Author Topic: Breaking the game?  (Read 41853 times)

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #175 on: February 03, 2009, 11:52:02 AM »
0
A variation on Option #2 is the precedent that if a Hero withdraws from battle that Hero is not allowed to re-enter the same battle.  We could extend that to enhancements that are withdrawn from battle. 

I am not saying I favor that variation over cards withdrawn from battle don't return to hand until end of battle.  It's just another approach.

I like either of these options.


...The point is that it is NOT FUN to watch an opponent take a 10-minute turn where you do nothing but watch.  The point of the game is fun and fellowship.  10-minute solitaire turns are neither fun nor fellowship...

On that note, I am hoping something can be done to remove the possibility for start-of-game, three-turn wins.  It happened to me recently, and although considered rare, I find it happens only slightly less than some of the other scenarios mentioned in this thread that promote NO fun and fellowship.  I have tossed around and tested some ideas but I don't feel qualified enough to be confident in those ideas.  I was hoping that many of the distinguished individuals on this thread could devise a good solution that is also good for the game.

Ideas??


Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #176 on: February 03, 2009, 11:55:30 AM »
0
No attacking if you go first or second player draws his first turn.

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #177 on: February 03, 2009, 12:14:25 PM »
0
A variation on Option #2 is the precedent that if a Hero withdraws from battle that Hero is not allowed to re-enter the same battle.  We could extend that to enhancements that are withdrawn from battle.

I think this option still allows for abuse.  It's harder to keep track of and enforce.  It's not easy to keep track of which Prosperity/Book of Hosai/Reach of Desperation/etc I drew this turn and which one(s) I returned to my hand.  As a judge it would be a nightmare to try to recreate the scenario to figure it all out.

I am not saying I favor that variation over cards withdrawn from battle don't return to hand until end of battle.  It's just another approach.

This seems like the best option to me.  It's easy to enforce, prevents the abuse of playing and replaying cards and allows "withdraw" to work as originally intended.

The only flaw I see in this option is that a person could still take a 20 minute turn if they drew the right cards in the right order.  It becomes less likely, because they would almost have to stack their deck, but it's still possible, without being able to withdraw a Hero.

If the intent of the change is to keep the "20 minute solitaire turn" from ever happening again then I think option #3 is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.

I think if we go with option 2, plus the cards coming in the next set, that this may be enough to counter the problem.

For all you spoiler junkies out there I'd just like to point out that Rob just said "the next set".  He also mentioned that it would have counters to this problem.  That doesn't necessarily make this years release a "set", he could be talking about a "set" to be released in years to come.  Since we know that he'd like this solved soon, I'm going to venture out and say that we're probably getting a new set this year, not a starter deck like many have speculated. ;)
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #178 on: February 03, 2009, 01:30:18 PM »
0
I'm going to throw my support behind the option to only allow Enhancements to be returned at battle resolution.

Sean
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #179 on: February 03, 2009, 01:42:29 PM »
0
"cards withdrawn from battle don't return to hand until end of battle" is an easy rule to teach and enforce.  If it also makes things work the way they were originally intended, all the better.  I think this sounds like the best remaining option.

P.S.  I agree that there are good cards for countering CTB mismatch.  I just wanted to take the opportunity to encourage no more cards that lead to CTB mismatch to be made.

P.P.S.  I think that when Rob uses the word "set" he could just mean sheet of 100 cards (like the last 2 sets).  A starter deck would also be made from a sheet of 100 cards.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #180 on: February 03, 2009, 01:43:02 PM »
0
On that note, I am hoping something can be done to remove the possibility for start-of-game, three-turn wins....I was hoping that many of the distinguished individuals on this thread could devise a good solution that is also good for the game.
There was actually a whole thread dedicated to this idea a while back (probably lost in the purge).  It included ideas like:
- the player going second in a game getting to draw cards, and
- "intro-prep" phase which allowed fortresses, sites, and arts to be put down before the first attack, and
- players getting a redraw of various kinds based on lacking any defense or something
- other stuff I can't remember

I think that some of those ideas had a lot of merit, and I hope that they were considered for the next version of the rulebook that comes out :)

However, I think we should really put stuff like that in another thread so this one can stay on topic.

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #181 on: February 03, 2009, 01:49:31 PM »
0
Our group stills plays with pre-prep phase in non-tourny games.  It has a few problems, but I think it makes the game A LOT more fair.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #182 on: February 03, 2009, 01:51:50 PM »
0
FWIW, "set" is typically used as a catch-all for "the cards that are coming out this year" and by itself is not a word that really means anything about the nature of the next... set.

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #183 on: February 03, 2009, 02:00:52 PM »
0
FWIW, "set" is typically used as a catch-all for "the cards that are coming out this year" and by itself is not a word that really means anything about the nature of the next... set.

Drat, I was hoping that Rob had thrown us a bone.  :P
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #184 on: February 03, 2009, 02:02:36 PM »
0
Hey,

...second player draws his first turn.

That's what we've been playing in Omaha for a while now.  It goes a long way in countering the huge disadvantage a player is at if they go second and have two lost souls in their land of bondage.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #185 on: February 03, 2009, 02:03:38 PM »
0
FWIW, "set" is typically used as a catch-all for "the cards that are coming out this year" and by itself is not a word that really means anything about the nature of the next... set.

Drat, I was hoping that Rob had thrown us a bone.  :P

Yippee!  Starters still have a chance.

Tim, I like that idea, except it seems to give player 1 a huge disadvantage.  He know is the last to draw and has the most LS.

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #186 on: February 03, 2009, 02:06:27 PM »
0
Tim, I like that idea, except it seems to give player 1 a huge disadvantage.  He know is the last to draw and has the most LS.

Not necessarily.

Quote from: Redemption Rulebook
The player who draws the most Lost Soul cards decides who will take the first turn.

If you really want to draw first you can let your opponent go first.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #187 on: February 03, 2009, 02:08:45 PM »
0
interesting, I didn't realize that the first player chooses who will go first....  I like it more now

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #188 on: February 03, 2009, 02:33:14 PM »
0
interesting, I didn't realize that the first player chooses who will go first....  I like it more now


The turn choice and 2nd player draw idea wouldn't have made a difference in my game.  It still would have ended in three turns.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a time limit for games rather than lost soul limit.  It would mean the end of speed decks, but at this point I wouldn't be shedding any tears.


Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #189 on: February 03, 2009, 02:36:35 PM »
0
I don't think that is a good idea for a few reason:

1.  It kills a lot of strategies that rely on lost soul limits.

2.  It requires plays to always have a timer to play.

3.  It hurts new players who take longer.

4.  And finally, it would have little effect because there would still be a lost soul limit because decks have 7 or more.

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #190 on: February 03, 2009, 03:41:50 PM »
0
Hey,

Tim, I like that idea, except it seems to give player 1 a huge disadvantage.  He know is the last to draw and has the most LS.

The player that goes first gets to attack first, the player that goes second gets to draw first.  There is an advantage and disadvantage to each.  And as Gabe said, the player that draws the most souls gets to choose.  Also, when both players have more than one lost soul after the opening draw, the disadvantage of having the most lost souls is fairly negligible.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #191 on: February 03, 2009, 03:53:37 PM »
0
The problem though is that the person who draws the most lost souls and gets to choose who goes first may have more lost souls to rescue the first turn than the opponent.  That's what happened in my game.  I drew one lost soul.  My opponent drew two lost souls, one being the hopper.  He chose to go first obviously.


Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #192 on: February 03, 2009, 03:56:09 PM »
0
I say it should not be the amount of souls draw, but the amount in your territory before the first turn... That could make hoppers a potential double edged sword. Draw it on the first turn, and your opponent could potentially go first.

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #193 on: February 03, 2009, 04:00:34 PM »
0
The problem though is that the person who draws the most lost souls and gets to choose who goes first may have more lost souls to rescue the first turn than the opponent.  That's what happened in my game.  I drew one lost soul.  My opponent drew two lost souls, one being the hopper.  He chose to go first obviously.



I completely agree. It should be amount of ls in territory before either turn starts.
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #194 on: February 03, 2009, 04:05:01 PM »
0
+1

Quote
- players getting a redraw of various kinds based on lacking any defense or something
A rule like this would never exist.  Right?

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #195 on: February 03, 2009, 04:17:12 PM »
0
Actually that rule change is in the works if I remember correctly.

Offline Cameron the Conqueror

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
  • Post # doesn't reflect personal theology. Retired.
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #196 on: February 03, 2009, 04:19:40 PM »
0
It can't be.  This idea is stupid.  So, I could include a small defense, draw none of it, then redraw?  This makes card strategy nonexistent if I understand correctly.  Were you referring to the Hopper or the redraw idea?

Cameron

Offline metalpsalm

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • The LORD sat as King at the flood Psalm 29:10
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • League of Extraordinary Redemption CCG Players
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #197 on: February 03, 2009, 05:39:20 PM »
0
FWIW, "set" is typically used as a catch-all for "the cards that are coming out this year" and by itself is not a word that really means anything about the nature of the next... set.

Drat, I was hoping that Rob had thrown us a bone.  :P

Yippee!  Starters still have a chance.

And consider this: We know that Mr Rob has taken inventory just recently in the "Fort Knox of Fun". The amount of stock piled old card packs would effect my decision, as a business man, as to whether to put out a starter deck, or one more tin. He might risk "tin fatigue" one more time to thin the inventory, but it would be a risk.
So, Mr Rob: What card set do you wish we would all buy en mass to get it off your books? I'd that for you...
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 05:42:44 PM by metalpsalm »
Official creator of the first version of Heroless, albeit the joke version  =] I wear it proudly!

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #198 on: February 03, 2009, 05:55:27 PM »
0
He might risk "tin fatigue" one more time to thin the inventory, but it would be a risk.

Fatigue? I'm closing in on Tin Rebellion...  :o
My wife is a hottie.

Offline metalpsalm

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • The LORD sat as King at the flood Psalm 29:10
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • League of Extraordinary Redemption CCG Players
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #199 on: February 03, 2009, 06:02:24 PM »
0
He might risk "tin fatigue" one more time to thin the inventory, but it would be a risk.

Fatigue? I'm closing in on Tin Rebellion...  :o
Well, I feel ya, but look at it from Rob's POV. Jeeze Louise, in this economy?  We're lucky there's even a game to complain about!
Anyway, the tins have their good points
Official creator of the first version of Heroless, albeit the joke version  =] I wear it proudly!

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal