Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Master KChief on November 20, 2012, 11:23:16 PM
-
Rob recently mentioned the possibility of banning cards, and this is an avenue I'd really like to explore. Let's be honest: the 'counters' that are printed each set in response to the meta from the year before really don't cut it in the long run. Sure they can help when drawn, but that can sometimes be a challenge in and of itself to accomplish before your opponent explodes. Add in the fact there are no best of 3 games (where counters really do shine), the counters we have today are usually relegated to the binder in consideration of cards that are far more favorable in almost any matchup. This is why I think a ban list can be very advantageous in helping build a healthy balanced meta. Here is an example of one of my thoughts on what I believe could be a candidate for the banhammer:
1. The Garden Tomb: Essentially taking out one of the core phases of the game was in my opinion a very terrible idea. Not being able to even attempt a block is not fair in the slightest. The conditions on TGT are easily met which makes it low risk with a considerably high reward. The lack of viable counters also gives it high marks. There are many oft used counters in circulation that deal with the most popular splash defenses of today (which was the reason for TGT's inception), so I feel the need of TGT is completely unwarranted at this stage of the game. Let's encourage more back and forth battles, not the sacky walk-ins because a player didn't even have the option to block in the first place.
What cards do you think could possibly be banned to encourage a healthy meta? What cards from Dan N' Friends, Fight by the Numbers Banding, and Disciples need to be looked at more closely and checked to help balance them against other deck types that are weaker?
-
I only believe that New Jerusalem should be banned for tourney play
-
What are your thoughts and reasoning behind that? On the same note, why not Son of God as well? Isn't New Jerusalem a weaker version of Son of God?
-
Son of God alone is a great idea because you can use it as a defensive card and can be used for many lost manipulation strategies. NJ gives you a reason not to do that and I think using SoG more strategically could really make the game more interesting and could seperate good players from avergae players. Right now it's essentially first to 3 LS's wins. However the new LS rescue rule did take a step in the right direction for that. I agree with Daniel on this one.
-
I would side with this. Especially when your opponent gets two souls free and you didn't because you weren't lucky enough to draw them. Two points out of five is big.
-
I do not think we should ban nj. Nj is not as good as people say it is, yes it is pretty helpful. but only if your opponent draws the lost souls to rescue. Which means nj is actually better against speed decks, so it is within your power to make SoG and NJ much less useful just by making a good deck that does not rely on drawing your deck in 4 turns. I think they should make more anti-speed cards. if they do this effectively then nj loses some if it's power. but still keeps games from going on past the time limit.
-
Banning SoG could make games last too long.
-
I would side with this. Especially when your opponent gets two souls free and you didn't because you weren't lucky enough to draw them. Two points out of five is big.
This is a great point. Sog/Nj in Type 1 essentially motivates a player to draw into it as soon as possible. Like you said, its a free 2 points out of 5. That's a huge marginal swing in points that statistically leaves players that tend to not play speedy decks behind and at a disadvantage.
Banning SoG could make games last too long.
This is another excellent point, I also had the same reservation about banning the big 2. Question: would banning Sog/NJ and playing to 3 lost souls instead of 5 be a good solution?
-
This is another excellent point, I also had the same reservation about banning the big 2. Question: would banning Sog/NJ and playing to 3 lost souls instead of 5 be a good solution?
I'd rather go to 4 if there is no SoG. But I personally would rather keep SoG, ban NJ, and go to 5.
My bans:
NJ (for the reasons stated by MKC above)
Mayhem (way too much power in one card. the game is so much less stressful when you know your opponent can't have this in their hand - that is my experience from playing some Type Ban games last year. Too much of a card swing, even if it can't be played Turn 1. This card wins games by itself. And let's not forget why it got an errata - because it could never be countered by card counters.)
TGT (although I have one reservation about this - MMoJ can no longer be CBN. Maybe that is a good thing as well, but NT White takes a huge hit with TGT gone. For the sake of the game, I would say it is worth it.)
Isaiah's Call (hear me out on this. I know Isaiah is powerful without his call, but let's face it, Isaiah's role in The Deck is significant because of this card, not because of bulletproof kings or recursion of Isaiah battlewinners. The Deck would be recurring Live Coal anyways. The TC tutoring AND recursion of Isaiah, combined with extensive CBN negation, plus CBN site access, puts this over the top.)
AUTO (D2 plus tutoring of some of the games best heroes, plus AUTO himself can be TC tutored with W3, all CBN.)
Lost Souls (Let's face it, this card is way more effective if your opponent has not played SoG. Even if, with bans and the Dom cap, we reached the point were players might actually choose to leave SoG out of deck, this card gives reason to keep it in. Lost soul manipulation via evil cards is not OP. Lost soul manipulation via a lost soul is. This card is frustrating and is just too different from other lost souls.)
AOCP (this card is the whole reason that protect forts were made. Way too much territory destruction, coupled with a virtually guaranteed soul, all CBN. And the theme it belongs in, Disciples, has a way to make it CBN anyways.)
Thaddeus (the new cards are the ONLY reason Thad is not the most complained about card right now, like he was after Disciples came out. He accomplishes what TGT does (makes battles not happen), but not because the opponent can't block him; he does it because the opponent can't do anything even if he has blocked. The CBI is what does him in.)
Notable cards not banned:
Haman's Plot (in a perfect world, I would. Ripping a card as the cost is lame, because it favors those with the financial means to have multiple copies of the same deck, and who can also afford to permanently lose a good card. I feel almost guilty or embarrassed when I play this card in ROOT. But right now, offenses are light-years ahead of defenses, and Plot is one of the few things that can put a dent in offenses.)
Daniel (maybe banning Daniel and Isaiah's Call would alone be what it takes to bring The Deck down to Tier A. I'm not sure. Daniel is so good because he is a green prophet, not because he is a white Daniel hero; but if the Daniel theme is ever going to be developed, it needs him, because it is so weak.)
-
This is another excellent point, I also had the same reservation about banning the big 2. Question: would banning Sog/NJ and playing to 3 lost souls instead of 5 be a good solution?
I'd rather go to 4 if there is no SoG. But I personally would rather keep SoG, ban NJ, and go to 5.
My bans:
NJ (for the reasons stated by MKC above)
Mayhem (way too much power in one card. the game is so much less stressful when you know your opponent can't have this in their hand - that is my experience from playing some Type Ban games last year. Too much of a card swing, even if it can't be played Turn 1. This card wins games by itself. And let's not forget why it got an errata - because it could never be countered by card counters.)
TGT (although I have one reservation about this - MMoJ can no longer be CBN. Maybe that is a good thing as well, but NT White takes a huge hit with TGT gone. For the sake of the game, I would say it is worth it.)
Isaiah's Call (hear me out on this. I know Isaiah is powerful without his call, but let's face it, Isaiah's role in The Deck is significant because of this card, not because of bulletproof kings or recursion of Isaiah battlewinners. The Deck would be recurring Live Coal anyways. The TC tutoring AND recursion of Isaiah, combined with extensive CBN negation, plus CBN site access, puts this over the top.)
AUTO (D2 plus tutoring of some of the games best heroes, plus AUTO himself can be TC tutored with W3, all CBN.)
Lost Souls (Let's face it, this card is way more effective if your opponent has not played SoG. Even if, with bans and the Dom cap, we reached the point were players might actually choose to leave SoG out of deck, this card gives reason to keep it in. Lost soul manipulation via evil cards is not OP. Lost soul manipulation via a lost soul is. This card is frustrating and is just too different from other lost souls.)
AOCP (this card is the whole reason that protect forts were made. Way too much territory destruction, coupled with a virtually guaranteed soul, all CBN. And the theme it belongs in, Disciples, has a way to make it CBN anyways.)
Thaddeus (the new cards are the ONLY reason Thad is not the most complained about card right now, like he was after Disciples came out. He accomplishes what TGT does (makes battles not happen), but not because the opponent can't block him; he does it because the opponent can't do anything even if he has blocked. The CBI is what does him in.)
Notable cards not banned:
Haman's Plot (in a perfect world, I would. Ripping a card as the cost is lame, because it favors those with the financial means to have multiple copies of the same deck, and who can also afford to permanently lose a good card. I feel almost guilty or embarrassed when I play this card in ROOT. But right now, offenses are light-years ahead of defenses, and Plot is one of the few things that can put a dent in offenses.)
Daniel (maybe banning Daniel and Isaiah's Call would alone be what it takes to bring The Deck down to Tier A. I'm not sure. Daniel is so good because he is a green prophet, not because he is a white Daniel hero; but if the Daniel theme is ever going to be developed, it needs him, because it is so weak.)
Switch isaiah's call or Thad for Pentecost.
-
You could do what Yu-Gi-Oh! did and ban every card that draws more than 1 without having a drawback/cost. :P
Kidding aside, banning SoG and/or NJ won't solve the underlying speed issue. A race to 3 is still a race to 3 with or without the Big Two. Most of the time people are racing to their CBN battle winners and just collecting Soggy Waffles along the way.
As for TGT, I've seen it used far more as a passive Fort to make Mary's band CBN than to actually pre-block ignore. Print a Dominant that can negate and/or destroy a Fortress and we're good to go on the TGT front.
Mayhem (way too much power in one card. the game is so much less stressful when you know your opponent can't have this in their hand - that is my experience from playing some Type Ban games last year. Too much of a card swing, even if it can't be played Turn 1. This card wins games by itself. And let's not forget why it got an errata - because it could never be countered by card counters.)
Isaiah's Call (hear me out on this. I know Isaiah is powerful without his call, but let's face it, Isaiah's role in The Deck is significant because of this card, not because of bulletproof kings or recursion of Isaiah battlewinners. The Deck would be recurring Live Coal anyways. The TC tutoring AND recursion of Isaiah, combined with extensive CBN negation, plus CBN site access, puts this over the top.)
AUTO (D2 plus tutoring of some of the games best heroes, plus AUTO himself can be TC tutored with W3, all CBN.)
Lost Souls (Let's face it, this card is way more effective if your opponent has not played SoG. Even if, with bans and the Dom cap, we reached the point were players might actually choose to leave SoG out of deck, this card gives reason to keep it in. Lost soul manipulation via evil cards is not OP. Lost soul manipulation via a lost soul is. This card is frustrating and is just too different from other lost souls.)
AOCP (this card is the whole reason that protect forts were made. Way too much territory destruction, coupled with a virtually guaranteed soul, all CBN. And the theme it belongs in, Disciples, has a way to make it CBN anyways.)
Thaddeus (the new cards are the ONLY reason Thad is not the most complained about card right now, like he was after Disciples came out. He accomplishes what TGT does (makes battles not happen), but not because the opponent can't block him; he does it because the opponent can't do anything even if he has blocked. The CBI is what does him in.)
Mayhem is not what everyone cracks it up to be, especially after the errata. If you build your deck properly you should have no trouble with this card.
Isaiah's call? Really? First of all, Call is NOT CBN. You cannot negate the place after the phase, but the ability itself is perfectly negateable. Second, it's what gives prophet decks their oomph now. I am a personal fan of prophet decks so I'd hate to see them nerfed so hardcore. :P
I would agree with AUtO. Ugh, I hate that guy.
Lost Souls is one of the most strategic cards in Type 1. I really don't think it's anywhere close to OP. It adds another element to the battle resolution phase: Do you give them an actual soul, or half the doubler? Are they at 2 and is it likely they have SoG/NJ in hand? Stuff like that.
I've played a Disciples deck since Disciples came out and I can say that I've used AoCP far more for to destroy the 1 or 2 ECs in battle and get a soul, rarely have I actually destroyed a territory (except for my own on occasion) with it. If Disciples can make AoC regular CBN anyway, why bother banning the already CBN one?
Thaddeus, like Mayhem, is not the big baddie everyone thinks he is. I've rarely actually gotten to protect from an opponent's entire defense even when I build a deck around Thad (Crown of Thorns, all the Disciples, etc.). He's in my Disciples deck only because he helps with some of the lower-numbered auto-block-type ECs.
-
Browarod, Mayhem is still broken. You can't build a deck to counter it. That's impossible.
-
Mayhem (way too much power in one card. the game is so much less stressful when you know your opponent can't have this in their hand - that is my experience from playing some Type Ban games last year. Too much of a card swing, even if it can't be played Turn 1. This card wins games by itself. And let's not forget why it got an errata - because it could never be countered by card counters.)
This card also loses games by itself. Mayhem is just that, mayhem, it's completely random. There's a chance of getting a card you need, or there's a chance of drawing all souls and stuff you don't want. Same thing for your opponent, you could be getting rid of their SoG, or you could be giving it to them.
Browarod, Mayhem is still broken. You can't build a deck to counter it. That's impossible.
1. Mayhem isn't broken, it can help or hurt both players.
2. The Deck says otherwise...
Isaiah's Call (hear me out on this. I know Isaiah is powerful without his call, but let's face it, Isaiah's role in The Deck is significant because of this card, not because of bulletproof kings or recursion of Isaiah battlewinners. The Deck would be recurring Live Coal anyways. The TC tutoring AND recursion of Isaiah, combined with extensive CBN negation, plus CBN site access, puts this over the top.)
Disagree. Isaiah's Call is powerful because the current meta favors splash-character based defenses, against a real defense it is still a powerful card, but not an overpowering one.
If you want to stop The Deck, change the meta so that it no longer favors splash decks.
Cards to Ban (in addition to those already mentioned):
Pentecost: The ultimate speed card. You get to start your turn with 3 extra cards, at next to no cost. Darius's Decree does stop it, but you need to have it when they play Pentecost, and you have to hope they don't play Serpent, New Covenant, I am Healing, or one of the other Heal Alls. After doing that you've lost your artifact slot for a turn which, more often than not, will mean a rescue for your opponent.
All Draw Three Characters: These guys are a cancer upon this game. Change their abilities to read "Draw up to X, then discard 2X/3 (rounded down) off the top of your deck, lost souls go in play." With this change, you can use your draw 3 every turn, but then you have a chance of discarding your doms.
-
Kidding aside, banning SoG and/or NJ won't solve the underlying speed issue. A race to 3 is still a race to 3 with or without the Big Two. Most of the time people are racing to their CBN battle winners and just collecting Soggy Waffles along the way.
Son of God/New Jerusalem will always favor the player that draws it first, so of course the other player that did not draw it quickly enough will be at a disadvantage. Whereas if no freebies were in the game, everyone would be on the same exact ground to get to 3, instead of 3 and racing to Sog/NJ before the other player does.
As for TGT, I've seen it used far more as a passive Fort to make Mary's band CBN than to actually pre-block ignore. Print a Dominant that can negate and/or destroy a Fortress and we're good to go on the TGT front.
I'm a bit skeptical of the CBN banding on The Garden Tomb being utilized more than the free walk-in. People don't build the deck around the CBN banding portion, they build it around the ignore focusing on mass territory destruction. I do agree with the anti-fort (and possibly anti-site) Dominant...something as easily accessible and playable as that would be worth running as a viable counter.
Mayhem is not what everyone cracks it up to be, especially after the errata. If you build your deck properly you should have no trouble with this card.
What do you mean when you say building your deck properly? Outside the auto-inclusion of Nazareth, I'm not sure there's anyway to properly accomplish such a thing outside of Hero/EC mash...
I do believe Mayhem is still a fairly problematic card, even with the new rule affecting it. The new rule only brought it down from an uberly broken level to one that is tolerable in the first round but still widely unchecked afterwards. People do tend to drop more down in territory nowadays than ever before just because of this card, but my qualms with the card are the plusses and negging this card has the potential to easily create. I've thought long and hard about this card since it's inception, and have ultimately come to the conclusion that something must not be right with the card when you can substitute any number possible instead of the 6 and the card would still not be balanced in any way.
Thaddeus, like Mayhem, is not the big baddie everyone thinks he is. I've rarely actually gotten to protect from an opponent's entire defense even when I build a deck around Thad (Crown of Thorns, all the Disciples, etc.). He's in my Disciples deck only because he helps with some of the lower-numbered auto-block-type ECs.
I don't like Thaddeus because of all of the unchecked absolutes he creates. He protects from this this this this and this...and there's barely a thing you can do to stop it. That doesn't encourage a healthy battle phase, that doesn't encourage an actual back and forth in gameplay. As someone mentioned earlier, the only reason he has fallen to the wayside is because of all the new toys people are playing with from the new set. But I still think he is a card that should be closely watched.
I am in concurrence with cutting some of the most powerful drawing cards out of the game. Pentecost is one of the best, if not the best, speed enabler in the game. Optional free D3 in an already powerful color with its only risk being a Darius Decree.
The Angel Under the Oak should be looked at, just for the fact of the incredible amount of synergy and plays it has within the Fierce Five. And oh yeah, that continuous D2 every turn is pretty amazing as well.
JSB, I like where you're going with the drawing Heroes. Although, I may suggest something along the lines of 'Draw X, then discard X-1 cards'. I just feel discarding off the top of deck is actually an empty cost to most and won't detriment the speed player much at all in terms of current hand advantage. 'Draw X, discard X-1' can possibly help mitigate the obscene unchecked plusses those kind of Heroes create.
-
if God intended for cards to be banned, he wouldnt have given inspiration for the cards to rob. and honestly i wouldnt think God would be happy if there was cards in his game. i would think if there should be banned cards it should be the ones without special abilities cause hardly anybody uses em
-
JSB, I've lost 2 games with The Deck recently due to early Mayhems and getting screwed. It may be totally random, but that's not okay, that's the problem. It increases the luck in the game significantly. You can empty your hand and come out +9 over your opponent pretty easily.
That said, I'm not totally sold on banning Mayhem. It has counters and it can't be played first turn. The problem is the existence of the card forces people to lay down characters if they don't want to get totally screwed, and then your opponent can proceed to wreck you with your own offense.
I'm not totally sold on banning TGT. It really wouldn't be a big problem if people actually use defense. Pale Green can handle it fairly well. Holy Grail would be a good one to ban while still keeping TGT a theme. Other than that people just need to use defense. It's their own fault if they can't block with Uzzah.
AutO is pretty bannable. He's just too versatile.
Isaiah's Call isn't as bannable. Once you take out AutO, you still have a solid prophets deck, but I don't think Call is that crucial. Isaiah will be really powerful after all the banning of cards, so you could nuke it by banning call if necessary.
NJ is bannable, but remember that games often time out anyway, even with two speed decks. If we ban NJ we'll see a ton more time outs or have to increase the time limit.
Thaddeus I'd be pretty up for banning, but not for T1.
if God intended for cards to be banned, he wouldnt have given inspiration for the cards to rob. and honestly i wouldnt think God would be happy if there was cards in his game. i would think if there should be banned cards it should be the ones without special abilities cause hardly anybody uses em
AFAIK, the only card with divine inspiration was SWS.
-
I am personally opposed to banning any cards! If we start to ban cards then where do we draw the line? After we ban these cards then another meta will come and destroy all of the newly weak metas and we will just ban more cards! If you were t ban all of these cards I think you would find it would make the game more complicated for new players (Trying to remember which cards were banned) and it will make buying new cards a pain. Just think of it, you buy a disciples pack and half of the cards in the pack are banned!?!? now what happened to your great idea? or in booster draft, you are handed a tin pack but you can only use 6 of the cards, the rest of the cards are banned! Why not just make more cards that bring up new metas? We all know they will make a card or 3 (or 20-ish as with packs like RoA2 and Foof2) but you can't possibly make a deck with all of the "OP" cards in it and expect it to win!
You just try to build a deck with all of the cards you want to have banned, it will be impossible!
-
but you can't possibly make a deck with all of the "OP" cards in it and expect it to win!
Highly debatable.
-
Cookie, this thread isn't really about the pro's or con's or the implications banning will have upon the game. There will always be people for it, there will always be people against it, there will be people sitting on the fence about it, we've rehashed and had this same dance years in and years out. Not everyone can be satisfied. But this thread is primarily for the people that already believe that banning/restricting some cards can produce a balanced meta, and the observations and constructive assertions they can make towards that idea.
Westy, why does Pale Green have a favorable matchup against TGT?
-
I believe that the only card really worth banning atm is NJ.
Just some food for thought. At the most recent tournament I went to. I played "The Deck" to see what the hype was all about and I copied one of the national decks and I played about 3 fun games. They were all against balanced to defense heavy decks and I lost every single one. Right now The Deck simply counters itself (If that makes sense) and other speed decks. If people just started playing with defense we would not have the problem with all these cards.
FIXED: Typo making my opinion look opposite what I meant. :P
-
I believe that the only card really worth banning atm is NJ.
Just some food for thought. At the most recent tournament I went to. I played "The Deck" to see what the hype was all about and I copied one of the national decks and I played about 3 fun games. They were all against balanced to defense heavy decks and I lost every single one. Right now The Deck simply counters itself (If that makes sense) and other speed decks. If people just started playing with defense we would have the problem with all these cards.
That's not entirely true, but I'll let you realize that on your own.
-
When I say build your deck properly I mean to say that, barring the rare occurrence of a hand of 6 of the same card type, you minimize the impact something like Mayhem has on you. I've had Mayhem dropped on me dozens of times, but I never worry. Sure, I may lose a couple cards if my hand was over 6, but I build my deck in a way that it doesn't rely only on a few cards so that if I lose them due to Mayhem, or whatever else, it doesn't mess me up to the point of being unable to win. Mayhem is laughable if you take the time to consider it, and similar things, when building your deck.
@MKC - Maybe it's just me and my area's meta, but I've never built a TGT deck solely with a territory destruction. I favor Gardenciples, actually, for the multiple ways of winning battles. The ignore is just bonus if I happen to be in a situation where it is useful.
-
Westy, why does Pale Green have a favorable matchup against TGT?
Assyrian Camp
ASA
Assyrian Survivor
Assyrian Archer
Egyptian Magicians
Damsel
Forgotten History
Death of Unrighteous
Achan's Sin
That one Interrupt from Disciples
Invoking Terror
2KHorses
Charms
A simple 13 card defense that will discard TGT and win a load of battles. All you really need to do is sidestep He is Risen! but there are 3 interrupts for that. You'll get to block most of the time because your characters are safe (between Charms and Camp).
Sure, I may lose a couple cards if my hand was over 6.
This is the main issue. Let's suppose you ended your turn with 6 cards (which is pretty average). They go and get down to 3. You draw 3 and then they drop Mayhem. They now have a +7 card advantage on you, and they get the next draw phase.
-
I honestly don't agree with people's calculations of "card advantage" since it's so relative. It could include Lost Souls, it could include characters they don't need, it could include artifacts. Just because you draw doesn't mean you're better off than me. It all comes down to WHAT you draw.
-
Well of course it does, but their odds are that much better. If you started the game drawing only 5 cards and they drew 12 (a +7 card advantage) who do you think would have the better hand? Could be you, but it's far more likely to be the person that drew more.
Of course, you might not have drawn souls, but don't read too much into the analogy. When you play Mayhem you're drawing the same amount for an equal chance at lost souls, one person just gets a clear card advantage. Plus it's already gotten into the game (at least after the first turn) so it's more likely there will already be souls out or they'll have soul generation.
-
Could be you, but it's far more likely to be the person that drew more.
False. Either it could be you, or it couldn't. That's a 50% chance.
Source: My physics TA makes me do error analysis by writing everything in terms of logarithms then taking the derivative. Or something like that. I'm not sure because he barely speaks English. But he did an example on the board, and that's what it looked like to me. The point of this story is that this event essentially makes me an expert on statistics.
-
Westy, why does Pale Green have a favorable matchup against TGT?
Assyrian Camp
ASA
Assyrian Survivor
Assyrian Archer
Egyptian Magicians
Damsel
Forgotten History
Death of Unrighteous
Achan's Sin
That one Interrupt from Disciples
Invoking Terror
2KHorses
Charms
A simple 13 card defense that will discard TGT and win a load of battles. All you really need to do is sidestep He is Risen! but there are 3 interrupts for that. You'll get to block most of the time because your characters are safe (between Charms and Camp).
Assyrian Camp is of course a great soft counter to TGT, but it relies on you to draw into it before your opponent starts going off with TGT and territory destruction (which the deck would have a plethora of) and does little to nothing post-TGT/territory destruction. It's also a 3 card combo (Camp + 2 Assyrians to effectively be worry-free of TGT, more if you want to count an actual battle winner to even win the battle) that is less likely to show up in hands, especially without tutors and only 3 Assyrians in the defense to begin with. 5 Evil Characters feels very light to combat TGT...TGT typically has no problem at all picking off at least 4 of those with ease, especially with those 2 super Dom's that do most of the heavy lifting for them.
I think right now the best method to counter TGT and force an actual battle is to flood a territory with more Evil Characters than a TGT player can possibly nuke in a single turn...but that considerably slows down any deck if you're focusing on creating blocks more than actually winning rescue attempts, which pretty much means you lost the game in Type 1. One of the biggest problems with TGT is the return of investment associated with it is absolutely phenomenal compared to the resources necessary to actually block against it. And most of the territory destruction TGT has available to them is powerful stuff that can be dropped in battle, so it's not like it's expending any additional resources outside of the norm to fuel its freebie walk-in theme. At this point in the T1 meta, I feel any player is fighting an uphill battle severely not in their favor once TGT is dropped against them and becomes live.
In regards to the advantage connected to Mayhem, Westy makes an excellent point: let your opponent start a game with double the amount of cards as you and tell me if that would be fair. In Type 1, the only advantage that matters is hand advantage, as typically every single card drawn will be as useful and good as the next. The 'randomness' of Mayhem really matters little if at all...it's the drawing itself that reigns supreme in Type 1. The fact it can neg your opponent in the process puts the icing on the cake.
-
I think instead of banning TGT they should make more drawing evil characters so that people make bigger defenses and don't think that they are being ripped off if they are playing anything other than TGT. And this would take care of AOCP since there would now be a good reason to have a protect fortress in your deck. And if more evil cards said "regardless of protection" then AUtO is now not a problem. People can also block mayhem with RBD and/or Gifts of the magi. if they did most of this in evil cards then the game would be much more balanced between good and evil.
-
Could be you, but it's far more likely to be the person that drew more.
False. Either it could be you, or it couldn't. That's a 50% chance.
Source: My physics TA makes me do error analysis by writing everything in terms of logarithms then taking the derivative. Or something like that. I'm not sure because he barely speaks English. But he did an example on the board, and that's what it looked like to me. The point of this story is that this event essentially makes me an expert on statistics.
You aren't taking into account all the factors. It'd be 50/50 if we had the same number of cards in hand before and after, as well as the same amount of cards in deck and territory. Practically speaking, you're going to have 40 cards left in your deck while I'll have 30 by just playing one simple card, and thus I have a better chance of having better cards because I've gone through more cards. It's the whole philosophy behind speed.
-
No. The philosophy behind speed is it makes you lucky. So even though the chances are 50/50, you win more often than not. I'd know, I played speed almost exclusively.
If you're struggling with this concept, there's a good dailyshow segment about it, the LHC, and John Ellis. I'd link it, but there's a naughty word in it.
-
Isn't that like saying the odds of winning the lottery is 50/50, as in it could happen or it couldn't? But we know that isn't close even close to reality.
-
No. I don't play the lottery, so it can either not happen or not happen.
I haven't read more than like two posts in this thread, but I hope no one supports banning sog. That'd make starter decks illegal.
-
SoG has to stay. It's a staple card. And what is a biblical 'Christian' card game without God's son? Just saying.
-
No. I don't play the lottery, so it can either not happen or not happen.
If you did play the lottery. Or the chances of getting struck by lightning.
SoG has to stay. It's a staple card. And what is a biblical 'Christian' card game without God's son? Just saying.
I think the fact we have cards we call 'staples' in the first place is a dead giveaway at a meta centralized around certain overpowered cards.
-
JSB, I like where you're going with the drawing Heroes. Although, I may suggest something along the lines of 'Draw X, then discard X-1 cards'. I just feel discarding off the top of deck is actually an empty cost to most and won't detriment the speed player much at all in terms of current hand advantage. 'Draw X, discard X-1' can possibly help mitigate the obscene unchecked plusses those kind of Heroes create.
I think both solutions have merit. Yours works to negate the card advantage, while still leaving the sifting properties of speed unchecked. My solution allows players to still build up a card advantage, at the cost of of not getting to use every card in their deck. In my experience, speed players always have extraneous cards, so having to discard from hand isn't always a real penalty.
-
Could be you, but it's far more likely to be the person that drew more.
False. Either it could be you, or it couldn't. That's a 50% chance.
Source: My physics TA makes me do error analysis by writing everything in terms of logarithms then taking the derivative. Or something like that. I'm not sure because he barely speaks English. But he did an example on the board, and that's what it looked like to me. The point of this story is that this event essentially makes me an expert on statistics.
This is fairly bad statistics. Statistics is all about what the chances of something happening when you don't have perfect information. Yes, any given event will either happen or it won't, but that doesn't mean those event have equal chances of happening. To actually figure out probabilities in card games you need hypergeometric distributions.
-
I think both solutions have merit. Yours works to negate the card advantage, while still leaving the sifting properties of speed unchecked. My solution allows players to still build up a card advantage, at the cost of of not getting to use every card in their deck. In my experience, speed players always have extraneous cards, so having to discard from hand isn't always a real penalty.
I don't know, to use a similar example I think most Type 1 decks are hit hard when Generous Widow makes a rescue attempt...due to all of the Dominants and uber powerful battle winners clogging up the hand, it truly does take a calculated decision to decide what to pitch. However, discarding the top X cards a deck means almost nothing if a player doesn't deck out and would have not seen all of the cards in his deck anyway...it just means the X cards you/they discarded now becomes the bottom of their deck. Outside of relying and expecting to see Sog and NJ, I rarely think discarding cards from deck has ever done much damage to most any Type 1 Redemption player. I'm more concerned about the actual amounts of hand advantage gained and kept for free from all of these ridiculous floaters in the game. Isn't the game fast enough with a Draw 3 phase? Why do we need floaters that generate even more hand advantage every single turn? My love relationship with Oak has clouded my judgment far too long on passing the banhammer on him too soon, but he truly is an overpowered beast. What other floater in the game can also tutor, make the battle fight by the numbers, create a bulletproof hero, and recur? Too much reward at no cost.
-
I have played Redemption for way too long and the only card I fully believe that should be banned is Mayhem.
In the 100's of games ive played where Mayhem has been played either myself or opponent playing I have lost. This include playtesting! I HAVE NEVER WON A SINGLE GAME!!!! This is one of the main reasons I havnt been competitive since before Texp came out lol
Im even fine with NJ not being banned since I never use it anyways as a gentlemens agreement with myself :p
-
From what I understand Isildur, you play non-meta decks, right? Slower decks with an actual defense?
-
Uh..... my decks are all over the place but yeah non meta would fit the bill :p
-
Well I'm curious about the effects Mayhem has towards decks that develop a bit slower and aren't speed.
-
I think they should make more defensive cards that people will want in there decks, to promote defense.
-
I agree, and to add to that Cactus should promote and reward decks that develop a bit slower than the current meta and play with actual defenses. Making defensive options playable is definately a good thing, but this game certainly doesn't need anymore splash evil characters for defense.
-
I agree, and to add to that Cactus should promote and reward decks that develop a bit slower than the current meta and play with actual defenses. Making defensive options playable is definitely a good thing, but this game certainly doesn't need anymore splash evil characters for defense.
Don't be so naive. There's plenty of great defensive options, the problem is that adding an offensive card is always marginally better in T1 than a defensive card, and that will always be true.
-
I agree, and to add to that Cactus should promote and reward decks that develop a bit slower than the current meta and play with actual defenses. Making defensive options playable is definitely a good thing, but this game certainly doesn't need anymore splash evil characters for defense.
Don't be so naive. There's plenty of great defensive options, the problem is that adding an offensive card is always marginally better in T1 than a defensive card, and that will always be true.
Unless they start making cards grossly OP on defense where they can let you win with only a 5 card offense.
-
Don't be so naive. There's plenty of great defensive options, the problem is that adding an offensive card is always marginally better in T1 than a defensive card, and that will always be true.
Yeah, oxymoron. If adding a card offensively makes it better than adding a card defensively, how exactly does that equate to defense having 'great' defensive options? ::) It doesn't. It makes defense over offense a subpar choice. Decks that play with bigger defenses, thus develop slower than meta decks, have little merit and advantages over a deck that plays more offense in lieu of defense. If there were enough good defensive options that fit inside a chunky defense, don't you think more balanced decks would be top tier? There aren't, and that's because a chunky defense is not capable of stopping rescues as consistently and steady as a meta deck can make rescues. Even meta offenses pancake meta defenses, and they're supposedly the cream of the crop, the best of the rest. Cookie is spot on, there aren't enough good go-to defensive options in the game, and it may very well stay that way since the game has always been slighted in favor of aggro over defense. We build the card pool based on not timing out in games? That's just ridiculous, the best games both players walk away from feeling good whether they won or lost have always been the grind games with high strategic value...not the ones where I walk-in for 3 free and they go to scoop phase. If a balanced meta is truly desired, then one thing that sorely needs to be addressed is the games need for more incentive and a bigger payoff to play with bigger defenses over splash defenses.
Unless they start making cards grossly OP on defense where they can let you win with only a 5 card offense.
If people start playing with 5 card offenses, it still slows down the meta tremendously, which seems to be the goal in the first place.
-
So I guess that's a good thing because they already made grossly OP'D cards on offense.
-
If Mayhem was so OP then everyone would be playing it. But they don't. Did anyone see the T1 2P Nationals Tourny winner??? Red Dragon Thorn doesn't use it in his AuTO ^2 deck and his defense is only 9 cards. I would suggest banning it if you had a format where you could have 3 or more of each card in your deck including Mayhem but In T2 you can only have 1 Mayhem. T1 Redemption is basically Singleton.
The only card I haven't seen printed yet that possibly should be printed is a dominant card that will get rid of a fortress. We have one to get rid of artifacts.
Banning SoG would also get did of NJ and you can't play one without the other. Also someone was right about starter decks they couldn't be played as well. (Unless we are talking about banning in certain formats.
I could see Hamans Plot getting banned. Unless you get rid of the 'ripping' part. What does AoCP do for the opposite side???
AuTO is a very very good card. Because of the restriction of dominents in the game I see more and more people NOT playing with CM. Because this is a singleton format I can see where getting rid of AuTO would be hard. (You can't have 4 CM's)
The affects of having a deck with 50 cards in it up against a deck with 56-75 plays a big role in what you draw. It's all about averages. The Law of Averages. I'm more likely to draw my staples and/or battle winners with less cards in my deck. With lost soul tricks like Hopper, Uzzah, TAS, Malchaus, etc it makes it easier to get your rescues to 5 sooner. In any card game the point that if you draw more cards you will win more times than the other guy doesn't always work out that way. It will ALWAYS involve time and experience. You can't throw a rookie in with 'The Deck' or 'Gardenciples' and expect them to win.
As far as ANY banning of cards in Redemption??? I say NO. R&D in my opinion is doing a great job of controlling the formats and not letting any cards get out of hand. The fact that you only have one set a year released is good considering MTG has four sets a year released and has a terrible time banning or restricting cards because so many slip through the cracks.
Rob made Redemption formats and rules simple. And not banning cards is the simplest in any card game. In any card game you will have the most POWERFUL cards and the least powerful.
-
If Mayhem was so OP then everyone would be playing it. But they don't.
I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion.
Banning SoG would also get did of NJ and you can't play one without the other. Also someone was right about starter decks they couldn't be played as well.
Banning Son of God does not make starter decks unplayable. They are still quite capable of functioning as starter decks.
I could see Hamans Plot getting banned. Unless you get rid of the 'ripping' part.
If this was 5 or so years ago, I would so be for this. However, as someone made an excellent point earlier in this thread, offenses completely overpower defenses at this point, and Haman's Plot is one of the last lines of a legit block against many of the aggro decks of today.
R&D in my opinion is doing a great job of controlling the formats and not letting any cards get out of hand.
I have to disagree there, Angel Under the Oak and Mayhem being the most recent examples.
The fact that you only have one set a year released is good considering MTG has four sets a year released
Could you elaborate on this point a bit more? I'm always of the opinion more sets is always exponentially better than less sets.
and has a terrible time banning or restricting cards because so many slip through the cracks.
Not sure what you mean by this, there are currently no banned cards in Standard block. The last time a card was banned in MTG was over a year ago, and if this isn't a testament to how well R&D designs expansions four times a year, then I do not know what is.
I'm also under the impression banning (or restricting/issuing errata) a card is certainly not a sign of weakness, but a necessary function to balance an overcentralized meta.
And not banning cards is the simplest in any card game.
Unfortunately the simplest road to take is not always the best road to take. I also wouldn't argue that such a model fits every card game, as all mainstream CCG's have had no reservation of giving the banhammer when necessary.
In any card game you will have the most POWERFUL cards and the least powerful.
This is indeed a true statement. However, how do you possibly bring that margin closer and closer (especially with the power creep of every set released in favor of offense) without possibly banning a card or two to balance the meta?
-
Banning Son of God does not make starter decks unplayable. They are still quite capable of functioning as starter decks.
Aren't Starter Decks 50 cards?
-
Banning Son of God does not make starter decks unplayable. They are still quite capable of functioning as starter decks.
Aren't Starter Decks 50 cards?
Well, there's that whole thing...::)
I honestly did not take that into consideration. Is the latest starter 50 each?
-
So release a new starter deck fixing the problem.
and with the redesign.
-
This thread is tl;dr, but I support banning Lewd Men.
-
This thread is tl;dr, but I support banning Lewd Men.
From tournament play, or the game in general?
I personally do not support a ban list - siding with "at what point does it stop" for the argument line - but neither do I disagree with NJ being banned. However, that is probably the only one worth it, and I would lobby that if we ban NJ (which, again, I would be fine with) we should also get rid of last season's ruling that you cannot rescue a LS from your own LoB.
Just my (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sitepoint.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsmiles2%2Ftwocents.gif&hash=5c986f18b700f8376979b80ba964e6d1d33b3987)
-
Read all the posts and I agree/disagree on some. Mayhem is in some ways no different the A New Beginning. The only real difference is one is a dom and the other a enhancement. And realize this,doms are meant to be game changers,but they DON'T guarantee victory. Every card yall listed has pros and cons,but not one listed guarantees a immediate win. Sure SoG will get you a LS,but Falling Away can negate that victory. Mayhem is like getting a crummy hand in poker,instant redraw,new hand. New Jerusalem needs SoG to be affective,but the odds are not in your favor. Believe me,I know-drawn NJ in opening hand and lost because SoG was at bottom of deck.
I'm not in favor of banning any cards,but if Cactus decides on it,I hope they'll let us cast a vote on what card(s) to ban. Your thoughts?
-
Read all the posts and I agree/disagree on some. Mayhem is in some ways no different the A New Beginning. The only real difference is one is a dom and the other a enhancement.
1. That makes all the difference. Being able to play Mayhem on your opponent's turn gives you a significant advantage.
2. Mayhem can be used in conjunction with your territory, allowing you to dump a bunch of cards so it's far more profitable.
Also, I'd love an ANB dominant.
-
And realize this,doms are meant to be game changers,but they DON'T guarantee victory. Every card yall listed has pros and cons,but not one listed guarantees a immediate win.
Outside of Son of God (and not even that if someone is trolling with Altar of Ahaz ::)), no cards 'technically' guarantee a win. But there are cards that close that gap considerably greater than a lot of other cards, which creates an imbalanced meta. Those are the types cards that must be looked at closely.
I'm not in favor of banning any cards,but if Cactus decides on it,I hope they'll let us cast a vote on what card(s) to ban. Your thoughts?
Great idea! I like the idea of everyone casting a vote on what to possibly ban, but I also like the ideas of an experienced player to weigh more heavily than, say for instance, any random player. A ban list has the effect of molding and shaping a new competitive meta, so much significant thought and consideration should go into it before it becomes final.
-
And realize this,doms are meant to be game changers,but they DON'T guarantee victory. Every card yall listed has pros and cons,but not one listed guarantees a immediate win.
Outside of Son of God (and not even that if someone is trolling with Altar of Ahaz ::)), no cards 'technically' guarantee a win. But there are cards that close that gap considerably greater than a lot of other cards, which creates an imbalanced meta. Those are the types cards that must be looked at closely.
There is no card in the game that gives an advantage as big as you suggest. In the 2010 nats when mayhem could be payed on the first turn, in every game that I got first turn "mayhemed" (they played it on me) I ended up winning. that is 3 or 4 times, and most of those were not from "noobs". If you can give me 3 examples of one card giving someone a huge advantage that almost "gave" them the win.
-
And realize this,doms are meant to be game changers,but they DON'T guarantee victory. Every card yall listed has pros and cons,but not one listed guarantees a immediate win.
Outside of Son of God (and not even that if someone is trolling with Altar of Ahaz ::)), no cards 'technically' guarantee a win. But there are cards that close that gap considerably greater than a lot of other cards, which creates an imbalanced meta. Those are the types cards that must be looked at closely.
There is no card in the game that gives an advantage as big as you suggest. In the 2010 nats when mayhem could be payed on the first turn, in every game that I got first turn "mayhemed" (they played it on me) I ended up winning. that is 3 or 4 times, and most of those were not from "noobs".
Ask the 2010 T12P champ how many first turn Mayhem's he got. Come back when you know the answer.
-
Ask the 2010 T12P champ how many first turn Mayhem's he got. Come back when you know the answer.
I think you mean 2011...
-
Whichever one was last in Minnesota.
-
what i want banned are chump block defences or barely any/no defence decks. they take all the fun out. if you know they have a chump block waiting and you go in it is just like, i wanna scream. when they have no defence, you are just walking in and having none of the fun of a battle that is offereds with a deck with an actual defence.
-
what i want banned are chump block defences or barely any/no defence decks. they take all the fun out. if you know they have a chump block waiting and you go in it is just like, i wanna scream. when they have no defence, you are just walking in and having none of the fun of a battle that is offereds with a deck with an actual defence.
Play offenses that aren't chumped. Then you won't scream! :thumbup:
-
1/3 of my offence is bbn, but the with the rest, it is really annoying.
-
Don't be so naive. There's plenty of great defensive options
When defenses start getting "Negate and discard a good card. CBN if used by X theme" enhancements and CBP/CBN D3 characters, then they will finally be on the same level as current offenses. Cards like Zeal, Sam's Edict, Bravery of David, and MLaMG are unique to offenses, and all of these can be CBN if played properly. And D3 ECs aren't good enough; thanks to Isaiah, Daniel, Moses, FBTNB, and CWD, there's no reason a preventable EC should ever use its ability.
Mayhem isn't broken because of my personal experience playing with/against it
The number of people claiming that Mayhem isn't broken is astounding. It's too versatile, too powerful, and can generate WAY too much of a card advantage. Great decks don't care about shuffling away their hand and drawing 6 bad cards; if the deck is good, all that matters is card advantage and the 6 cards drawn will all be good.
-
Was that second quote a generalization of what people have been saying? I can't find where somebody said that...
But in case that happens, PEMN! Personal Experience Means Nothing. Well, at least when it comes to ranking characters debating how good cards are.
-
Was that second quote a generalization of what people have been saying? I can't find where somebody said that...
There is no card in the game that gives an advantage as big as you suggest. In the 2010 nats when mayhem could be payed on the first turn, in every game that I got first turn "mayhemed" (they played it on me) I ended up winning. that is 3 or 4 times, and most of those were not from "noobs".
-
I'm all for not throwing all our bread in the basket of any one person's personal experience, but to say that "personal experience" as a whole means nothing is to take away the only basis from which you can draw any kind of ranking from. Everything in a card game is personal experience, lol.
Great decks don't care about shuffling away their hand and drawing 6 bad cards; if the deck is good, all that matters is .... the 6 cards drawn will all be good.
This (minus the bit about card advantage, see my earlier posts about that) is exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread, although I was using it to support the opposite point of view. If you build your deck right, then the 6 cards you have after Mayhem (regardless of what you had before) will be more than sufficient (barring RNG having a grudge against you, of course :P).
-
The number of people claiming that Mayhem isn't broken is astounding. It's too versatile, too powerful, and can generate WAY too much of a card advantage. Great decks don't care about shuffling away their hand and drawing 6 bad cards; if the deck is good, all that matters is card advantage and the 6 cards drawn will all be good.
WOWOWOWWWWW hold on there partner! What if I dont want to play a "great" deck? My goal is not to win. My goal is to have fun and to fellowship! Isnt that the point of Redemption? Whats one way to do this? Not play a cookie cutter deck.
The old Decipher lotr tcg had some problems like ours towards the end of the movie block there were some over powered strategies I mean sure they were fun to play and you could win a tournament with it but whats the point when all the decks are the same? Gradually a gentlemens agreement formed where people wouldnt use these types of decks but that was long after the game died lol But nothing comes close the to thrill of demolishing your opponents with a tentacle deck in movie block! For the one person who knows what im talking about this is even more awesome then it seems.
One of the reasons ive sold all my cards is because im tired of getting trashed (part of it because of my lack of knowledge of the rules :p) by these boring cookie cutter decks. I mean even back in the FBTN days with enough skill they really were not that hard to beat but these TGT decks with their Mayhems, Auto Blocks, Doms and CBN cards its just really not that much fun any more... Even some of the new "themes" designed to be a alternate to TGT are just snooze fests! ooh I got Sam *puts deck on auto pilot* oh cool hey look guys I won!
Look at the great games that have existed! Middle Earth ccg and Netrunner (both new and old) are both prime examples. Middle Earth ccg sure it got complicated in its old age but there were 20,000 different strategies you could use and all of them sure some were stronger then others but with a skilled player at the helm you could win with even a starter deck. Netrunner zomg this game is hands down the only game where you can take a starter deck into a tournament and win!!! The game is totally strategy based! sure your opponents cards are better but with a little bluffing you can trash their deck with cards just from the base set. Redemption can no longer do this... it has fallen to... the cookie cutters! oh noes....
*Edit added some more stufff
-
Great decks don't care about shuffling away their hand and drawing 6 bad cards; if the deck is good, all that matters is .... the 6 cards drawn will all be good.
This (minus the bit about card advantage, see my earlier posts about that) is exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread, although I was using it to support the opposite point of view. If you build your deck right, then the 6 cards you have after Mayhem (regardless of what you had before) will be more than sufficient (barring RNG having a grudge against you, of course :P).
But that's my point as well. If both decks are well-built and being piloted by good players, the only thing Mayhem (on average) changes is the quantity of cards. And it makes a huge difference.
Take a non-extreme example; you have 7 cards in hand and your opponent has 4. They end their turn. You draw 3, they play Mayhem. You shuffle 10 cards and draw 6, and they shuffle 3 and draw 6. They just gained 7 cards on you. You may have the same number of cards in hand, but they have more cards in play.
-
I'm all for not throwing all our bread in the basket of any one person's personal experience, but to say that "personal experience" as a whole means nothing is to take away the only basis from which you can draw any kind of ranking from. Everything in a card game is personal experience, lol.
I can objectively say that building a deck around TGT is far better than building a deck around Strength in Weakness. You can account for what decks consistently do well in the big scheme of things, and go from there. You can also see with cards like Mayhem how they are objectively extremely powerful, no matter the kind of luck people have with them. Provisions is a great card, but it's pretty easy to say "I've never found it useful." Does that mean it's not powerful? No. It means you don't have to use it if you don't like, but everybody else will be happy to get free souls from it.
-
WOWOWOWWWWW hold on there partner! What if I dont want to play a "great" deck? My goal is not to win. My goal is to have fun and to fellowship! Isnt that the point of Redemption? Whats one way to do this? Not play a cookie cutter deck.
One of the reasons ive sold all my cards is because im tired of getting trashed (part of it because of my lack of knowledge of the rules :p) by these boring cookie cutter decks. I mean even back in the FBTN days with enough skill they really were not that hard to beat but these TGT decks with their Mayhems, Auto Blocks, Doms and CBN cards its just really not that much fun any more... Even some of the new "themes" designed to be a alternate to TGT are just snooze fests! ooh I got Sam *puts deck on auto pilot* oh cool hey look guys I won!
I plussed your post because I don't want to discourage anyone from having a constructive argument in this thread and end up not posting anymore. I think everyone has raised a lot of valid points, and I think to an extent a lot of people can agree with yours as well. You say your goal is to not win but to have fun, and for a lot of people not winning because of getting roflstomped by overpowered cards is not fun at all. Watching a player play solitaire as he speeds out his deck and walks in for 3 free and drops the Sog/NJ is not something I think this game should adhere by; more games end up being fun when both players are engaging and interacting on an equal level. Because of this, I can get behind a ban list that hits the cards that have ended up causing the most Negative Play Experience, and start bringing Tier 2 and even Tier 3 level decks up a notch. How great would it be to have a Genesis, Judges, Luke/John, or even Deacons deck that actually has a good fighting chance against the likes of TGT, Disciples, Daniel, and Fight by the Numbers? Balance is a good thing, seeing a diverse meta is even better, and witnessing the new creative ideas starting to develop outside of using the 'cookie cutter' staples we have used for years, decades even, would be one of the best things ever for this game.
-
How great would it be to have a Genesis, Judges, Luke/John, or even Deacons deck that actually has a good fighting chance against the likes of TGT, Disciples, Daniel, and Fight by the Numbers?
See, that's where it's just dependent on the defense. I've beaten The Deck more than I've lost to it with my Luke offense. There are options out there, people just don't play them.
(I play Greeks/Phillies. I use Naz, Sig Ring, RBD, CWD, and HHI for anti-meta stuff, plus Gates of Hell, Site Guard, and Herod's Treachery to defend even after they use Angel/Edict/whatever)
-
See, that's where it's just dependent on the defense. I've beaten The Deck more than I've lost to it with my Luke offense. There are options out there, people just don't play them.
(I play Greeks/Phillies. I use Naz, Sig Ring, RBD, CWD, and HHI for anti-meta stuff, plus Gates of Hell, Site Guard, and Herod's Treachery to defend even after they use Angel/Edict/whatever)
With all the hate you have towards Dan decks, I'm not surprised you don't beat the snot out of Dan every time. But most of that hate is pretty narrow or easy to get rid of, specifically the artifact stuff. How are your matchups against other speedy decks in the meta, such as TGT, Disciples, FbtnB? It also must be considerably slow with all that tech stuffed in there as well.
I have no doubt that turtles and even balanced decks have the capability to beat speedy decks. But the problem is the consistency defense has versus offense. Since offense draws/tutors a whole heckuva lot better than defense, it's fairly easy for offense to have its most powerful tools readily available to them, especially in the early game. Defense doesn't have the plethora of awesome drawing set-asides, they don't have the awesome territory class enhancements. And a floater Evil Characters lifespan is certainly nowhere near as high as all the floater Heroes in the game. The only thing defense really has to rely on is the redundancy of its anti-meta tools available to them in the deck in hopes of having better odds of drawing it early. As the game progresses and goes on, then yes, the chances of decks with actual defenses winning does go up (after all, that is how turtles are designed to win: weak early game used building resources, strong end game). But if a decks defense is unable to make those necessary stops early game against a speedy deck setting up, then it's more than likely over. Early game right now favors offense far more than defense, and what goes on there usually sets the precedence for the rest of the game.
-
Since 1st round Mayhems are gone and the dom cap is in place, Mayhem is not nearly as bad as it used to be. TGT is still a problem since it can just be dropped strategically for a free rescue if they don't have their defense set up or are protecting characters in hand. AUTO is the only card I can think of right now that is still absurdly broken, he's so versatile it's ridiculous.
-
AUTO is the only card I can think of right now that is still absurdly broken, he's so versatile it's ridiculous.
I still always have to mention that card was never ment to be broken and when used properly in a Gideon deck is really fun! It really wasnt play tested to much extent with Sam decks until the Foof and ROA 2 were released and well... the rest is history ):
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
All right, you've piqued my curiosity. + 1 for making me use the word "pique" in a post
...Although I must say, please don't forget about Thaddeus. He may not be flavor of the month right now, but people will remember his dominance and near-literal invincibility if AUTO/Dan/Isaiah/etc. are nerfed.
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
I feel like we get this every year and in the end nobody plays the counters anyway.
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
I feel like we get this every year and in the end nobody plays the counters anyway.
And before anyone says, "well they could - they just don't!" that's because cards are not the way to counter power creep. Rule changes to discourage speed and banning cards is.
-
Unless these counters have abilities like "put this card in your territory at the start of the game, draw seven cards instead" Sam decks will still be able to out race them.
-
Unless these counters have abilities like "put this card in your territory at the start of the game, draw seven cards instead" Sam decks will still be able to out race them.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/new-card-ideas/lets-counter-speed-for-real/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/new-card-ideas/lets-counter-speed-for-real/)
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
I feel like we get this every year and in the end nobody plays the counters anyway.
And before anyone says, "well they could - they just don't!" that's because cards are not the way to counter power creep. Rule changes to discourage speed and banning cards is.
Excellent point, I have been of this stance for many years. Cards as counters only does so much against a meta that is based entirely on speed.
-
Whenever the new cards are released, people will think long and hard before attacking with Auto, if they even can.
I feel like we get this every year and in the end nobody plays the counters anyway.
And before anyone says, "well they could - they just don't!" that's because cards are not the way to counter power creep. Rule changes to discourage speed and banning cards is.
Excellent point, I have been of this stance for many years. Cards as counters only does so much against a meta that is based entirely on speed.
Did you look at this post?
Unless these counters have abilities like "put this card in your territory at the start of the game, draw seven cards instead" Sam decks will still be able to out race them.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/new-card-ideas/lets-counter-speed-for-real/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/new-card-ideas/lets-counter-speed-for-real/)
This card would help redemption a lot more then banning any card.
-
Yes. Creating cards like that essentially are just adding another rule to the game. Also, the whole topdecking bit opens a whole nother barrel of monkeys, which is why I'm of the opinion it has low chances of anything similar ever being printed.
-
Yes. Creating cards like that essentially are just adding another rule to the game. Also, the whole topdecking bit opens a whole nother barrel of monkeys, which is why I'm of the opinion it has low chances of anything similar ever being printed.
That part scares me a bit too, but I think a card similar to this would be a substantial step for slowing speed decks.
-
I read around half the thread until my ADD took over :P.
I to am against banning cards in the first place. However, since this thread is about which cards should be banned if we do start, I would propose only New Jerusalem and AOCP for ne simple point...They are not in ANY regular starter/booster packs. Besides trading, the only way to get NJ is through the special deal with a starter box (so you can just remove it from market) and the only way to get AOCP is attending a national event (and that promo can easily be removed). Both of these cards have influenced the game badly in it's own ways:
NJ: plenty of people have stated the negative impact of this card
AOCP: It's to CBN as Mickey Mouse is to copyright laws. It is the first CBN and the idea has been passed onto multiple things. The idea was sound (nothing can stop the Authority of Christ) but has been shown to be too OP. People complain too much about TGT when it's enhancements like AOCP that are needed for TGT to work in the first place (I have never understood the fear of TGT when it was actually the fear of territory destruction that ruled in people's (minds).
-
I would propose only New Jerusalem and AOCP for ne simple point...They are not in ANY regular starter/booster packs. Besides trading, the only way to get NJ is through the special deal with a starter box (so you can just remove it from market) and the only way to get AOCP is attending a national event (and that promo can easily be removed).
Both of these cards are running out so what your really asking is that they are never reprinted :p
-
I would propose only New Jerusalem and AOCP for ne simple point...They are not in ANY regular starter/booster packs. Besides trading, the only way to get NJ is through the special deal with a starter box (so you can just remove it from market) and the only way to get AOCP is attending a national event (and that promo can easily be removed).
Both of these cards are running out so what your really asking is that they are never reprinted :p
That would be far worse than them being banned. If no one has access to them, its fair. If only some people can have access to them its not.
-
I to am against banning cards in the first place. However, since this thread is about which cards should be banned if we do start, I would propose only New Jerusalem and AOCP for ne simple point...They are not in ANY regular starter/booster packs. Besides trading, the only way to get NJ is through the special deal with a starter box (so you can just remove it from market) and the only way to get AOCP is attending a national event (and that promo can easily be removed). Both of these cards have influenced the game badly in it's own ways:
Actually you can get a Warriors New Jerusalem from a TexP pack, I actually got one recently, but it's still a good point.
-
That's a pretty legit pull. I've bought tons of boxes of Txp and don't ever recall pulling any Ultra in the Warrior's spot. Very nice pull, considering all the Warriors Ultras are either garbo or reprinted. :)
-
I still do not see why AOCP is so OP, I have used it to destroy my entire defense before (there was a purpose). It is a lot harder to play that card effectively enough to call OP since you have to play it before you have the majority of your defense in play and after your opponent has much of his defense in play. In fact, I have never played AOCP to take even half of my opponents defense without taking more then half of my own.
-
The reason AoCP is unbalanced has less to do with how much of your own defense you have to sacrifice and more to do with how your opponent can literally do nothing in response to it being played. Absolutes are bad game design, especially for one that goes postal on every single Evil Character currently in play.
-
The reason AoCP is unbalanced has less to do with how much of your own defense you have to sacrifice and more to do with how your opponent can literally do nothing in response to it being played. Absolutes are bad game design, especially for one that goes postal on every single Evil Character currently in play.
Exactly.
Game is 4-4, both players have already used SoG, and then you realize your opponent hasn't played AoCP yet.
That may be one of the most horrifying moments in this game.
-
The reason AoCP is unbalanced has less to do with how much of your own defense you have to sacrifice and more to do with how your opponent can literally do nothing in response to it being played. Absolutes are bad game design, especially for one that goes postal on every single Evil Character currently in play.
Exactly.
Game is 4-4, both players have already used SoG, and then you realize your opponent hasn't played AoCP yet.
That may be one of the most horrifying moments in this game.
Not really because my opponent and I are most likely both playing The Deck or Sam decks in this meta, and any block I had that would give him initiative probably wasn't going to work out for me anyway.
-
There are ways to prevent AOCP, the pharisees/sadducees, egyptians, assyrians, and babylonians each have a protect fort that protects those say characters in your territory from discard. Then you have caesera phillipi that protects N.T. human evils from discard on opponent's cards.
Yes if you don't have any of those out you can't do nothing and some will say those cards are worthless to have in a deck.
-
Herod's Temple gets around AoCp in battle too if the blocker is NT. Counters work well if people use them.
IMO, banning cards is the lazy way to deal with things you don't like to face.
-
Another thing I'd like to mention is that OP defensive cards are fairly easily splashed at this point. They came out with Assyrian Survivor, a great way to make sure you won't be Grapes/AotL'd so you can use your awesome Assyrian defense to it's fullest potential. Plus, it gives you inish. What's not to like?
The fact that you can't AotL/Grapes it so they can drop DoU, the only evil enhancement in their deck.
-
Now you want to ban the counter?!?! This is what can fix the game are cards that make the OP cards not that OP! Assyrian Survivor is a great addition to the game. I have b beat him many times, and he has stopped me from playing cards that you all think are broken just as many times. lets be honest here and see that making more good counters like Assyrian Survivor is actually not as bad an idea as you all think it is.
-
Ok guys Assyrian Survivor is nothing new under the sun ::) Ive been using Prince of Persia (PG style) for years and no one called the op police on me 8)
-
Another thing I'd like to mention is that OP defensive cards are fairly easily splashed at this point. They came out with Assyrian Survivor, a great way to make sure you won't be Grapes/AotL'd so you can use your awesome Assyrian defense to it's fullest potential. Plus, it gives you inish. What's not to like?
That was Pol's awesome idea that I was able to slip into that tin to replace an unnamed magician reprint. But it's not like he's hard to stop with a number of things that either are, or should be, commonly used.
-
Another thing I'd like to mention is that OP defensive cards are fairly easily splashed at this point. They came out with Assyrian Survivor, a great way to make sure you won't be Grapes/AotL'd so you can use your awesome Assyrian defense to it's fullest potential. Plus, it gives you inish. What's not to like?
That was Pol's awesome idea that I was able to slip into that tin to replace an unnamed magician reprint. But it's not like he's hard to stop with a number of things that either are, or should be, commonly used.
Yeah, FBTN still gets him (which is really popular), but either way he's an awesome card that should be given the respect of being used in a decent sized defense, not just as a suicide block.
-
I judged at Nats so I was able to look at what people were using at the top tables. Assyrians/Magicians were played by a few people. All of them that I saw used 7-8 ECs and at least a few EEs. I consider That to be decent sized defense for T1, especially compared to the previous meta defense of 4-5 ECs and Haman's Plot.
-
There are ways to prevent AOCP, the pharisees/sadducees, egyptians, assyrians, and babylonians each have a protect fort that protects those say characters in your territory from discard. Then you have caesera phillipi that protects N.T. human evils from discard on opponent's cards.
Yes if you don't have any of those out you can't do nothing and some will say those cards are worthless to have in a deck.
1) And yet people have been crying out for a dom that discards fortresses. That is exactly why I have also been against that dom idea. Also you have to think of how many ways to get rid of one fort right now.
2) You can only be protected from it, you can't prevent it (unless you some how get rid of it before they can play it).
3) One of the biggest arts for Babs actually makes this card unstoppable. So when you face a disciples offense, you can either deal with their protection or know that you will get nuked any time you block.
4) As mentioned before, I am against banning. I only chose those two cards for the fact that they are extremely powerful and that they do not come in regular packs so you don't have to worry about people spending money on packs and finding out that the awesome card they just got is banned (unless you are Christian Solder (seriously, buy a lotto ticket and split it with me :) )).
5) NJ as a dom makes no sense. It is a city. there is no way a city can save souls. It's the same logic as to why there are no animal heroes. If I had to make a card based on it, it would be:
New Jerusalem
Good Fortress
Id: Holds one Son Of God
SA: "While Son Of God is in this fortress, protect all NT heroes in territory from negative effects. If this fortress is removed from play, return Son Of God held here to your hand. CBN"
This way, when Christ is reigning in the city, all (including opponents) NT heroes in territory are taking refuge in the city.
-
There are ways to prevent AOCP, the pharisees/sadducees, egyptians, assyrians, and babylonians each have a protect fort
1) And yet people have been crying out for a dom that discards fortresses.
Which is why it would be better if said dom only discarded a good fortress.
-
It's not like anyone really uses the forts to good effect in Type 1 anyways. The risks associated with drawing it late game and having it become even more of a dead draw makes them nigh useless. At least the territory protecting sites have applications to them besides just sitting there doing nothing else, which make them great adds towards any NT defense. Protection forts, not so much. There's also the issue of protecting only a specific theme, which most are subpar besides maybe Assyrians and Egyptians. Another big point to the protect sites, which lends itself to any NT defense character, and sometimes even any card (dat Naz). This is why I wouldn't be opposed to a Dom hitting any and all forts.
-
It's not like anyone really uses the forts to good effect in Type 1 anyways. The risks associated with drawing it late game and having it become even more of a dead draw makes them nigh useless. At least the territory protecting sites have applications to them besides just sitting there doing nothing else, which make them great adds towards any NT defense. Protection forts, not so much. There's also the issue of protecting only a specific theme, which most are subpar besides maybe Assyrians and Egyptians. Another big point to the protect sites, which lends itself to any NT defense character, and sometimes even any card (dat Naz). This is why I wouldn't be opposed to a Dom hitting any and all forts.
The thing with a N.T. defense is that for those sites to help and to actually be able to block you would need to use either Pharisees or Herods for the defense cause the Sadducees, Heretics, and Romans are horrible defenses and a demon defense can't use those sites due to them being demons.
-
True, I would like to see more NT defenses more fully developed, especially the new ones like Heretics. Pharisees seems like the only rock star defense of NT, but even that has trouble against meta banding offenses.
Demons can still use Chorazin :P. And Nazareth. Beautiful, beautiful Nazareth.
-
Herod's Temple gets around AoCp in battle too if the blocker is NT. Counters work well if people use them.
I do agree that HT is a great counter to deal with AoCP. But counters only work when drawn. Because of HT's flexibility (it can benefit both offense and defense, plus hold Lampstand or another temple artifact), it is frequently used. HT is an example of the best kind of counter; it has enough utility to go in a deck, even though you risk never using the "instead" ability.
A more risky counter, and therefore less-used, is Darius' Decree; I've had little success with it, EXCEPT when Disciples were popular and when I used it in a deck fast enough to draw it relatively quickly. DD's secondary ability is not useful enough on a regular basis to warrant a deck slot most of the time in T1.
-
I do agree that HT is a great counter to deal with AoCP. But counters only work when drawn. Because of HT's flexibility (it can benefit both offense and defense, plus hold Lampstand or another temple artifact), it is frequently used. HT is an example of the best kind of counter; it has enough utility to go in a deck, even though you risk never using the "instead" ability.
I wholeheartedly agree, the counters that will be used the most often are those that are useful beyond just being a counter against something else. This is a good example of the way counters should be created in the future. Counters that serve no purpose other than strictly being a hard counter (see: Image of Jealousy, protect forts) should be avoided.
A more risky counter, and therefore less-used, is Darius' Decree; I've had little success with it, EXCEPT when Disciples were popular and when I used it in a deck fast enough to draw it relatively quickly. DD's secondary ability is not useful enough on a regular basis to warrant a deck slot most of the time in T1.
There are some times when I feel like DD is dead, but you'd be surprised how many times I've actually pulled it off. So much of the meta uses some form of set-aside (Pentecost, First Fruits, Mustering for War, Fishing Boat). It can also combo relatively well with Samaritan Water Jar, and since it's an artifact it can easily be Uzzah food as well. :)
-
Actually some of the counters that don't see use in T1 are very useful in T2, so just because the card seems like it isn't that useful in playing one of the variants doesn't mean it isn't useful, just not necessarily for you.
For example: Protect forts may be next to useless in T1 but because of the availability of territory destruction in T2 (4 AoCp, Holy Grail, mass captures and all that) the protect fortresses are almost critical (to the point that one of my friends uses what he calls "layers of protection" to keep his defense alive when cards can get around one of the "layers"
Darius's Decree is also a very useful (close to staple) in T2 because it shuts down so much of what your opponent can do (pre battle, territory class and set asides.
I wholeheartedly agree, the counters that will be used the most often are those that are useful beyond just being a counter against something else. This is a good example of the way counters should be created in the future. Counters that serve no purpose other than strictly being a hard counter (see: Image of Jealousy, protect forts) should be avoided.
I actually disagree with protect forts not being useful because while they are strictly a hard counter, they are a hard counter to enough stuff that they are really useful at least, as I mentioned before, in T2.
-
I should have mentioned anytime I post I almost am always talking exclusively about T1. However, I do realize protect forts do have their place in a slower format (T2), but such cards do not find their place competitively in T1.
-
True, I would like to see more NT defenses more fully developed, especially the new ones like Heretics. Pharisees seems like the only rock star defense of NT, but even that has trouble against meta banding offenses.
Demons can still use Chorazin :P. And Nazareth. Beautiful, beautiful Nazareth.
I believe demons can also use Golgotha :)