Author Topic: Have Falling Away and New Jerusalem helped or hurt the game? Your thoughts?  (Read 3755 times)

Offline stefferweffer

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
I did a search for a thread about these cards, but if they were discussed I guess its been a long time.  I'd really like to hear what others have to say.  I don't particularly like these cards, and I'll try to explain why, but there may be valid reasons for them that I have not thought of too.

First, a description of myself, so you have a reference point.  You will observe that I am still relatively new to the game, having discovered it a little over a year ago.  I do really enjoy the game (this needs to be made clear from the start I think).  I enjoy it enough to have spent a ton of money on it, and I currently have 11 "casual" decks.  I am also a Christian, so I am very attracted to the biblical theme.  But having only played for this long, I was not playing when Falling Away and the New Jerusalem dominant first came out, so I don't know what kind of dialogue ensued at that time.  

Now let me explain the reason for this thread.  With the Son of God card that comes in every starter deck, Redemption was basically a "race" type game where each deck had one VERY special card.  The Son of God card is the most powerful card in the game, and it should be.  In my opinion its not powerful enough (because I feel it should be able to rescue ANY single lost soul, and it seems wrong to me that there is a lost soul that maybe Lydia can rescue (NT only) but Jesus can't?)  But I digress...  Essentially, when the game came out you had to rescue 4 lost souls plus hope that you draw this super powerful card.  Now I THINK the original game also had an Angel of the Lord in every deck.  So especially when banding was originally quite rare, there were two cards that you could hopefully count on for 2 of your 5 lost souls.  Evil dominants like Burial and Martyr (which should also be in every starter deck, why does only 1 come in each?) could conceivably stop the "automatic lost soul" from playing Angel of the Lord.  In other words, the game was still tilted in favor of good getting 2 lost souls via dominants, but it seemed more balanced than it is now.

Then Falling Away was added in the Womens set, and it was so powerful that every tournament deck, probably especially multi-player, just had to have this card in their deck.  It is great for marketing maybe, but I'm not sure it didn't hurt the game.  It took a game that was probably just about right in terms of length (30-45 minutes) and made it longer, because it made it so each player potentially had to rescue SIX lost souls to win.  Also, because it did not come out in a starter deck, I'd guess it severely handicapped those players who were not allowed to buy any womens' packs.  But more than anything else it just "feels wrong" to take a lost soul that a player legitimately earned OUT of their land of redemption (which had formerly been off limits), and force them to rescue it again, maybe even this time putting it in a site and having it surrounded by a bunch of evil chracters/enhancements now.  And its not guaranteed to stay in that land of bondage once it gets there anyway.  On top of all the other good reasons for the "Lost Souls" card (perhaps another card that should never have been made), this card combined with Falling Away became brutal to players, potentially taking someone from 2 lost souls back down to zero (I really think this combo should be disallowed).  Once the Lost Soul (or Lost Souls, even worse) is back in the land of bondage, it can be shuffled, buried, or rescued by the other player's Son of God, all because of the Falling Away card.  This is one of only a handful of cards that I refuse to use in casual play, because our local playgroup children, especially new players, are not likely to have this powerful card.  It is so powerful that they had to make another dominant, Guardian of Your Souls, in the Apostles set just to protect against the Falling Away card.  Is this Cactus' way of admitting they regretted making Falling Away?

The other card I will never use in casual play is the New Jerusalem dominant, which gives you another "free" lost soul if played alongside your Son of God.  I know that the "play as" on this one has changed for the better already, because I am amazed that it ever allowed you to play it when ANYONE played Son of God, but it is still a ridiculously powerful combo in my opinion.  Again, might this have been created to speed up a game that had been slowed down by Falling Away?  If the games were taking too long, why not just go to 4 lost souls in tournaments, rather than making a super powerful card that everyone has to have.


Offline stefferweffer

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
0
Continued....

This is what I believe these two cards single-handedly have done:

1)  Falling Away has been made equally as powerful as Son of God, which just seems wrong.
2)  Worse, the lost soul that "falls away" is susceptible to burial, shuffle, or self-rescue all over again.
3)  Falling Away the Lost Souls card is just abusive.
4)  Falling Away increases the number of rescues a player must make, lengthening the game.
5)  Falling Away is so powerful that many ganmes will be decided by who has this card in their deck and who does not.
6)  New Jerusalem theoretically reduces the number of lost souls that need to be rescued (which was the whole point of the game - the battle between heroes and evil characters on this earth) to THREE.  (Maybe even TWO now that we have both Angel of the Lord and Grapes of Wrath)
7)  Multi-player has been ruined by these cards.  If you don't have Guardian of Your Souls, don't even enter the tournament.  Try winning when you've had Falling Away played on you 3 times in oen game.
8)  For everyone complaining about "speed" now (and I'm one of them), and everyone using only 50 card decks, didn't "we" create this monster with these ultra-powerful dominants?  What is everyone hoping to draw to with all those card draws? Son of God, New Jerusalem, and Falling Away!
9)  We have created 2 or 3 MUST-HAVE cards for realistic chances of success at tournaments.  Again, great marketing to go out and buy more cards, but why keep making all decks more similar instead of less so?  We're hovering near 15-20 cards now (including specific lost souls) that will be in at least 75% of tournament decks.  When you're talking about a 50 card deck, only 60-70% of which is rather unique, I think this is sort of sad, and I recall it being very different from other CCGs.  I can see myself wielding a 50 card deck with 10 dominants in it!  That's 1 in 5 cards that can be played at any time, and cannot be interrupted or negated.  Is this what we wanted?
10) Defense in Type 1 is "dead".  Other than maybe sites, it seems most players these days practically abandon defense entirely to go with a 50 card deck designed solely to rescue lost souls, and only rarely actually stop a rescue attempt.  Again, this seems broken.  But type 2 insn't an option for me either as I don't have 3 of every card that I'd like.  Oh well :(
11) New "team" rules, allowing for one player to play Son of God and his partner to play New Jerusalem, just seems ridiculous.  Like it wasn't already easy enough for one "speedy" partner to get both in his own hand?  Expect some 15 minute team games now.

Let me sum up with this observation.  When Brederic ran our first booster draft tournament here a few months back, I thought it was going to be boring, because I wouldn't have my awesome cards with me.  I had a blast!  It took me a while to realize why.  No dominants and pratically no special ability lost souls!  It forced us all to be playing on the same level, and to TRULY have to rescue 5 lost souls THE HARD WAY.  There were going to be no "easy" rescues, and many rescues just came down to who had more ammunition and bigger numbers.  I'm not saying I'd like every game to be that way, as I enjoy making decks, but it was a very pleasant change of pace that seemed more "pure" to the original intent of the game.

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, but was hesitant to say.  Please treat this as just the opinion of one player.  I'm sure nothing will ever be changed, but I felt like "venting" today.  Thanks for listening :)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 06:03:25 PM by stefferweffer »

Offline jtay

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
0
I can certainly sympathize with most of your points.  I too don't include Falling Away or New Jerusalem in casual play.  It all depends on why you play the game and what your own definition of "fun" is.  When I first started playing I took all the dominants out of my decks, so I would have more room for "interesting" cards.  I enjoyed strategizing and trying to come up with ways to use all those cool looking cards I found in packs.  If ever there was a no-dominants variant added to the tournament roster, I would join it in a flash.  This is what I defined as "fun."  Others, however, enjoy winning; they synonimize this with fun, which I totally respect and can sympathize with as well to a degree.  This means that dominants are key part of the game, and using them to their fullest potential is necessary.


The thing is, this forum is not an unbiased source of information about this game.  If you post a deck here, you are assumed to be posting what you want to be playable in tournaments, regardless of your intentions.  I've seen several newbies to the game come here and post their "awesome" decks, only to be met with repeated advice to make heavy edits (make it 56 cards, add essential dominants, speed it up, etc.).  This is not a place for casual players, at least not for deck advice and/or deck posting.


One thing that Redemption lacks is heavy casual play, though I may be wrong about this, since it is difficult to document.  When I started playing, I had no one, save my mom, who would play with me; I thank Cactus for distributing starter decks in pairs rather than one at a time like I've seen with other games.  With other games, like MTG or Yu-Gi-Oh for instance, their marketing is so extensive that any kid can go to his school and find some other kids to play with.  They've probably never gone to tournaments or even know tournaments exist and are perfectly satisfied with working with whatever cards they can procure from packs and trades with their friends; they would never think of dropping >$20 on any single great card.  Redemption is much less known, so people who happen to pick up cards from their local Christian book store either have to play with people really close to them, hope they can get others interested, or resort to the internet.  I resorted to the internet; I have still maintained some of my "scrub" -like ideals though to keep myself interested in continuing in this game, but I have at least partially crossed over to the dark side by not being opposed to the heavy usage of dominants.
Epic pouting maneuver!

Offline lightningninja

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5397
  • I'm Watchful Servant, and I'm broken.
0
New Jerusalem is a MUST for competitive play. Falling away is not. For casual play, it's up to you.

New Jerusalem was actually going to be banned (well there was a thread where a LOT of people wanted to ban it, to make redemption a race for 4 souls, not 3). It didn't go so we still use NJ. :o
As a national champion, I support ReyZen deck pouches.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
0
10) Defense in Type 1 is "dead".  Other than maybe sites, it seems most players these days practically abandon defense entirely to go with a 50 card deck designed solely to rescue lost souls, and only rarely actually stop a rescue attempt.  Again, this seems broken.  But type 2 insn't an option for me either as I don't have 3 of every card that I'd like.  Oh well :(

I was skimming through the many words in your post... but this instantly caught my eye. I'm proof that defense isnt dead.  :D

My newest deck is a 133 carder with 80-some cards of defense... in the two or three games I've used the defense in, it never lost. People dont EXPECT a gigantic defense, so you walk into the game and draw as much defense as they draw offense, they'll likely run out of steam very quickly.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
0
Redemption has turned into a race to 2. You only have to win 2 by actual battle to be able to win anymore. The rest are covered by Dominants.

I personally think Dominants are too powerful and have ruined the basic essence of the game. It's so disheartening to fight an epic battle with several enhancements used by both sides and you manage to pull out a win when suddenly your opponent slaps down Christian Martyr and it's all for naught. What's worse is when you end up rescuing 7 or more Lost Souls in a game and still don't win, whether due to Falling Away, the Lost Souls card and the shuffler, Burial, etc., your opponent's SoG/NJ, or all of the above.

I've seen people post that Redemption is supposed to be about fun and fellowship. Well, I don't feel it when I'm sitting there having lost 5-0 because my opponent drew all their dominants early in the game and I had nothing I could play against them. I would almost prefer a 45-minute turn where my opponent plays an ANB recur loop to get rid of my entire deck, because at least that took some strategy to work out. Anyone can gather dominants and slap them down. The soul, the skill, the fun of card games is lost when 20%, if not much more, of decks are identical, especially when there is nothing you can do about that 20% when they play it.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
0
Something that I think would be great for gameplay (idk if great for the game exactly since it may mean longer rounds) is first to 6, 60 card deck minimum, and CM/AotL can only target cards in territory.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • I'm officially a tourney host now...yippie!
    • -
    • East Central Region
0
Something that I think would be great for gameplay (idk if great for the game exactly since it may mean longer rounds) is first to 6, 60 card deck minimum, and CM/AotL can only target cards in territory.
That seems very interesting. It could be broken though. IDK Somebody will come up with that lol  ::) :o ;D
Polar Bears Rule Teh World
Sponsered by CountFount
http://sites.google.com/site/marylandredemption

Offline stefferweffer

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
0
If ever there was a no-dominants variant added to the tournament roster, I would join it in a flash. 

A "no dominants" tournament option is an AWESOME idea.  I am totally in favor of that.  Good idea.

Offline BubbleBoy

  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
    • -
    • North Central Region
0
That's what T-NW is. I believe it was played (officially?) last nationals, and everyone loved it. Talk to STAMP for more info on that.
Use the Mad Bomber to rescue his Province.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Have Falling Away and New Jerusalem helped or hurt the game? Your thoughts?
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2009, 10:23:57 AM »
0
7)  Multi-player has been ruined by these cards.  If you don't have Guardian of Your Souls, don't even enter the tournament.  Try winning when you've had Falling Away played on you 3 times in oen game.
I've played and won in multi when I've had eight dominants played against me defensively. Granted I was playing T2-MP, but I sat at a T1-MP table with Daniel Whitten at Nats in Columbus, and I watched him win after having three FA played against him.

Quote
10) Defense in Type 1 is "dead".  Other than maybe sites, it seems most players these days practically abandon defense entirely to go with a 50 card deck designed solely to rescue lost souls, and only rarely actually stop a rescue attempt.  Again, this seems broken.

A few years back after Priests came out heroless decks were all the rage--winning and placing highly in many tournaments. Not only did Prof Alstad place second at the NC Regionals in 2007 playing a heroless deck, he had the highest Lost Soul differential in the tournament. (His sole loss of the day occurred the one game he played a deck that contained heroes.) Heroless is less viable nowadays because the last three sets have all hurt the strategy, but that has nothing to do with either NJ or FA.

Seriously, if all the players you see around you are only playing offense, you should create a defense-heavy deck. If they aren't prepared for it, you will pounce them.

Quote
11) New "team" rules, allowing for one player to play Son of God and his partner to play New Jerusalem, just seems ridiculous.  Like it wasn't already easy enough for one "speedy" partner to get both in his own hand?  Expect some 15 minute team games now.

Have you played teams and seen this happen?  This has not been my experience in the tournaments I have played in.

Offline stefferweffer

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1775
Re: Have Falling Away and New Jerusalem helped or hurt the game? Your thoughts?
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2009, 11:36:41 AM »
0


Quote
11) New "team" rules, allowing for one player to play Son of God and his partner to play New Jerusalem, just seems ridiculous.  Like it wasn't already easy enough for one "speedy" partner to get both in his own hand?  Expect some 15 minute team games now.

Have you played teams and seen this happen?  This has not been my experience in the tournaments I have played in.
[/quote]

Yes, my partner and I did this in teams, and it was done against us too.  It seems broken and way too easy to get 2 of the 5 lost souls needed in teams play.

As to a defense heavy deck beating one that is offense heavy, I've heard of it being done but it frankly seems hard to believe.  With so many means to create monstrous CBN negated good enhancements, combos, and banding chains, it seems that offense will rule the day.  And a defense heavy deck will almost always be bigger, meaning the odds of getting the exact card you need at a certain time drop dramatically.  Even if you only hold them to 3 lost souls for a long time, don't you risk losing by running out of time?  That's how my best site lockout deck ever lost.  It was defense heavy and held them to 2 or 3 lost souls, all rescued by dominants, but because they could get to those dominants faster than me it would lose on time.  Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+145)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3057
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Have Falling Away and New Jerusalem helped or hurt the game? Your thoughts?
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2009, 01:16:10 PM »
0

As to a defense heavy deck beating one that is offense heavy, I've heard of it being done but it frankly seems hard to believe. 

In a tournament I just participated in, I was using very heavy Babylonian defense.  I won all three games I played and won the tournament  ;D.  I played a "fast, not blasing speed" deck, a site lock-out deck, and an A-Bom deck, each with more good cards than bad!  If you use Crimson or Pale Green, you also have a very good chance of getting rid of Son of God, or New Jerusalem before they draw it.  Which is exactly what I did against the speed and site lock-out deck, not to mention I discarded all of their heroes so they couldn't make a rescue attempt, while I still had my heroes to use!

Offline lightningninja

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5397
  • I'm Watchful Servant, and I'm broken.
Re: Have Falling Away and New Jerusalem helped or hurt the game? Your thoughts?
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2009, 05:20:19 PM »
0
Me and my partner times out against Mr. and Eric Wolfe... all four of us were using defensive heavy decks... well not my partner Jeffrey... but the 3 of us made up for that. The game ended 4-1 timeout with no end in sight. Four 2-line Ls for the win!
As a national champion, I support ReyZen deck pouches.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal