Another one of those threads

[Lawfuldog]

I've been seeing a trend of people trying to get rules changed, mechanics changed, etc...

Personally, I think the game is perfectly fine the way it is. I'll tackle each of the complaints one by one below:

1. Losing because of the draw:

-EVERY game you will EVER play is going to involve an amount of luck big or small. Name a game, and I'll show you luck involved. Plus, the ratio of games that end SOLELY because of the draw and ones that end over time is about 1:100. Those of you who are going to reply saying "Oh yeah! Well I lost 50% of my games because of the draw!" I have something to tell you; change your deck. If your draws fail that often, it's not the drawing, it's the ratio of defense to offense to artifacts, etc...

2. Losing because your opponent did not draw Lost Souls:

-Let me introduce you to two of my favorite cards, their names are Harvest Time and Hopper. There's also this nifty little mechanic I like to call SHUFFLING YOUR OPPONENT'S DECK. There are too many to name. When building a type-1 deck I make sure to have at least one card (ALONG with Harvest Time and Hopper) that can shuffle their deck. Also, do the math, the odds of you losing because they drew NO (none, nada, zip) lost souls, are against you. Most people that complain about their opponent not drawing lost souls, they fail to mention that their opponent also played SoG, NJ, Burial, and a card that shuffled one of their lost souls.

3. NJ getting banned:

-...I almost don't want to comment on how I feel about this. NJ is broken? Wow. You need to redefine 'broken' if you think that. With SoG+NJ you have 2 lost souls. How many? Two. How many do you need to win? FIVE! You still need to have enough offense to get through your opponents defense THREE times. That's not even including them stopping you with cards like Unholy Writ, Burial, Son of God, and even Unknown Nation and a few others. Not to mention Redemption has NEVER banned cards and I don't see that ever happening.

To sum up, stop your complaining. Have fun flaming me for my opinion, because that's how people are on the boards and when they disagree, they completely ignore whatever the other is saying and have this "I'm right, they're wrong. Nothing can change that so I'm gonna ignore their very valid argument" mindset.

Also keep in mind this game is also for ministry and having fun and fellowship with friends. It's not just about winning. Twice I've been in my final game at Nationals and if I win, then I get 1st. Both times, I lost. Once due to my opponent not drawing a single lost soul, the other because I drew no evil characters. Which should go to show you how much I back up my points since they've happened to me, but that's the only game both times that it happened at Nationals, it was just bad luck.

[Cameron the Conqueror]

What is your reasoning behind not wanting a pre prep phase?  Just curious.

[Alex_Olijar]

I agree with everything posted here. Cam, he never mentioned the Prep phase anywhere I can tell.

[Lawfuldog]

Thank you Janissary.

Cameron, I haven't bothered reading anything on the pre-prep phase. Odds are, I'd be against it since I think the game is perfect the way it is.

Also for the rest of you, be thankful I didn't start my rant on how NOT broken pre-block ignore is.

[Ironica]

Thank you Janissary.

Cameron, I haven't bothered reading anything on the pre-prep phase. Odds are, I'd be against it since I think the game is perfect the way it is.

Also for the rest of you, be thankful I didn't start my rant on how NOT broken pre-block ignore is.

To some it up, pre-prep let's the person who isn't going first place down cards like they would during their prep phase.

Also, another change that is favorable is letting the person who didn't go first draw on their first turn.  This would actually give the first player a laginamite choice if they really want to go first or not (and help the second person from possibly suffering two attacks before they can even draw).

[Lawfuldog]

Pre-prep is a bad idea if you ask me. That could cause potential broken strategies with sites and a few others.

I could go for the other change. I don't see anything that could become wrong with it, and don't see too many people that would complain about it. That one gets a thumbs up. 

[Alex_Olijar]

I am also for 2nd players drawing three. I'm tired of having there be no reason not to go first. That adds strategy to the game.

[Professoralstad]

Pre-prep is a bad idea if you ask me. That could cause potential broken strategies with sites and a few others.

I could go for the other change. I don't see anything that could become wrong with it, and don't see too many people that would complain about it. That one gets a thumbs up.  

Hmm, I don't know if 1 extra turn for the person to go second would make sites or any other prep-phase card more broken. If I have a site deck and I go first, I'm going to load my sites right away, but if I go second, I can't. I don't think that the strategy of a person's deck should necessarily be handicapped by him or her going second.

I would also like to say that I have never complained about any aspect of the game as is. And I have seen many people voice their concerns on here in a respectful and well-thought manner. They are not whining, they just see a problem and propose a solution. These particular solutions would both help the game be more fun for everyone, and would be easy to implement (just a few lines in the How to Play section of the next rulebook) so I can get behind them 100%. FWIW, I don't think NJ should be banned, and I think the way we draw and use LSs is just fine as is.  

[Lawfuldog]

To be honest, broken wasn't the word I should've used there, I just don't think that we need to be changing too many rules, the game is complicated enough as is.

As for your second comment, I don't think I've ever participated in an argument on the boards where I didn't have my side get ignored. Though this could simply be because I'm younger than the majority of the community. I don't get taken seriously very often.

Also, unless I'm reading it wrong, you said that "These particular solutions would both help the game be more fun for everyone, and would be easy to implement..." but then stated that you think NJ is fine, as is the way we draw and use Lost Souls. Are you saying that the two points Janissary brought up would be helpful? Or do you think the suggestions I mentioned would be helpful, yet you don't think there is anything wrong with the way it is now?

[Professoralstad]

Also, unless I'm reading it wrong, you said that "These particular solutions would both help the game be more fun for everyone, and would be easy to implement..." but then stated that you think NJ is fine, as is the way we draw and use Lost Souls. Are you saying that the two points Janissary brought up would be helpful? Or do you think the suggestions I mentioned would be helpful, yet you don't think there is anything wrong with the way it is now?

I meant both the pre-game prep phase and the 2nd player draws on 1st turn were both good ideas in my opinion. I am in favor of these because they would go toward solving some of the perceived problems, and they wouldn't really complicate the game too much. In fact, most new players that I teach how to play don't understand that they can't place their characters/sites/forts down as soon as they draw them in their opening hand, so I think it might make things LESS complicated. And allowing the second person to draw on his/her turn not only helps to curb the possibility of two easy walk-in rescues for the first player, but also allows some strategy behind choosing yourself to go second. Very few people that I know of do this currently, and I think that strategic aspect would be interesting to add.

While I do support these changes, I also think the game is fine as is, so I won't lose any sleep if they are not implemented. I just think that these changes would improve the game. Some may say: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." As an engineer I would say: "Even if it ain't broke, we can still make it better."

One more thing: I value the opinion of anyone who presents his or her argument in a well-thought out, defensible, and most importantly readable manner, regardless of age. Which is why I think that some people have valid arguments for changing the game, and others (such as yourself) have valid arguments for not doing so.

[EmJayBee83]

I don't think I've ever participated in an argument on the boards where I didn't have my side get ignored. Though this could simply be because I'm younger than the majority of the community. I don't get taken seriously very often.

I think this may be because your spooky avatar is frightening people away. You could try something more friendly looking...like a dog.

[STAMP]

I don't think I've ever participated in an argument on the boards where I didn't have my side get ignored. Though this could simply be because I'm younger than the majority of the community. I don't get taken seriously very often.

I think this may be because your spooky avatar is frightening people away. You could try something more friendly looking...like a dog.

I agree.  But definitely not a cat!!

[Lawfuldog]

It's not that spooky. 

[lightningninja]

Wait, so pre prep phase makes it so that even though you go first, your opponent can play down fortresses and stuff? That's not cool...

[sk]

It certainly makes going second far less of a problem...

[Professoralstad]

It certainly makes going second far less of a problem...

Yep. So based on the cards you get in your initial draw, you may even choose to go second, like if you don't draw a hero and want to be able to attack your first turn. However, I think the ability to be the first to attack is still enough to make most people choose to go first given the opportunity. These rules would just bring a bit more balance to one aspect that is definitely a cause of many of the quick 5-0 games that occur.