Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on November 09, 2013, 01:09:59 AM
-
Each player may only control one good fortress and one evil fortress at a time.
Discuss.
-
You discuss first.
-
I think certain cards have become too much of a staple in every deck. The obvious example of this is any of the Temples. These would still be used in many decks, but you would see less Herod's Temple/The Garden Tomb, which leads to extremely powerful decks. Some fortresses become less powerful, sure, but such a rule would make deck building more strategic overall. This could also allow the card creators to create more powerful fortresses (like we need them), and not worry about people abusing it with other fortresses, like TGT.
On the evil side of things, well, there's generally only one fortress you want anyway (the protect fortress), but in Type 2 this becomes more difficult, particularly in multiplayer, where you want to have both The Darkness and a protect fortress.
Fortresses are already extremely powerful cards that are very difficult to get rid of. This lessens their power considerably by disallowing them to be used with each other.
-
Seems like it weakens future "tech" fortress (think Trap of the Devil), which would force those types of abilities onto sites, which are fundamentally bad for the game in my opinion.
Has potential though.
-
i agree with alex on this one
-
I believe this rule would weaken genegyptians considerably and that's already a tier 2 deck
-
This would also hurt demon decks that HAVE to use GoH and may want to use KotW so that they can have at least a little protection.
This would also hurt split defenses like demon/assyrian that want to have GoH and also the protect fortress for their culture.
This would also hurt trick offenses like WS or Zeb or Job decks that need to have Storehouse to hold all the enhs that build up in your hand as well as a temple to hold LotS.
I'm all for hurting TGT (I still hate that card), but I think that this rule would have too much collateral damage to make it worth it. On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!
-
The key to weakening TGT is improving defensive cards. Not limiting fortresses.
-
Weakening decks isn't necessarily a bad thing, guys. Most decks don't use an evil fortress, or if they do it's only 1. Good, on the other hand, is everywhere.
As for T2, the rule could be adjusted there.
-
I simply don't agree. Limiting things you can do in game is almost always a bad thing unless it's a major balance tipping point, and quite frankly this isn't.
-
On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!
An idea just popped in my head regarding this:
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."
It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.
-
I thing a lot more of the newer cards have made a rule like this not as necessary as it would have been several years ago. If you are really depending on your fortresses and I have Siege Army, advantage me. Iron Pan is a great card against all the protection too; I'm just surprised I haven't seen it used much. So I guess now it's really not as big a deal. Just my thoughts.
-
On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!
An idea just popped in my head regarding this:
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."
It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.
I would play this with TGT. Who is going to play a Dom and a good fort just to ensure they canhit TGT?
-
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
-
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.
-
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.
I disagree about how you said that evil hardly suffers. Most balanced/defensive/turtle deck I likely use more than one evil fort.
-
Great idea! Problem is... this should have been implemented around the time Priests came out.
-
ok this rule idea [please watch your language] would kill t2 decks which is stupid just learn to deal with forts i mean we have asa we have cards like forest fire etc its not that hard
-
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.
I disagree about how you said that evil hardly suffers. Most balanced/defensive/turtle deck I likely use more than one evil fort.
Most balanced? Really. Reeeeallly. Other than Egyptians and maybe GoS, I can't think of a deck that'd use two.
Defensive and Turtle are basically synonymous and I could care less about what makes them less viable. The time limit makes them less viable, doesn't mean we should increase it.
-
The time limit makes them less viable, doesn't mean we should increase it.
Yes it does. But that's a whole other discussion :)
-
This rule would really hurt Speed decks, and destroy turtles from viability. I think we can all agree that's a positive.
-
I can't support this. More viability of archtypes is better.
-
this rule is stupid
-
I can't support this. More viability of archtypes is better.
Weakening some strategies levels the playing field, ultimately making more things viable.
this rule is stupid
You play T2. This is more for T1, although I could see an adjusted rule for T2 being acceptable.
-
All this majorly hurts is defense. TGT doesn't need three forts to be insanely good.
-
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.
-
I love Forts!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
no just introduce more fort hate cards this is a stupid rule that will kill the game period
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1071.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu512%2Fjbeers285%2FF3EF6722-ECDB-4259-9D27-11E0DDEECE7B-1534-00000182416A4F59_zps9f41fd8c.jpg&hash=4fc72d8874c7a6feb9dc01826cb7a17ee42d03ed)
I'm 99.9% sure MKC is a glass half empty kinda guy!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
I won a Pokemon city with more people than the Redemption National Tournament. That's the problem, not fortresses.
-
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
-
I agree with the cost point and have always suggested changing cost rules before some of the other rules thrown out to reduce speed .
-
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?
-
I can absolutely critique it.
-
I can absolutely critique it.
Thanks! PM sent. ;D