Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41783 times)

Sean · « **Reply #100 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:51:44 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood

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

SoulSaver · « **Reply #101 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:21:06 PM »

Quote

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.

Lawfuldog · « **Reply #102 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:30:29 PM »

Quote from: SoulSaver on January 31, 2009, 07:21:06 PM

Quote
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.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #103 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:31:25 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 06:51:44 PM

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).

SoulSaver · « **Reply #104 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:33:00 PM »

Quote

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!

Sean · « **Reply #105 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:58:04 PM »

Quote

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

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #106 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:05:34 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 06:51:44 PM

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.

The Spy · « **Reply #107 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:11:50 PM »

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.

Quote from: CactusRob on January 31, 2009, 09:32:26 AM

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.)

Quote from: CactusRob on January 31, 2009, 09:32:26 AM

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.

Quote from: CactusRob on January 31, 2009, 09:32:26 AM

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.

The Spy · « **Reply #108 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:12:22 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on January 31, 2009, 09:32:26 AM

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.

Quote from: CactusRob on January 31, 2009, 09:32:26 AM

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

Sean · « **Reply #109 on:** January 31, 2009, 08:14:06 PM »

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.

Quote

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

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #110 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:14:09 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 07:58:04 PM

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.

Sean · « **Reply #111 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:26:30 PM »

Quote

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

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #112 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:33:04 PM »

Mine is most likely the latter.

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'?

Sean · « **Reply #113 on:** January 31, 2009, 09:41:42 PM »

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

Ironica · « **Reply #114 on:** January 31, 2009, 10:11:22 PM »

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

TheMarti · « **Reply #115 on:** January 31, 2009, 10:27:26 PM »

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?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #116 on:** January 31, 2009, 10:41:44 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 08:14:06 PM

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.

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on January 31, 2009, 09:14:09 PM

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.

Sean · « **Reply #117 on:** January 31, 2009, 10:50:09 PM »

Quote

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

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #118 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:19:41 PM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #119 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:21:06 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 10:50:09 PM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #120 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:24:33 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 31, 2009, 11:19:41 PM

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.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #121 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:28:47 PM »

Overdramatization: I think it should be ruled that no hero can prevent an EC from entering battle! WHO'S WITH ME?!

Sean · « **Reply #122 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:30:01 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood

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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher

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

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #123 on:** January 31, 2009, 11:48:42 PM »

Quote from: Sean on January 31, 2009, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood
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

Sean · « **Reply #124 on:** February 01, 2009, 12:08:42 AM »

Quote

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

News:

Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41783 times)

SoulSaver

Scottie_ffgamer

SoulSaver

Scottie_ffgamer

Scottie_ffgamer

Ironica

TheMarti