Cactus Game Design Message Boards

this rule is a bad idea for advanced play it seems that should matter too not just new players

Someone made the comment that "if playtesters make this change against the wishes of players, then that means they don't care about the wishes of the players."  Let me put your mind at ease:

1) The rule is being tested.  Most players on the boards have not played enough games with this rule to make anything close to an informed decision.  I'm pretty much ignoring speculation posts.  I've liked reading results of other players' games who have used the rule.  Mostly, I've read things like "didn't really make a difference" or "it made the game closer" or "I felt like I had a chance" or "it was frustrating to have the Big Two in hand and not have the autowin that they usually give me."

2) The wishes of the players are not set in stone.  Opinions may change after some time actually using this rule, and especially trying different types of decks using the rule (Speed, Balanced, Turtle, Heroless, etc.) and seeing how they fare under the proposed rule vs. how they perform with the old rules.  You cannot seriously expect your old deck to perform as well with the proposed rule as with the old.

3) The wishes of the playtesters are not set in stone.  If evidence is shown that the new rule creates too many time-outs or lockouts, then I for one will drop my support of the rule.  So far, I've seen nothing that would make me drop my support.

4) Even now, the playtesters are not united.  They span the spectrum that the players do: from whole-hearted support to "this would be terrible for the game."

5) Playtesters have made unpopular decisions in the past that have upset some players enough that they left the game.  But that does not mean that the descision were not right.  One of those decisions was that Son of God cannot rescue lost souls that are protected from rescue.  If you were not here when that was announced, you missed some crazy fireworks!  It was far less popular than even this proposed change.  Yet the game improved as a result.  That is not to say that this rather unpopular proposed change would certainly have an equally positive impact on the game, but it does mean that it could be the right thing, in spite of its lack of popularity.

6) Redemption isn't a democracy.  It is a benevolent dictatorship, and the King (Rob) has some advisors he trusts.  Rob sometimes wants to know how popular an idea is with the players as a whole before changing big rules.  Rob has expressed wilingness to limit NJ to opponent's Land of Bondage, but didn't want to limit SoG, at least not without a Son of God that can negate and rescue a Lost Soul. 

If you read to the end of this, thank you.  Rather than pick apart my post and respond to it, please go play another couple dozen games with the proposed rule with a mind open to both sides of the issue.  Better still, try to break it.  See if you can create a deck where the new rule makes a broken situation.  We know that the proposed rule weakens the power of the "Big Two," and weakens the usefulness of the Lost Souls card, and makes players need to increase either defense or lost soul generation.  We know that it makes most games a little bit longer, but shortens games when no defense is drawn.  We know it makes most games a little bit closer.  Point out some things we don't know yet.

Again, I really don't care what you think about my post.  I want to know how the games are going with the proposed rule.

Quote from: Bryon on October 12, 2011, 11:28:12 PM

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).

Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.

Quote from: Bryon on October 13, 2011, 08:59:26 AM

Quote from: browarod on October 12, 2011, 11:40:57 PM

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 paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with

It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.

How is this post supposed to help, other than to decrease my opinion of your opinion?

#OccupyWhateverStreetCactusHQIsLocatedOn!

except thats just the point there being answered a million diffrent ways because nobody knows what the rules actually say since no one reads them. and new rules are only gonna make that worse

and thats a complete lie theres been how many debates not answered quickly that could have been solved by reading the actual rulebook not just the reg heck some of the things asked could be handled just by reading without needing to ask at all.

quicker haha maybe still often takes days when a rulebook takes a few minutes to get the same answer

ok so there advanced so is sog/nj to a new player when it says any and we tell them oh no it means any except yours thats still an added stress we really don't need speed decks are a result of poor design on the part of the playtesters but ive seen anti meta decks out there the solution isn't new rules its making stuff to encourage them and not giving speeed anything stop making drawing cards stop making cbn everything let the game catch up with itself

investment by me

So you're not going to #OccupyTusquitteeRoad?

well normally for me im in a game and need the answer immediately to finish the game

Quote from: browarod on October 12, 2011, 11:40:57 PM

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

Quote

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.

'

Yeah I could put more defense in my deck. Or i could just replace that one EE with Amalakites slave, still play my speed deck, throw in a few more soul gen cards and decrease my D even more, cause I'm not taking my offense out. Yeah there's some wild speculation in there, but there's also some good points and I feel like everything I've said in there is a valid point. And I'd like to not wait until this rule has an unfair effect on a major tournament for someone to say "yeah I guess I could see why this is bad" because by then it's already to late. this rule doesn't change anything except maybe screw over people in a tournament when things come down to LS differential. Please read my last post in that thread before responding, I don't want to repeat myself on two different threads.

I can appreciate the comments of this new rule affecting type 1, are we seeing a difference in type 2? Especially since I can count on my fingers the number of times I get SOG/NJ together to play before my opponent plays mayhem or A New Beginning, etc...

Most of the feedback seems to be coming from the ROOT testing, which is T1. If you would help me test it out in T2 i could build a deck (albiet a poor one) though LS drought seems like less of an issue in T2 as a whole

Quote from: christiangamer25 on October 13, 2011, 10:04:30 AM

yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.

*Actually in a lecture right now, didn't read the textbook*

I don't like steering players to the rulebook.  It's fairly old now, and any questions they have can be quickly answered by either me or you guys on the ruling boards.

Just a brief point: there have been several references to the rulebook as out of date or inadequate... isn't that the issue at hand?

We're working together to make a rule book that is UP TO DATE and FUNDAMENTAL in its ability to answer questions. So I have no problem agreeing with this point...  I tend to be wired like a Barnabas (go team!) than a Jonah (turn or burn!), so I'm probably naive... but I'm excited to help form a new rulebook.

With that I'll stop occupying this page with Rulebook talk. Let's bring more results (especially PLAYGROUP related results) to the table. ROOT is cool, but it's not the whole picture in the game of Redemption.