Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TheHobbit on January 09, 2014, 02:55:39 PMWhy should we try to regulate grace and generosity?Because Redemption is based on the Bible and is meant for "fun and fellowship," maybe?
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.
Quote from: Knoxyouthpastor on January 09, 2014, 03:29:40 PMLet'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 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?
Author
Topic: Rule Proposal: Open Searching of Discard Pile (Read 14232 times)
