Author Topic: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants  (Read 3363 times)

Chris

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
0
These are rule suggestions everyone will probably hate, but I think they would help minimize some of the frustrations that can come out of Redemption tournament play.

Initiative
"Initiative is granted once your opponent confirms that you have it."

This is only in regards to regular initiative, not special initiative, and really only serves to make a very well understood courtesy an actual rule. As far as I am aware, under the current rule set checking initiative is not required, though it is expected, which can lead to some... ambitious players trying to take advantage of the rules. By making it a formal rule, you minimize the risk of misunderstandings or players playing too quickly and not actually having it.

Turn Length
Players should attempt to keep track of their turn length via a timer. If a Preparation Phase lasts longer than 45 seconds per turn, that player forfeits their Battle Phase for the turn. If a Discard Phase lasts longer than 45 seconds per turn, that player forfeits their Draw Phase next turn (unless their Draw Pile has no cards in it). In the battle phase, players have 30 seconds for each change in initiative. If a turn lasts longer than 30 seconds, initiative is passed, or, if it cannot, the battle immediately resolves.

The most frustrating thing in the world is playing against slow opponents. It means you get less turns, which lowers your chance of avoiding a tie or timeout result, which hurts your chances immensely in larger tournaments. One of the things I believe is missing from the culture of Redemption is real incentive to keep track of turn length. If you were to whip out a timer and keep track of your opponent's turns, you would likely be the only one doing it, and you would likely be considered a not very nice word for it. The first part of this rule would hopefully fix that, by normalizing the use of timers and making the length of a turn a little more standardized. The times proposed in this rule change seem short, but really, 45 seconds is a long time, and players will very quickly get adjusted to the change, especially if timers are widely used. This will overall help avoid having players end up penalized for being paired against slower opponents.

Decking Out
"Every time you would draw cards when your draw pile is empty, your opponent may discard a card from your territory regardless of protection (except a Lost Soul)."

We've been trying to work out some kind of punishment for decking out for ages, and while old-school speed isn't the king it was a few years back, I still believe a rule like this would be valuable. I think that this strikes a good balance between not being too harsh while still strongly discouraging decking out. Some of the wording here is a very specific. "Cards" rather than "card" is important, as it means only one card would be discarded per draw phase, as opposed to three. Additionally, allowing the opponent to execute the discard places more weight by allowing an opponent to dismantle a strategy quickly, further discouraging ever getting to this point.

Dominants
"Dominants may only be played on your turn, or while you have initiative in battle.

This is the biggie, but I think it's time to eliminate slapjack once and for all, and short of banning dominants, this is the best way to do it. It would nerf pretty much every dominant in the game, hopefully leading to more exciting choices and less emphasis on those 7 cards.

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2014, 01:18:37 AM »
+2
While I would accept the first one without a fuss (and essentially play that way almost all the time), I disagree with the rest of them as they stand.

Turn Length: I'm not opposed to it in theory, but I don't think it should be a flat time/phase, I'd make it related to how many cards are played. (45s + 15s per card or something like that) Basically I think that so long as cards are being played and stuff is being done we shouldn't be forfeiting phases.

I don't like that decking out rule. I think there should be a penalty, but I don't know if that's the best one. I'm actually partial to decking out being a straight up loss. If a player cannot draw during their draw phase the opponent wins with full Redeemed Souls or something like that. Of course I'm a T2 player and decking out is significantly rarer.

I really don't like the dominant rule, although I despise "Slap Jack" as much as the next person, I don't want dominants to lose some of their primary utility, getting around initiative and being playable on opponents turns. What I think Redemption needs is a priority system to deal with Dominants and Manual Activation cards (like Unholy Writ).
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2014, 01:32:07 AM »
0
Let me say what I like first:

INITIATIVE

All for that, I think it should be stated in the rules even though it has become more or less a de facto rule at higher levels of play.  Asking for initiative should always take place in battle, IMO, since we have things that can happen outside of normal play and we often see a scenario where someone has not finished all abilities on their cards and the other player tries to play an enhancement.  You would allow dominant play to happen and you'd allow for players to be sure that all abilities are done before playing.

DOMINANTS

Very much in favor of this.  No, I LOVE this idea.  Would it fundamentally change the game?  Yes, but I think for the better.  Mayhem on first turn was so powerful that it had to be errata'd to not work then.  Just think on that for a bit.  It is still incredibly powerful on other turns, and a draw->VP is also silly powerful in some scenarios.  Would this mean less ways to block SoG?  Well, yes, but it also eliminates slapjack which I am all for.  We also have no SoG play right after the current player draws some souls, which I have never liked as a mechanic.  This would also stop certain defensive plays in battle, where I use a card to kill one character and then immediately Martyr the other one.  This tactic has always seemed unfair, and I have heard many players confused as to why that is allowed.  You'd also limit the AotL immediately after block, which encourages actual interaction.

Now on to what I like, but think we need to work on:

DECKING OUT

Okay, I agree, there should be a penalty.  HOWEVER, we need to remember that (barring characters that turn themselves into souls) a player needs for their opponent to draw 5 of the 7 (in T1 minimum size) souls in their decks.  This is what makes me hesitate some about imposing penalties, and I want to make sure that they are balanced.  Also, you have it happen each time they would draw cards, but that would essentially give the opponent another Abomb if they are using a mill strategy.  I don't like that.  Since the player would not be actually using draw abilities, I'd limit this to the initial D3 (that is, "If during the Draw Phase a player cannot draw any/all of the cards allotted for that phase, then their opponent may discard a non-soul in their territory or set-aside regardless of protection.")

What I don't like:

TURN LENGTH

Okay, yes, playing a slow person is not fun.  And yes, calling over a judge to enforce the time has a negative stigma attached to it, and you are seen as too competitive or not a nice person.  However, I do not like bringing timers into this at the level you are suggesting.  We have a mechanic, but it is discouraged through social pressures.  That is what we should address going forward, IMO.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2014, 01:53:21 AM »
0
It's discouraged to call a judge at all in this game because people don't think of it as a game, they think of it as a ministry.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2014, 02:41:52 AM »
+2
Initiative check--for this. With the increase in manually triggered cards this just seems to make sense.

Turn length--honestly, trying to use a timer will probably just add more time. I am all for players having their own timers to track the round length (I usually do if there's no main clock for all to see). It is never unreasonable to politely ask an opponent to speed up for the sake of not timing out.

Decking out--don't like this one. There are ample counters to speed decks, and I think this kind of rule would end up leading to more defense heavy turtle decks whose goal is simply to get the other player to deck out first. Those kind of games would just not be fun at all.

Dominants--definitely do not like this one. We have rules for when multiple dominants hit the table near-simultaneously. I like the direction we've gone in using the dominant cap and creating more dominants to give games more variety. The only dominant I've put in every deck I've ever made is Son of God, which is the way it should be.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2014, 02:46:13 AM »
0
It's discouraged to call a judge at all in this game because people don't think of it as a game, they think of it as a ministry.

I think a lot of people see it as both though certainly the emphasis can change depending on the circumstances. At a local tournament with a lot of new players, I'm likely to point things out or give tips to an opponent who is new to the game because I want them to have a good experience--more often I'll do that after the game, but I've done it in the midst of a game as well. At Nationals, I'm still going to be nice, but I'm not going to offer anything that might hurt my chances of winning.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2014, 09:15:31 AM »
+3
Initiative - This is the only way that I play, and it is because of habit. I think implementing this rule would be fine, since everyone would get used to it quickly, then forget that they do it every time anyway.

Turn Length - I have already expressed my opposition to this idea. This kind of rule would exclude people with learning disabilities from being able to play effectively, or even wanting to play at all. Timers also put undue pressure on nervous players as they tend to focus on the countdown rather than the decision-making.

Decking Out - Rather than punish the person who decked out, perhaps reward the player that did not. Maybe the opponent could search their deck and/or discard pile for a card?

Dominants - I don't think dominants should be limited, since this would leave players vulnerable in multiplayer when the game is on the line, but they are not part of the battle.
My wife is a hottie.

Chris

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2014, 12:23:07 PM »
+1
Dominants--definitely do not like this one. We have rules for when multiple dominants hit the table near-simultaneously.

The issue is that Dominants, while a neat idea, are fundamentally unworkable. Any half-measure solution we present to try to fix the well-established problems either won't do it fully, or create their own. Here's the obvious scenario: My opponent goes through their draw phase, and I pause for a second with Mayhem in hand, allowing for the possibility that they play their own dominant. I then begin to play Mayhem, and before my card hits the table, they put down a character. Does the character get shuffled? Technically it hit the table first, but the only reason it did that is because I was offering a courtesy to my opponent, since they get to respond to their own action. I've seen this ruled in either player's favor. The problem is that at high level play, little things like this matter. Even if you fix it with a hard and fast rule, it still ultimately comes down to "he said, she said," as there will always be a question of how much time needs to pass before I can play a dominant. Any game mechanic that forces a judge to choose one side over another with nothing more than hearsay evidence (aside from issues regarding cheating) is inherently flawed. NO other successful CCG on the planet has any kind mechanic like that. The problem with a Priority System, such as what ChristianSoldier suggested, is that it then slows the game down, by forcing you to check after every single action to make sure nobody is going to then play a dominant.

Eliminating any possible chance at slapjack is the only way to fix this, and that either means you ban the cards entirely, or change when they can be played. Everyone is always complaining about how fundamentally broken dominants are, but nobody wants to actually see a change that would fix it. In fact, by fixing it, a lot of the major issues with the game end up mitigated. Auto-wins from Angel of the Lord and Christian Martyr take a hit. Mayheming or using Vain Philosophy right after a draw phase becomes impossible. By restricting when dominants can be played, the game itself will actually end up placing more focus back on the battle phase, which a lot of people have been complaining about for years now. People like the status quo, and I understand that, since on paper Dominants are a cool idea, but at this point, they need to be done away with. The fact that no other CCG has anything like it should really speak volumes.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2014, 01:29:02 PM »
0
The problem I have with your Dominant suggestion in its current form is that it makes them barely different than multi-brigade Territory-class enhancements. You may as well just change their card type classification while you're at it.

Also, a lot of you suggestions don't take MP into account, YMT pointed out one such example with the dominant idea. For decking out, who would get to choose what to discard from the player's territory? Each other player? That would basically remove the decked out player from contention, much too high a price. The next player? That gives them an unfair advantage over the other players as they can get rid of something they don't like and will then have a turn before everyone else to make use of it.

To be honest, dominants being their current slightly overpowered state is what helps balance MP categories, in my experience. It means there is at least some recourse if a player takes an early and/or large lead. If they happen to be after the player that's drawing the most souls but the least defense then restricting SoG/NJ or Burial to a player's turn means they'll likely win by default.

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2014, 01:53:32 PM »
0
The problem with a Priority System, such as what ChristianSoldier suggested, is that it then slows the game down, by forcing you to check after every single action to make sure nobody is going to then play a dominant.

While on paper it may sound like it will slow the game down, in practice MtG has had that system in place for a very long time and has no issues with it. Yu-Gi-Oh has something similar (although slightly more confusing) and has had some issues, but they weren't related to time. Essentially what will happen is that much of the dominant play will happen fairly similarly (sorry if your goal was to weaken dominants) but instead of having to figure out which was played first you can tell exactly who should be playing. Note: It will weaken dominants on opponents turns by forcing the non-turn players to wait for the priority change, so they may not be able to Mayhem off a draw (since they have to wait until the Prep Phase Priority change, which will be after your opponent has finished doing at least one thing). It will also get rid of that "Courtesy Time" that we tend to give to let people play dominants, because we already know who should be playing.

Maybe I'm wrong, and it will slow down games. But I don't want to see Dominants becoming Multicolored TC enhancements that don't need characters, and I certainly don't want them to lose their multiplayer utility. (Although I'm not opposed to getting rid of them entirely if it would come to it)
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2014, 01:55:49 PM »
0
I like the jist of the dominant rule but I would change it to while opponent is in battle so you can still use cm burial and doubt.  But that is just me. I like it because it makes game play less chaotic. And if you want to time people it would be best to implement a timer otherwise its such a gray area.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2014, 02:00:31 PM by TheHobbit »

Offline Minion of Jesus

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
  • The Wisconsonite, Seeking Retirement
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2014, 08:02:09 PM »
0
Initiative: Wonderful idea. I am sick and tired of wondering, "Do I have initiative? Can I play now? Please? Aw dang, he played something as I was about to finally play. Dang."

Turn Length: My knee-jerk reaction is to say that this should immediately be implemented (I've faced A LOT of people who are extremely slow) but it could discourage way too many people. If it could work, I would love it, nonetheless.

Decking out: Too powerful. Needs to be less of a penalty.

Dominants: I like this idea. Quite a bit. Please.
To the Pain!

-Wesley

Offline cincyoldguy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: [Rule Changes] Initiative, Turn Length, Decking Out, and Dominants
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2014, 12:24:57 AM »
+1
#1 I have no problem with this idea.

#2 Time. I am a slow player because I cannot seem to memorize the cards and usually need to read them each time. Also, I admit to sometimes feeling overwhelmed when a lot of cards are played and I try not to forget what is out there that can make my play dumb/useless/prohibited/limited by a territory/artifact/soul/etc. card in a territory that I had forgotten was out there. I have never deliberately played slowly and never will and believe me it is as frustrating to me as it is to my opponent to time out. I believe if a player feels slow play is deliberate then that player has every right to call a judge to help. However, to put a clock on me will make me decide to never play again which I will miss.  I already have some frustration at errata and when cards do not play the way they are written but I do not know this as I am not an expert or aware when the Elders make decisions that change how a card is interpreted. I believe this change seriously hurts new players or infrequent players like me that cannot recognize a cards SA just by seeing the card. Please do not implement this one.

#3 Decking Out. I admit to not having fun when a player seems to have a million cards out by the second or third turn and I have 3 or 4 out. But the penalty here seems to harsh to me when there are cards you can put in your deck to hurt speed decks. I would like to see other ideas on this...maybe require a deck under 60 cards to have to add one or two souls as a penalty, or only allow a player to draw a max number of cards per turn, or allow a player to interrupt an opponents draw and play a card after so many cards are drawn by that opponent,(eg after each time an opponent draws 6 cards you can interrupt and play a card that may end further draws in some manner maybe by ending the battle or interrupting a key cards ability to allow drawing to renew).

#4. The value of a Dominant should be its SA and not how quickly a player can get it out. I believe most players can tell when the player is slapping a Dominant down as an interrupt and not just because of its' SA. I would say a request for a judge to be called to determine if that was the underlying strategy then the judge can delay the cards implementation until after  the opponent finishes their play....or maybe simply require the Dom be placed back in the deck or discarded without implementation which may serve as a deterrent to a "slapping it down" strategy at the risk of losing it. 

I have really enjoyed this game and the Christian atmosphere it fosters. It seems to me that the last few years have allowed for a lessening of these values and more emphasis on winning and ego rather then how valuable having this Christian game can be. Some of this is likely a result of more non Christian players being introduced to the game. We should be teaching and emphasizing to them the Christian values of the game and not worldly values that foster a "win at all cost" or "defeating the opponent" is the      only value to be sought after. Take care all, Allen       

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal