Cactus Game Design Message Boards

What qualifies as breaking the game?  What is so overpowered that we need to change game rules or errata some cards? 

Hypothetically speaking, let's say I have a type 2 deck that can win the game in 1 turn.  I'm not saying the first turn of the game; I'm saying that once I get the combo I play the cards to win the game in one turn.  In playtesting so far, I have been able to do this in as little as 5 turns (ok, so maybe it isn't just hypothetical).  I of course don't get the cards that fast in every game but I might average getting it in 8 turns.  Is this broken? 

I don't think so but I have seen many examples where people say something like this is.  Just recently I read a thread where they said Schaef ruled that Momentum Change couldn't return another copy of itself because that would be broken.  Apparently he came up with a logical reason to support the ruling but the motivation to rule that way was because of the supposed "brokenness".  I think the wording on the card would definitely allow the mutual return of Momentum Change and I can't think of any way that would be too abusive or break the game.  I would love to see any example that shows that it would.

I would like to know for clarities sake and for practical reasons.  In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament.  I REALLY don't want to repeat that experience.  I have heard people say that things have changed and they won't do that anymore but things I've read on here (like above) seem to indicate otherwise.  One argument was that it is not fun, fellowship, or fair to have one person sitting there for 20+ minutes while the other person plays their cards.  I have been on both sides of games like that and I understand and agree that it is not much fun to just sit and watch but there are some other factors which more than balance that out for me. 

1.  I really enjoy seeing what crazy, cool combos and strategies that other people come up with.  If they take the next 20 minutes to tear my deck apart then I congratulate them for a game well played.

2.  I really enjoy the strategy involved in deck building.  I don't get to go to many tournaments or play online but thinking up various ways to wipe out the opponent keeps the game fun and interesting inbetween tournaments.  But why should I invest a year's worth of thought, planning, effort, playtesting, etc. only to randomly have the rules changed so it won't work?  And if they break up most of the complex combos then what fun is there? 

3.  I really enjoy good, healthy competition.  I would like to keep my deck a secret for the strategic advantage and because it is fun to surprise friends at tournaments.  But how can I do that if there is no assurance that the rules won't be changed on me?

So it is worth it to me to sit and watch someone else play for 20 minutes if I can keep the enjoyment of deck building throughout the year.  I would like to hear what other people think!

Just recently I read a thread where they said Schaef ruled that Momentum Change couldn't return another copy of itself because that would be broken.  Apparently he came up with a logical reason to support the ruling but the motivation to rule that way was because of the supposed "brokenness".  I think the wording on the card would definitely allow the mutual return of Momentum Change and I can't think of any way that would be too abusive or break the game. 

I disagree with your conclusion of the Momentum Change ruling. The fact that Schaef referred to its "brokenness" is irrelevant. The wording on Momentum Change does not allow any copy to be kept. The "except this one" part of the special ability cannot be ignored because of perceived semantics. This is a special ability we are talking about. Unless the first one is negated, the "except this one" is still active which precludes it from being returned to hand. The second copy also has an active "except this one" that precludes its return. Neither one cancels that ability from the other. The only way to do that in Redemption is through special abilites, and "negate" is the only SA that would do that.

Momentum Change
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Play As: Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.

Unless you translate "except this one" to "except any copies of this card," I agree with galadgawyn that it is a rather poorly supported ruling.

You don't think the potential to use the same unstoppable combo every single turn because you always get to pick up your cards is an issue?  e.g. a pharisee/sadducee deck with Just a Hireling and one or two copies of Unleavened Bread?

In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament.


I don't think this should be aloud to happen because really if someone is smart enough to come up with a good combo that's unstoppable then they should be able to play it.

"Apparently" you are totally misreading my thought process based on what you saw on the thread.

Hey,

Redemption has decided not to create a general definition for "breaking the game" but rather address the subject on a case by case basis.  As a result, the only way to get a sure answer for your specific combo/deck is to e-mail it to Bryon, Mike, and/or Rob and ask them directly about the specific combo.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

It was an example.  The point was not whether that combo, or any particular other, is too powerful, it's about the exponential increase in power of any one combo when you get to play it every single turn forever.

When players found a way to cause the game to time out with only one turn, things had to change.  When players found a way to exploit side-battles to give the opponent no opportunity to play anything ever, things had to change.  You were complaining about having a deck strategy blown up on site at Nationals; isn't it better, then, to avoid the creation of these combos through exploiting semantics than to have to put up with that frustration again?  If anyone would support the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" approach, I would think it would be someone who doesn't want a rude awakening at a tournament.

Hi Rob!
I look at this like cards that say "this can be done twice per game" ect.
Like Holy Grail " Holder may convert one human Evil Character per turn into a Hero in the brigade color of Holder's choice. Holder is limited to two such conversions per game.". Maybe I have a deck big enough for three copies, but I only get two uses out of the total of the three cards. (Why three then? I won't draw one, one will adsorb a DON strike, one I can search for and be unstoppable. So, I get 2 conversions instead of one or , as usual, zero)

Same deal with Momentum Change "Return all Evil Enhancements except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle. •   "
except this one which one? Momentum Change. They are both Momentum Change, they both get discarded.

Momentum change shouldn't have been made period.problem. Did people see this comming or did they think it was funny ? lol  We have bigger hot dogs to roast here. It baffles my small mind to think that people think that the momentum change reccuring momentum change is Broken, but ignore the fact that monentum change is broken. Besides if momentum change could get back another momentum change that was played in battle I fail to see how that would benefit the player at all.

I believe he is refering to the if you have 2 Momentum changes, why play them both to begin with?

I believe he is refering to the if you have 2 Momentum changes, why play them both to begin with?

1 Momentum Change gets discarded after use, so you only get to re-use your Enhancements one time.
Under their theory, each Momentum Change would allow the other to be picked up, therefore you could pick up ALL your cards on EVERY block and play the exact same combination every time.

That's the issue being address Janisarry, what qualifies as "cheap" and "unsportsmanlike" as opposed to "good strategy" or "smart playing?"

I think the best way to avoid a "broken combo" situation is to ask the right questions. You don't necessarily have to reveal your whole strategy to see if it is legal. I know people who have played "combo" decks where you win in one turn, or set yourself up to win and prevent your opponent from doing anything. As long as no single part of that combo breaks the rules then the whole thing can't either. Recently, if a ruling is going to be changed it will happen AFTER nationals so that players won't have to change their decks mid-tournament season. This happened in NY when Widow was ruled Unique. Some T2 players had Widow in their T2 decks because she was generic so it was changed AFTER the tournament.