Cactus Game Design Message Boards

-This is not meant to be a petition or an argumentative topic, but rather a discussion on the 2-3 Liner and banning cards in general.-

Let me begin by saying I'm not opposed to banning cards; they do it in other games for a reason. That said, I do not think banning outright should ever be the go-to solution to remedying problems for a game as small and self-contained as this.

However, in all my 10+ years of playing this game in all levels of competitive/activeness, there is no other card I've felt that needed to go more than this one, for nearly as long as I've been playing (well, maybe Haman's Plot, but that's a different story). The Liner is, in my opinion, the single card I could see being justifiably banned at this moment in the game.

There are a few cards I absolutely dislike purely because of how negatively they impact the game (one of the main reasons I didn't play it this past Nats). This is at the top of the list, yet I find myself playing it often purely for the advantage it gives and the mindgames it causes. Is that hypocritical? Perhaps, but I think it's also indicative of something more.

In most every game of Redemption I've played, either with or against the Liner, if even some defense shows up, it drags the game out and creates a negative play experience unlike any other. If it's reset even once it's usually enough to swing a game massively. That, to me, is a sign that something is unbalanced.

Unlike something like Mayhem or CoL, where errata and counters can be made to potentially balance out their problems (for what I believe), I cannot see this soul as anything but fundamentally flawed; a throwback to games without FA, without many special abilities other than single battlewinners. It creates a state where, if the opponent knows you're running it, the opponent must save SoG for its rescue, otherwise it will be a free block every time, at the same time sparing your other Souls from the powerful dominant. It is one of the reasons decks without SoG will be at a disadvantage most of the time, and as long as it exists it will remain a thorn in card designers' shoes.

The general "feel" I get whenever I go to tournaments or talk about problem cards is that no one enjoys playing against the 2-3 Liner LS. Thus, leading me to continually wonder why it's persisted this long.

So, some Qs for you all:

Would there be anyone here who would be sad to see it go?

Are there supporters for it? If so, how would you defend it?

What is the general consensus on banning cards versus errata/printing counters?

I'll preface by saying I prefer not to start a ban list. I believe it's a slippery slope issue where once you start the ban list, people will use the ban list as the easy way out for cards they think are too strong. However, I acknowledge that I tend to take a "status quo" or traditionalist viewpoint on most things in Redemption.

If a ban list were started, I would not be sad to see Liner on there (along with just a couple other cards).

Though I'm not a supporter of Liner per se (rather a supporter of no ban list), I would say there's still other options for reducing the power of Liner (some of which are already being discussed).

I much prefer the errata/printing counters route.

A thought on Erratas:

As the card pool in the game grows there will inevitably be more cards that are broken and cards, like the liners, that simply don't work in the modern game. So as the game progresses the amount of erratas you need to know to play the game will increase (it's almost impossible to keep them all straight right now as it is), thus making it harder and harder for a new player to get into the game, simply because of all the stuff you have to memorize.... This is why other card games reprint the "same" cards with updated wording and modern language (another thing redemption struggles with) and phase out old sets. That's the only way TCGs/CCGs remain playable. All good things must pass eventually. The liners are 23 years old! That's older than me The game has changed significantly from the times of strength/toughness and the occasional ability...

As said, I would not be in support of banning anything but the Liner at this time. There are many slippery slopes to be had; some of which arise by not banning cards, rather than doing so.

For a set rotation, that would be far off in the future, if ever at all, so I'm not holding hope there. I am not really a fan of suddenly having scores of unplayable cards (albeit, most of the older cards are unplayable currently, but a few I still like). With a game as small as this, that cannot afford a set of purely reprints, banning/errating individual cards is far more efficient.

It's far easier to explain to people that a card is simply 'banned', rather than trying to remember what the current errata is when the card in question does not (and will never) reflect what the errata is.

If an errata is simple (ie. Grapes of Wrath), then of course that's the way to go. But when something like ANB has been errata'd to death, the determining line becomes less clear.

I don't really feel like the 3 liner is a problem in type 1. Banning it virtually leaves no penalty for playing SoG and then TSC as soon as you get them. Besides there are lots of ways around soul manipulation now and a lot of variety in lost soul abilities to use to the point where I don't think it's an auto include anymore.


3 liner is definitely a problem in teams, but I feel like there is an overarching problem coming from all of the new lost soul abilities. To the point where you should probably be limited to one lost soul copy per team. Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless Copy lawless. The whole game, it eats so much time. I also feel like TEAMS should be changed from four turns to two, team turns, cutting down on time elapsed and advantage of a team that gets a fast start and can attack versus once or zero times.

I have always liked the idea of banning cards and have never bought into the slippery slope type (fallacious) argument that goes like: once you ban one card 30 cards follow. Banning cards is 100% more clear than errating cards cards and 200% better for tournament competition. There is literally no argument for not banning cards. Lets just admit it all comes down to wanting a no ban policy to facilitate a more user friendly came for a game that attracts a lot of younger players. That's absolutely fine, but I found out a long time ago that you can't argue against policy. It would be fun for type ban category to be a side category at nationals like ironman, I don't see any problem with that. Or even working with Mr. Mwejejdiwfj (not even going to try) to integrate type ban into ironman.

Quote

To the point where you should probably be limited to one lost soul copy per team.

That's another topic for discussion but I am very intrigued by that idea. 

Actually, this is a perfect example of how we get arbritary rules for 23 year old cards (way before teams)

As far as rotating sets, we need to keep in mind that a large part of the Redemption player base is younger players who may not have easy access to online information. Yes, playgroup leaders and hosts can help, but what is a host to do when 5 young/new players show up with decks that include a bunch of cards from sets that have been rotated out?

Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.

I am saying we shouldn't. Then, because of the one set per year standard, there's not a lot of variety for a set rotation.

As far as rotating sets, we need to keep in mind that a large part of the Redemption player base is younger players who may not have easy access to online information. Yes, playgroup leaders and hosts can help, but what is a host to do when 5 young/new players show up with decks that include a bunch of cards from sets that have been rotated out?

The fact that young players can bring a deck made out of any cards in the game means nothing if as a consequence of keeping outdated cards legal for tournament play they can't enjoyably play the game due to frequent rule changes and errata to fix/(in some cases remake) the old cards (which they probably don't know about either in your scenario).

Added to this is the fact that a deck made with mostly old cards (thinking priests and older) would in no way be competitive in most if not a vast majority of tournament settings because the game has advanced from those sets and power creep has had it's effect over the years as well.

If the reason to keep around old sets is so that the community can grow from people getting into the game using old cards then I think we are heading backwards not forwards. And if the answer to that is that the new cards are harder to learn with and that the cost is prohibitive for new players that's another discussion.

And yes if a group of young new players come into a tournament with decks containing cards that have been rotated out the simple fact is that the cards are no longer legal for tournament play. And quite frankly if a new player came to a tournament with a deck made mostly from priests and older cards they would probably not have a good time.

Quote from: TheHobbit on February 20, 2018, 07:31:02 PM

Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.

Producing multiple sets per year has nothing to do with the viability of set rotation. If Redemption used rotation then the playable years would simply be a larger range and/or slower rotation than TCGS that produce sets faster and rotate more quickly.

As for rotation making the scene "most exclusive" and unfriendly to new players, it actually has the opposite affect. Players would no longer have to buy old, expensive, out of print cards to make tournament viable decks.

 I am just saying that at a fundamental level Redemption is not set up to do a rotation successfully (small player base, card pool, and financial reasons). I think we would agree that a set rotation would add to competitive experiences and meta enrichment.

Quote

And quite frankly if a new player came to a tournament with a deck made mostly from priests and older cards they would probably not have a good time.

That's not necessarily true. The tournament I ran last weekend included 2 young players who are still in the "upgraded" starter deck phase. They both have I starter decks which they have gradually upgraded (using a mix of older and newer cards). They both had a good time, and one of my favorite moments was when Asahel24601 gave one of the young players a Goliath promo to replace the Unlimited version he was using in his deck.

I have no question about the validity of your argument in so far as it would prevent players who needed to use old cards (prob kings and older) to make a deck from playing in official tournaments.

Rotating out all sets kings and prior wouldn't really affect a player with an I/J starter deck at the bare minimum and perhaps $10-$40 to spend on at least some tin cards or newer packs from making a basic deck which could still be considered relatively old yet much better than a deck built with mostly cards from priests and prior.

New players could still play with old cards just not in an official tournament setting.

And as far as telling a new player that they need to use cards that are from a certain set or newer is that really such a bad thing that players will be driven away? As if enough haven't been deterred after spending sizable of amounts of money only to find out later that the complexity of the game due to rule changes and errata have made it too difficult to play in anything but a casual setting.


Most of the errata issues / game breaking / rule changing cards could be removed by banning if needed but set rotation is a valid alternative for a more long term potentially less complicated solution.

But there has to come a point where we can tell new players "you can't use cards from x set and prior in tournament play" that time will come it's just a matter of when.

Quote

If I come to a tournament and find out a 20+ year old card is banned, I chalk it up to not being knowledgeable on my part. If I come to a tournament and find out what's printed on a card is vastly different than what it actually does, I would be less inclined to trust the cards going forward.

What if the card with errata was also a 20+ year old card? 

In this example I don't think the age of a card matters. I understand him to be saying that large amounts of errata cause players lose lose faith while a ban list does not.

Another point on the errata vs ban list discussion is that in the case of a ban list, a player simply has to read the ban list and check "Is my deck legal?" one time while a massive errata list requires the player to know the effects of all errata'd cards at all times since even if they aren't running errata'd cards themselves, any card from that entire list could show up in an opponents deck.