Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yeah, the artifact thing is why I don't care for it.  Anything v Captured Ark, Unholy Writ v Blue Tassels or Covenant of Palestine, Gifts v Rain Becomes Dust, etc.  Additionally, lost souls with a discard ability would be subject to timing.  There was also the remark that discarding one's deck w/ GoH before the game even starts seems wrong.

Quote from: sk on January 07, 2010, 03:31:16 PM

There was also the remark that discarding one's deck w/ GoH before the game even starts seems wrong.

Now THAT would be funny.

It's been done.

To me, it seems the idea of an intro-prep phase is to allow the second player a chance to have a bit of defense set up for the first attack. This could be accomplished by placing down a Warrior and his weapon, activating a defensive artifact like Unholy Writ, placing a Lost Soul in a site or putting down a Fortress that might help with blocking (GoH, Philistine Outpost, etc.). So if we were to have an intro-prep phase, I would propose that it would be something like this:

After the initial draw 8, the player with the most LS's in territory chooses who goes first. The player who was not chosen can put down any cards that can normally be put on the table, but no abilities may activate during this time. Following this "intro-prep" phase, the chosen player takes his turn. After that player's prep phase, the abilities on the Lost Souls, Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, and TC/Placed enhancements put down by the second player during the intro-prep phase activate in the order chosen by that player, except for non-triggered/non-delayed instant abilities.

I'm sure there are cards now or in the future that would cause problems with this suggestion, but it's the best I could come up with. This way, if you're second, you can choose to "activate" an artifact or not, or play a fortress or not, not knowing if your opponent will do something to them before he attacks. Also, it gets around slap-jacking while still allowing both players to set up their territories before anyone attacks. The lack of activating abilities still lets the person who is first have the advantage of going first, as they get to activate their stuff before the second player. But I always hate having some way to block a first rescue in my hand but be unable to use it (like Unknown Nation, Outpost, etc.) and hand over a free soul, just because I either drew fewer LS's, or lost a Rock, Paper, Scissors contest.

i despise the no more than 16 in hand. But enjoy the fact that speed is like AI and needs rule changes to stop it lol

Only the rule changes that I listed in August have been abopted including #6, #7, #8 & #9 as cited in this thread.

Well I guess we play with the old rules because I'm not sure what "abopted" is or what to do when you abopt something.  But seriously I really like rule/game changes 1-7 and think they help the game.  I like the idea of intro-prep in theory but see problems with the timing and activation of abilities. 

For 8 &9 I hope they extend the trial period before permanently deciding.  Initially, I really don't like either.  I think there are other ways to deal with the potential issues. 

Speed decks.  8 + 3 (normal draw) + 3 (Pentecost) + 3 (1st Fruits) + 7 Hur/Gifts = 24.  And I can think of ways to do a lot more.

FTR, I don't like the hand limit.  If you set up a large combo like that, face my RbD.

Why are people so against not being able to have more than 16 cards in hand?

I dislike it mostly because the decision was made to change the underlying game mechanics (and hit a lot of innocent decks in the process) to go after one seldom-used archetype. X years ago FBN was all-powerful and all-prevalent (much more so than the T2 combo deck), and no one suggested changing game mechanics to resolve the issue.

I dislike it mostly because the decision was made to change the underlying game mechanics (and hit a lot of innocent decks in the process) to go after one seldom-used archetype. X years ago FBN was all-powerful and all-prevalent (much more so than the T2 combo deck), and no one suggested changing game mechanics to resolve the issue.

I don't disagree with your premise but I have to question how many innocent decks are impacted by a 16-card hand limit.

Also, there have been mechanical changes in the past, e.g. completely nerfing side battles, T2 deck building rules, unique Forts and Arts, which I believe to be more impactful.

For the record, I still play with Pot O'Manna, it's quite effective

Well, we've only played T1, I use it in almost every T2 Mutli deck, because a common way of getting off false peace chains is using side battles.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 12, 2010, 10:16:21 AM

Pretty much all of the archetypical pure speed decks, the draw-a-bunch-and-bury-all-the-lost-soul-under-a-pile-of-cards decks, anyone who plays Hur + Gifts, etc. are effected.

Since the rule specifically targets decks that are designed around speed and single-turn deck draws, I don't consider those decks to be "innocents" or "collateral damage".

While I agree that this is the end effect of the ruling change, my understanding was that the rule was supposed to specifically target the kind of T2 combo decks that Rob was talking about here...

There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.

This is the first time I have heard that the reason behind the ruling was to stop traditional speed decks.

I made the connection because my understanding was that ruling was issued in light of Gabe's winning T2-2P at Nats with the SitC deck utilizing a twenty-minute-turn combo. My understanding is based on Gabe's recapitulation of the discussion (one he was a part of) that can be found at http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17122.msg269337#msg269337 . In that post he explicitly tied the hand cap ruling to twenty-minute-turn combo decks to the post from Rob I quoted earlier.

Until your post previous, I had not heard anyone suggest that the motivating factor for issuing the hand-size ruling was to nerf the traditional speed strategy. (Although everyone acknowledges that is the result.) I missed that discussion.