Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: galadgawyn on January 29, 2009, 04:16:27 PM
-
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!
-
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.
Wow, that would stink. I've never been to Nationals myself, and I didn't know they did that, but it sounds to me like it definitely isn't fair to change rulings mid-tourney. :-\
BTW, what combo did you have that was out-ruled?
-
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.
-
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.
+1
-
I would still disagree. I think that your opinion is poorly supported. The only basis for an alternate ruling is the word "one." Like I said, that is a semantic game. The SA says to return all enhancements. The "except this one" is an exclusionary statement that removes it from the "all." If this statement is not negated, then the exception applied to that copy is still active and must be completed. The same holds true for a second copy. It has an exclusion that is not negated.
-
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?
-
I meant that the "brokenness" was not the only reason the ruling should have been made. Several people have been harping on the fact that you said that and have missed the whole point of the ruling.
-
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.
-
BTW, what combo did you have that was out-ruled?
This was around 03, 04. It was one of many side battle decks that prompted the change in side battle rulings. Essentially you block a rescue with Reheboam and give yourself initiative in the side battle. You play a couple searches and then play Visions of Iddo the Seer to retreat all heros including the rescuing heros. The are multiple variations on that theme. Incidentally it is still possible to do that combo; it is just a bit harder now.
YMT - I disagree with your conclusions. I think the logic you lay out is one possible way to interpret the card but not the only or necessarily the right or best way. I think it could be interpreted that the "except this one" phrase is clarifying its targets and is not a protect or exclusion ability. In other words "except this one" could mean that Momentum change doesn't target itself but targets all other enhancements in battle; if another card (like another Momentum Change) targets the card and returns it, that is ok. It still returned all evil enhancements "except this one" which follows the s.a.; it is just that something else returned it to hand. If the exception is not a protect ability (or refers to all copies of the card) then there is no reason that you can't get it back.
The fact that Schaef referred to its "brokenness" is irrelevant.
No it is not. You missed the point. Apparently he started with the idea of it being broken and later arrived at the logic you decribed. It is possible to end up with the correct answer but I'm concerned with the motivation. What do we want Redemption to be or what are we trying to make it into? I don't like the idea of thinking things are "broken" or "overpowered" and trying to find interpretations to make them illegal. I like seeing different possibilities and would try to find interpretations or rules to keep it legal. Of course in both cases having consistency and the correct ruling is important. However, in many instances there is a lot of gray and your goals and outlook on Redemption can affect what conclusions you have.
-
"Apparently" you are totally misreading my thought process based on what you saw on the thread.
-
Remember that there are always more sides to any story. I think the real issue is consistency in ruling, which these boards are attempting to accomplish. The reality, however, is that rulings are passed down locally and stick. There are jokes that say,"That's how we do it in MN," but that is indicative of a real pattern. If everyone in MN gathers for regular tournaments and the main hosts make rulings, then that whole group modifies their decks accordingly. If I make the same deck in CT, but the hosts in that area rule differently, then I continue with my unmodified deck ready to stomp. However, when I get to Natz and play the people from MN, they say, "Hey, you can't do that!" They say that because that is what they were told, and they are rightfully upset because they changed their deck.
I don't know galadgawan's specific situation, but I would say that if you (I use that in the general sense) are preparing a deck for Natz, you need to play it against people from different parts of the country. That will provide a more likely opportunity to find inconsistencies. I know most people don't want to reveal their secrets before Natz, but waiting until Natz is only asking for disaster.
-
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
-
"Apparently" you are totally misreading my thought process based on what you saw on the thread.
OK. That is why I used the qualifying word "apparently". I don't know what was actually going on; I can only comment on what it looked like.
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?
Actually, No. I have found that many "unstoppable combos" seem so at first but upon further investigation they aren't. In this example:
You first have to get the combination of cards which is not so easy in a 100+ card deck.
Secondly you have to hold a minimum of 3 cards in your hand. That cuts down on other options or combos you can use. If you want to add other cards to recur and abuse with that combo (like search, discard, etc.) then that just adds to the problem of what you have in your hand.
Third you still have the large potential of your opponent messing with your strategy: anti-shuffle lost soul, AoC discarding all your characters, discarding cards from your hand to get rid of your combo, removing your discard pile from the game, choose the blocker, etc. Of course you can put cards in to protect/counter those but they can use cards to counter your protection. This is far from a guarunteed block. I'm pretty sure that my current type 2 deck would have a better than 50% of beating this. Of course I would be happy to test this if you hold another tournament and I get to go (sorry I missed the last one). You build a type 2 that abuses that combo and play mine.
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.
Ok, I can try that. Is there any assurance that the rule I'll get will be the official rule at Natz? I'm not questioning the integrity of these guys, its just that I've seen "official rules" get changed multiple times in one year and I'm a bit wary because of past experience.
-
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.
-
"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."
Can you meet us half way with this statement in that:
a) you thought (in good faith) that the combo was legal when in fact it was not
or
b) those us all that make rulings were not aware of the way the combo was used and had not in fact ruled on it until a tournament
I will be the first to admit that I have ruled on the spur of the moment contrary to the REG at more than one tournament. Even so, some players approach a large tournament with a strategy or combo in mind but keep it secret in the hopes of surprising their opponents. The trouble is that it usually surprises the judges too. I think every National Tournament has had multiple instances of Chris, Bryon, Rob, Kevin, Stephen, and Mike all holding a caucus to reach a ruling on something that Tim, Gil, Gabe or Justin (I am not picking on them btw, I am bragging about them) have developed in their late night game contemplations. Sometimes these players would get the combo "ruled and passed" by asking partial or cryptic questions without actually laying everything out in a clear, straight forward manner.
Given that we don't want to ban cards the only other way to get your official ruling that will "stick" for nationals is to spell out the combo with the strategy and implications in plain view for those of us that rule to give you a solid answer.
Beyond that I suppose you could just pray that the Lord makes me smarter than I am right now.
Cheers,
Rob
-
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.
-
Hey Rob! I think it was close to B. My friend Jacob was the one actually playing the deck and he used it at a few tournaments. Initially the judges saw it and everything seemed to be fine. I would agree that probably not all the judges were completely aware of what was going on though. As I recall, it was one of the reasons that sparked one of the changes on side battle rulings.
I'll send you as clear an explanation as I can without showing the deck played.
-
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.
-
You fail to see how there's a benefit to having an awesome combo and being able to pick it up every time and replay it every time?
-
I believe he is refering to the if you have 2 Momentum changes, why play them both to begin with?
-
Hey,
Ok, I can try that. Is there any assurance that the rule I'll get will be the official rule at Natz? I'm not questioning the integrity of these guys, its just that I've seen "official rules" get changed multiple times in one year and I'm a bit wary because of past experience.
Mike and Bryon are the "head" judges at nationals so if you get an e-mail from them saying your combo is okay, you should see rulings go your way on it especially at nationals where they are judging (although I would suggest printing out the e-mail and taking it with you to tournaments to show the judges because they might not remember the e-mail as well as you will).
Things have changed a lot since the 2003-2005 era of Type 2 (which is probably where all of your past experiences are from). From my experience very few combos have been ruled "broken" since 2005 and rulings flip-flopping have become much less common in recent years.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
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 rather cheap and I'm glad it has been ruled against.
-
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.
-
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.
It isn't that simple; I mean, first of all you have to have init, and what if your opp has Helmet of Brass or Angel's Sword or even is 1/1 or something? Also, every time you do that combo, the EC you use dies, so you don't have a completely unlimited number of times you can do this, even with Unleavened Bread or whatever, and if you can't get through your opp's defense, you might be screwed.
-
You dont have an infinite amount anyway. Only 6 times.
Well, what is breaking the game? Anyting that constantly wins in a little to no contest game and has no sufficient in game counters that are in viable deck use.
-
It isn't that simple; I mean, first of all you have to have init, and what if your opp has Helmet of Brass or Angel's Sword or even is 1/1 or something? Also, every time you do that combo, the EC you use dies, so you don't have a completely unlimited number of times you can do this, even with Unleavened Bread or whatever, and if you can't get through your opp's defense, you might be screwed.
Again, the Sadducee defense was just an example, but since you asked, Unleavened Bread can be used on a large EC to bring back the small ones constantly, who get initiative almost 100% of the time with Crown of Thorns active, and it's not like you need an infinite number of turns anyway, the game will end eventually. For whatever amount of uses of Bread you think is "reasonable", just add another Bread and multiply them. And getting through an opponent's defense will be easier if I only need to use one combo 80 billion times on defense, so the worst that will happen is I will time out the game by dragging it out.
You dont have an infinite amount anyway. Only 6 times.
Under the correct ruling, five. Under the ruling they are supposing, it is infinite. If you don't understand why, go back to the beginning and read again.
-
To me, what happens in Redemption is the best of any card game I've heard of. I recently had a lengthy discussion with my brother who plays Magic the Gathering. He told me (among many other things) how the 'big wigs' of that game simply ban cards from tournaments because of their strength. Rather than deal with the monstrosity they accidentally created (by not recognizing the potential of the card before hand) in a way that is harder, more complex, but also more logical (like making more cards specifically against it or coming up with good reasons why it should to be ruled differently) they simply ban the card. Now, I don't know about you, but when I heard that, it gave me just one more reason to enjoy Redemption. Not only do I get to enjoy the company of other religious people throughout the country and the world who enjoy the same things I do, but I also have great people in charge that are trying their hardest to make it all make sense.
How outraged would we all be if Rob came out and said, "For every official tournament from now on, Momentum Change is banned from being in any deck and being played"? And yet, for some card games, that's what they do. And I think, rather than complaining how something is ruled illegal because it is 'broken' or accuse as to thinking up logical ruling to support such, we should give our head judges props for doing their best at making the game easy, complex, fun, and have it all make sense in the process.
-
I like Scottie_ffgamer. His approach is bueno. I am also pleased with Rob's level of intelligence. His brilliance has caused Redemption to carry on for over a decade and still going strong. I understand that certain gifted individuals can come up with diabolical combos that fry simpler brains and the creator takes a certain pride in that. I should know, I came up with the Defenseless deck and it did rather well in it's day - haven't tested it lately, but whatever... 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 have been mesmerized by some of the absolute ingenious combos and methods one uses to win the game (and you all know who you are - G, S, K, R, etc). 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? 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? 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...
-
Hey,
How outraged would we all be if Rob came out and said, "For every official tournament from now on, Momentum Change is banned from being in any deck and being played"?
I would be thrilled, although there are several cards I'd hope would get banned before momentum change. There are advantages to not banning cards and there are advantages to banning cards. One isn't necessarily better than the other.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
There are advantages to not banning cards and there are advantages to banning cards. One isn't necessarily better than the other.
I disagree with my esteemed colleague. The fact that Redemption has never banned a card makes it unique among it's competitors and that has value. If a problem with a game like Redemption arises, then there are 3 ways to solve it. Tweak the rules to stop it, make more cards that stop it, or ban the card that causes it. Other games choose to do the 3rd option, which means that they don't have to go to the trouble to mess with the first 2. This is easier for the game designers, but is worse for the players who now have cards (and perhaps expensive ones) that are now illegal and useless.
Rob has decided to fix problems by doing the first 2 options. This makes more work for him and the playtesters, but is better for the players. People can still use the cards that they bought 10 years ago at a tournament next week. This encourages sales of older sets (which is good for business and makes FooF and RoA tins possible). It also helps prevent price creep which happens in so many other games.
So yes these are different, but I do think that one is better than the other. Rob has chosen to do what is better for the many instead of what is better for the few. And I think that is better overall :)
-
Hey,
I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards. I am not aware of any CCG (albeit I don't have the broadest knowledge of CCGs, but still) other than Redemption that doesn't ban any cards. You'd think that if it was clearly the better option that significantly more CCGs would have tried it.
I consider the following to be advantages of banning cards:
- Less frequent rule changes. There are other contributing factors to this, but Redemption's rules change much more frequently than other CCGs and part of the reason for that is to adapt the rules to deal with cards that otherwise would be banned. It can be very frustrating to a player when the rules seem to change from tournament to tournament and I have known multiple people that quit playing Redemption because it took too much time to keep track of what the rules are.
- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards. Over the years cactus has printed many "counter" cards designed to weaken cards that other games would just ban. Sure I don't have a stack of cards that I'm not allowed to play with, instead I have a stack of cards like Pot of Manna, Esther (Promo), The Darkness, and Lurking that I don't really want to play with because they serve very little purpose other than to counter one specific card or idea. Had that card been banned instead of printing a counter to it, it would have opened up spots on printing runs for more proactive cards like A New Beginning, The Amalekites' Slave, or Ambush. Would you rather open a pack and see a new card like Gold Shield, or see a new card like Pot of Manna?
- Less repetitiveness in top decks. 18 decks have placed top 3 at nationals in Type 2 - 2 Player since Provisions was released in June 2003. And 11 of those decks had at least two copies of provisions in them. If Magic had seen the 15 copies of provisions that were in the top three decks the year it was released it would have been immediately banned and players in the five years since would have had to come up with something original and creative, or at least something different to succeed with rather than just recycling the same old ideas.
The not banning cards idea has worked well for Redemption, especially considering the fact that Redemption has such a small card pool compared to other CCGs, but I strongly believe that not banning cards is not an inherently better design philosophy.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards. I am not aware of any CCG (albeit I don't have the broadest knowledge of CCGs, but still) other than Redemption that doesn't ban any cards. You'd think that if it was clearly the better option that significantly more CCGs would have tried it.
I consider the following to be advantages of banning cards:
- Less frequent rule changes. There are other contributing factors to this, but Redemption's rules change much more frequently than other CCGs and part of the reason for that is to adapt the rules to deal with cards that otherwise would be banned. It can be very frustrating to a player when the rules seem to change from tournament to tournament and I have known multiple people that quit playing Redemption because it took too much time to keep track of what the rules are.
- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards. Over the years cactus has printed many "counter" cards designed to weaken cards that other games would just ban. Sure I don't have a stack of cards that I'm not allowed to play with, instead I have a stack of cards like Pot of Manna, Esther (Promo), The Darkness, and Lurking that I don't really want to play with because they serve very little purpose other than to counter one specific card or idea. Had that card been banned instead of printing a counter to it, it would have opened up spots on printing runs for more proactive cards like A New Beginning, The Amalekites' Slave, or Ambush. Would you rather open a pack and see a new card like Gold Shield, or see a new card like Pot of Manna?
- Less repetitiveness in top decks. 18 decks have placed top 3 at nationals in Type 2 - 2 Player since Provisions was released in June 2003. And 11 of those decks had at least two copies of provisions in them. If Magic had seen the 15 copies of provisions that were in the top three decks the year it was released it would have been immediately banned and players in the five years since would have had to come up with something original and creative, or at least something different to succeed with rather than just recycling the same old ideas.
The not banning cards idea has worked well for Redemption, especially considering the fact that Redemption has such a small card pool compared to other CCGs, but I strongly believe that not banning cards is not an inherently better design philosophy.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
pokemon anser that it dosen't ban cards
-
I'm kinda baffled that you can say that not banning cards is better than banning cards when most major CCG's choose to ban cards.
And most major CCG's are no longer in print, or active. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it better. The fact that Cactus is one of a VERY small number of CCG's still in print and active from the 1995 era (despite its niche market and small size) is testament that is has done things right that other CCG's did not.
- Less frequent rule changes.
I thought of this, but here's my thinking on this. If a rule changes, it is hard for the people who were used to the old rule. However, people in the future won't know any different, and it won't continue to be a problem. If you ban a card, that problem will remain forever, because no one will ever be able to play it.
- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards.
Redemption has done a better job lately of combining these two ideas. They have made cards that have helped limit the power of something, while having alternative usefulness when that thing isn't there in your opponent's deck.
- Less repetitiveness in top decks.
I doubt that this is really a difference. I would imagine that if you looked at the winning Magic decks from the last 5 years that you would also see a lot of overlap in their card choices.
-
most CCG'S rotate cards out of the game for turny play
-
I submit that TimMierz's Genesis/Rome T1 deck is evidence that says Redemption is headed in the right direction in terms of achieving a variety of top-tier decks.
Two years ago, I used 2 T2 decks to win and neither had Provisions in them. Chris M. (who I played in the final round but ended up 4th) didn't use Provisions.
-
I think Tim's on point by noting the smaller card pool Redemption has available. I would also submit that Redemption doesn't reach quite as far with power cards as other card games. Honestly, even if a ban were instituted tomorrow, I'd be willing to bet that the number of cards that MUST be banned could be counted on one hand (NJ, AoC Promo, maybe Provisions, maybe ANB).
Tim's point about Gold Shield, I think, also makes the point for me that Redemption is already moving away from anti-one-card cards (all of his examples are five years old) and more towards cards that have a benefit to you, but as an ancillary benefit also happen to counter a certain power strategy or another. Gold Shield and Amalekite Slave being prime examples.
-
Hey,
And most major CCG's are no longer in print, or active. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it better. The fact that Cactus is one of a VERY small number of CCG's still in print and active from the 1995 era (despite its niche market and small size) is testament that is has done things right that other CCG's did not.
I do not equate longevity with quality. Redemption is not inherently better than other CCGs because it has outlasted them. I consider Redemption's small size and niche market to be as much responsible for it's longevity as it's quality.
I doubt that this is really a difference. I would imagine that if you looked at the winning Magic decks from the last 5 years that you would also see a lot of overlap in their card choices.
I'm not too familiar with top magic decks, but my understanding of the game in general is that you wouldn't find anywhere near the overlap you find in Redemption. For one thing Magic does cycle cards, so none of the cards that were tournament legal five years ago are tournament legal now. The other thing is that the Redemption player base is willing to put up with stagnant game play a lot more than the player base of other games.
Two years ago, I used 2 T2 decks to win and neither had Provisions in them. Chris M. (who I played in the final round but ended up 4th) didn't use Provisions.
Your two decks from 2007 would be two of the three I don't have in my records for T2-2P. If you wanted to e-mail them to me I'd be happy to add them to my site ;-)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The other thing is that the Redemption player base is willing to put up with stagnant game play a lot more than the player base of other games.
The Redemption player families are also are happier because they don't have kids buying a new pack, opening it, and finding that their one decent card can no longer be played in a tournament.
-
Having played MTG for 10 years I can tell you that in the format (classic) where you can use all the old cards (and many are banned) there is tons of overlap in the cards used by top decks. In fact, every good deck contains many of the same "power" cards, similar to Redemption decks and Dominants only there are more that "must be included" to be competative. I've been out of the loop MTG loop for a few years now but I can only imagine that not much has changed in that respect.
-
Hey,
The Redemption player families are also are happier because they don't have kids buying a new pack, opening it, and finding that their one decent card can no longer be played in a tournament.
I'm not sure that's really an argument in Redemption's favor considering the last time I opened a blue pack I got 7 cards I can no longer play in a tournament (without getting laughed at).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Cards in blue packs aren't the problem tho...
-
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.
-
pokemon anser that it dosen't ban cards
You cannot use any of the old Wizard of the Coast cards in tournaments. I would consider that banned.
-
you can't use 2006 cards ether because they rotate
-
OK for all those harping on Mtg and set rotation, there are multiple formats, where the set rotations are as follows:
Block Constructed: Only the latest block of cards can be used
Standard: The last core set and 2 blocks
Extended: The last 7 years of Material
Legacy:eternal format in which all cards are legal, has an extensive banned list and no restricted list.
Vintage: eternal format in which all cards are legal, has an extensive restricted list, and very few banned cards
I also listed them in order of affordability of play.
-
We need to ban Haman's Plot. It is too OP and breaks the game as well as itself. Who's with me?
Sean
-
I ::)
-
I do not equate longevity with quality. Redemption is not inherently better than other CCGs because it has outlasted them. I consider Redemption's small size and niche market to be as much responsible for it's longevity as it's quality.
I think they go together quite well actually. A game might be successful for a short time because of popularity spawned by a tie-in to something else that is popular (movie, TV show, video game, book series, etc.). However, people won't continue to play a game for a long period of time unless it is actually fun. Therefore, if a game survives for over a decade when 95% of the other games in its genre do not, then that says a lot of the quality of the game.
-
We need to ban Haman's Plot. It is too OP and breaks the game as well as itself. Who's with me?
Sean
YES!!! :prayer: :prayer:
-
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. :P
-
Your two decks from 2007 would be two of the three I don't have in my records for T2-2P. If you wanted to e-mail them to me I'd be happy to add them to my site ;-)
Sometimes the allure of (an) unrevealed deck(s) is quite enjoyable. Don't give in Justin! ;)
Kirk
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
+1 +1 and i'm 11
-
There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.
The combo starts off with Choose the Blocker where you pick your own character to block that would grant you initiative (like Red Dragon). Then you play some cards that allow you to draw cards and discard cards from your opponent, then play a Withdraw card and keep it going...
The playtesters and I have been kicking around a rule change. However, there is no consensus. Since you, the players, have a stake in this I will tell you what is in discussion and let you comment.
Options:
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.
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].
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).
Note: whatever we decide would likely happen soon (before state and regional events, rather than after nationals).
-
I vote #3. Limit the number of cards played during a stalemate condition without opponent playing a card to 3.
-
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.
If we're voting, I'll go with this one. I think it's simple and makes a whole lotta sense. I always thought that choosing your own character was OP in the first place.
-
then nobody will play king amazaiah
-
King Amaziah + Spear and Shield + Valley of Salt :dunno: It could still be used. Even if not, there are numerous other cards in the game that absolutely no one uses, and they continue to be replaced by better and better cards. (I mean, who uses Abaddon the Destroyer anymore? ;))
-
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
-
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 don't think #1 is the best choice. Wall of Protection would stop it immediately. The second sentence above would not allow the choice of other opponents' characters in a multiplayer game. The real strategy of CtB is to be able to choose your own.
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].
Although I agree with the sentiment, players will just use enhancement abuse in one color.
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).
I think #3 is the best choice overall, and would address other problems, including partially limiting Momentum Change's power. The only drawback would be handcuffing some defenses against massive banding chains. As long as we have strong enough answers for that, I think a 3 card limit is the most practical and fair resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, it is times like this that I think Rob is the genius creator of the greatest game in the world. May God continue to bless Cactus during these difficult financial times.
-
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.
-
Hey Rob, I assume you recieved my message with my deck?
I of course would go for none of the above and leave things as they are. I guess I would like to see why it is neccessary to change the rules at all? Of course this combo has been "abused" but I think that leads to a more interesting variety of strategies and decks. Was my use of it considered too much? Regarding your options, is the goal to make that combo completely unplayable or just more difficult to use?
I don't like #1 because that would seem to destroy one of the viable deck archetypes. Choose the Blocker would no longer be a powerful offense and the cards that counter it would lose much of their point. I could still do the whole combo with option 1 but it would entirely depend on the opponent's deck and make mine unreliable.
I'm sure I could still do the combo with option #2. It would just make it more difficult to play.
If the option #3 limit is set at 7 then I'm sure I could still do the combo, it would again just be more difficult to play. If the option #3 limit is set at 3 then it would be a lot more difficult to play but I could still do it to some extent. Option #3 also seems weird to me with an artificial limit set that doesn't seem to match with the game. Options 2 and 3 also seem to require rules changes or errata that increase the complexity of the rules which I'm generally against.
I don't think it is a problem that needs to be fixed now but I wouldn't mind the next set having several good counter cards like Mark mentioned.
- Fewer reactive cards, more proactive cards.
Redemption has done a better job lately of combining these two ideas. They have made cards that have helped limit the power of something, while having alternative usefulness when that thing isn't there in your opponent's deck.
-
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).
-
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 Candyland (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).
I whole heartily agree with what was said here! I don't want Redemption to go down the boring road of Candy Land!
-
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.
-
I humbly believe this is similar to a Socialist mindset and not in line with the Scriptural principle of "you reap what you sow".
I humbly believe that this similar to a win-at-all-costs mindset and not in line with the Scriptural principle of "love your neighbor as yourself."
-
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 think #3 is the best choice overall, and would address other problems, including partially limiting Momentum Change's power. The only drawback would be handcuffing some defenses against massive banding chains. As long as we have strong enough answers for that, I think a 3 card limit is the most practical and fair resolution.
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.
Perhaps I stated option 3 poorly. If I pass initiative 3 consecutive times (or 5 or 7), then whatever you play after my 3rd pass, ends what you are allowed to do that turn. So instead of saying you can only play three cards, perhaps the better way to define it is that you can play a card or cards following up to 3 consecutive initiative passes by your opponent.
Also, to me it's not only about my opponent having an unbeatable deck. 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.
-
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.
-
I really want to see this deck :D
-
Actually, both galadgawan and Rob are correct that I misunderstood. ;D
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. ;)
-
Also, to me it's not only about my opponent having an unbeatable deck. It is also about me watching you play cards for 15 straight minutes while I can do nothing.
There are far more complaints about games where you can do absolutely nothing because you drew three lost souls in your opening turn and no defense. There's at least one senior player who is talking about not playing anymore because of that happenstance.
Recently there have been a large number of complaints about decks built around The Garden Tomb. These complaints are mostly centered on players feeling like that can do absolutely nothing against them except sit and watch their opponent play cards.
There are two major differences between the combo deck case and the bad draw and TGT examples. The first is that bad draws and TGT are much more prevalent. The second is that in the case of the combo deck, the person running the deck had to spend some time and effort designing and building their deck. Given that, I can understand the your underlying concern expressed. I guess what I am having trouble understanding is why you would start to address the concern by going after the smallest offender and the only one that is actually somewhat dependent on the skill of the player.
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 agree that this would be a big concern if that were happening, but the nature of combo decks prevent it from occurring. The thing about combo decks is that half or more of their effectiveness come from people not realizing that you are playing one until it is too late. For that reason the only time combo decks get pulled out is for the big tournaments.
If the PTB are really concerned about a new player gets discouraged by getting locked out quickly at Nats, I have a list of players that should be banned from playing. ;)
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.
In chess, however, one of the main gaols is to make their opponent's moves meaningless. If player A has player B in check with only one possible counter in what real sense is player A allowing p[layer B to make a move? The best players prefer to go on extended streaks in which they allow their opponents absolutely zero choice in what piece to play until they force mate.
If anything, this whole situation can benefit from players looking for ways to abuse this to that extreme point and submitting it as evidence.
People have been looking for ways to abuse this to an extreme point as they build competition decks--the history of the Sin in The Camp combo is a case in point here. People have played combo decks like we are talking about in tournaments. Since the demise of the Devastators, the evidence is fairly clear that those decks aren't consistent enough to win big tournaments. I'm not sure what other evidence you are interested in having people submit.
-
If I had to make a choice, then I would choose option 3.
Option 1: I don't like at all. Not only would it in effect "ban" a lot of cards but it would hurt CtB as a support offense too. (Which I like to do.) However, if it is cut the way you say it is proposed, then it is not worth even to be a support offense. Plus, there are many counter cards to CtB. In T2, I used it as a main offense and it got cut down pretty thoroughly by a well-prepared Defense.
Option 2: I would lean to changing withdraw, but I think it would be confusing to new players in the way it is worded. Much like decreases' wordings are confusing. So the less amount of confusion for new people--> the better off everyone is.
This brings me to option 3. A slight game rule change is the easiest way to fix this. I think people can still find a loop hole through "play next" cards, but it would be one of the easier ways to solve problems.
I would like to try and find an Option 4, but I don't see these terrible, heart-wrenching decks to make a good proposal.
However, I am a n00b so what do I know.
-
Also, to me it's not only about my opponent having an unbeatable deck. It is also about me watching you play cards for 15 straight minutes while I can do nothing.
There are far more complaints about games where you can do absolutely nothing because you drew three lost souls in your opening turn and no defense. There's at least one senior player who is talking about not playing anymore because of that happenstance.
Recently there have been a large number of complaints about decks built around The Garden Tomb. These complaints are mostly centered on players feeling like that can do absolutely nothing against them except sit and watch their opponent play cards.
There are two major differences between the combo deck case and the bad draw and TGT examples. The first is that bad draws and TGT are much more prevalent. The second is that in the case of the combo deck, the person running the deck had to spend some time and effort designing and building their deck. Given that, I can understand the your underlying concern expressed. I guess what I am having trouble understanding is why you would start to address the concern by going after the smallest offender and the only one that is actually somewhat dependent on the skill of the player.
I, too, wonder if these two concerns are being address?
There are not many cards, if any, that deal with New Testament forts and I think there is a need there.
When I see a newer person or a semi-veteran pull a lot of Lost souls on the first turn (even if I do it myself)...I will comment that they will probably lose. They just have too many on the table, and most offenses are too strong. Are there counters, sure, but games have been won or lost due to "players bleeding" and others "drying up." (Prof has a special knack for it. ;) )
-
I haven't seen a combo deck win a tournament. I have played against those combo decks and it isn't any fun. Once they get the combo off you have no chance.
That being said, I think that the best solution to solve this problem would be to make it so that Withdraw enhancements always withdraw all heroes.
Of the proposed solutions I like option 3 the best but I would like to see that number as high as possible.
-
I haven't seen a combo deck win a tournament. I have played against those combo decks and it isn't any fun. Once they get the combo off you have no chance.
That being said, I think that the best solution to solve this problem would be to make it so that Withdraw enhancements always withdraw all heroes.
Of the proposed solutions I like option 3 the best but I would like to see that number as high as possible.
so has not to mess with the 5 false peace, 1 bearing bad news, 1 momentum change play or is there another one you're considering? ;)
-
I haven't seen a combo deck win a tournament. I have played against those combo decks and it isn't any fun. Once they get the combo off you have no chance.
You mean I actually won in our game at Nats last year? Oh, you mean "successfully get the combo off." ;)
Which reminds me of another point worth mentioning. Combo decks require a huge chunk of your deck to be devoted to getting the combo to work, defending against counters, etc. If your opponent does successfully stop the combo you spend the rest of the game waiting for them to win.
Put another way, once they block your combo you have no chance.
-
There are far more complaints about games where you can do absolutely nothing because you drew three lost souls in your opening turn and no defense. There's at least one senior player who is talking about not playing anymore because of that happenstance.
I am disappointed that a player would consider abandoning Type 1 because of this unfortunate rare occurrence. But three turn losses are a flaw of decks with light defenses, not of Redemption in general.
Recently there have been a large number of complaints about decks built around The Garden Tomb. These complaints are mostly centered on players feeling like that can do absolutely nothing against them except sit and watch their opponent play cards.
The Garden Tomb is still a new card, this means two things: (1) it's seeing more play right now because of the novelty of it, and (2) players haven't had a lot of time to figure out how to counter it yet. It's just too soon to pass judgment on The Garden Tomb yet (especially since it has encouraged a lot of players to use cards and strategies that they haven't used before which is a good thing).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
MJB, don't think you're the only combo I've played against. I played against Justin Alstad's a few times, then I played against Kirk's a few times.
For me, it seems like any rule that is going to limit the number of cards I can play puts me in a box. I'm not necessarily supporting a certain combo or whatever but 3 is a number of cards to think about, if its 7 then it doesn't affect anybody except those playing combo decks.
-
Hey,
Option 1 goes too far. It does too much damage to Choose the Blocker as a side effect of addressing a withdraw issue.
Option 3 doesn't go far enough. If I choose my King Sennecharib holding Glittering Spear or my Leviathan that has been set aside for a few turns I should be able to keep initiative in the "I'm losing" state for the duration of my combo thus getting around a rule change that would only affect stalemate or mutual destruction states. Another option would be working Arrogance into the combo. And those are just the ways off the top of my head to get around option 3.
Option 2 is just about right. Of course I may be biased because I've been theorizing/suggesting something very similar for a couple years now. My idea was adding a clarification to the REG entry for withdraw cards that says:
"A 'return enhancements from battle to hand' ability on the same card as a 'return a character from battle to hand' ability is conditional on all characters on that side of battle withdrawing"
The idea being that the "return enhancements to hand" on withdraw abilities is an alternative to the enhancements being discarded at the end of battle, but if the battle isn't ending then the alternative doesn't apply.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
number 2...
-
MJB, don't think you're the only combo I've played against. I played against Justin Alstad's a few times, then I played against Kirk's a few times.
I know that, but I don't want to presume to speak for Kirk or Justin. Given your experience and the fact you are an upper tier player, I'm curious about your experience. What is your overall record against the various combo decks you played? In the cases where you were able to stop the combo, did any of the decks put up a decent fight afterwards or did you just basically walk in for a free win?
For me personally, I don't see myself ever playing a combo deck in another tournament (unless I find a major new wrinkle). The decks don't win consistently enough to win a tournament. That in itself seems to limit their use without having to introduce any new rules.
But three turn losses are a flaw of decks with light defenses, not of Redemption in general.
While I don't doubt that light defenses contribute greatly to quick losses, I don't think this generalization is entirely accurate. I have suffered three-turn tournament losses with 63 card heroless decks containing 14-16 ECs.
-
Having placed third with a combo deck at nationals in 2007 (5-1 record), I believe I have a good bit of experience related to this subject.
First off, I do not think there is ANY need for a rule change with the way things currently are. The rule changes to stop Devestator decks back in the day were necessary. However, a rule change is not necessary now as I am not aware that any combo deck has won a regional or national tournament. With my deck that I ran at Nationals 2007, I got the combo set up within 8 turns in 5 of my 6 games and won them all (although I made a mindless mistake and allowed one opponent to get back in the game). The only game I lost was the most statistically improbable game my deck has ever had and I lost in 6 turns 7-0. At Nationals 2008, I used multiple decks for gameplay, and my combo deck went 2-1. I lost to Chris McCravy as he drew the exact cards he needed to stop with me within the first three turns of the game and he masterfully held off any comeback attempt to win safely. He did not even know how my deck worked or what to expect, but he was still able to thwart me (props to Chris!). That being said, considering my combo deck went 7-2 (77.78% win pct) in tournament play, which I believe is the best ever of any legal combo deck at the nationals level, there is no need to change any rules. That record has no advantage over the decks of players such as Justin, Eric, Tim, Kevin, Ross, Darcy, etc at the national level. Why change the rules to stop something that doesn't win consistently enough?
I do understand the concern about discouraging younger players with such decks. This past year at nationals, in my first game I played against matthew77, and I felt horrible. I had the combo drawn by turn 3 and therefore he only had 2 turns as I had gone first.
I don't understand why some players feel that is not right for players like myself to build the optimum deck that will win significantly more games than it loses. A properly built and played combo deck is a beautiful thing as it is not an easy task to achieve. I play Redemption to primarily have fun. However, as with any strategy-based game, I will maximize my chances to win by perfecting my strategy.
-
In regards to your proposed changes, Rob:
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.
This potential change would put a big hurt on the entire Choose the Blocker strategy, not just combo decks. I don't believe this is an appropriate change. However, if there have been talks of reducing the overall power of Choose the Blocker for a time now for various reasons, then I could see why this would be a logical change.
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].
This rule would make it very difficult for current combo decks to function. However, this also hurts several other types of decks. This hurts many pure gold offenses. Gold offenses sometimes need the help of recursion, and the ability to return Furnace of God's Wrath and Taking Egypt's Wealth for a 2nd use before resorting to using Battle Prayer to recur them are pivotal. This also hurts speed offenses who like to maximize drawing cards multiple times. I also like using simple combos such as Claudia banded to Ethiopian Treasurer where I play a fun blue card, like Third Heaven, play Stillness, and then win the battle with Ethiopian Treasurer alone while having Third Heaven around for the next battle.
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).
This rule could also hurt combo decks, but I believe it would also hurt other decks in various situations.
If I had to choose a choice to support, I would choose option 3, but I would lobby for 7 cards. However, as I previously stated, I do not see any need to change the rules. With limited success of combo decks at major tournaments, most top-tier players avoid using such decks at those tournaments. I do definitely like having combo decks around as it spices up the game as one can never be certain what sweet combo deck his opponent might be using against him.
I do understand that you might not want one player to play cards for 15 straight minutes while the other sits helplessly. However, even if combo decks are destroyed, site lock decks, heroless, and herolite decks will continue to do this, along with any larger deck with a substantial defense. I don't think you will ever be able to avoid it. There will always be some sort of deck in a game like this to make it impossible for your opponent to do anything once you get a certain number of cards and the player using such a deck will simply waltz in for a victory after a certain amount of time.
And also when some players take exceeding amounts of time throughout their turns (not legal but still happens), the same situation occurs... ::)
All this being said, after playing combo decks at nationals for 2 years, I don't see any advantage for a player interested in placing to use such a deck over a stout deck with a more straight-forward approach and I don't anticipate playing a combo deck at nationals again unless there is a way to exploit some future card that allows me to permanently own every card in my opponent's deck at the end of the game.... ;D
I do tremendously appreciate all that you do for the game Rob. Thanks for taking your time to analyze our input.
God bless,
Kirk
-
(@ number 2)This rule would make it very difficult for current combo decks to function.
I don't think so. there are more combo decks then the ones that you get to draw/search for your whole deck. Gold offences have judges now, which really doesn't require that, so it's not really a big deal with them...
so really, it just Cooper's, MJB's, and I haven't seen yours or Justin's, but from what I hear...
-
The first thing about a combo deck is that they are best against unsuspecting opponents. If you don't know whats coming or haven't played one before they are nearly impossible to beat (assuming they draw the right cards). However, once you play them a few times you realize where the weaknesses are. Dominants are the only way to stop the combo, playing them at the opportune time can make it fall apart.
If the combo doesn't work there are still good cards in the deck. However, a decent offense can get past the few things they have left and win. I think these decks are more susceptible to bad draws than most decks and therefore are going to win less consistently but more thoroughly when they do win.
-
(@ number 2)This rule would make it very difficult for current combo decks to function.
I don't think so. there are more combo decks then the ones that you get to draw/search for your whole deck. Gold offences have judges now, which really doesn't require that, so it's not really a big deal with them...
so really, it just Cooper's, MJB's, and I haven't seen yours or Justin's, but from what I hear...
Combo decks like Ehud + Ehud's Dagger aren't what we're discussing. We're discussing decks that are built to do 1 combo and it wins you the game. Normally this requires searching your deck for all your cards, discarding all of your opponents cards and walking in for 5 straight ls + SOG/NJ.
-
so really, it just Cooper's, MJB's, and I haven't seen yours or Justin's, but from what I hear...
Kirk's combo deck is nasty. There is just no stopping Adam banded to Eve. :o
-
I do tremendously appreciate all that you do for the game Rob. Thanks for taking your time to analyze our input.
Often times I forget to say it, but I completely agree with these sentiments.
Thank you for your efforts and this truly wonderful game.
-
I don't think so. there are more combo decks then the ones that you get to draw/search for your whole deck.
I realize other combo decks exist, such as various combos involving Gathering or enhancement placement, but they are not as effective as the decks referred to in this thread.
Gold offences have judges now, which really doesn't require that, so it's not really a big deal with them...
Well some people still use Battle Prayer and Highway in decks that contain Judges, myself included. Why toss something out that is effective just because the card isn't specifically related to a completely "Judges" deck?
And I would concur with Ben, combo decks are less effective the more they are played. The first year I played it at nationals, none of my opponents saw it coming until it was too late. The next year, none of my opponents saw it coming either, but a large number of the T2 2p players there knew I used such a deck the year before and were anticipating it. That was also aided by the fact that MJB played his combo deck at a tournament prior to nationals, bringing up the subject more often that it should have been discussed.... ::)
Kirk
-
That was also aided by the fact that MJB played his combo deck at a tournament prior to nationals, bringing up the subject more often that it should have been discussed.... ::)
Hey, don't blame me (although I agree playing my deck earlier was stupid in hindsight)!
Cooper was the one that got everybody all hot and bothered about combo decks less than a month before Nats. ;)
-
You might want to add John Earley to that list with his Primary Objective deck thread as well.
Kirk
-
You might want to add John Earley to that list with his Primary Objective deck thread as well.
Kirk
was that deleted in the purge?
-
You might want to add John Earley to that list with his Primary Objective deck thread as well.
Kirk
was that deleted in the purge?
I hope so. :P
-
Also, to me it's not only about my opponent having an unbeatable deck. It is also about me watching you play cards for 15 straight minutes while I can do nothing.
I completely agree with this perspective. Redemption is the most fun when it is not Solitaire. It is for this reason that I think that option #1 is the best. I know that everyone is saying that it will kill the whole CTB strategy, but I disagree. Jael and Ehud seem to still get play, and they can only CTB from your opponent's territory. This would only limit CTB so that people would still be likely to be able to at least play something that battle (unless they didn't have initiative and their opponent played a CBN battle winner), and that isn't a bad thing.
I think that the more we can do to limit strategies that prohibit people from actually playing the game (like CTB with mismatching brigades, or pre-block ignores), the more fun the game will be.
-
The Garden Tomb is still a new card, this means two things: (1) it's seeing more play right now because of the novelty of it, and (2) players haven't had a lot of time to figure out how to counter it yet. It's just too soon to pass judgment on The Garden Tomb yet (especially since it has encouraged a lot of players to use cards and strategies that they haven't used before which is a good thing).
I like encouraging the use of older, unused cards as much as the next person and maybe more. But I don't think that TGT was the way to do it. I also disagree that it is too early to pass judgment on it. I have played against well built TGT decks in the hands of good players many times already and I have already discovered it's extreme potential for a lack of a fun game.
I have figured out the counters. I have a protection fortress (A-camp) for my defense that stops the discards from ET+AoCP, Jepthah, I am Justice, and Ark of the Covenant. It also stops the conversions from Holy Grail. It also stops the capture from Women as Snares. I also have a character that pulls that fortress out faster to ensure protection. I also have Kingdoms of this World which I can also put 2 ECs in just in case neither of those other options is getting my A-camp out. I have the anti-ignore LS. I have Wall of Protection so they can't band in my own ECs and make me kill them leaving me vulnerable. I play a single-brigade defense with plenty of characters. I also have Unknown Nation to pull out my ECs faster. I have multiple banding ECs to prevent easy AotL wins. I have multiple tiny ECs to prevent giving initiative.
Yet in spite of all these counters, I recently have had multiple games where due to the draw, my opponent has walked in for 2 free LSs and then had too many unstoppable ways to get #3. Then it was SoG, NJ for the quick victory, which they attained of course.
There is no words to describe that other than "messed up".
-
I'm glad to see somelse that understands chess - EmJayBee83. Putting your opponent in perputual check is a strategy to win or at least get a stalemate.
I'm also glad to get some more people on here that understand how combo decks work in actual play in type 2. I've been able to playtest my deck 5 times so far. Four times I won handily in under 10 turns. The fifth game I lost 7-0 to an average deck that my wife (with some help) built in about 2 hours. That is just going to happen with combo decks. How is that any worse (or better) than a AoC deck? I don't count on winning tournaments with this deck but I'd like to take my chances. The opponent's surprise (if there's any by the time this thread is done) might make the whole thing worth it.
Going back to the options:
I realized a way that I can still play this deck with the way option 1 is currently worded. I also realized another way that I could make it work with option #3. If the point is to make sure that I can't play this combo then those changes seem kinda pointless. You change the rule and I make this work at tournaments and then what?
For the current wording of option #2 I can fairly easily do it and for Tim Maly's suggestion for #2, I can use The Long Day to play it.
The fact that Redemption has enough flexibility and I can find a way around problems and make it work anyway, is part of what I like about the game. If you make all 3 changes that might stop it (for now) but I doubt that is desirable.
I think that the more we can do to limit strategies that prohibit people from actually playing the game (like CTB with mismatching brigades, or pre-block ignores), the more fun the game will be.
Why limit the game? Again, why not expand the game to increase the ways you can play things even if your opponent doesn't give you initiative?
I would make new cards that go in territory and stay active (like fortresses, artifacts, sites, lost souls, placed enhancements, set-asides, characters while in play, weapon class abilities while in play, etc.) that give a chance to break up a combo. Examples that could be good or evil:
If opponent plays three enhancements in a row, then you may search your deck for a character and add it to battle. If your opponent plays more than two enhancements this battle then remove all their played enhancements from the game after they are played. Each time you pass initiative discard 1 + x cards from the top of your opponent's deck. X = the number of times you have passed initiative this turn.
Of course these cards might need some other ability so people will use them and their not just counters. Counters aren't effective if no one wants to use them (Pot of Manna) so you never have to face them.
-
I have figured out the counters. I have a protection fortress (A-camp) for my defense that stops the discards from ET+AoCP, Jepthah, I am Justice, and Ark of the Covenant. It also stops the conversions from Holy Grail. It also stops the capture from Women as Snares. I also have a character that pulls that fortress out faster to ensure protection. I also have Kingdoms of this World which I can also put 2 ECs in just in case neither of those other options is getting my A-camp out. I have the anti-ignore LS. I have Wall of Protection so they can't band in my own ECs and make me kill them leaving me vulnerable. I play a single-brigade defense with plenty of characters. I also have Unknown Nation to pull out my ECs faster. I have multiple banding ECs to prevent easy AotL wins. I have multiple tiny ECs to prevent giving initiative.
Yet in spite of all these counters, I recently have had multiple games where due to the draw, my opponent has walked in for 2 free LSs and then had too many unstoppable ways to get #3. Then it was SoG, NJ for the quick victory, which they attained of course.
There is no words to describe that other than "messed up".
I played against The Garden Tomb at the last tournament I went to. Actually it was two tournaments, a local and a district on consecutive days. I played a different defense each time. I won once and forced a tie once. The win came from a basic brown defense, you know the standard, Dungeon of Malchiah, Korah's Rebellion, Shimei's Malicious Curse, and Gibeonite Trickery. The tie came from a bit of a goof off deck which was based around making side battles with green offense into my palegreen defense to play cards like Fear of Danger and Death of Unrighteous. I had never played any games against any RoA cards prior to this while also not having any RoA cards and yet I was able to beat TGT. And if it weren't for time constraints, I'd have beat it twice. Based on that, I do not think it is as bad as people are making it out to be. Although I do very much dislike pre-block ignore.
Sean
-
I have played against well built TGT decks in the hands of good players many times already and I have already discovered it's extreme potential for a lack of a fun game.
I totally disagree, for me it makes for either a challenging game (which I love learning from) or an intriguing rout (which I still love learning from). I continue to wonder why people hate playing such decks, why wouldn't you take that experience and use it for the positive and grow from it to become a better player. Such remarks like "playing such and such deck was such a bore" makes me think people will continue to be stuck in the endless cycle of complaining and close mindedness. If you hate those decks that simply win too easily maybe you need to stop playing a "broken, boring game" whoever it may concern.
-
I have played against well built TGT decks in the hands of good players many times already and I have already discovered it's extreme potential for a lack of a fun game.
I totally disagree, for me it makes for either a challenging game (which I love learning from) or an intriguing rout (which I still love learning from). I continue to wonder why people hate playing such decks, why wouldn't you take that experience and use it for the positive and grow from it to become a better player. Such remarks like "playing such and such deck was such a bore" makes me think people will continue to be stuck in the endless cycle of complaining and close mindedness. If you hate those decks that simply win too easily maybe you need to stop playing a "broken, boring game" whoever it may concern.
Agreed. If you hate playing a certain deck, the reason why is usually because you just hate losing, or simply always have to have a reason to explain why you lost. I'm with Mr. Whitten, playing an "unstoppable, annoying, overpowered" deck, is one of my favorite things to do. It's interesting to see new strategies, and possibly twist them around to something that would be very hard to stop or at least fun to play. Playing Sin in the Camp for the first time was fun for me, I thought it was pretty cool how that could work out how it did/does.
If you think losing to an "overpowered" deck makes the game less fun, quit complaining and go play a different game. Those of us who don't care as much about winning, is in it for the fellowship and the competitive fun of tournaments.
-
I had never played any games against any RoA cards prior to this while also not having any RoA cards and yet I was able to beat TGT. And if it weren't for time constraints, I'd have beat it twice. Based on that, I do not think it is as bad as people are making it out to be.
You must have had the absolute best draws then. I play with CountFount regularly and he has put TGT in almost every deck he has. I swear 3 out of every 4 times I play him, it comes out within the first 2-3 turn. It is extremely annoying. Once it comes out, some times you have to wait turn after turn just to draw another EC. Unknown Nations doesn't help. The Amalekites' Slave doesn't help. And the entire time you're just giving up LSs. I've even played a Purple AoCP deck with that splashed in just because you can get away with it. I would definitely like to see something done about that.
As for my opinion on the different rule changes Rob suggested against combo decks, I think making withdraw cards withdraw all your characters from battle would be the best way to go. That way you couldn't get back your enhancements without the battle ending, and it still gives a way to do it but making it more difficult and requiring more cards (thinking of The Long Day there at the end).
-
Agreed. If you hate playing a certain deck, the reason why is usually because you just hate losing, or simply always have to have a reason to explain why you lost. I'm with Mr. Whitten, playing an "unstoppable, annoying, overpowered" deck, is one of my favorite things to do. It's interesting to see new strategies, and possibly twist them around to something that would be very hard to stop or at least fun to play. Playing Sin in the Camp for the first time was fun for me, I thought it was pretty cool how that could work out how it did/does.
If you think losing to an "overpowered" deck makes the game less fun, quit complaining and go play a different game. Those of us who don't care as much about winning, is in it for the fellowship and the competitive fun of tournaments.
EXACTLY!
-
You must have had the absolute best draws then.
LOL, you assume because I won that I had a good draw? LOL. I have never been one to blame the draw on wins and loses and am insulted that you would insinuate that I won because of a good draw. And frankly, it is ignorant of you to assume such. If I can beat TGT without RoA cards and never have played it before, it shouldn't be that difficult for other players to do the same, especially when they see it played more.
Sean
-
I played against The Garden Tomb at the last tournament I went to...I won once and forced a tie once.
That's great (and I don't think it just means you had a great draw). I have beaten TGT decks many times as well. A lot of times without much of a problem. However, my point is that with a deck like I was using, with all those counters built in, TGT should practically never work. But it continues to work on a semi-regular basis. And if it works against that deck, then it will work even more often against most other decks. And that is going to lead to a bunch of people handing over LSs with frustrated looks on their faces.
-
Many great points have been made up until this post, but I think I will add my two cents. Judge me to see if I am wrong, but my conclusions stem from what I believe to be the most simple observations.
There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.
The combo starts off with Choose the Blocker where you pick your own character to block that would grant you initiative (like Red Dragon). Then you play some cards that allow you to draw cards and discard cards from your opponent, then play a Withdraw card and keep it going...
The playtesters and I have been kicking around a rule change. However, there is no consensus. Since you, the players, have a stake in this I will tell you what is in discussion and let you comment.
Mr. Anderson, before I go any further in my comments, I will point out one obvious problem that I have with this. I will first start by saying that Redemption is THE GAME. However, it is hard enough to convert players to the game, simply because the rules are so numerous/complex. The rules should be the back bone of Redemption; unchanging, inflexible and constitutional. If there is a card or combo that is considered overpowered, then it is in the best interest of players/playtesters to come up with ways to overcome these stumbling blocks. A card should be read and played as it is read. It is just not right to have to explain why AoCP reads, "cannot be interrupted, negated, or prevented," and not just "cannot be negated." The full extent of this point, although obvious, is inherent in my following thoughts. (There is an option 4 that I will bring up in a moment.)
Options:
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.
1) This ruling should not go into effect at all. Not only would it cause Kingdoms of This World (Pr) to be counterproductive, but it would overturn a perfectly defeatable CTB strategy. The problem is not the strategy, but the lack of preperation against it. Not only does KoTW put a cold stop to CTB, but curses and artifacts like Unholy Writ and Unknown Nation are very effective roadblocks against CTB, not to mention enhancements like Lurking. Again, the strategy is not the problem. However, the lack of preperation for it is.
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].
2) In my humble opinion, this ruling change would be too specific and cumbersome to bother adding to the rules. This rule would stomp out some very common and perfectly fair gaming strategies, not to mention the wording on a great number of cards.
-
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).
3) Once again, this would be a counter-intuitive ruling change. However, if I were to throw my support behind any of these ruling changes, it would be this one. I think you are on to something, but I think the solution to initiative-play could be simpler. (I read your rework of this rule change, and although it is better, I still think it should be toyed with some more.) Once again, you do not want to have the rules stomp out cards that are in circulation. Arrogance, although underused, would be just one card that is hurt by this change in rules. You don't want to deal with another "cannot be interrupted, negated, or prevented" sort of confusion if at all possible.
Note: whatever we decide would likely happen soon (before state and regional events, rather than after nationals).
See, this is something that I think should be reconsidered. Again, it is just my opinion against more influencial voices, but if I speak in error please correnct me. Otherwise, hear out my challenge of this point. In my opinion, this decision should follow Nationals. The real solution to powerful strategies is not to beat them up with rule changes, but to contest these strategies with other cards that can overthrow these strategies. Time and time again, I have seen strategies shattered not by ruling changes, but by the circulation of "antedote" cards. This would be Option #4: The best solution to precarious cases like these.
OK, I am done...
~The Spy
-
If you are beating Garden Tomb with that deck then I'm not sure what the problem is. Even if you do play with counters and all, you cannot expect to win every game. FbtN has the most counters out of any strategy, and yet it is still one of the most prevalent strategies. Granted, you don't really see all out FbtN much anymore but you are hard pressed to find many decks that do not include some aspect of FbtN.
But it continues to work on a semi-regular basis.
Umm...isn't that an indicator that it is fine as it is then? If it can win, but doesn't win all the time then it is balanced? right?
Sean
-
LOL, you assume because I won that I had a good draw? LOL. I have never been one to blame the draw on wins and loses and am insulted that you would insinuate that I won because of a good draw. And frankly, it is ignorant of you to assume such. If I can beat TGT without RoA cards and never have played it before, it shouldn't be that difficult for other players to do the same, especially when they see it played more.
Isn't it more ignorant to act as tho the draw has no bearing what-so-ever on how the game plays out?
Again, I've had games as well where my opponent has gotten TGT out right off and I've still won with ease because of the draw. But for me, more often than not I give up 2-3 uncontested LSs because of TGT. It just stinks the fun out of it when you're sitting there with EH in your hand and an EC down...but you can't even use them.
-
Isn't it more ignorant to act as tho the draw has no bearing what-so-ever on how the game plays out?
My opinion on that has nothing to do with this thread. But to give the short answer, decks that get bad draws have at least one of two problems. They aren't balanced properly or they were not sufficiently shuffled.
Sean
-
Mine is most likely the latter. ;D
And I would just like to apologize. Upon re-reading my post then yours, I think I see what you saw. When I said 'you must have had good draws then...' it was not under the assumption that you have a bad deck so much that you need good draws to win. I merely put that because you made it seem like you had no trouble with it at all. I can beat decks with TGT, but it is not without a certain extent of frustration at being unable to do anything when I have so much to do. And wouldn't you think a combo of 2-3 cards that can easily get you 2-3 uncontested LSs 'overpowerful'?
-
Forgiven. I believe the game I won was 7-5. Not sure, but he had rescued a good amount. The second game was 6-6. That said, I was not impressed with Garden Tomb enough to agree with the statements that it is "breaking the game."
Sean
-
My humble opinion before I start my philosophy homework:
I would not want any rule changed. If I had to chose, I would chose 3. It would stop massive slaughter when you play a defender (e.g. red dragon) just so you can fight another turn. It might hinder my main deck a little but I do not see are the fretting others have with this option. It is for stalemates only. Never when you are losing. I would, however, change it to only work when neither one is losing (i.e. taking out mutual destruction "stalemate" because it might take more then three cards if your opponent has a huge offense but a small defense). Also, arrogance would not be affected by this rule. Arrogance never gives your opponent the change to pass initiative. They have to pass it three times before the rule would take effect.
Thanks Rob for letting us in on a decision that you are trying to make. I always like when the head guy get's involved in the forums like you do (which is why I also like Ted Dekker's forums :)).
God bless
-
Several games (isn't it terrible I can't recall any of them) only give you one more chance to play after your opponent is out of (insert thing here: turns, items, cards, etc). Why would it be so bad if Redemption ran the same?
-
If you are beating Garden Tomb with that deck then I'm not sure what the problem is...If it can win, but doesn't win all the time then it is balanced? right?
The question is not whether it is balanced, or whether it can be stopped. Of course it can, and I've done it. The point that I'm trying to make here is that strategies like TGT and CTB mismatch are not good for Redemption overall because they leave people feeling like Scottie.
It just stinks the fun out of it when you're sitting there with EH in your hand and an EC down...but you can't even use them.
-
The question is not whether it is balanced, or whether it can be stopped.
I thought that was the purpose of this discussion. Whether or not something is 'broken'. If it is balanced then it is not broken. If it is not broken it doesn't need to be fixed. The problem with the "choose your own immune dude so you can draw your deck and discard your opponent's deck" stuff is that it isn't balanced and that's why rule changes are being considered. I think there is a big difference between not being able to do anything against your opponent's rescue and not being able to do anything AT ALL. Against Garden Tomb, you have your whole offense with which to play with each turn. Against the "Draw and Destroy" combo, you can't do anything because all your cards are in the discard pile.
Sean
-
Even beyond that is a simple request from the creator of the game. This is not what he intended for the game. The purpose of the game was fun and fellowship, and neither is accomplished by the aforementioned combo. He has made suggestions and is open to other suggestions. Saying "change nothing" is ignoring his request.
We need to come together as a Christian community and help make this decision to honor his request.
-
I thought that was the purpose of this discussion. Whether or not something is 'broken'.
Yes, but the title of this topic isn't whether a specific combo is broken. It is whether the game is broken. So I think my comments are relevant.
The CTB mismatch is not unstoppable either. You could easily build a deck that would stop this sort of combo. But the point is that when it works, it makes for a game that isn't fun at all. Similarly, you can build a deck that would stop TGT. But when that strategy works it also makes for a game that isn't fun at all. Both of these strategies turn Redemption into Solitaire, which breaks the idea of the game.
I think that it is best for the game to try to limit any strategy that hurts the fun and fellowship of the game when it is successful.
-
Saying "change nothing" is ignoring his request.
I think that tweaking the rules of CTB to only allow choosing your opponent's character is a good start. I think that long term we should try to avoid creating more cards that encourage any type of strategy like this which prevent both players from getting to participate in the game together.
-
:amen:
Overdramatization: I think it should be ruled that no hero can prevent an EC from entering battle! WHO'S WITH ME?!
-
I think that it is best for the game to try to limit any strategy that hurts the fun and fellowship of the game when it is successful.
I agree with this. I do not agree that Garden Tomb creates such a state.
Saying "change nothing" is ignoring his request.
If people who don't want to change anything have valid reasons and support for that stance then I do not think we should discount them as an option.
Sean
-
I think that it is best for the game to try to limit any strategy that hurts the fun and fellowship of the game when it is successful.
I agree with this. I do not agree that Garden Tomb creates such a state.
Fair enough. We'll just agree to agree and disagree :)
-
We'll just agree to agree and disagree
Awe...shucks, I was hoping we could make the same arguments over and over again.
Off-Topic: You need a good signature. Maybe a link to your favorite quotes?
Sean
-
Off-Topic: You need a good signature. Maybe a link to your favorite quotes?
Thanks for the suggestion. I was actually just thinking about this lately. The best thing I could come up so far was finding out how to say the following in latin:
It is lame when people put things in a dead language just to make themselves look smarter or to make other people have to look them up.
But I was thinking that might be a bit to negative overall, and I wouldn't want to do it while I was in the middle of a controversy with someone who actually does that, since I wouldn't want it to come across as a personal attack. However, I thought the irony would be funny :)
-
Off-Topic: You need a good signature. Maybe a link to your favorite quotes?
Thanks for the suggestion. I was actually just thinking about this lately. The best thing I could come up so far was finding out how to say the following in latin:
It is lame when people put things in a dead language just to make themselves look smarter or to make other people have to look them up.
But I was thinking that might be a bit to negative overall, and I wouldn't want to do it while I was in the middle of a controversy with someone who actually does that, since I wouldn't want it to come across as a personal attack. However, I thought the irony would be funny :)
I'm laughing and I think it is very funny...but then again I stopped memorizing Latin when I graduated from High School. I do still remember that you have to put the verbs at the end of the sentence.
-
Hey,
I think that the more we can do to limit strategies that prohibit people from actually playing the game (like CTB with mismatching brigades, or pre-block ignores), the more fun the game will be.
Any suggestion to limit strategies throws up a red flag for me. We want to increase the number of strategy options, not decrease them.
Concern over the solitaire effect is a valid one. One of Redemption's strengths is its depth of player interaction and that's something we don't want to lose, and players are naturally going to lean towards things that minimize their opponent's options. But not having the opportunity to play an enhancement in battle does not mean the game doesn't have any player interaction. The game is becoming more and more about what happens outside of battle; which artifact you activate, which fortresses you have out, what lost souls you're using, and what characters are in your territory/hand.
Choose the blocker in Type 1 is a prime example. When it's used against you, you likely won't get to play an enhancement in battle, but there are enough counters out there in the form of Artifacts, Fortresses, and Lost Souls that if you're prepared for a choose the blocker offense, you can easily beat it. Choose the blocker in Type 2 and pre-battle ignores still need more out-of-battle counters, but other than The Garden Tomb, they are moving in the right direction.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Choose the blocker in Type 2 and pre-battle ignores still need more out-of-battle counters, but other than The Garden Tomb, they are moving in the right direction.
Considering that the latest 2 sets contained:
1 - Reuben's Torn Clothes and a new Jacob which allows for a pre-battle ignore
2 - Again the new Jacob, and a CTB mismatch (with Obedience of Noah)
3 - Zebulun which allows for a whole deck to be based on pre-block ignore and a shut out defense
4 - The Garden Tomb which allows for an entire deck to be built around pre-battle ignore and be successful to the extent of changing the meta
I'm not sure that this is actually moving in the right direction. That is why I am trying to bring this to attention.
-
Zeb is a low-percentage lockout and aside from existing counters, my current defense is unfazed by him.
There are enough ways to get rid of Fortresses that it is still a risky venture to base an entire deck around that one card.
Journey to Egypt kills 98% of gold defenses immediately with almost no recourse and that hasn't caused problems even as Egypt has grown in strength.
-
Hey,
There are enough ways to get rid of Fortresses that it is still a risky venture to base an entire deck around that one card.
Spreading Mildew and Romans Destroy Jerusalem are the only cards I can think of that can discard The Garden Tomb, and you're going to have to jump through hoops (read side battles) to play either of them since The Garden Tomb strategy is not letting you block with your evil characters.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Ok, I only saw like, one other person point this out about option #1 presented by Rob:
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.
How am I supposed to check this? Scan their entire deck and hand to make sure they dont have a card like Lurking (which btw, would COMPLETELY shred these combo offenses)? Also, what if I happen to draw Jacob, Obed of Noah, and an EC on the first turn? I havent seen their defense, so how can I know what they can play?
-
I'd vote for option CLOCK
Retreat all heroes, thats what the card was originally intended to do, retreive a botched RA.
Journey to Egypt kills 98% of gold defenses immediately with almost no recourse and that hasn't caused problems even as Egypt has grown in strength.
This is far more broken than any GTG deck, sitting there knowing that my only hope is cm/uw (In a deck with healing and usually a form of anti capture) or else I could deck and not be able to block is pretty OP'd. But schaef is right, it hasnt stopped me from using gold or enjoying it.
Thanks Rob for this great game. I'll keep trying to break it ;)
-
If people who don't want to change anything have valid reasons and support for that stance then I do not think we should discount them as an option.
I haven't seen valid reasons. I have seen self-centered reasons. Speaking hypothetically, if the creator of a game thinks that his game is going in the wrong direction but everyone refuses to make amends, what is to stop the creator from simply giving up on his own game? I doubt Rob specifically would do that, but why not appease him on this occasion? Has Rob really come to the boards that often with a specific request such as this? He's asking for help and he didn't need to. His word is final.
I know it is just my opinion, but I just ask you to look at this request outside of game mechanics, intense strategies, and ingenious combos. This is our brother asking how to help make this game what he intended.
-
There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.
The combo starts off with Choose the Blocker where you pick your own character to block that would grant you initiative (like Red Dragon). Then you play some cards that allow you to draw cards and discard cards from your opponent, then play a Withdraw card and keep it going...
The playtesters and I have been kicking around a rule change. However, there is no consensus. Since you, the players, have a stake in this I will tell you what is in discussion and let you comment.
Options:
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.
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].
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).
Note: whatever we decide would likely happen soon (before state and regional events, rather than after nationals).
It seems to me from this post that Rob is sort of indecisive at the moment. What he wants is the peoples' input. If nobody wants anything changed, I would think he'd want to know.
-
His first sentence seems pretty definitive to me.
-
Spreading Mildew and Romans Destroy Jerusalem are the only cards I can think of that can discard The Garden Tomb
I said FortressES... Garden Tomb is particularly problematic but many potent strategies can be made to rely too much on one or two support cards. That was the point.
-
If people who don't want to change anything have valid reasons and support for that stance then I do not think we should discount them as an option.
I haven't seen valid reasons. I have seen self-centered reasons.
Thank you for that. I'll try to be more altruistic in the future.
Speaking hypothetically,...
Speaking pragmatically, are you really saying that if a person asks for advice about fixing a problem that you don't think exists, that your only option is to not offer that point of view?
Speaking hypothetically, let's say I thought my son's behavior was "wild," and decided to either put him on ADHD drugs or enroll him in military school. If I went and asked my son's teachers for their opinions on drugs vs. discipline, I would be very troubled if they felt my son's behavior was normal for kids that age and chose not to let me know that piece of information because it wasn't one of the two options I offered.
-
I apologize for that then. I was just trying to support Rob as best I could.
However, I cannot speak for him, so I won't. My opinion is just my own.
-
I said FortressES... Garden Tomb is particularly problematic but many potent strategies can be made to rely too much on one or two support cards. That was the point.
And my point was that the most powerful cards leading to Redemption Solitaire have come out in the last couple sets released.
-
Combo decks have recently become and interest of mine, but in a sort of oddball way. I would definae myself as a type 1 2-p combo deck user. Yes, type 1. You can credit Lambo for that designation, as he showed me the light of them.
My combo deck is a bit different than the ones being discussed, but I think it's worth mentioning. I have not adapted it to type 2. It's still very potent though.
Currently I use 11 combo related cards in my deck: King Jehosophat, Elishama, Angel in the Path (wa), Maharai, Moses and Elders, Claudia, Ethiopian Treasurer, Gathering of Angels, Spiritual Warfare, Brass Serpent and Three Nails
In a 63 card type 1 deck, after souls (8), dominants (8), artifacts (5), and sites (6/7), I have about 25 defensive cards to put in the deck. If the combo is pulled off, I ignore all but 4 cards in the game pre-battle (Doubt, Madness, Serpent, and Leviathan [Self would be able to enter battle, but upon entering, would become either angel or human and subsequently be ignored]).
Is this combo broken? No. None of these combos are broken in my humble opinion. Each combo is merely a beautiful creation of a smart man's mind used to glorify God. By limiting creative combos, we are essentially limiting the player's mind in deckbuilding, which, from what I gather, we wish to avoid.
The main problem I have with the Tomb is it's impossiblity to target. We need good cards to target any fortress or something that can be played to stop fortresses without having the block (Artifact ala Captured Ark or a Dominant)
-
Currently I use 11 combo related cards in my deck: King Jehosophat, Elishama, Angel in the Path (wa), Maharai, Moses and Elders, Claudia, Ethiopian Treasurer, Gathering of Angels, Spiritual Warfare, Brass Serpent and Three Nails
The core of which was created by me. ;)
-
The main problem I have with the Tomb is it's impossiblity to target.
The Garden Tomb is not impossible to target. As I had mentioned earlier on another thread--my son did a quite effective job of blowing up my TGT (and hence my deck) in a tournament without even allowing me to play a card while he did it. I agree that TGT is one card that takes the most effort in deck design to counter, but forcing people to put additional thought into their decks is a good thing, IMO.
-
my son did a quite effective job of blowing up my TGT
and he probably did it with RDJ. But should everyone have to play an emp defense this year?
-
And my point was that the most powerful cards leading to Redemption Solitaire have come out in the last couple sets released.
I disagree with your assessment of what the game has produced. What you call Redemption Solitaire is an offense or defense that is very difficult to counter once it is set up and executed, but one of your prime examples is one that my defense doesn't even flinch at. What I call Redemption Solitaire is when a player can continue to create side battles and withdraw over and over again, creating a situation where his turn takes 45 minutes and the game times out instead of going through a normal series of turns. In other words, I consider your examples a powerful lockout but not game-breaking, and not at all bad compared to the things we had to stifle five years ago. The idea is to keep people from locking the game in an unbreakable loop, not to ensure them having some arbitrary requisite amount of "fun" in a given game.
-
Redemption Solitaire is when a player can continue to create side battles
I thought we solved this problem with the one side battle per turn rule, what did I miss?
Sean
-
Garden Tomb will be addressed in the next set. Same with many pre-block ignores. And the cards will be useful for more than just stopping those. Don't worry about those.
Going back to Rob's list of suggestions (and the variations mentioned), I really like Schaef's suggestion and Tim Maly's suggestion, which are variations of option 2. I am not fond of playing a stack of enhancements, returning them to hand, and then playing them all again in the same battle, repeat x5 in Type 2. I don't care whether it wins games or not. That is not the point. 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.
If the enhancement cards are not returned to hand until AFTER the battle (instead of being discarded), then that fixes the problem.
Option 1 would be OK with me, too. Again, it is based on the interactive FUN aspect of the game, not whether or not it wins games. However, if most players think there are enough counters to this, then I'm totally fine with it satying how it is.
-
I thought we solved this problem with the one side battle per turn rule, what did I miss?
That's exactly my point. What those decks did, and the solution required to fix them, is entirely different from someone having to put up with a Zeb deck.
Has anybody thought of putting Masquerading or Defiant in their decks?
-
Has anybody thought of putting Masquerading or Defiant in their decks?
Holy of Holies wasn't enough to stop FbtN from being unbalanced. Masquerading and Defiant simply aren't enough to keep pre-block ignore from being unbalanced. We really need a good deal more stuff to combat pre-block ignore. Bryon's statement is clear that we're getting some so I'm in a wait and see period. Once the next set is released I (and everyone else) will be able to make informed assessments as to whether the pre-block ignore strategy still needs more counter balancing.
Sean
-
I did but I don't use enough staple demons in those brigades, though in orange masquerading would be CBN on a certain place card demon ;)
-
Garden Tomb will be addressed in the next set. Same with many pre-block ignores. And the cards will be useful for more than just stopping those.
Would that "next set" be in tin or booster pack form? 8)
-
I believe it was unofficially announced that the next set will be starter decks.
Sean
-
Hey,
Has anybody thought of putting Masquerading or Defiant in their decks?
I thought about it, but that would require getting a character into battle to play the enhancement on in the first place. I also thought about Thirty Pieces of Silver but that only works if you put a blocker out.
Redemption Solitaire is when a player can continue to create side battles
I thought we solved this problem with the one side battle per turn rule, what did I miss?
Redemption Solitaire will never be "solved." Elite players will always be trying to make the game more like Solitaire because it increases their chances of winning the game. The Powers that Be will always be trying to avoid Solitaire because it makes the game less interactive and thus less enjoyable. It's a back and forth that the game will always have and will always be trying to balance.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Has anybody thought of putting Masquerading or Defiant in their decks?
I thought about it, but that would require getting a character into battle to play the enhancement on in the first place. I also thought about Thirty Pieces of Silver but that only works if you put a blocker out.
I thought about this too. These two cards dont work very well if they dont let you block in the first place. Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
-
Hey,
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory?
That's not the way Redemption uses Errata. Although I wouldn't be surprised if a card in the next set allowed you to do that, something like an Altar of Burnt Offering for evil place enhancements instead of offerings.
And for what it's worth, I think the "issue" isn't The Garden Tomb, it's the vulnerability of evil characters in a territory. The Garden Tomb is just a way of exploiting that issue. (This is why, I think, The Garden Tomb is as effective against single brigade defenses as it is against splash defenses.)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
That would actually make a really awesome new card type. Enhancements that you could play outside of battle, like set-asides, but that take effect immediately, could open up a lot of possibilities for countering these issues we're having.
-
yeah, they'd be like, a hybrid of Warrior-class and Set-aside... you can play them basicly anytime, on anyone, and it just sticks with them. I would NOT want to see these abused, but rather, have them do one very specific thing, most likely be counters to hyper-strong combos.
-
I'm sure you've all been wondering: "What does MetalPsalm say to this???"
Well:
1. Redemption is way cooler that the Leading Brand because of the commitment (I think I remember and I hope 'commitment') to never ban a card. The reasons that is better are Legion.
2. The problem seems to be with "Redemption Solitaire" which Mr Rob struck a blow against with the limit on side battles without too much of a squawk from anyone. "3) ...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. (Changed to # of times you can pass Initiative in a Stalemate)" This is just a continuation of that first ruling, in my view. It is elegant enough I think.
3. Byron came up with this, which is also do-able "If the enhancement cards are not returned to hand until AFTER the battle (instead of being discarded), then that fixes the problem."
4. My favorite solution comes from the Spy which is "the circulation of "antidote" cards". I find that solution the most "free market" in spirit. But, it has been wondered aloud if Rob is wanting alternatives, or a consensus on one of the 3 solutions he outlined? I'm sure he will make that clear.
At any rate, Rob and the play testers have never let us down before. Thanks to you guys for keeping us in the loop!
-
Also, arrogance would not be affected by this rule. Arrogance never gives your opponent the change to pass initiative. They have to pass it three times before the rule would take effect.
Thanks Rob for letting us in on a decision that you are trying to make. I always like when the head guy get's involved in the forums like you do (which is why I also like Ted Dekker's forums :)).
God bless
I made a little mistake in posting that bit about Arrogance. However, it seems that passing initiative three times still gives too much freedom to the strategy that you would be trying to stop. There must be a better way... *putting thinking cap on.*
Also, I forgot to thank Rob... Thank you Rob! ;D
~The Spy
-
I've played against combo decks and I don't feel like these combo decks are a problem. I don't think they're broken or ruining T2. They're only possible in a format that's played by more advanced players, so even when they work it's highly unlikely that they're going to discourage a new player from continuing to play Redemption.
The only reason I would agree that a change is needed is because an aspect of the game that Rob never intended and doesn't want to exist, has developed (the opportunity to play for 15-25 minutes by yourself). From his comments I've gotten the impression that's the real problem, not that combo is dominating.
Option #1 - I really don't want to see choose the blocker changed. If people feel that choose the blocker is a problem I would much rather see more, versatile counters (like Unknown Nation, KotW, Lurking, and The Darkness) printed to help combat it. Most future choose the blockers cards should have abilities similar to Jael and Ehud.
Option #2 - I feel like changing withdraw to work the way it was originally intended would be a good thing. I support the type of change Tim suggested (all characters must withdraw) and/or something that doesn't allow the same enhancement/character to be reused in the same battle.
Option #3 - It seems good to make a change that would keep the spirit of initiative by limiting players to a low number of plays in a stalemate situation. I think that a lower number of passes (possibly 3) would be better than a higher number of passes.
In summary, if a change is going to be made I suggest not 1 but 2 changes, something along the lines of options 2 & 3.
-
Has anybody thought of putting Masquerading or Defiant in their decks?
Holy of Holies wasn't enough to stop FbtN from being unbalanced. Masquerading and Defiant simply aren't enough to keep pre-block ignore from being unbalanced.
I didn't ask you if those two cards were enough to solve the imbalance you say exists. I asked if people used them in your decks. It's a perfectly reasonable question after spending seven years watching people say FBN was too powerful but not actually putting cards in their deck that would shut down FBN.
I thought about it, but that would require getting a character into battle to play the enhancement on in the first place. I also thought about Thirty Pieces of Silver but that only works if you put a blocker out.
So you are completely incapable of placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle before a Zeb deck player draws through his entire deck and discards his hand?
-
Unless you use side battles :-p but who uses thooose? ;)
-
So you are completely incapable of placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle before a Zeb deck player draws through his entire deck and discards his hand?
As a previous Zeb deck user, I will answer this one.
I refused to put a Hero in battle until I was SURE you couldn't block me. I did not want to give my opponent a chance to mess with me.
-
If a change is made, I really like the idea of enhancements that have been played only being returned to hand during Battle Resolution.
-
I refused to put a Hero in battle until I was SURE you couldn't block me. I did not want to give my opponent a chance to mess with me.
Except I can block you. Even assuming I couldn't, not rescuing gives me time to act in various ways to stop a Zeb deck. Deck discard, side battles to get my ECs into play, the Enhancements I mentioned, etc. It is still incorrect to say there is zero chance of getting an EC into battle somehow.
-
Hey,
Except I can block you. Even assuming I couldn't, not rescuing gives me time to act in various ways to stop a Zeb deck. Deck discard, side battles to get my ECs into play, the Enhancements I mentioned, etc. It is still incorrect to say there is zero chance of getting an EC into battle somehow.
You can't block if they don't attack. And every Zebulun deck has Pot of Manna active the whole time so side battles don't really work :P But seriously, when side battles are your only/best option, that's a problem.
Although personally, a Zebulun deck doesn't scare me all that much, I've got 3 1/1 Evil Characters, Unholy Writ, Confusion of Mind, Holy Grail, and my offensive strategy is to beat you quickly anyway. The Garden Tomb is a much bigger deal to me.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Side battles are always the best option, People just don't realize that ;)
I really don't get the issue with TGT, though I think that is because my play style doesn't get lost souls till my defense has been long ago set up.
-
You can't block if they don't attack.
I meant after Zeb was set up. Come on.
-
I'm with Guardian, Bryon, and Maly on this one. Let's make withdrawal enhancements only return enhancements after battle. That seems to do the least amount of damage to existing legitimate strategies while keeping these "deck killer" combos in check.
-
I refused to put a Hero in battle until I was SURE you couldn't block me. I did not want to give my opponent a chance to mess with me.
Except I can block you.
Sadducee's are a dying bread besides they aren't that potent considering there fortress only protects them from discard If you want to use up a artifact slot with crown of thorns thats your perrogative.
Threadjack deleted.
-
Sadducee's are a dying bread besides they aren't that potent considering there fortress only protects them from discard If you want to use up a artifact slot with crown of thorns thats your perrogative. . There used to be a joke "Black is weak" but I am starting to treat that as actual fact now. The lack of CBN hurts black alot.
I don't know what a dying bread is, but I don't play Sads relying only on their Fortress. It just happens to be very helpful in producing a way to block Zeb.
-
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
That would actually make a really awesome new card type. Enhancements that you could play outside of battle, like set-asides, but that take effect immediately, could open up a lot of possibilities for countering these issues we're having.
You mean like "Territory class enhancements" whoops did I just say that out loud?
-
SPOILER! This is what we need to combat ignore!
-
Option #2 - I feel like changing withdraw to work the way it was originally intended would be a good thing. I support the type of change Tim suggested (all characters must withdraw) and/or something that doesn't allow the same enhancement/character to be reused in the same battle.
In summary, if a change is going to be made I suggest not 1 but 2 changes, something along the lines of options 2 & 3.
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 think if we go with option 2, plus the cards coming in the next set, that this may be enough to counter the problem.
Option 3 (which was my only idea of the three proposed) is still available instead of option #2. Again, I don't think we need both. I personally did not like option 1 (CTB modified) because I think we have enough cards to counter it. I included it in the discussion in case a stronger case could be made to support it. I think we can take option 1 off the table at this point and focus on options # 2 or #3.
-
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
That would actually make a really awesome new card type. Enhancements that you could play outside of battle, like set-asides, but that take effect immediately, could open up a lot of possibilities for countering these issues we're having.
You mean like "Territory class enhancements" whoops did I just say that out loud?
You know what I like about this idea. It makes territory "clean out" cards more popular as well and doesn't just combat current "problems". For Example: The two bears, Job overcomes, etc. Of course, I'm assuming the Territory class enhancements are evil to combat pre-block ignore. Mostly, I am curious to see how these new type of cards impact the game overall.
-
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??
-
No attacking if you go first or second player draws his first turn.
-
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. ;)
-
I'm going to throw my support behind the option to only allow Enhancements to be returned at battle resolution.
Sean
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
interesting, I didn't realize that the first player chooses who will go first.... I like it more now
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
+1.
- players getting a redraw of various kinds based on lacking any defense or something
A rule like this would never exist. Right?
-
Actually that rule change is in the works if I remember correctly.
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
Well, I feel ya, ...
Keep your hands to yourself. :o
I actually wouldn't care what is released. If anything, I almost don't want new boosters since I recently traded in over 300 UPCs for older boosters. I would be upset with myself if I could have gotten over 30 packs of the newly released set. :'(
-
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
I was referring to the hopper, most souls in bondage chooses rule. Sorry.
-
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
That would actually make a really awesome new card type. Enhancements that you could play outside of battle, like set-asides, but that take effect immediately, could open up a lot of possibilities for countering these issues we're having.
You mean like "Territory class enhancements" whoops did I just say that out loud?
Oh, that's awesome. I'm really excited for the next set, whatever it is.
-
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
same here. Tin Revolution!
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
I was referring to the hopper, most souls in bondage chooses rule. Sorry.
ah thx. lol
Perhaps these two cards could be errata'd to allow them to be played in territory? That wouldnt make them overpowered, but rather a legitimate way to stop pre-ignore.
That would actually make a really awesome new card type. Enhancements that you could play outside of battle, like set-asides, but that take effect immediately, could open up a lot of possibilities for countering these issues we're having.
You mean like "Territory class enhancements" whoops did I just say that out loud?
Oh, that's awesome. I'm really excited for the next set, whatever it is.
Same, but I just don't feel like spending a lot of cards. Especially if I go to Nats. :P
-
Well, if it's only a starter deck, which seems almost guaranteed at this point... :)
-
Hey,
I can't imagine Rob introducing a "territory class enhancement" in a starter deck.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
why not? It would act like Moses's rod.... It would counter a certain card or theme....
-
Yes but it would be a Starter Deck, and a new type of card would not be included in something meant for players that are new to the game.
-
A/B introduced dominants. :P
-
The concept of enhancements played in territory doesn't seem like too difficult a concept for a starter deck, but we'll see.
-
I can't imagine Rob introducing a "territory class enhancement" in a starter deck.
I agree that they would have to be pretty basically worded to be in a starter deck, but something like the following could work:
Deck I:
Old Testament ECs
Territory EE - Set aside this enhancement in a territory to protect all OT ECs from harm while in that territory.
Deck J:
New Testament ECs
Territory EE - Set aside this enhancement in a territory to protect all NT ECs from harm while in that territory.
Make them both multi-brigade and you've got a simple solution. Assuming that being "ignored" would be classified as "harm", then this would also be very helpful for stopping TGT and other pre-block ignores.
-
I don't see the trouble with adding a new card type with a starter, I mean you'd have the added benefit of being able to print it into the rulebook. And really, there isn't much difficulty in know how to play each type of card.
-
I can't imagine Rob introducing a "territory class enhancement" in a starter deck.
I agree that they would have to be pretty basically worded to be in a starter deck, but something like the following could work:
Deck I:
Old Testament ECs
Territory EE - Set aside this enhancement in a territory to protect all OT ECs from harm while in that territory.
Deck J:
New Testament ECs
Territory EE - Set aside this enhancement in a territory to protect all NT ECs from harm while in that territory.
Make them both multi-brigade and you've got a simple solution. Assuming that being "ignored" would be classified as "harm", then this would also be very helpful for stopping TGT and other pre-block ignores.
Ignoring a character is not considered harm it is simply ignoring the character. I personally don't like the Idea making cards that let you play them in territory. Now that this as been mentioned I think it is odd that a normal looking enhancement with no key ward can be played outside battle.
-
Returning to the suggestions presented by Rob and commented on by others about choose the blocker and withdrawing, as a play tester, I propose an alternate consideration.
What if instead you limit the number of rescue attempts/battle challenges someone could initiate in a turn. I'd start by saying max 3, but even max 2 wouldn't be too overpowered. This option might provide the best of both worlds to people. For those choosing the blocker, they can still do whatever they want while the defender can be assured that he won't be attacked more than 2 or 3 times (for an infinite loop or w/e). I can't think of any situation besides choose the blocker abuse where it would be necessary to make more than one rescue/battle challenge per turn and be grossly overpowered.
-
What if instead you limit the number of rescue attempts/battle challenges someone could initiate in a turn.
I'm not sure this proposal will help with the combo decks that have been played the past few years. Those decks are only making one RA + one side battle per turn. They just keep that one RA and/or side battle going forever and ever.
It will help prevent people from abusing The Long Day, but that hasn't been very prevalent.
-
wouldn't withdraw cards only be abused in a multi rescue setting (otherwise your opponent still has the ability to do stuff their next turn). If they are only making one rescue per turn like you said, how are these single battles lasting for tens of minutes with the finite number of enhancements you could have and not using withdraw cards?
-
If they are only making one rescue per turn like you said, how are these single battles lasting for tens of minutes with the finite number of enhancements you could have and not using withdraw cards?
PM sent.
I'm sending a PM because figuring out how to get my combo to work was one of the most fun things I have done while playing Redemption. In fact it was far and away more fun to develop and test and tweak the combo than it was to actually play it in a tournament. I don't want to take that away from anyone else by giving out an answer.
-
I am not fond of playing a stack of enhancements, returning them to hand, and then playing them all again in the same battle, repeat x5 in Type 2. I don't care whether it wins games or not. That is not the point. 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.
I have a problem with this statement and similar ones expressed on here. The emphatic statement here of what is fun and fellowship is blatantly false because other people (like myself) have stated that it IS FUN to "watch an opponent take a 10-minute turn where you do nothing". I think 10-minute solitaire turns ARE fun and fellowship. Now since this viewpoint has been expressed before, it come across to me like you are intentionally making a false statement or you are treating your preferences as the only legitimate way to enjoy Redemption and other peoples experiences (like mine) are irrelevant and disregarded. Maybe you meant neither but I would ask you to more carefully consider your dogmatic statements.
Now if you really meant "I think that on average it is less fun for the majority of players to have 20 minute soitaire turns happen." then I would still disagree with you but I can respect that position. If 20 minute turns were the norm in Redemption then I would agree with that statement but since it can only occasionally happen with some type 2 decks then I don't think it is a problem.
Which makes me wonder - how many people that don't like this play type 2? Since this really only happens in type 2 then it seems like their opinions would be more relevant to this. This is entirely subjective but it seems like most type 2 players like things the way they are.
I'm sending a PM because figuring out how to get my combo to work was one of the most fun things I have done while playing Redemption. In fact it was far and away more fun to develop and test and tweak the combo than it was to actually play it in a tournament.
I continue to argue against the rule changes because of principle (less rule changes are better for the game) and because I strongly agree with MJB's statement. This is why I support expanding the game to counter the "problem" instead of making the rules more restrictive. If they come out with 10 great new cards that will counter these combos then that is fine. Having to adjust my deck to all of the new strategic options available is part of the fun. If I can't pull off my 20 minute combo because players now have a dozen different ways to play something in the middle of it then I'm excited about that.
I also have to wonder what the goals of the officials are. If I want to intentionally stall and timeout a game, I can easily do that legally and none of these rule changes will effect that. I think timeclocks are the only way to effectively deal with that.
-
Here is my read on it at this point: Most people don't want to see any of the options I listed become a rule. However, if forced to choose they pick their least objectionable option. Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season. We have some new cards coming in the next set that will affect this type of combo and it's not a piece of cake to pull off at any rate. We can revisit the issue if needed after Nationals and after the new cards make their way into decks. BTW, I doubt that many of you will add in the cards from the 2009 set. They aren't going to be very good. Myself and a couple of the playtesters might put them in our decks just to be good sports and support the game. But, most of you will find them of little use. Just leave them alone is my advice. ;D
So, thanks for all the input. It was helpful to me.
Rob
-
I might as well spoil this now and say that one of the Dominants' abilities is to go through my own deck and discard another one of my Dominants. I had to fight Bryon to make sure it didn't say two.
-
I might as well spoil this now and say that one of the Dominants' abilities is to go through my own deck and discard another one of my Dominants. I had to fight Bryon to make sure it didn't say two.
ooOOooOOoo
Methinks I'm gonna like this new set. Granted, I can't come up with a way to use that kind of card off the top of my head, but I'm sure as heck gonna try!
-
I might as well spoil this now and say that one of the Dominants' abilities is to go through my own deck and discard another one of my Dominants. I had to fight Bryon to make sure it didn't say two.
ooOOooOOoo
Methinks I'm gonna like this new set. Granted, I can't come up with a way to use that kind of card off the top of my head, but I'm sure as heck gonna try!
methinks there is more too it then just that. I'm totally adding doubt and Glory and this card to all my decks!
-
Here is my read on it at this point: Most people don't want to see any of the options I listed become a rule. However, if forced to choose they pick their least objectionable option. Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season. We have some new cards coming in the next set that will affect this type of combo and it's not a piece of cake to pull off at any rate. We can revisit the issue if needed after Nationals and after the new cards make their way into decks. BTW, I doubt that many of you will add in the cards from the 2009 set. They aren't going to be very good. Myself and a couple of the playtesters might put them in our decks just to be good sports and support the game. But, most of you will find them of little use. Just leave them alone is my advice. ;D
So, thanks for all the input. It was helpful to me.
Rob
if thats true then it won't sell well. :'( :'( :laugh:
-
I'd still buy it.
-
Hey Rob,
Here is my read on it at this point: Most people don't want to see any of the options I listed become a rule. However, if forced to choose they pick their least objectionable option. Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season.
Thank you for taking the time to ask for opinions and then to act based on what you have heard. Even in those cases when I am not thrilled by your decisions, I always feel that you have given the opposing side a fair hearing. Redemption is blessed to have you as it's creator.
Cheers,
Matt
P.S. Yeah, I can't see myself really wanting any of the 2009 cards either. Maybe I'll just get a couple to show my support for Cactus until you can come up with a set that has good cards in it again.
-
being a playtester myself i have to say that..... :-X
-
*boom*
Oh, sorry about that loud noise. It was my head exploding.
-
Look, I won't ask for any leaks of names, special abilities, or new types of cards.
All I want to know is whether there is a tiny symbol or a tiny letter in the lower left corner.
-
All I want to know is whether there is a tiny symbol or a tiny letter in the lower left corner.
Yes.
-
All I want to know is whether there is a tiny symbol or a tiny letter in the lower left corner.
Considering that Rob set the set is not a starter deck (tiny letter) or a booster set (tiny symbol), I would guess that even if you knew the answer to this question, it wouldn't tell you much :)
-
All I want to know is whether there is a tiny symbol or a tiny letter in the lower left corner.
Its a tiny symbol.
... because letters could be considered symbols too cant they? :P
-
I might as well spoil this now and say that one of the Dominants' abilities is to go through my own deck and discard another one of my Dominants. I had to fight Bryon to make sure it didn't say two.
Yeah, the new "Bragging Rights" evil dominant was so much more meaningful when it discarded two of your own dominants out of your deck. For some reason, Schaef didnt' think anyone would use it unless it only discarded one of your own dominants. Apparently Schaef thought that discarding one dominant and all of your heroes was good enough. ::)
I still think "Search your deck for all characters and 2 dominants. Discard them." was perfect. Oh, well.
-
Wait... you changed it!?!?!? Darn...
-
All I know is that I think Zeb decks would be a lot easier to manage if people would just put cards in their own decks that are beneficial to my defense against Zeb.
-
All I have to say is that I've loved every card in this game (even Buckler) so I don't doubt this set might be a little sneaky, but fun and creative. That might make me a nerd, but I also don't care.
-
I might as well spoil this now and say that one of the Dominants' abilities is to go through my own deck and discard another one of my Dominants. I had to fight Bryon to make sure it didn't say two.
Yeah, the new "Bragging Rights" evil dominant was so much more meaningful when it discarded two of your own dominants out of your deck. For some reason, Schaef didnt' think anyone would use it unless it only discarded one of your own dominants. Apparently Schaef thought that discarding one dominant and all of your heroes was good enough. ::)
I still think "Search your deck for all characters and 2 dominants. Discard them." was perfect. Oh, well.
can anybody say heroeless? (and throw in doubt :D )
-
Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season. We have some new cards coming in the next set that will affect this type of combo and it's not a piece of cake to pull off at any rate. We can revisit the issue if needed after Nationals and after the new cards make their way into decks. BTW, I doubt that many of you will add in the cards from the 2009 set.
So, thanks for all the input. It was helpful to me.
Rob
Thank you very much sir! I want to thank you for listening to our thoughts and for making that conclusion. I, among others, am very glad to hear this. ;D