Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on November 13, 2013, 01:45:31 PM
-
Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile
Why cant we search our discard piles without needing an ability to do so? I can take notes and write everything down but should I have to? Who's with me?
-
I've proposed this before and got shut down, but I will fight for it all the way.
-
I'll fight for this to my last mental bone. We are supposed to get an advanced rulebook sometime, therefore allowing this to be put into it.
-
I have never under stood why one can not search there own discard pile at there own will.
-
Because memorization is a skill or something. Idk bad logic was bad.
-
I will add my endorsement of said proposal. While we're at it, can we also change the rule so that you can look at the cards you have drafted during a Booster Draft. I'm getting too old for memories.
-
I will add my endorsement of said proposal. While we're at it, can we also change the rule so that you can look at the cards you have drafted during a Booster Draft. I'm getting too old for memories.
This rule I actually understand. It's more about time issues imo.
-
I will add my endorsement of said proposal. While we're at it, can we also change the rule so that you can look at the cards you have drafted during a Booster Draft. I'm getting too old for memories.
This rule I actually understand. It's more about time issues imo.
What if you were able to set cards aside that you drafted in each pack and before opening the next pack players would be given 30 seconds to look through the 10 or so card they draft in the current pack only.
-
I would just set aside characters in general. That is what is hardest to remember - what color characters you have, and what ones you thought you had but don't. If you could at least make separate piles of your choice that would be helpful.
-
Im with you YMT!
-
I'm definitely a fan of this rule. I understand having to know your deck (for searching that pile) but with all the cards played on both sides sometimes it's hard to remember what you've already played (especially if your opponent is playing the same offense and/or defense).
-
I'm a fan for allowing the searching of discard, if nothing else than to stop people from accidentally breaking the rule (which happens all the time).
-
The only downside I can see is that it could be another form of "legal stalling". But I don't think it would be that big of a deal.
-
The only downside I can see is that it could be another form of "legal stalling". But I don't think it would be that big of a deal.
If it turned into that, just have the judges issue penalities.
-
Has there been any thought on this recently?
-
I agree that you should be able too, especially in Teams with the partners having less idea about the other persons discard pile, so that it would be better for the teams.
-
I also want free searching of discard piles!
-
The biggest argument against is it is a general rule in 99% of TCGs that you cannot search your discard pile.
With the introduction of top cut are we not trying to make Redemption more competitive and like the "other guys"?
-
The biggest argument against is it is a general rule in 99% of TCGs that you cannot search your discard pile.
[/quote
Are you saying that in most TCGs you can't search your discard pile? Because I've played several TCGs and the only one I've ever played that you can't search the discard pile is Redemption.
-
ChristianSoldier would you mind mentioning what TCGs those are? I know for a fact that Magic, yu-gi-oh and (I think) Pokemon all have a cant search your discard pile rule. On top of that all of the games that Fantasy Flight (The guys who make the LCGs), Decipher and Wizards of the Coast have produced all have this same rule in place. Heck even Dominion and Legendary have a rule about not being able to search your discard pile ::)
-
ChristianSoldier would you mind mentioning what TCGs those are? I know for a fact that Magic, yu-gi-oh and (I think) Pokemon all have a cant search your discard pile rule. On top of that all of the games that Fantasy Flight (The guys who make the LCGs), Decipher and Wizards of the Coast have produced all have this same rule in place. Heck even Dominion and Legendary have a rule about not being able to search your discard pile ::)
You're mistaken.
As a player of Pokemon, I can say with certainty that they allow you to search any discard pile. Magic does too, according to this (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100213131213AAHnjcK). As does YGO (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Graveyard). So does Card Fight! Vanguard (http://cardfight.wikia.com/wiki/Standard_Fight_Rules) (see FAQ on open areas). Lord of the Rings TCG is a bit of a unique case, but you can at least look through your own discard pile (see here (http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/discard_pile))
Are there any other card games that matter?
-
You're mistaken.
Hey look at that... either the rules changed eons ago or ive been playing the games wrong all these years :P
(The rules you linked for the Decipher Lord of the Rings are actually out of date but thats besides the point....)
-
I would be very much in favor of allowing the searching of discard piles, but I'd also like an overhaul of searching in general to allow for a player to fail searches and to require a reveal if an ability cannot be completed (like "opponent must discard a good card from hand").
My rules proposals listed out, with wording suggestions:
1. Remove the restriction on searching discard piles. Since there are no increases in time limits per phase/action, it would still prevent 'stalling'; the rules on time frames just need to be enforced as they are.
- Proposed rule wording: N/A (removing old rule regarding not being able to search discard piles)
2. Require reveal of normally-hidden locations (mainly hand) where an ability cannot be completed due to no eligible targets. This would accomplish two critical functions. First, it prevents cheating (both intentional and unintentional, the latter of which we should still be concerned about even if some of us dismiss the first) by allowing verification. If a card requires that a good card be discarded, for instance, and the targeted player says they have none, they would have to reveal their hand. Second, it would limit judge review. I know of some players who have talked about having judges verify all of these situations when the targeted player does not reveal (because they do not have to by the rules), and this is well within their rights. By establishing this rule, no such delay would have to occur.
- Proposed rule wording: "If an ability played by a player requires another player to take an action based their cards of a specified name, type, alignment, or brigade in hand, artifact pile, or face-down, the targeted player must reveal all cards in that location if they are unable to complete the ability. For example: Player A plays Persistent Pestering against Player B, which requires Player B to underdeck 2 good cards from hand. Player B only has 1 good card in hand. Player B underdecks the good card, and reveals their hand to show there are no more good cards to complete the ability."
3. Allow players to fail searches of their own deck. They must still shuffle their deck if they choose to search, or if the search is mandatory, but they do not have to reveal if they fail.. Players targeting their own decks with search abilities are beneficial, so failure of these searches should be allowed without penalty.
- Proposed rule wording: "When a player searches their own deck, they may choose not to find an acceptable target for the search, even if one is in the deck. Any deck must still be shuffled if it is searched, regardless of whether the search succeeds."
-
ChristianSoldier would you mind mentioning what TCGs those are? I know for a fact that Magic, yu-gi-oh and (I think) Pokemon all have a cant search your discard pile rule. On top of that all of the games that Fantasy Flight (The guys who make the LCGs), Decipher and Wizards of the Coast have produced all have this same rule in place. Heck even Dominion and Legendary have a rule about not being able to search your discard pile ::)
It has mostly been answered so far, but Yu-gi-oh has always (since I started in the Metal Raiders era), Magic, The Gathering, the old Dragon Ball Z and Digimon games (as far as I remember), Android: Netrunner (not technically a TCG game but very close), I don't remember any such rule in Dominion or Legendary (although I have never read the Dominion rules and I haven't played Legendary in while).
Basically as far as I'm concerned not being able to search odd not normal.
-
Dominion doesn't allow it, but is a different breed of game.
-
So may times in general someones discard pile isn't organized and they can see multiple cards anyway. No one wants to be the guy calling the judge over cause there opponent keeps doing it accidentally or intentionally. Allowing one to search the discard pile should definitely be a part of this game.
-
Could we possibly get Elder input on this? The only Elder to post so far didn't seem opposed to the idea and if they're gonna change it this season it would be better done sooner before the big tournaments so that people can get used to it (not that it's really that much of a change, at least not deck-building wise, haha).
Can anyone think of any negative aspects of this besides the potential to stall (which can be taken care of in the wording of the rule change)?
-
I'll join in and say that I would be supportive of this change. I'm not pushing for it (because I don't think it's that big of a deal), but if others push for it, I'd back them up.
-
I'll just reiterate that I think also changing the rules so that a player can fail searches and to require a reveal if a mandatory ability cannot be completed (like "opponent discards a good card from hand").
I spelled out my reasoning and proposed wording earlier (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-proposal-open-searching-of-discard-pile/msg519211/#msg519211), but I think all of those changes would make the game more consistent, easier to play, and easier to judge without losing anything from the game. I'm not sure there is a downside to these proposals, personally.
-
I'll just reiterate that I think also changing the rules so that a player can fail searches and to require a reveal if a mandatory ability cannot be completed (like "opponent discards a good card from hand").
I spelled out my reasoning and proposed wording earlier (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-proposal-open-searching-of-discard-pile/msg519211/#msg519211), but I think all of those changes would make the game more consistent, easier to play, and easier to judge without losing anything from the game. I'm not sure there is a downside to these proposals, personally.
I mean looking at an opponent's deck or hand is a huge advantage. You know exactly what your up against. Therefore you can better judge your own plays. Not that there aren't other ways to do it but it's just adding more ways to gain an advantage over your opponent. That's the way I see it.
On the other hand I'm all for looking at your own discard pile. I don't think it would hurt anything much and it's nice to know exactly what you have left and what you don't.
-
I mean looking at an opponent's deck or hand is a huge advantage. You know exactly what your up against. Therefore you can better judge your own plays. Not that there aren't other ways to do it but it's just adding more ways to gain an advantage over your opponent. That's the way I see it.
To be clear, nothing in my proposal would allow them to look at your deck when they could not already. That's the point of allowing searches to fail, you wouldn't have to reveal.
And the reveal of hand would just be for cases where an opponent could not do an ability. If I play a card requiring you to do something to a good card in hand and you say "I don't have any good cards," you would have to reveal to show it. That is standard in any card game I know, is good practice, and stops any chance of cheating (intentional or not).
-
And the reveal of hand would just be for cases where an opponent could not do an ability.
This has always been the rule. I know that it was written that way in the old REG because I have a printed version of it. Likewise, you have to reveal a card that you searched for if it was specific (i.e. "Search for an evil character").
However, I am not aware that there was ever a rule that if you searched your deck for Storehouse (for example) and didn't find it that you would have to reveal your deck to your opponent. Basically, if you search for a specific card and find it, you must reveal it. If you search and don't find it, then nothing happens (other than the shuffle). I do agree that we should have a "fail search" option if you know you don't have a qualifying card in your deck, or if you just don't feel like searching at that time.
-
And the reveal of hand would just be for cases where an opponent could not do an ability.
This has always been the rule.
Apparently not. I have been told by multiple elders, and conferenced with several at Nats last year, and they made it very clear that unless an ability says you must reveal (like I Am Holy), you do not have to reveal.
And the fail option for searches makes it consistent regardless of whether the card exists or not, that you would be able to fail the search (and not reveal, if that were put in place for other locations).
-
Apparently not. I have been told by multiple elders, and conferenced with several at Nats last year, and they made it very clear that unless an ability says you must reveal (like I Am Holy), you do not have to reveal.
I have never been to Nats, so I am going off what was written in the old REG, which is the only way I have ever played it. Obviously there are several rules from the old printed REG that are now obsolete, but there was no official announcement of such a change, so I still play (and rule) that way. The rule was there for a reason and should not be changed IMO.
-
Apparently not. I have been told by multiple elders, and conferenced with several at Nats last year, and they made it very clear that unless an ability says you must reveal (like I Am Holy), you do not have to reveal.
I have never been to Nats, so I am going off what was written in the old REG, which is the only way I have ever played it. Obviously there are several rules from the old printed REG that are now obsolete, but there was no official announcement of such a change, so I still play (and rule) that way. The rule was there for a reason and should not be changed IMO.
I agree that is how it should be ruled, and I only recently (past few years) picked up the game, so I can only say what I was told at Nats by elders regarding the history of this rule (was told it has always been this way). I can say that it is not in the current rules at all that the reveal must occur, and I think that should change for sure.
-
And the reveal of hand would just be for cases where an opponent could not do an ability. If I play a card requiring you to do something to a good card in hand and you say "I don't have any good cards," you would have to reveal to show it. That is standard in any card game I know, is good practice, and stops any chance of cheating (intentional or not).
This has always been the rule already. Perhaps there was some miscommunication with whoever you talked to at Nats.
-
PMs away :)
Hopefully I'm just wrong and that would correct the issue right away, I'll wait to hear back from them before posting on that subject again.
-
I heard back from him, and I wasn't sure if he was going to post himself, so I waited a bit. Just to get the conversation moving again, I'll respond based on the PM I got back.
Gabe and I had the discussion I mentioned, and I agree with him: There is no current reveal rule (except, as he pointed out to me, if you search for a card or type of card, that must be revealed). If an ability requires you to do something, and you cannot meet the condition, there is no current rule in Redemption that you must prove it to your opponent.
I advocate a change to that, but I can't see anything to dispute his stance.
-
And the reveal of hand would just be for cases where an opponent could not do an ability.
This has always been the rule. I know that it was written that way in the old REG because I have a printed version of it. Likewise, you have to reveal a card that you searched for if it was specific (i.e. "Search for an evil character").
Apparently YMT has documentation of the rule. And I remember it as a rule. So that should be the way to rule it unless another elder disagrees. Gabe is welcome to post here that he does NOT think that people should reveal in these situations. Or another elder is welcome to chime in with their opinion on the matter. But at any tournament that I'm at, I plan on ruling this way.
-
Apparently YMT has documentation of the rule.
If he has documentation from the old REG, that would be helpful for establishing it had been a rule (though I honestly don't remember it being there either), but if it is not in the current rulebook or REG, I have been told that it would not be the current rule.
When there have been other 'changes' to rules that get documented (or not) in the new REG, I have been told that it is the status quo, regardless of whether that 'change' was spelled out anywhere else (even if it is only an omission).
While I'd like for it to be a rule, it should certainly be documented if it is.
-
While I'd like for it to be a rule, it should certainly be documented if it is.
Me too. Maybe send a PM to Prof A. He often updates stuff like that.
-
Me too. Maybe send a PM to Prof A. He often updates stuff like that.
I'd like to, but I'm also concerned about whether Gabe is not alone, and if this disagreement on rules is something that would first need to be resolved among the Elders. Also, I'd like to find the old wording of the rule (working on that).
I won't let this drop until I'm told it is resolved one way or the other ;) But I do want to make sure I go about it the right way, stay tuned as I try to get the old info.
-
I always thought it was stupid you couldn't look at your discard pile i'm all for the rule change :)
-
I would rather not dumb down the game if we could thanks.
-
I would rather not dumb down the game if we could thanks.
In what way are we dumbing down the game here?
-
I always thought it was stupid you couldn't look at your discard pile i'm all for the rule change :)
I would rather not dumb down the game if we could thanks.
How does it 'dumb down' anything? It is a counter-intuitive rule, with little purpose, and is constantly played wrong (since it is not intuitive). It would be best, in many people's estimation, to remove that particular rule, and the reasons for doing so have been laid out in posts above for rebuttals.
Do you have any reasons or concerns to add on the short statements you gave? There wasn't much that these two posts really added to the discussion, let's keep the posts relevant beyond just "it's a dumb rule" "no it's not" ;)
-
Maybe I should have said, "I would rather not simplyify the game in a way that encourages leveling out the playing field and takes advantage away from players who have good gameplay if we could, thanks." But thats essentially what dumbing down the game means. I don't think people who forget things are dumb its just a figure of speech. I don't think it makes much sense to discourage memory in a game when you need it in almost every area of strategy and bluffing. If players brush up on their memory skills because they forgot that all the He is Risens were in their deck and searched discard pile one time that would probablybe the last time they ever burned a Consider the Lilies like that. As people make mistake they get better at the game, its just a learning process. Why should everyone else have to sit through slower gameplay because a minority is simply misplacing the blame? If you are still making those mistakes you can only really be mad at yourself and not the rules of the game. Like I said memory is a big part of Redemption, so changing one aspect to make it more user friendly is not a bad thing. Memory would still be an important tool in the game and people with the best memories would still have an edge. Its just not really a necessary thing, its not even counter intuitive or constantly misplayed. The bottome line for me is that I really think rules or cards that allow you to be more and more omniscient takes away from some of the mystery and fun of the game. Saying things like its 'counter intuitive' and is 'constantly played wrong' is just a cheap way of elevating your argument to untouchable heights. If it were so counter intuitive why would other card games have that rule? If it were constantly misplayed that's a problem but there is no way to illustrate that and it has not been my experience in 10+ years of Remption tournament play.
-
Is it really a mistake to forget you played 4 HIR already in the 7th hour of the tournament?
-
Although memory can be enhanced through repetition and mnemonic devices, there is definitely a genetic component to memory. Some people have photographic memories, and some people forget a joke seconds after it is told to them. What you are saying, Hobbit, is that the select few who have better memory should have an advantage in the game of Redemption over those who do not. I will absolutely disagree with this notion for as long as my opinion matters.
-
Though I'm not going to be adamantly opposed to it, I would rather keep the rule as is. By taking away that rule, we're just going to create the need to make more rules about when a discard pile can be searched and when it cannot--unless I am allowed to search it at any time, which I really would not agree with. Hobbit give good examples with cards like Consider the Lilies and Wheel within a Wheel where either the discard pile or deck must be chosen. There's been many times where I've forgotten if a Hero was in deck or discard and if I chose wrong then I had to live with the consequences.
What you are saying, Hobbit, is that the select few who have better memory should have an advantage in the game of Redemption over those who do not.
What about the select few who have the ability to determine the statistical odds of what the opponent might draw based on what the opponent has already played? What about the select few who can "read" an opponent's facial expressions and figure out his next move? What about the select few who know word for word the special ability of every card on the table? What about the select few who can see the first two or three cards an opponent plays and know exactly what kind of deck they are likely facing? These are all advantages some people have over the majority of players and they are the result of many different factors: natural intelligence, actual gameplay experience, practice, simulations, research, and the ones that you already mentioned in regards to memory enhancement.
I mean no disrespect, but I completely disagree with that reasoning for changing this rule.
-
What about the select few who have the ability to determine the statistical odds of what the opponent might draw based on what the opponent has already played? What about the select few who can "read" an opponent's facial expressions and figure out his next move? What about the select few who know word for word the special ability of every card on the table? What about the select few who can see the first two or three cards an opponent plays and know exactly what kind of deck they are likely facing? These are all advantages some people have over the majority of players and they are the result of many different factors: natural intelligence, actual gameplay experience, practice, simulations, research, and the ones that you already mentioned in regards to memory enhancement.
None of those things can be harnessed by a game rule.
I mean no disrespect, but I completely disagree with that reasoning for changing this rule.
I was not suggesting that my reasoning was for a game rule. Rather, I was suggesting that Hobbit's reasoning was not a good reason to not change the rule. Keeping the status quo because people with great memories want it that way sounds elitist to me, in this case. Are you guys afraid that the people with poor memory will gain some sort of an advantage over you, when you already know what is in your discard pile? It takes all of two seconds to quickly check my discard pile, and I would likely not need to do it very often in an actual game.
-
the point isn't memory advantage its that if we allow this rule change people will take advantage and deliberately check there discard b4 playing cards that let them search either discard or deck and that while in and of itself may look innocent enough its leads to deeper strategic undermining of the game and how its meant to be played. so i don;t think this rule change should be applied.
-
What about the select few who have the ability to determine the statistical odds of what the opponent might draw based on what the opponent has already played? What about the select few who can "read" an opponent's facial expressions and figure out his next move? What about the select few who know word for word the special ability of every card on the table? What about the select few who can see the first two or three cards an opponent plays and know exactly what kind of deck they are likely facing?
I see both sides of this one, and don't have a strong preference whether this rule stays or goes. But there is a difference for me between this rule and the types of things Guardian is talking about. I value the ability to do the math to figure out the odds of stuff. I value the ability to "read" other people's faces and body language. I value being familiar enough with the game to know most of the cards and familiar enough with the meta to be able to guess what's in my opponent's decks.
I don't value keeping track of whether a card is in my deck or discard pile. That just seems like a ticky-tack sort of thing to force people to remember. So that's why I don't mind changing it.
-
the point isn't memory advantage its that if we allow this rule change people will take advantage and deliberately check there discard b4 playing cards that let them search either discard or deck and that while in and of itself may look innocent enough its leads to deeper strategic undermining of the game and how its meant to be played. so i don;t think this rule change should be applied.
This rule levels out a strategic advantage that only a select few have from my experience. Memory which is largely genetic shouldn't rule who is among the best.
-
I agree with Red what if a 7y.o. was playing at a tournament and the 7y.o. was using J deck he plays gleaning in the fields forgetting that there is no cards he can get out of the discard pile since it is a tournament it sticks and he can't take the play back he later loses the game because he needed one more card that could of killed his oppenent's evil character that gleaning in the fields could have grabbed how is that fair.
-
the point isn't memory advantage its that if we allow this rule change people will take advantage and deliberately check there discard b4 playing cards that let them search either discard or deck and that while in and of itself may look innocent enough its leads to deeper strategic undermining of the game and how its meant to be played. so i don;t think this rule change should be applied.
If your opponent is checking their discard pile several times and for prolonged periods, then you need to call over a judge. That's what they do. ;D
-
I agree with Red what if a 7y.o. was playing at a tournament and the 7y.o. was using J deck he plays gleaning in the fields forgetting that there is no cards he can get out of the discard pile since it is a tournament it sticks and he can't take the play back he later loses the game because he needed one more card that could of killed his oppenent's evil character that gleaning in the fields could have grabbed how is that fair.
Dealing with your choices is always fair. A child usually going to have a disadvantage vs an adult or teenager in a game of strategy (not always but usually.). I like the idea of it because of children who haven't learned those skills, or those who are older and becoming forgetful with age (YMT ;) <3), or those who like myself have abysmal memory. That search WILL change how you play but not for the worse IMO. I'll get to face more well thought out moves and less I think I might have this card in the pile I think it is moves.
-
If your opponent is checking their discard pile several times and for prolonged periods, then you need to call over a judge. That's what they do. ;D
But then who am I to judge whether someone is legitimately forgetful (that they really do need to check every other turn whether a certain card is in the discard pile) or whether they are intentionally trying to "legally" stall? I couldn't in good faith rule against a player who insists that he is merely utilizing a legal move for whatever reason he feels like giving.
I don't think it would be a serious problem either way, but I do lean toward keeping the status quo. On the other hand, the rule proposal for allowing players to "fail" searches (since there is really no check for that instituted anyway) I definitely support.
-
I vote for keeping the rule the same. I have a decent memory and typically know what I have played and where cards are at...but I have lost a game on a search, also won a game...several times in both. It's part of the game. Since we have cards that can search either/or, the rule must stay the same. Otherwise if I forget if Gid's in my discard...I'm going to search it before I attack with AUtO...my advantage...more that likely you lose the battle...no rule change.
-
Well what if someone had a teribble memory its not fair to give someone an advantage because they cannot remember what they played especially in T2 when your torarwds the end of the game and you can't remember wait did i play 3 braverys or 2 and things like that can lose you tournaments which isn't at all fair.
-
Well what if someone had a teribble memory its not fair to give someone an advantage because they cannot remember what they played especially in T2 when your torarwds the end of the game and you can't remember wait did i play 3 braverys or 2 and things like that can lose you tournaments which isn't at all fair.
I understand...Mine doesn't work all the time either...and I've lost games because of it...but isn't that the whole point...it's just a game!
-
I know its a game but giving someone a distinct advantage because they can remember something is not right just like slapjack someone who's hands are not as quick as someone elses gives the player who is faster a distinct advantage that is why the elders changed this is very similar.
-
I know its a game but giving someone a distinct advantage because they can remember something is not right just like slapjack someone who's hands are not as quick as someone elses gives the player who is faster a distinct advantage that is why the elders changed this is very similar.
Then your reasoning would also apply to when dominants are played at the same time...what penalty would we give the one who has a "faster draw".
the point isn't memory advantage its that if we allow this rule change people will take advantage and deliberately check there discard b4 playing cards that let them search either discard or deck and that while in and of itself may look innocent enough its leads to deeper strategic undermining of the game and how its meant to be played. so i don;t think this rule change should be applied.
This is the point...if changed it will lead to more abuse, conflict, further rule changes and such...it's not a good change.
-
So if the main concern is people stalling the game, or abusing the rules, then clearly people cannot be trusted. This is a wonderful argument for why we need to reveal the hand when conditions cannot be met (i.e. for I am Holy). ;)
-
Let me further explain. To change the rule would benefit everyone, yes; however there are too many ways to abuse it. Yes, players with a better memory have an advantage currently, but so do players who know all the cards, what their opponents are playing & such, but we dont handicap them because of their knowledge of the game. If I know I have a bad memory, I work on it. I get better. Work harder. If I'm playing Peyton Manning, I work on a game plan to beat him. I don't change the rules for my benefit. It's part of the game play. Its not about people cheating, but abusing the rule change with combos, Wheel or AUtO, or others. Sometimes I lose. Sometimes I win.
-
I don't think it would be a serious problem either way, but I do lean toward keeping the status quo. On the other hand, the rule proposal for allowing players to "fail" searches (since there is really no check for that instituted anyway) I definitely support.
What does failing searches mean? Searching for a card when you know it isn't in there? Or changing your initial search from draw pile to discard pile, allowing someone to essentially check discard pile and then go to deck if say there were no candidates...? In that case they would need to reveal discard pile if they decided to go to deck. That would be an acceptable compromise. Then people wouldn't get to search discard pile whenever you wanted just if you played deck/discard pile cards. No cards like wheel, auto, or ctl are wasted only things like Pride of Simon. AND you have to show your discard pile to your opponents if you make a mistake. I feel like we shouldn't comprise at all though since this is the status quo.
I was not suggesting that my reasoning was for a game rule. Rather, I was suggesting that Hobbit's reasoning was not a good reason to not change the rule. Keeping the status quo because people with great memories want it that way sounds elitist to me, in this case. Are you guys afraid that the people with poor memory will gain some sort of an advantage over you, when you already know what is in your discard pile? It takes all of two seconds to quickly check my discard pile, and I would likely not need to do it very often in an actual game.
With the current rules, advantage goes to a player with better memory because there is a chance that his opponent can play search deck/discard pile cards with no effect and ideally no chance that he will. With suggested rule change opponents can simply search their discard pile before they officially search and will never really waste search cards. This is why I would rather not support it. If other people need constant refreshers they would support a change because it would eliminate this advantage. Maybe elitism is driving my thinking but maybe socialism is driving yours. Why should we try to regulate grace and generosity? Now people essentially have a free take back. Can I have one too? 'A card laid is a card played' is a hard rule in Redemption but I usually let people take things back if doing so doesn't seriously take away strategic advantage or put me in jeopardy of losing the game. I would rather choose to let someone have a take back then be forced to let them take it back.
-
Why should we try to regulate grace and generosity?
Because Redemption is based on the Bible and is meant for "fun and fellowship," maybe? ;)
Now people essentially have a free take back. Can I have one too? 'A card laid is a card played' is a hard rule in Redemption but I usually let people take things back if doing so doesn't seriously take away strategic advantage or put me in jeopardy of losing the game. I would rather choose to let someone have a take back then be forced to let them take it back.
No one's saying people get take backs, if you play a card it's played regardless of the way this ruling goes. The only thing that would change is people's ability to quickly check before they play a card.
Memory is not always something you can change or improve, some people just have a hard time remembering things. Leveling the playing field in terms of access to knowledge is not a bad thing in my opinion. That's all that this would do: give every player access to knowledge. What they do with it is up to them (and that's where skill comes in). If they choose to use that knowledge, then they have an advantage. This is the same as someone that chooses to use the card lists and information available online has an advantage.
-
That's all that this would do: give every player access to knowledge. What they do with it is up to them (and that's where skill comes in). If they choose to use that knowledge, then they have an advantage.
This makes me sound suspiciously like a teacher. :o I guess, then, that teachers are socialists? :scratch: ;)
-
Let's use the Gideon example again. We both have 4ls so the next rescue wins. Before you attack, you check your discard pile b/c you cant remember if I underdecked or discarded Gid. Well now you know (whichever happened) & go and get Gid with AUtO (whereever Gid is). I dont have block with his protection but had one against some other combo and you win. Advantage attacker...always.
-
Let's use the Gideon example again. We both have 4ls so the next rescue wins. Before you attack, you check your discard pike b/c you cant remember if I underdecked or discarded Gid. Well now you know (whichever happened) & go and get Gid with AUtO (whereever Gid is). I dont have block with his protection but had one against some other combo and you win. Advantage attacker...always.
Lets go back to the 7y.o. ;)
-
I'm having a hard time believing that not being able to search a discard pile adds to strategy. But I know I'm bias, because I consider MtG and Yu-Gi-Oh to be more strategic than Redemption and both of them allow unrestricted discard pile searching (essentially discard piles are public knowledge).
I think that decreasing the mistakes made adds to the strategy, because if people make less mistakes it's more about their ability to make good decisions than simply making mistakes because something was discarded early or you can't remember whether you played 3 or 4 Authority or Christs.
But I suppose I'm not strongly on the side of changing it, but I think it would make the game somewhat better if discard piles were public knowledge.
-
I agree with CS MTG and YGO both allow this so why shouldn't redemption allow it.
-
Why should we try to regulate grace and generosity?
Because Redemption is based on the Bible and is meant for "fun and fellowship," maybe? ;)
Maybe the person should just laugh at their mistakes and have fun anyways.
No one's saying people get take backs, if you play a card it's played regardless of the way this ruling goes. The only thing that would change is people's ability to quickly check before they play a card.
If CtL was played in the current rules and there were no targets it would be discarded. If CtL was played with the new rules there will be targets otherwise people won't play it. In the old system they burn CtL, but in the new one they will never play CtL like that. You didn't literal let them take it back but it is the same affect and even worse I might add because now they can just look through their deck.
-
Let's use the Gideon example again. We both have 4ls so the next rescue wins. Before you attack, you check your discard pike b/c you cant remember if I underdecked or discarded Gid. Well now you know (whichever happened) & go and get Gid with AUtO (whereever Gid is). I dont have block with his protection but had one against some other combo and you win. Advantage attacker...always.
Lets go back to the 7y.o. ;)
My son is 8 & still learning. In fact we have a couple of young players and several new ones. Yes I allow him/them to take back cards or change his mind most of the time, especially if we are playing for fun, but in a tournament we, Crashfach and I stick to the rules. It's part of the learning. One reason I'm in favor of another category for T1 for younger or less skilled players. But thats another topic. I'm not familiar with other games rules, except magic, but haven't played that since The Gathering.
-
I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he use four head of gold or only three?" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being that head of gold, the most powerful Babylonian card in my deck and can wipe your territory clean, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
Over ten rounds into type two and I forget how many of each card I played.
Maybe you can just tack it onto the upkeep phase to insure they don't spend all battle looking through their discard piles.
-
I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he use four head of gold or only three?" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being that head of gold, the most powerful Babylonian card in my deck and can wipe your territory clean, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
Over ten rounds into type two and I forget how many of each card I played.
Maybe you can just tack it onto the upkeep phase to insure they don't spend all battle looking through their discard piles.
Nice quote...but I don't like the argument for T2 either. If I've played 3 or 4 head of gokd and cant remember, I'm going to the discard pile for it b/c I know ones there and not in the deck.
-
Just another thought:
I don't really feel very good about a win that I get because my opponent forgot what was in his discard pile and failed a search there. I also don't feel very good about a loss where I forget what is in my discard pile and fail a search there. If I don't want to win or lose that way, then why keep this rule? Like I said earlier, it just seems ticky-tack.
-
Just another thought:
I don't really feel very good about a win that I get because my opponent forgot what was in his discard pile and failed a search there. I also don't feel very good about a loss where I forget what is in my discard pile and fail a search there. If I don't want to win or lose that way, then why keep this rule? Like I said earlier, it just seems ticky-tack.
But do you want to lose because of the ability to abuse it?
-
Want to rebut a few arguments I've seen (can't get to them all, nor remember them...irony intended ;)).
1. It reduces the strategy of the game and dumbs it down if you can search discard pile.
I can't see this argument at all. The more strategic game involves seeing all options, and choosing the best solution (and outplaying your opponent), not memorizing what has been played. And if it were so strategic, then why do the most popular card games (including the most popular, with it's incredibly detailed rules and strategies), where the best CCG players in the world congregate, allow searching of discard piles?
2. Open discard piles will lead to stalling.
Impossible, unless we change the time limits already in place. We already have rules limiting the time per phase and action. There is already a way to deal with those who go over that limit. If you don't change that limit, there can be no increase to stalling that judges have the ability to disallow already.
3. It powers up cards that search deck or discard if the latter is open.
Actually, that's not true. I saw someone before mention that offense always wins, but that is certainly not true (plenty of searching on both good and evil), and when you think about it, abilities that search discard pile are actually more powerful now. There have been plenty of times in my T2 games where I have used AutO or AwSN to go to discard pile, just to look in it. I knew that some judges had gotten there during the game, and I didn't care who I got out in particular, but I could look at how many of each enhancement I had left, how many/what Canaanites were in there (for Fortify Site), and more. I couldn't do that normally, and neither can my opponent, so now I have an advantage over him just because I have the ability to search discard with my abilities.
So you cannot say that this is one-sided at all, open searching of discard piles actually equalizes everything and allows searches all the time instead of limiting it to specific abilities or situations. Also, it is definitely not offense-specific.
4. Closed discard piles is intuitive.
How? It is a pile of face-up cards, which anyone can look at anywhere else in Redemption. And see earlier, why would the most popular and successful CCG have open discard piles if it were counter-intuitive?
Nice quote...but I don't like the argument for T2 either. If I've played 3 or 4 head of gokd and cant remember, I'm going to the discard pile for it b/c I know ones there and not in the deck.
Quick note here, the implication is that you have to consider where he has a 4th available in hand/deck, not that he'd pull one out of discard ;)
But do you want to lose because of the ability to abuse it?
It isn't abuse, it is strategy, when everyone knows what all face-up cards are and you outplay your opponent who knows the same thing.
-
Yes the benefit is on both sides. I was just stating one way to use it. I dont think this is part of strategy. Strategy is building my deck to give me the best options to win and then performing those plays in game. That is why cards were created to search either/or. You have to choose. Sometimes your choice is wrong and make a mistake. The ability to search discard piles then actually takes away strategy.
-
And here I thought cards that searched either/or were made to be useful both early and late game rather than useless if you draw it at the wrong end of the game. ::)
-
But do you want to lose because of the ability to abuse it?
I don't think that'll happen. I regularly let my opponents check their discard piles in fun games and it never takes much time at all. In fact, they probably play faster because they don't have to debate with themselves mentally about whether their card that they want is in their discard pile or not :)
-
Yes the benefit is on both sides. I was just stating one way to use it. I dont think this is part of strategy. Strategy is building my deck to give me the best options to win and then performing those plays in game. That is why cards were created to search either/or. You have to choose. Sometimes your choice is wrong and make a mistake. The ability to search discard piles then actually takes away strategy.
How is not having good memory then having a mistake strategy.
-
But do you want to lose because of the ability to abuse it?
I don't think that'll happen. I regularly let my opponents check their discard piles in fun games and it never takes much time at all. In fact, they probably play faster because they don't have to debate with themselves mentally about whether their card that they want is in their discard pile or not :)
Even in a tournament againt us down here... :P
Yes the benefit is on both sides. I was just stating one way to use it. I dont think this is part of strategy. Strategy is building my deck to give me the best options to win and then performing those plays in game. That is why cards were created to search either/or. You have to choose. Sometimes your choice is wrong and make a mistake. The ability to search discard piles then actually takes away strategy.
How is not having good memory then having a mistake strategy.
Your using a rule change for your benifit to "enhance" your stategy so you dont have to remember/memorize what you have played. So, I guess I don't have to memorize Scripture anymore because I have the Bible app on my phone. The reasoning behind the arguement is flawed.
-
So, I guess I don't have to memorize Scripture anymore because I have the Bible app on my phone. The reasoning behind the arguement is flawed.
Be fair, that is not an appropriate analogy at all. Being able to play a game about fun and fellowship vs understanding the word of God is not a comparison. And there is nothing about 'enhancing' strategy, how does this disadvantage one player over the other when they both have the same capabilities? There is no advantage at all. You can look, I can look, it's even.
-
Some people geneticly arent as good at remembering so if you want to win a childrens card game because your opponent was born with not very good memory be my guest heck even MTG and YGO let you look at your discard pile and they are secular games so why wouldnt a christian card game try to be fair.
-
...even MTG and YGO let you look at your discard pile and they are secular games so why wouldnt a christian card game try to be fair.
Also not really a good, or pertinent, argument ;) Rules are good or bad for a game, this isn't about secular vs Christian card games being good or bad, it's about the rules alone. Let's try to keep the points we make on the topic and not bring in things we can't really debate :D
-
In the end its about what you think is fair or unfair and i think its unfair that people with a better memory to have an advantage.
-
So, I guess I don't have to memorize Scripture anymore because I have the Bible app on my phone. The reasoning behind the arguement is flawed.
Be fair, that is not an appropriate analogy at all. Being able to play a game about fun and fellowship vs understanding the word of God is not a comparison. And there is nothing about 'enhancing' strategy, how does this disadvantage one player over the other when they both have the same capabilities? There is no advantage at all. You can look, I can look, it's even.
I know it's not a fair comparison, but this is the essential arguement. In competitive tournaments top players have a great advantage over younger/less skilled or whatever. It's a slippery slope. What other rules are we then going to change so everyone has a fair advantage?
-
Its not a slippery slope this is a rule that literaly hampers people with not as good of a memory.
-
It's a slippery slope. What other rules are we then going to change so everyone has a fair advantage?
If you feel that is a true concern, then what rules would you expect to see changed? I can honestly think of no way that this would result in a slippery slope of changes 'in the name fairness', so could you give some examples? And there are far more reasons to change this rule than 'fairness' (outlined earlier), I don't know why this one is a sticking point ;) Usually, if things make things more fair, that's not something we disagree on :laugh:
All kidding aside, is that the main problem you have, that other rules would result? If you could elaborate on what that would mean, maybe we could understand the issue better.
-
Its not a slippery slope this is a rule that literaly hampers people with not as good of a memory.
How is it not a slippery slope? What about guys who can count cards. Know your deck before you even get set up. Thats not fair either. What about players who have all the cards vs guys that dont. How is that fair? Essentially memory is a part of the game. That's how you get better. You know the cards, what they can do, what combos to use, especially in booster which Cliff/RTS is an expert at. That puts me at a disadvantage when i play him. It's how the game works.
-
Others have already agreed with rule change i think everyone knows what my oppinoin is and ill leave it at that. :)
-
How is it not a slippery slope?
You say that, but then don't give me any actual examples about how things would change as part of this slippery slope. I'm sorry, but that doesn't help me to understand your particular problem with this part, please help me (being serious).
Counting cards is something extraordinary (as in I don't know a Redemption player who is a Vegas-level counter), but how would there be a rule on that even if we had an issue? Vegas's rule is they just throw you out to stop their losses, but Redemption is a very inclusive game (for good reason).
Knowing your deck before you set up, do you mean nickling? Well, there is an easy way to solve that: shuffle your opponent's deck instead of cutting (know players who do this every game), or call a judge to do that. It's already in the rules, and setting your deck goes against the code of Redemption (as in, a judge can disqualify you for cheating if you are caught), so I don't see how there would be a rule change here.
Knowing the types of cards is a skill that we also can't make rules about, nor should we. What is the problem with it, anyway? It is the way of any game, from Chess to Redemption, knowing the way parts of the game work is part of the game.
I'm being honest, please help me understand where this slope would go.
-
I'm playing devil's adovocate with most of this.. ;D. The change does benefit everyone, and I would for sure use it. I wonder how Cliff would feel when I for example use my Gid combo on him when I forget where Gideons at. We haven't heard from him really since this was all started. :P
-
How is it not a slippery slope?
You say that, but then don't give me any actual examples about how things would change as part of this slippery slope. I'm sorry, but that doesn't help me to understand your particular problem with this part, please help me (being serious).
Counting cards is something extraordinary (as in I don't know a Redemption player who is a Vegas-level counter), but how would there be a rule on that even if we had an issue? Vegas's rule is they just throw you out to stop their losses, but Redemption is a very inclusive game (for good reason).
Knowing your deck before you set up, do you mean nickling? Well, there is an easy way to solve that: shuffle your opponent's deck instead of cutting (know players who do this every game), or call a judge to do that. It's already in the rules, and setting your deck goes against the code of Redemption (as in, a judge can disqualify you for cheating if you are caught), so I don't see how there would be a rule change here.
Knowing the types of cards is a skill that we also can't make rules about, nor should we. What is the problem with it, anyway? It is the way of any game, from Chess to Redemption, knowing the way parts of the game work is part of the game.
I'm being honest, please help me understand where this slope would go.
I'm not talking about actual cheating...but the playing field already is not really fair. I'm by no means a top player, but Cliff or Tyler know what I'm playing within my first or second draw majority of the time. This puts me at a disadvantage from the start. Of course they are top players amd I lose to them often. I just think memory is part of the game and if you can't remember what you've played or where it's at. Thats your fault. Human error is part of game play. I do think someone with more game knowledge can see the problems with a change in the rule, but maybe I'm mistaken.
-
I don't think we should change the rule. Although it would help me since I'm old and it's getting harder and harder to remember as I get older. But the doctors say that challenging your mind is a good thing and keeps the mind sharp. It's also good for those young developing minds. That's why I like the game of Redemption be cause it is challenging and helps me keep my mind sharp. It's also a humbling game I can easily get beat by the up and coming 10 year old because of the luck of the draw.
I also think game play and deck building should be a part of the game. I think too many players copy a deck or borrow a deck to play in a tournament. I find those players usually make mistakes because they don't remember what is in the deck or don't know why certain cards are in there. I always do better with a deck I have played for awhile and have made slight changes in. I know why every card is in the deck and I don't forget what cards I have played.
I think not being able to search a discard pile and in Booster Draft keeping the cards you select face down make the game more random and more fun. But that is just my humble opinion.
-
I don't think we should change the rule. Although it would help me since I'm old and it's getting harder and harder to remember as I get older. But the doctors say that challenging your mind is a good thing and keeps the mind sharp. It's also good for those young developing minds. That's why I like the game of Redemption be cause it is challenging and helps me keep my mind sharp. It's also a humbling game I can easily get beat by the up and coming 10 year old because of the luck of the draw.
I also think game play and deck building should be a part of the game. I think too many players copy a deck or borrow a deck to play in a tournament. I find those players usually make mistakes because they don't remember what is in the deck or don't know why certain cards are in there. I always do better with a deck I have played for awhile and have made slight changes in. I know why every card is in the deck and I don't forget what cards I have played.
I think not being able to search a discard pile and in Booster Draft keeping the cards you select face down make the game more random and more fun. But that is just my humble opinion.
Is there a like button on this forum. :D I agree with you.
-
I don't think that'll happen. I regularly let my opponents check their discard piles in fun games and it never takes much time at all. In fact, they probably play faster because they don't have to debate with themselves mentally about whether their card that they want is in their discard pile or not :)
Even in a tournament againt us down here... :P
Yep, I like to let opponent's take stuff back (even in tournaments). Of course I lost a game at Nats that way which cost me making the top-cut, but I just enjoy the game more when whoever wins defeats the best that the other player has to play. I don't want to win or lose because someone got an absolutely terrible draw, or made a silly mistake in the spur of the moment, or forgot what was in their discard pile. To me, that is a somewhat hollow victory or defeat. I want to see what happens when the best of what I've got goes up against the best of what they've got. That to me is a fun game.
But I also see that this is really coming down to personal taste. Some people value the memory dimension of Redemption, and other people don't really see that as being important. Given that the sides seem to be about even, it's probably best to maintain the status quo.
-
As a person with a good memory, and someone who thinks it actually does add somewhat to the skill of the game to not allow a player to look at their discard, I still say this rule should be changed, simply because it gets accidentally broken all the time. I really don't believe the rule adds enough to the game to justify not fixing a situation where accidental cheating can and does occur
-
I don't think that'll happen. I regularly let my opponents check their discard piles in fun games and it never takes much time at all. In fact, they probably play faster because they don't have to debate with themselves mentally about whether their card that they want is in their discard pile or not :)
Even in a tournament againt us down here... :P
Yep, I like to let opponent's take stuff back (even in tournaments). Of course I lost a game at Nats that way which cost me making the top-cut, but I just enjoy the game more when whoever wins defeats the best that the other player has to play. I don't want to win or lose because someone got an absolutely terrible draw, or made a silly mistake in the spur of the moment, or forgot what was in their discard pile. To me, that is a somewhat hollow victory or defeat. I want to see what happens when the best of what I've got goes up against the best of what they've got. That to me is a fun game.
But I also see that this is really coming down to personal taste. Some people value the memory dimension of Redemption, and other people don't really see that as being important. Given that the sides seem to be about even, it's probably best to maintain the status quo.
Thanks Mark. I'll remember that when you misplay the next time we play. Wait...do you ever misplay ::)?
-
Thanks Mark. I'll remember that when you misplay the next time we play. Wait...do you ever misplay ::)?
No problem. Feel free to remind me. And yeah I misplay sometimes, too. Not too often, but more often than I'd like to :)
-
I really don't believe the rule adds enough to the game to justify not fixing a situation where accidental cheating can and does occur
Pretty much nailed it. The reason the big CCG's allow discard piles as open knowledge is because the reverse just does not add enough strategic value towards the game. Let's not try to tout a 'skill' at memorizing your discard pile as any huge accomplishment, it adds almost zero to the game. Even below average players are able to have memories slightly better than a goldfish, and you only force the misplay from players that just don't know the rule.
-
Continuing this conversation is pointless. Members of the largest and most influential playgroup in the country have already voiced their opposition to this rule change, so there is no way it will ever be passed. The only way it could still be changed is if Rob himself decided it was best, and since the original REG specifically stated no open searching, it would seem that is not going to happen.
It was still fun to consider new ideas, and discuss the pros and cons, though. ;D
-
I agree with YMT on this one.
We have 3 camps:
1. "I am very much for this! DO EET!"
2. "I think this has merit, but it really isn't that important."
3. "DO NOT DO THIS IT IS AWFUL!"
1 and 3 have been going at it the whole thread, and we will never see eye-to-eye. That's fine. But most of those with the power to change this fall in 2, and so with all the disagreement, I doubt it will go anywhere.
Regardless, all the points that can be made really have been made, and if the Elders want to act, they have more than enough to go on. So, it is time for this thread to sleep. Good night.