Author Topic: New rule proposal!  (Read 6737 times)

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2013, 10:16:25 PM »
+2
Soul drought? No, just a slower game pace.

One encourages and one is a product of the other. They're essentially one and the same.

Quote
Lost souls being always available isn't healthy for the game either. How frustrating is it when you have no defense but all of your lost souls?

Do you not have the chance at defending those drawn souls? You're creating a hypothetical situation that is a statistical outlier if you've constructed your deck with proper defense. How about the reverse when you're staring at an empty candy shop on the opposite side of the table?

I can count any number of times when I've gone 3-4 turns in a row in the beginning of the game without drawing a usable defense (either no ECs, no EEs, or none of the above). Admittedly, my group doesn't use top tier decks, but then, we're quite happy with our level of play. Saying that we don't know how to play with proper defense (ignorant of the fact that Defense is typically at least 1/3 of our decks) is rather condescending. Sometimes you just get a really bad shuffle. This happens when you're on a budget an you're playing with the cards you can afford because no one in your group can afford to buy every new card as it comes out. Do we represent the most competitive of players? Certainly not. Do we represent those who attend Nats? Hardly. But assuming that the redemption meta is the only proper way to play is just insulting.

As to the difference between the two situations, they are hardly comparable. Having a pile of LSs in your LoB and no way to  defend them, is a really crappy feeling. You're forced to give up LSs because you are helpless and can do nothing to stop the situation. On the other hand, if your opponent has no available LSs, but you can still defend/lock down those in your LoB, then the game just went one turn longer without a game ending play being made. A little tedious if it's the 3rd or 4th turn in a row, but otherwise, no big deal for those of us not indoctrinated into the cult of speed.

You people say that new players are what are going to keep this game alive, but you make decisions and rulings using mostly evidence of what we see on the boards and those are people who buy all the cards they can and play super competitively. Please keep in mind that there are some of us who are perfectly happy playing in house games and local tourneys because that's the level we both enjoy and can afford to play on. Soul drought is annoying, but not an insurmountable problem requiring a game rule to fix.

EDIT: don't get personal.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 11:03:00 PM by Gabe »
Just one more thing...

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2013, 11:39:37 PM »
+2
I think you're defining soul drought wrong. 2 turns is not an extended period of time (which is what a drought implies). 2 turns is just a slower game pace.

I think its merely a matter of perspective at this point, I would easily define any extended period of time (2 turns or more) with no lost souls to rescue as drought.

Quote
It's really not a statistical outlier. Let's suppose you play 7 evil characters (a fair amount, probably a bit lower than average). Your odds of drawing an evil character are exactly the same as a lost soul, and thus soul "drought" is equivilant to ec drought.

Using your previous example of 7 lost souls per 56 card deck, 1:8 is a lost soul, and considering lost souls are negative deck space since they're inherently floaters, wouldn't that be 1:7 is an EC using your example?

Quote
You pretty much have to rely on your speed so you can draw into it OR you can slow the game down by not drawing and stalling the souls out.

Playing devils advocate here and assuming the ratio of pulling lost souls is equal to pulling an EC, then statistically that would still mean that every lost soul drawn affords you at least 1 Evil Character to defend with. Yet you claim the drawing all lost souls yet having a defenseless field/hand scenario isn't an outlier? I'm trying to wrap my brain around that one.

Quote
Aren't these all going to be hypothetical situations?

I thought we were discussing the possible deceptive properties of Fishers/Call here. I was speaking of Fishers/Call strictly at face value which, under optimal circumstances, produces the immediate gratification of a lost soul in your opponents land of bondage, which is what I believe was the original intent of the cards. Yes, there is also the additional benefit of pulling lost souls closer to the top and sure, there are a ton of outside variables that can skew the rate at which those souls come out after that, but there are also other multiple variables on the flip side of the coin that can secure/further perpetuate that rate as well; an oft used one in the meta being called Nazareth. Either way I'm not entirely sure why we're applying any further variables to what I believe is the original purpose surrounding the card, a card that at face value can produce a lost soul. Again, just a matter of perspective I suppose.

Quote
Again, remember that this rule isn't going to go very far for stopping soul drought. It will affect about 2%* of games while also killing a cool deck type coincidentally.

Totally agree, which is why I have little problem making a rule change that will only affect 20 out of a 1000 games for the sake of reducing text clutter and providing a slight cushion against the possibility of a simplified gamestate with no player interaction.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2013, 01:17:48 AM »
+1
Quote
Again, remember that this rule isn't going to go very far for stopping soul drought. It will affect about 2%* of games while also killing a cool deck type coincidentally.

Totally agree, which is why I have little problem making a rule change that will only affect 20 out of a 1000 games for the sake of reducing text clutter and providing a slight cushion against the possibility of a simplified gamestate with no player interaction.
I'm tired and going to bed soon, but I will say that changing the status quo for such a small reason seems silly. Especially right after a rulebook just came out.

Offline Isildur

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Mr. Deacon
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2013, 01:44:19 AM »
0
I'm tired and going to bed soon, but I will say that changing the status quo for such a small reason seems silly. Especially right after a rulebook just came out.
Of course a change like this wouldnt happen this year but I think it should defiantly be considered for after the current tourney season.
3 Prophets Packs ftw

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2013, 02:56:17 AM »
+3
Again, remember that this rule isn't going to go very far for stopping soul drought. It will affect about 2%* of games while also killing a cool deck type coincidentally.

*No, I'm not going to make a less than 0% joke. You better not either.
Can I get a show of hands for the number of people who thought Westy's asterix was going to lead to a justification of the 2% number?

I guess I better just go back to being tricked into watching Rick Astley videos. sigh...

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2013, 08:05:25 AM »
0
Saying that we don't know how to play with proper defense (ignorant of the fact that Defense is typically at least 1/3 of our decks) is rather condescending.

I think you may have read into MKC's statement too much, here. I'm sure he was referring to having a balanced deck, rather than the more prevalent offense-heavy decks that populate the tournament scene. "Proper" does not imply "better." He also never said that you "didn't know how to play" with whatever defense you are using.

As to the difference between the two situations, they are hardly comparable.

My playgroup is just like yours. In fact, I did not hold a single tournament this past year for the first time since 2005, all because of money. My players still use decks that were popular years ago, but they like them and have fun. My Absalom's Soldiers deck is still a beast.  ;)

With that said, I do not find that giving up a soul for free is worse than not having a soul to rescue. The point of the game is to win souls. For younger players especially, they don't care if they got the soul for free. They're just giddy because they have a rescued soul!  ;D  In those cases, I even play it up as if I could try to block them (even though I have no ECs), even starting to pull a card out of my hand, but then deferring to whatever hero they put into battle with "I'm not sure I have enough to beat you this time." Just ask Josh Kopp about playing against my players, since he employs a "first one's free" policy every time he plays them. His general philosophy is that you still have to win 4 more, and he won't give up that last one without a fight.  ;)

Please keep in mind that there are some of us who are perfectly happy playing in house games and local tourneys because that's the level we both enjoy and can afford to play on.

FWIW, in the cases you have stated, you can pretty much play any way that you want to, as long as your players know that the rules will be different at other sanctioned tournaments. I do not scour the Message Board for rulings during a local tournament. I rule as best I can. If I was uncertain, then I would ask on the Boards after the tournament was over, and make changes next time, if necessary.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Nameless

  • Trade Count: (+39)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • THIS IS AWESOME!
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2013, 10:42:11 AM »
+1
No exposing state secrets!  :police:
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 12:41:58 PM by The Guardian »

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2013, 12:44:49 PM »
0
Quote
It's really not a statistical outlier. Let's suppose you play 7 evil characters (a fair amount, probably a bit lower than average). Your odds of drawing an evil character are exactly the same as a lost soul, and thus soul "drought" is equivilant to ec drought.

Using your previous example of 7 lost souls per 56 card deck, 1:8 is a lost soul, and considering lost souls are negative deck space since they're inherently floaters, wouldn't that be 1:7 is an EC using your example?

I wanted to address this quick. When two independent events have the same probability, it does not mean that if one event happens X number of times, the second event also happens X number of times.  It just means that they will have the same average over time.

And the probability of drawing ECs and LSs are actually not quite the same.  I won't go into the details, but for a 56-card deck with 7 LS and 7 ECs:
Probability of drawing 0 ECs with your opening D8:  26.2%
Probability of drawing 1 or more LSs with your opening D8:  68.3%

And since these two variables are independent of each other, 17.9% of the time you will draw at least 1 LS with no EC with your initial D8.  That's almost 1 in every 5 games.  And if your opponent is playing a 50 card deck with AotL, then there is almost a 20% chance they have AotL in their starting hand as well...
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2013, 12:52:33 PM »
+1
Soul drought isn't inherently bad.
I agree.  And I am not talking about drought.  I'm talking about lock.  I'm talking about being 5 minutes into a game and realize there is no way you can possibly win, since 3 of your opponent's lost souls are in his discard pile and you have no way to get them out.

If my opponent isn't playing hopper, Dungeon of Malchaiah (or the like), or one of the ECs that becomes a lost soul, then I only need to Bury 1 lost soul and discard 2 off the top of my deck, and my opponent is locked. With the shuffler and underdeck souls, and other ways to return lost souls to your deck, plus ways to stack your deck, it is fairly easy to actually lock your opponent out of getting 5 lost souls.  It isn't as reliable as winning with another strategy, but it is no where near impossible.  If future cards make this even easier, then I'd rather see a rule like this implemented than a string of errata or restricted cards.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2013, 01:12:32 PM »
0
Quote
It's really not a statistical outlier. Let's suppose you play 7 evil characters (a fair amount, probably a bit lower than average). Your odds of drawing an evil character are exactly the same as a lost soul, and thus soul "drought" is equivilant to ec drought.

Using your previous example of 7 lost souls per 56 card deck, 1:8 is a lost soul, and considering lost souls are negative deck space since they're inherently floaters, wouldn't that be 1:7 is an EC using your example?

I wanted to address this quick. When two independent events have the same probability, it does not mean that if one event happens X number of times, the second event also happens X number of times.  It just means that they will have the same average over time.

And the probability of drawing ECs and LSs are actually not quite the same.  I won't go into the details, but for a 56-card deck with 7 LS and 7 ECs:
Probability of drawing 0 ECs with your opening D8:  26.2%
Probability of drawing 1 or more LSs with your opening D8:  68.3%

And since these two variables are independent of each other, 17.9% of the time you will draw at least 1 LS with no EC with your initial D8.  That's almost 1 in every 5 games.  And if your opponent is playing a 50 card deck with AotL, then there is almost a 20% chance they have AotL in their starting hand as well...

I knew there was far more math involved than just the generally accepted (albeit misleading) 1/7, 1/8, etc ratios, and was waiting for someone more matchmatically inclined such as yourself to chime in. Also, as I mentioned, does your math account for the fact lost souls are floaters and replace themselves when drawn?

If your math is still correct considering that, drawing at least 1 EC to defend a soul more than 80% of the time off the d8 is still fairly good odds, and EC drought does not seem to be as prevalent as this thread seems to indicate. Going 3 to 4 turns without a useable defense certainly isn't the norm and appears to be a statistical outlier, unless you're purposely putting in a light defense.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2013, 01:42:36 PM »
+1
I agree.  And I am not talking about drought.  I'm talking about lock.  I'm talking about being 5 minutes into a game and realize there is no way you can possibly win, since 3 of your opponent's lost souls are in his discard pile and you have no way to get them out.

I can't envision any way within the realm of statistical possibility that that could happen.

If my opponent isn't playing hopper, Dungeon of Malchaiah (or the like), or one of the ECs that becomes a lost soul, then I only need to Bury 1 lost soul and discard 2 off the top of my deck, and my opponent is locked. With the shuffler and underdeck souls, and other ways to return lost souls to your deck, plus ways to stack your deck, it is fairly easy to actually lock your opponent out of getting 5 lost souls.  It isn't as reliable as winning with another strategy, but it is no where near impossible.  If future cards make this even easier, then I'd rather see a rule like this implemented than a string of errata or restricted cards.

I agree that we shouldn't make the strategy easier to pull off. It's a relatively niche strategy that is cool because it is a high-risk, high-reward strategy (high risk because it is not easy to pull off, and even if you do, if your opponent is using any of the cards that gets Lost Souls from your discard pile, or a significant amount of soul gen, your deck strategy is kaput). I don't foresee us making any future cards that allow you to discard Lost Souls from your deck, but I do foresee us making plenty of new cards that generate LSs, so the strategy will only get weaker as time goes on. If I were a new player, then I would have 1 of 2 reactions to facing such a deck that was able to successfully pull it off:

A) I would get frustrated, think the game is dumb, and quit. This sounds bad. But if I was a person inclined to do such things, then I imagine I would have the same reaction to facing a site lock deck, a Zebulun/Watchful Servant Turtle, TGT, one of Kirk's combo decks, a well-built Heroless deck, etc. etc. The point is, there are so many ways to completely eliminate your opponent's ability to participate fully in the game, that it doesn't make sense to make a rule that eliminates one of the weaker ones, unless there is another good reason to do so (which there isn't, IMO).

B) I would congratulate my opponent for such a creative idea and successful implementation, then try to figure out new ways to stop it (of which there are plenty).

FWIW, these are the ways currently that you can discard Lost Souls (either in play or off the top of your deck):

Burial
Jephthah--requires you to put a Lost Soul on top of your deck beforehand
Evil Spawn--requires you to put a Lost Soul on top of your deck beforehand
King Shishak--Requires a successful block AND you to put a Lost Soul on top of your deck beforehand
Panic Demon (Gold)--Requires you to choose the blocker AND fail the rescue attempt AND you to put a Lost Soul on top of your deck beforehand
Boasting of Wisdom--Requires you to place it on your Hero AND capture that Hero AND you to put a Lost Soul on top of your deck beforehand

There are only 4 cards that I know of that can topdeck Lost Souls:

Washing Hands
Divination--Requires you to have an LS in your top 6
Stone Throwers--Requires that opponent doesn't have Son of God in hand
Zeresh--requires a band to Haman and an LS in your top 6

In order to pull it off, it requires a large amount of infrastructure. Which forces you to sacrifice cards that can actually help you win battles. Jayden built a deck that discarded 6 of his LSs in a game he played last night. He lost the game 2-1.

So for those who are worried about such a strategy, I wouldn't be.
Press 1 for more options.

Offline Bobbert

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • The player formerly known as Thomas Hunter
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2013, 01:51:32 PM »
0
No exposing state secrets!  :police:

...now I really wish I'd seen this.
ANB is good. Change my mind.

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2013, 01:56:12 PM »
+2
Obviously something like this suggested rule change would/should be heavily playtested to be sure it will accomplish what is hoped for. All mathematics and meta-game stuff aside, I believe Bryon summed it up very well: (bolded for emphasis)
My main reason for liking the rule is that it keeps players from being able to lock the opponent out quite so easily.  Not that it is easy now.  But it could be.

Maybe we should only revisit this as a rule option IF this strategy becomes too easy in the future.

I like Lost Soul availability, as it allows for battles and keeps both players in the game.  Being locked out 5-10 minutes into a 45 minute game isn't a positive game experience. While I like Site strategies as an option for defense, I mainly like them as stall tactics with only a glimmer of hope for a lock.  I hope that a full lock stays challenging.  Battles are fun.  I learned my lesson after my TGT mistake.

     At times we focus so much on the advanced specific archetype decks that are beastly and forget the new/beginner/intermediate players, who are still attempting to grasp G/H and I/J starters. As long as we continue to remain aware of the Redemption knowledge gap between beginner to advanced players and allow the games to remain fun for new players, even if they lose, we will continue to grow the game.

     I believe the Redemption community is resilient enough that, no matter which way the ruling may go, we will adapt and overcome and continue to find plenty of Redemption Fun and Fellowship!

     
Godspeed,
Mike     
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Your Turn Games.

Offline Nameless

  • Trade Count: (+39)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • THIS IS AWESOME!
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2013, 02:20:01 PM »
0
No exposing state secrets!  :police:
Sorry, I promise never to talk about Jordan's Deacon Obsidian Minion T1 Multi deck again.  ;)

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2013, 02:32:33 PM »
+1
I agree.  And I am not talking about drought.  I'm talking about lock.  I'm talking about being 5 minutes into a game and realize there is no way you can possibly win, since 3 of your opponent's lost souls are in his discard pile and you have no way to get them out.

I can't envision any way within the realm of statistical possibility that that could happen.
It isn't so easy now, but it could be with the right new cards printed.  Now it would take something like these in your top 11 cards out of 50: Burial, Jephthah, Evil Spawn, a pale green evil character, and Divination. Divination/Jephthah makes it really easy to discard 1, and Burial makes an easy 2.  What is tricky is discarding the 3rd in the first 5 to 10 minutes.  You'd have to find a second soul with Divination (not impossible if your deck is soul-saturated by cards like the shuffler or Death of Unrighteous) and block with Evil Spawn, which is really unlikely in the first few turns of the game.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2013, 02:49:59 PM »
+2
I'm more for getting behind the original idea of reducing text clutter on future cards. Reducing the possible NPE caused by soul depletion, which I consider a detriment towards the game overall, was just a small bonus to that. My feelings towards this possible ruling is further reinforced by the fact it would only affect 2%* of games played.

*more than likely far closer to less than zero percent
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline redemption101

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 426
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2013, 04:30:46 PM »
0
I like it the way it is,  while its not a real viable strategy its a  fun one.         

Other ways of lock out not mentioned
King shishak   (gold king)    :( I can't read it was mentioned
exchanger+ rescue it   dou     

Begging to go back allows top deck of a ls from discard
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 06:09:35 PM by redemption101 »

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2013, 05:59:48 PM »
+4
The remark was public, so the apology will be as well. I would like to apologize to Master KChief for my remarks last night/this morning. I read too much into your words in my tired state,and proceeded to say something that didn't need to be said the way I said it.
Just one more thing...

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2013, 06:07:37 PM »
+4
No worries, I probably could have used a better choice of words. YMT cleared it up for me and I appreciate that.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #69 on: August 23, 2013, 12:05:37 PM »
0
I'm more for getting behind the original idea of reducing text clutter on future cards.
I'm all for reducing clutter as well, but not at the cost of eliminating a strategy that is not inherently bad and doesn't negatively affect the game, regardless of how infrequently it's used.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 12:13:35 PM by browarod »

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: New rule proposal!
« Reply #70 on: August 23, 2013, 01:00:17 PM »
+5
The remark was public, so the apology will be as well. I would like to apologize to Master KChief for my remarks last night/this morning. I read too much into your words in my tired state,and proceeded to say something that didn't need to be said the way I said it.

No worries, I probably could have used a better choice of words. YMT cleared it up for me and I appreciate that.

Just as an aside, I want to commend you both for apologizing and admitting a bit of fault on both sides before things went any further. Kudos to YMT for helping clarify as well. The forum needs more of this type of respect.  :thumbup:
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal