Cactus Game Design Message Boards

You can test outside of a tournament just as effectively.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 26, 2013, 12:41:05 PM

You can test outside of a tournament just as effectively.

Not if you want to keep your deck secret...

You wouldn't test a deck at all? This is why you have close friends who won't spoil your secrets.

MKC: I totally agree with you. If Redemption games were only a little quicker we could do a best two out of three. What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.

Part of the strategy of traditional siding is processing what you have seen your opponent play so far, making judgment calls, and implementing adjustments to your deck to hopefully give you a more favorable matchup against them in Game 2. I think essentially handing your opponent the blueprints to your entire deck takes the creative strategy out of that and knowing how to properly side. This is certainly a great starting point though...we just need to nail down the best way to implement it into Redemption.

My only reservation is that it removes the appeal of checking in an experimental deck and a more standard meta deck.

Actually, the biggest appeal of checking in an experimental (rogue) deck is the very fact its not meta. People do not know it. People will not be prepared against it. The risk a person banks on riding a rogue deck to the top (cut) is the same risk associated with pretty much any other deck building aspect: whether or not certain card/deck choices will pay off. I do not expect the deck limit reduction to repel creativity. I expect it to flourish creative minds bold enough to pilot decks many meta players would not be prepared for or possibly even have an answer to.

Hey,

I can't imagine Redemption supporting a sideboard in the foreseeable future.  I think it's far too confusing for RLKs to try to manage and it requires more time between rounds for re-checking decks.

And honestly, how much does your expectation about the decks you'll face change between the start of the tournament and a few rounds in that would cause you to use your sideboard anyway?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I'm against sideboarding. I like having to take everything into consideration when I build the deck.

I've long been against the allowance of checking in more than one deck, for a few basic reasons. The first is simple: Haman's Plot. Second though, is for economical reasons. The fact of the matter is there are very few players who can afford to check in more than one deck, and most of those players are in the top 15 to begin with. While some level of financial investment is unavoidable, the jump from one deck to two decks is probably around $150 for a top-tier deck (experimental or no), and even larger if a player wants to check in more than two decks. I see no reason that, once you get past that first deck, a player should be penalized because they don't have as much money. Finally, I agree that having more than one deck encourages people to tech for specific players and more heavily analyze who they'll be playing so they can gain an advantage, which goes against the "fun and fellowship" aspect.

I really see no reason to limit people to One Deck when we are not going to be using Sideboards.

It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)

Quote from: JSB23 on March 26, 2013, 07:08:24 PM

It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)

This has been the norm for years im not entirely sure why people are up in arms about this now all of the sudden

Checking in 10 decks for a tournament was also the norm for a long time, until it was exploited by Keith Bartram. I'm more concerned about the unfair advantage gained between rounds by gathering intel on your next opponent however.

My players have always only ever used one deck. I definitely support a one-deck rule.

Quote from: JSB23 on March 26, 2013, 07:08:24 PM

It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)

This has been the norm for years im not entirely sure why people are up in arms about this now all of the sudden

I agree with JSB that this would be unfair, and something that I have not yet encountered in my 13 years of Redemption. But I certainly would have been uncomfortable with it if it had happened.

I love playing multiple decks, and I have checked in a couple of T2 decks at past tournaments.  I have never ripped a Plot.  I don't even use it in my decks.  For me, playing multiple decks just to have more Plots to rip is a waste and a problem for the game.  However, I have played multiple decks at different times for a variety of reasons.

First, when I made a new deck with an interesting concept that I find fun but have no idea how it might fair against tournament-quality decks.  If it fails to produce, I'll switch back to my main deck.

Second, when I'm playing outside of my normal meta.  When I went to Regionals last year, I made sure to check in 2 decks because I had no idea what was the norm there, as the only other person I had ever played was my brother, and he was in the opposite category.  If the meta was against the one deck I chose, I'd be in a lot of trouble just because I didn't have an advantage the other players already had.

Third, because everyone knows what I play in my area.  By checking in multiple decks in a smaller category, they aren't sure what I'm going to be pulling out that particular tournament, or if I've added a new deck to my collection.  I have people who tech specifically against chosen deck preferences of mine when they make a deck for the tournament for that reason, and it puts me at a disadvantage otherwise.  This is particularly true when there are 4 or so people who play that day in the category, and the chances of hitting me are high.

I do understand the part about talking between rounds to get information on your opponents.  I don't do that myself, but I know people do.  However, that's actually more of a reason to allow multiple decks.  If I can find out the one deck my likely opponent is going to play, I can adjust my play style appropriately from the get-go when I face him.  If he has multiple options, that ability is not as strong.

I very much like the idea of being able to check in multiple decks.  I do understand the detractors, but I see it as a good thing for the game in most cases, not a negative.

I would like to see this be a rule. I've never been to an official tournament, but from what I've read it would help level the playing field.

When I play with my friend, I always bring what I call a "side-deck" with me. It has fifteen cards total and consists of both Good, Evil and Neutral cards. I would say the side boarding thing could be used in this sort of manner. Players can switch out cards, as long as their card count in each stays the same. Just to prevent people from bring complete offenses or defenses, make it where the good/evil cards have to be the same.

That's sideboarding.

Hey,

I want to clarify a few points concerning multiple decks with Haman's Plot since there are several posts in this thread with inaccurate information on the matter.

It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots.

You can never check in more than 3 decks at any tournament.

Checking in 10 decks for a tournament was also the norm for a long time, until it was exploited by Keith Bartram.

I'm guessing MKC is using a little hyperbole here, but I'll throw out the correct facts anyway.  Patriarchs (and thus Haman's Plot) was released in early 2002.  At Nationals in 2002 Keith checked in 7 decks, six of them were identical with a Haman's Plot in each, the seventh deck did not contain Haman's Plot.  I don't think I ever saw anyone check in more than 2 decks prior to the release of Patriarchs and the cap of 3 decks was introduced following nationals that year so it was never the norm to check in more than 3 decks, and to my knowledge no one other than Keith ever did.

Or that 51 card speed demon that can only block with HP.

The rule that you can only check in two decks (or three for tournament of six or more rounds) makes it almost impossible for a deck that can "only block with HP" from winning.  Haman's Plot is used to make a good defense great or a solid defense strong, it doesn't really work to make a non-existent defense viable.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

I share the concern about players choosing their deck based on figuring out who their next opponent is.  While this has been against the spirit of the rules since 2004 the letter of the law still allows it to happen frequently.

What if a player that checked in multiple decks was required to write down the condition(s) for switching decks?  So I could say I'm switching decks after x rounds or after I tear the plot in this deck or after I lose one game (or two games) or after every round.  Would this satisfy the people who want to play multiple decks for legitimate reasons?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

While I have (as I already admitted) changed decks based on who I determine I will be playing, I agree that it probably would be better for it not to be legal. However, I think that the proposed method would be way too complicated for hosts to keep track of, so it would still have to be the honor system; thus I don't know if it really fixes anything. The other problem is that if that method is implemented effectively, it still inhibits the use of experimental decks, if you don't have an idea of how it will do, so you don't know when you might want to switch. 

I guess if it is seen as too big of a problem, such a rule would be ok, but I personally don't think it has been enough of a problem to merit the change.