Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Online Gaming => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Online Official Tournament (ROOT) => Topic started by: Prof Underwood on September 26, 2011, 05:33:33 AM
-
Please post here specifically with feedback regarding how the limitation of ONLY being able to take LSs from your opponent affected your games during the October ROOT :)
-
One thing I would like to suggest is that people be gracious with this rule change, that is, if someone tries to use SoG/NJ defensively and/or tries to win with no LS's in your opponent's LoB, that they be allowed to take their Big Two back. It will still be a disadvantage (since the opponent will know you have them) but since this is a new rule, even experienced players may forget.
-
One thing I would like to suggest is that people be gracious with this rule change, that is, if someone tries to use SoG/NJ defensively and/or tries to win with no LS's in your opponent's LoB, that they be allowed to take their Big Two back. It will still be a disadvantage (since the opponent will know you have them) but since this is a new rule, even experienced players may forget.
I completely agree with this being the expectation.
-
Praeceps=4
me=4
GG!
:)
The new SOG rule absolutely affected this game--
last turn score 3=him, 4=me
he is rescuing and I have 1 LS in my LOB and he has 1 in his LOB,
we have a good battle, and he wins the soul.
Tie 4-4, and he had SOG in hand which he easily woulda won with by rescuing his own LS under original rule.
-
I was playing a game earlier against Polarius in which he had me dead to rights but couldn't end it for a fair bit because I didn't have the LSs he could play his SoG on while he had 5 locked down in sites.
-
My opponent and I agree that using SoG/NJ would have delayed the game a little giving hope to the one that was behind. However, the outcome seemed pretty set by the time the Doms were played.
I will tell you this though. I wasn't as concerned about either of the big 2 getting "Mayhemed" because I knew i couldn't use them right away.
-
Agreed. would not have affected the outcome at all, he still would have beaten me quite easily but it would have given me a few more turns to fail to break through his defenses
-
The rule really didn't affect my first game this month. We both always had LSs available for the taking the whole game. It was just the taking of them that was difficult :)
-
If I could have played Son of God on my opponent's shuffler it may have been helpful in getting back some important captured heroes. However the game didn't last long enough where it mattered.
Kirk
-
You can play son of god on his shuffler. The only rule we're testing out is restricting players to only be able to rescue opponents souls.
-
Perhaps he means his opponent's only LS was Shuffler and he had one NJ could have rescued?
-
Little bit of a hiccup in this one. From my understanding this rule was supposed to make games longer and keeps scores closer, in this one it actually helped me win faster since he couldn't SOG/NJ his own souls. Because of that I ended up not even using NJ. Even with the speed deck I play he still got soul drought for the last couple turns, he rescued two I buried the two liner and got to use his shuffler on two more. I'm not sure one game is enough to cause a lot of worry about it, could be a minor hiccup but it definitely backfired this game
-
A major problem is that he was using Shuffler. Shuffler is just a huge liability with the test rule.
-
A major problem is that he was using Shuffler. Shuffler is just a huge liability with the test rule.
Not necassarily, If i have 5 lost souls in my Land of Bondage it's still useful to get them off the board and even more so now that I have to draw to, not drawing 2 between the two of us
-
The issue never came up. I never even had SOG/NJ in hand ever and if he did never had to play them. He killed off my offense and we both killed each others defense off. Really, negating my site block with Wheel became the decider.
-
In my game tonight, the LS rule worked as intended. My opponent got to an early lead, but then my LoB ran out of souls for a while, and it gave me time to come back. I still ended up losing, but it was closer than it probably would've been, and therefore was more fun :)
-
In my most recent ROOT game, the rule change didn't matter at all in the game. It did, however, influence the type of deck I used.
-
While it didn't influence who won, it made it a much tenser game. It's incredibly irritating to have SoG in hand with 4 redeemed, and your opp can't draw souls.
-
While it didn't influence who won, it made it a much tenser game.
I agree. While I was the one who benefited most from the rule, I still don't know how I feel about it. We were both playing fast decks, with mine a bit more designed to abuse the rule, but I had to slow down significantly in order to benefit the most, so I guess that's a positive. The downside I see is that I don't think it will really hurt speed, so much as just change it slightly to accomodate the rule.
-
Use Watertomb and you'll be completely unaffected by the rule.
-
It hasn't affected me in any of the games I've played with it (including some non-ROOT games), however, I am fully and completely against it. As has been mentioned several times, it won't stop speed, merely change it slightly, and in the mean time, you're effectively encouraging luck over skill.
-
you're effectively encouraging luck over skill.
Exactly. I foresee a vast increase in the number of games that are determined by soul drought.
-
As has been mentioned several times, it won't stop speed
I foresee a vast increase in the number of games that are determined by soul drought.
This just doesn't make any sense. One the one hand people are saying this won't affect speed. On the other hand they are saying that LS drought slows things down. LS drought will NEVER slow down a defense heavy deck, because they don't really attack until later in the game, and by that time the speed deck has all their LSs on the table anyway. LS drought is ONLY a problem for speed decks that get everything they need right away and then are frustrated that there is no LS to take with it.
Therefore, LS drought becoming an issue will by necessity ONLY hurt speed decks.
While it didn't influence who won, it made it a much tenser game.
This is EXACTLY what I'm hoping for. Tenser games are more fun for both players, and when they finish the loser feels like they had a chance. That is improvement over the meta the past few years.
-
While it didn't influence who won, it made it a much tenser game.
This is EXACTLY what I'm hoping for. Tenser games are more fun for both players, and when they finish the loser feels like they had a chance. That is improvement over the meta the past few years.
No, they're not more fun. Intense games, where two skilled players fight it out using various tips and tricks to get the upper hand, are great. Games like the one I just played are tense because the winner will be determined not by skill, but by factors outside of the players control.
And speed still is king, because while I'll draw all my souls, I also draw all my soul manipulation.
-
games, where two skilled players fight it out using various tips and tricks to get the upper hand, are great. Games like the one I just played are tense because the winner will be determined not by skill, but by factors outside of the players control.
I disagree. If LS drought was making your game intense, then it was because you were playing a speed deck that already gotten close to winning, but the lack of LSs was preventing it. Your opponent was coming back because you didn't have enough defense to stop them. That situation is entirely within your control at the deck-building stage. You should learn from that experience that your deck needs more defense so that while you're waiting for LSs to show up you can keep your opponent from catching up to your lead.
And more players making that adjustment means less speed, and more fun balanced games. Woot!
-
Rather than adjusting for more defense, I just put in more soul generation and it worked like a charm.
-
Rather than adjusting for more defense, I just put in more soul generation and it worked like a charm.
Considering that almost all the LS generation depends on ECs, it won't do you any good if you play against a defense-heavy deck that never attacks until the end (and when it does attack your LS-generating-ECs won't work anyway).
For the first time in a LONG time I really think that having a deck that is virtually all offense is at a disadvantage compared to a deck that is more balanced and has enough defense to hold off an opponent until the LSs naturally become available. And if the new SoG/NJ rule is implemented, this will only become MORE true.
-
Mark, you assume too much about several points.
1) most LS generation can be done by ECs but you don't have to rely on your opponents->side battles help with the EC part too.
2) not everyone wants a lot of defense it can be considered slow, boring, and will have lots of timeouts.
3) Timeouts frustrate almost everyone. If you want balance, then you should check out T2 instead of trying to make T1 look more like T2.
4) the game is about rescuing lost souls...not sitting across from each other for hours only to have no one win.
-
LS generation is not based on EC's at all. Using Woman at the Well gets you one, using Water Jar will almost certainly get you at least one, both of those circumvent Hopper to make your opponent's total souls 8, Generous Widow gives you a chance on their D2 (and a chance for your hopper or revealer on your D2(4 with Gifts up)), Martha gives you a chance on your opponent's D1 and your D1 or 2, Hospitality of Martha gives you a chance on your and opponent's D3 (your D6 with Gifts), and you have your own Hopper, Revealer, and Harvest Time.
The only way I could possibly see this having a positive effect is with the Dom cap also in place. Then, if you go 57 for the 8th dom, you're very likely to have a soul and you lose 3 of your doms (one of which will likely be Harvest Time), and if you go 50 for sheer speed, you lose 4 doms. Otherwise, this rule basically necessitates water tomb.
-
Considering that almost all the LS generation depends on ECs, it won't do you any good if you play against a defense-heavy deck that never attacks until the end (and when it does attack your LS-generating-ECs won't work anyway).
This is not even remotely true. In my deck, there are 6 cards that can usually generate souls, and another one that sometimes does, and only one of them is evil. And not only that, with just a few slight modifications, all of them fit perfectly into the rest of the deck. The new rule has only helped that deck, which has a grand total of 10 evil cards (half of them dominants).
LS generation is not based on EC's at all. Using Woman at the Well gets you one, using Water Jar will almost certainly get you at least one, both of those circumvent Hopper to make your opponent's total souls 8, Generous Widow gives you a chance on their D2 (and a chance for your hopper or revealer on your D2(4 with Gifts up)), Martha gives you a chance on your opponent's D1 and your D1 or 2, Hospitality of Martha gives you a chance on your and opponent's D3 (your D6 with Gifts), and you have your own Hopper, Revealer, and Harvest Time.
The only way I could possibly see this having a positive effect is with the Dom cap also in place. Then, if you go 57 for the 8th dom, you're very likely to have a soul and you lose 3 of your doms (one of which will likely be Harvest Time), and if you go 50 for sheer speed, you lose 4 doms. Otherwise, this rule basically necessitates water tomb.
Now that Polarius has stated what I had hoped wasn't as obvious, I might as well be more specific: Woman at the Well, Samaritan Water Jar, and The Thankful Leper (which can often basically get 2 LS's to rescue for SoG/NJ by recurring your opponent's buried 2/3 Liner) are only three cards that can fit very well into a Samuel deck (both of the Heroes can play Edict, with TTL making it CBN in some cases, and throwing in Ambush the City makes them even more useful).
-
Yeah, all this rule has done so far is make me mad that I can't rescue souls because I have souls and my opponent does not. All it does it make speed v speed even more luck based, if that were possible.
-
Yeah, all this rule has done so far is make me mad that I can't rescue souls because I have souls and my opponent does not. All it does it make speed v speed even more luck based, if that were possible.
If you have souls and you opponent does not, then probably you are going through your deck faster than they are. That's your choice to make a speed deck.
As for the comments about making LSs with offense, I'll agree that there are options there, but I still prefer those options to traditional speed when I'm trying to block. I'd much rather be having to stop a RA from Woman at the Well for instance than I would from Joseph, or Thad, or the TGT girls all banded together, or Phineas, etc.
-
So basically, the logic is we should change a long-standing game rule to stop a strategy that was made stronger with the last set? Wouldn't the better option be - I don't know - not print fast cards for a while? When stuff like Sam gets printed, you really just have to either ban the card or roll with it. Changing major game rules to compensate does not a good foundation make.
-
I believe the stated intent of this was to nerf NJ, a card that's been out long before most of us were even playing. Just because we took it and decided it meant "nerf speed" doesn't mean that the rule was intended to do so. I still say just ban NJ or go with the 8/60 upsize, but eh.
-
Regardless of the original stated intent, the argument has essentially become centered on the effects this ruling would have on speed. Even if this wasn't the case, I think my main point still stands: Changing game rules rather than just banning cards doesn't suddenly make something more fun, it effectively creates the same slippery slope that people bring up whenever banning cards is mentioned.
-
I think we're missing a crucial point here. If this rule goes into effect, John Earley will become the best deckbuilder of all time. We as a community need to come together and realize that one of the biggest, no, the biggest effect of this change is that our greatest living legend will be a guy who carries a stuffed penguin around. Do we really want this? We cannot let this happen! Vote No!
/Nothing against RDT.
//Stupid watergarden...
///If it weren't for him, I'd be undefeated against Elders in T1-2P.
-
So far the new rule has only come into play once in my ROOT games, and it was indirectly. I made a bad call based on the new rule and fear of my opponent not drawing souls, which possibly cost me the game. I remain avidly against the rule, as the biggest impact will be it will encourage luck over skill.
-
rule worked as intended. game should have ended half an hour before it did and would have been 5-0 instead of 5-2. the only downside I can see to this is in tournaments that get decided based on LS deferential.
-
rule worked as intended. game should have ended half an hour before it did and would have been 5-0 instead of 5-2. the only downside I can see to this is in tournaments that get decided based on LS deferential.
I agree on with this. Honestly, I found the game more enjoyable on my part because I felt like I had a chance. Altogether I see the rule not making a huge difference most of the time and when it does it will be against the most inexperienced. Most of the time, soul drought of epic proportions like this game doesnt happen
-
Most of the time, soul drought of epic proportions like this game doesnt happen
Honestly, I think it happens more often than people think or even realize. Lost Soul drought is the #1 reason games that I've witnessed go longer than they could, even with the soul generation of the pre-2011 set era. I honestly don't see this rule doing anything but making that worse.
I don't necessarily think it's fair to the ahead player if they can't use the cards in their hand the way they say they can be used just to end up winning anyway but with a lower differential X amount of time later. Sure the behind player might have more fun if they get to play longer, but I doubt the ahead player would (I know I wouldn't in that position, I would just be frustrated) so who are we to decide that the behind player deserves to have more fun than the ahead player?
Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.
-
If you're wondering how the ahead player feels, it was the most frustrating thing in any game of redemption of my life to sit there with SOG/NJ in hand with 3 lost souls and having to wait a total of 7 more turns before I actually won and watching my opponent use her SOG/NJ to hurt my differential. She was definitely having fun torturing me over soul drought but I was not enjoying it thinking of the fact that I already have one loss this month so the only chance I have of wining the month is if every loses at least on game and it comes down to soul differential, at i lost 2 on that differential because of this rule
-
I understand people's frustration with lower LS differential, but it is similar to when the rule changed a couple years ago to limit people's LSs to 5 in T1. That also kept people from racking up high LS differential, but because it applied to everyone it balanced out. This would have the same affect. Everyone's differential should go down proportionately so it all evens out.
And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.
-
I think we're missing a crucial point here. If this rule goes into effect, John Earley will become the best deckbuilder of all time. We as a community need to come together and realize that one of the biggest, no, the biggest effect of this change is that our greatest living legend will be a guy who carries a stuffed penguin around. Do we really want this? We cannot let this happen! Vote No!
/Nothing against RDT.
//Stupid watergarden...
///If it weren't for him, I'd be undefeated against Elders in T1-2P.
Haha, While I agree that it would seem to make a deck after my style the ideal choice, I wouldn't say that there's any possible way that I am, or could ever be 'Our greatest living legend'. It is true that I carry around a stuffed penguin, and I personally feel that should be enough on its own ;)
-
I understand people's frustration with lower LS differential, but it is similar to when the rule changed a couple years ago to limit people's LSs to 5 in T1. That also kept people from racking up high LS differential, but because it applied to everyone it balanced out. This would have the same affect. Everyone's differential should go down proportionately so it all evens out.
And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.
Did the limitation to 5 cause players to lose due to luck?
-
But in the case of the LS limit, that truly is universal. it doesn't matter what actually happens in the game you can only rescue 5 LSs. This rule doesn't effect you at all, unless your opponent goes 7 turns without drawing the LS you need to win. Then it does. And that doesn't happen every game, but if you have a 2 way tie for first place and one of the people had a game like there and the other didn't you have a problem. The rule didn't apply to both of them equally.
-
In one game, the proposed change almost cost me the game. My opponent was playing speed and in spite of my Harvest Time, Hopper, and Revealer he had almost no souls available all game. I quickly went up 3-1 against his flimsy defense, but by the time he had drawn any LS's my defense had been obliterated by an entire deck of offense. If his drought had continued one more turn I would have lost because of the rule.
From my experience, all the rule does is either force you to play water tomb or brave it out, cause 5-0 games to become 5-2 games, and make soul drought an even bigger luck factor.
-
And just like the LS limit of 5 helped people not feel so blown out in games, this rule will also help the loser of a game to feel like they had more of a chance. That is good for the health of any game. The winners keep playing because their winning. The losers need to feel like they at least have a chance, or they won't come back.
I don't even have a sarcastic example for this. It's horrible logic, and can be applied to banning anyone who's ever placed in a district or higher tournament from ever playing in a local. Likewise, players should have at least two years of experience and have won at least 10 locals before they should be permitted to play in a State level tournament, lest they get defeated and decide to drop the game. I know nobody cares, but the implementation of this rule would probably make me lose interest in Redemption entirely.
-
My goal is to win a legit real time game, not RTS, at least once. Still havent yet but have come so close
^This. Still hasn't won a real game, but keeps at it. She's got the potential to be one of the best players in my group.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYcW1nEsGk
-
I know nobody cares, but the implementation of this rule would probably make me lose interest in Redemption entirely.
I would care. I hate to see people lose hobbies because something or another makes it not enjoyable anymore for them.
-
Eh, if the only thing keeping you playing Redemption is being able to rescue your own souls with SoG/NJ, it's probably a tenuous hobby at best.
-
Well, it's a combination of two things. On the game play front, it would force a sudden shift in the meta in a direction I really don't want to see it go. This isn't a, "WELL IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT THEN I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME" sort of thing, I just won't have as much fun with the game this season, and I can see my interest waning if the game heads in that direction. On the politics front, it would show a blatant disregard for the popular opinion of the ruling, so deciding to do it anyways would tell a lot about the Elders in general (I'm not saying they would do this - I would honestly be shocked, especially since not many of them are as sold as Underwood is on the idea). Plus, I've been avidly against the idea of changing rules to compensate for bad playtesting decisions since this first became a discussion.
-
I will probably get yelled at for making this suggestion, but what is to stop you from putting some EC that get put into opponents LOB? There was alot of factors that contributed to the 5-2 game I played against lp670sv. If he had kept blocking every time I RA'd with the same character I would have never gotten the SOG/NJ combo. I had to search for SOG and he was literally in the bottom three cards in my deck. Strategy really came into play here. Also, if everyone is getting screwed over sometime by this rule, it evens out. No one has an unfair advantage or disadvantage. In all honesty, so far it looks like the worst thing that has happend because of this rule is top players are winning 5-2 instead of 5-0....
-
I think we could all agree though that if someone got screwed over by the rule in a Nats game it's not the same as it coming up in ROOT, a local, or a casual game. Would having soul gen in my deck helped? of course. My other deck has an Amalekites slave in it instead of fallen warrior, i wish i had used that instead, but forcing everyone to tech for soul gen isn't a great thing either. Also, you still would have got it if I had kept blocking with Goliath, he doesn't prevent search abilities. The only thing I could have done different was block with fallen warrior and played overwhelmed by phillies but that would have only staled you from using search for one more turn. that was my only character that would've gotten immediate inish.
-
Fair enough. Also, if you felt I was taunting you with lack of lost souls, i was totally not trying to do that. I felt so bad actually because I knew that the game was beeing crazily drawn out when ordinarily it didnt have to be. Im actually not a fan of the proposed rule either because sometimes my best defense is SOG/NJ/Burial in quick succession. However, I will conceed to the powers that be if they decide to change the rule permanently and strategize accordingly.
-
Fair enough. Also, if you felt I was taunting you with lack of lost souls, i was totally not trying to do that. I felt so bad actually because I knew that the game was beeing crazily drawn out when ordinarily it didnt have to be. Im actually not a fan of the proposed rule either because sometimes my best defense is SOG/NJ/Burial in quick succession. However, I will conceed to the powers that be if they decide to change the rule permanently and strategize accordingly.
You were put in a situation were anything short of start trun draw 3 end turn almost felt like taunting, it's fine
-
it would show a blatant disregard for the popular opinion of the ruling, so deciding to do it anyways would tell a lot about the Elders in general (I'm not saying they would do this - I would honestly be shocked, especially since not many of them are as sold as Underwood is on the idea).
It is interesting that you see it this way, as it appears to me that there is not just 1 popular opinion on the ruling. There have been a lot of comments both in support and also critical of the ruling. That is exactly what I would expect from just about any ruling that changes the status quo. In this case, I see this change as something that hurts speed decks (which are played by most of the players who have been critical of the change) and decreases LS differential (which hurts most of the players who have been critical of the change since they usually win). I don't think it is coincidence that I am heavily in support of the rule considering that I like to play defense-heavy decks leading to longer, more strategic games that leave both players feeling like they had a chance to win.
Plus, I've been avidly against the idea of changing rules to compensate for bad playtesting decisions since this first became a discussion.
Although I agree that it isn't ideal to change rules to fix flaws that make it through playtesting, I think it is better than the 2 alternatives (banning cards, breaking the game).
-
Plus, I've been avidly against the idea of changing rules to compensate for bad playtesting decisions since this first became a discussion.
Although I agree that it isn't ideal to change rules to fix flaws that make it through playtesting, I think it is better than the 3 alternatives (banning cards, breaking the game, set rotation).
FTFY.
-
FTFY.
Based on my understanding, "set rotation" is the same thing as "banning cards". In fact it would be banning entire sets at a time, right?
-
That's one way you could rotate sets (and in my opinion, not the best).
-
it would show a blatant disregard for the popular opinion of the ruling, so deciding to do it anyways would tell a lot about the Elders in general (I'm not saying they would do this - I would honestly be shocked, especially since not many of them are as sold as Underwood is on the idea).
It is interesting that you see it this way, as it appears to me that there is not just 1 popular opinion on the ruling. There have been a lot of comments both in support and also critical of the ruling. That is exactly what I would expect from just about any ruling that changes the status quo. In this case, I see this change as something that hurts speed decks (which are played by most of the players who have been critical of the change) and decreases LS differential (which hurts most of the players who have been critical of the change since they usually win). I don't think it is coincidence that I am heavily in support of the rule considering that I like to play defense-heavy decks leading to longer, more strategic games that leave both players feeling like they had a chance to win.
Plus, I've been avidly against the idea of changing rules to compensate for bad playtesting decisions since this first became a discussion.
Although I agree that it isn't ideal to change rules to fix flaws that make it through playtesting, I think it is better than the 2 alternatives (banning cards, breaking the game).
I fully admit that my current opinion of the rule was swayed heavily by my game, but not because it hurt me specifically. I'm against it because of how it could effect the outcome of tournaments. Your example of the LS limit isn't valid because that truly does effect every single game played, in the case of this rule we've played how many games in ROOT so far this month and how many of them have been effected the way mine was? it's the minority and it's not averaging out. If a player loses a placing at a tournament due to LS differential and would have otherwise won if not for this proposed rule that did not equally effect everyone how is that fair? I'm not going to win this month in ROOT, i lost my first game, I don't even really expect to place because most people are playing decks that somewhat tech against mine and I don't like switching decks mid tournament so I'm not changing it so in the end this is not going to effect me outside of the game I played but if I were undefeated I would probably be pretty upset right now that I might have lost a shot at first or at least placing because my opponent didn't draw any lost souls for 7 turns based entirely on luck and was able to use those 7 turns to eventually get SOG/NJ. Am I also the only one that doesn't really feel any better losing 5-2 when my two were SOG/NJ? To me that's the same as 5-0 I didn't make a single successful rescue attempt and never had a chance of winning that game. I get not wanting to have RLKs and new players get beat 5-0 every time they play, but maybe a better answer would be a better system of matching players at tournaments so the kid with the starter deck doesn't play the Gardenciples speed, destroy you in 5 turns with no remorse, has a shot at winning the whole thing guy. If you're not playing with the best cards you aren't always going to do well, that just makes sense what motivation would I have to buy new cards if I could win with a starter deck? It's a fact of every CCG but Redemption is the only CCG that doesn't require you to qualify for higher level tournaments. Don't get me wrong that's great that you can pick up a started deck and play at nationals, but it's going to lead to people losing very badly against more experienced players. Keep track of lifetime RNRS points and have tiers (known only to the tournament hosts so no one gets upset that they aren't in a higher tier or that someone else is higher then them) so that we can have open tournaments and not make rules that have the potential to swing tournaments in an unfair way and don't universally effect everyone the same. This rule is also still not going to hurt speed, I thought it might in the beginning but after playing with it I'm not going to stop playing speed I'm just going to add in more soul gen cards, which actually equates to even LESS defense because I'd be taking out some of my phillies to put in Amalakites slave, and slave barely counts as a defender when you just throw him in LOB like that.
-
yeah i have to agree with the amount of soul gen in the game this rule is only gonna make speed better
-
yeah i have to agree with the amount of soul gen in the game this rule is only gonna make speed better
I don't see it making speed any better, just changing it to be huge offense lots of drawing and auto blocks to huge offense lots of drawing lots of soul gen, a few auto blocks. It's not hurting it but it's not really helping it either, just making me even less likely to play a real defense
-
This is late, but as I reflected on my game with Drrek (and reading other posts about the new rule). I feel obligated to state how it impacted our game. *Remember, that Oct. ROOT is still going on and I'm going to try and be respectful to the secrecy of Drrek's deck.
The new rule impacted our game while at the same time not impacting our game. Drrek probably does not realize how much so.
First, let me explain how the new rule DID NOT impact our game. We were both playing highly powerful, fast offenses. His deck was just faster. There were always lost souls to go after. Even when I tried to dry it up on my side (more on that below--felt impact), he was able to produce lost souls every time to keep his fast, powerful offense ably-equipped to continue to push in. Fact: the new rule did not hurt speed or slow it down in our game. In fact, I was lucky he never drew his SoG. However, on the flip side...I couldn't use my SoG defensively either (NJ never materialized--if so I would have won.)
Now, how it DID impact our game. Remember, I WAS running a defense. It did not consist of autoblockers though it wasn't "huge" or "balanced" either. <-- A word to that: personally, I don't like playing big defenses (I've tried them). To me, it is slow, boring, and counter to my Christian beliefs...I will quit the game before making my defensive cards outnumber (significantly) my offensive cards--it doesn't seem right to me. I would say (without looking back) that I had roughly 7 defenders in deck and about 5 EEs. His offense was faster than what I could get my defense out...especially compared to how my lost souls trickled out.
However, the defining moment of the game was when I played "Divination." I had 2 capture cards that I needed in those 6 cards and 2 lost souls mixed in with them. One thought ran through my mine: "if those lost souls are out on the table when my opponent gets the BIG 2 then it is game over." Second thought: "I could use those capture cards, but burying temporarily-helpful cards will help me get to the more useful NJ or defense faster." Statistically, I had to bury 2 cards to help me to bury the lost souls. Ultimately, my defense collapsed to the more powerful and faster offense. My opponent constantly had cards to counter my defense because of speed.
Conclusions:
1. NJ would have still won the game for me had I drawn it. (Whereas Drrek would have won faster had his SoG not been buried.)
2. Speed is not hurt by the new rule...it just adapts. Why? Because it still can get ANY needed card, and more of them than opponents.
3. It made me feel like that I wanted more speed and not more defense. Since my defense wasn't stopping his Offense anyway.
4. Reluctantly, I will admit that I wish I had my other deck that I was playing all my other October ROOT games because it won the rematch (still just as close). Again, reluctantly, I admit the other deck is more balanced but it is consistently faster drawing. I wanted it for the drawing and not the defense.
5. My vote is still to allow SoG defensively and NJ in land of bondage. Having both for opponent's land of bondage is frustrating.
To date: my opinion is that balanced decks will have a chance (with luck involved in who gets the BIG 2 first) but fast drawing decks will continue to have the advantage.
-
AlexO and I's game was affected by the new rule. He woulda definitely won 3-4 turns before he actually did, due to the new rule. It gave me a few more turns to try and get back in the game, which I obviously failed at. :P
He made excellent game ending plays to pop some souls in my LOB available for SOG/NJ-age.
-
Soulseeker=3
me=1
New SOG/NJ rule really didn't impact this game-a more defensive game from both of us.
-
lost 5-3 against Redoubter. New rule wasnt even an issue. My SOG was discarded and there were plenty of lost souls to go around. Of course we both played balanced offense and defense which might have had some influence
-
new rule hurt me as I couldnt use SoG/NJ defensively.
-
new rule hurt me as I couldn't use SoG/NJ defensively.
Could you give a bit more details about this game?
Did you win the game? Yes No
What was the final score? 5-0 (5-1) 5-2 (5-3) 5-4
What was your deck style? Off heavy Balanced Def heavy
What was your opponent's deck style? Off heavy Balanced Def heavy
-
He really shouldn't answer that last question until after his opponent's final game of the month, imo.
-
He really shouldn't answer that last question until after his opponent's final game of the month, imo.
Since he hasn't posted a game in the ROOT thread, I'm assuming that this was just a fun game, in which case, I don't think he needs to wait until the end of the month. We don't even know who his opponent is :)
-
Now that I've played all my games for this month, I'll say that my feedback on whether Opp LSs only affected me or not is that it really didn't. Outside of my game against Prof Underwood (which strikes me as kind of an outlier) I had zero problem having souls to rescue. I was playing Genesis speed with 5 lost soul generators, and I rarely had any problem getting souls out to rescue. In fact the bigger trouble had been drawing SoG/NJ. It just seemed to me like the rule didn't really affect me or make me think I needed to slow down at all in my drawing and searching.
-
The new rule almost cost me against Polarius. I was down 4-3 with SoG/NJ in hand. He had shuffled a couple souls back into his deck a couple turns prior and I was left to wait for his draw to see if he would draw souls for me to rescue. He drew 2 souls I could rescue w/ SoG/NJ. If not, I would have lost due to not being able to play SoG/NJ on the 4 LS in my Land of Bondage they could target with the current rules.
Kirk
-
That game was the first time the rule almost ended up mattering. Kirk had a copious amount of LS's in his LoB all game, but I almost kept them out of mine at the end of the game where TGT would have walked in for my 5th. It is worth noting that I was playing fast TGT and he was playing a balanced deck, so the rule came close to hurting balance without affecting speed.
-
i need more clarity on this rule, can someone help me please? i don't understand this new rule
-
i need more clarity on this rule, can someone help me please? i don't understand this new rule
The new rule: You can never EVER rescue a lost soul in your own land of bondage even with dominants. All lost souls HAVE to come from your opponent's land of bondage.
This is a potential future rule that needs testing, so we spent the month of October doing just that.
-
well that stinks. that just defeats half of a player's defensive strategy and opens the door for the opponent to have the player in the palm of their hand and get the victory. as if this game was hard enough for me to win as it is, it just keeps getting harder every year :(
-
well that stinks. that just defeats half of a player's defensive strategy and opens the door for the opponent to have the player in the palm of their hand and get the victory. as if this game was hard enough for me to win as it is, it just keeps getting harder every year :(
Well its not a rule yet (and in fact may never be), and I think its a little bit of an overstatement to say it defeats half of a player's defensive strategy, (they do have to use their SoG/NJ on your lost souls so you'll have less to defend), but I agree it has the potential to hurt defenses.
All in all, when I played with this rule, I just ran a speed deck with soul generation and it seemed to work fine.
-
Overall it looked like this rule adversely impacted the game a small amount of the time, was a minor inconvience another small amount of time, and the rest of the time didnt make a difference at all
-
It adversely affected my game in ALL of my games just saying...