Author Topic: A Smaller Game  (Read 4489 times)

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2016, 08:17:44 PM »
0
OK, so I just tried this with my daughter recently and we had fun.

We used:
4 GC
4 GE
4 EC
4 EE
4 LS
4 others (sites, forts, arts, covs, curses, hopper LS)
0 doms (and no 2/3-liner)

We played to 3 LSs for victory, and because the games were short we were able to play many times.  I was surprised and pleased how similar the feel was to regular redemption.  The games were all close (1 LS differential).  Every game one player decked out on the final turn, so basically all the cards got used in each game.  There were some fun battles, and some interesting twists.  Overall it was just a great experience.

How many cards did you draw?
Good question.  We drew 2 cards each turn.

I also really like the idea of playing a best of 3 series where all 3 decks that you use can never repeat a card.

And I should mention that we did NOT play with any LSs going into sites.  That is probably a good rule to have with such small decks making it very difficult to fit in site access.

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Playtester, Tournament Host, Three Lions Gaming Owner
  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2016, 10:51:52 AM »
+1
So this may become the next new thing we play test in Three Lions events. So let me lay out what I have gleaned so far from this thread along with some additions just for my sake to think it all the way through...

Redemption Type-3 Prototype Rule Set

Each of your three unique decks must contain:
4 Good Characters
4 Good Enhancements
4 Evil Characters
4 Evil Enhancements
4 Lost Souls (no 2 or 3 Liner Lost Souls)
5 Others (Includes Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, Curses, and the Hopper Lost Soul)
0 Dominants

Opening hand is 4 cards.
Draw 2 cards per turn.
Hand limit at end of turn is 4 cards.
Rescue 3 Lost Souls to win.
Souls may not be placed into sites.
Best 2 of 3 with three different decks.
One hour to complete your match of up to 3 games.
In each match you may only play a deck in one game.
Between all decks you may only use one copy of each card.
If a card could fit more than one grouping, the player may determine where it is allocated.

So would you like to see this make an appearance with Three Lions events?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2016, 11:00:16 AM by uthminister [BR] »

Online Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9831
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2016, 10:57:21 AM »
0
So this may become the next new thing we play test in Three Lions events. So let me lay out what I have gleaned so far from this thread along with some additions just for my sake to think it all the way through...

Redemption Type-3 Prototype Rule Set

Each of your three unique decks must contain:
4 Good Characters
4 Good Enhancements
4 Evil Characters
4 Evil Enhancements
4 Lost Souls (Excludes 2 and 3 Liner Lost Souls)
4 Others (Includes Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, Curses, and the Hopper Lost Soul)
0 Dominants

Draw 2 cards per turn.
Rescue 3 Lost Souls to win.
Souls may not be placed into sites.
Best 2 of 3 with three different decks.
One hour to complete your match of up to 3 games.
In each match you may only play a deck in one game.
Between all decks you may only use one copy of each card.

So would you like to see this make an appearance with Three Lions events?

Sounds awesome! Except that I'm pretty sure we DO NOT want to allow Sites in this format.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Xonathan

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2016, 10:59:07 AM »
+1
Type X  8)
Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always.
1 Chronicles 16:11

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Playtester, Tournament Host, Three Lions Gaming Owner
  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2016, 11:02:57 AM »
0
So this may become the next new thing we play test in Three Lions events. So let me lay out what I have gleaned so far from this thread along with some additions just for my sake to think it all the way through...

Redemption Type-3 Prototype Rule Set

Each of your three unique decks must contain:
4 Good Characters
4 Good Enhancements
4 Evil Characters
4 Evil Enhancements
4 Lost Souls (Excludes 2 and 3 Liner Lost Souls)
4 Others (Includes Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, Curses, and the Hopper Lost Soul)
0 Dominants

Draw 2 cards per turn.
Rescue 3 Lost Souls to win.
Souls may not be placed into sites.
Best 2 of 3 with three different decks.
One hour to complete your match of up to 3 games.
In each match you may only play a deck in one game.
Between all decks you may only use one copy of each card.

So would you like to see this make an appearance with Three Lions events?

Sounds awesome! Except that I'm pretty sure we DO NOT want to allow Sites in this format.

True that site lock would be terrible which is why the condition was put into the sub rules that Souls may not be placed into sites. Is there another reason for sites to not be allowed besides that?

Online Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9831
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2016, 11:12:38 AM »
0
True that site lock would be terrible which is why the condition was put into the sub rules that Souls may not be placed into sites. Is there another reason for sites to not be allowed besides that?

Sorry. I DID read the sub rules but somehow that didn't register. ??? I can't think of any other reason.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Ironisaac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Awake from the grave
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2016, 11:41:17 AM »
0
So this may become the next new thing we play test in Three Lions events. So let me lay out what I have gleaned so far from this thread along with some additions just for my sake to think it all the way through...

Redemption Type-3 Prototype Rule Set

Each of your three unique decks must contain:
4 Good Characters
4 Good Enhancements
4 Evil Characters
4 Evil Enhancements
4 Lost Souls (Excludes 2 and 3 Liner Lost Souls)
4 Others (Includes Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, Covenants, Curses, and the Hopper Lost Soul)
0 Dominants

Draw 2 cards per turn.
Rescue 3 Lost Souls to win.
Souls may not be placed into sites.
Best 2 of 3 with three different decks.
One hour to complete your match of up to 3 games.
In each match you may only play a deck in one game.
Between all decks you may only use one copy of each card.

So would you like to see this make an appearance with Three Lions events?

I would love to play this at a tournament!
It's the year of the Mighty men!

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2016, 10:25:24 PM »
0
It would take some testing to see if this next proposal is a good idea or not, but....

I think it might be a good idea to say that all the GC/GE have to share a brigade, and that all the EC/EE have to share a brigade.  That also helps to make the games "feel" more like the original intent of Redemption (IMO).  But it certainly would be limiting, so I'm not sure it's a good idea.  Just something that I think is worth testing.

Offline Legolas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Always willing to help! To God be the glory! Amen
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2016, 09:17:15 AM »
0
What about your start hand? Would you draw 8? 1/3 of your deck

Offline Ironisaac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Awake from the grave
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2016, 09:39:40 AM »
0
i would say 4 or 5
It's the year of the Mighty men!

Offline Legolas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Always willing to help! To God be the glory! Amen
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2016, 10:55:23 AM »
0
what about the extra cards, can you have up to four or does it have to be four exact?
And another thing to think about, maybe you should only be allowed to have non special ability lost souls? It balances the game more i think, and with out dragon raid if you can't rescue the nt and women lost soul your in the hose bag....
I think both unholy writ and holy grail should be banned, saying that if you have jepthah and holy grail, you can get rid of there whole defense, just like that, if they don't have anything to protect against it.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 10:59:00 AM by Legolas »

Offline Ironisaac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Awake from the grave
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2016, 11:20:06 AM »
0
what about the extra cards, can you have up to four or does it have to be four exact?
And another thing to think about, maybe you should only be allowed to have non special ability lost souls? It balances the game more i think, and with out dragon raid if you can't rescue the nt and women lost soul your in the hose bag....
I think both unholy writ and holy grail should be banned, saying that if you have jepthah and holy grail, you can get rid of there whole defense, just like that, if they don't have anything to protect against it.
hmm, yeah, those are all good points
It's the year of the Mighty men!

Offline wyatt_marcum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • NO, ITS A THREE LINER!!!!!
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2016, 01:15:00 PM »
0
what if sites were just all brigades instead of not being able to put souls in? that would let you use soul abilities such as the one that lets you place a facedown EC on your site.
これは現実の生活ですか。これはただのファンタジーですか。土地のスライドは、現実からの脱出でキャッチ。あなたの目を開きます。見て、空とを参照してください。私はちょうど貧しい少年、同情は要りませんので、私

Offline Legolas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Always willing to help! To God be the glory! Amen
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2016, 01:32:32 PM »
0
I just played 1 game (or three small ones, however you want to put it) here are some of my thoughts:

1) i do think it would be more fun and go a little more quickly without special ability lost souls. Then you don't have to take up a hero slot or an extra card slot with site access. It is also not fun then to have to deal with pergumum then, seeing that you probably won't have another site access card in your deck if you have dragon raid because your deck is only 26 cards.

2) Jepthah is really powerful, along with haman, he is really powerful against ot. There are some other cards though that aren't going to be fun to play against, so i don't know how we could change that but it is something to think about.

 3) I believe instead of 4 extra cards you should have to have three. Part so you don't have to worry about getting the fourth in and second is then you can buy one pack of fifty card sleeves and sleeve two complete decks instead of 1 complete deck.

4) its a great idea though!

I belive to exile hero cards that ignore would be a smart idea
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 01:35:38 PM by Legolas »

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Playtester, Tournament Host, Three Lions Gaming Owner
  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2016, 10:44:02 PM »
0
I updated the post above with proposed rules including limiting lost souls to those without special abilities only and an opening hand of 5 cards. I think the rest of the difficulties will be addressed mainly by the fact that you may only use one copy of each card in all of your set of three decks and that you can only play each deck once per match. Thoughts on that?

Also to address the total number of cards; the original proposal was only 24 cards, not 26. With your idea in mind though I put a 5th card in the other category so that the total deck would be 25 and give you one more slot to fill. Thought about making the last slot 1 Dominant. I am pretty sure what most would choose, but might be interesting to give one other option.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 10:48:18 PM by uthminister [BR] »

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #40 on: April 09, 2016, 10:48:32 PM »
0
2) Jepthah is really powerful, along with haman, he is really powerful against ot. There are some other cards though that aren't going to be fun to play against, so i don't know how we could change that but it is something to think about.

If the hand limit is 8 (it might just be the same as the starting hand: 5), but there won't be a ton of need to just lay characters down.  So yes Jepthah and Holy Grail can wipe out my entire defense, but I'm probably only going to lay them down to block with them out of hand, so it would take 3 turns by then, and if I haven't blocked you those turns the game is over anyways.  Same with the Heroes.  I'd have to play this a few times to be sure, but I don't see that as much of an issue!

Offline Legolas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Always willing to help! To God be the glory! Amen
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2016, 09:55:54 AM »
0
Thanks for your input Dayne, I think then that the hand size limit should be 8 instead of five.
If there is a dominant, I would personally include divination, and jepthah along with burial, there game over they can't win that match....
I think one dominant is still going to be too powerful, but I might have to try it and test it.

Another thing: what are we going to count DAE as? Good, evil, others? If they are others then you have more enhancements than just 8
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 10:17:15 AM by Legolas »

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2016, 08:46:25 PM »
0
What about your start hand? Would you draw 8? 1/3 of your deck
I forgot to say that when we played we used a starting hand of 4 cards each, and it worked well.  There were times where we started out with a combination of GC/GE or EC/EE, but often we only had one of each of those pairs and had to wait for the other part.  Again this is similar to the feel at the start of a regular Redemption game where sometimes you have to wait to get what you want.

I like the idea of saying all sites are all colors, but I'd have to look through them to see if that would create any other ruling problems.

I like the idea of adding a 5th "other" card so that decks are 25 cards each and you can sleeve 2 in a pack of sleeves.

I don't like the idea of allowing even 1 dominant.  They are just too powerful in this format in my opinion.  The most likely outcome is that one player includes SoG in one of their decks (and probably wins that game).  The other player has SoG in one of their decks (and probably wins that game).  And suddenly your "best of 3" really turns into a "best of the 1 game that doesn't have SoG", which feels less fair in a format like this.

As for DAE, I think that you would just put them in either your GE slots or your EE slots.  That keeps the total number of enhancements even.

P.S.  With all the "4s" involved in this version of the game, I would lean toward calling this "Type 4" :)

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Playtester, Tournament Host, Three Lions Gaming Owner
  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2016, 09:57:10 PM »
0
I called it type 3 because you would have three decks, play a best of three match, and you would win when you rescued three souls...and it is the next number in types we already have.

I would agree that having even one dominant may not be a good idea. I will remove that from the above rules and just add another "other" card.

I will also adjust the hand limit down to 4. Basically a bunch of the limits are halved in this format.

Online Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9831
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2016, 10:25:01 PM »
+1
I'd like to see the "extra" 5 cards be anything except Dominants but not allow more than 1 additional Hero, EC, GE or EE. Requiring even 4 or 5 Artifact/Fortress/Covenat/Curse/Site waters down the deck.

Also, Lost Souls with SAs should be allowed.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2016, 01:23:38 AM »
0
I called it type 3 because you would have three decks, play a best of three match, and you would win when you rescued three souls...and it is the next number in types we already have.
This also makes sense.  Although I thought that there had already been a Type 3 proposed before that had been played a bit by people and had some traction within the community.  I could go either way.

I agree with Gabe that allowing SA LSs is a good thing.  People would only be allowed to use the Female LS in 1 of their 3 decks, and only use the NT-only in 1 of their 3 decks.  And people could of course include female and NT heroes in their decks to be prepared anyway.  So I don't see that as a problem.

I disagree with Gabe (if I'm understanding him correctly) that the "other" cards should be able to include additional GC/GE/EC/EE.  I don't think it "waters down" a small deck to have 1 fortress, 1 site, 2 artifacts, and 1 Hopper LS (or some other combination).  And it maintains the ability to keep decks relatively balanced between offense and defense.  If I used my 4-5 "other" cards to be all GC/GE I would significantly shift my deck to offense heavy.  And the opposite is also true.  I really enjoyed the tough process of having to pick the very best 4 characters and enhancements to use, and then support them with just a few other cards as well.  If 5 is too many, then going back down to 4 would be OK.  But adding more GC/GE/EC/EE seems like a bad idea.

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Playtester, Tournament Host, Three Lions Gaming Owner
  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2016, 11:02:40 AM »
+1
I am fine with Special Ability Lost Souls being legal. With the reasoning Prof offered, why would we not go ahead and allow 2 and 3 Liner as well? A Liner could only appear once in the three decks so is that such a big deal?

Offline Xonathan

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2016, 11:05:35 AM »
0
I think it was my concern because of the use of burial but now that we've excluded Doms I'm sure it's fine
Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always.
1 Chronicles 16:11

Online Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9831
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2016, 11:47:03 AM »
+1
I disagree with Gabe (if I'm understanding him correctly) that the "other" cards should be able to include additional GC/GE/EC/EE.  I don't think it "waters down" a small deck to have 1 fortress, 1 site, 2 artifacts, and 1 Hopper LS (or some other combination).  And it maintains the ability to keep decks relatively balanced between offense and defense.  If I used my 4-5 "other" cards to be all GC/GE I would significantly shift my deck to offense heavy

I believe we you misunderstood me because I wasn't entirely clear.

I'm suggesting that in the 4 (or 5) additional cards we have the option to add no more than 1 additional Hero, 1 additional GE, 1 additional EC and/or 1 additional EE. That still keeps things fairly balanced as I could never have more than 5 of any of those in my deck.

I'd also suggest that all dual alignment cards like Abijam (or the ones coming out this year) and Philosophy must be included as part of the 5 additional cards and take up both your option for every card type it represents.

Example: I choose Abijam as one of my 5 extras. He uses up my option for both a Hero and an EC so my other 4 extras cannot be either of those card types.

Then dual alignment cards should not be allowed as a choice for any of your main 4 Hero, EC, EE or GE cards because they create a way to unbalance your deck heavily in favor of either offense or defense.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • East Central Region
Re: A Smaller Game
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2016, 08:48:59 PM »
0
I'm suggesting that in the 4 (or 5) additional cards we have the option to add no more than 1 additional Hero, 1 additional GE, 1 additional EC and/or 1 additional EE. That still keeps things fairly balanced as I could never have more than 5 of any of those in my deck.
Thanks for explaining.  I do like this idea better.  IF we allow any of the "other" cards to be GC/GE/EC/EE, then I certainly think that limiting it to 1 each is a good idea.  I still think I prefer limiting those categories to 4 each and having the "other" cards truly be "other" types of cards.  But I would be OK with this idea as well.

I'd also suggest that all dual alignment cards like Abijam (or the ones coming out this year) and Philosophy must be included as part of the 5 additional cards and take up both your option for every card type it represents.
IF we allow other GC/GE/EC/EE in the "other" cards, then I completely agree with Gabe that this is the way to handle dual-alignment cards.