Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote from: christiangamer25 on November 12, 2013, 12:26:11 AM

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!

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 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 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'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.

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

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.

Thanks! PM sent.