Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 20836 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #25 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:40:15 AM »

What about 55 minutes with a 5 minute buffer so hosts can generally expect each T1 round to last 1 hour accounting for time between rounds?

Does T1 MP need to be extended to 6 LS as well?

Not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's helpful to have this kind of input for Rob to read and consider.

Arch Angel · « **Reply #26 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:47:30 AM »

Please don't extend MP. X.x It takes long enough as is. I think the only realy problem is t1 2player

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:52:48 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 09, 2009, 01:40:15 AM

What about 55 minutes with a 5 minute buffer so hosts can generally expect each T1 round to last 1 hour accounting for time between rounds?

Does T1 MP need to be extended to 6 LS as well?

Not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's helpful to have this kind of input for Rob to read and consider.

55 min game / 5 min break sounds good

I would extend T1-2p first, and then after seeing the effects think about T1-mp.

Master KChief · « **Reply #28 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:56:59 AM »

i agree with arch angel. extending t1mp to 6 ls would result in terribly long games. although, usually t1mp games are the fastest due to the sheer number of speed decks...

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:01:18 AM »

i think a 1hr time limit meaning 60 minutes to play then going to 6 ls is just accurate cause heck magic the gathering has 60 card decks and they pay for 1 hr heck most other ccg's usually have 1 hr rounds and can do a 4 -5 maybe even 6 round tourney just fine. i think the bigest isue with redemption as far as time is concerned is fitting all the diffrent categories in. but shouldn't be an issue when events last 2-3-4 days now anyway. at least at the top lvl.

sk · « **Reply #30 on:** July 09, 2009, 02:30:08 AM »

Isn't it kinda funky to have two different objectives in the two T1 categories? Is it still really T1?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #31 on:** July 09, 2009, 03:12:35 AM »

Quote from: sk on July 09, 2009, 02:30:08 AM

Isn't it kinda funky to have two different objectives in the two T1 categories? Is it still really T1?

I don't mind having T1-mp go to 6 also, and in fact would like to see that in the long run. I was just suggesting changing one at a time.

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #32 on:** July 09, 2009, 03:38:16 AM »

I like the way games run as it stands now, but maybe I'm just the minority.

Korunks · « **Reply #33 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:12:29 AM »

I don't think you are the minority, I happen to like Redemption as it sits at the moment. I don't really know if I like the idea of raising the lost soul count for T1 2p. I may have to have my play group test it out and see how it goes over. Either way I like Redemption as it is now!

golgotha · « **Reply #34 on:** July 09, 2009, 09:14:28 AM »

IDK how I feel bout banning NJ. Are their ways to stop it? Yeah, like with Confusion or Alter of Ahaz. From the sounds of things, TexP might have a way to stop it, or at least slow down its use. Since Cactus is in the business of stopping problems with cards/decks, could we see an anti-NJ lost soul? (maybe in 2010) Would that idea even work? "While this lost soul is in the land of bondage, No one can play NJ" Even if you play it with SOG at the end of the game, odds are your opponet has more than 1 LS out, and in T1 2P, isn't it "Defenders choice" on which lost soul gets rescued? Or maybe a site that has a simular ability. "Protect all Lost Souls in here from rescue by a dominat" Just a thought...
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6 LS, 55 minute game increase. Because some people play to 6 anyways, especially in tournaments. Ok, so they just do that to get a better LS differential, but it has been done on numerous occasions. If we do increase the LS count to 6, do you think people won't try to get 7 LS?
I do think NJ is a good card for these reasons: Its powerful, and easy to get. It is one of the really good cards that Newbs can easily add to their deck. After all, who here doesn't have extras of NJ that they would be willing to give to help out a new player. Someone who can't afford AOC promo. It helps keep the game competitive for new players, which has been something Cactus has tried to do. In that aspect, I like the idea of keeping it around. Does it deserve to be banned? IDK. But if you don't like it, don't use it and encourage other people not to use it...didn't MASK get started by people against Speed decks in Multi Player?

soul seeker · « **Reply #35 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:01:54 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 09, 2009, 12:46:22 AM

in regards to kenobi, thats the first time i've heard of a figure being banned in any figures game. i guess i just kind of assumed only ccg's would implement bans...haha guess it extends to figs as well. which kenobi got banned?

It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set. Yep, the most broken piece in Star Wars miniatures came in a standard, cheap starter. It just came down the line on the DCI floor rules update before most of the big tournaments.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** July 09, 2009, 10:06:02 AM »

Quote from: golgotha on July 09, 2009, 09:14:28 AM

...some people play to 6 ... to get a better LS differential ... didn't MASK ...

A couple pieces of your post seem to be out of date. Rob capped T1 games at 5LS for figuring differential, so people don't really play to 6 anymore (but they use to, and still finished games on time, so that is a good point). And MASK didn't really "do" anything, since all the MASK players were playing Booster

crustpope · « **Reply #37 on:** July 09, 2009, 11:19:18 AM »

Quote from: soul seeker on July 09, 2009, 10:01:54 AM

It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set.

What were his abilities. Just curious..

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #38 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:44:31 PM »

Quote

Because some people play to 6 anyways, especially in tournaments. Ok, so they just do that to get a better LS differential, but it has been done on numerous occasions. If we do increase the LS count to 6, do you think people won't try to get 7 LS?

This used to happen, but the rules were changed recently to not allow counting LS beyond 5 (or 7 for T2). You can rescue 6+, but you only get LS dif points for 5.

soul seeker · « **Reply #39 on:** July 09, 2009, 12:50:51 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 09, 2009, 11:19:18 AM

Quote from: soul seeker on July 09, 2009, 10:01:54 AM
It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set.
What were his abilities. Just curious..

Most of his abilities were kind of ordinary until they were all put together into a formidable 55 point leader.
   The most deadly of all was his: Soresu Style Mastery which didn't cost force points and did the following:
   All attacks (in the game Attack=rolling of dice), both melee and shooting could be prevented with the roll of 11 or better.
   Which doesn't seem like much until you add Mettle which is:
   If this character uses a force point to reroll add +4 to the roll...if he can do it again then it is cumulative.
   Which seems pretty powerful, until you add...
   Master of the Force 2:
   He can use up to two force powers per turn
  Which also had this added to it...
   Force Renewal 1:
   This character gains 1 force point per turn.
  Which if you think through the possibilities of his offensive firepower then you realize that his followers are not without boosts either because he has the commander effect of...
Each follower gains +4 attack and +4 defense as long as it has an ally within 6 squares of it.
The above doesn't even have his offensive stats for brevity and not bore people, but the above is only defensive. So in summary...
   You have a general of 55 points in a standard 150 point army that can block practically all attacks with as low as 3+ on a 20 sided die who continually renews this option.
   Could you beat him? yes. Was it easy? No.

crustpope · « **Reply #40 on:** July 09, 2009, 01:22:22 PM »

Wow, yeah, that is pretty broken. and it came in a starter set? You would need your whole group to focus on him just to get enough attacks on him that possibly one of them woudn't be prevented.

SirNobody · « **Reply #41 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:19:15 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Tsavong Lah on July 09, 2009, 03:38:16 AM

I like the way games run as it stands now, but maybe I'm just the minority.

I agree with this sentiment.

What is the average attention span 10-12 year old kid? That is the target audience of the game after all.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

golgotha · « **Reply #42 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:41:28 PM »

oops...sorry...been a little while since I was at an tournament.

CountFount · « **Reply #43 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:42:52 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on July 09, 2009, 04:19:15 PM

What is the average attention span 10-12 year old kid? That is the target audience of the game after all.

I support banning anyone over 12 from playing type 1.

The Guardian · « **Reply #44 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:45:18 PM »

I support whatever CountFount supports...

CountFount · « **Reply #45 on:** July 09, 2009, 04:47:41 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 09, 2009, 04:45:18 PM

I support whatever CountFount supports...

Great!. Every over 40 year old starts out with 3 redeemed lost souls and SoG NJ in hand until Justin, Tim and anyone else who has beat me turns 40..

The Guardian · « **Reply #46 on:** July 09, 2009, 05:01:20 PM »

As long as I get Altar of Ahaz in my opening hand, it's all good.

lightningninja · « **Reply #47 on:** July 09, 2009, 07:31:43 PM »

I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.

1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.

Master KChief · « **Reply #48 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:24:49 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on July 09, 2009, 07:31:43 PM

I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.

1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.

good observations. i completely agree we should mix it up a little bit.

metalpsalm · « **Reply #49 on:** July 09, 2009, 08:51:39 PM »

I so hate that player really only need to rescue 3 and then play SOG/NJ, but I just can't bring myself to want a card banned. We are supposed to be different than the world!!!!! (just kidding :] )

News:

Author Topic: New Jerusalem is not going to be banned at this time. (Read 20836 times)