Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: LordZardeck on August 14, 2012, 09:48:58 PM
-
Okay, so I've been off the scene a bit. Was there an expansion pack released at Nats?
-
Nothing. nothing at all.
-
Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.
-
Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.
Starters coming out first of the year.
-
Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.
Starters coming out first of the year.
Aww. almost got out scott free. :p
-
I'm wondering if this will now push back the release date for all subsequent releases by half a year. :/
-
I'm wondering if this will now push back the release date for all subsequent releases by half a year. :/
Actually I don't think this would be a bad thing. Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.
-
Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.
I think I disagree with this. Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up). If the design team wasn't willing to nip TGT (for example) in the bud after nine months of tournament dominance--why would throwing Nats in there make any difference?
-
Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.
I think I disagree with this. Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up). If the design team wasn't willing to nip TGT (for example) in the bud after nine months of tournament dominance--why would throwing Nats in there make any difference?
Agree completely, people had ample time to playtest cards and now we are in a lull period...which sounds like a good number are going to take a break until after Christmas at this point...could be interesting to see what happens with the player base...
-
Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).
I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected. On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).
This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.
-
Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).
I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected. On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).
This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.
To be fair, while a large number of top player played "The Deck," and it was dominating halfway through T12P, several of us dropped out of the top 10 by the end, Chris had a very unique take on "The Deck", and there were actually a relatively good amount types of decks at the top in the end. I agree though that this year what ended up getting played was a rather large suprise.
-
These comment are sorta what I meant when I said Nats helps cover up problems more than reveal them.
Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).
I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected.
Last year Disciples decks were a large proportion of the elite decks despite the fact that everyone and their brother knew they needed to tech against them. Yes, there was a smaller proportion of Disciples decks than TGT decks the couple of years before that, but that was because TGT was ridiculous. Disciples still distorted the game. It is a little surprising that the last set had few effective counters against Thad and brothers, given that by the time the card design was done everyone was expecting Disciples to rule.
On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).
Just out of curiousity, what types of cards do you think would have been effective counters to Mayhem? You already had Nazareth, 4 Drachma Coin, and others that protect your hand.
This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.
Players chose not to play Genesis/red and abandoned Disciples/TGT not because they were bad, but because they the judges/angels/splash prophets were OP and all the top players recognized that. TAUtO and Sam/Birth and Gideon/Isaiah were the cards that received the most complaints over the past year (were there any similar claims for Genesis or red?). All of them found a home in "The Deck" and played a featured role. We are really in trouble if it takes their performance in Nats before the PtB start contemplating adding some counters to protect-from-everything characters with free drawing.
Cards that distort the game are allowed to go on for multiple years with no effective counters being printed. Although I would like to hope that delaying until after Nats might help, I am dubious that one additional tournament will do enough to make that much better given the fact that tournament performance up to that point doesn't appear to have much effect.
-
Yes, there was a smaller proportion of Disciples decks than TGT decks the couple of years before that...It is a little surprising that the last set had few effective counters against Thad and brothers,
Thanks for supporting my point that things have improved since creating TGT. And there were counters printed for Thad, primarily giving other slower brigades like Red, Prophets, and Judges more draw abilities so that people didn't feel that Disciples were the only theme with enough speed to compete. These counters seemed to work so well that almost no one played Thad at this year's Nats, so in a way that was another success. Granted that while the counters worked at dealing with the Thad problem, they also created another different problem that we'll need to deal with (namely stopping people from putting all the speed stuff and CBN stuff from many brigades all together in one deck).
We are really in trouble if it takes their performance in Nats before the PtB start contemplating adding some counters...I am dubious that one additional tournament will do enough to make that much better given the fact that tournament performance up to that point doesn't appear to have much effect.
We contemplate counters all through the year. However we are hesitant to pull the trigger on some until we've really had the chance to see how things work out once everyone gets together. Last year there was a lot of talk about a Type 1.5 deck down in Florida that was dominating the scene (and in fact beat a well respected long-term player, RTSmaniac, in a Regional tournament). This year, and all angel deck won the MN State tournament (which is arguably the most challenging state tournament in the country). But I'm really not interested in printing a bunch of cards to deal with those until they show what they can do against the country as a whole.
-
People say that Gardensciples was nowhere during natz... Myself and Polarius piloted two gardensciples decks to tenth and sixth respectively. Of course tenth isn't that good but hey they still top tenned.
-
Honestly I'm not sure gardensciples should be a top tier offense anymore I would consider them tier 2 I played them all the way through the year and rarely beat a good Samuel deck. It took some what of a good draw to for me and a bad draw for my opponent to beat Sam.
I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.
-
Honestly I'm not sure gardensciples should be a top tier offense anymore I would consider them tier 2 I played them all the way through the year and rarely beat a good Samuel deck. It took some what of a good draw to for me and a bad draw for my opponent to beat Sam.
I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.
Talk to Polarius. He smashed The Deck twice.
-
Well The Deck although solid went 6-4 which is good for sure but obviously a beatable deck.
-
Well The Deck although solid went 6-4 which is good for sure but obviously a beatable deck.
My version did. Here's a breakdown of how The Deck (with various differences, probably less than 10 cards though) ranked:
2nd place: John Earley
5th place: Matt Townsend (though separately built, so it had a few more differences)
7th place: Chris Ericson, Alex Olijar, Josh Brinkman
13th place: James Roepke (the original The Deck)
15th place: Andrew Wester
19th place: Nic Marshall (same as Townsend)
28th place: Blake Maust
Pol was my one loss that I really have nothing to complain about. He played it perfectly and dropped the Mayhem at a crucial time, which gave him a +20 card advantage or something ridiculous like that. I still wouldn't say "smashed" though. Pol's games against The Deck were 5-4, 5-3, and 3-5.
-
To clarify, half of the top 10 were within 10-15 cards of each other.
-
Yeah which is boring to be honest and the main reason I converted to type-2 in less then a year of playing redemption. type-1 became so similar, the majority of people play the same deck with slight variations. Nothing interesting new or exciting about that.
-
Yeah which is boring to be honest and the main reason I converted to type-2 in less then a year of playing redemption. type-1 became so similar, the majority of people play the same deck with slight variations. Nothing interesting new or exciting about that.
I have to say though, while The Deck was very successful (except in my hands, where it wasn't really the Deck's fault in at least 2 of the games I lost), there still was a relatively good variety of decks at the top.
-
I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.
Disagree. John Earley, the founder and most successful player of Water Garden dropped it this year after unsuccessful showings at states and regionals. There's no way anything other than spread offenses is tier one anymore.
-
That's probably true but if anything else was going to hang around on tier 1 besides spread I would think it would be Watergarden.
I will say I didnt know that about John.
It's still sad that only one offensive strategy is viable.
-
That's probably true but if anything else was going to hang around on tier 1 besides spread I would think it would be Watergarden.
I will say I didnt know that about John.
It's still sad that only one offensive strategy is viable.
I'm not sure where I'd put it, since I swore that Earley would win until I found out how bad Water Garden did this season. I think Disciples, Gardensciples, and Water Garden can all share a tier.
-
The problem with Watergarden was not the offense, it was the defense. John himself told me that it just doesn't get many blocks against the current meta offenses.
-
The problem with Watergarden was not the offense, it was the defense. John himself told me that it just doesn't get many blocks against the current meta offenses.
I know there was a lot of skepticism about the speed of Watergarden, though I can't remember if John, himself, expressed any of that.
-
I will say chris the time I beat u I was playing gardensciples with 63 and heavy defense
-
I probably complained more about the defense to you - but the offense was a problem as well.
The Offence simply didn't perform well against the meta defense, the years that WaterGarden was truly good were years that I was actually getting blocked by big ugly Philistine Dudes, and getting to play things like Words of Encouragement in battle. Now you just chump with Uzzah, or drop Gomer+KoT. The really sad part about popularizing my defense, was that my offence didn't do well against it ;)
One of the best characters in Water Garden suffers from the same issue that Samuel suffers from. Susanna is an amazing card - She looks at a ton of cards, and gets me something important every time. But then gets punished for being in battle by getting Uzzah blocked, or worse, PG+Confusion blocked. Samuel is an amazing card - He draws 2, and searches out a cool hero. But then gets punished for being in battle.
Then with the rampage of both Martin's FBTNB and 'The Deck' the meta defense was next to useless. I tried some experimentation with other defense ideas, but the deck simply didn't fit together well anymore.
-
You guys use such tiny decks. Come visit Florida where 70-77 card decks are the norm. ;D
-
Notice how no one is talking about how Greeson took 3rd with my judges/magician/assyrian deck. :)
Kirk
-
I will say chris the time I beat u I was playing gardensciples with 63 and heavy defense
I don't mean to sound rude here, but so what? That doesn't mean Gardensciples or heavy defense is better than spread offenses, it just means that it won one game and was piloted by an exceptional player.
-
Well I don't know about the exceptional player part but I will agree it was lucky on my part and you beat the same deck a day later.
I was simply commenting on what gabe said about the Watergarden defense being to weak.
-
I will hold until the day I die that TGT is the second best deck in the format. Why? Who plays defense? No meta deck can stand up to second turn TGT.
-
I will hold until the day I die that TGT is the second best deck in the format. Why? Who plays defense? No meta deck can stand up to second turn TGT.
Apparently the T1-2P National Champion plays defense. ;)
-
I will hold until the day I die that TGT is the second best deck in the format. Why? Who plays defense? No meta deck can stand up to second turn TGT.
Apparently the T1-2P National Champion plays defense. ;)
True dat. I still say TGT will never fall below tier one in this meta though.
-
I will hold until the day I die that TGT is the second best deck in the format. Why? Who plays defense? No meta deck can stand up to second turn TGT.
Apparently the T1-2P National Champion plays defense. ;)
True dat. I still say TGT will never fall below tier one in this meta though.
Keep in mind TGT only had two slots in the top ten this year. Spread offenses clearly dominated, and that's enough to push anything else out of the top ten, in my opinion.
-
Only? The fact 2 topped in a field clearly saturated by everyone using the new broken tech makes it much more than a coincidence and still qualifies it as a viable contender for Tier 1.
-
I don't know if you can call it saturated. about 7 people were playing 'The Deck' at least that many were running a TGT variant, probably even more than that.
-
From what I am gathering from tournament reports, it seems far more 'The Deck's (pretty tacky imo, needs a far more descriptive title) were piloted than TGT. TGT appeared far less represented, nonetheless by qualified REP's.
-
'The Deck's (pretty tacky imo, needs a far more descriptive title)
Finally, someone who agrees with me that its a terrible title for the deck.
-
I've been calling my version AutO^2 - In that it's a deck that keys off of Angel under the Oak and an Auto-blocking defense.
-
At first I was disturbed by how many times "The Deck" was represented at the top of the National tournament. However, I have thought about it more, and I think there's another way to look at it. Before the tournament even started, there are some names that stand out as players who are viewed as top players, and who had a good chance to place in the top 10. They would be: Martin Miller, John Earley, Jonathan Gresson, Matt Townsend, Daniel Huisinga, Chris Ericson, Alex Olijar, Josh Brinkman, James Roepke, James Courtney, Andrew Wester.
Regardless of what deck they chose, these guys were probably going to be at the top. So this year 7 of those 11 guys decided to run "The Deck", and they took half of the top 15 places with it. But if they had all ran TGT, or Disiciples, or Geneptians, or another good deck option, then I suspect that they still would have ended up in the top 15 with that.
So I'm not sure that the problem is that "The Deck" is that awesome, or if the problem is just that so many top players all decided to play the same thing.
P.S. As I was looking at things, I should also use this chance to congratulate Connor Magras, Jay Chambers (Red), and Caleb Stanley. These guys haven't been well-known in the past, but after their showing at Nats, I think people should consider them as top players as well.
-
As far as "The Deck's" name, I labeled it as "Superband" in my Ipod before I realized that they had given it such a generic name.
In fact, when Olijar and Ring Wraith were describing it, I thought they were using that term to just keep the offense hush-hush.
-
I found it interesting when I was checking in decks for T1-2P and most of them looked basically the same. ::)
-
Regardless of what deck they chose, these guys were probably going to be at the top. So this year 7 of those 11 guys decided to run "The Deck", and they took half of the top 15 places with it. But if they had all ran TGT, or Disiciples, or Geneptians, or another good deck option, then I suspect that they still would have ended up in the top 15 with that.
I disagree. Good players recognize what decks are good, and play them to increase their chances of winning. So 7 of the top 15 recognized "The Deck" as the best deck. If they (we?) thought there was a better one, they/we would have played that deck instead. So while some may have done just fine with another deck, it wouldn't be optimal.
As far as "The Deck's" name, I labeled it as "Superband" in my Ipod before I realized that they had given it such a generic name.
In fact, when Olijar and Ring Wraith were describing it, I thought they were using that term to just keep the offense hush-hush.
We couldn't think of a good name for it, and so we started calling it The Offense for awhile, but eventually it just became "The Deck".
I was broadcasting it to as many people possible because I wanted it to win.
-
I found it interesting when I was checking in decks for T1-2P and most of them looked basically the same. ::)
Booorrrrinnng. This is why I don't go to Nats. This is what happened when I played ROOT for one month. I faced the exact same deck three times in a row from three different people.
Never again.
-
Regardless of what deck they chose, these guys were probably going to be at the top. So this year 7 of those 11 guys decided to run "The Deck", and they took half of the top 15 places with it. But if they had all ran TGT, or Disiciples, or Geneptians, or another good deck option, then I suspect that they still would have ended up in the top 15 with that.
I disagree. Good players recognize what decks are good, and play them to increase their chances of winning. So 7 of the top 15 recognized "The Deck" as the best deck. If they (we?) thought there was a better one, they/we would have played that deck instead. So while some may have done just fine with another deck, it wouldn't be optimal.
Correct. Players often "test drive" new cards as they are released, and see what works best together over the course of the year. It was a credit to the developers that so many different themes/decks lasted as long into the tournament season as they did. But it is absolutely to the credit of the players that they (once again) narrowed the field of "best decks" down to one by the national tournament.
Now it is up to the developers to make sure that "The Deck" will have a harder time winning nationals next year, while still allowing for a variety of decks to be popular and playable in the months leading up to nationals. The good news is that we have a window of time to get it right before the cards go to the printers. :)
-
I found it interesting when I was checking in decks for T1-2P and most of them looked basically the same. ::)
Booorrrrinnng. This is why I don't go to Nats. This is what happened when I played ROOT for one month. I faced the exact same deck three times in a row from three different people.
Never again.
I actually saw quite a bit of variety. I must have just not been checking in the decks that placed at the top.
All this talk of The Deck makes me laugh when I consider that it was a nearly decade old strategy that ended up winning the tournament. And makes me somewhat wish that I had played T1 using Heroless, with which I beat "The Deck" twice and Martin once in Ironman.
-
That wasn't really my point. We have such creative and intelligent players in the Redemption community, to have so many of them use the same deck seems to be wasting that creativity, IMO. I understand the desire to win, but I just find it boring. That's all.
-
That wasn't really my point. We have such creative and intelligent players in the Redemption community, to have so many of them use the same deck seems to be wasting that creativity, IMO. I understand the desire to win, but I just find it boring. That's all.
You should play T2. My 3rd place deck had a Panic Demon defense. For realz.
-
I find it hilarious I played against more Red offenses than The Deck... lol
-
Regardless of what deck they chose, these guys were probably going to be at the top. So this year 7 of those 11 guys decided to run "The Deck", and they took half of the top 15 places with it. But if they had all ran TGT, or Disiciples, or Geneptians, or another good deck option, then I suspect that they still would have ended up in the top 15 with that.
I disagree. Good players recognize what decks are good, and play them to increase their chances of winning. So 7 of the top 15 recognized "The Deck" as the best deck. If they (we?) thought there was a better one, they/we would have played that deck instead. So while some may have done just fine with another deck, it wouldn't be optimal.
Correct. Players often "test drive" new cards as they are released, and see what works best together over the course of the year. It was a credit to the developers that so many different themes/decks lasted as long into the tournament season as they did. But it is absolutely to the credit of the players that they (once again) narrowed the field of "best decks" down to one by the national tournament.
In a tournament player pool that is severely small, Underwood is actually spot on. As long as your REP's select a deck that is Tier 1, then chances are they will top no matter what deck they use.
Run a National level tournament every single month, then you will be able to objectively see what the 'best deck', if one exists, is.
-
I am going to have to agree with Mr. Underwood on this one. The premise that grabbing a bunch of cards that you like to play and make a deck is made for a casual environment. The people at 2012 NATS did their homework and made the deck they thought would win. Did they like using the cards in the deck? Each person will give a different answer. The fact that Redemption was created and then started print in 1997 with no new legal tournament formats created and no banned or restricted lists makes for unusual card play situations. I wont argue the fact that some cards may seem broken or that R&D needs to make a card in a new set every year to control those cards. The fact of the matter is that in any card game you will have these problems. Is it the right time in Redemption's existence to start making new formats allowing only certain sets to be played or that banning some cards from being played anymore. I think if you do one you have to to both. I also think that if Redemption should go as far as doing those things it would be safe to say that we need triple the amount of players playing in the USA as we do now. I think that we should make a 6 month campaign in each of our cities to advertise and recruit players to play the game. Would that warrant Cactus to start making not one but 2 sets every year? Would that make it acceptable for Cactus to create different formats with legal sets in each? A banned list??? With all of these thoughts in so many of our heads we can't forget how Redemption was created. Rob Anderson didn't like how so many of the TCG's in the world had to be played. Like the "other" TCG (decreasing your life total till your dead). Rob created Redemption for a friendly purpose. A holy purpose if you will. He wanted to spread the word, on every card, of the most read and owned book in the whole world. He wanted people to meet "NEW" people so the Word could be spread. Remember that Redemption is supposed to be a "Friendly" game. Don't loose sight of that.
To all players of Redemption "Have FUN and play well with others!"
P.S. I don't want to start a new argument and anything I have said wasn't to prove a point. This is just my general opinion on the subject and I can wait to see what the new stater set has in store for the meta game.
Thank you,
Nate
-
All this talk of The Deck makes me laugh when I consider that it was a nearly decade old strategy that ended up winning the tournament.
Although it is rather humorous, this doesn't generalize well because Martin is a special case. How long has he been playing FBNB as his primary deck--a few years? He has gone to every Nationals and played a large number of smaller tournaments over that time honing both his deck and his skills. That kind of dedication will always pay off if you are an excellent player (and decent human being) to begin with. It is also why I and a number of other players I know were rooting for him to win it all.
Now it is up to the developers to make sure that "The Deck" will have a harder time winning nationals next year, while still allowing for a variety of decks to be popular and playable in the months leading up to nationals. The good news is that we have a window of time to get it right before the cards go to the printers. :)
The real question is are the developers going to try for this and do they have the ability to do that? Recent history demonstrates a lack somewhere in the design process.
Why did it take a couple of years before TGT had legitimate counters when three months into the release of RoA *the* player plaint was that TGT was OP to the point of brokenness? Why was no legitimate counter to Thaddeus released in this set? And, no, creating a new card that grants Thaddeus's OP-ness to another character and *and* draws cards doesn't really count as a counter. (Thaddeus is still broken, but, hey, other things are more broken so no one played Disciples this year--success!)
For a more detailed case study... One of the primary stated card design objectives ever since Gabe won Nats in KC was to try and get players to play real defenses as opposed to the multi-brigade Super Friends. Five sets later how has that quest worked out? I can't provide an answer without it appearing to be piling on, so I will leave it as an open question.
I apologize if the above seems like I am making a personal attack. I am not trying to dump on the folks who make up the card design team, but on the overall effectiveness of the card design process during the period of time I have been playing. It is useful to have an objective assessment of where things stand as a basis for moving forward. My assessment most likely falls far short of what is needed to be considered objective, so have at it.
-
The problem is not that counters aren't made, its that people don't use them. If we make hard counters to the best offenses, people won't use them for the simple fact that they don't want to stop their own offenses, and instead would rather rely on their decks being a step ahead of the others. We made Image of Jealousy, Destructive Sin, Axe, and Land Dispute all in the set right after TGT. People chose not to use them. Then we made Golgotha, CP and Chorazin to stop both key facets of TGT decks: territory destruction and ignore. Still people didn't use them. Finally, this past year we made ASA. Did that solve the TGT issue? Maybe, or maybe TGT was less of a factor because more players were using other strategies.
As for Thaddeus, there were plenty of counters designed with him in mind: CwD, Tower of Thebez, Stone of Thebez, and Iron Pan. We can make all the counters we want, but people need to use them for them to be effective. But they also need to be balanced, else formerly OP strats become unplayable, in which case there was no point in having them in the first place.
I assure you (and everyone) that the meta counters we are coming up with this time around will be playable and effective. What I cannot assure is that people will use them. I hope they do, but the only thing playtesters can do is make them. Without drastically changing deck-building/gameplay rules, that's just the way it will continue to be.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
The reason no one uses the counters is because 99% of them are discriminatory towards one particular strat, and is a dead draw against most any other deck. Consistency wins games, not splashing random X tech against random Y strat.
Your solution is adding game 2/3 with sideboard. Then you will see the counters mass used.
-
FWIW, Martin used Naz, which is one of the single best counters to The Deck. A first turn Naz is killer.
-
Naz has already been in use within FBTNB since it came out. Naz shuts down the tutoring of one of FBTNB's worse matchups, Phillies.
-
Your solution is adding game 2/3 with sideboard. Then you will see the counters mass used.
Why else do you think they spent the last set making sure every single brigade can draw 85 cards per turn and search and have characters that are protected from everything? Three game matches *and* a 45 minute time limit FTW. ;)
-
Yeah which is boring to be honest and the main reason I converted to type-2 in less then a year of playing redemption. type-1 became so similar, the majority of people play the same deck with slight variations. Nothing interesting new or exciting about that.
I have to say though, while The Deck was very successful (except in my hands, where it wasn't really the Deck's fault in at least 2 of the games I lost), there still was a relatively good variety of decks at the top.
What is "The Deck"?