Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41418 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #200 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:08:10 PM »

Quote from: metalpsalm on February 03, 2009, 06:02:24 PM

Well, I feel ya, ...

Keep your hands to yourself.

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #201 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:14:34 PM »

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on February 03, 2009, 04:19:40 PM

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.

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #202 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:25:49 PM »

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?

Oh, that's awesome. I'm really excited for the next set, whatever it is.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #203 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:45:14 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 03, 2009, 05:55:27 PM

Quote from: metalpsalm on February 03, 2009, 05:39:20 PM
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...

same here. Tin Revolution!

Quote from: Janissary on February 03, 2009, 06:14:34 PM

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on February 03, 2009, 04:19:40 PM
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

Quote from: Tsavong Lah on February 03, 2009, 06:25:49 PM

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?

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.

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #204 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:50:52 PM »

Well, if it's only a starter deck, which seems almost guaranteed at this point...

SirNobody · « **Reply #205 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:52:35 PM »

Hey,

I can't imagine Rob introducing a "territory class enhancement" in a starter deck.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #206 on:** February 03, 2009, 06:57:50 PM »

why not? It would act like Moses's rod.... It would counter a certain card or theme....

Lawfuldog · « **Reply #207 on:** February 03, 2009, 07:07:27 PM »

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #208 on:** February 03, 2009, 07:27:18 PM »

A/B introduced dominants.

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #209 on:** February 03, 2009, 07:41:18 PM »

The concept of enhancements played in territory doesn't seem like too difficult a concept for a starter deck, but we'll see.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #210 on:** February 04, 2009, 04:57:18 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on February 03, 2009, 06:52:35 PM

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.

Sean · « **Reply #211 on:** February 04, 2009, 11:19:30 AM »

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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #212 on:** February 10, 2009, 08:34:36 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 04, 2009, 04:57:18 AM

Quote from: SirNobody on February 03, 2009, 06:52:35 PM
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.

Gohanick · « **Reply #213 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:39:23 PM »

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.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #214 on:** February 17, 2009, 12:00:46 AM »

Quote from: Gohanick on February 16, 2009, 11:39:23 PM

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.

Gohanick · « **Reply #215 on:** February 17, 2009, 12:14:08 AM »

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?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #216 on:** February 17, 2009, 12:33:13 AM »

Quote from: Gohanick on February 17, 2009, 12:14:08 AM

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.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #217 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:01:08 PM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

CactusRob · « **Reply #218 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:27:13 PM »

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.

So, thanks for all the input. It was helpful to me.

Rob

The Schaef · « **Reply #219 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:31:11 PM »

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.

jtay · « **Reply #220 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:41:24 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 20, 2009, 04:31:11 PM

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!

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #221 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:53:12 PM »

Quote from: jtay on February 20, 2009, 04:41:24 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on February 20, 2009, 04:31:11 PM
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!

Red · « **Reply #222 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:26:56 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on February 20, 2009, 04:27:13 PM

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.

So, thanks for all the input. It was helpful to me.

Rob

if thats true then it won't sell well.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #223 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:34:00 PM »

I'd still buy it.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #224 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:58:47 PM »

Hey Rob,

Quote from: CactusRob on February 20, 2009, 04:27:13 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Breaking the game? (Read 41418 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk