Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.

Wow. I didn't realize that Redemption was so elitist. My mistake.

These girls seem to think so...

Ironic that you say that...

You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck

It's simple as this a better deck should win every time over an inferior deck

I don't think I should lose to a newb.

All said by you. 

I'm done here. I hope a new lost soul rule gets implemented.

Oh sure, open up a can of worms.  Cause a huge mess.  Then leave.

 

It certainly deturs from the fun and fellowship of the game when my opponent draws no lost souls for 6 turns in a row. I don't understand why people don't think this is a problem.

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 13, 2009, 06:48:18 PM

These girls seem to think so...

Ok this is the third time i've seen you use the word 'girls" as an obvious attempt at an insult. Please stop. Sexism is not funny, it's just idiotic. It also only goes to prove how insecure you are.

lol. BTW it was actually pretty funny.

It has nothing to do with elitism, it has everything to do with not being able to cater to one group exclusively.  I am no elitist and take offense at that remark. 

So you agree that whether or not the younger players are having fun playing Redemption has no place for discussion on these boards and should not even be remotely considered in any conversation here?

That is what I stated was elitist.

Perhaps we need to change the age requirement for Redemption:

For serious gamers only ages 16 & up (or hobbits age 12 & up).

Tell that to Kurt Hake... he starting at like 5. 

The youngest Alstad was around that age when I played against him at Nats 2005.   

Tell that to Kurt Hake... he starting at like 5. 

The youngest Alstad was around that age when I played against him at Nats 2005.   

So let me rephrase:

The younger players who are not directly related to the serious gamers have no place in any discussion about the game of Redemption, since it isn't about them anyway?

@YMT: It's not elitist to say the the fun and fellowship expirienced through sandlot rules shouldn't be practiced in real rules. If it's elitist to follow the rules, my bad.

It is elitist to say:

Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun....  they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.

The young, new players deserve as much consideration in rule change discussions as you do. To think otherwise is elitist.

So you agree that whether or not the younger players are having fun playing Redemption has no place for discussion on these boards and should not even be remotely considered in any conversation here?

That is what I stated was elitist.

Perhaps we need to change the age requirement for Redemption:

For serious gamers only ages 16 & up (or hobbits age 12 & up).

I do not think Redemption needs to be altered for younger players.  I have taught 8-12 year old young people how to play and have met many many bright young people who are satisfied with the game AS IT IS.  They have neither been discouraged, or disappointed at a 7 turn lost soul drought, they were to eagerly anticipating what came next, and the next battle.  Anticipation can be a joy all in its own.  What I agreed with is that no one groups point of view should overrule other groups point of view. Or maybe I have an exceptionally mature group of young people.  

I dissagree.  Emoticons or no, it is still sexist to say that "being a girl" is a negative thing.  We all said it when we were young but when we get older we realize that those types of phrases are hurtful.  There are plenty of ways to say something is stupid or foolish without calling people "girls" or saying things like "Thats gay"

While I am on SoulSavers side on this, id rather he (or anyone else for that matter) not reffer to the opposition as "girls" in a deroggatory way.

i think the main issue here is that some games are being lost by the lack of lost souls that one player puts into play. there is no proof needed, as its common knowledge this situation has occured in the past before. its not just strictly saying one player draws NO lost souls either...he just doesnt draw enough for the other player to effectively have a chance to win the game.

i really really REALLY like STAMPS idea alot. making a completely seperate lost soul pile for the game changes the fundamental rules and weakens the power of some cards and strategies. however, having the option to pull a lost soul out of a draw pile for each successful battle challenge/side battle seems to be a clear, logical answer. battle challenges serve no purpose other than to use a special ability on a hero, and usually with no evil character even attempting to block...however, this would encourage a more battle-orientated game if a player does not wish for his draw pile to be ransacked. this idea would also retain much of the power behind other cards and strategies as well. i have to give my vote for this solution.

I think this drastic of a rule change this late into the life of Redemption would be a very bad idea.

...why?

i think the main issue here is that some games are being lost by the lack of lost souls that one player puts into play. there is no proof needed, as its common knowledge this situation has occured in the past before.

I never said it doesn't happen. Heck, it has happened to me in both directions. But the serious question is this: does it happen often enough to "break" the game?

Some games are lost to this of course, but I HIGHLY doubt that it happens as often as one would think after reading SS's original post.

Unless someone proves me wrong, this situation is a very rare occurance and is not as big of a deal as you all make it out to be. I already said that if it were like... 1 in 10 games then there would be a problem, but im guessing its more like 1 in 50... mabye even 1 in 100.

Please, someone prove to me that it happens often enough to warrant a change and then I will support you all fullheartedly. Also, please provide numbers with a wide range of decks, not just speed.

I'm not going to debate this.  I almost hesitate to post here because this thread is already about 10 pages too long.

Suffice to say that such a fundamental change in the rules is almost certainly never going to happen.  There are LOTS of cards that produce lost souls in your opponent's LOB whether he draws any or not.  Consider the Hopper, Harvest Time, TAS, Dungeon of Malchiah, etc, etc, ETC.  Plus, there are more in the next set.

Has anyone ever seen a successful speed deck?  Don't they, by their very definition, draw their lost souls faster than other decks?  Yet they win.  How can this be if person who draws more souls is at such a disadvantage?

As Gabe so aptly put it, this is a card game.  If you want pure strategy, go play chess.  I don't mind having a little luck in the game, but that hardly makes it "Vegas".

Someone ought to lock this before it gets (even more) out of hand.

Kevin Shride