Author Topic: Hand Limit? Here's my take... (Read 3198 times)

Mr.Hiatus · « **on:** August 05, 2009, 12:31:36 AM »

Ok so the new experiment with hand limit rule-You can not have more than twice what your maximum hand is. For example, normally you have eight card max in your hand, you can not draw over 8 cards to where your hand gets over 16. Tables of the law, can't draw over 10.
I think this whole fuss started over Gabe dominating with speed camp. The only person who prepared for it beat him. If you prepare for this, which Justin nailed it on the head with Hidden Treasures, Rain Becomes Dust, HHIdols, Confusion of the Mind, plus new cards, which are commonly used cards, then this deck has no real chance of locking you down. That is just the first major point. The second one is Grapes of Wraith. Now you can have 6 competetive good dominants in your deck. A speed camp only has 5 cards that get rid of good dominants so you would stil have one left over that discards ALL the Sin in the Camps in your territory. Also BTN on defense creams this as well as one Red Dragon! I do not think changing the hand limit would do anything but hurt a deck that can already be stopped. Why not make a rule to the deck I used saying you can not ANB more than once per turn or something? Because it does not matter and did not dominate every opponent. Had I won my last game and went undefeated and gotten first over Gabe I really believe this conversation would not be happening right now.
Fact is, if you don't prepare for a certain strategy then you will probably lose to it every time. I would not make a whole new ruling based on speed camp.

lightningninja · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2009, 01:41:29 AM »

I don't think it's all because of that. I think it's also a subtle stop to speed dominating type I multi.

XeroSplash · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:26:44 AM »

Quote from: lightningningja

I don't think it's all because of that. I think it's also a subtle stop to speed dominating type I multi.

The hand limit was not just for stopping Speed Camp, it was also for implemented for speed in type 1. Just as Rob and Gabe said in other posts, 1) it's experimental, but 2) it's a way of making the game more interactive. Any time you sit there for 15 minutes while your opponent destroys everything on your side of the game should not occur. That's why the initial side battle rule came into effect. But there are ways around it, like how Speed Camp operated and other decks that can do similar things. In many other games, drawing combos like this would be banned. Just think, Pokemon banned cards like Bill (Draw 2) because they thought it was too powerful! Plus, they have a rule where if your deck runs out, you lose the game. But anyways, it is just an experiment, we're going to try it, see how it goes, and if the general consensus is that it is not good for the game, we'll go back to the way we had it and all this arguing will be for naught.

Eric "just try it for a while" Largent

Korunks · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:42:29 AM »

My only real beef with the hand limit is messes with the draw phase. I believe that you should get always get to draw three on your turn, regardless. It may confuse players that if they're opponents make them draw(like Good Gold is working towards) then they can't draw. However this maybe mitigated by the fact they have a hand full of 16 cards so would they need to draw? I will be testing this rule in my playgroup (as with all the other new rules) and will see how it impacts game play. Thinking about it more makes me feel the impact on draw may be minimal because they have a full hand, it is only possibly making the game harder to learn for new people but I think that can be overcome with good teaching techniques.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:55:49 AM »

I think the bottom line is: THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT. It has just been applied to the game and no one knows yet whether it will help or hurt gameplay. Just try it out for now, and if after December we decide we don't like it, we can get rid of it.

Korunks · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:06:55 AM »

Quote

I think the bottom line is: THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT. It has just been applied to the game and no one knows yet whether it will help or hurt gameplay. Just try it out for now, and if after December we decide we don't like it, we can get rid of it.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the impact it has in the current meta-game, and how we feel about it. I know its only temporary, but it needs to be evaluated as the permanent change it could become.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:09:06 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 05, 2009, 10:55:49 AM

I think the bottom line is: THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT. It has just been applied to the game and no one knows yet whether it will help or hurt gameplay. Just try it out for now, and if after December we decide we don't like it, we can get rid of it.

I don't think it's an expiriment. I think we will be stuck with these rules. I feel like this is Rob's way of trying to cap off the large amount of speed in multi, as well as heping to make CTB immunity, and then playing infinite enhancements strategies.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:11:30 AM »

We don't need to evaluate it right now. Why don't we play a few game first and see how that works out before we make judgements is all I'm saying. IF THE RULE AFFECTS THE GAME NEGATIVELY, IT WILL BE CHANGED. However, we can't know that yet, so I say step one is to actually play some games with different deck themes; then we can judge and evaluate.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:13:40 AM »

We do need to evaluate now.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Since we were not involved in the process, we have to start from the beginning.

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:14:41 AM »

But your pretty much saying that we shouldn't talk about it, only play it. We can discuss it as we need. I and my playgroup will be testing these new rules TONIGHT, but until then I want to discuss how this may impact the game to see things I should watch for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussion.

Sean · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:17:51 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 05, 2009, 11:11:30 AM

We don't need to evaluate it right now. Why don't we play a few game first and see how that works out before we make judgements is all I'm saying. IF THE RULE AFFECTS THE GAME NEGATIVELY, IT WILL BE CHANGED. However, we can't know that yet, so I say step one is to actually play some games with different deck themes; then we can judge and evaluate.

You do realize that this is a message board, right?

Also:

Quote from: Cactus Rob

If you wish to discuss any of the below, I ask that you start a separate thread either under tournaments or rulings.

Also, why start a whole new thread for this? Its the same discussion as the other thread.

Lawfuldog · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:21:04 AM »

I agree with Tyler about this initially being brought up because of Speed Camp. I completely understand that it also stops speed in Type-1, but speed wasn't dominant at Nationals, Speed Camp was.

My type-1 deck that I've spent the past few days making, just went down the toilet. Not too happy about that. Hopefully the ruling will not stay throughout the entire season, because Speed Camp is far from broken.

lightningninja · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2009, 04:11:38 PM »

Uhm... my speed decks won type I multi. That's the 3rd year in a row that speed one. Yeah... it's broken in type I multi. $:-\$

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2009, 04:19:21 PM »

How is speed broken in type 1 multi? Who played with defense in your match ups? I am not dogging your play style, performance, or deck, but I am saying that I did not think there was any defensive heavy, or even half defense deck.

lightningninja · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2009, 04:21:27 PM »

Right. Cause everyone was using speed. My point.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:28:49 PM »

so what happens if every turn i return all my opponents permanents to their hand so they have 16 cards in hand? they never get to draw?

redemption99 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:41:09 PM »

as far as i can tell, that is the case clift.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2009, 06:56:42 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 05, 2009, 10:55:49 AM

I think the bottom line is: THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT. It has just been applied to the game and no one knows yet whether it will help or hurt gameplay. Just try it out for now, and if after December we decide we don't like it, we can get rid of it.

Actually, my friend and I have experimented with the 2-player draws three rule, and it does seem to help the second player. There were times without the 2-player draws three rule that I would just sit there, with three Lost Souls in my territory and no defense to stop him. So he basically would get two free Lost Souls because I can't defend and I won't draw anything to help my defenses before my second turn.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #18 on:** August 05, 2009, 07:47:43 PM »

Quote

Right. Cause everyone was using speed. My point.

Ah I gotcha.

News:

Author Topic: Hand Limit? Here's my take... (Read 3198 times)

FresnoRedemption