Author Topic: POLL: Preference about potential changes used in TLG Tournaments. (Read 17986 times)

uthminister [BR] · « **on:** March 19, 2015, 05:41:16 PM »

Please let us know what you think about the above poll question...

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2015, 02:34:28 PM »

The poll is live now, please let us know your top preference in the above options. Thanks so much for your help. I will be sending out a nice little thank you prize to one of our random poll takers. I will contact you if your name is chosen.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2015, 03:36:20 PM »

I am interested in testing most of these ideas but I don't want to cast a vote when I have no experiences with them.

Eragon5 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2015, 03:53:19 PM »

I concur with jbeers, these look like fun ideas all. It was a tough choice

. For future voters, could you clarify what cards would be limited/banned. Are you talking about something like a tournament where no dominants can be used, or only cards from certain expansions could be used? I think tournaments where all players are restricted in their cards choices could be quite interesting and fun.

For sure, a lot of these ideas would be fun to try. Happy polling everyone

.

Lampy 2.0 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2015, 04:26:55 PM »

I'm all for a mulligan rule. However, considering the way the game works, mulliganing would be interesting.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2015, 05:30:38 PM »

Will TLG tournaments be replacing Cactus tournaments?

Gabe · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2015, 05:46:59 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 20, 2015, 05:30:38 PM

Will TLG tournaments be replacing Cactus tournaments?

I hope they are an additional option. StarCityGames independent tourneys for MTG have been a huge success for that game. It would be awesome if TLG is able to offer that kind of support for Redemption!

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2015, 06:10:46 PM »

Is mulligan really winning?

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2015, 06:21:06 PM »

The TLG events are going to be an additional option as Gabe eluded to. With Rob's blessing we will be testing some or all of these ideas in the very near future. Once polling has completed I will elaborate on how we will be going about these ideas.

LukeChips · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2015, 06:24:22 PM »

I would keep the tournaments the same, just so you don't confuse new players on what to bring to what tournament.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:03:08 AM »

The thing is that TLG events are testing grounds for new rules that Cactus may implement in the future so if anything TLG events will help new players know what may be coming down the pipeline in the future

Also...if you voted, please reply in this thread with the word voted so you can be a part of my random drawing for a nice prize to one of you for helping me out.

Eragon5 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:15:45 AM »

Voted

.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:19:12 AM »

I voted. We have discussed the idea of the mulligan before, which I like only if there are stipulations related to drawn LSs being put in play.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #13 on:** March 21, 2015, 09:30:11 AM »

We have play tested several ways to do it and keeping drawn LSs in play defeats part of the purpose of doing a mulligan. More to come on that later though. Don't want to turn this into a discussion thread just yet.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2015, 10:59:21 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 21, 2015, 09:30:11 AM

We have play tested several ways to do it and keeping drawn LSs in play defeats part of the purpose of doing a mulligan. More to come on that later though. Don't want to turn this into a discussion thread just yet.

In that case it would matter, because I would recant my vote for a mulligan. I would never support a mulligan rule that does not keep drawn LSs in play.

jesse · « **Reply #15 on:** March 21, 2015, 11:17:05 AM »

Voted! Thanks

browarod · « **Reply #16 on:** March 21, 2015, 02:57:29 PM »

I voted for mulligan, but I have the same stipulation as YMT. A mulligan should not be an engine for droughting the opponent.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #17 on:** March 21, 2015, 03:27:46 PM »

YMT...I never said it didn't matter...just that we can hammer out the finer points later. I want the votes to be based on what you would prefer happening, not how you would prefer it happen.

Gabe · « **Reply #18 on:** March 21, 2015, 03:35:50 PM »

I've started a thread to discuss ideas for a mulligan in Redemption.

Also, I voted.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2015, 03:41:44 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 21, 2015, 03:27:46 PM

YMT...I never said it didn't matter...just that we can hammer out the finer points later. I want the votes to be based on what you would prefer happening, not how you would prefer it happen.

Then you are missing the point. I refuse to vote for mulligans if there is any chance that LSs would not be put into play. For the purpose of this poll (since I already voted), when the final tally is counted, just subtract one from mulligan (my old vote) and add one to sideboards (my new vote).

Ironica · « **Reply #20 on:** March 21, 2015, 04:13:16 PM »

It was between a mulligan and a one deck only options but in the end, I went with the one deck option. This should cut back on the "pay to win" style that some people use (spend enough money for three identical decks and rotate them after HP use).

The 2 out of 3 games is actually a tournament option as is so there's no reason to vote for that.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #21 on:** March 21, 2015, 04:24:18 PM »

Where is 2 of 3 an option that is utilized currently? I would love to talk to whomever is currently using it to glean some knowledge.

Redoubter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 21, 2015, 04:31:45 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on March 21, 2015, 04:13:16 PM

This should cut back on the "pay to win" style that some people use (spend enough money for three identical decks and rotate them after HP use).

Is this really still a thing? I'm not sure with the protection and instead out there that HP is such a huge card that it necessitates this strategy, and I haven't seen the strategy you mentioned be used of late...

I'm always for multiple decks checked in for large tournaments, though I could see cutting it down to 2 at the largest and 1 for smaller ones.

Ironica · « **Reply #23 on:** March 21, 2015, 04:34:47 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 21, 2015, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: Ironica on March 21, 2015, 04:13:16 PM
This should cut back on the "pay to win" style that some people use (spend enough money for three identical decks and rotate them after HP use).

Is this really still a thing? I'm not sure with the protection and instead out there that HP is such a huge card that it necessitates this strategy, and I haven't seen the strategy you mentioned be used of late...

I'm always for multiple decks checked in for large tournaments, though I could see cutting it down to 2 at the largest and 1 for smaller ones.

TBH, I haven't been to a large tournament in years so I don't know if that's still big. However, the multi-deck rule still favors those with funds more than those without.

Master Q · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:55:14 PM »

I voted for sideboards. I could imagine it being like this:

Your sideboard is equal to the number of lost souls in your deck.

You may have:
1 Dominant max (no SoG or NJ, Dominant total between your deck and sideboard can exceed Dominant cap)
3 Arts/Forts max
1 Site max (Site total between your deck and sideboard cannot exceed Lost Souls in your deck)
any amount of other cards

No sideboard 1st turn. Each draw phase, if the turn player has a Lost Soul in play, he may remove a card he owns from his hand or territory (except Lost Soul) from the game to take a card from his sideboard.

You should only be allowed 1 deck at tournaments anyway; with the sideboard you can mitigate your deck's weaknesses and lead to some more strategic games. This also brings up another thing that I think is important: Type 1 decks should be limited to 70 cards. I played a 150 card deck at nationals this past year, and while it was fun for me (top 8 ), it definitely wasn't fun for my opponents. That would also prevent sideboards from being too advantageous for bigger decks.

Best two of three would take too long, card cycle would be impractical, banning might be ok, depending on what would be banned. The only other option that really intrigues me is the Mulligan rule.

News:

Poll

What change made to a Redemption tournament among the following would be more desirable to you as a player and/or host?

Author Topic: POLL: Preference about potential changes used in TLG Tournaments. (Read 17986 times)

LukeChips

browarod

Ironica

Ironica