Without having data to back up your belief that these situations are hyperbolic, I really don't think you can disregard these concerns that have been brought up by multiple people.

I don't disregard it, but call it hyperbolic with confidence after giving a very detailed explanation about why this happening with any frequency is just not something to consider plausible.

I don't see any 'data' to support the argument that it happens, simply hypothetical situations given by those with a concern, yet you don't have a problem with that.

I gave explicit reasons to back up my conclusion, by looking at how such a situation could result.  Given everything that must occur, to continue to throw this hypothetical out there as a reason for keeping intro-prep does not pass any sort of test, and so I will call it what it is.