Author Topic: Breaking the game?  (Read 41842 times)

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2009, 02:08:23 PM »
0
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.
noob with a medal

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #76 on: January 31, 2009, 02:16:55 PM »
0
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.   ;)  )
noob with a medal

Offline DaClock

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • TKP Lives?
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #77 on: January 31, 2009, 02:49:51 PM »
0
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.

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2009, 02:52:59 PM »
0
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?   ;)
noob with a medal

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2009, 03:10:58 PM »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 03:16:41 PM by EmJayBee83 »

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2009, 03:14:57 PM »
0
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.

Quote
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

Offline DaClock

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • TKP Lives?
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2009, 03:29:21 PM »
0
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.

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2009, 03:45:20 PM »
0
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

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2009, 03:48:03 PM »
0
number 2...

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2009, 04:15:27 PM »
0
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.

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2009, 04:43:20 PM »
0
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.
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2009, 04:44:54 PM »
0
In regards to your proposed changes, Rob:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2009, 04:50:40 PM »
0
(@ 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...

Offline DaClock

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • TKP Lives?
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #88 on: January 31, 2009, 04:52:11 PM »
0
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.

Offline DaClock

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • TKP Lives?
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #89 on: January 31, 2009, 04:53:20 PM »
0
(@ 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.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #90 on: January 31, 2009, 04:54:03 PM »
0
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
My wife is a hottie.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2009, 05:02:10 PM »
0
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.

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2009, 05:05:13 PM »
0
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.

Quote
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
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2009, 05:10:49 PM »
0
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. ;) 

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2009, 05:12:08 PM »
0
You might want to add John Earley to that list with his Primary Objective deck thread as well.

Kirk
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2009, 05:33:42 PM »
0
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?

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2009, 05:45:24 PM »
0
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

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2009, 05:53:38 PM »
0
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.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2009, 06:16:09 PM »
0
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".

Offline galadgawyn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Breaking the game?
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2009, 06:34:59 PM »
0
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.

Quote
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.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal