Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
Don't you think six becomes incredibly difficult when there are only 7 in your deck, WITHOUT cards like New Jerusalem, Hopper and Amalekite's Slave? And if they have just one that you CAN'T rescue, like female only or NT only, it becomes double hard. Or are you suggesting that more changes would be needed than just increasing the goal to 6?
unbalance is needed at times to encourage outta the box thinking and creativity. Over the years I have learned to TRUST Rob Anderson and the Playtesters. They have and will continue to do what is in the best interest of this awesome game called Redemption. We have seen time and time again that they listen to our input and make decisions based on what is in the best interest of Redemption.My initial post was to simply point out that over the years this topic comes up over and over again and the general consensus has been that adding an additional LS to rescue made the most sense, was the least invasive and gave us more souls to rescue, which is the whole point of Redemption.
Then doesn't that mean that a mistake was made earlier, and/or that not enough foresight was used to envision what would happen? If that is the case, isn't the most logical thing to do, as countless other games have done, is say "Sorry, but we made a mistake with this one card. Go ahead and use it in your casual games if you want, but New Jerusalem promo is no longer tournament legal as of such and such a date."?
So then perhaps 8 lost souls for the first 50-56 cards, and then 1 LS per 7 after that.
postcount.add(1);
Quote from: stefferweffer on May 28, 2010, 09:02:03 AMSo then perhaps 8 lost souls for the first 50-56 cards, and then 1 LS per 7 after that.That would certainly make deck checking easier, since that makes exactly 1 LS per 7 cards no matter what the deck size. This is something I wish the card creators had done from the beginning, but at this point I'm not sure if such a large change would be a good idea. Many people coming to their first tournament since the change would suddenly find that their decks are illegal, lots of people would buy older starter decks only to realize that the decks in them are illegal, and there would probably have to be a mini-expansion-thingy released to add cards to all past starter decks in order to make them legal. But the frustration might be worth it...
I disagree with you all i personlly like the way things are currently and i belive most players are in that group.
Depends if Kirk uses his 100+ stash.
NJ causes a lot of hassle as well. Once I draw SoG or NJ, then I have to wait for the other, and meanwhile, it's taking up space in my hand. Yeah, this is different than speed, but I'm a disciple of Lambo, so mongo characters, especially on defense.I'm against fiddling with the system like this. No change will make everyone happy, especially a large one like this that causes lots of other, minor changes. At best, we'll have a lot of ticked off new players and dealers who find all their starter stock is worthless. At worse, we'll have a major schism in the Redemption community, with tournaments for both sides, and constant arguing about the rules at States/Regionals/Nationals.It's impossible to make a game like this that's completely balanced, and even harder to make one that's fun. Rob and the folks at Cactus have been doing their darndest to keep the game as fair as possible.My vote? I'd like to see what gets nerfed in Disciples.
