Cactus Game Design Message Boards

My point is that you can wait for souls to come out and still win. Show me a game where Heroless has lost because the opponent didn't draw souls.

Also, please tell me you don't agree with the whole "noobs should never ever be able to beat good decks" thought process.

but thats only because im a highly competitive gamer, and despise luck.

This is a Christian game, so "luck" is not involved. It was part of God's Plan for the noob to beat you. 

------------------------------------------------

New players (especially young players) get very frustrated by the lack of Lost Souls. I know that in "friendly" games, my students would often put out all their lost souls and just play for rescues. Or, they would use a "general" land of bondage where everyone's lost souls were available for rescue. I realize that this undermines the very idealogy of most defenses, but the kids had fun and that is ultimately what matters.

There are indeed ways to draw out LSs, but they are all conditional. I like using War Officer types of cards, but there have plenty of times when they simply don't work.

This certainly can't be a new problem. Drawing LSs has been around since the inception of the game. The game has survived, so it probably still will. I think we should consider all the possibilities, as I'm sure Rob has. We just have to make sure that our decisions are not just reactionary. I've lost games because my opponent didn't draw LSs in time, but I've also won my share because my deck was fortunately thin with LSs at opportune times.

Personally, I like the idea of increasing the number of LSs to 10. Most people use the same seven (eight with the Hopper) LSs. This idea may increase creativity with LSs, especially since RoA introduced so many new ones. Site Lock-out decks won't be shut down completely, since you would be allowed to increase the number of sites as well.

8 lost souls would hardly make a difference in game play. 10 lost souls per 50(56) almost insures that both you and your opponent will have lost souls out in play. So the number should be increased to like 2/3 lost souls every seven cards added to a deck.

No not horrible, but necessary to fix the game so lost souls are available for rescue on a more regular basis. YourMathTeacher is right the site rule would still apply so site decks would still work.

necessary to fix the game

How can you fix what isn't a problem? My play style eliminates this problem for me. I'm not saying you need to change your play style, but I honestly just find this "problem" to be the catch 22 of the most common strategies. I seriously think the game would get boring if Lost Souls were always availible. Also, 10 souls in a deck forces you to squash your deck down a lot, leaving less room for experimentation.

How about If I started going on about how my decks always time out, and that the game is broken because I can never win in time? Same deal. You might loose because souls arent drawn fast enough, I might loose because of a time out.

1. The point of a game is to have fun, win or lose. How hard is it to accept that for what it is? Redemption was made for fun and fellowship. Winning is nice, sure. But, honestly, I've had more fun at epic games (the last T2-2p game I played yesterday- thanks for the fun game Robm!) than I do in stressful, competitive times (my last booster draft game yesterday- I was at the top table, in second place till I was totally toppled).
2. Agreeing with Russ and several others, 10 lost souls would be nuts. Now, upping one more per 7 cards added? Although you say that isn't going to change the game, statistically, the chances of drawing an LS would be more probable. But, agreeing with Chris, that takes away from slots, which I believe is a bad idea.
3. It's amusing to me that the game has it's own built in counter to speed decks. Speed decks fail pretty hard if there's no souls to rescue, and your Storehouse/Tables/insert other ways of keeping all your cards here. Anyone think that this would be, oh I don't know, good for the game? Speed decks don't always win the day.
4. You're not alone Lambo, I play slow decks as well and believe that half the fun is requiring people to be patient.
5. General statement I made at NE Regionals for various reasons: I don't believe some things are as "broken" as they are made out to be. It's just that we're so used to using certain archetypes and certain strategies that we don't think outside the box enough to actually get AROUND stuff. I'm not saying I'm perfect at this; I will think something is ( insert OP'ed, not good, etc) until someone points out that I can easily stop it... I was wary of Garden Tombs until I realized I could walk right around them if done correctly, I was wary of Z-Temple, same thing happened. Maybe the problem isn't so much needing new stuff, but utilizing old (isn't that the point of some of the new stuff that's come out?)

Just my... 5 cents?

~Marti

1. The point of a game is to have fun, win or lose.

I think that was the basic premise of increasing the number of LS. More lost souls available for rescue means more fun, especially for beginners. I realize that this would change some current strategies and archetypes, but I think that would be good for the game, rather than bad. We have enough brilliant minds on these boards to come up with new deck-building strategies to overcome (and for a few, abuse) having more LSs.

Frustration quickly settles in when you have to start discarding your perfectly selected cards just to keep the 8-card limit, all because you could not use cards in battle since your opponent hasn't drawn LSs for several turns.

... I'm sorry but need to add TWO lost souls just to add FIVE cards to my deck? In my opinion this would be a HORRIBLE change.

I agree that this would be overboard. I think a 10 LS minimum with the standard 1-per-7 increments would suffice.

This may sound blasphemous but if you have ever played a game of Magic ....

Blasphemy!!!  

Same deal. You might loose because souls arent drawn fast enough, I might loose because of a time out.

For new and younger players, they are not the same deal. At least they got to play cards and have fun trying for 45 minutes. When there are no LSs, they do nothing but draw and discard. Woo-hoo?

I'm really not trying to argue here. I think a good point has been made and it should be discussed. I am speaking purely from my experiences, which encompasses many new players that are young, which should be considered a target audience. We don't want the game to get out of their reach before they can get their feet off the ground.

Not for those of us who play against the norm. Redemption has tried to equalize archetypes as much as possible, when FBTN was rapant they made tons of counters, now they're making counters to Speed. Increasing the soul count while it may help the normal civilization decks out, gives a huge boost to speed decks, while cutting into the effectiveness of Site-lock and other defense heavy strategies.

I have one little problem with your suggestion and that is if I'm playing with a 70 card deck and only have 10 lost souls in the deck we're back to square one with the lost soul to other cards ratio. I really, really, really like what YourMathTeacher suggested when he said the minimum for a 56 card deck is 10 ls and then keep the old rule about adding a lost soul every 7 cards like before.

Odds are that if what I suggested was in place, you wouldn't be playing with a deck that wasn't at least 60+ cards, so your opponent could have the same problem. If you still play with a 50 card deck, it will probably be speed and with 10 lost souls, odds are you will be drawing Harvest Time and Hopper early in the game. Besides, how many people are really going to play with a 70 card deck?

10 Lost souls required in a 50-56 card deck is ridiculous, to be honest... if that was implemented then I would probably never play Type-1 again. It restrains too much creativity when it comes to making a type-1 deck.

Think about it: 50 cards - 10 Lost Souls / 9 Dominants - That leaves you with only 31 cards to use for offense, defense, artifacts, sites, fortresses, etc.. So if you were to not play with any artifacts at all, or fortresses, or sites, then you could have an 8 hero/7 enh offense and an 8 EC/8 enh defense. Most of my (and probably most other's) 50 card decks have 4-5 artifacts, 2 access sites, and 1 fortress.

So now we're at: 50 cards - 10 Lost Souls / 9 Dominants - 4-5 Artifacts / 2 Access Sites / 1 Fortress - 23-24 cards left for offense and defense. That is by far not enough.

I've said it before and I'll risk sounding like a broken record... this "no soul" problem seems to be largely a problem to those who play with more offense. While it'll make the game more fun for you, it'll force me to change my play style. How's that fun for me or anyone else who uses out of the ordinary decks? with 10 lost souls in a 56 card deck, I'd have to include a LOT more defense to deal with the increased soul sount, leaving me even LESS space for offense. So, basicly it'll force me to play offense heavy. I honestly believe if a change like that was made, games would then be decided by who goes first, or who draws SOG/NJ first... because everyone would have to play offense heavy. Otherwise, they'll always get steamrolled. I don't want Redemption to turn into a race to SOG/NJ any more than it already is.

Yet again I have to disagree with you. Yeah, if there are more lost souls on the board sure offense has a great opportunity, but I argue that this will encourage people to play with a little more defense to protect those souls that are in play so your opponent doesn't take freebies every turn. I think this is the answer which this game needs terribly to be more balanced and fun.

Besides, how many people are really going to play with a 70 card deck?

Uh.... Considering how popular 63 is right now (Zebby decks etc) Midwest region loves big decks

I have a feeling that if this was implemented 70 would become very popular. RR would be thrilled.

I have a feeling that if this was implemented 70 would become very popular. RR would be thrilled.

I'm sure he would be; that would be broken. Or if you girls are still not pleased with this sentence maybe this will suffice. > I am sure he would be. That would be broken.