Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Given that we don't want to ban cards

I feel like Rob has stated time and again that Redemption will not have any banned cards. End your futile quest and complain about something more useful.

pokemon 1 decade YEAH! REDEMPTION IS BETTER! well anyway game is balenced end of thead.

I think that the most revealing idea about this whole thread is the idea that one can submit combo ideas to certain individuals with authority for review and analysis as to their legality. I think this information now provides those playing the game no excuse for arguing a ruling at Nats with the proverbial 'they let me at' Regionals, Districts, etc.

This game is a wonderful game that was designed to expose people to the word of God and promote a fellowship in that word. Sure it provides or supplements a living for some, but for those that play the game the rulings should never out way the importance of the fellowship. I myself wouldn't care if they never printed a new s/a or if I ever beat Tim or Justin or Scottie_ffgamer as long as I have the fellowship where we could bust into a testimony of the Savior at any time in the game.

I love the passion for the game but this game survives because of a much greater compassion for Christ. The only rule changing that I would like to see is the over 40 rule. If you are over 40 you can demand a new beginning to the game (shuffle all redeemed lost souls of your opponent) if someone under 40 is layin a beat down on you.

and i'm 11

I vote #3. Limit the number of cards played during a stalemate condition without opponent playing a card to 3.

then nobody will play king amazaiah

1) You cannot choose your own evil character to block your rescue attempt.  In other words, if you are rescuing against me you can only force me to block with a character I could have legally chosen for myself.  This would prevent you from forcing me to block with a character like Red Dragon when I am not playing crimson.

I do not like this option because it takes several cards and takes away all of their game play usefulness.  90% of the Limited/Unlimited edition cards have lost their game play usefulness and I don't want to add more cards to that list.

2) When you play a "withdraw" enhancement, you cannot return enhancements to hand that match the brigade of a hero still in battle. [Withdraw enhancements were designed to salvage something from a failed battle, not perpetually play and return the same enhancements over and over].

I don't like this option because it creates a rule that is totally opposite to what 'withdraw and return' cards say in their special ability.  Special abilities are supposed to override normal game rules so this would be the opposite of that standard for any CCG.

3)  Instead of either of the above which deal with a specific ability type (withdraw or choose the blocker), we make a more general rule that in a stalemate situation if your opponent continuously passes initiative, there is a cap on how many cards you can play.  Back to the Red Dragon example, you set up a stalemate and since I don't play crimson I must keep passing initiative after you play a card.  In this situation you would be limited to how many cards you can play before battle is resolved.  The limit would be some number yet to be determined (3 cards, 5 cards, 7 cards).

Of the three this is that one that I would choose, however, I still don't really like it.  It would work but, eh.

I feel like their have been a steady influx of cards that counter choose the blocker very well.  As long as this continues I do not feel that any of the above options for rule changes are needed.  Shoot, I would sooner redefine banding than make these other changes.  If we make it so that The Darkness is not a 'banding card' then that would go a long way to helping the situation.

Sean

Having played a deck at last years Nats that matches Rob's description, I don't really see the point of trying to "fix" them. The sad truth is that the decks don't win consistently enough to win a big tournament.

Looking at last year, I went 3-2 with my deck at both tournaments I used it in last year, which is about the winning percentage that I have come to expect. Using a similar deck Kirk Dennison made a nice run at Nats 2007, but ended up around where I did at Nats 2008. We can add Brian Cooper's Trust deck (which raised a bit of hub bub prior to last years Nats). That deck was played in two different regionals and didn't place in either. I don't understand the need to fix something that players interested in winning won't be playing.

In any case, even if these decks do need to be dealt with, each of Rob's solutions strike me as too draconian.

Proposal #1 kills an entire strategy (CtB) that is only peripherally connected to the problem you are trying to solve. Also, I am not sure that the concept of "could have legally chosen for myself" is very useful. One multi-color EE in your entire deck means that you could play any brigade, for example. If I were choosing the blocker, could I request to see your entire deck to determine who you could "legally" block with.

Proposal #3 also significantly weakens another strategy (Speed) that has little or no connection to the problem under consideration.

Which leaves Proposal #2. Of the proposals this one seems to have the least tangential impact. Even so, you could solve the same problem by limiting the proposal to "withdraw" enhancements themselves  This could be added as a general how to play for the entire category of cards. From experience, this change alone would be enough to kill the combo decks.

btw, galadgawyn, Primary Objective has been ruled for, and red_dragon_thorn (I forget if he's changed his name now) had built a theoretical deck that can do it. everybody said that it's perfectly legal, but impossible to get. so, this deck has been ruled legal. go ahead and use it wherever you want.

That is not my deck.  My deck uses what Rob is talking about.  Ironically, I have also been working on a deck with my friend Jacob, that uses the P.O. idea (which we developed indepently and found out later that other people were trying).  We have found a way that makes it very possible but we haven't playtested it yet so I'm not sure how likely the deck will be to actually pull it off in a game.  But this brings up a point -  Everyone is fine with that deck because it has no chance of working, right?  But if we put the time and effort in to make it work then it has to be killed? 

But, Rob and others in their grand wisdom decide whether these super wonderful combos which are guarenteed to win every game are allowed to stay or not.

I think many people want to kill these combos because they think they are "guarenteed" which I think is false.  I have not seen any of the super combos (like mine or MC) be guarenteed to win.  It is one thing to see the combo and think the "potential" is unbeatable but what happens in actual gameplay is different.  I would argue that the game has enough variety right now that I could build a deck that has a decent chance of beating any of the "unbeatable combos" out there.

I simply believe that even tho your super combos are celestial, they must not cause others to lose every single time - thus reducing morale amongst gamers and shrinking player numbers.  Am I mistaken?    Tho I admire cataclysmic deck designs and acknowledge the intellingence and know how that led to these combos - the game must survive without the top combo designers just ruling the ruins...  ...imho...

I humbly believe this is similar to a Socialist mindset and not in line with the Scriptural principle of "you reap what you sow".  The top players in any game (because of their hardwork and ability) are always going to "rule" unless it is pure chance or they are handicapped.  I think the efforts of top players should be rewarded not punished as a "problem" and "fixed".  I don't think it is a good "solution" to reduce the game to the lowest common denominator.  Compare checkers and chess.  Checkers is a lot easier to learn and play (so more accessible to noobs) but does not have tournaments or the following of chess.  While chess is more difficult and might discourage some noobs from continuing it remains very popular.  Why?  Or consider videogames - I understand that many people can't handle the hardest difficulty setting on games like Halo, Age of Empires, Civ, etc. but they have the option to play at a much easier setting.  If because some didn't like it, they got rid of the difficulty and only had the option of playing on easy then how much appeal would those games have? 

Are those who come up with these divine combos entitled to cause noobs and sub noobs to simply give up the game?  Give up the money to buy packs?

Who is more likely to buy packs?  The noob that might buy just a couple and quit anyway or the veteran players that have bought a couple boxes of every set and will continue to do so as money allows?  Who is more likely to host tournaments?  The noob or the veteran player?  Who is more likely to promote the game and teach new people how to play?  The veteran or the noob?

This doesn't mean I'm against new players.  It think there are many options for them: friendly games, type A, closed deck, booster draft, team games, and even the other categories if you don't expect to be in the top spots.  I think it is great when new players want help and "experts" take the time to help bring them up to a higher playing level.

If they get rid of these combos then what is left?  I go back to the same old 5 AoC, blah, blah, blah, decks?  I liked making it at first but it gets boring if thats all there is.  If there is a continued effort to make Redemption more like Canyland (which is very noob friendly) and less like chess then I don't think I'll still play.  This is not pouting or anything, it just won't hold any appeal anymore.  I love going to tournaments and meeting friends, having fellowship, etc. but there are many ways for me to do that besides playing Candyland (nothing against Candyland which I played as a child and will probably play with my kids). 

New players will also become quickly discouraged if they go to a tournament only to find out that they are completely locked out of the game on turn one every time.  I would suggest that a new player who enjoys the game will proselytize it just as much as a veteran player.  Just ask anyone who was with me the first time I played Dominion, or Queen's Gambit.  I do not agree with your assertion that simple Type 1 standard play is not something that should be reserved only for the l33t pr0s while the new players can just go play on the bunny slopes for a while.  That to me is no better than your comparison of Redemption to Candyland, in terms of having a nerfed game.  And I would remind you that there is no situation in chess where you can make it in the first turn or in a single move that the other player is unable to do anything at all and you can just keep making all the moves you want for the entire game.  No matter the situation, each player gets exactly one move at a time until the game is decided.

I am not currently in strong support of any of the proposals on the table, as I think there should be more time to examine the entirety of the situation and look for something that is as elegant as we can make it, and meshes well with the rules and the cards as written/intended.  I'm just asking that you have a little bit of patience with the process and faith in the people working to make it happen.  The so-called "powers that be" do not exist to smack down every combo that becomes a powerful game-winner, else something would have been done about ET/AoCP or similar a long time ago.  If a combo exists that creates a loop that basically locks out all options for the other player and gives them no recourse (e.g. Words/Sin in the Camp in T2), that's when the changes come in to play.  If anything, this whole situation can benefit from players looking for ways to abuse this to that extreme point and submitting it as evidence.  More brains on the problem means better information and better solutions, and if a larger group of players still can't break it, then it's just withstood an even more rigorous exam and we all know the combo's okay.

No offense but that seems like a silly statement to me.  Of course within the game it is "win at all costs" but that is the nature of almost every game that has a winner and people actually try to win.  Are you suggesting that people should not try to win?  Or throw the ball well until you get ahead and then deliberately mess up so the other guys have a chance?  Or just don't bother ever trying hard because you don't want to make the other person feel bad?  I would say those are not examples of real love. 

I think you are using a false dichotomy that says competition is the opposite of loving and caring for people.  You can (and should) have both.  There are plenty of Scriptures (like iron sharpens iron) that support the idea of competition.  I think the problem is not competition but unhealthy competition.  So while I'm going to give my best to whatever activity I'm in (like playing a game) I will still realize there is a bigger picture.  The game is just a game so if I try within the game to "win at all cost" but still lose that is ok.  I realize that loving God and people is far more important than any game.  This implies I won't cheat, steal, etc. to win.  I also won't verbally attack the opponent and be a poor winner or loser.  Healthy competition is not focused on being the winner but in giving your best effort to win.  Healthy competition does not focus on being better than them but in using the opportunity to grow and be better than you were.  It does not have a "win at all costs" attitude in the greater picture of life.  It does not sacrifice more important things (like your family, church, job) to win the game.  It recognizes that God is soveriegn over everything (including games and chance) and that there is value in learning and trying.  As part of love it "considers others more highly than yourself" and so even if it might decrease my chances of winning, I might help a new player with strategy or loan them cards so they can grow. 

Sorry if it comes across as a soapbox speech but I feel strongly about what the Bible says about these things.

I am not sure I follow.  Initiative would not transfer in the middle of a banding chain.  It transfers after the band is completed.  Moreover, after a massive banding chain, in most cases you would be winning the battle and not have initiative to keep playing cards.

I think he was saying that if my opponent came into battle with 40/40 banding chain then it would hamper the defensive options to play and counter that since they could only play 3 cards.  I think that misunderstands option #3.  Option 3 will let me play 30 cards in a row if I'm still losing the battle the whole time, right?  The limit of 3 only comes in a mutual destruction or stalemate situation where initiative is repeatedly passed by one player.

It is also about me watching you play cards for 15 straight minutes while I can do nothing.  If you think about initiative and why I created it, it was to prevent my opponent from piling on when he was already winning the battle.  A rule adjustment on this issue is in the same spirit.

 

Even with option 3 limited to 3, I could still set up a situation to play cards for 15+ minutes without the opponent having a chance to play.  If you want details on what I'd do, then I'll be happy to send them to you. 

For me it is worth it to have to sit and watch for 15 min. in exhcange for the hours of excitement in deck building throughout the year but I understand other people's dislike of it.  I would suggest several new cards that allow an opponent to play something in the middle of the 15 min. combo.  I would be happy to share ideas on how to do that too.

Actually, both galadgawan and Rob are correct that I misunderstood. 

No offense but that seems like a silly statement to me. 

I meant it to be somewhat silly, since I felt that your statement was silly. The "Spiritual Principle" of "reap what you sow" has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The Spiritual Principle is that if you choose to disobey God there will be consquences.

Your position does not even fit a worldly view of "reap what you sow," unless I completely misunderstood what you were saying (which is highly likely     ). So I will respond to what I thought you meant. Feel free to correct any misinterpretations.

To me, you are trying to say that if I am not prepared for masterful decks, then I get what I deserve (a loss or a 15-minute wait for my turn). That is not "reaping what I sow." I reap what I sow if I deliberately do things that will cause me problems later, knowing that those problems could occur. If I were to go to Natz, I really don't know what to expect since I have never been and I had not played any of the top players outside of New England (and now RR and Kirk). Any unpreparedness that leads to a loss is not "reaping what I sow." Ignorance is not deliberate.

I remember a CNN story of a woman who was carjacked late at night in a gas station. It turns out that the assailant was hiding under her car until she opened the door, then he rolled out and forced her into the car. Does the fact that she did not look under the car mean she "reaped what she sowed?" Is unpreparedness really a deliberate act?

Regardless of what you really may have meant, since we are not talking about deliberate disobedience of God, we are not talking about the "Scriptural Principle." I felt that comment was crossing the line, that is why I said what I said. Silly comment for silly comment, as it were.