Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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 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.

You were put in a situation were anything short of start trun draw 3 end turn almost felt like taunting, it's fine

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on October 12, 2011, 08:58:58 PM

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.

That's one way you could rotate sets (and in my opinion, not the best).

yeah i have to agree with the amount of soul gen in the game this rule is only gonna make speed better

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.

Soulseeker=3
me=1

New SOG/NJ rule really didn't impact this game-a more defensive game from both of us.

new rule hurt me as I couldnt use SoG/NJ defensively.

He really shouldn't answer that last question until after his opponent's final game of the month, imo.

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.

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.