Author Topic: What card??? (Read 18179 times)

Red · « **Reply #75 on:** May 27, 2010, 05:16:30 PM »

Niether of those are broken FA=Goys NJ=Beat thier offense. Both are beatable.

777Godspeed · « **Reply #76 on:** May 27, 2010, 07:44:16 PM »

It would be much simpler in the long run to increase the LS count from 5 to 6. A new REG is being put together and the new LS count could be included in there. It would be far less labor intensive and less expensive to adjust the LS count than to start banning cards and have to include a mini-card with explanation in each new booster pack. When a new Starter Deck is released it would have the updated rulebook in it anyway.

Now I know there are minor rule changes that come along, like whoever goes second drawing 3 cards, but if someone doesn't play that way because of a 3rd edition starter book, is their game "broken"? Not really.

Increasing the LSs count is a major change compared to this minor change? and breaks the game how? What about all the wrong rulebooks out there currently! I know I'm being a touch sarcastic, but serious players will seek to find all the up to date rule changes and recreational players will get along just fine and the game is not broken, yet. Many players have and still are trying......

I guess my broader question is, in light of other famous card games that later ban overpowered cards, what makes all those game designers wrong and the redemption designers right? Is it because it is a "bible" game that cards cannot be banned?

Nobody said those game designers were wrong and Redemption game designers were right. No Redemption cards break the game currently.

Finally, I'm not sure that playtesters ALWAYS find a counter. Spirit as a Dove promo, Suzanna, Joseph of Arimathea, Consider the Lillies. Did White NT Garden Tomb Speed need even MORE enticement to play it?

Have no fear, counters will be found and/or developed to create balance, but unbalance is needed at times to encourage outta the box thinking and creativity.
The answer to your question is based on opinion. 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.

Godspeed,
Mike

stefferweffer · « **Reply #77 on:** May 27, 2010, 09:37:53 PM »

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?

fyero · « **Reply #78 on:** May 27, 2010, 09:53:14 PM »

Yes becuase by increasing it to six would you not also increase the deck soul count by one.

777Godspeed · « **Reply #79 on:** May 27, 2010, 10:45:08 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 27, 2010, 09:37:53 PM

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?

I believe that if the LS count were increased to 6 that the game creator/designers/playtesters would have a good handle on making the necessary adjustments. I merely enjoy playing and hosting and leave all the harder thinking to those in the know. I'm not a proponent of banning cards that are disliked, an inconvenience or overused, but not broken.
I refer back to my earlier post.

Quote from: 777Godspeed on May 27, 2010, 07:44:16 PM

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.

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 27, 2010, 09:37:53 PM

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."?

I like to believe that we are not countless other games and we can find a solid creative solution when issues arise, while others simply ban cards and then print more problems rather than solving the ones they have.
Once again, I believe there are better soultions than banning cards.

Godspeed,
Mike

stefferweffer · « **Reply #80 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:02:03 AM »

So then perhaps 8 lost souls for the first 50-56 cards, and then 1 LS per 7 after that. 6 for the win. I would agree with this.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #81 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:15:15 AM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 28, 2010, 09:02:03 AM

So 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...

Red · « **Reply #82 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:26:12 AM »

I disagree with you all i personlly like the way things are currently and i belive most players are in that group.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #83 on:** May 28, 2010, 09:40:06 AM »

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.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #84 on:** May 28, 2010, 10:09:55 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 28, 2010, 09:15:15 AM

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 28, 2010, 09:02:03 AM
So 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'm not sure its as complicated as that. Simply send every retailer tiny packs of three cards - 2 regular Lost Souls (or even special ability to market it better), and 1 card explaining the new deck construction rules (and second player draws 3 cards) and that all they need to do is add an 8th lost soul to each starter deck. Have these be "free with every starter deck purchase". As far as tournament players, set a date in the future when these changes go into affect, and tournament hosts should always have extra lost souls on hand in case someone forgets the new rule. Within one year everything would be second nature to us all. Again, just my suggestion.

777Godspeed · « **Reply #85 on:** May 28, 2010, 11:09:13 AM »

Quote from: RED on May 28, 2010, 09:26:12 AM

I disagree with you all i personlly like the way things are currently and i belive most players are in that group.

I like the game the way it is now also and I agree that most players are in that group. (putting minor differences in opinion aside)
In the event that the choice was to start banning cards or find solutions, I will vote the find solutions route.

Godspeed,
Mike

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #86 on:** May 28, 2010, 01:33:45 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on May 12, 2010, 03:09:24 AM

Depends if Kirk uses his 100+ stash.

I'm insulted.

150+

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #87 on:** May 28, 2010, 01:39:07 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on May 28, 2010, 09:40:06 AM

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.

Ah another defense junky?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #88 on:** May 28, 2010, 01:44:05 PM »

Well, my first deck. Currently its "I just dare you to make a rescue attempt", with a few heroes for giggles.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: What card??? (Read 18179 times)

Red

Re: What card???

777Godspeed

Re: What card???

stefferweffer

Re: What card???

fyero

Re: What card???

777Godspeed

Re: What card???

stefferweffer

Re: What card???

BubbleBoy

Re: What card???

Red

Re: What card???

SomeKittens

Re: What card???

stefferweffer

Re: What card???

777Godspeed

Re: What card???

Captain Kirk

Re: What card???

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

Re: What card???

SomeKittens

Re: What card???