Author Topic: What enables AUTO abuse? (Read 34341 times)

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #100 on:** April 18, 2015, 04:41:19 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 17, 2015, 09:19:48 PM

A deck-out rule is a completely different topic, and I think it's a good one to have so long as it doesn't involve a player losing or giving up souls/opponent gaining souls when it happens.

What do you suggest? Because loses or giving of lost souls is kind of the point of the deck out rule.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #101 on:** April 18, 2015, 04:48:33 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on April 17, 2015, 12:24:26 PM

@off-topic: In all of this discussion did anyone notice that Kirk just posted...coming out of retirement?

Just perusing the forums for memory's sake. I found it ironic that the only deck list missing on John's post was a deck I built so of course I had to post about it.

Kirk

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #102 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:10:40 PM »

@Kirk: Gotcha...good to see you par rousing.

@The Hobbit: In my mind the Deck Out Rule could look something like this; "The first player to attempt to draw a card but is unable to triggers a game rule that the next players turn will the the last turn...or in multi-player situations the rest of the table gets one more turn and then the game is over. Whoever has the most souls at the end of the game wins as normal." It is a kind of time-out ahead of time.

@tAutO discussion: I appreciate all of the input. I think my questions has been answered sufficiently but feel free to carry on.

Redoubter · « **Reply #103 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on April 18, 2015, 10:10:40 PM

@The Hobbit: In my mind the Deck Out Rule could look something like this; "The first player to attempt to draw a card but is unable to triggers a game rule that the next players turn will the the last turn...or in multi-player situations the rest of the table gets one more turn and then the game is over. Whoever has the most souls at the end of the game wins as normal." It is a kind of time-out ahead of time.

This will not work, because if I make a deck designed to deck-out in two turns, that means I also have my best characters for at least 1, possibly 2 rescues, and my SoG/NJ for 2 free souls. That means that the speedster gets to get the souls then dictate that the game ends then, instead of lasting where others can catch up or take advantage of the lack of staying power.

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 18, 2015, 04:41:19 PM

What do you suggest? Because loses or giving of lost souls is kind of the point of the deck out rule.

You cannot have an automatic lose condition for decking out like in other games because we need players to get through their decks to get souls out.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #104 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:22:24 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM

This will not work, because if I make a deck designed to deck-out in two turns, that means I also have my best characters for at least 1, possibly 2 rescues, and my SoG/NJ for 2 free souls. That means that the speedster gets to get the souls then dictate that the game ends then, instead of lasting where others can catch up or take advantage of the lack of staying power.

Two things...#1. Isn't that how it works already? The "speedster" gets souls and dictates when the game ends by winning. If no one else is drawing quickly it is also likely that the "speedster" won't have any souls to go for or at least as many. Besides if your scenario does play out as you predict then aren't we doing the game a favor since everyone insists that faster games are more fun. Might as well speed up the inevitable and give the win to the "speedster". #2. With the current hand limit I am pretty sure decking yourself in 2 turns is an exaggeration to say the least.

Red · « **Reply #105 on:** April 19, 2015, 08:33:36 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on April 19, 2015, 08:22:24 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM
This will not work, because if I make a deck designed to deck-out in two turns, that means I also have my best characters for at least 1, possibly 2 rescues, and my SoG/NJ for 2 free souls. That means that the speedster gets to get the souls then dictate that the game ends then, instead of lasting where others can catch up or take advantage of the lack of staying power.

Two things...#1. Isn't that how it works already? The "speedster" gets souls and dictates when the game ends by winning. If no one else is drawing quickly it is also likely that the "speedster" won't have any souls to go for or at least as many. Besides if your scenario does play out as you predict then aren't we doing the game a favor since everyone insists that faster games are more fun. Might as well speed up the inevitable and give the win to the "speedster". #2. With the current hand limit I am pretty sure decking yourself in 2 turns is an exaggeration to say the least.

Not in T1 Multi. I can do it consistently with Gifts.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #106 on:** April 19, 2015, 11:00:00 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on April 19, 2015, 08:22:24 AM

#2. With the current hand limit I am pretty sure decking yourself in 2 turns is an exaggeration to say the least.

You cannot have more than 16 cards in your hand at any one time, but you can be drawing and placing down cards in a cycle. Assuming a minimum 50-card deck, your opening draw of 8 (or more with LSs), coupled with drawing and placing down characters/artifacts/sites/fortresses, then playing draw cards to get your hand up to 13 cards could go through at least half of your deck on the first turn. As Red alluded to for Multiplayer, you could then be playing and drawing cards on each of your opponents' turns.

I don't think it is an exaggeration at all for a T1 deck to deck out in two or three turns, even in 2-player.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #107 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:40:44 PM »

And you could Gates your deck.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #108 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:29:15 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM

You cannot have an automatic lose condition for decking out like in other games because we need players to get through their decks to get souls out.

People can play "slow" now and they can play "slow" with the proposed rule changed so I don't see the problem.

Redoubter · « **Reply #109 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:25:32 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 19, 2015, 03:29:15 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM
You cannot have an automatic lose condition for decking out like in other games because we need players to get through their decks to get souls out.

People can play "slow" now and they can play "slow" with the proposed rule changed so I don't see the problem.

There is nothing from your statement that relates remotely to mine...

Eragon5 · « **Reply #110 on:** April 20, 2015, 08:15:02 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on April 18, 2015, 10:10:40 PM

@Kirk: Gotcha...good to see you par rousing.

@The Hobbit: In my mind the Deck Out Rule could look something like this; "The first player to attempt to draw a card but is unable to triggers a game rule that the next players turn will the the last turn...or in multi-player situations the rest of the table gets one more turn and then the game is over. Whoever has the most souls at the end of the game wins as normal." It is a kind of time-out ahead of time.

@tAutO discussion: I appreciate all of the input. I think my questions has been answered sufficiently but feel free to carry on.

No disrespect but I believe that rule will create a situation where only two decks are used. Speed and anti-speed. Those who speed through may only rescue three souls but since the other player isn't given enough time to come back he will lose. In contrast to counter people will have to make decks preventing speed to keep up if they don't play speed themselves. This may be oversimplifying things, but I don't really like this rule, sorry.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #111 on:** April 20, 2015, 12:07:00 PM »

@Eragon: I agree with you. I was just trying to think outside the current solutions being offered to find another way. When I go back and read over the overall thread though I am not all that convinced that tAutO is as big of a deal as perhaps I initially thought it was. It is simply the next card that will force people to build more creative decks.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #112 on:** April 20, 2015, 12:29:20 PM »

As long as you can timeout win in those scenarios its not a bad rule.

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2015, 07:25:32 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 19, 2015, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2015, 10:51:50 PM
You cannot have an automatic lose condition for decking out like in other games because we need players to get through their decks to get souls out.

People can play "slow" now and they can play "slow" with the proposed rule changed so I don't see the problem.

There is nothing from your statement that relates remotely to mine...

First you just made that up. Redemption doesn't need people to draw souls. That's like saying redemption doesn't need dou, sss, burial, susanna...,etc. Second, there are entire deck strategies designed to draw slow and manipulate souls. If you change this rule you'll see more of these decks more forced draw and larger decks. Which all add variety to the meta.

Redoubter · « **Reply #113 on:** April 20, 2015, 01:05:42 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 20, 2015, 12:29:20 PM

First you just made that up. Redemption doesn't need people to draw souls. That's like saying redemption doesn't need dou, sss, burial, susanna...,etc.

Your statements just...don't actually make sense, sorry. You claim I made up that the game is based on people drawing souls (it is...unless you are somehow saying that no one can play this game without gen, which counters your later "variety" statement being true with any change) and then somehow lump that in with soul manip and Susanna...absolutely no idea what you are driving at, or what you think I'm even saying.

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 20, 2015, 12:29:20 PM

If you change this rule you'll see more of these decks more forced draw and larger decks. Which all add variety to the meta.

"Change this rule" but you aren't actually saying what "this rule" even is. Without more information on what you are advocating, can't possibly comment on that.

Eragon5 · « **Reply #114 on:** April 20, 2015, 01:36:13 PM »

I think the hobbit is referring to adding a deck out rule.

Redoubter · « **Reply #115 on:** April 20, 2015, 02:01:40 PM »

Quote from: Eragon5 on April 20, 2015, 01:36:13 PM

I think the hobbit is referring to adding a deck out rule.

I am more looking for what specifically is being advocated in that statement, since "this rule" can mean any number of things when related to deck-out if something were to change.

redemption collector 777 · « **Reply #116 on:** April 20, 2015, 04:12:10 PM »

Why don't we just remove the CBN status on angel under the oak? so it can be negated somehow?

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #117 on:** April 20, 2015, 04:18:12 PM »

Quote from: redemption collector 777 on April 20, 2015, 04:12:10 PM

Why don't we just remove the CBN status on angel under the oak? so it can be negated somehow?

I'm not really a fan of issuing Erratas for power reasons, I'd rather ban a card outright and then print a more balanced version of it later than give it an errata. Also I think he should be CBI at least (it would be rather annoying to undo the exchange, which is what I'm guessing the CBN was for).

browarod · « **Reply #118 on:** April 20, 2015, 04:26:33 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on April 20, 2015, 04:18:12 PM

Quote from: redemption collector 777 on April 20, 2015, 04:12:10 PM
Why don't we just remove the CBN status on angel under the oak? so it can be negated somehow?

I'm not really a fan of issuing Erratas for power reasons, I'd rather ban a card outright and then print a more balanced version of it later than give it an errata. Also I think he should be CBI at least (it would be rather annoying to undo the exchange, which is what I'm guessing the CBN was for).

Precedent on cards like Mayhem, Grapes of Wrath, A New Beginning, etc. show that the PTB is willing to errata as needed for power but not willing to ban cards currently. So, AUtO would be more likely to be errata'd than banned if a change happens.

I think errata'ing AUtO to be CBI rather than CBN is my favorite of all the suggestions in this thread. I don't think we should start changing game rules because 1 card shows up in a lot of decks. Game rules should not be changed so lightly as they are the core foundation of the game.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #119 on:** April 20, 2015, 04:54:50 PM »

Quote from: browarod on April 20, 2015, 04:26:33 PM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on April 20, 2015, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: redemption collector 777 on April 20, 2015, 04:12:10 PM
Why don't we just remove the CBN status on angel under the oak? so it can be negated somehow?

I'm not really a fan of issuing Erratas for power reasons, I'd rather ban a card outright and then print a more balanced version of it later than give it an errata. Also I think he should be CBI at least (it would be rather annoying to undo the exchange, which is what I'm guessing the CBN was for).
Precedent on cards like Mayhem, Grapes of Wrath, A New Beginning, etc. show that the PTB is willing to errata as needed for power but not willing to ban cards currently. So, AUtO would be more likely to be errata'd than banned if a change happens.

I think errata'ing AUtO to be CBI rather than CBN is my favorite of all the suggestions in this thread. I don't think we should start changing game rules because 1 card shows up in a lot of decks. Game rules should not be changed so lightly as they are the core foundation of the game.

I agree that the Powers That Be seem to be more willing to errata cards than ban them, but I still stand my statement that I would rather cards be banned outright than errataed. It's really easy to look at a list of cards that aren't allowed for tournament play than have to remember exactly what some card actually does (A New Beginning is a great example of a card deserving of banning, but instead has become a card you have to remember this and that about it in order to actually play it properly).

Of course my stance on erratas vs banning aside, I still prefer both of them to rules changes to fix individual cards. If rules changes improve overall gameplay or if they make the game easier to learn or understand then I'm all for them, but if they make the game harder to understand for no improvement to gameplay then I usually think other options are better.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #120 on:** April 20, 2015, 08:56:37 PM »

I was referring to the two different deck out rules proposed: auto lose and next player has last attack.

Quote from: Redoubter=topic=35819.msg540982#msg540982 date=1429547360

Your statements just...don't actually make sense, sorry. You claim I made up that the game is based on people drawing souls (it is...unless you are somehow saying that no one can play this game without gen, which counters your later "variety" statement being true with any change) and then somehow lump that in with soul manip and Susanna...absolutely no idea what you are driving at, or what you think I'm even saying.

If we "need" players to draw lost souls then any kind of soul manipulation is about as bad as a deck out rule.

spacy32 · « **Reply #121 on:** June 21, 2015, 05:59:42 PM »

I am confused by all the bickering. Auto is a problem but not a major one. If auto is restricted then it opens up floodgates of other cards people think need to be restricted. There are cards that deal with the auto problem all over the various brigades. The people are not leaving for card play. Most people love that. The problem is that there is not enough advertisement about the game. I am only one man but i advertise the game everywhere I get a chance. I have offered to do a few workshops at the 2 Lifeway stores in my town. Lifeway Manager's said that I need to complain online to corporate about the card choices (they are still selling only G/H Decks, Unlimited and Angel Wars packs). If everyone went online and complained, even if they already get the cards cheaper, then Lifeway would listen. My kids also bring their cards to all the church events and dinners to play. When we eat out or go to the park, we bring our cards and people are curious about it. I keep a deck with me at all times. It is up to us to advertise the game anyway we can. Keep in mind though, the economy is not 100% yet. Other card games are sold everywhere but Redemption doesn't have that luxury. Don't ban cards. STRATEGIZE. When the game came out I found Limited and A/B decks and then prophets but there was no one around who knew how to play. The game disappeared after that. It wasn't until 2005 when I moved to Tennessee that I found them again (Boxes of Kings and Priest on clearance for 10 cents a pack). I snatched them up and found this site. We got to advertise. Just like we witness about
God we must witness about the game. Don't complain about it, just go with it and do it.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #122 on:** June 22, 2015, 03:02:09 AM »

Xpost from a thread in New Card Ideas:

I'm not so much concerned with it winning or not winning as it being in so many decks that place high. The problem of centralization isn't necessarily that it's going to win all the time, but that it's so good it's used to the point that it warps the meta. Whenever I am building a deck, my thought process is, not necessarily in order, "What are the win conditions for this deck? What counters to my win conditions do I need to account for? Is this deck fast enough to keep up with Judges, Prophets and Disciples/Clay? Can I come back from an early Mayhem? Can I come back from an early AutO/Isaiah? Does my defense include enough ways to block Gideon (and to a lesser extent King Hezekiah)? Does my defense include enough ways to block a FbtN Hero? Will my offense be able to get past an Invoking Terror or Persistent Pestering engine?"

This is not necessarily a problem on its own, but most of my best options to answer "yes" are to use those very cards myself. Further compounding the issue is Covenant with Death, which counters just about everything *except* Judges, Isaiah, and the salient parts of a Magicians defense or splash. The best anti-meta cards right now (Nazareth, Foreign Wives and CWD imo) are all great inclusions in the most common and consistently winning deck, as it is not hindered much if at all by them and all the other decks are. AutO by himself is not a huge problem. Having a lot of ways to get him very early, plus the fact that the best anti-meta cards do nothing or little, plus his utter lack of downsides, plus his synergy with decks that benefit from and are not hurt by anti-meta cards, plus the fact that his inherent speed makes getting counters before he's already gotten rolling improbable, plus the fact that his deck has been consistently top-table since his inception, plus the fact that his theme has one of the best answers to soul drought all scream "centralizing." I would like to win Booster Draft this year specifically so I can try to do something about his warping nature.

tl;dr, AutO by himself is an extremely powerful, but not broken card. The fact that he is not only not hurt by, but works great with cards that counter most other decks and adds huge tempo with no downside, as well as the fact that the best option to keep up with him is to use him yourself, makes him meta-warping (which shows in the hard numbers).

The Schaefer · « **Reply #123 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:15:46 PM »

AUTO good card.WAY too centralized But not broken. Unless its first turn and on the play. The Gideon protect is annoying but there are ways to get around it. I would say a LS that gives regardless of protection to an evil enhancement or more regardless of protect cards could work. Just to make more people happy for viable defenses. The only real problem I see with AUTO is for the 1st turn. Here is an example: 43 cards in the deck really cause 7 souls. lets say hopper is in the 43 so cut it down to 42. lowest amount of cards that could be in the deck. so turn 1 on the play silver hero in territory. angelic guidance. get wheel. wheel get AUTO. draw 2 Sam. Sam search David draw 2. so first turn you net +6 cards out of your deck. if you count wheel and AUTO since they get shuffled back in that's +8 cards so essentially that 16/42 cards in your deck from initial draw and 1st turn on the play and it turns into 19/42 before your opponent draws depending on their first turn. Because of this I could see a IF IT NOT THE FIRST TURN errata being given to AUTO which is precedented by MAYHEM. Other than that more counters is the answer. Regardless of Protection cards, cards that would punish Exchanging or exchanged cards, Searched cards, Drawing, Shuffling a deck, Cards that could set aside a card while the card was in play. (Oblivion Ring type effect if you've ever played magic) Things like these could all work to at least decentralize AUTO a bit. And before someone tries to bring up the centralization of dominants that's a different matter and SOG in particular should be that prevalent. why? Our Faith is Centralized on him. Any game based on the faith should be centralized around him. Just my 2 cents.

kram1138 · « **Reply #124 on:** November 06, 2015, 12:06:48 AM »

Since PC, I have not seen auto/judges much, to be honest. I don't think he's much of an issue anymore. Perhaps it's because I mainly play online and people are still trying out stuff with the new sets, but I really don't know if auto is being abused anymore. There's too many ways to shut out judges now.

News:

Author Topic: What enables AUTO abuse? (Read 34341 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

browarod

TheHobbit13