Cactus Game Design Message Boards

My first inclination is to be in support of the 1-dom-per-player-per-turn rule change (with an exception or errata for NJ). It would help change the meta from being so hyper-speed focused and hopefully therefore diversify it.

Something to think about is... should the game slow down?

For years many of us fought against the game "speeding up". Now the game is faster than it ever was when I was competitively playing. But is the fact that the game is now faster a bad thing?

I think a dom per turn limit could potentially make dom playing a bit more strategic but I'm not sure it would significantly help the game. I feel this would help scale back the power of doms not having many timing restrictions compared to other cards which is part of why they are so good but it may not always be good for that to occur. Other cards may see a rise in power due to a change. Doms still will be incredibly poweful and used in every deck in likely similar composition.

When you think about it playing 1 dom a turn likely means that SOG, SC, AOTL, FA, CM, and 3W are likely still the best doms and still should be in a deck. That still leaves 1 dom flex spot for most decks which is still similar to now and their power just gets more spread over a game and more strategic rather than spammy. Fast decks still will benefit from early access but in a corner case could suffer from hand clog if they blindly just let it. Doms still have some of the least amount of timing/play restrictions by game rules and are usually very powerful so they are still likely better than alternatives even if they have to be used a little more wisely.

There could be drawbacks with deck consistency regardless of what you play and certain strats may prey on the limitations but thats something that would have to be playtested.

Ultimately while very intrigued by the idea and while very supportive of changes being made to better the game im not sure this does it or rather enough to warrant a change. It may even make top play have a further barrier of entry by making dom playment skill all the more imperative. I also don't think it addresses the biggest issue of the game which is the costless nature of very powerful cards. (Im not sure there is a good way to address that without ser rotation/mass bans honestly.)

I also feel that the game needs more streamlined rules in the future for easier access/learning for new players so im always skeptical of game rule changes that don't simplify. I'm much more in favor of set rotation and a legacy style format but thats another matter entirely.

Love the thinking and thought process. Probably not on board with the rule change.

Update:

After testing a few games with this rule I am really liking it! It doesn't always have an impact, but in those games where it has it really has. Something like Grapes + CM is no longer an option, TSC + AotL is out, 3W + AotL/Grapes/CM is out, Mayhem + anything, and so many more; these were just the ones that came up in the games I played (as options no longer available). The battles feel better, and there's definitely a feeling of balance when you know you have to choose what you're playing this turn if you have more than 1 Dom in hand and want to think about the turns ahead.

One thing: I was playing where it was 1 Dom per player per each player's turn, rather than 1 dom per player per round (which is what I think some people might've thought I meant by 1 per turn). So maybe at the end of your turn you play TSC to get SoG back. Then on the start of your opponent's turn you play SoG. What does this change? Well, perhaps the opponent can draw their own Dom (FA, SoG, CoF) on their turn to potentially increase their score or still be in the game; rather than just ending the game after the third LS rescue with SoG + TSC in hand. I think that is a bit more fair, since we all know how it is to look at the top 3 cards after a loss to see if a FA, SoG, or TSC was sitting there.

To summarize, if it sounds interesting to you, try it out. You will probably like it. If it still doesn't sound like it would be worth exploring, try a couple games anyway to see how it actually plays out. It very likely won't be as extreme/oppressive/limiting as you think.

I agree with Guardian. Redemption is unique and great the way it is and doesn't need this rule change.

I agree with Guardian. Redemption is unique and great the way it is and doesn't need this rule change.

Redemption is not a unique game because it has "broken" cards (Dominants). Far from it- the big ‘3’ have their fair share:

Spoiler (hover to show)

*Just a few classic examples. Fun fact: all of the above are either banned, reworked, or played in severely limited categories. It’s hard to say SoG + TSC (which are costless, free to play at anytime, and contribute directly to your win) aren’t broken when you look at these, yes?*


No, Redemption is unique because it is a truly one-of-a-kind Christian competitive collectible card game… that just so happens to have next to no ‘cost’ for playing cards (apart from opportunity and brigades, but brigades are basically moot at this point). Some people like that. I think I’d rather play Booster Draft anyday.

Don’t take this the wrong way; Dominants are my favorite cards in the whole game. Their existence can lead to some unique, thematic cards (ANB, CoF, Glory) that open up wild possibilities for the future. I would never want to ban them as a whole. I just think steps should be taken toward lessening that ‘costless’ feeling.


TLDR: Overall, this is more of a ‘consideration’ than a request for immediate action. I’d play this game for Booster Draft alone, but I do really love building and playing decks in general. I just don’t think there should be no downside for the lowest possible amount of effort.