Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I have seen several new ruling ideas floating around this season, such as the dom cap and not being able to rescue your own lost souls. It seems to me that most of these rulings are trying to shift the game away from speed and more toward balanced decks which I am all for. In fact, I now focus more attention on T2 becasue T1 is so centralized around speed. I know I have heard this mentioned before, but has a decking rule ever been seriously considered? In alot of other card games if you deck out your lose. I think this would be a much better way to slow down speed decks and bring more balance/variety to the meta. Thoughts?

That's too extreme. It would rapidly shift the game from speed to nothing but defense virtually overnight. Cards like Hormah and Threatened Lives would likely become staples, and I don't even want to think of a world with ANB in every deck. There should be some penalty for decking out, but that is not it.

I don't see it as too extreme. I mean how many T1 games actually end up with someone decking out? Speed decks would still be around, but it would actually require skill to use them. As it stands, anyone can pilot a sam or genesis deck and have success.

The thing is other games don't have a d3 per turn rule. Decking out is significantly more likely to happen in Redemption, and thus, this rule can't happen.

Forced draw and water jar could be a problem.

Yeah, that rule is way too extreme. Having to rescue an additional soul if you're decked seems better, but that might be too confusing for some.

...and I don't even want to think of a world with ANB in every deck. .

It's a beautiful place. 

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on December 20, 2011, 07:59:03 AM

Yeah, that rule is way too extreme. Having to rescue an additional soul if you're decked seems better, but that might be too confusing for some.

I agree that an auto-lose due to decking out is too extreme.  However, I also think it would be interesting if a player had to give back 1 LS if they decked out.

I also suspect that if this actually became a rule, that it would almost never happen.

Make this a territory-class card, something like Abomb.

Quote from: Red on December 19, 2011, 10:30:57 PM

If a rule like that DOES come about I will quit.  I have other hobbies now but I still like Redemption but if a rule like this DOES happen I quit. It's a rule in Pokemon and I hated it. I still hate it.

Why do you not like the ruling? Saying you don't like it and will quit doesn't seem very constructive without any reasoning.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on December 19, 2011, 11:12:18 PM

The thing is other games don't have a d3 per turn rule. Decking out is significantly more likely to happen in Redemption, and thus, this rule can't happen.

That is true about the drawing, but even the smallest decks will have 14 turns to win if they draw 3 cards each turn. If a 50 card deck can't win in 14 turns then it probably won't win at all. If they choose to add drawing cards to speed up the deck that is their decision. The reason decking out in Redemption is more likely is because this isn't a rule. People know that their is no penalty for decking out so they just speed through their deck. If a rule like this was implemented I would venture to say that decking out would be very rare.

I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.

Quote from: Red on December 20, 2011, 04:35:25 PM

I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.

And erratas/banning are less complicated?

Kirk

Regarding banning cards, I'd argue that in some instances, it can be less complicated. For instance, we're exploring different options on how to nerf Mayhem so that it's no longer a game breaker in the games it gets pulled early. A few months ago, the most talked about option was the intro-prep phase, which still might come to fruition. While I, personally, am in full support of the idea, it only began to be seriously talked about in T12P after it was evident that first round Mayhems were a problem. Instead of seriously discussing banning the card, one of the first solutions that was discussed was adding a massive rule change. Erratas can be better, but not when they're overused. For instance, especially with the wording on many old cards, erratas are required to clarify what the cards do in regards to the current rules and definitions. The way erratas become complicated and worthless is when things like ANB happen (to anyone who was at the Maryland tournament, I just violated one of Godwin's Redemption Laws). It's worth noting that, because Rob refuses to ban cards, Cactus is forced to do the most complicated thing of all and devote entire sets to attempting to balance the previous set out.

Quote from: Red on December 20, 2011, 04:35:25 PM

I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.

And erratas/banning are less complicated?

Kirk

Yep.

I would rather see a rule change than a ban. I don't see how you can single out cards to ban. That is why we have erratas. If we ban Mayhem, then everyone will start screaming for bans on Falling Away or GoYS. That would just start a chain reaction.

The PTB are not camels and I don't even own a tent.

Another issue with this rule is that is essentially renders the conditional CBN granted by >10 cards in deck on some cards useless and WS might as well not exist. So really, this rule change is a ban.

We thought a possible rule for decking out might be that if you have no cards in your draw pile, you must discard one character you own from your territory. Since speed decks usually end up with a lot of characters out, this wouldn't be crippling, but would be a significant loss. You'd have to balance out the price of getting your cards out vs. the possible loss of a character every turn before you start your turn.