Author Topic: First Impressions on the New Set (Read 26071 times)

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:34:22 AM »

When I say power creep mostly I'm not talking about specific cards, but general trends in cards.

Protect forts from Priests (when they basically came out barring one from Angel Wars)
Assyrian Camp: Unless King Hezzy is in play Protect: Conversion, Capture, Discard.
Headquarters at Riblah: Protect: Discard. Discard to discard captured heroes.
High Priest’s Palace: Protect: Discard. Holds 30 Pieces of Silver or Writ
Pharaoh’s Throne Room: Protect: Discard and Convert. Might stop ignore on heroes.
Temple of Dagon: Protect: Capture. Holds Altar of Dagon.

Protect Forts from Tins Extended
Gates of Samaria: Protect: Opponents. Also can decrease a character sometimes.
Tower of Thebez: Protect: Opponents. Also can negate heroes often.

I do realize there is a tradeoff, that the new protect forts don't help against your own abilities, (AocP will still hit all your Canaanites in your Tower of Thebez and such) but your opponent can't touch them without negating or getting rid of the fort. I do realize that the current game is different than it was when Priests came out, but it still feels like they are a bit too much of an increase.

Either way, I do think that this set does seem to not have any cards like Garden Tomb or several other cards that were too powerful when they came out, so it looks like the playtesters are learning from their mistakes (or they just got lucky this time).

I am fairly happy about this set so far and most of my complaints are probably because I haven't actually played with all the new cards enough to know how powerful they actually are. And thanks to everyone who makes Redemption keep going because I will play it as long as I enjoy it (even if there are a couple of broken combos available)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:38:05 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 21, 2011, 01:34:22 AM

When I say power creep mostly I'm not talking about specific cards, but general trends in cards.

What about this:

Tola: Draw a card.
Jair: Draw 2 cards if all your heroes are OT, CBI.
Gibeonite Red due: Draw X cards (number of WC in battle)
Abby: Draw X cards (number of OT WC you control).

X is limit 3, but still. Creep. and that's on a meh ability. It seems every BW has a CBP now.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:42:04 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 21, 2011, 01:38:05 AM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 21, 2011, 01:34:22 AM
When I say power creep mostly I'm not talking about specific cards, but general trends in cards.

What about this:

Tola: Draw a card.
Jair: Draw 2 cards if all your heroes are OT, CBI.
Gibeonite Red due: Draw X cards (number of WC in battle)
Abby: Draw X cards (number of OT WC you control).

X is limit 3, but still. Creep. and that's on a meh ability. It seems every BW has a CBP now.

Those are general trends, card draw on characters is getting better, more cards are getting CBP/CBI/CBN, that is power creep, I just decided to give one example with protect forts, then I got distracted with a bunch of other stuff, having 1 card that has a draw X (limit 3) wouldn't be power creep, that might just be an overpowered card, but with it becoming a common thing to have good card draw that could become power creep. (I hope that made sense to more than just me)

SomeKittens · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:01:19 AM »

I think that they figured out that they needed to give good speed to themes if they wanted people to actually use them.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:02:37 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on August 21, 2011, 02:01:19 AM

I think that they figured out that they needed to give good speed to themes if they wanted people to actually use them.

That doesn't mean it's not power creep.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:06:22 AM »

Power creep isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact it might be a necessary thing for a card game that doesn't use set rotation, but it needs to be controlled.

I wonder if power creep can be mapped out and approximated into a mathematical function, because that would be awesome.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:08:45 AM »

@Alex, it's very much power creep, I agree.

@CS, Redemption math would be fun, but I don't know anything about math stuffs.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:10:25 AM »

and the only solution to power creep is ban the broken reasons that cause the need for power creep end of story.

Master KChief · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:10:54 AM »

i find it funny how redemption is the exact opposite of mtg in terms of power creep. mtg started off with the most obnoxiously broken cards in history, leading to bans, set rotation, and a proper R&D/playtest team to balance subsequent releases and keep things in check. redemption started with fluff in the beginning and each set has grown more powerful than the last...the prime definition of power creep.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2011, 02:30:54 AM »

I think (based on the priveous definition of power creep) a small level of a power creep in an expansion is required. If people couldn't improve their decks with new cards They would get board.

That being said, I think it can easily ruin the game if new cards come out every year that can't be contended.

So what were really looking for is a perfect medium which inevitably will never be found. We will either become bored with the game or complain about how the super powers of last year aren't so super anymore. But so what? In 6 months the new leading power will come out definitely and then 6 months after that new cards will come out you'll all start complaining about the new power being trumped.

And then repeat the next year etc...

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2011, 10:21:59 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 21, 2011, 02:06:22 AM

I wonder if power creep can be mapped out and approximated into a mathematical function, because that would be awesome.

^ Future mathematics professor.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:31:45 AM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on August 21, 2011, 02:30:54 AM

I think (based on the priveous definition of power creep) a small level of a power creep in an expansion is required. If people couldn't improve their decks with new cards They would get board.

That being said, I think it can easily ruin the game if new cards come out every year that can't be contended.

So what were really looking for is a perfect medium which inevitably will never be found. We will either become bored with the game or complain about how the super powers of last year aren't so super anymore. But so what? In 6 months the new leading power will come out definitely and then 6 months after that new cards will come out you'll all start complaining about the new power being trumped.

And then repeat the next year etc...

The complaint isn't that last year's super powers aren't so super anymore. I'm sure many of us are quite happy that Disciples won't be as abused this year. The complaint is that, instead of balancing lesser used strategies, they've taken a handful of strategies and made them nigh untouchable. So now next year, they're going to try and take other themes that received no help this year (Disciples, TGT, maybe Persians, Demons, etc), and they're going to attempt to put them on par with the top themes of this year, and inevitably, one or more of those upgraded themes will be seen as wildly overpowered. Where in FooF, RoA, and Disciples there was a brand new strategy that was dominant, this year, it's the attempted balance of old strategies that reigns supreme.

Smokey · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2011, 11:52:17 AM »

@ This entire thread.

This is why I started Type Ban.

@ Sauce

Good troll analogy

@ Prof U

Wasn't the Disciples set supposed to be "under powered"?

@ Chronic Apathy

Don't underestimate Disciples, they're still a top offense... Herod's Temple is now possibly the best card in the game since most of the new CBN cards this set are discard, and most disciples can't be killed in one hit by Gates of Samaria.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:08:52 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on August 21, 2011, 11:52:17 AM

@ Chronic Apathy

Don't underestimate Disciples, they're still a top offense... Herod's Temple is now possibly the best card in the game since most of the new CBN cards this set are discard, and most disciples can't be killed in one hit by Gates of Samaria.

I know. I'm waiting to see the meta shift, but I might commit to Disciples for the tournament season.

lp670sv · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:11:21 PM »

You know Chronic, for being so apathetic all the time you certainly do complain alot

SomeKittens · « **Reply #40 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:39:22 PM »

There's still some good stuff. Killing Boat won't win you a game by any means.

Master KChief · « **Reply #41 on:** August 21, 2011, 12:52:57 PM »

boat wasnt even used that much at nats at the top tables. site decks were non-existent at the top tables, and too much dd hate going around.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #42 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:04:59 PM »

90% of the time I used it, it was so I could set aside one guy with Pentecost. I only saw one site stall deck all day.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #43 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:15:10 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 21, 2011, 12:52:57 PM

site decks were non-existent at the top tables

Tell that to my 3-3 tie. Had I played faster against you and been prepared for site-stall, RDT would have won and MJWare would have taken second.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #44 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:23:31 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on August 21, 2011, 11:31:45 AM

Quote from: Jmbeers on August 21, 2011, 02:30:54 AM
The complaint is that, instead of balancing lesser used strategies, they've taken a handful of strategies and made them nigh untouchable. So now next year, they're going to try and take other themes that received no help this year (Disciples, TGT, maybe Persians, Demons, etc)

Yes they could use help but are you really saying OT kings, (good and evil) didn't need help?
Profits didn't need help?
The Canaanites didn't need help?
Assyrian didn't need help?
Judges didn't need help?
And RED Didn't need help?

I nearly never came against these themes...
But in fairness maybe I just haven't played long enough.

Master KChief · « **Reply #45 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on August 21, 2011, 01:15:10 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 21, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
site decks were non-existent at the top tables
Tell that to my 3-3 tie. Had I played faster against you and been prepared for site-stall, RDT would have won and MJWare would have taken second.

by non-existent i really mean almost non-existent. i know there was that one kid that had the site-stall that one time at the top tables, but he was rarely there and didnt finish top 10. site decks as a whole were practically non-existent at nats.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #46 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:31:42 PM »

He stayed at the top couple tables for quite a while. He was at the number one spot for 20 minutes (or minuets, as his siggy says...and wonder if those are by Beethoven...). I wouldn't discount that.

The M · « **Reply #47 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:32:20 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 21, 2011, 01:29:46 PM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on August 21, 2011, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Master KChief on August 21, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
site decks were non-existent at the top tables
Tell that to my 3-3 tie. Had I played faster against you and been prepared for site-stall, RDT would have won and MJWare would have taken second.

by non-existent i really mean almost non-existent. i know there was that one kid that had the site-stall that one time at the top tables, but he was rarely there and didnt finish top 10. site decks as a whole were practically non-existent at nats.

and I wouldn't even call Pit of Dothan and Damascus shutting someone out a "site stall."

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #48 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on August 21, 2011, 01:23:31 PM

Profits didn't need help?

This has to be my favorite typo, because it makes sense. Green Profits.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #49 on:** August 21, 2011, 01:35:12 PM »

It certainly wasn't site lock. I guess he had Land Dispute, but that doesn't count. I shouldn't have been locked, but I made a bad mistake.

There was no Pit of Dathan. Otherwise, I would have been fine, as it's not protected by CP.

News:

Author Topic: First Impressions on the New Set (Read 26071 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

lp670sv

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Lamborghini_diablo

Warrior_Monk