Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile (Read 14264 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #50 on:** January 09, 2014, 06:22:31 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 09, 2014, 02:40:29 AM

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.

Quote from: The Guardian on January 09, 2014, 02:40:29 AM

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.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 09, 2014, 06:29:54 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #52 on:** January 09, 2014, 07:21:27 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 09, 2014, 02:40:29 AM

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.

Red · « **Reply #53 on:** January 09, 2014, 08:07:33 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on January 09, 2014, 06:29:54 AM

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.

AJ · « **Reply #54 on:** January 09, 2014, 08:30:53 AM »

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #55 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:03:25 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on January 09, 2014, 06:29:54 AM

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.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #56 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:20:44 AM »

Quote from: AJ on January 09, 2014, 08:30:53 AM

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #57 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:46:44 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 09, 2014, 11:03:25 AM

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.

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.

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #58 on:** January 09, 2014, 12:22:47 PM »

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.

AJ · « **Reply #59 on:** January 09, 2014, 12:35:56 PM »

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.

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #60 on:** January 09, 2014, 12:46:35 PM »

Quote from: AJ on January 09, 2014, 12:35:56 PM

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!

AJ · « **Reply #61 on:** January 09, 2014, 01:36:31 PM »

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.

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #62 on:** January 09, 2014, 01:52:39 PM »

Quote from: AJ on January 09, 2014, 01:36:31 PM

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".

Quote from: christiangamer25 on January 09, 2014, 06:29:54 AM

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #63 on:** January 09, 2014, 02:18:11 PM »

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).

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #64 on:** January 09, 2014, 02:28:26 PM »

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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 09, 2014, 02:55:39 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 09, 2014, 11:46:44 AM

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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 09, 2014, 06:22:31 AM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #66 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:07:20 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 09, 2014, 02:55:39 PM

Why should we try to regulate grace and generosity?

Because Redemption is based on the Bible and is meant for "fun and fellowship," maybe?

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 09, 2014, 02:55:39 PM

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #67 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:18:12 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 09, 2014, 03:07:20 PM

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.

I guess, then, that teachers are socialists?

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #68 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:29:40 PM »

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.

AJ · « **Reply #69 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:31:54 PM »

Quote from: Knoxyouthpastor on January 09, 2014, 03:29:40 PM

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.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #70 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:39:04 PM »

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.

AJ · « **Reply #71 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:42:20 PM »

I agree with CS MTG and YGO both allow this so why shouldn't redemption allow it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:43:28 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 09, 2014, 03:07:20 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 09, 2014, 02:55:39 PM
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.

Quote from: browarod on January 09, 2014, 03:07:20 PM

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.

Knoxyouthpastor · « **Reply #73 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:53:11 PM »

Quote from: AJ on January 09, 2014, 03:31:54 PM

Quote from: Knoxyouthpastor on January 09, 2014, 03:29:40 PM
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.

Ironica · « **Reply #74 on:** January 09, 2014, 03:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Read in Dirty Harry voice

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.

News:

Author Topic: Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile (Read 14264 times)

TheHobbit13

browarod

TheHobbit13

Ironica