Author Topic: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment  (Read 6171 times)

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2013, 10:10:29 PM »
0
All this majorly hurts is defense. TGT doesn't need three forts to be insanely good.
There's no doubt that it will still be top tier, but it won't be AS top tier.

As for defense, such decks are not seen on a competitive playing field and are certainly not any worse off than they currently are.

Offline RTSmaniac

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
    • ROOT Online
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2013, 01:23:34 AM »
0
I love Forts!
This is the way Lackey gave it to me. All hail the power of Lackey!

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2013, 12:09:26 PM »
0
So...  There would really be a "fort" pile, just like there is an "artifact" pile.  One good fort pile, one evil fort pile.  You choose which is active each turn.

Evil Dominant: "Negate and discard a card in your territory to negate and discard one of the same type and alignment from your opponent's territory."

I'd use this and Stalks of Flax in every OT offense I ever make.  Also, it could cause the purple king with CBN recursion of Solomon's Temple to see play.  And since it is stopped by Lampy, Lampy would be a speed staple.  I love the idea.

Also, it needs to not be able to target LS.  Wanderer LS/Nebushasban FTW.
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2013, 02:33:02 PM »
0
So...  There would really be a "fort" pile, just like there is an "artifact" pile.  One good fort pile, one evil fort pile.  You choose which is active each turn.
Not exactly what I had in mind. The intention of the rule is once you play down a good fort, you won't be able to play down another until it is removed from your control. I'm really getting sick of Temple/Lampstand being a staple with no drawbacks.

Offline Noah

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • AKA: tripleplayno3
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2013, 02:58:50 PM »
+3
This rule would mean that the less powerful forts, forts that don't directly support a theme, and forts that would most often be splashed (i.e. Kerith Ravine, The Darkness, High Places, Kingdoms of This World) Would become virtually unplayable compared to today's more powerful options and forts that specifically, and sometimes significantly, enhance an already top tier theme (i.e. TGT, Solomon's Temple, Herod's Temple, Fishing Boat, Throne of David, Judges Seat, Assyrian Camp, etc.). I agree that some forts are just to powerful, especially when combined, but it would be better if there was an answer that wasn't at the expense of making older less powerful cards almost useless. That's my 2cents.
Filling my Ark since Nats 2016.

Soli Deo Gloria

#CascadeDelendaEst

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2013, 10:47:52 PM »
0
This rule would mean that the less powerful forts, forts that don't directly support a theme, and forts that would most often be splashed (i.e. Kerith Ravine, The Darkness, High Places, Kingdoms of This World) Would become virtually unplayable compared to today's more powerful options and forts that specifically, and sometimes significantly, enhance an already top tier theme (i.e. TGT, Solomon's Temple, Herod's Temple, Fishing Boat, Throne of David, Judges Seat, Assyrian Camp, etc.). I agree that some forts are just to powerful, especially when combined, but it would be better if there was an answer that wasn't at the expense of making older less powerful cards almost useless. That's my 2cents.
Those fortresses you mentioned are almost all already unplayable. Most cards in Redemption's cardpool are "unplayable". Also, the "top tier theme" you mentioned only includes one evil fort, and I doubt you would be playing another fortress with Assyrians (maybe KOTW for Magicians, but that's surely not necessary). All of the good fortresses, on the other hand, are commonly combined with a Temple or another fortress. This HELPS defense, not hurts it.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2013, 11:27:11 PM »
0
FWIW, Westy, I like the idea. Right now fortresses are just like artifacts in their game state. They should be distinct, like Stadiums in Pokémon.

Maybe we could go with limited use for fortresses, using counters. Something to the effect of:

All fortresses must be discarded five turns after they are activated.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2013, 12:26:11 AM »
-2
no just introduce more fort hate cards this is a stupid rule that will kill the game period
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2013, 12:49:16 AM »
+2
no just introduce more fort hate cards this is a stupid rule that will kill the game period
I'm not a fan of this rule proposal either.  But it doesn't help to post 3 times in a thread and add nothing to the discussion other than your opinion that an idea is stupid.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2013, 07:43:33 AM »
+4
no just introduce more fort hate cards this is a stupid rule that will kill the game period

Couldn't be further from the truth. This game is killing itself rather nicely with or without forts.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2013, 09:34:05 AM »
+3
no just introduce more fort hate cards this is a stupid rule that will kill the game period

Couldn't be further from the truth. This game is killing itself rather nicely with or without forts.



I'm 99.9% sure MKC is a glass half empty kinda guy!
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline Iamalittleking

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Proud to be a Jesus Freak
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2013, 11:19:42 AM »
0
Unless some one already said this then my apologies. But what if we limited it to 1 good fort 1 evil fort and 1 other fort of your choice. This we we make deck more vulnerable for strategic play but still allow deck that need a combo for there forts.
Axsis and Allies/Redemption/Speeech and deabate nerd.

Offline Arrthoa

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2013, 01:43:05 PM »
0
I like the rule. All of the decks that I have made and played with have only used at most 3 forts (1 or 2 for good and 1 evil). The only time I have ever needed more than one good fort is when I use my gardenciples deck. I think it would help defense cause I only use the protect fort at most and MAYBE one other depending on the defense.

Offline bmc25

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2013, 11:30:18 AM »
0
I don't see this as a big enough problem for a rule change. While it would help slow the speed and efficiency of Gardenciples; I don't see a need for that. Gardencipe decks are great, but it isn't as if they are dominating the tournament scene. It could be easily argued that "The Deck" is more of a threat. Because "the Deck" does not need fortresses I could see this rule push even more people in that direction. I wouldn't hate the change, I just don't see it as a necessary one.
Benjamin Campbell

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2013, 11:34:45 AM »
0
I find myself agreeing with bmc25. I don't see this making that much of a difference for most decks (as so many people have pointed out, most themes only need 1 fortress) so it doesn't seem like it would make enough difference to be worth it. Game rules are not something that should be getting changed/added/removed willy-nilly and I don't feel that this corrects or changes things sufficiently enough to warrant a change.

If people want it, I'd suggest making it an optional rule that hosts can choose to use if they want (like Restricted format), but don't make it a firm, 100% game rule.

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2013, 02:52:30 PM »
0
I think rule changes vs card counters only have two benefits.

1. You force everyone to "take it on"; you don't just hope people throw it in their deck.
2. When the elders realize it was a bad mistake, they can very easily undo it.

That being said, I'd rather see a card (or rule) where you get to discard a fortress in play or set aside whenever you win a battle. Maybe discard an evil fort if you win an offense and a good one if you win on defense. Something something salt the land after war.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2013, 03:02:04 PM »
0
I don't see this as a big enough problem for a rule change. While it would help slow the speed and efficiency of Gardenciples; I don't see a need for that. Gardencipe decks are great, but it isn't as if they are dominating the tournament scene. It could be easily argued that "The Deck" is more of a threat. Because "the Deck" does not need fortresses I could see this rule push even more people in that direction. I wouldn't hate the change, I just don't see it as a necessary one.
Neither one of those decks are great this year.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline bmc25

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2013, 03:27:54 PM »
0
I wouldn't say they have been replaced, while something might come up that plays better, those are still going to be played often...What do you think is replacing them?
Benjamin Campbell

Offline MonMaster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Love + Tolerate = Ponies
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2013, 07:01:56 PM »
0
I'm 99.9% sure MKC is a glass half empty kinda guy!
Personally, I'm half-full... of arsenic.

Joking aside, I play several other Card Games and have seen several "issues" arise in them as well. One of the biggest "issues" in Redemption is the lack of cost to play cards. Yes, you have to have a corresponding Hero/Evil Character to play Enhancements, but when someone throws down -random Silver/Green Hero- into Wheels into -insert 1st turn brokenness here-, that "cost" is almost thrown out the door.

Since there is very little "cost" to play anything, such needs to be countered by limits on use(Writ/Burial Shroud) and/or destruction(Doms). But when such cost-to-play countermeasures are being stopped (Lampstand anyone?) and successful recursion happens (Gib Trick/GoH) this creates a "brokenness" combo that little can be done to stop. While I will encourage players to find their own combo, also don't get all mad when your combo becomes "too broken" and gets "nerf'd"(weakened). I believe this should encourage players to find new combos instead of "wahhh, I don't wanna play something else, I want my broken combo!". To that I say, suck it up because nobody like whiners (and stuff will still get "nerf'd" anyways).
Dr. Whooves is my Doctor.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2013, 07:49:05 PM »
0
I won a Pokemon city with more people than the Redemption National Tournament. That's the problem, not fortresses.

Offline MonMaster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Love + Tolerate = Ponies
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2013, 08:21:16 PM »
0
I won a Pokemon city with more people than the Redemption National Tournament. That's the problem, not fortresses.
While number of players is definitely a statistic to consider, for those that play regularly, my statement holds... btw @Alex_Olijar I have it on good word you're a Fairy
Dr. Whooves is my Doctor.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2013, 08:58:06 PM »
0
I agree with the cost point and have always suggested changing cost rules before some of the other rules thrown out to reduce speed .

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2013, 09:31:17 PM »
0
btw @Alex_Olijar I have it on good word you're a Fairy

Unless he's using a Sylveon/Granbull/Swirlix Deck, I can't see how this is true.  ;)

I won a Pokemon city with more people than the Redemption National Tournament.

My son is going to his first one this weekend. Regionals is next month in Orlando. Any suggestions? If I PM my son's deck would you be willing to critique it?
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2013, 09:33:51 PM »
0
I can absolutely critique it.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2013, 09:51:28 PM »
0
I can absolutely critique it.

Thanks! PM sent.  ;D
My wife is a hottie.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal