Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 80187 times)

Prof Underwood · « **on:** December 28, 2011, 02:52:41 PM »

- Players draw 1 card each turn (instead of 3), but also if any player gets to draw from a special ability, then the opponent "may" ALSO draw that many cards.

- If a player decks out then they have to give 1 LS back from their LoR.

~~- If a player is decked out, then they may NOT make a rescue attempt (unless their opponent has also decked out).~~ This was done in Sept/Oct 2012

- A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a battle.

~~- A month with NO rule modifications.~~ This was done in Feb/March 2012

- # of GCs and ECs are limited to the # of LSs in the deck.

- Banning of NJ (or maybe NJ and Mayhem)

~~- Shorter time limit~~ This was done in June/July 2012

~~- ROOT Restricted (2 Good Dominants and 2 Evil Dominants ONLY)~~ This was done in May/June 2012

~~- Type 3 (60 card exactly, 6 LS to win, equal offense and defense, T1 deck limitations)~~ This was done in Dec/Jan 2013

- Single elimination style tournament

- Double elimination style tournament

- Up to 2 copies of generic cards allowed in a Type 1 deck

~~- Best 2 of 3 games using a "between game" sideboard equal to # of LS~~ This was done in Jan/Feb 2013

- "In-Game" sideboard equal to # of LS

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2011, 03:00:07 PM »

I detest the first idea. I'd participate (I love ROOT too much to give it up), but I wouldn't enjoy it at all. I'd build a defense heavy deck for it, but I still don't think it would be at all fun. I do love the second idea, and would like to see it first, though I fear it wouldn't change much. The third idea would need to be tweaked to "...unless their opponent has also decked out."

Red · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2011, 03:25:58 PM »

QUIT MAKING UP NEW RULES! Ok but honestly will you please let us play with the current rules and quit thinking of horrible new rules that change Redemption into a different game?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2011, 04:04:39 PM »

I'm not in ROOT, but the first rule is terrible. Someone suggested that heroes cannot rescue souls unless they've been in play for one turn, which seems like a good idea.

I have a few ideas of my own that I was supposed to post in my thread a few days ago, but after thinking about them I noticed obvious problems. Hopefully I come up with fixes then post them here.....

SomeKittens · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:26:27 PM »

-T2 month
-"Use any card from any TCG month"
-Type NW
-"Must wear silly hat while playing"

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:45:02 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 28, 2011, 05:26:27 PM

-T2 month - I really dislike T2
-"Use any card from any TCG month" - This wouldn't work with RTS
-Type NW - This is the closest idea to feasible, but this style seems to have died a year ago
-"Must wear silly hat while playing" - Cute, but wouldn't really matter

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:45:59 PM »

I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:49:25 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:45:59 PM

I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."

It's actually "A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a rescue attempt." (or maybe battle, don't remember)

SomeKittens · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:50:34 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 28, 2011, 05:49:25 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:45:59 PM
I like Alex's "A hero must be in play for at least one turn before he/she may enter battle."

It's actually "A hero must be in play at the end of owner's previous turn to start a rescue attempt." (or maybe battle, don't remember)

Turn works much better than battle.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM »

It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM

It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.

The way it's currently phrased allows banding out of hand. What's wrong with that?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:52:20 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM

It should definitely be "enter" not "start" in my opinion.

It's so that we can still band to stuff in hand or deck. I don't want to hurt Phillip or normal banding.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:53:04 PM »

Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:53:04 PM

Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?

*Shrug* It's not that good.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:58:19 PM »

That just gives Sam decks a pretty big boost I think, at least in comparison to other decks.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:58:24 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 28, 2011, 05:53:04 PM

Uh, Sam and Angel Under the Oak, anybody?

Depends on how that "start" discussion ended. This may not be possible.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:02:41 PM »

It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:06:45 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 28, 2011, 06:02:41 PM

It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.

I mind that. It centralizes the meta more.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #18 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:09:48 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 28, 2011, 06:06:45 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 28, 2011, 06:02:41 PM
It just makes Sam and Gen the only reasonable speed decks (maybe). I don't mind that.
I mind that. It centralizes the meta more.

It doesn't necessarily centralize the meta, it centralizes speed. I'm of the opinion it would not centralize the meta. I think balanced decks would be more widely used because offense would not have as much of a specific advantage.

Gen and Sam would only be usable because Angel, Sam, and Rachel can push characters into battle. That's really not that scary.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #19 on:** December 28, 2011, 06:26:28 PM »

Speed already is the meta. Knocking TGT and Disciples out of the mix (they're still good, just not as good) keeps Sam and Genesis at the top. Balanced won't have the same boost because speed is still king.

katedid · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:26:57 AM »

Im sure this idea will get shot down but what about a month where all decks must be entirely mono color EC and HC no dual enhancements or anything, or entirely all multi brigade heroes and evil character and enhancements. I think some really interesting strategy might come from that

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:39:22 AM »

Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #22 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:45:10 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 29, 2011, 12:39:22 AM

Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.

Genesis + Kings of Israel. All the time.

katedid · « **Reply #23 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:46:41 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 29, 2011, 12:39:22 AM

Mono color would be interesting, but it would pose two big problems. First off, brown would rule defense, since Gomer, Uzzah, and Plot are already found in most defenses anyway. It wouldn't be hard to add a few brown battle winners and Wickedness Abounds and call it a day. Even so, it would be a nice change of pace, and might encourage a few more bigger brown defenses. On the offense, I fear that Disciples would rule, though it would help some, stripping them of Passover Hymn, Peter (and 4DC), and Simon the Zealot, along with Pentecost. Disciples and Genesis (even without Joe) would likely rule the meta. I wouldn't mind seeing this though. Although, now that I think about it, TGT would be huge (but be balanced out by the mono defenses). Huh. I'm starting to like this a lot.

it because I'm reading your mind

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** December 29, 2011, 12:49:49 AM »

Monocolor is an interesting idea, but Redemption will of course never make a rule requiring that of decks. I'd like to keep the experimental rules limited to ideas that could actually be applied to the overall game someday if possible.

News:

Author Topic: Ideas for future ROOT rulechange experiments. (Read 80187 times)

Chronic Apathy

Rawrlolsauce!

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy