Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Bryon on March 15, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls. [Remember that the Hopper Lost Soul does not count as a lost soul in deck-building. So, adding the Hopper to your deck does not allow you to add an extra site or dominant.]
2. You cannot rescue lost souls in your own Land of Bondage. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
3. Hosts are allowed to run their (local and district level) tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 2 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
***************
"I (Rob) will update the host application tomorrow so the host can mark if he or she is running a "restricted" event in place of the regular event. RNRS will go into the same pot. This is a test and is not required of the host and only for smaller level tournaments. I will also note if the category is retricted on the Tournament Listing page on the Cactus site. If any host wants to modify an already posted event to use restrictive deck building rules, send me an email and I will update the listing."
***************
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
Rather, Mayhem gets the following errata: If it is not the first round, each player must shuffle hand to draw six.
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
2. You cannot rescue your own lost souls. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
3. Hosts are allowed to run their tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 3 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
These are rules as of right now? Excellent!
-
Hate the second rule, love the other three. Either way, glad we decided not to wait.
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
It would seem that there should be some allowance for a situation like this?
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
Have an exciting tournament! :)
Seriously, a tournament is a great time to make the announcement to your playgroup. I suppose it is up to the host to decide how strictly he will hold to the deck-building rule - especially if players come without extra cards to sub in for their superflous dominants.
-
This is interesting...
This pretty much creates a kind of "sideboard." I will allow 7 doms at my tournaments where my neighbors will only all 5. People may need to prep with a potential twist.
Rule 3 should appear on the tournament application so it can be advertised.
Still not a fan of 1/2 of rule 2, I like SoG to get ANY lost soul, but I can live with it. I will concede this as my compromise as opposed to banning cards.
Rule 4 helps Gardenciples, but I get why they made the rule.
-
Wow. What changed the Elders mind to implement these rules immediately and not after Nats? I'm all for this. Amazing job Elders. R.I.P. FTM!!!
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
Have an exciting tournament! :)
Seriously, a tournament is a great time to make the announcement to your playgroup. I suppose it is up to the host to decide how strictly he will hold to the deck-building rule - especially if players come without extra cards to sub in for their superflous dominants.
Next time, can we get a month? Even a week would help people adjust mentally to the new rules. While I agree they were needed (except #2, that seems like a pet rule change), there should be SUBSTANTIALLY more time between the announcement and when they come into effect.
-
Rule 4 helps Gardenciples, but I get why they made the rule.
How does it help Gardensciples?
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
Great.
2. You cannot rescue your own lost souls. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
Hate. We tested this one in ROOT and it seemed to get very lukewarm support. Why change this?
3. Hosts are allowed to run their tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 2 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
Hate the most. Creating different rules for different tournaments is TERRIBLE for the game. Think about regionally ruling fiascos (i.e. Sam Duplicates, Thad, etc). This creates more of them.
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
Can we just make it all dominants? It's easier to explain and makes more sense to just rule it as a complete card type.
-
Next time, can we get a month? Even a week would help people adjust mentally to the new rules. While I agree they were needed (except #2, that seems like a pet rule change), there should be SUBSTANTIALLY more time between the announcement and when they come into effect.
I think this is better than them dropping it on us in the middle of States/Regionals, right? :)
-
You just killed this game by dropping these horrible rule changes in the middle of a season. And I retract my previous thing about quiting after nationals. I'm quiting now seeing as rule two was implemented.
-
Next time, can we get a month? Even a week would help people adjust mentally to the new rules. While I agree they were needed (except #2, that seems like a pet rule change), there should be SUBSTANTIALLY more time between the announcement and when they come into effect.
I think this is better than them dropping it on us in the middle of States/Regionals, right? :)
Yes, I was there for the Highway errata. Still, like I said, this is sudden. Now none of my decks are legal, and I don't know if I'll have the time to fix/test them before Saturday.
-
Rule 3 is exceedingly terrible. Now I can go into a tournament without knowing the rules? I assume larger tournaments will let that be known ahead of time, but I don't see the point to that rule.
-
So much win! The only thing I have a problem with, and it is a huge one, is creating another optional rule, and a huge one at that. However, I'm sure the absurdity of allowing different rules for how many dominants you can have at a host's discretion will be quickly spotted and removed.
-
So #2 makes the exchanger useless?
-
I agree with the time constraints, as this will completely change decks being checked-in at a tournament I'm going to in (checks) 36 hours. How are we supposed to reach all attendees about the change, hope they all log-in in tomorrow and see the thread? This is far too sudden, even if I love some of the rule changes.
PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, remove rule 3. If there is to be ANYTHING similar, it should be a new type. It COMPLETELY changes what decks would work, ruins the very concept of on-the-spot locals (what deck do I bring?), and makes different regions (or even playgroups next to each other!) function differently at tournaments.
-
Rule 2 is a bad idea.
Using SoG defensively has never (at least to my knowledge) been broken, why nerf it?
Rule three should be mandatory, four doms only. Let's see how well your Sam speed works now...
-
So #2 makes the exchanger useless?
I think it should be amended to say you cannot rescue your own lost souls in your LOB.
-
Please take #2 out it breaks the game, please!!!!
-
While I like most of these rule changes (except rule #3, I honestly think that is just a plain terrible, terrible idea), I think this was not a good way to implement these rule changes at all. Giving no real warning that something like this was coming, and then dropping MULTIPLE MAJOR rule changes, is in my opinion, not the right way to handle this.
-
So #2 makes the exchanger useless?
No, because "your" means own and control. You own an exchanger in opponent's territory, but do not control it.
-
Rule 4 helps Gardenciples, but I get why they made the rule.
How does it help Gardensciples?
Sometimes a Grapes, CM, or Burial is required to slow down even an average start up draw for Gardenciples. Nerfing all doms first round could give that meta a leg up early.
-
Relax everybody Bryon just read his calendar wrong. He thinks it is April 1st.
-
That avatar is so awesome.
-
To quote the host for a tournament I am attending Saturday when I texted about this thread's existence a mere 36 hours before deck-check:
WHAT?!
The subsequent conversation was a lot of worry and wondering how to even think to run a tournament on Saturday with the new rules, since everyone will have to update their decks there, if the message didn't get to them. And how can we blame or penalize players for the crime of not checking the forums for one day or not having a friend with their phone number who has?
Please let us rule as normal for a set amount of time and put this into effect on a specific future date. Education will take time, as well as adjustment.
-
A quick note to all the tournament hosts and playgroup leaders who are hosting games in the next couple weeks: Rob isn't going to take away your ability to host tournaments, nor is God going to strike you down if you don't implement these new rules this weekend.
-
A quick note to all the tournament hosts and playgroup leaders who are hosting games in the next couple weeks: Rob isn't going to take away your ability to host tournaments, nor is God going to strike you down if you don't implement these new rules this weekend.
Well said. I'm pretty certain that tourneys this weekend will become "host's discretion".
-
First of all, I am thrilled that these rules are going into effect now, well before States and Regionals begin, while we can warm them up a little before things get major.
Second of all, I HATE rule 3. I would like to be able to have a deck that is legal no matter where I take it. Optional rules that don't involve deck building (like name on name (if that were actually optional)) might be acceptable, though not preferable. But such a dramatic deck building rule difference between tournaments is not okay.
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best. :) I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best. :) I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.
Do you mind giving a quick summary of why you opted to go with rule change #3, and if there's any chance of changing it, considering the pretty large group of people that hate it?
-
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?
Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best. :) I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.
*phew!* Thanks. I didn't want to make the hard decision between breaking the rules of hosting or doing what (I think) is best for our players. (In the past, it's turned out that when I do what "I think" is better than the authorities placed over me, things don't turn out well).
-
Can I just say host discretion for deck building is dumb and make deck check in take longer and be kind of frustrating, because now my deck may or may not be legal depending on how the host feels. Do any other TCG do this? I think for the most part deck building should be left up to the player.
-
In the words of Marvin the Martin: "You make me very angry!"
I can live the "ya can't have more dominants that lost souls" idea, and the "no first turn dominants" idea, but I seriously dislike the other two. The two dominate rules for T1 are outrageous. So, if I may ask, where did the idea of this ruling come from anyway?
-
As I was quoted saying earlier, WHAT?! I mean seriously, what is going on here?! I understand the need for some of these rules but 2 of them seem crazy and I don't like them(I am looking at you 2 and 3). How Am I suppose to let players coming to my tournaments know what Dominant configuration we are using? Not all of them come on the boards. That being said I am going to attempt to use these rules for my tournament this Saturday, with the caveat that no one shows unable to play by these (by not bringing sufficient cards to edit their decks). If that occurs I will revert to the old rules. I am not pleased about this, however I am willing to try to work with this. For the good of the game.
In my opinion though rule 3 needs to be revised or removed until there is a way for host to advertise what Dominant configuration they are using. I still fail to see how rule two will do anything but hurt defense and help speed. I actually Like 1 and 4. Just my :2cents:
-
Because dominants are (pardon the pun) dominating the meta, the entire point of Sam decks is to draw all your dominants as fast as possible because very few decks can survive a dominant rush.
-
Can we have a poll to decide which rules we like and don't like?
-
I will be implementing these rules (except #3) this Saturday in WI. I don't see that 1, 2, and 4 will make very big changes to our group. I'd love to implement #3, but I'm not going to do it last minute, and I think if it's going to be done it should be everywhere or nowhere. I just looked through my deck and realized that even I would have to remove one good and one evil dominant from my deck, and I play with many less dominants than most people.
Is there any chance that #3 will be implemented as a permanent rule change in the future if it goes well in the next few months? If so, I will use it in my other Local and District tournaments in June and July. If not, I don't see a point in using it for those if it won't be for higher levels.
By the way, if #3 was permanent, #1 & #4 wouldn't really be necessary...
Ken
-
rule 1 i'm cool with
Rule 2 i'm not so happy about but i think i'll come around to it eventually
rule 3 i very much dislike
rule 4 i disagree with the fact that its only evil dominants. if you are going to restrict evil Doms first round why not just restrict ALL Doms first round? in my opinion that would be better anyway thats my thought on the new rules ^_^
-
By the way, if #3 was permanent, #1 & #4 wouldn't really be necessary...
Great idea... ;D
-
Rule #3 is amazing.
-
I agree, I think #3 should be a permanent rule.
-
Ryupeco11, I think you are right about rule 2.
It took quite a while for players to get used to the idea of Son of God not rescuing the NT soul. It took quite a while for players to get used to not being able to play NJ with an opponent's Son of God. Neither were popular when announced. Both were good for the game. Being able to rescue your own lost souls with Son of God and NJ just turns SoG and NJ into defense cards, reducing the need to use actual defense. It will feel wierd not being able to drop them for a chump stop. But it will be good for the game.
But if I am wrong and the change is not for the better, it will be changed back after Nationals.
-
I agree, I think #3 should be a permanent rule.
I dont think so....
-
yes i remember when NJ not being played with an opponents SOG went into affect I wasn't thrilled about it but i do think it helped. rule 2 will probably help it's just going to take some time to get use to it.
-
But it will be good for the game.
How? It just seems to hurt defense and it makes you even more dependent on your opponent drawing souls...
-
I think 4 should include ALL dominants, not just Evil. Angel of the Lord is Free LS first turn now more than ever.
-
yes i remember when NJ not being played with an opponents SOG went into affect I wasn't thrilled about it but i do think it helped. rule 2 will probably help it's just going to take some time to get use to it.
The only thing I do like about it is that now you can't be merciful and end a game when you are wining/losing a game handily.
-
i will be sticking with the max on the dominate cap for my tournaments (7). It would be interesting to try to host with 2 and 2 only but i dont think i will have the funds to do local like that until the fall.
-
Problems I have with all of this:
Dominants are sometimes the ONLY way to stop some offenses and strategies. So now if I get lucky and get TGT on my initial draw, I just get a free soul regardless of what my opponent drew? And now I don't have to worry that everything banded might get shuffled with Grapes, because who wouldn't use SoG and NJ? Should I even use a two/three-liner since Burial is probably out? How can I hit that artifact without DoN?
And restricting the number of dominants makes stopping offenses so much more difficult. I see this helping the meta, not hurting it, and making the rich richer, as it were.
-
I agree, I think #3 should be a permanent rule.
I think a limit of 2 of each alignment is WAY too low. I could go with 3 or 4, I suppose. However, if we also want to encourage diversity and larger decks, a Lost-Soul-based cap is much more interesting (and less restrictive, since you can choose to have more evil and less good or vice versa).
I also agree #4 should include all dominants.
Side note: Goodbye forever Doubt. :(
-
I think 4 should include ALL dominants, not just Evil. Angel of the Lord is Free LS first turn now more than ever.
We're still talking about that one. The difficulty lies in slapjack in at least 2 scenarios:
1) You rescue a lost soul in the first round, and then as soon as the round ends, there is a slapjack race to see who plays Guardian vs. Falling Away first.
2) You rescue half of the Lost SoulS card in the first round, and then as soon as the round ends, there is a slapjack race to see who plays SoG vs. Burial first.
Both of those situations could be avoided if good dominants were allowed first round, but evil ones were not. But they are not insurmountable problems if we really want good dominants stopped first round, too. We'll see what the playtesters/Rob decide.
-
It is times like this that I am glad I don't start my hosting season until after I get my tax return. ;)
I agree with those that feel an "optional" rule for deck-building is a bad idea. Optional rules like Name-on-Name and Experience Credit (for Type 1) do not have major effects on deck-building and player testing across the country. An optional deck-building rule will have major effects, and I'm not sure how they would not be negative effects. I think we should use the 3E3G dominant rule for all types at all times.
I also agree with those who feel the "Round 1 Rule" should include all dominants. This would be much easier to teach to new players, of which Central Florida Redemption is about to have at least five more in the coming weeks.
***P.S. Will you all stop typing so I can send this message!!! **** :P
-
I think most players will be fine just keeping their decks at 7 dominants. Most hosts will stick with that. In fact, I think that most hosts that drop it to 2/2 will do so only by popular demand in their own playgroup.
-
But it will be good for the game.
How? It just seems to hurt defense and it makes you even more dependent on your opponent drawing souls...
I'm pretty well known for playing defense, and probably know defense as well as anyone. I personally think that rule #2 will end up HELPING defense.
-
I think most players will be fine just keeping their decks at 7 dominants. Most hosts will stick with that. In fact, I think that most hosts that drop it to 2/2 will do so only by popular demand in their own playgroup.
So how am I as a player to know which Dominant rule will be in effect?
-
I think most players will be fine just keeping their decks at 7 dominants. Most hosts will stick with that. In fact, I think that most hosts that drop it to 2/2 will do so only by popular demand in their own playgroup.
So how am I as a player to know which Dominant rule will be in effect?
I thought you were the host! :)
Seriously, expect the LS/Site/Dom cap. Bring 3 extra non-dom cards just in case. If you MUST be sure beforehand, e-mail the host.
-
ugh....i soooo don't like the rule about not rescuing ur own souls. I just found out that you could do that...and not it's taken away from me....lol. Gosh!
-
I would like to say although I'm not too hot on rule #2, I think its great that the game is getting shaken up. It needed some changes and I love it! Its risky to change but I think its for the overall good of the game!
-
If you MUST be sure beforehand, e-mail the host.
Is it possible to include this sidenote on the Tournaments Page at Cactus' website?
-
I think most players will be fine just keeping their decks at 7 dominants. Most hosts will stick with that. In fact, I think that most hosts that drop it to 2/2 will do so only by popular demand in their own playgroup.
So how am I as a player to know which Dominant rule will be in effect?
I thought you were the host! :)
Seriously, expect the LS/Site/Dom cap. Bring 3 extra non-dom cards just in case. If you MUST be sure beforehand, e-mail the host.
I was speaking hypothetically, however I also play in tournaments that I do not host. I think that answer is unsatisfactory because not all hosts are quick with their responses.
-
I think most players will be fine just keeping their decks at 7 dominants. Most hosts will stick with that. In fact, I think that most hosts that drop it to 2/2 will do so only by popular demand in their own playgroup.
When I stopped requiring host to offer all categories at district and higher events, it opened the door to more categories without over taxing the host. I view these "restrictive" categories as more options. For example, some groups love Type 1 Teams and some groups never run it. The point is that the host with input of local players decides to run Teams or not. Obviously, a Teams deck is quite different from a deck you would build for another category. Building a restrictive deck shouldn't be any more drastic than a Teams deck if that much.
-
Well I'm glad I was made aware of these new rulings before I go to my first tournament next weekend...:)
-
Obviously, a Teams deck is quite different from a deck you would build for another category. Building a restrictive deck shouldn't be any more drastic than a Teams deck if that much.
However, players know going into the tournament what is being offered. Is there a plan to add the restrictive categories to the Tournament Application and be advertised on the Tournaments Page?
-
If you MUST be sure beforehand, e-mail the host.
Is it possible to include this sidenote on the Tournaments Page at Cactus' website?
That is a great idea. It can be posted as a (restricted) tag where all the events are listed. For example: Teams, Type 1 2P (restricted), Type 2 2-player, Booster.
-
Is that the offical name of the category? Restricted?
-
ugh....i soooo don't like the rule about not rescuing ur own souls. I just found out that you could do that...and not it's taken away from me....lol. Gosh!
This is relevant in our decision. Most new players do not intuitively conclude that they can rescue their own Lost Souls. Up until now, they had to be "corrected" on that point. While we believe this decision will improve the game, it has the added bonus of flowing in the direction that most new players already understand it.
-
Is that the offical name of the category? Restricted?
yes yes it is :P
-
And restricting the number of dominants makes stopping offenses so much more difficult. I see this helping the meta, not hurting it, and making the rich richer, as it were.
I played 5 games during ROOT with dominant cap and in every game it helped bolster defense and slow down games slightly rather than promoting offense more.
Bryon,
I am curious why the first round ban extends to all evil doms instead of just Mayhem. I think we all know Mayhem is the problem, not the others. With the way it is now, AotL just got a big first round boost.
I do love 1 and 2 and am so happy to see them in place sooner than later. I think we may even see more deck variety now.
Kirk
-
Is that the offical name of the category? Restricted?
I'm sorry but you are not allowed access to that information.
-
I think having the rule be optional is great, it allows me to host a tournament where my n00bs can compete on more equal footing with veterans. My only real issue is one of communication. Make it part of the application and display it on the website, people can determine that info when they acquire the other tournament information. In the end I just want players to be easily able to determine whether or not they want to participate based on Dominant deck rules with out having to hunt down the host.
**** instaposted
-
All of this makes the thread earlier about Cactus not making new categories/listening to players hysterically ironic considering most of those rules where ones tested in ROOT.
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lfgcg5qzsl1qbvc38o1_400.jpg&hash=740f0f9e1b7e23abc11500e4b36fd90a1839f7e6)
2. You cannot rescue lost souls in your own Land of Bondage. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flaeknishendr.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fjackie-chan-meme.png%253Fw%253D320%2526h%253D160&hash=2645f5054520cc11bc2712ae8dbd1d6612d8086a)
3. Hosts are allowed to run their (local and district level) tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 2 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fragefaces%2F2b7902c4dd82ba2d970256e7ff248b99.png&hash=bae0165b90f929c1b9cc3b45cd8ee7684bbb81c4)
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.terrariaonline.com%2Fattachments%2Fokay-meme-jpg.3008%2F&hash=e48a3280877bdae1f0ad8abb0e76974f8fb43e7e)
-
All of this makes the thread earlier about Cactus not making new categories/listening to players hysterically ironic considering most of those rules where ones tested in ROOT.
How exactly? People complained that the powers-that-be weren't listening to the player base, and then they listened. That's not ironic, that's just good.
-
Does this new rule set completely replace the old dominant rules?
-
Does this new rule set completely replace the old dominant rules?
As far as I can tell. Not sure what you mean by old dominant rules though.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
-
All of this makes the thread earlier about Cactus not making new categories/listening to players hysterically ironic considering most of those rules where ones tested in ROOT.
How exactly? People complained that the powers-that-be weren't listening to the player base, and then they listened. That's not ironic, that's just good.
Yes because I'm sure these rules were announce specifically right now because of that thread.
-
Does this new rule set completely replace the old dominant rules?
I am positive that you can still only have one of each dominant, which was really the only dominant rule before, wasn't it?
-
Yes because I'm sure these rules were announce specifically right now because of that thread.
Are you somehow under the impression players haven't said something for years?
-
I am positive that you can still only have one of each dominant, which was really the only dominant rule before, wasn't it?
You should have waited until I got a second elder to confirm...
-
Mentioning of Teams brings a question up.
What categories are these new rules limited too? (All of them, just T1 2P, etc.)
-
rule 4 i disagree with the fact that its only evil dominants. if you are going to restrict evil Doms first round why not just restrict ALL Doms first round? in my opinion that would be better anyway thats my thought on the new rules ^_^
I for one hope that this rule just becomes Mayhem only, and here's why:
1) The player who goes first SHOULD be vulnerable to Christian Martyr or having the LS they are going for get buried. With this rule though, if you draw an awesome hero (Strong Angel, COTH) in your opening hand, you're even further guaranteed a lost soul. You also can't bury the half-rescued two-liner as a defensive move.
2) But I feel that the person who drew the most lost souls but has no souls to rescue in opp's territory, should be able to play Harvest Time to get a lost soul out. This is why I feel that good dominants should be allowed in the first round.
Just my thoughts on rule # 4 right now.
-
1. Excellent! (No complaints. Creativity. Variety. 105 miles to Chigaco. Full tank o' gas. Half pack of Cigs. Dark. Sunglasses. Woot! ;D)
2. Excellent! (No more cheap SoG denials on the Shuffler or to limit LS availability!)
3. Not! (Those 25+ Harvest Times I have? Coasters with this rule :'()
4. Excellent! (though to be fair, good doms should be limited as well, not being able to CM after AotL 1st turn is kinda harsh)
Peculiar implementation time though (Tourney in 2 days :(), assuming this is not a scam...
-
1. Excellent! (No complaints. Creativity. Variety. 105 miles to Chigaco. Full tank o' gas. Half pack of Cigs. Dark. Sunglasses. Woot! ;D)
2. Excellent! (No more cheap SoG denials on the Shuffler or to limit LS availability!)
3. Not! (Those 25+ Harvest Times I have? Coasters with this rule :'()
4. Excellent! (though to be fair, good doms should be limited as well, not being able to CM after AotL 1st turn is kinda harsh)
Peculiar implementation time though (Tourney in 2 days :(), assuming this is not a scam...
I dont think you have to use them at your tourney.....
-
I dont think you have to use them at your tourney.....
I will be implementing these rules (except #3) this Saturday in WI.
Ken
This means I will have to change my T1 decks this Sat, since I am from WI. :(
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
Yea for those of us wh only dreamed of having all the doms :p
2. You cannot rescue lost souls in your own Land of Bondage. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
WOW. Now that's a change. I'm with the camp that only wanted this rule to apply to NJ but you get what you can get.
3. Hosts are allowed to run their (local and district level) tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 2 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
I (Rob) will update the host application tomorrow so the host can mark if he or she is running a "restricted" event in place of the regular event. RNRS will go into the same pot. This is a test and is not required of the host and only for smaller level tournaments. I will also note if the category is retricted on the Tournament Listing page on the Cactus site. If any host wants to modify an already posted event to use restrictive deck building rules, send me an email and I will update the listing.
I don't know why people are up in arms in this. You will know what the limit is by looking at the tournament list. I see it no different then having the option of a closed local or an open local.
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
Meh. No biggie for those of us who have only seen Mayhem on RTS :p.
-
How does this apply to Teams?
Bryon, do you plan to implement any #3/restricted rules at the March 24th tournament?
-
To toss my hat into the lot here, I hate #3.
But I actually don't like 4 either. I know your trying to stop Mayhem but I can't remember how many games where my only option for a block 1st round was CM or Burial. It's rather frightening to not have that option :-*
-
The main problem with #3 I want to point out again (and others have said), there are currently NO optional rules that hosts can pick that significantly change the game, and none are regarding deck-building. If I have hosts in my area who one week to the next choose different deck-building options, I don't see how that is fair to the player or to continuity.
If there is a deck-building rule, it needs to apply all the time. We should not be guessing.
Also, hasn't most of the argument been that these rules help simplify things for new players? How do you explain #3 with that logic?
"Hey Newbie, welcome to the tourney! Oh, yeah, NORMALLY you could use 7 dominants in that deck, but see, we've chosen an optional rule that you can only have 2 good and 2 evil. That's not too confusing, is it? Oh, and obviously being new, you have the cards to replace it right? :police:"
NOT helpful to new players.
-
Mentioning of Teams brings a question up.
What categories are these new rules limited too? (All of them, just T1 2P, etc.)
That's a good question. I submit that this should extend to all categories, especially rule 2 in T2, since SoG blocks are lame. (Maybe up the dom limit for T2 though.)
-
I do so dislike rule #2. The choice to whether to play SoG defensively or wait a bit longer is one nice tactical touch in T2. (Of course this would lose a bit of drama with #3 in effect, cause who's going to keep NJ as one of their 3 in T2?) I am also not sure why a SoG chump block is any worse than a Burial chump block or a Grapes chump block.
But if I am wrong and the change is not for the better, it will be changed back after Nationals.
Really? So in the new starter set are you planning on having a note by this (i.e., cannot rescue your own LS with Dominants) rule that says, "Maybe not--we may have scrapped this rule before you even opened this box." I guess that would be cool.
-
But if I am wrong and the change is not for the better, it will be changed back after Nationals.
Really? So in the new starter set are you planning on having a note by this (i.e., cannot rescue your own LS with Dominants) rule that says, "Maybe not--we may have scrapped this rule before you even opened this box." I guess that would be cool.
Can I write it? Can I? Please?
(It would be nice if I had a sample of my handwriting so you all got the joke....)
-
(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed?
Also, I just uploaded a revised Tournament Host Application (changes only affect # 3 Restricted deck building).
I wish the numbering of the rules in this thread were different but, since people are citing rule #'s it would be too confusing to change now. So, I will just clarify:
Rules 1, 2 and 4 are to be mandatory for all tournaments not later than April 13th. So, adopt as soon as you can make it work for your players. I realize we need to nail down #4. I will decide by this afternoon.
Rule 3 "Restricted" deck building rules is optional and eligible only for Local and District Events for the rest of this season. Again, hosts have this as an option if that is what their local players want. Just make sure that you let me know (so that I can posted on the tournament page) and your players know about it ahead of time.
Rule 3b: Perhaps it's too much too soon but, "Restricted" could also include a list of banned cards such as A New Beginning and New Jerusalem as part of the "Restricted" category. Of course a ban list, would involve much more drastic changes to some decks.
Looking ahead, if "Restricted" tests well it could be made a full category option next season or even replace one or more categories.
-
an extra caterory could be nice but that may seem to costly. i prefer just #1 to #3 though. seven doms seems fair 2 me
-
(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed?
I'm for this, and I'm pretty sure the general consensus agree Mayhem is the main culprit. On that notion, would it make more sense to just errata Mayhem with 'Cannot be played first round'?
Rule 3b: Perhaps it's too much too soon but, "Restricted" could also include a list of banned cards such as A New Beginning and New Jerusalem as part of the "Restricted" category. Of course a ban list, would involve much more drastic changes to some decks.
Looking ahead, if "Restricted" tests well it could be made a full category option next season or even replace one or more categories.
I'm liking the sound of this.
-
I agree that Mayhem simply needs an errata that it cannot be played in the first round. Of course, this would not be on the card, so new rulebooks should include one sentence about this as well.
-
Rob,
Thank you for your continued willingness to include our input in the direction of the game. I don't solely speak for myself when I say it means a lot that our opinion matters.
I completely agree with MKC and Steffer about Mayhem. I may be wrong and just missing something, but wouldn't an errata for Mayhem be the easiest solution instead of having a rule to stop Mayhem in the first round?
I like the sound of making Restricted a new category. Numerous players have advocated for such for a long time and Type Ban has gained traction on the boards.
Kirk
-
(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed?
yes as we all know Mayhem is the reason for this rule and I think limiting all evil dominants is going to be problematic.
-
I think erata'ing cards is more annoying than simple rule changes. However, I do believe it should be applicable to all Dom's not just evil.
-
I agree that Mayhem simply needs an errata that it cannot be played in the first round. Of course, this would not be on the card, so new rulebooks should include one sentence about this as well.
If it comes down to only Mayhem then yes, errata is the way to go.
-
Thanks Rob for considering player feedback! :)
(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed?
I'm for this, and I'm pretty sure the general consensus agree Mayhem is the main culprit. On that notion, would it make more sense to just errata Mayhem with 'Cannot be played first round'?
This ^
-
I think that an errata would be the more popular choice and I would much prefer it my self to the current rule change.
A restricted category sounds awesome because defense is fun and I'm guessing it would be mostly good cards that ended up on the "restricted" list.
-
For me It's either no Mayhem first round or no Dominants at all. I am not a fan of only allowing good Dominants first round. An errata would make me happy as well.
I like the change to the Host Application, thank you Rob for making that change so quickly! My main objection to the "restricted" option had been addressed.
I would also support a ban list for restricted. I think isolating the ban to a type category would allow us to explore the banning concept while still allowing all cards use in the standard categories.
-
A restricted category sounds awesome because defense is fun and I'm guessing it would be mostly good cards that ended up on the "restricted" list.
Along with Uzzah, Haman's Plot, and the 2/3-liner LS. Hopefully :prayer:
-
I have a distinct feeling that discussion on game play will now refer to BMRC and AMRC- Before Massive Rule Cahnge and After Massive Rule Change
-
I'm excited for these changes. I support everything, assuming the severe dominant restrictions are isolated to a new "Restricted" type of play. I would be very excited to play a version of T1 with less dominant dominance and with a small but present ban list. As long as the addition of a new category doesn't slam Cactus with prize support costs, that is.
-
I would be very excited to play a version of T1 with less dominant dominance and with a small but present ban list. As long as the addition of a new category doesn't slam Cactus with prize support costs, that is.
I hope is doesn't hurt cactus fiscally either. I am liking the idea more and more as I think about it.
-
My only concern with the ban list is who will determine which cards are banned? The main reason I'm against banning in the first place is because once it starts, people will be wanting to ban multiple cards. If you don't believe me, go back a year or two to the huge discussion of banning NJ. A few pages in, some one else brought up another card to ban, then zone one else brought up another card. The ban list will grow big if we aren't careful about it
Also, instead of banning NJ, ban Guardian. NJ is balanced by FA. Guardian stops that balance. Without Guardian (and especially with rule #2) NJ is not all that scary.
-
agreed ban gaurdian
-
If we used rule #3, we wouldn't have to ban any dominants...
-
My only concern with the ban list is who will determine which cards are banned? The main reason I'm against banning in the first place is because once it starts, people will be wanting to ban multiple cards. If you don't believe me, go back a year or two to the huge discussion of banning NJ. A few pages in, some one else brought up another card to ban, then zone one else brought up another card. The ban list will grow big if we aren't careful about it
Also, instead of banning NJ, ban Guardian. NJ is balanced by FA. Guardian stops that balance. Without Guardian (and especially with rule #2) NJ is not all that scary.
I disagree with this notion about Guardian. I think Lampstand adds to this problem a lot, and Guardian is as much as banned with the new dom rules as it is.
-
I for one am very curious to see how many people voluntarily remove Mayhem from their decks if they know they cannot play it the first round.
-
I for one am very curious to see how many people voluntarily remove Mayhem from their decks if they know they cannot play it the first round.
It will remain in my deck.
-
It will remain in my deck.
Mine too, its too much fun not to use. FTM was something I never really enjoyed any way.
-
If we used rule #3, we wouldn't have to ban any dominants...
I don't seen dominants being that an issue its more of an I can get an extra why to stop my opponent or as I have said end a game mercifully
I disagree with this notion about Guardian. I think Lampstand adds to this problem a lot, and Guardian is as much as banned with the new dom rules as it is.
I think lampstand was add to make guardian less useful. Even than if its that big a problem you can stop it unlike Guardian.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fhallelujah_bumper_sticker-p128048509572092163z74sk_400.jpg&hash=96f44c681ffcdd9f21133ac4d520c37cea5a4ae8)
Maybe we'll have a big tournament in the NW this year after all!
-
Wow, I leave for one poker night and I miss three pages of fun.
I'm still not sure about banning cards. We'd need some quantifiable definition of what qualifies a card for the banhammer before I'd be in support. I know MTG bans when a card is used in the vast majority (80%+) of top decks. For instance, all top 8 decks at a major MTG tournament had four copies of Jace right before they banned him. Yugioh bans OP cards when they're about to release the next set so people will buy the new cards. Pokemon bans cards when suburban moms complain.
So yeah, I'd take a look at MTG's system.
-
My only concern with the ban list is who will determine which cards are banned? The main reason I'm against banning in the first place is because once it starts, people will be wanting to ban multiple cards. If you don't believe me, go back a year or two to the huge discussion of banning NJ. A few pages in, some one else brought up another card to ban, then zone one else brought up another card. The ban list will grow big if we aren't careful about it
Also, instead of banning NJ, ban Guardian. NJ is balanced by FA. Guardian stops that balance. Without Guardian (and especially with rule #2) NJ is not all that scary.
There are multiple ways around lampstand. There is no way around Guardian. As for the choices, I would choose SOG, AOTL (SOG = free LS and AOTL, though not 100% of the time, does get you another LS (and you don't have to wait for them both to play each of them)) and for evil, CM and FA (CM stops almost all heroes and FA is better than burial since it's a garuntee way to lengthen the game more (if they don't have Guardian out).
I disagree with this notion about Guardian. I think Lampstand adds to this problem a lot, and Guardian is as much as banned with the new dom rules as it is.
-
If we banned Mayhem and Guardian, Dominants would be as closed to balanced as they ever will be.
-
Yugioh bans OP cards when they're about to release the next set so people will buy the new cards.
Usually this is not the case as Konami is pretty fair about banning broken cards that overcentralize the meta regardless of what new cards come out (do we really think they are worried about people buying the new cards?). However, I would say your statement is actually true for the first time in a very long time. Our ban list (with a new one implemented twice a year) came out a mere 15 days ago, and it was fairly obvious by the bannings that they were trying to push interest of a new card type that just recently debuted late last year.
-
What's the point of banning cards if you have a 2/2 (or 3/3 in t2) dom limit? A FTM would still be powerful, but not nearly as powerful without a dom rush. I don't think anything else warrants banning. Thad did last year in T2, but not this year. Maybe Angel Under the Oak?
I've played like 3 games with the new set (in t1 at least) this year, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
-
Pokemon bans cards when suburban moms complain.
Don't we do that any way? Or is just when the Angry Christen Mothers Association complains.
-
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
+ 1 to reasons Type II rocks.
Craig and friends are coming to play T2 at my house next weekend so I'll be glad to enjoy playing without rebuilding my deck from the ground up as I will be with all my T1 decks...
-
T2 games will be shorter without the SoG block.
-
T2 games will be shorter without the SoG block.
Yeah, that's kind of disappointing. I was just starting to play around with Altar of Ahaz in t2 2p, but now there's no way that can be decent. Still good in multi (and SOG can still be used as a block in multi).
-
You're right Mitch. But overall T2 got minimally affect by this rule change. All the doms you want (in a play style where not many of the doms are used anyway)... 1 free block taken away from a game that involves 10+ battles... FTM? Type 2? lol
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fhallelujah_bumper_sticker-p128048509572092163z74sk_400.jpg&hash=96f44c681ffcdd9f21133ac4d520c37cea5a4ae8)
Maybe we'll have a big tournament in the NW this year after all!
It would be nice to have a North West tourney, how can I help?
-
You're right Mitch. But overall T2 got minimally affect by this rule change. All the doms you want (in a play style where not many of the doms are used anyway)... 1 free block taken away from a game that involves 10+ battles... FTM? Type 2? lol
An opponent actually got a ftm against me at the t2 only lol..... But I recovered with a second turn Mayhem, lol. But I agree doesn't happen as much. But yeah that one block can sometime extend the game a ton, I mean I lost one game at nats where my opponent sog blocked me w/o nj and came back to beat me 3 turns later. But yeah I agree there is a much bigger impact on T1. I definitely need to make it down to MO this year Joey.
-
I just edited Bryon's original post. Regarding dominants in the first round. I have decided, with your collectively help, to only errata Mayhem so that it now reads:
If it is not the first round, each player must shuffle hand to draw six.
-
thank you Rob for that! ^_^ I'm also very glad and thankful you take all our opinions into account regarding these decisions. Thanks again for all your hard work! ^_^
-
I just edited Bryon's original post. Regarding dominants in the first round. I have decided, with your collectively help, to only errata Mayhem so that it now reads:
If it is not the first round, each player must shuffle hand to draw six.
Splendid. This will be received by our local playgroup much better. Thanks for listening.
Incidentally, will there be a small section in the next rulebooks that mentions the errata on Mayhem and A New Beginning (and any other errata cards I can't think of right now)? This was a very helpful part of the LOTR TCG Comprehensive rules.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fhallelujah_bumper_sticker-p128048509572092163z74sk_400.jpg&hash=96f44c681ffcdd9f21133ac4d520c37cea5a4ae8)
Maybe we'll have a big tournament in the NW this year after all!
It would be nice to have a North West tourney, how can I help?
If we have one it would be in the Salem, OR, area. I'd do most of the work. Being relatively new, you should come for play and fellowship. :)
-
Holy Grail, Hormah, That Assyrian card, Split Alter, Highway, Grapes and A Child is Born.
-
New Beginning.
-
I just edited Bryon's original post. Regarding dominants in the first round. I have decided, with your collectively help, to only errata Mayhem so that it now reads:
If it is not the first round, each player must shuffle hand to draw six.
Thank you for listening to our input and for your interest in players as a whole.
-
New Beginning.
Steffer already mentioned ANB.
-
Ban TGT and Uzzah.
I can't think of any other cards (except maybe one) with more failed counters than these two.
-
Ban TGT and Uzzah.
I can't think of any other cards (except maybe one) with more failed counters than these two.
I'm not one for irata's but TGT should be toned down with an erata- "If opponent has more redeemed Lost Soul(s) than you, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
-
I'm not one for irata's but TGT should be toned down with an erata- "If opponent has more redeemed Lost Soul(s) than you, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play or opponent's hand.
That would kill single character defenses as intended while not harming actual defenses.
-
I'm not one for irata's but TGT should be toned down with an erata- "If opponent has more redeemed Lost Soul(s) than you, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play or opponent's hand.
That would kill single character defenses as intended while not harming actual defenses.
I think if you had both conditions it would complete nerf TGT, but 1 or the other would tone it down. either allow for characters in hand to be included or if your opponent is winning on soul count. Both kills it hardcore... that's just my 2 cents. (like I said I really don't like errata's but in the case of TGT, I would make an exception)
-
Ban TGT and Uzzah.
I can't think of any other cards (except maybe one) with more failed counters than these two.
I'm not one for irata's but TGT should be toned down with an erata- "If opponent has more redeemed Lost Soul(s) than you, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
I was actually thinking of this exact same errata the other day in my head. How odd.
-
Ah sorry, I meant that to be an "or." two characters in play or two cards in hand.
-
I think the new Rulebook should include information on erata's and where you can find out about them. So that players not on the boards can find out about them. I had no idea that cards were being rewritten before I came to the boards this last year. Total shocker!!! I think it would have helped me to understand what the boards are all about and eased me into the fold a little better. =D
-
As for the rules changes I'm not particularly opposed to them, at least not yet, I'll have to see how they play out.
But for TGT, I had a brilliant idea of what Garden Tomb should have said, however I cannot remember it, but it was likely a condition having to do with your opponent having multiple brigades in play.
Something like "If your opponent has 2 or more evil brigades in play, <Garden Tomb Characters> ignore evil brigades with less than 2 evil characters in play" however this seems less brilliant than I remember so I'm not sure.
-
Rob,
Will Son of God, And NJ also recieve erratas, Such as "Rescue any Lost Soul in Opponents' Land of Bondage." since it currently says "any lost soul in play" on it.
Or is this not necessary?
-
It is not neccesary, just like it is not necessary to errata Jacob's Ladder. You simply cannot rescue a lost soul in your Land of Bondage.
-
was an intro prep phase considered? This would have eliminated the need to erata mayhem I would think. Although it would change the first turn a little.
-
although I know nobody will care of my opinion, and I know it won't change anything, in my opinion this is stupid. Rescuing your own LS has always been a very large part of Redemption strategy. Furthermore, this only hurts players who refuse to use decks that are not "popular" (meta I believe it's called), as they never really need the Dom's anyway. For the rest of us, they are very much so needed.
-
Dom cap + not able to rescue your own lost souls balances the meta incredibly. It makes every single player reevaluate which is more important in regards towards Dom selection, defense, and lost soul generators. Before yesterday it did not take me much thought into building a top tier deck. I now actually find myself having to think about different scenarios and possibilities.
-
Dom cap + not able to rescue your own lost souls balances the meta incredibly. It makes every single player reevaluate which is more important in regards towards Dom selection, defense, and lost soul generators. Before yesterday it did not take me much thought into building a top tier deck. I now actually find myself having to think about different scenarios and possibilities.
Until they find out how to deal without it, and then we are back where we started.
-
question: do these rules apply to the already in progress root tourney?
-
Check the ROOT thread for info on that.
-
Until they find out how to deal without it, and then we are back where we started.
Both rule changes promote a slower game. I don't think we'll ever be where we started in those regards.
-
Yes, I actually am on board with these rules now. When I was constructing my deck that I play now it took me longer than 5 minutes. Deck construction now requires longer time with more decisions not counting the benefits of the longer deck construction on the metagame.
-
Thank you playtesters for finally going through with a drastic rule change. Sure this really doesnt help vs Mayhem or too much with op'd super fast decks but it does make a "normal" or "Brandon" play style once again possible. I honestly havnt been able to use my Deacon deck competitively since before Priests came due to doms crushing me with the new rule change I think I might just break the deck out for the next tourney (:
-
While everyone else is at it, I'll add my two cents.
1: I think this is a pretty great idea, though that may be because I usually keep my dominants to a minimum. Anyway, this really keeps decks from being super small with the minimum Lost Souls and having, like, 10 dominants as well. I always liked the Site Cap, and now I like the Dominant Cap for the same reason.
2: This is actually the one that made my chin hit the edge of my desk. Who doesn't use Son of God on their own Lost Soul? My feelings are kind of mixed about this one, but that's only because I enjoy rescuing my own Souls so much. All in all, I would say this change has an air of sportsmanship to it that I do like. So I'm for this rule, too.
3: Yeah, I'm like everyone else and their mother about this one. Changing rules at the discretion of the host is not a good idea, plain and simple. It makes me feel uncomfortable, it makes you feel uncomfortable. This one should be retracted.
4: Oh, come on, this one is not that big a deal. So you wait one more turn. Your Mayhem can wait. I think it's fair enough myself, but I am relatively neutral about it.
So, in recap:
1: completely support
2: support
3: do not support
4: sort of support
All in all, a decent new set of rules!
-
all i can say is thank you for making my angels actually work again. I can now play again.
-
1. I really like this rule! I believe it will create more differences between decks now. Yes there are the same ol' lost soul generation & auto blocks and things, but it does make people play a little different based on their favorite way to play.
2. I really like this rule too. It forces people to have at least a little defense. Yes, I did enjoy playing my SoG & NJ on my own shuffler or the lost souls that they could rescue only leaving ones they couldn't, but I think this will again be a good way to make decks a little different. I think one of the biggest things this does is let people who don't play speed, to be able to maybe win some lost souls before they even draw a lost soul. I think this will create a premium on quality blocks, compared to just running a hiding for a turn or two.
3. I don't see why people are having such problems with this. First, it is optional, so my playgroup will not be doing this style. Second, I think it is a good idea for beginning playgroups. I had a group come up from Dunlap, TN to one of my tournaments, and since they are new to the game and can't afford all the newer cards, it would be nice for them to host restricted tournaments, so that we don't come down there with a bunch of dominants that none of them have yet. If you are afraid that you don't know if the tournament you are about to join is hosting a restricted category or not, then e-mail the host! Cactus puts contact information for every host for every tournament. If you are that concerned that you can't find another 4 cards to replace the 4 dominants you can't use, then take the longer and more painful option and contact the host.
4. I like this much better than to not be able to play CM or Burial first turn. I'm surprised that Mayhem hasn't received an errata before now. Grapes has had one for over a year, so why not give Mayhem one too?
-
Do you guys think that rule#2 will make the wanderer LS more popular? Just think, you have the NT LS, */4 LS, Wanderer, and another one. If he has at least two out and one of them is either NT LS or the */4 LS, you could switch them and SOG it so that you have three LS that can't be rescued by Doms. Do you think that tactic will be used more now?
-
Do you guys think that rule#2 will make the wanderer LS more popular? Just think, you have the NT LS, */4 LS, Wanderer, and another one. If he has at least two out and one of them is either NT LS or the */4 LS, you could switch them and SOG it so that you have three LS that can't be rescued by Doms. Do you think that tactic will be used more now?
I also expect the Thorns, the FbtN, the Shuffler, some Female heroes, some NT heroes, some over */4 heroes, etc. will be found in decks. Also, you just gave your opponent an exchanger, so he can exchange right back if you don't rescue it. He most likely will have an exchanger in his deck as well. So I doubt its popularity will be affected much. Most people use it already, and the new rules give it little to no extra power.
I DO think that the */4 LS might see some play, and the NT a little more.
-
FBTN Lost Soul is even more of a borderline staple than it was before! Yaaaay!
-
4: Oh, come on, this one is not that big a deal. So you wait one more turn. Your Mayhem can wait. I think it's fair enough myself, but I am relatively neutral about it.!
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F007%2F707%2Fyou-must-be-new-here-willy-wonka.jpg&hash=04bff14ec6472c681418dfd62623771983fa3c7a)
-
There is always entering battle with a character that negates lost souls. Once you enter battle SoG/NJ the two you want and then resume your rescue attempt (or if you only need two just go in with a soul negater and end the game).
I actually took my FBTN soul out of my deck and used Iron Pan to gain acess to the NT, Woman,*/4 at a tourney today.
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
I totally agree. However, we can make that the one dominant that can rescue any lost soul, and probably put a restriction on New Jerusalem to where you can only rescue one of yours.
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
Well, for gameplay purposes, Lost Souls in our Land of Bondage don't want to be rescued. ;)
-
"I (Rob) will update the host application tomorrow so the host can mark if he or she is running a "restricted" event in place of the regular event. RNRS will go into the same pot. This is a test and is not required of the host and only for smaller level tournaments. I will also note if the category is retricted on the Tournament Listing page on the Cactus site. If any host wants to modify an already posted event to use restrictive deck building rules, send me an email and I will update the listing."
So, a host cannot have both a regular Type 1 and a Restricted Type 1? I think it would be fun to have both, especially for comparative purposes. However, the "shared pot" for RNRS points makes that difficult. Is there any way to get both? I guess we could do a regular multiplayer and a Restricted 2-player (or vice versa).
Is there any thought of making these available for States and Regionals this year if they are well-received?
**Yes I ddoouubbllee--ppoosstteedd; deal with it! :o
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
Well, for gameplay purposes, Lost Souls in our Land of Bondage don't want to be rescued. ;)
Are you saying they have hardened-hearts? Or that our Land of Bondage is stoney ground? ::)
-
Is there any thought of making these available for States and Regionals this year if they are well-received?
I wouldn't have a problem with letting states and up be 2 and 2 or 3 and 3, but they need to be uniform.
-
Is there any thought of making these available for States and Regionals this year if they are well-received?
I wouldn't have a problem with letting states and up be 2 and 2 or 3 and 3, but they need to be uniform.
Well, all the schools in Central Florida have uniforms, so this won't be a problem.
-
Is there any thought of making these available for States and Regionals this year if they are well-received?
I wouldn't have a problem with letting states and up be 2 and 2 or 3 and 3, but they need to be uniform.
I think it's best if the restricted rule stays at local and district levels. A lot of people (myself included) use State and Regional tournaments to feel out what kind of decks they want to play at Nationals and I think mixing up the rules at that level of tournament is a bad idea.
-
I agree, that's why I said it needs to be uniform. Whatever the T1 rules are at Nationals, so must they be at States and Regionals. I just wouldn't have a problem with them all being 2 and 2 or 3 and 3.
-
no matter how hard I think, I can't make a top tier deck. i will miss resucing my own lost souls. However I have only been able to play one game since the change, so how it effects me remains to be seen.
-
I think we're missing the biggest change with these rules: March Madness. How will this change our eventual winner? Will early dropouts complain that they could have won? With this become a scandal, forever slandering the eventual winner's trophy?
-
I think we're missing the biggest change with these rules: March Madness. How will this change our eventual winner? Will early dropouts complain that they could have won? With this become a scandal, forever slandering the eventual winner's trophy?
Forever marred with an asterisks next to their name... Barrigate all over again? NOOOOOO!!!
-
I go for one weekend without internet access...
1. Okay. I can live with it.
2. Umm... As was already mentioned, are we actually wanting to limit Jesus' power? I remember a discussion earlier this season/end of last season about the new starter deck having a SoG that says "Negate and rescue an LS" so that it could rescue NT and */4, at least partially so that we weren't sending the message "God can't save that." NJ I'm fine with (goodbye chump block...), but I think SoG should still be able to.
3. No. I especially dislike the optional part. If it's everywhere, fine, I can deal with it, but I don't like having to possibly change my legal deck to play in a tournament.
4. ;D FTM, goodbye and good riddance!
-
I like rule #1.
Rule #2 is okay.
Rule #3-will it be optional? One tour one month goes restricted,next month its unrestriced.
Rule #4 it should be no doms played in the first round,not just restricted to Mayhem.
Just my 2 cents.
-
My new version of the original Rule #4:
No dominants can be played in the first round, nor can they be used to end a game (the last round). ;D
-
ATTENTION!!
In case anyone missed it Rule #4 is no longer a rule and was replaced by an errata to Mayhem.
-
Rule #5: If you are playing someone over 40 you are restricted from rescuing lost souls unless you are over 40. No Gabe, Age not IQ.
-
Rule #5: If you are playing someone over 40 you are restricted from rescuing lost souls unless you are over 40. No Gabe, Age not IQ.
I'd still find a way to beat you. Not sure how, but I would.
-
Just like Type A, we need a category for just senior citizens. Type Z?
-
Just like Type A, we need a category for just senior citizens. Type Z?
Type AARP
-
This thread just got really funny
-
All of you are now in "THE BOOK". Beware of dark corners and large fat guys.
-
All of you are now in "THE BOOK". Beware of dark corners and large fat guys.
The Lard's Book of Strife?
-
I think there should be some sort of deck out rule.
-
I think there should be some sort of deck out rule.
NO that would make the game just dumb!
-
I think there should be some sort of deck out rule.
I've agreed with this for a while now. Nothing too extreme, but something to discourage speed all the same.
-
Deck out, you lose the game. Is that too extreme?
-
Yes
-
Deck out, you lose the game. Is that too extreme?
Not really extreme enough. Deck out, you get a tat.
-
Deck out, you lose the game. Is that too extreme?
I can see it now, 2013 rule change shorten game to 10 minutes.
-
That wouldn't be so bad, now we can play with best 2 of 3. ;D
-
There are very few times I have ever played a CCG and had my deck run out. So this penalty never bothered me. (But I actually ran a mill deck in Yu-Gi-Oh! with satisfying results.) I wish this had the "reshuffle your discard pile when it runs out" rule. One of the few elements of "Victory at Hebron" that would work in the main game...
-
Barren Wasteland
If opponent tries to draw a card and can't, you may discard a hero.
-
Barren Wasteland
If opponent tries to draw a card and can't, you may discard a hero.
errata:... or opponent
-
Rule proposal:
If a player has no remaining cards in their deck before their draw phase, their heroes may not enter battle. Once there are no cards remaining in all draw piles, game ends.
or
[Edit]
If a player decks out, increase the number of redeemed souls required to win to 6 for that player.
or
If a player decks out, player must *discard (*place on deck maybe?) one of their own cards from their territory for each turn they are without a card in their draw pile at the beginning of their turn.
-
nah that's a little too stringent, it would necessitate 63-70 card decks.
EDIT:
Perhaps have something like,
If a player has no cards in deck opponents of that player may draw an extra card during their draw phases for each turn player has had no cards in deck.
I think that this would be a little bit better, it would really help turtles from losing due to time-outs methinks.
-
I think there should be some sort of deck out rule.
There isn't a rule for that. There is a card for that. It is called The Watchful Servant. If your opponent draws out quickly, he can't block you. Can't even use Unholy Writ. Toss in some healing or recursion and your dandy.
And then we made some CBI cards and now it doesn't work so well... :(
-
I think there should be some sort of deck out rule.
There isn't a rule for that. There is a card for that. It is called The Watchful Servant. If your opponent draws out quickly, he can't block you. Can't even use Unholy Writ. Toss in some healing or recursion and your dandy.
And then we made some CBI cards and now it doesn't work so well... :(
The problem is a hero will always have flaws. Heroes can be Christian Martyred, heroes can be captured, heroes can be discarded from deck, etc. etc. I understand the need to implement some kind of rule that stops speed, but I think the one you guys just implemented is much too abuseable. A rule like, "You may not make a rescue attempt if you have zero cards left in your deck, unless your opponent also has zero cards" would be something to test out. "The first time your deck reaches zero cards, choose one Lost Soul to put back in your opponent's Land of Bondage" would be another one to test. I'm not saying these rules are necessarily better than the one you implemented, but I think they should be looked at as alternatives.
-
Just like Type A, we need a category for just senior citizens. Type Z?
Type AARP
Thanks for bringing a smile (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/prof%27s-favorite-forum-quotes/msg471009/#msg471009) to my day :)
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
Mark 5:15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man--and told about the pigs as well. 17 Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region. 18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19 Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." 20 So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed.
Just because he can doesn't mean he won't force us. The demon possessed man did the witnessing (Hero) when they rejected the Son of God(Dom). This is the same justification I used for /4 and NT.
-
Calvinizim vs. Armeniazm?
This'll be good
* pops the pop corn *
8)
-
i think #2 is very wrong since God can redeem our souls (no pun intended) wherever we are.
Mark 5:15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man--and told about the pigs as well. 17 Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region. 18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19 Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." 20 So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed.
Just because he can doesn't mean he won't force us. The demon possessed man did the witnessing (Hero) when they rejected the Son of God(Dom). This is the same justification I used for /4 and NT.
I personally don't feel like it's a big theological issue because frankly, this is a card game, and I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over some small issue like this (I'm still quitting the game if they print Hero Judas though). That said, I don't feel like your argument really stands up to scrutiny. Is it sacrilegious? No. Could it easily be misconstrued as sacrilegious? Yup.
-
...(I'm still quitting the game if they print Hero Judas though)...
Why? you could start him out as a hero, and then he gets converted to evil character... opposite of Saul/Paul...
-
...(I'm still quitting the game if they print Hero Judas though)...
Why? you could start him out as a hero, and then he gets converted to evil character... opposite of Saul/Paul...
Because I don't think that it's right for Cactus, at this evolved stage in card creation, to print a character who is almost certainly in hell as a hero who rescues Lost Souls. I have absolutely no desire to debate this in this thread, so if someone wants to dispute my claim, PM me about it. I won't respond to any posts here.
Plus, that would be a PR nightmare so it'll never happen, so I feel perfectly okay making idle threats. ;D
-
1. and 3. This doesn't affect much of my deck building so not that big a deal to me. I also don't think rule 1. will have quite the impact some think it will. The biggest benefit for me is the possibility of them printing some cool powerful new Doms because players can't overload their deck with them. This should give them much more freedom in new Dom creation and that would make the rule worth it to me.
4. I think restricting all Doms on first round may have been better but I'm fine with the errata. Mayhems still great.
2. I really don't like it. I feel this will not stop speed/help defense like they think it will. The biggest problem is that it is going to cause more timeouts and that is not good for the game. In order to avoid timeouts, people will have to play soul generating speed decks. Extending the time per game or having time clocks like chess is the best (and I think only) way to really change the meta away from speed. Speed decks are not the best strategy to win; they are just the best way to win within the time limits. Also:
Quote from: dermo4christ on March 16, 2012, 03:26:28 AM
ugh....i soooo don't like the rule about not rescuing ur own souls. I just found out that you could do that...and not it's taken away from me....lol. Gosh!
This is relevant in our decision. Most new players do not intuitively conclude that they can rescue their own Lost Souls. Up until now, they had to be "corrected" on that point. While we believe this decision will improve the game, it has the added bonus of flowing in the direction that most new players already understand it.
I've heard this before and I understand the point but I think it misses something. In my experience, new players do not intuitively conclude: that you can band to opponents' characters, that AoC will discard your own evil characters, that Hamans Plot or Head of Gold can target heros or evil characters, etc..... Once a player understands the rules of targeting (Any, All, default to in play, etc) then it logically makes sense that SoG would rescue a lost soul in your own land of bondage. This rule change creates another rule exception to the mechanics of the game. I think a new player taught the general targeting rules would then be confused as to why SoG won't rescue their own soul. Of course it is not that big a deal to learn one extra rule but when there are many exceptions it can become difficult and burdensome to try to remember them all (which takes away from fun and fellowship). So I heavily favor more streamlined, consistent, top down, not changing rules.
I think it is also unfortunate that several? elders stated that these rules were only being tested this year and there would be no rule changes until after Nationals but then thats not what happens. All official rule changes only happening once a year is best. It is less difficult for people (including hosts) to keep up with, especially those without much presence on here. I originally thought Aug/Sept would be best, but considering that issues with the new set don't come up/get resolved until later then maybe Jan/Feb. would be best. Enough time to hash out the issues but be before main tournament season. I haven't seen a single rule change in the past several years that couldn't wait until the next scheduled update.
-
I am fine with all the rulings but #2 is the one I dislike the most. I played at my playgroup and we used the new rules. Twice it was 4 RS to 4 RS I could have won both times if my NJ could have rescued my souls.
-
I like #2 it's made several of my games much more exciting. :)
-
I would like to point out the fact that South Florida has yet to play a game of redemption since the rule change. Of course, we did not say "we quit bcause of the rule change"... but we just so happened to not play as much when the rule change came into effect.... interesting...
-
I've only played a few games because we already had a tournament scheduled for 2 days after these came out. haven't play a game since. Has absolutely nothing to do with the rules. What's your point? That South Florida may or may not be boycotting redemption because of the new rules?
-
I think he's just saying it was a coincidence.
-
I would like to point out the fact that South Florida has yet to play a game of redemption since the rule change. Of course, we did not say "we quit bcause of the rule change"... but we just so happened to not play as much when the rule change came into effect.... interesting...
My group is over on the west coast of Florida and it is just casual play no tournement stuff, but we still play according to any rule changes. Plus we try to meet with those on the east coast.
-
My group is over on the west coast of Florida and it is just casual play no tournement stuff, but we still play according to any rule changes. Plus we try to meet with those on the east coast.
Central Florida plays by the rules, too. We just cross our arms and make grumpy faces when we have to make rulings we don't like.
--------------------
BTW, is South Florida or West Florida interested in hosting the Florida State Tournament this year? Central Florida is ready to host again if no one else can. We would likely have a June 29th & 30th tournament if that is the case.
-
West Florida has no tournement hosts in its group but, there are two hosts I know of on the east coast that we have met with, delarosajon and I believe discipledrew
-
@Galadgawyn and what he was saying about creating timeouts (my quote button isn't working?)
Anyways: I just hosted a local with 10 T1 players and 4 T2. We didn't have one timeout in the entire tournament. The closest we got was a booster game that was in its final round when a player won but nothing close timeout in the open categories
-
I personally do not like #2 at all, it weakens SoG and NJ. These are supposed to be the best cards in the game, but now there are others that might be better. Who is better then God? what will be better then the Holiest city, New Jerusalem?
-
SoG is still the best card in the game. I can't see a debate at all to vote for a better card. But even then Jesus told us and his Disciples that we would do greater things than he did. Its through the power of God that we do but it is still through us. So there is actually an argument for other cards being "as good" as SoG.
-
And now Rob knows what Moses felt like when he had to deal with all of the complainers in the wilderness. I applaud the rule changes as they were thought through, given a chance to play test through the player community, and with all things considered; implemented with confidence. Thanks for the strong leadership shown by Rob and the elders!
-
I will talk to the DeLaRosas about it, but, hoenstly the turnout will be much greater in central FL in my opinion because I would imagine it would be much harder for all of the youngins to make their way down here instead of 2 guys with jobs and me to make it up there. Just saying. But i will run the tournament idea by them, see what they think and let you know.
-
I dont understand why the changes are made now, I think that they should but introduced and officially said that these specific rule will be in effect after Nats.
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
I think the dominant cap is not a bad idea i would stay neutral to this change.
2. You cannot rescue lost souls in your own Land of Bondage. This used to apply only to your heroes. Now it includes dominants, too.
I dont understand the reason behind this rule, it goes against the SA on Son of God "Rescue ANY Lost Soul in Play." That means even your own.
3. Hosts are allowed to run their (local and district level) tournaments with this even more restrictive deck building rule for dominants:
Type 1: Max 2 good and 2 evil doms in deck
Type 2: Max 3 good and 3 evil doms in deck
Thats just plain mean. So I would have my 2 good dominants probably be SoG and NJ and if someone plays confusion and there goes both good dominants. Why would you even want to restrict people to that much?
4. Evil dominants cannot be played in the first round. This MAY also apply to good dominants, but that part is still being clarified.
Rather, Mayhem gets the following errata: If it is not the first round, each player must shuffle hand to draw six.
Well now Mayhem is only gunna be worth $5, 1st round Mayhem is the only reason its in peoples decks, besides getting it the 1st round it is never used. When I get Mayhem not in the first round I find myself usually discarding without using it. And once again I dont get the reasoning behind this.
All of these new rules are restricting the game to much, these rules remind me of our government, taking our freedoms away.
-
I dont understand why the changes are made now, I think that they should but introduced and officially said that these specific rule will be in effect after Nats.
The reason is that Cactus, rightly, didn't want to have another Natz that was more determined by FTM ratio than anything else.
-
A rebuttal to Alpal.
1:nothing to refute.
2:It stops speed. Simply. And for the record SoG can't rescue a few lost souls anyway(*/4 NT only) Also Any does not mean All, and Any can be restricted/protected from and insteaded.(examples include any card that lets you choose a target and can be restricted/protected/insteaded.)
3:Would someone PLEASE take that down. It's confusing people. And yes it's a horrible idea.
4:Do you understand why Mayhem was played anyway? Anyone who had it in his deck for just FTM was an idiot. Mayhem screws with hands, and gens souls. That was it's intended purpose and it still does that.
Final statement: These rules do not restrict our freedoms as players, instead the rules increase our freedoms. due to making balanced decks viable again.
-
@Alpal455--Well played, sirrah. Well played indeed.
-
I hate #2. I have lost a lot of games with 3 Ls and SoG/NJ in my hand, but my opponent has not drawn souls and I lose.
-
I love #2 I have won a lot of games with my opponent has 3 Ls and SoG in hand, but I have no souls out and he loses. 8)
Seriously though, I love this rule because it hurts speed.
This rule helped speed some because now you want to get to your soul gen, but only the hopper instantly generates a lost souls. In a speed deck generators like TaS, Survivor, and even HT have to wait for a battle to be used.
Sog/NJ were usable instantly as long as you had souls in your territory. Now once you blow through your deck to get SoG/NJ you still have to wait for the opponent's deck to bring lost souls out, making less incentive for speed since there is no instant gratification.
SoG/NJ/Burial speed blocks. With dom cap hardly anyone uses burial, and SoG/NJ can't be used for that extra block as easily making it harder for speed to get that extra block it needs.
Conclusion:
Rule #2 does hurt speed, maybe not that significantly but frankly I'll take whatever I can get.
-
All of these new rules are restricting the game to much, these rules remind me of our government, taking our freedoms away.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CvudXaiCeKk%2FT1aV7kJSB2I%2FAAAAAAAADQE%2FM24nMEczXBE%2Fs1600%2Fjackie-chan-o_O.png&hash=8ac1373cf9d5e40b475b228a2ce96126f9aa8bcd)
-
At least we don't have to worry about worshiping God in secret or being persecuted for our faith.
We have a lot more freedom, then most countries.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi556.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss5%2Fj004y%2Fover20your20head.jpg%3Ft%3D1242248214&hash=67d5d5c1d74ff78f106bc0b0354f0922b5da12bf)
-
I do not think that these are are restricting, but I also do not think these rules are making this game more simple for beginners.
-
A rebuttal to Alpal.
1:nothing to refute.
2:It stops speed. Simply. And for the record SoG can't rescue a few lost souls anyway(*/4 NT only) Also Any does not mean All, and Any can be restricted/protected from and insteaded.(examples include any card that lets you choose a target and can be restricted/protected/insteaded.)
3:Would someone PLEASE take that down. It's confusing people. And yes it's a horrible idea.
4:Do you understand why Mayhem was played anyway? Anyone who had it in his deck for just FTM was an idiot. Mayhem screws with hands, and gens souls. That was it's intended purpose and it still does that.
Final statement: These rules do not restrict our freedoms as players, instead the rules increase our freedoms. due to making balanced decks viable again.
Thanks for this it clears some stuff up for me!
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
Well, if it's tournaments, it may as well be the entire game. People are welcome to play by house rules, however, official tournaments should be just that - official, and thus, using official rules.
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
These Message Boards post official rules that supercede any previously printed rulebooks, so yes these changes are for the entire game. However, as Chronic mentioned, if you are just playing with friends, you can play however you like. For my playgroup, we like to mix Lord of the Rings and Kingdom Hearts cards in with our Redemption cards. It was quite exciting to use Frodo to rescue a Lost Soul from my opponent who was blocking with Red Dragon (who was not immune). ;)
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
These Message Boards post official rules that supercede any previously printed rulebooks, so yes these changes are for the entire game. However, as Chronic mentioned, if you are just playing with friends, you can play however you like. For my playgroup, we like to mix Lord of the Rings and Kingdom Hearts cards in with our Redemption cards. It was quite exciting to use Frodo to rescue a Lost Soul from my opponent who was blocking with Red Dragon (who was not immune). ;)
That sounds like a interesting way to play, I should try that with somebody 8)
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
These Message Boards post official rules that supercede any previously printed rulebooks, so yes these changes are for the entire game. However, as Chronic mentioned, if you are just playing with friends, you can play however you like. For my playgroup, we like to mix Lord of the Rings and Kingdom Hearts cards in with our Redemption cards. It was quite exciting to use Frodo to rescue a Lost Soul from my opponent who was blocking with Red Dragon (who was not immune). ;)
This actually explains a lot about the Florida meta.
No, I kid, that actually sounds like a neat idea.
-
Wait! Is this just for tournaments or for the entire game of Redemption?
These Message Boards post official rules that supercede any previously printed rulebooks, so yes these changes are for the entire game. However, as Chronic mentioned, if you are just playing with friends, you can play however you like. For my playgroup, we like to mix Lord of the Rings and Kingdom Hearts cards in with our Redemption cards. It was quite exciting to use Frodo to rescue a Lost Soul from my opponent who was blocking with Red Dragon (who was not immune). ;)
No, I kid, that actually sounds like a neat idea.
That sounds like a great idea. Care to explain the rules?
-
Yes, I was there for the Highway errata.
Dont even get me started on this one..... -_-
-
I am starting a collection right now with a $10 donation for the first host to limit T1 decks to 2 good and 2 evil Doms at a Regionals or Nats. Would anyone care to join me?
What's the point of having an optional rule if no one ever opts to use it?
-
I am starting a collection right now with a $10 donation for the first host to limit T1 decks to 2 good and 2 evil Doms at a Regionals or Nats. Would anyone care to join me?
What's the point of having an optional rule if no one ever opts to use it?
For local/districts I could see it but Regional/Nationals you want the widest audience possible so adding optional rules (Such as rescuers choice for t1) hurts the attendance for larger events.
-
I am starting a collection right now with a $10 donation for the first host to limit T1 decks to 2 good and 2 evil Doms at a Regionals or Nats. Would anyone care to join me?
What's the point of having an optional rule if no one ever opts to use it?
For local/districts I could see it but Regional/Nationals you want the widest audience possible so adding optional rules (Such as rescuers choice for t1) hurts the attendance for larger events.
Why would attendance suffer? Are you saying you think that players who would normally go to Regionals/Nationals would choose not to attend if (for example) rescuers choice were being used in t1?
P.S. I'm bumping my donation to $25 if this is done at Nationals.
-
Why would attendance suffer? Are you saying you think that players who would normally go to Regionals/Nationals would choose not to attend if (for example) rescuers choice were being used in t1?
I tend to agree with this logic. Some people may decide a Local or District isn't worth bothering with if they have to adjust their fine-tuned decks, but there are only so many States/Regionals, and only one Nats. If they are going to go, the addition of optional rules (with enough advanced notice) would not deter 99% from still attending. I know I am not in favor of going restricted (I like playing with every dom as a T2 player, thankyouverymuch), but I would be silly to decide not to go to the States/Regional nearest me if they implemented the restricted dom rule.
I'll throw you $5 for the pot ;)
-
The game would be so freaking broke if this was a rule... let's do it