Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile (Read 14261 times)

SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx · « **Reply #25 on:** January 02, 2014, 09:36:54 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #26 on:** January 03, 2014, 09:46:46 AM »

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)?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** January 03, 2014, 10:04:07 AM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #28 on:** January 03, 2014, 10:43:56 AM »

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, 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.

CJSports · « **Reply #29 on:** January 03, 2014, 10:52:12 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 10:43:56 AM

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, 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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** January 03, 2014, 10:57:11 AM »

Quote from: CJSports on January 03, 2014, 10:52:12 AM

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).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:26:58 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 10:57:11 AM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #32 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:30:49 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 03, 2014, 11:26:58 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 10:57:11 AM
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).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #33 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:36:32 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 11:30:49 AM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:40:03 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 03, 2014, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 11:30:49 AM
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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #35 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:49:55 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 10:57:11 AM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** January 03, 2014, 12:08:54 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** January 08, 2014, 09:43:30 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:40:35 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 03, 2014, 11:26:58 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on January 03, 2014, 10:57:11 AM
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** January 08, 2014, 01:50:52 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 08, 2014, 01:40:35 PM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #40 on:** January 08, 2014, 02:10:02 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 08, 2014, 01:50:52 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #41 on:** January 08, 2014, 02:22:34 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 08, 2014, 02:10:02 PM

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.

AJ · « **Reply #42 on:** January 08, 2014, 05:48:46 PM »

I always thought it was stupid you couldn't look at your discard pile i'm all for the rule change

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 08, 2014, 06:04:46 PM »

I would rather not dumb down the game if we could thanks.

Red · « **Reply #44 on:** January 08, 2014, 06:24:34 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 08, 2014, 06:04:46 PM

I would rather not dumb down the game if we could thanks.

In what way are we dumbing down the game here?

Redoubter · « **Reply #45 on:** January 08, 2014, 06:26:02 PM »

Quote from: AJ on January 08, 2014, 05:48:46 PM

I always thought it was stupid you couldn't look at your discard pile i'm all for the rule change

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 08, 2014, 06:04:46 PM

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"

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:27:01 PM »

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #47 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:34:30 PM »

Is it really a mistake to forget you played 4 HIR already in the 7th hour of the tournament?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #48 on:** January 08, 2014, 11:44:04 PM »

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.

The Guardian · « **Reply #49 on:** January 09, 2014, 02:40:29 AM »

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.

Quote

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.

News:

Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile (Read 14261 times)

browarod

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13