Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I'd like to consider the possibility of changing the deck building rules in type two for Sites and Lost Souls with a special ability.  My suggestion is that the rule for Lost Souls and Sites with a special ability be the same as Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, and Curses: a maximum of 3 per deck.

   For Lost Souls, this change would give players the ability to better focus their strategies while also leaving it possible to have a diverse strategy.  Currently, the "maximum" of 2 per deck doesn't give players enough of an opportunity to really put an effort into choosing the Lost Souls that they use.  Everybody just uses the same basic template of Lost Souls.  I haven't played against many decks that have not used at least 2 of the NT, Women, Revealer, and Wanderer since each of those cards were printed.  That's not very diverse.  With the extra spot available I feel that the growing strategies that our play test group is putting together in each new expansion will only make those strategies even better.  Certain Lost Souls help certain brigades or strategies more than others so it stands to reason that the ability to have 3 rather than just 2 would make for some better strategies and therefore better games.  This would lead to players including Lost Souls that aren't included as much now because it helps their deck more than just going with the cookie cutter standard.  Better strategy is a win in my book.

   For Sites this change will mean that defensive strategies that have cards that play off of Sites, especially those connected with the different races, will be strengthened because there will be an additional card available to bolster the defense.  Of course, this is only true for special ability Sites.  Non-special ability Sites are at 5 per deck.  However, I feel that having the ability to have a more focused defense is a good option for players to have and increasing the number of Sites with special ability from 2 to 3 would make that possible.  Frankly, if a player wants to use a certain special ability Site for their defense they are really taking a chance because just 2 cards out of 100+ does not provide a good opportunity to draw them.  

   I know that some will not like this idea for different reasons but I'm putting it out there so that we can discuss it.  I have considered each of the cards and feel that there aren't any problems with creating overpowered decks or combinations.  This change would make type two more of what it is supposed to be: more strategic and more copies of the same card.  What puzzles me is why this change wasn't made when the Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, and Curses were moved from 1 per 50 to 3 per deck.  I think it makes a lot of sense.

3 Hormahs would be nasty too.

Would it still be 1 per 50 with a max of 3, or a jump straight to a max of 3?

3 Hormahs would be nasty too.

The Rescuer's Choice at least gives the rescuer a way to dodge the soul in this site, as there are usually enough souls to have a choice of rescue options.  Besides, Danites Attack always needs more play time.

The only things that scares me are having 3 copies of DragonRaid or the 3-liner.  DragonRaid/NJ/Promised Land stockpiles could mean easier wins vs site lockout, and the 3-liner might delay the game a bit if played right.  I'm not really against it, though.

or you'd get the same thing but 3 of each

And didn't Bryon say those numbers were the same regardless of deck size?

What is up with this game and overpowered? Isn't Jacob/RTC overpowered? The Garden Tomb? Ethiopian Treasurer? Come on, there are plenty of op cards and combos in this ga,e so overpowered is not an issue because the next set comes out and that old stuff gets stopped.

The only things that scares me are having 3 copies of DragonRaid or the 3-liner.  DragonRaid/NJ/Promised Land stockpiles could mean easier wins vs site lockout, and the 3-liner might delay the game a bit if played right

Multicolor site stockpiles? You can already use 2 promised land, DR, Ends of the Earth, New Jerusalem, that is 8 sites aka stockpiles. Why would being able to have 3 of each make it to where people would use all of them? People probably will still stick to 2 access sites only anyway, plus you have artifacts. It is easy to gain access to a site lockout if you have 8 sites, making it max of 3 per deck will not matter. 

Did I say lets make more things overpowered? I'm pretty sure I didn't, and my point was also how this was not overpowered. Having 3 Hormah's or BBH...who cares. BBH can already hold all the lost souls so having another would not matter, if you have access you have access. Also with Hormah don't kill the dude or don't rescue from that site. It is like a battle winner almost nothing overpowered.

I like the idea of having only 1 (dominants and multicolor), 5 (single-brigade characters and enhancements) and 3 (the rest) as maximum numbers.  It is easier than having to remember which are 3 per deck, and which are only 2 per deck.

I like the idea of having only 1 (dominants and multicolor), 5 (single-brigade characters and enhancements) and 3 (the rest) as maximum numbers.  It is easier than having to remember which are 3 per deck, and which are only 2 per deck.

Cool beans.  5-3-1 would definitely be easy to remember and teach.

I like the 1/3/5 thing as well.

So is this going to happen then?

Not unless or until Rob agrees.

The sites is not a problem, but the lost souls might make it more complicated since they are so many strong lost soul abilities now.

Wow!  I missed Bryon's post back when he made it.  I LIKEY!

Wow!  I missed Bryon's post back when he made it.  I LIKEY!

I do not like this idea very much if at all. Sean layed out the basic problem quite well in the first post of the thread*...

Currently, the "maximum" of 2 per deck doesn't give players enough of an opportunity to really put an effort into choosing the Lost Souls that they use.  Everybody just uses the same basic template of Lost Souls.  I haven't played against many decks that have not used at least 2 of the NT, Women, Revealer, and Wanderer since each of those cards were printed.  That's not very diverse.

If you allow three of each LS with a special ability, you are going to see people play 3 each of the NT, Women, Revealer, and Wanderer.  That is 12 of the required 14 slots. Put another way, almost half of the LS available in a standard T2 deck (6 of 14) are going to be basically unredeemable by Teal. I fail to see why this would be a desirable outcome.

*Why Sean argued in favor of increasing the maximum to 3 to improve this situation is beyond me.