Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Actually, access isn't defined in the REG, so I have no clue what it is.

Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule.  (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).

Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule.  (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).

But that's not simpler overall.... You have to take the impact on other rules/cards into consideration, which you don't seem to be doing. I've already pointed out in another thread, and been backed by an Elder, that this would utterly screw with the (already simple) "any means any" rule.

have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?

Evidently not.

All I'm trying to point out is that Bryon's idea of a "simple" change isn't as simple as he seems to think. Currently, you have to read the rulebook to figure out how battles work, SoG does exactly what it says, and any means any. If the change was made you'd have to read the rulebook to figure out how battles work, SoG doesn't work how it says so you'd have to read about that as well, and any doesn't always mean any which means you'd have to read that, too, in the rulebook.

I'm not claiming that either is "right", I just don't think the latter is any simpler than the former (in my opinion it's even more complicated).

I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....

i agree more people should read the rulebook not just try learning the game off the reg which isn't meant to be a rulebook just a support guide one that they are working on updating the past 5 years have brought alot of concepts to the game that have changed some of the basics so yeah things need rewriting were working on that but oversimplifying the game just so people can not read will only make it boring.

I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....

That reminds me. Don't listen to anything that comes out of Randall's mouth. He's busy trying to convince us that Son of God should be considered human for Herod's Temple.

Actually if you defined access better you could avoid any confusion to the whole thing, heroes can't have access to your own lost souls, which is fairly logical, that would eliminate the annoyance of Jacob's Ladder and any random site access character.  Primary Objective specifically says from opponent's land of bondage, leaving only Son of God and New Jerusalem.  You can change it such that SoG and NJ can't rescue your own, but I don't think it will make the game any simpler or more complicated, its a simple binary rule, either you can or you can't, it doesn't effect any other cards.

However changing the rule will decrease the number of characters used in the rule name by 8, which I suppose is simpler.

So much agreeance with Isildur.  I agree 100% with everything he said. Nothing seems the way it used to be.

One position that rarely gets represented on the EZboard is "Starter Deck Sam" who goes to his local Christian business and buys enough cards to play with his friends. Sometimes we assume that "we" (the forum members) represent the Redemption community. Having led 5 different playgroups, I've pulled a lot of "Sams" into my group by advertising at the store. Our "meta" is not the representative meta of the masses.

Sometimes we need to step back and realize what a minority of the Redemption-Card-Owning community we are (an important and involved minority, albeit). There are going to be times that our decisions will seem to drastically change the game for everyone, when in reality it only changes the meta for the 30 people actively discussing the issue.

Those of us in the grass roots out here teaching new people appreciate a game that relies more upon the RULEBOOK in "Sam's" hands than the ERRATA in Eric's e-machine. Posts don't reflect tone well, so just know I'm not being argumentative, arrogant, or angry (ah the preaching alliteration monster cometh out!). I'm just excited to see a new rulebook that I can be proud to put in my pocket. Then when "Sam" shows up at your playgroup, he may just be able to jump into a fun game with you 

I say all this mostly in favor of the ignore='send back' ruling, but I am being persuaded toward the opp' rescue rule as well.

I can only speak from personal experience...

1st playgroup: Rising Sun Church of Christ, Altoona/Des Moines, IA
2nd playgroup: South East Polk High School (simultaneously with RSCC group)
(Players: Grey, David, Shawn, Ian, Addie, Kara, Nick, Zac, Mike, Kray, Mick, Josh L., RJ, Ashley, Joey L., Grant - frequent   
  guests -> Mitch, Jeff, Brian, Travis, Sarah, Josh N., Jeremy and John Kemp... )
---Forum Members from Group: Zac (sepjazzwarrior) Mitch (mitchrobstew) Jeremy (princeofthisgame)
---note: Mitch and Jeremy, from other towns, knew about the tourneys because of the EZboard: Zac is the only native forum member

3rd Playgroup: Trinity Christian Church, Leon, IA
(Players: Caleb, Cody, Zach, Jacob)
---Forum Members from Group: Zach (The Archangel) ... never online

4th Playgroup: Central Christian College of the Bible, Moberly, MO
(Players: Robby, Josh, Josiah, Ian, Ashley, Andrew, Austin, Raybo, Bryan, Emylie, Marie, Britney, Mike, Aaron, Terry, Jonathan, Daniel... )
---Forum Members from Group: 0

5th and current Playgroup: Braymer Christian Church, Braymer, MO
(Players: Nathan, Nicki, Alex, Jordan, Autumn, Connor, Anna, Kallen, Bob, and growing!)
---Forum Members from Group: 0 - Alex may join some day

I don't think this is an inaccurate picture of the forum member-to-playergrouper ratio in other groups.

Quote from: lp670sv on October 12, 2011, 11:40:06 PM

have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?

Evidently not.

Do you mean the thread where people type a paragraph of wild speculation, but then end with

Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.

I have played dozens and dozens of games with this rule, and I have seen it change how I play the game. 

Before, the game was always about the "Big Two," and the most consistent way to get them was speed.  There were no drawbacks to drawing tons of cards.  You could tell who was winning a game most often by looking at who had the smallest deck left.

Now, I can build a balanced deck with zero draw abilities and still have a fair fight.  I have also felt hope in games where I would have given up in the past.  I have played dozens of games against Samuel and Genesis decks and had much closer games (and even won a few times) when, in the past, the game would have been over in 5 minutes.  It bought me some time to set up my defense, my sites, etc.  We got a chance to have some battles.

In that other thread, I saw a couple people complain that the proposed rule increases "luck" instead of "skill."  That's hogwash.  For years, people have complained that SoG/NJ makes the game too much about luck.  2 cards give you 40% of the victory condition of the game, PLUS they can be used defensively.  Discarding Son of God from opponent's deck gave you a "lucky win," since it effectively took away half your opponent's defense, not just 40% of their victory. 

If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the power of the 2 cards that are all about Luck.  If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the all-powerful status of "speed," which gets you the "Lucky Big Two" before your opponent.  If anything, the proposed rule increases the need to play defense, or else continue to rely on luck and lost soul generation.

Do you all know that the top 2 Type 1 decks at nationals had a combined total of 1 EE?  Did you know that the EE was not played in 10 rounds?  If you can't rescue your own lost souls with SoG/NJ, then you may have to actually use an evil enhancement to stop your opponent's rescue attempt, rather than just rely on dominants and Uzzah to stall.  Or, you could continue to build decks the old way, then complain about the "increased luck factor" when the luck you rely on doesn't work for you.