Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I sincerely hope that the next card set(s) will have counters to the issues that have required special rule changes.  Specifically, I hope in the near future we can do away with the hand-limit and side battle-limit rules (there may be others not on the tip of my tongue).

Why?  Because part of the fun of the game is to be able to pull off the combos in the first place.  If they are abused, then make effective counters.

FBTN was abused.  Effective counters were made.
Side battles were abused.  New game rule.
Speed and SitC were abused.  New game rule.

New game rules?!?!  Please, no, if at all possible.  And, please, repeal them when possible.

If you don't have a counter to a FBN character, you might draw one on a later turn.  Most you lose is a battle or few.

If you don't have a counter to a certain combo, involving side battles and enormous hand sizes, drawing one on a later turn won't even be possible.  You will lose your hand, deck, a couple key cards from your territory, and have absolutely no chance to get them back.

Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.

If a combo has a way to remove 99% of all counters to the combo, then something is wrong with the structure of the game.  These require rule tweaks, not more cards that will just get removed before they can counter the combo.

Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.

I do! 

You had me until "reasonable person".  Then the entire theory falls apart. 

I, on the other hand, am completely unreasonable. I see no good reason for any player to have that many cards in their hand.

Long Live Hand Limits!

ANB+hur+gifts 16 right there.

If you don't have a counter to a FBN character, you might draw one on a later turn.  Most you lose is a battle or few.

If you don't have a counter to a certain combo, involving side battles and enormous hand sizes, drawing one on a later turn won't even be possible.  You will lose your hand, deck, a couple key cards from your territory, and have absolutely no chance to get them back.

Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.

If a combo has a way to remove 99% of all counters to the combo, then something is wrong with the structure of the game.  These require rule tweaks, not more cards that will just get removed before they can counter the combo.

These are good points, and I understand that side of the argument.

But what happens when I have several counters to FBTN but I never draw them because my opponent wins in three turns?  What if I wanted a rule that prevented 3-turn games?

What happens if I get my counters out for the side battle and enormous hand size combos, totally debilitating my opponent in the process?  Isn't it unfair that my opponent must sit and watch while his combo deck can do nothing?

<grabs MJB's soapbox>

I believe there should always be a chance for a player to pull off a combo that removes 99% of all counters to the combo.  I don't believe it should be easy (i.e. create plenty of counters).  That's why we have so many great players and deck-builders out there in the first place.  If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.

It also creates that "what if" excitement.  CA Nats will be remembered for a lot of things but primarily for what Gabe did with his T2 combo deck.  Yeah, there were some opponents who sat back and watched it unfold.  But some of these same opponents also knew afterwards there were plenty of counters to the combo.  They were just caught off-guard.  I did not see one of Gabe's opponents toss their cards in the trash and stomp out of the church never to return.  (I have seen a player toss their cards in the trash never to return after losing in a 3-turn game.)  That's what most good players dream about doing at Nationals.  TimMierz won T1 with his hand-discard deck by catching several people off-guard.

Before going on, I will admit that some rules are needed in the interim when counters have not been made yet, e.g side battle rule.  I will also commend the way Rob handled the recent proposed changes by having a testing period in actual tournaments.  But I would hope that all options are exhausted before making permanent rule changes.  Let the players adapt rather than throw out quick fix rules.

As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done.  Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2.  Believe me, I have tried to come up with a good T2 side battle deck but they just can't compete.  Also, because of the rule no more counters were needed so none have been created.  Pot of Manna was made but is hardly used because the rule crippled the strategy.

</soapbox>

But what happens when I have several counters to FBTN but I never draw them because my opponent wins in three turns?

This is why there shouldn't be any battle phase in the first turn.  To give more time for a defense to set up in a race to 3LSs.

If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.

This is simply a question of numbers.  How many players are you talking about here?  A mere handful.  How many young new players quit the game after their first couple experiences playing against super combo decks in a tournament and coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance?  A whole bunch more, that's for sure.

Prof, if you are really concerned about the feelings of young new players you should be seeking rule changes that eliminate site decks. I have seen more players burst into tears after getting site locked than I have seen for all other reasons combined.

But... I loves me some site lock! Im not using my sitelock currently, but that's still my #1 favorite defense, with my current one in an extremely close second.

Hey,

If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.

While some of the "good players" like combos and would get bored without them, not all good players like combo decks.  I consider myself a "good player" and I quit playing Type 2 for two years because I didn't like all of the combo decks that were running rampant.

As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done.  Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2.

I believe the side battle rule change was a good one.  Not because it stopped the combo decks, because the previous side battle rule was a bad rule.  When one player controls both sides of a side battle they are their own opponent.  That's contrary to the nature of what the rules should be.

This is why there shouldn't be any battle phase in the first turn.  To give more time for a defense to set up in a race to 3LSs.

I expect we'll see more timeouts this year than we've seen in a long time.  The "race to 3" has never been slower, I don't think slowing it down even more is a good idea.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 15, 2010, 01:35:32 PM

How many young new players quit the game after their first couple experiences playing against super combo decks in a tournament and coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance?  A whole bunch more, that's for sure.

Prof, if you are really concerned about the feelings of young new players you should be seeking rule changes that eliminate site decks. I have seen more players burst into tears after getting site locked than I have seen for all other reasons combined.

I agree with MJB on this one.  Combo decks are by and large a type 2 phenomenon.  New players generally shouldn't be playing Type 2.  Also, once a player pulls off a combo, the game usually ends fairly soon putting the "victim" out of their misery.  On the other hand, once a site deck locks you out the game may go on for a while with you having to sit there and watch knowing there's nothing you can do.

if you're playing a red offense and you get sitelocked, you've got problems.

If you're playing a red offense at all you've got problems.  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Quote

As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done.  Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2.

I believe the side battle rule change was a good one.  Not because it stopped the combo decks, because the previous side battle rule was a bad rule.  When one player controls both sides of a side battle they are their own opponent.  That's contrary to the nature of what the rules should be.


Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

That brings up a very good point: there were actually two parts to the side battle rule.  One, only one side battle per turn.  Two, a player could not control both sides of a side battle.  I support repealing the former, not the latter.

Part of the recursion was due to the player being able to control both sides of the battle.

The only time I've ever made a little kid cry* during a Redemption game it was because I made a rescue attempt with Moses.

That doesn't count because the kid's name was Ramses.