Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41354 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #150 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 01, 2009, 04:02:15 PM

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?

Sean · « **Reply #151 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:41:35 PM »

I believe it was unofficially announced that the next set will be starter decks.

Sean

SirNobody · « **Reply #152 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:43:13 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: The Schaef on February 01, 2009, 04:03:29 PM

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.

Quote from: Sean on February 01, 2009, 04:00:12 PM

Quote
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

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #153 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:47:38 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on February 01, 2009, 04:43:13 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on February 01, 2009, 04:03:29 PM
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.

SirNobody · « **Reply #154 on:** February 01, 2009, 04:57:11 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 01, 2009, 04:47:38 PM

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

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #155 on:** February 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM »

Quote

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #156 on:** February 01, 2009, 05:13:53 PM »

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.

metalpsalm · « **Reply #157 on:** February 01, 2009, 05:14:57 PM »

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!

The Spy · « **Reply #158 on:** February 01, 2009, 07:52:20 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on January 31, 2009, 10:11:22 PM

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!

~The Spy

Gabe · « **Reply #159 on:** February 01, 2009, 09:47:32 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #160 on:** February 01, 2009, 10:58:53 PM »

Quote from: Sean on February 01, 2009, 04:11:35 PM

Quote
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.

Quote from: SirNobody on February 01, 2009, 04:43:13 PM

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?

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #161 on:** February 01, 2009, 11:21:19 PM »

Unless you use side battles :-p but who uses thooose?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #162 on:** February 01, 2009, 11:25:14 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 01, 2009, 10:58:53 PM

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.

The Guardian · « **Reply #163 on:** February 02, 2009, 02:08:57 AM »

If a change is made, I really like the idea of enhancements that have been played only being returned to hand during Battle Resolution.

The Schaef · « **Reply #164 on:** February 02, 2009, 02:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 01, 2009, 11:25:14 PM

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.

SirNobody · « **Reply #165 on:** February 02, 2009, 02:53:58 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: The Schaef on February 02, 2009, 02:32:30 AM

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

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

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #166 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:10:05 AM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #167 on:** February 02, 2009, 07:51:54 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on February 02, 2009, 02:53:58 AM

You can't block if they don't attack.

I meant after Zeb was set up. Come on.

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #168 on:** February 02, 2009, 04:59:21 PM »

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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #169 on:** February 02, 2009, 07:31:32 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 02, 2009, 02:32:30 AM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 01, 2009, 11:25:14 PM
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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #170 on:** February 03, 2009, 07:06:14 AM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 02, 2009, 07:31:32 PM

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.

CactusRob · « **Reply #171 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:18:48 AM »

Quote from: Tsavong Lah on February 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM

Quote
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?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #172 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:21:57 AM »

SPOILER! This is what we need to combat ignore!

CactusRob · « **Reply #173 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:27:14 AM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on February 01, 2009, 09:47:32 PM

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.

soul seeker · « **Reply #174 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:46:03 AM »

Quote from: CactusRob on February 03, 2009, 11:18:48 AM

Quote from: Tsavong Lah on February 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM
Quote
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.

News:

Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41354 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

The Schaef