Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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...

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 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.

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.

Can confirm that the majority of cards in the next set have either zero or one good brigade. 

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.

Quote from: RyanErtmer on January 24, 2018, 12:31:23 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on January 24, 2018, 11:22:08 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: The Guardian on January 24, 2018, 01:10:02 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on January 24, 2018, 12:06:51 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on January 24, 2018, 11:22:08 AM

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. 

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 ?

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

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.

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

Quote from: jmhartz on January 24, 2018, 04:37:37 PM

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   

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   

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.