Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Red on January 21, 2018, 06:48:36 AM
-
Considering the success of the "Crimson or Brown" thread, I had to give this a go. What do you think community?
-
I thought you found out the answer to this question the first evening of Nats ;)
For purposes of discussion, yes you can build a judges offenses and it will win a few games if the opponent can't answer Moses or Gideon but IMO Martyrs is just a straight up stronger offense.
-
Martyrs/musicians have so much instant recur that the offenses can just keep punching. Judges I personally believe has more initial power but they run out of steem. The truth is defense as a whole is extremely good right now. It's not abnormal to see timeouts between top caliber players. This isn't because they are thinking too long or playing slow. It's literally because defenses are so powerful and fast.
-
Judges also lack good reserve access. I guess you might make up for that with the defense you pair them with, but that’s definitely a factor in their viability.
Years ago Judges were terrible. Auto (Bacon), among other things changed all of that. It’s time for the Judges to not be top tier anymore. If we’ve done our job with “move over bacon” (RoJ) then Judges are no longer as dominant as they once were.
-
I don't think any one theme should be top tier but rather give each theme cards that make them unique with interesting tradeoffs. And hopefully soon every theme will have access to the reserve in multiple ways as the reserve is almost necessary for a competitive deck these days.
-
I don’t think that they will win any 2 player categories, but still potentially can hold there own in a multi-player category. Friday night at Nats I didn’t have a deck or even a thought of what to play and it was super late when I got back to the hotel. I decided to go with something “proven and fast,” and built an “old school” judges and Pharisees deck (with new cards included) and took 3rd in T2-MP mostly because it was fast, had enough power and hit on a Hail Mary during the last game.
-
Yeah clay has successfully power creeped Judges into oblivion
-
Yeah clay has successfully power creeped Judges into oblivion
Turns out that having an entire offense that searches deck, discard, or Reserve trumps a few heroes that D2 and a few CBN GEs
-
And for something to be better than judges with only adding new cards is out of control power creep imo. If the goal is to change the "top tier" offense every year the power creep will never stop and we will end up having sudo-set rotations anyway because the old cards will become useless even if new cards for that theme are printed.
-
Indeed. For me I'd also like to see old and very old cards strenghthened again without reprinting them or create several newer copies of it.
-
We've had intentional power creep up to CoW and RoJ since it enables the average card to be more powerful and have more going on, which is good. As long as future sets keep "power creeping" every other theme up to the level of the current top tier brigades I'm all for it, especially since that mostly means giving them all some sort of reserve access. If current clay gets power creeped though we'll be in trouble.
-
Point is power creep even though it is good leaves the older sets in the dust and they should be rotated out because quite frankly their time has come. And what about the cards that alot of people use from those sets? like FA, three liner, NJ, etc. Well those should be looked at to see if they were too strong in the beginning and if not reprint them or reprint more balanced versions. But don't drag along the rest of the under-powered useless cards just because rotating sets is bad somehow. That's what a "legacy" category can solve :P let all the outdated cards play around in that sandbox.
-
Point is power creep even though it is good leaves the older sets in the dust and they should be rotated out because quite frankly their time has come. And what about the cards that alot of people use from those sets? like FA, three liner, NJ, etc. Well those should be looked at to see if they were too strong in the beginning and if not reprint them or reprint more balanced versions. But don't drag along the rest of the under-powered useless cards just because rotating sets is bad somehow. That's what a "legacy" category can solve :P let all the outdated cards play around in that sandbox.
I fully agree that set rotation should happen, in fact I think we are getting close to a point where it not happening will be quite harmful to the game. Once the meta settles after this year's set I'm planning to experiment building decks based on different set cutoffs and see how much of an impact it would actually have and if anyone's fears on the matter are justified.
-
And for something to be better than judges with only adding new cards is out of control power creep imo. If the goal is to change the "top tier" offense every year the power creep will never stop and we will end up having sudo-set rotations anyway because the old cards will become useless even if new cards for that theme are printed.
This was kind of my thinking... What makes Clay more special than Judges? Either way, one offense is the top dog. Is it because Judges was a top offense for longer that it was deemed "unhealthy" for the game?
Ironically, CoW's intentional power creep (to weaken the Greek sitelock deck) created a sort of balance in the top offenses, since Throne and BoM decks were similar in power. And there were a surprisingly large variety of both of those offenses (some players even combined them). But RoJ erased all of that, and we are back to 1 dominant offense.
-
But RoJ erased all of that, and we are back to 1 dominant offense.
I honestly don't think that's the case.
CoL, Martyrs (with several different variants), Revelation Angels and Throne are all dominant offenses IMO.
-
But RoJ erased all of that, and we are back to 1 dominant offense.
I honestly don't think that's the case.
CoL, Martyrs (with several different variants), Revelation Angels and Throne are all dominant offenses IMO.
Revelation Angels and Throne are notably weaker than Martyrs.
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
In that case I may very well be wrong. This is the first I've heard of an angel deck that consistently beats Martyrs. What defense are you running in it?
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
Tell me everything
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
Tell me everything
I'm surprised you commented on this before anything Leviathan related :P
-
An angel deck that wins is about as big news. I've been kept informed on Leviathan's glorious return.
-
Point is power creep even though it is good leaves the older sets in the dust and they should be rotated out because quite frankly their time has come. And what about the cards that alot of people use from those sets? like FA, three liner, NJ, etc. Well those should be looked at to see if they were too strong in the beginning and if not reprint them or reprint more balanced versions. But don't drag along the rest of the under-powered useless cards just because rotating sets is bad somehow. That's what a "legacy" category can solve :P let all the outdated cards play around in that sandbox.
I fully agree that set rotation should happen, in fact I think we are getting close to a point where it not happening will be quite harmful to the game. Once the meta settles after this year's set I'm planning to experiment building decks based on different set cutoffs and see how much of an impact it would actually have and if anyone's fears on the matter are justified.
I don't know how it would be harmful, but the fact is your project has in essence already been done. Travis has been gathering the deck lists for the top 10 decks for the last 2-3 years. All you have to do is simply look at that information and you can determine if sets have basically been cycled already. I would also be interested to know what older cards need to be cycled out due to their power? If everyone would take a look at their cards that they take to tournaments, you see that we don't have to ban cards because the players do it.
Let us look at my collection. I am a type 2 player so I carry at least 4 of every card, which takes a lot of room. So I only carry cards that might truly be played. I do still admit that I have cards that don't fall into that category for most, as I have some cards that can go in a deck, but often never see play. So if we examine the cards I have from the sets you will see that we are doing it ourselves.
Set: Carry: Total: % of set
P: 36 88 40.91%
A/B: 0 15 0.00%
OR: 6 155 3.87%
PR: 7 106 6.60%
WO: 13 81 16.05%
WA: 16 171 9.36%
C/D: 1 103 0.97%
AP: 20 207 9.66%
PA: 27 160 16.88%
K: 51 250 20.40%
E/F: 10 100 10.00%
AW: 11 150 7.33%
G/H: 11 100 11.00%
PS: 76 251 30.28%
FF: 91 130 70.00%
RoA: 83 130 63.85%
TeP: 48 60 80.00%
DI: 87 115 75.65%
I/J: 61 100 61.00%
EC: 119 146 81.51%
PC: 87 93 93.55%
CoW: 127 129 98.45%
RoJ: 129 129 100.00%
So if promos show the current state of power in this game, so you can safely say that any set with a percentage below it is under powered compared to the overall game. So tripleplay isn't wrong saying the foils are the "drop off." I guess I'm just trying to understand why we need rotations when it is happening without making it a rule. Plus leaving them in rotation allows to potentially bring them back to the lime light even if it is only for a short time (ex. Gideon).
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
In that case I may very well be wrong. This is the first I've heard of an angel deck that consistently beats Martyrs. What defense are you running in it?
A fast one. 8)
-
I don't know how it would be harmful, but the fact is your project has in essence already been done. Travis has been gathering the deck lists for the top 10 decks for the last 2-3 years. All you have to do is simply look at that information and you can determine if sets have basically been cycled already. I would also be interested to know what older cards need to be cycled out due to their power? If everyone would take a look at their cards that they take to tournaments, you see that we don't have to ban cards because the players do it.
It isn't as easy as looking at raw data for which old cards are most played going from there. The post rotation meta could make certain good cards unplayable and current unplayable cards top tier. This also overlooks the primary points of rotation. It's not about getting most of the olds cards out of the meta, it's about getting the 1% of old cards that will be auto includes in their respective decks for eternity if they aren't forced out via bans or rotation. The meta will never self-correct Throne or The Deceiver away.
The primary three benefits are opening up design space, lowering average deck consistency, and keeping the meta fresh. You can argue that the latter is being accomplished and to a degree it is but with the number of auto include cards increasing every year that will slowly become less true. Rotation also serves to get rid of cards that, while not broken enough for bans to be implemented, are regarded by many people as unfun and generally unhealthy.
Regarding design space, the easiest example is Throne. Throne rotating out would allow them to print solid red and purple cards without the risk of Throne decks dominating everything else. Rotation also prevents decks like CoL from existing because less cards in the card pool means the lower average deck consistency and CoL only works because of near perfect consistency. Losing TexP alone would completely kill the current CoL strategy.
Average consistency has been a slowly creeping problem for a while but RoJ skyrocketed it. As a general rule, the more cards there are in a game's card pool, the faster and more consistent the average deck becomes even if cards that exist for the sole purpose of increasing consistency are avoided. Cards that do intentionally increase consistency are very dangerous (even more so that in other TCGs because of Redemption's lack of a resource system) and once you reach a critical mass of them the game becomes impossible to balance. Older examples of this kind of card are Consider the Lilies and A Soldier's Prayer. Those two cards are very dangerous and high on the list of cards I would be glad to see removed from the game via rotation and they don't even work in most decks. Cards like The Ends of the Earth and The Deceiver are even scarier because you can play them in literally every deck. Without set rotation, the number of Ends and Deceivers will slowly but inevitably rise, straggling deck diversity.
Every card game eventually has these problems and the reason symptoms haven't been showing much until now is that power creep functions as pseudo set rotation but now that the power creep is slowing down (Which is a good thing), the consistency creep will get exponentially worse until either bans or rotation are implemented.
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
In that case I may very well be wrong. This is the first I've heard of an angel deck that consistently beats Martyrs. What defense are you running in it?
A fast one. 8)
Now I'm itching for deck list or a lackey game (Although the game may be difficult considering I'm at work now ::) )
-
Now I'm itching for deck list or a lackey game (Although the game may be difficult considering I'm at work now ::) )
I am likewise at work...I should be around tonight though... 8)
-
Now I'm itching for deck list or a lackey game (Although the game may be difficult considering I'm at work now ::) )
I am likewise at work...I should be around tonight though... 8)
It would have to be pretty late, I have class from 6-9 CST tonight :-\
-
So really the suggestion isn't to have set rotation as much as it is to ban certain cards. While I understand that set rotation would be "beneficial" in the future because it would allow play-testers to stop the amount of power creep every year, it would be tragic currently. A set rotation starting with the foils would make this year's national promo card almost worthless, as teal would be almost non-existent. Not to mention cutting over half of orange's cards. A rotation starting then including the tins would remove the power from almost every color except clay and silver, and it only gets worse the later the cut off.
While the idea of modern & "legacy" types adds flavor, it doesn't do much for the game. Legacy will become the game that people cried about because only 1 or 2 colors will be dominant, (and this thread would irrelevant). But I do agree the modern part could be extremely interesting, but not for another 2-3 years due again to the power currently of clay and silver. While I'm not truly opposed to rotation or banning, I just think it would be harder to do that than to stick with building everything else up a little. When a game isn't created with either in mind, it is hard to stop the power creep.
The best way to do it now, is to not make cards you pointed out. We don't need cards that can go in every deck. I like the power of dominants and lost souls, but the other cards that can be included in every deck need to stop for a while. I don't know of any who would be truly opposed to a set that focused on mono-colored cards that buffed the identifiers that need buffing. I'm even fine with CBN stuff, but put that on the "boss" character from that identifier, and make the CBN based on that identifier, or benefit by having the same identifier in play. Again, I feel this is a start to fix the game, but the problems being brought up can't be fixed for a long time, or with a ban/rotation and a HUGE set. Neither of which I see happening soon.
-
I'm usually up pretty late...if you want to try and get a game in and you see me signed on to the forum, feel free to shoot me a PM.
Justin
-
I like the power of dominants and lost souls, but the other cards that can be included in every deck need to stop for a while.
Variety in dominant selection has always interested me. While most every deck uses SoG, NJ/TSC and AotL, I find that the other 4 spots are pretty diverse.
Lost Souls are also pretty diverse in my mind...probably the only LS I always put in every deck right now is Dull. (Imitate is close, but if I'm running Moses or the Negate LS, I usually don't use it).
Cards like Covenant with Prayer and The Deceiver were simply so that pre-RoJ themes would have some Reserve access right away. Obviously they also work in the RoJ decks that have their own Reserve access (making those themes especially strong), but we felt that was preferable to older strategies having zero Reserve access because each new set will help a couple more themes with Reserve interaction.
-
Cards like Covenant with Prayer and The Deceiver were simply so that pre-RoJ themes would have some Reserve access right away. Obviously they also work in the RoJ decks that have their own Reserve access (making those themes especially strong), but we felt that was preferable to older strategies having zero Reserve access because each new set will help a couple more themes with Reserve interaction.
I'm not saying they weren't necessary, just that we have them => lets boost all the other colors now, and avoid those for a while! :)
-
So really the suggestion isn't to have set rotation as much as it is to ban certain cards. While I understand that set rotation would be "beneficial" in the future because it would allow play-testers to stop the amount of power creep every year, it would be tragic currently. A set rotation starting with the foils would make this year's national promo card almost worthless, as teal would be almost non-existent. Not to mention cutting over half of orange's cards. A rotation starting then including the tins would remove the power from almost every color except clay and silver, and it only gets worse the later the cut off.
While the idea of modern & "legacy" types adds flavor, it doesn't do much for the game. Legacy will become the game that people cried about because only 1 or 2 colors will be dominant, (and this thread would irrelevant). But I do agree the modern part could be extremely interesting, but not for another 2-3 years due again to the power currently of clay and silver. While I'm not truly opposed to rotation or banning, I just think it would be harder to do that than to stick with building everything else up a little. When a game isn't created with either in mind, it is hard to stop the power creep.
The best way to do it now, is to not make cards you pointed out. We don't need cards that can go in every deck. I like the power of dominants and lost souls, but the other cards that can be included in every deck need to stop for a while. I don't know of any who would be truly opposed to a set that focused on mono-colored cards that buffed the identifiers that need buffing. I'm even fine with CBN stuff, but put that on the "boss" character from that identifier, and make the CBN based on that identifier, or benefit by having the same identifier in play. Again, I feel this is a start to fix the game, but the problems being brought up can't be fixed for a long time, or with a ban/rotation and a HUGE set. Neither of which I see happening soon.
You are correct that set rotation at this exact moment would greatly hurt certain themes, especially teal and orange. I'm not suggesting we implement rotation tomorrow, rather "spreading awareness" of the problems that will eventually come up in the hopes that future sets get the game ready for set rotation or possibly even implement bans.
The mono-colored buff is another thing I am greatly in favor of. Along with it or possibly instead of it would be cards that heavily punish non-mono colored offenses. I think a very powerful symmetric card (Both players have to play around it) that punishes players for having more than a single good brigade in battle would help deck diversity greatly.
-
The mono-colored buff is another thing I am greatly in favor of. Along with it or possibly instead of it would be cards that heavily punish non-mono colored offenses. I think a very powerful symmetric card (Both players have to play around it) that punishes players for having more than a single good brigade in battle would help deck diversity greatly.
I like the punishing of the non-mono-colored themes, but am skeptical of them. They almost have to be cards that go in every deck, which we already said we didn't want more of. They also have to be in play before these multi-colored themes take off, which is unlikely. I think we need a mixture of both of these, but the main focus should be fixing the mono-colored themes as that will only create more diversity. I do love how the Lost Souls have been game changers, so maybe that is the best way to "punish" multi-colored themes, but again it doesn't always work.
-
Can confirm that the majority of cards in the next set have either zero or one good brigade. 8)
-
one good brigade.
Multi-evil cards can also fall under this "include in every deck" discussion too! :P
-
Variety in dominant selection has always interested me. While most every deck uses SoG, NJ/TSC and AotL, I find that the other 4 spots are pretty diverse.
In my experience, Woes is just as much a staple as any of those three and Mayhem isn't far behind.
That only leaves CM, either variant of FA, and Grapes competing for two spots.
-
I don't think I build my decks much differently than most, but I've had far too many games where my Mayhem was useless (or ended up hurting me more than my opponent) to consider it even close to being a staple.
Woes is almost a staple, but there's other options available (Image, Censer) whereas a dominant like Grapes doesn't have a non-dominant alternative.
-
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
Tell me everything
-> Also curious. For different reasons...
I'm more than happy to play the deck against anyone on Lackey...but I haven't seen many people on there recently... :(
-
I don't think I build my decks much differently than most, but I've had far too many games where my Mayhem was useless (or ended up hurting me more than my opponent) to consider it even close to being a staple.
Woes is almost a staple, but there's other options available (Image, Censer) whereas a dominant like Grapes doesn't have a non-dominant alternative.
I agree with you on Mayhem but Woes isn't a staple for it's ability to stick around, it's because you can use it as a negate in battle first. That effect does not have an alternative. Woes is also one of the only reactive answers to Fire Foxes.
-
I don't think I build my decks much differently than most, but I've had far too many games where my Mayhem was useless (or ended up hurting me more than my opponent) to consider it even close to being a staple.
Woes is almost a staple, but there's other options available (Image, Censer) whereas a dominant like Grapes doesn't have a non-dominant alternative.
Maybe I've been playing too much crimson lately, but even without Hypocrisy, Mayhem gives you a good chance at a Wives block, a great soul gen option, and a potential for huge card advantage. There may be decks where Mayhem isn't that great, but its versatility almost always makes it an auto include for me.
I have a Revelation Angel deck that is nearly undefeated in dozens of games played. If that's not considered dominant, I'm not sure what is.
In that case I may very well be wrong. This is the first I've heard of an angel deck that consistently beats Martyrs. What defense are you running in it?
A fast one. 8)
Now I'm itching for deck list or a lackey game (Although the game may be difficult considering I'm at work now ::) )
Come on, whats the point of being an IT guy if you can't play Lackey ????
-
I like the power of dominants and lost souls, but the other cards that can be included in every deck need to stop for a while.
Variety in dominant selection has always interested me. While most every deck uses SoG, NJ/TSC and AotL, I find that the other 4 spots are pretty diverse.
I am of the mind that any deck that does not have Woes is at a significant disadvantage (considering its unduplicable use in battle and afterward). I would say I have six 'staple' Dominants:
SoG
TSC
AotL
3 Woes
CM
FA (either, usually womens)
The other spot is a toss between Mayhem, GoYS, and Grapes. Maybe Glory for Tabernacle decks.
-
That's my most common line-up as well (for the first 6 spots), but there's several other combinations I've used as well with pretty good success.
-
I mean thematically SoG, NJ and TSC make sense but when you really think about the implications they have on the game they really are quite overpowered.
1. no cost to play
2. ability to play at any time
3. SoG + NJ or SoG + TSC is 2/5 of the win condition
3. can be played along with rescuing a lost soul normally
I think a no dominant category would be interesting or maybe even only allowing one lost soul to be rescued per turn and make NJ work with opponents SoG.
little bit off-topic here :P
-
I mean thematically SoG, NJ and TSC make sense but when you really think about the implications they have on the game they really are quite overpowered.
1. no cost to play
2. ability to play at any time
3. SoG + NJ or SoG + TSC is 2/5 of the win condition
3. can be played along with rescuing a lost soul normally
I think a no dominant category would be interesting or maybe even only allowing one lost soul to be rescued per turn and make NJ work with opponents SoG.
little bit off-topic here :P
In addition to all that they reward you building speed decks over anything else. The one positive impact they have on the game is reducing game time and unfortunately I don't see an alternative.
-
I mean thematically SoG, NJ and TSC make sense but when you really think about the implications they have on the game they really are quite overpowered.
1. no cost to play
2. ability to play at any time
3. SoG + NJ or SoG + TSC is 2/5 of the win condition
3. can be played along with rescuing a lost soul normally
I think a no dominant category would be interesting or maybe even only allowing one lost soul to be rescued per turn and make NJ work with opponents SoG.
little bit off-topic here :P
The restricted format is actually still a thing, I believe.
-
This seems an appropriate time to point out that I am trying to recruit some players to revive the "Type Ban" format from several years ago. My banlist:
SoG/NJ/TSC/FA (Womens) - (Auto-rescues/unrescues)
Mayhem - (Because Mayhem)
2/3 Liner LS - (Because Liner)
I played Jon Masters a few weeks ago and we both used Type Ban decks. It was great. We played to 4 instead of 5 since the auto-rescues are gone. Being able to keep 8 cards in hand for an entire T1 game without undue stress is an unusual, yet awesome, feeling.
#PlayTypeBan
-
This seems an appropriate time to point out that I am trying to recruit some players to revive the "Type Ban" format from several years ago. My banlist:
SoG/NJ/TSC/FA (Womens) - (Auto-rescues/unrescues)
Mayhem - (Because Mayhem)
2/3 Liner LS - (Because Liner)
I played Jon Masters a few weeks ago and we both used Type Ban decks. It was great. We played to 4 instead of 5 since the auto-rescues are gone. Being able to keep 8 cards in hand for an entire T1 game without undue stress is an unusual, yet awesome, feeling.
#PlayTypeBan
How long do those games typically last?
-
This seems an appropriate time to point out that I am trying to recruit some players to revive the "Type Ban" format from several years ago. My banlist:
SoG/NJ/TSC/FA (Womens) - (Auto-rescues/unrescues)
Mayhem - (Because Mayhem)
2/3 Liner LS - (Because Liner)
I played Jon Masters a few weeks ago and we both used Type Ban decks. It was great. We played to 4 instead of 5 since the auto-rescues are gone. Being able to keep 8 cards in hand for an entire T1 game without undue stress is an unusual, yet awesome, feeling.
#PlayTypeBan
How long do those games typically last?
Based on a sample size of 1 game, not much longer than a usual game :P
So logically, we need a bigger sample size.
Moar people playing Type Ban would make a bigger sample size.
QED, everyone should try Type Ban
-
This seems an appropriate time to point out that I am trying to recruit some players to revive the "Type Ban" format from several years ago. My banlist:
SoG/NJ/TSC/FA (Womens) - (Auto-rescues/unrescues)
Mayhem - (Because Mayhem)
2/3 Liner LS - (Because Liner)
I played Jon Masters a few weeks ago and we both used Type Ban decks. It was great. We played to 4 instead of 5 since the auto-rescues are gone. Being able to keep 8 cards in hand for an entire T1 game without undue stress is an unusual, yet awesome, feeling.
#PlayTypeBan
How long do those games typically last?
Based on a sample size of 1 game, not much longer than a usual game :P
So logically, we need a bigger sample size.
Moar people playing Type Ban would make a bigger sample size.
QED, everyone should try Type Ban
Type Ban side category at Nats possibly?
-
Falling Away is unnecessary for the ban list as offense is inherently more powerful than defense, regardless of Sog, NJ, TSC. If Aotl is banned then, sure. If the meta shifts to the defensive side in an unfortunate way, it can always be added later. Besides Guardian is essentially banned then as well... I would recommend adding 3 woes to that list also for it's ability to cbn negate in battle, but let's not pretend like this is a serious conversation until the presses are closed.
-
Falling Away is unnecessary for the ban list as offense is inherently more powerful than defense, regardless of Sog, NJ, TSC. If Aotl is banned then, sure. If the meta shifts to the defensive side in an unfortunate way, it can always be added later. Besides Guardian is essentially banned then as well... I would recommend adding 3 woes to that list also for it's ability to cbn negate in battle, but let's not pretend like this is a serious conversation until the presses are closed.
Looks like only W FA is banned, not CoW FA and I would guess it's because "unrescuing" souls is deemed unfun by some and if nothing else drags out the game in a format that I assume (not having played it) is prone to longer than usual games.
-
how about a no dominant category :P maybe call it "type Mo" (mortals)
-
Yeah, I should have said Women's FA. But that's kinda my point.. It's not an obvious ban so it could easily be tested in and out. I would love to test something like this at nationals and for sure intermittently on lackey!!!
-
There used to be a thing called North West that only allowed 2 dominants. No other restrictions are bands were implemented with that I don't believe.
-
I would also ban Haman's Plot.
There used to be a thing called North West that only allowed 2 dominants. No other restrictions are bands were implemented with that I don't believe.
Type NW had an exactly 70 card deck requirement.
I've forgotten how fun these "let's fix the game" threads are.
-
One thing to keep in mind about the worry that Type Ban games would go too long... SoG/NJ/TSC loses you two rescues, yes. But FA (Wo)/Liner stops two autoblocks. They wash. And Mayhem is usually played negatively (as in, it almost always "sets a player back").
Plus, we only go to 4.
-
One thing to keep in mind about the worry that Type Ban games would go too long... SoG/NJ/TSC loses you two rescues, yes. But FA (Wo)/Liner stops two autoblocks. They wash.
Liner isn't even close to auto include anymore (IMO) and CoW FA is a block most games. I think the format will have inevitably longer games (Going to 4 certainly helps though) but only by a slight amount. It looks like a really interesting format, I'll definitely be making Red Wing test it with me.
-
I would also ban Haman's Plot.
Haman's Plot was on our banlist back in 2011, but I've not seen it played much recently, so I didn't think of it.
Honestly, the next card I'd ban would be Hezekiah's Signet Ring. And if 3 Woes would make the banlist, then I'd definitely take HSR with it, as Woes is one of the few things (along with Reserve access) actually keeping HSR in check.
It looks like a really interesting format, I'll definitely be making Red Wing test it with me.
I just don't have much time to play these days, with recently joining the Board of a non-profit ministry I help with as well as working on the new set. My goal for 2018 was to play minimum 1 game per week on Lackey, but I've not kept to that so far :( If I know of free time when I'll be able to play, I'll let you and Red Wing know to see if you can play Type Ban with me.
-
Without Woes and SoG, I would definitely consider DoN a staple, so I don't think HSR needs a ban.
-
Without Woes and SoG, I would definitely consider DoN a staple, so I don't think HSR needs a ban.
I pretty much agree, which is why HSR isn't on the ban list yet.
My reasoning for it was more along the lines of "There's almost no reason to not include HSR in a deck, it is incredibly powerful and asymetrical, and if drawn early by an opponent and I don't get my counter quickly, the game is usually no fun". And since so many offenses search out their drawing power, HSR effectively protects itself by slowing down how quickly the opponent can get a counter to get rid of it.
Type Ban is dynamic; if one deck or card is astronomically more powerful than other decks/cards, the players playing Type Ban put their heads together and make a consensus ban ;)
-
I honestly haven't seen HSR used much at all since RoJ released.
-
I honestly haven't seen HSR used much at all since RoJ released.
This has been my experience as well. It's definitely a solid option but I am Creator/YWR/Cov. of Prayer are staples in every balanced/aggro deck. Some decks will also need a thematic specific artifact like CwD/Grail/U&T/Temple art, so that just doesn't leave much room for anything else in the average T1 deck.
-
As a fairly dedicated Judges player, I'd say they're definitely still viable, especially with the die down of Coliseum. I piloted my Judges deck to a 5-2-1 10th place at Nats, losing to Josiah's Throne and Jay's martyr/prophet concoction and I barely held on to a tie against Josh's noisy martyrs. Albeit, I can't say that I saw a whole lot of other judges among the players at the top tables (unless they had a question...), so maybe I just got lucky. I will concede the fact that martyrs will out-perform judges more often than not but I would say they're still viable.
Oh, sorry, did we move on to "let's fix the game in this mostly unrelated thread" again? :P
-
As a fairly dedicated Judges player, I'd say they're definitely still viable, especially with the die down of Coliseum. I piloted my Judges deck to a 5-2-1 10th place at Nats, losing to Josiah's Throne and Jay's martyr/prophet concoction and I barely held on to a tie against Josh's noisy martyrs. Albeit, I can't say that I saw a whole lot of other judges among the players at the top tables (unless they had a question...), so maybe I just got lucky. I will concede the fact that martyrs will out-perform judges more often than not but I would say they're still viable.
Oh, sorry, did we move on to "let's fix the game in this mostly unrelated thread" again? :P
What defense were you using? Was your deck mostly standard judges, or did it have some of the cloud ones mixed in as well?
-
As a fairly dedicated Judges player, I'd say they're definitely still viable, especially with the die down of Coliseum. I piloted my Judges deck to a 5-2-1 10th place at Nats, losing to Josiah's Throne and Jay's martyr/prophet concoction and I barely held on to a tie against Josh's noisy martyrs. Albeit, I can't say that I saw a whole lot of other judges among the players at the top tables (unless they had a question...), so maybe I just got lucky. I will concede the fact that martyrs will out-perform judges more often than not but I would say they're still viable.
Oh, sorry, did we move on to "let's fix the game in this mostly unrelated thread" again? :P
What defense were you using? Was your deck mostly standard judges, or did it have some of the cloud ones mixed in as well?
I was running a Crimson defense with some Babs and Animals splash.
I think Joshua, Moses, and Faith of Samson were my only offensive Cloud cards. The rest was fairly standard except for a Watchman with Zeke in the reserve to use the DAEs that work with my defense and Sam, Dave, Moses, and Zeke on offense.