Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Topic started by: SEB on May 07, 2018, 08:40:18 AM
-
I know there has been some discussion on set rotations. Here is some food for thought:
I would really to see Redemption have two card "pools." We would call one "Eternal" and the other "Temporal."
Eternal: Any card that has/will be printed, with an "Eternal Banned List" in place (of course errata text apply).
Temporal: Legal cards are those printed from the last four expansions and the most recent starter decks, with a "Temporal Banned List" in place (of course errata text apply).
Then when tournament hosts advertise tournaments, they can simply say that this is an Eternal Tournament or Temporal.
Of if that is too much to manage, then just add a new type: Type 3. Type 3 is the rotation format.
I would STRONGLY encourage the elders not to drop T1 & T2 as they currently are, as players' expectation are to use every card, BUT with so many sets, it is a necessary action to make a rotation format. This allows new players entrance to a game that has been printed for so many years. A rotation format will be a great tool to help new players get interested in the game.
-
I like this idea, if Eternal is equally supported and tested for. I think Temporal might need to be a set or two bigger however, to support variety in deck building.
-
I like this idea, if Eternal is equally supported and tested for. I think Temporal might need to be a set or two bigger however, to support variety in deck building.
Ya, would definitely need to test play some, but past experience shows that the format that is rotating should be fairly small (about 500-1000 cards in the pool). So, 4 sets may be too small for sure! I can see 5 being a good number.
If you wanted you could also rotate an old expansion too. This could help spice up tournament meta:
2018 Temporal Season = Last Fall of Man; Revelation of John; Cloud of Witness; & Persecuted Church, latest starter decks, and the "Women" expansion.
2019 Temporal Season = New Set; Last Fall of Man; Revelation of John; & Cloud of Witness; latest starter decks, and the "Warriors" expansion.
-
I will point out that while it could be adjusted, if a set rotation happens in Redemption it would (probably) line up with the card facings (at first).
So the "temporal" cards would be I/J, RoA tin #26, EC, PC, CoW, RoJ, FoM, Legacy Rares & promos released during that time period.
So the "eternal" cards would obviously include: Limited/Unlimited, Prophets, Women, Warriors, Apostles, Patriarchs, Kings, Angel Wars, Priests, Faith of our Fathers, Rock of Ages, TxP, Disciples, older starter decks (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) & promos printed pre I/J.
I will say with the introduction to Legacy Rares, there could easily be more of those released and both of these sets would have a good card count to go with. The temporal would be very skewed towards clay and silver (maybe white as well), but the Legacy Rares would be the fix for that.
-
I will point out that while it could be adjusted, if a set rotation happens in Redemption it would (probably) line up with the card facings (at first).
So the "temporal" cards would be I/J, RoA tin #26, EC, PC, CoW, RoJ, FoM, Legacy Rares & promos released during that time period.
So the "eternal" cards would obviously include: Limited/Unlimited, Prophets, Women, Warriors, Apostles, Patriarchs, Kings, Angel Wars, Priests, Faith of our Fathers, Rock of Ages, TxP, Disciples, older starter decks (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) & promos printed pre I/J.
I will say with the introduction to Legacy Rares, there could easily be more of those released and both of these sets would have a good card count to go with. The temporal would be very skewed towards clay and silver (maybe white as well), but the Legacy Rares would be the fix for that.
I would hope LRs don't count as reprints as far as format legality is concerned.
-
I will point out that while it could be adjusted, if a set rotation happens in Redemption it would (probably) line up with the card facings (at first).
So the "temporal" cards would be I/J, RoA tin #26, EC, PC, CoW, RoJ, FoM, Legacy Rares & promos released during that time period.
So the "eternal" cards would obviously include: Limited/Unlimited, Prophets, Women, Warriors, Apostles, Patriarchs, Kings, Angel Wars, Priests, Faith of our Fathers, Rock of Ages, TxP, Disciples, older starter decks (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) & promos printed pre I/J.
I will say with the introduction to Legacy Rares, there could easily be more of those released and both of these sets would have a good card count to go with. The temporal would be very skewed towards clay and silver (maybe white as well), but the Legacy Rares would be the fix for that.
I would hope LRs don't count as reprints as far as format legality is concerned.
So you hope they are just cards for OCD collectors to get? If they aren't going to be considered cards that count towards a "new facing" set rotation, what is the point of them?
-
To be clear... the LR discussion is a matter of "If a legacy rare (reprint) is in a new set, would it be in the rotation set?"
If i understand this correctly, make it easy and clear. If the card is printed in that set (and it's not on the Temporal Band list) it is Temporal legal.
Also, im sure there could be a power imbalance at first between brigades, but that's because the game has never cared about what cards see each other in a temporal view (eternal vis-a-vis temporal formats). As the game progress, it would give the designers more "creative-space" to explore and it would balance itself out over time. I think it would be fun, and an exciting way to bring new people to the game
-
I will point out that while it could be adjusted, if a set rotation happens in Redemption it would (probably) line up with the card facings (at first).
So the "temporal" cards would be I/J, RoA tin #26, EC, PC, CoW, RoJ, FoM, Legacy Rares & promos released during that time period.
So the "eternal" cards would obviously include: Limited/Unlimited, Prophets, Women, Warriors, Apostles, Patriarchs, Kings, Angel Wars, Priests, Faith of our Fathers, Rock of Ages, TxP, Disciples, older starter decks (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) & promos printed pre I/J.
I will say with the introduction to Legacy Rares, there could easily be more of those released and both of these sets would have a good card count to go with. The temporal would be very skewed towards clay and silver (maybe white as well), but the Legacy Rares would be the fix for that.
I would hope LRs don't count as reprints as far as format legality is concerned.
So you hope they are just cards for OCD collectors to get? If they aren't going to be considered cards that count towards a "new facing" set rotation, what is the point of them?
Why did alt borders and full art cards exist (when alt borders weren't the norm)? Because they're cool, people collect them, and enjoy playing with "special" versions of cards. If you count LRs as format legality functional reprints, you vastly limit the pool of cards you can print LRs from. Just from this batch of LRs alone I would be quite disappointed to see Hopper and Wanderer legal in a post rotation world.
I know Redemption isn't other games and doesn't have to do things the same way, but MtG does something essentially the same as LRs (called Masterpieces) that are old reprints in updated, fancy form. These are purely cosmetic reprints for collectors and those who want to flair out their decks in older formats where the cards are already legal. They do not affect legality of the card in any MtG format. MtG is a big company that makes a lot of decisions based on how they affect sales (As a large business has to) and making these Masterpieces legal in more formats would quite a big incentive to buy more packs but they still decided against it since it's worse for the game.
-
Just from this batch of LRs alone I would be quite disappointed to see Hopper and Wanderer legal in a post rotation world.
Why?
-
Just from this batch of LRs alone I would be quite disappointed to see Hopper and Wanderer legal in a post rotation world.
Why?
Hopper because it's an extremely low opportunity cost speed card and Wanderer because it's pretty much mandatory to run in any competitive deck. Set rotation is supposed to reduce speed and remove auto-includes and each of these cards contradicts that.
-
I thought this article already stated that if Set Rotation ever becomes a thing that Legacy Rares would give them a head start to reprint cards they want to keep in the game.
http://landofredemption.com/?p=7560
If they want to reprint a certain old card they can just simply include it in the packs as if it were a new card in the set. They shouldn't be related to the LR program.
-
I thought this article already stated that if Set Rotation ever becomes a thing that Legacy Rares would give them a head start to reprint cards they want to keep in the game.
http://landofredemption.com/?p=7560
This is correct.
-
I thought this article already stated that if Set Rotation ever becomes a thing that Legacy Rares would give them a head start to reprint cards they want to keep in the game.
http://landofredemption.com/?p=7560
This is correct.
That doesn't mean that they wouldn't also be included in the “Legacy Set” so they are officially in the current rotation ;) (probably with standard art layout so they aren't special like LRs)
-
I thought this article already stated that if Set Rotation ever becomes a thing that Legacy Rares would give them a head start to reprint cards they want to keep in the game.
http://landofredemption.com/?p=7560
This is correct.
I'm curious why it was decided to go that route instead of mixing functional reprints in with the new cards. I feel like by combining them you either hamstring the LR program by limiting the LR candidate pool or you counteract the benefits of set rotation by reintroducing cards like Hopper.
-
Hopper has never been a card that has skewed the meta by any stretch of the imagination. Some players don't even feel it's worth running because it decreases the chances of being able to make the "who goes first" decision and it often proves worthless if the player tends to use Ends and Lawless on their own deck. While Wanderer is a LS that goes in nearly all my T1 decks, I have never felt it's a card that has been a game-changer (and its necessity has been lessened by the banning of Liner).
While we don't have a finalized list of what will or won't be considered for a Legacy Rare card, we know in general what kind of cards we will consider (and likewise what cards won't be considered).
-
we know in general what kind of cards we will consider
*Crosses fingers*
Warrior's Simeon, Warrior's Simeon, Warrior's Simeon :prayer: :prayer: :prayer:
-
Hopper has never been a card that has skewed the meta by any stretch of the imagination. Some players don't even feel it's worth running because it decreases the chances of being able to make the "who goes first" decision and it often proves worthless if the player tends to use Ends and Lawless on their own deck. While Wanderer is a LS that goes in nearly all my T1 decks, I have never felt it's a card that has been a game-changer (and its necessity has been lessened by the banning of Liner).
I personally have never played either of those cards in my T1 decks, and I don't plan on doing so this year. They just aren't that amazing IMO.
-
In addition to legacy rares, what about a yearly core set? It would require little development or playtesting for Cactus, so it would be a good way to earn money (for Redemption marketing ;) )
-
Hopper has never been a card that has skewed the meta by any stretch of the imagination. Some players don't even feel it's worth running because it decreases the chances of being able to make the "who goes first" decision and it often proves worthless if the player tends to use Ends and Lawless on their own deck. While Wanderer is a LS that goes in nearly all my T1 decks, I have never felt it's a card that has been a game-changer (and its necessity has been lessened by the banning of Liner).
While we don't have a finalized list of what will or won't be considered for a Legacy Rare card, we know in general what kind of cards we will consider (and likewise what cards won't be considered).
I agree they don't singlehandedly change the format and I agree that Hopper isn't an auto include anymore and I likely won't be running it at all. My concern is about it contributing to consistency creep in a post rotation world.
Wandered definitely isn't a game-changer or ban worthy, but it is a card I can't ever justify cutting. It's one less decision that has to be made when deck building.
I personally have never played either of those cards in my T1 decks, and I don't plan on doing so this year. They just aren't that amazing IMO.
Hopper I agree isn't good in this card pool but Wanderer is amazing. It's been an auto include for me and my playground even before O.T. souls were good and now it's even better.
-
I personally have never played either of those cards in my T1 decks, and I don't plan on doing so this year. They just aren't that amazing IMO.
Hopper I agree isn't good in this card pool but Wanderer is amazing. It's been an auto include for me and my playground even before O.T. souls were good and now it's even better.
Really? I'd say Hopper is much better than wanderer, especially now that the NT "when placed in territory" souls are no longer meta. That was the only reason i liked wanderer, so I could get additional uses out of an Open Hand or Destruction soul.
-
I personally have never played either of those cards in my T1 decks, and I don't plan on doing so this year. They just aren't that amazing IMO.
Hopper I agree isn't good in this card pool but Wanderer is amazing. It's been an auto include for me and my playground even before O.T. souls were good and now it's even better.
Really? I'd say Hopper is much better than wanderer, especially now that the NT "when placed in territory" souls are no longer meta. That was the only reason i liked wanderer, so I could get additional uses out of an Open Hand or Destruction soul.
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
-
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
(https://i.imgflip.com/29tfsc.jpg)
-
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
(https://i.imgflip.com/29tfsc.jpg)
Covet is fantastic.
Do you know why Covet is fantastic? Because it steals your opponent's Dull.
-
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
(https://i.imgflip.com/29tfsc.jpg)
Covet is fantastic.
Do you know why Covet is fantastic? Because it steals your opponent's Dull.
Yep! Or wander their Dull away and covet their imitate and imitate their lawless every turn. I may get proven wrong once I start actually playing but just from looking at the new cards I don't see how straight O.T. souls is anything but the best soul lineup.
-
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
(https://i.imgflip.com/29tfsc.jpg)
Covet is fantastic.
Do you know why Covet is fantastic? Because it steals your opponent's Dull.
Yep! Or wander their Dull away and covet their imitate and imitate their lawless every turn. I may get proven wrong once I start actually playing but just from looking at the new cards I don't see how straight O.T. souls is anything but the best soul lineup.
What if they are playing all OT, like you?
Ultimately, my problem is that the OT souls only work extremely well with other OT souls. I would prefer to splash my souls with both OT an NT for a truly formidable line up, but it seems that they have done a good job this year of making sure OT and NT souls stay separate.
-
Would you believe me if I told you that is exactly the kind of tension we were hoping for? ;D ;D ;D
-
"when placed in territory" NT souls are better than anything in FoM imo.
(https://i.imgflip.com/29tfsc.jpg)
Covet is fantastic.
Do you know why Covet is fantastic? Because it steals your opponent's Dull.
Yep! Or wander their Dull away and covet their imitate and imitate their lawless every turn. I may get proven wrong once I start actually playing but just from looking at the new cards I don't see how straight O.T. souls is anything but the best soul lineup.
What if they are playing all OT, like you?
Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.
I think the existence of blind and the O.T. soul unity cards swings it in the favor of O.T. souls. In an O.T. or N.T. mirror it's equal, but against each other O.T. souls counter N.T. souls. There may be some perfect combination of both that works really well and keeps the tension high but barring that I think everyone will be forced to play O.T.
-
Would you believe me if I told you that is exactly the kind of tension we were hoping for? ;D ;D ;D
Yes
And I don't mind it. Because I'm right. ;D
Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.
I guess it ultimately comes down to wether you want both players activating and benefitting off all the souls on the table, or no one benefiting off any souls on the table. I prefer the former, so I'll be running NT, at least until I have seen the benefit of no one getting to use their souls. ;)
-
Covet whatever their most useful soul left in their deck is so probably prosperity, darkness, or punisher if they have it and it's relevant to one of you. Maybe even covet their covet if you have something left in your deck you don't want them to take.
I guess it ultimately comes down to wether you want both players activating and benefitting off all the souls on the table, or no one benefiting off any souls on the table. I prefer the former, so I'll be running NT, at least until I have seen the benefit of no one getting to use their souls. ;)
The one problem with that is that when you go up against an O.T. soul player, not only will your souls not be doing anything, your opponent's souls will be doing something. You either get equal ground or low ground, meanwhile the O.T. player either gets equal ground or high ground.
-
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.
-
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.
N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.
-
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.
I feel this is a pretty fair assessment.
I'm also fairly certain there's going to be some very strong LS lineups that include both OT and NT. 8)
-
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.
N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.
Another issue with both of our arguments is that the souls aren't even out yet, so it's not like we have super concrete data to base this off of. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, at least until the souls have seen plenty of play so we can truly see what is better. I will say though, I really like vindicated and prosperity, and may end up running those this year.
Edit: i missed that you brought up the Blind soul. Are you thinking about playing that? that's another one i just don't see a lot of value in, especially if you are playing covet. You want to steal my NT soul, just to negate it? Doesn't seem that good imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
However, you will have to run what I view to be inferior souls to fully utilize Covet's Unity. It guess running NT is more high risk/high reward, compared to the OT souls, which are safer, but less powerful imo.
N.T. souls debatably do more proactively in a vacuum but what matters is your soul's performance relative to your opponent's souls for each individual game.
Another issue with both of our arguments is that the souls aren't even out yet, so it's not like we have super concrete data to base this off of. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, at least until the souls have seen plenty of play so we can truly see what is better. I will say though, I really like vindicated and prosperity, and may end up running those this year.
Edit: i missed that you brought up the Blind soul. Are you thinking about playing that? that's another one i just don't see a lot of value in, especially if you are playing covet. You want to steal my NT soul, just to negate it? Doesn't seem that good imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're completely right about the lack of data, but I do enjoy a good argument discussion ;D
I do intend to run Blind, and the thought process is that if running a bunch of N.T. souls is mainstream, it's huge value. The only reason people wouldn't keep running a bunch of N.T. souls is if Blind pushes them out of the meta. If Blind is prevalent enough to push them out of the meta, it means we have a warped format scenario and are running counters to cards that aren't actually played anymore because running them is required to keep those cards from coming back. In that scenario, either my opponent is part of the warp and running Blind as well so we're even or my opponent is hoping people have started to take Blind out of their decks and is running N.T. souls, in which case I get my value. The only way Blind is bad is if everyone is running O.T. and some people start taking out Blind but still running O.T. because they're scared of Blind. If that behavior becomes widespread though, N.T. souls come back and Blind is good again.
TL;DR: The majority of scenarios either put Blind on equal footing or superior footing with my opponent so it's good.
-
I love that “Humble” makes the grade whether we’re talking O.T. or N.T. We need a couple more dual testament souls at some point.
We’ve thought through rotation and have a pretty good idea that we don’t want CBN battle winning removal. That means we probably won’t see a Bravery of David or Samuel’s Edict LR. Probably also won’t ever see AUtO.
Decisions are being made now and going forward with a possible rotation in mind. I wish we could have done better at that the past few years. But we will be prepared if the time comes to implement a rotation format.
-
That means we probably won’t see a Bravery of David or Samuel’s Edict LR. Probably also won’t ever see AUtO.
To clarify, we won't see those cards reprinted as they are now...they could be reprinted with different (read: more balanced) abilities. 8)
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
this is why I suggested two formats, but the value of a rotation format is it helps new players. The point of entry for a rotation format isnt as steep, BUT the "Eternal" format needs to be healthy so that once they get used to the game, they can start trading for the older cards and build more dynamic decks with a larger card pool.
I guess it's a similar issue with "banned" cards. As the game continues to add cards to the pool, the need for a rotation format will become greater and greater.
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Isn’t this, like the 9th time you’ve threatened to quit the game over new changes?
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
So, the 20 year old battle that CCG/TCG games struggle with is a two part querry: how to help new players enter a game that has 20 years worth of baggage (not a bad thing, but things like expansions, rule changes, visual card changes, etc etc) and how to help current players stay invested.
I know I have been gone for quite a bit, which perhaps, gives me a more unique perspective than others who travel these forums; but I think the Elders have done a fabulous job with part 2 of the above. Given their solid track record over the last few years, I want to extend to them a level of trust. Instead of bulking at a rotation format, I attempted to aid in their thought process and discussion.
Also, speaking from a "new player" prospective (let's face it after this many years, im basically new), a rotation format is very attractive. I dont have to learn as many cards to get to a competitive level, friends and family who I want to introduce to the game may have an easier point of entry, and it will be awesome to see how the design team makes new cards (it should push them to a new level) to compensate for two formats.
Ill say this again: I really hope there is an additional format introduced that rotates sets, and I hope there is the current T1 & T2.
@Red, you voiced an opposition, which I am glad you did. Could you help me understand your frustration and list some of your reasons why you are against a rotating format?
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.
That is a perfectly fair point, but the majority of players are playing standard and move to Modern/Legacy/Type1
-
Reasons I would be against a Rotating Format as primary tournament format for SEB:
1. Limits Diversity
Lower Card Pool obviously means fewer viable decks. If the format rotated at I/J forward as of post-nationals, Teal would hardly be a brigade, as well as all themes pre-Early Church lose their teeth.
2. Hurts Long-Time Players
I have a gigantic collection. I also like to experiment with various older cards (I placed 5th in T2-2P at Nationals using 4x Provisions and 4x Obedience of Noah, which are 13 and 17 year old cards respectively). A set rotating format as main format would stifle creativity on a grand-scale. I will concede that rotation does assist small-scale creativity.
3. New Players and Cheap Cards
I live in a region that survives off of younger players using cheaper donated cards to build decks. Many of these players eventually can get expansion cards to build with, but that is usually 2ish years into playing. Making a rotation format the primary format would cripple this group, which I am not in favor of.
How I could get behind an implementation of Set Rotation:
1. Make it the Non-Primary Format for first two-three years of existence
2. T2 remains non-rotating
3.T1 Eternal continues to exist and be promoted with the support of ban and errata lists.
4. Make the cardpool start at Cloud of Witnesses or Fall of Man to encourage brigade diversity.
5. Ensure that themes have card advantage and consistency in sets going forward to encourage a game of redemption concluding before midnight
-
Reasons I would be against a Rotating Format as primary tournament format for SEB:
1. Limits Diversity
Lower Card Pool obviously means fewer viable decks. If the format rotated at I/J forward as of post-nationals, Teal would hardly be a brigade, as well as all themes pre-Early Church lose their teeth.
2. Hurts Long-Time Players
I have a gigantic collection. I also like to experiment with various older cards (I placed 5th in T2-2P at Nationals using 4x Provisions and 4x Obedience of Noah, which are 13 and 17 year old cards respectively). A set rotating format as main format would stifle creativity on a grand-scale. I will concede that rotation does assist small-scale creativity.
3. New Players and Cheap Cards
I live in a region that survives off of younger players using cheaper donated cards to build decks. Many of these players eventually can get expansion cards to build with, but that is usually 2ish years into playing. Making a rotation format the primary format would cripple this group, which I am not in favor of.
How I could get behind an implementation of Set Rotation:
1. Make it the Non-Primary Format for first two-three years of existence
2. T2 remains non-rotating
3.T1 Eternal continues to exist and be promoted with the support of ban and errata lists.
4. Make the cardpool start at Cloud of Witnesses or Fall of Man to encourage brigade diversity.
5. Ensure that themes have card advantage and consistency in sets going forward to encourage a game of redemption concluding before midnight
Thanks, Red! These are great points, and overall I agree with you. I am an eternal player by nature, but I have to recognize that I am in a minority compared to the "masses."
1. I dont know that this would be good, if it's a "non-existant" format no one will play it, which will make the designers not take it into account, and tournament organizers wont have reason to include it when it goes "live."
2. yup!
3. yup!
4. This goes with #1. I would rather the format start out as healthy as we can make it to give it a fighting chance of survival
5. yup!
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.
Legacy and Modern may be better than standard but is Vintage? Current Redemption is Vintage, not Modern. Someday Redemption hopefully will have a large enough card pool for a format like Modern to exist but unfortunately right now our choices are pretty much just Vintage or Standard.
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.
That was poorly worded on my part, since his argument against rotation appeared to be simply that it made Redemption similar to other card games I was attempting to ask if, assuming he acknowledged there was a tradeoff between the health of the competitive scene and the uniqueness of the game, he would choose to keep the uniqueness. This could be set rotation, bans, or anything else that Redemption has tried to stay away from that other games do often.
-
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Lowering the playable card pool would not make Redemption a better game. I personally find Legacy and Modern to be better MtG formats than Standard.
Legacy and Modern may be better than standard but is Vintage? Current Redemption is Vintage, not Modern. Someday Redemption hopefully will have a large enough card pool for a format like Modern to exist but unfortunately right now our choices are pretty much just Vintage or Standard.
If the main format was a rotation format, I most likely would hang up my hat. I don't want to see Redemption become like every other main CCG.
Would you want Redemption to sacrifice being a better game just so it can retain an arbitrary sense of uniqueness?
Not everyone believes set rotation would make Redemption a better game therefore to them, there is no sacrifice.
That was poorly worded on my part, since his argument against rotation appeared to be simply that it made Redemption similar to other card games I was attempting to ask if, assuming he acknowledged there was a tradeoff between the health of the competitive scene and the uniqueness of the game, he would choose to keep the uniqueness. This could be set rotation, bans, or anything else that Redemption has tried to stay away from that other games do often.
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.
-
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.
It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.
-
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.
It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.
I can see the argument, I just want to play Vintage (At Nationals) forever. If I can do that, I reckon I'll be good.
-
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.
It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.
I can see the argument, I just want to play Vintage (At Nationals) forever. If I can do that, I reckon I'll be good.
Would you be good if Vintage and Standard were official tournament formats and hosts could pick whatever their playground wanted? I'd assume in this world Vintage T1 and Standard T1 are both categories offered at Nats.
-
Redemption is not Vintage. Also, Vintage is not a bad format.
It's the equivalent in that it allows every set in the game's history and strives to never have a real ban list. Vintage may not be a bad format but I believe most people would tell you they prefer Modern even if it weren't for the restrictive cost factor of Vintage. Card designers get better as they get more experience and develop more clear visions for the best way to play the game and new formats, whether they be rotating like Standard or static but limited by a certain date of sets like Modern. Maybe the best route for Redemption is to be more like Modern and just set the cutoff at I/J like planned and never rotate again after that, maybe the best route is standard as has received so much discussion lately, but I really can't see that the best route for Redemption is to stay Vintage forever.
I can see the argument, I just want to play Vintage (At Nationals) forever. If I can do that, I reckon I'll be good.
Would you be good if Vintage and Standard were official tournament formats and hosts could pick whatever their playground wanted? I'd assume in this world Vintage T1 and Standard T1 are both categories offered at Nats.
If that was how it would be, I personally wouldn't mind.
-
Also, speaking from a "new player" prospective (let's face it after this many years, im basically new), a rotation format is very attractive. I dont have to learn as many cards to get to a competitive level,
Serious questions, what are you considering older cards that could be rotated out? How many cards in those sets actually see play at a competitive level?
friends and family who I want to introduce to the game may have an easier point of entry,
Why is the entry point easier? Are you saying when you introduce friends and family to the game that you expect them to want/need complete sets of older basically unplayable (e.g., Unlimited and Apostles) packs? What point would that serve?
Does anyone really believe someone like Red would have a competitive advantage over a newer player because he has access to cards like Doeg or Angel Food?
-
When set rotation first came out, I was completely opposed to it. Because the line of thinking behind this is: well all those old cards that you spent thousands of dollars on, and have over 50,000 of, and give away to your new players; well those don't matter anymore! Sorry, you have to have new cards or you can't play. This is not helpful for anyone, especially the players who have been playing a very long period of time and are trying to get new YOUNG players into the game.
But if we are talking about having the rotation set up two separate categories, I'm totally fine with it! I will say, that I'm almost inclined to do that, for a few different reasons. The first being that (if feel) most of the "competitive" players will want to play with the new cards, so that would allow younger players to have a chance to win cards when they normally wouldn't. Also, due to the relative costs for the cards, it would be very easy for a new player to have a competitive deck simply given to them for a "legacy" type tournament. While you obviously have to worry about old wording for new players, the fact that they (could) get free cards and have a chance to win would probably mitigate that for the most part.
Also, for those worried about not having "fair play" between brigades: that is what the Legacy Rares are for! If set rotation is really looking like it is going to become "a thing," then the Elders simply need to crank up the amount of Legacy Rares included in sets, and focus on the brigades that need the most help (looking at Teal specifically). I don't see any reason why "balanced" and "quality" cards can't be part of both sets, as this game does have limited resources compared to others.
All in all, I think IF this idea comes into play, it will be for the better of everyone. Collectors won't lose out on the money they spent because all the cards they have can still be played (just maybe not all together). New players can decide which category they get involved in, with money being the main deciding factor. If the "legacy" gets a lot of attention, it will actually bring back some relevance to the older cards too.
Honestly, if this the direction we are heading, it is really a win-win for everyone involved. We just need to look at it slightly differently, and get past the "I don't like change" argument (I can say that, I'm currently a minister at a Southern Baptist Church!).
-
Also, speaking from a "new player" prospective (let's face it after this many years, im basically new), a rotation format is very attractive. I dont have to learn as many cards to get to a competitive level,
Serious questions, what are you considering older cards that could be rotated out? How many cards in those sets actually see play at a competitive level?
friends and family who I want to introduce to the game may have an easier point of entry,
Why is the entry point easier? Are you saying when you introduce friends and family to the game that you expect them to want/need complete sets of older basically unplayable (e.g., Unlimited and Apostles) packs? What point would that serve?
Does anyone really believe someone like Red would have a competitive advantage over a newer player because he has access to cards like Doeg or Angel Food?
With the development of the new cards, most have simply "out-classed" their older counterpart. So, yes the unlimited packs arent doing much in this conversation, but what about in 5 more years of expansion like we have had for the last five years. If the card designers keep doing their job properly, the game should build out with new strategies and not up on old cards (to be clear this is a pat on the back not a slap in the face).
What I mean by "easier entry point" is the player is not bombarded by a "N" number of expansions; they can focus on a few, get familiar with the game and gradually learn about the older sets and eternal formats. It's great for marketing. It's great for the card designers because they can focus on continuity within a few sets, knowing that the eternal format is a larger beast that doesnt move so fast.
Finally, with the advent of "phone games" the average consumer is used to rotations to keep things "fresh." Adaptation to the market, while keeping the game's core in tact, is only a positive thing, I would imagine
-
Also, speaking from a "new player" prospective (let's face it after this many years, im basically new), a rotation format is very attractive. I dont have to learn as many cards to get to a competitive level,
Serious questions, what are you considering older cards that could be rotated out? How many cards in those sets actually see play at a competitive level?
friends and family who I want to introduce to the game may have an easier point of entry,
Why is the entry point easier? Are you saying when you introduce friends and family to the game that you expect them to want/need complete sets of older basically unplayable (e.g., Unlimited and Apostles) packs? What point would that serve?
Does anyone really believe someone like Red would have a competitive advantage over a newer player because he has access to cards like Doeg or Angel Food?
With the development of the new cards, most have simply "out-classed" their older counterpart.
Which is precisely the opposite issue that MtG faced early on which was the initial force behind rotation in that game.
So, yes the unlimited packs arent doing much in this conversation, but what about in 5 more years of expansion like we have had for the last five years.
The last five sets (Disciples, TEC, TPC, CoW, RoJ) have had < 700 cards in them. They are also horribly unbalanced brigade-wise.
What I mean by "easier entry point" is the player is not bombarded by a "N" number of expansions; they can focus on a few, get familiar with the game and gradually learn about the older sets and eternal formats. It's great for marketing. It's great for the card designers because they can focus on continuity within a few sets, knowing that the eternal format is a larger beast that doesnt move so fast.
MtG has few issues marketing itself or getting new players involved in the game. The MtG Standard format has ~1500 legal cards. For Redemption a cut off for a similar number of cards would put us back to Angel Wars. Is this where you feel the cut off should be? If not, I still do not understand your "new player barrier of entry" concern.
-
Which is precisely the opposite issue that MtG faced early on which was the initial force behind rotation in that game.
There was a lot of quotes within quotes there. To what point did you feel that MtG had an "opposite" issue? thanks for the clarification
-
So, yes the unlimited packs arent doing much in this conversation, but what about in 5 more years of expansion like we have had for the last five years.
The last five sets (Disciples, TEC, TPC, CoW, RoJ) have had < 700 cards in them. They are also horribly unbalanced brigade-wise.
I expect that there is "unbalance" because there was not consideration for rotation. aka why balance Teal because every printed card is available. This would need time to get smoothed out.
MtG has few issues marketing itself or getting new players involved in the game. The MtG Standard format has ~1500 legal cards. For Redemption a cut off for a similar number of cards would put us back to Angel Wars. Is this where you feel the cut off should be? If not, I still do not understand your "new player barrier of entry" concern.
1a) MtG is currently having marketing issues because of phone games. They specifically made a format for phones: The Arena. It's even more limiting than standard.
1b) could one make the argument that the Standard rotation is a tool to help bring new players to MtG? I would say it is
2) MtG's 1500 standard legal cards is not exactly "fair" because they have many more formats to consider and print for then Redemption does.
-
Which is precisely the opposite issue that MtG faced early on which was the initial force behind rotation in that game.
There was a lot of quotes within quotes there. To what point did you feel that MtG had an "opposite" issue? thanks for the clarification
MtG was initially pushed towards rotation because there were a set of early cards that were horribly OP (looking at you, Black Lotus). Because they were soooooo good, obtaining them made competitive difference and they became very expensive. That definitely does create a barrier for new players entering the game. Redemption does *not* have that issue.
As you noted most older Redemption cards are "out-classed" by the newer sets. There or very few cards (I am tempted to say *no* cards now that the Liners are banned) that a new player would be required to have from early sets to be competitive. Heck, there are probably only a few dozen or so prior to Priests that see any play and most of those are given out as filler in the new packs.
I expect that there is "unbalance" because there was not consideration for rotation. aka why balance Teal because every printed card is available. This would need time to get smoothed out.
So do you think that rotation shouldn't be considered until this issue can be smoothed out?
After all of this, I still do not understand why you feel that the existing system throws up a barrier for new players to get started.
-
The MtG Standard format has ~1500 legal cards. For Redemption a cut off for a similar number of cards would put us back to Angel Wars.
Only a small fraction of those 1500 cards are designed to be playable though, the rest are designed for draft.
-
The MtG Standard format has ~1500 legal cards. For Redemption a cut off for a similar number of cards would put us back to Angel Wars.
Only a small fraction of those 1500 cards are designed to be playable though, the rest are designed for draft.
How many of the 1500 Redemption cards are "playable" though?
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that having 1500 legal cards at a time does not appear to cause any impediment to getting new players into the game.
-
Which is precisely the opposite issue that MtG faced early on which was the initial force behind rotation in that game.
There was a lot of quotes within quotes there. To what point did you feel that MtG had an "opposite" issue? thanks for the clarification
MtG was initially pushed towards rotation because there were a set of early cards that were horribly OP (looking at you, Black Lotus). Because they were soooooo good, obtaining them made competitive difference and they became very expensive. That definitely does create a barrier for new players entering the game. Redemption does *not* have that issue.
As you noted most older Redemption cards are "out-classed" by the newer sets. There or very few cards (I am tempted to say *no* cards now that the Liners are banned) that a new player would be required to have from early sets to be competitive. Heck, there are probably only a few dozen or so prior to Priests that see any play and most of those are given out as filler in the new packs.
Yes the Power 9 does eventually get over powered, but it wasnt psycho crazy in '95 (which is when MtG announced Standard), and Standard was 2 Mtg Expansion + the core, that is a little more than 700 cards. As the game developed and new formats introduced, standard slowly became bigger and bigger.
I think a rotating format would be a healthy tool for Redemption, but the "eternal" format needs to be alive and well too.
-
So do you think that rotation shouldn't be considered until this issue can be smoothed out?
The point of a rotating set is to limit the deck choices for the players. The initial beginning may be a little awkward but If you get a decent enough starting point, I think it would be fine (this of course needs to be tested thoroughly) even if there is some "unbalance" at first. I guess if you never start it will never be balanced?
After all of this, I still do not understand why you feel that the existing system throws up a barrier for new players to get started.
Maybe I am playing football with a golf club..., but my experience is that people can digest more when something of large amount of data (even if it's data they dont need) is in smaller chunks. You know that new players dont need to know old card from old sets, but they dont.
Maybe this will help: I didnt learn to ride a bike with training wheels, I hopped on and went down a big hill, but most people use training wheels. Do they technically need them? Nope, but it sure helped bike companies move product.
-
I hope at the very least a set rotation is a few years away and isn't rushed into existence.
Some things to consider before it takes place:
1. Color Balance and variety
As has been pointed out, the last few sets have not had a good balance between the brigades. With a few more sets, this can probably be smoothed out.
2. Cost to players
I know that on the surface, it seems like cutting out all the old expansions should be great for reducing the cost to get into and be competitive quickly. I believe this to be false. Most of the powerful cards from old sets are easily available, and not expensive. The prohibitively expensive cards (three woes, second coming, shipwreck) are all from sets that will not be rotating. Just taking Second Coming as an example, can you imagine what the price of that would be if New Jerusalem rotated out? What do new or budget players have as an option then? And yes, New Jerusalem could be a future Legacy Rare. And I was excited about the use of Legacy Rares as a method of keeping old cards in the card pool until it was revealed that ONLY the reprints would be legal for play and not the originals! So if the current method of printing Legacy Rares is kept, New Jerusalem will be even more rare than Second Coming as there will only be 1 in about 4 boxes. I don't really like the idea of needing to buy a new version of a card I already have bought to be able to use it, so hopefully this is reconsidered or the Legacy card system is changed drastically.
3. Old Time Players (semi-retired)
I guess it is a bit tied to cost but separate enough to make a different point. There is another difficulty, at least for some players in my playgroup. We have several old players that do not buy new cards, an just play with the old stuff, or maybe what they can get in the occasional draft. While this definitely makes them less competitive, they still enjoy coming, and a set rotation would make it impossible for them to play.
-
The MtG Standard format has ~1500 legal cards. For Redemption a cut off for a similar number of cards would put us back to Angel Wars.
Only a small fraction of those 1500 cards are designed to be playable though, the rest are designed for draft.
How many of the 1500 Redemption cards are "playable" though?
I don't think there's been fluff cards since Priests, every card in Redemption is designed to be competitive, right?
-
I will play devil's advocate here.
I am fully a proponent for set rotation. I personally think the game either needs to have a significant number of sets rotated out or the game needs to go in a 2.0 direction.
That said... the Redemption community is very small. Nationals every year get somewhere between 70-150ish people every year. If we split the game into "standard" and "modern" for both Type I and Type II... I don't think the game will survive that. The community is just too small to warrant having 4 separate constructed competitive game types.
To put this in prospective MTG has Standard, Modern and Legacy for constructed competitive game types. Their community is quite a bit larger... much larger. Players in MTG are very divided on what game types they participate in and most only play one game type.
-
Double post! This is two separate ideas so I figured it warranted a separate post.
Something to remember with Set Rotation and 2.0 ideas is that say we did pick the last 5 sets to be the start of the new "standard". The packaging for the last 5 sets has been "reflections" style packing where packs have 2-4 new cards and 10+ old cards.
If we implement set rotation many players will be confused and upset as to why their packs literally only contain 4 cards they can use for the new format.
To respond to another comment if we did start standard after the past 5 sets the brigade discrepancy can easily be fixed. The game would just need to have a new "core" aka "blue pack" set released that would rebalance the set for the new "standard" game type. Legacy Rares is not the fix to this problem. Those are chase reprint cards not a way to rebalance the game.
-
I will play devil's advocate here.
I am fully a proponent for set rotation. I personally think the game either needs to have a significant number of sets rotated out or the game needs to go in a 2.0 direction.
That said... the Redemption community is very small. Nationals every year get somewhere between 70-150ish people every year. If we split the game into "standard" and "modern" for both Type I and Type II... I don't think the game will survive that. The community is just too small to warrant having 4 separate constructed competitive game types.
To put this in prospective MTG has Standard, Modern and Legacy for constructed competitive game types. Their community is quite a bit larger... much larger. Players in MTG are very divided on what game types they participate in and most only play one game type.
That's a great point (splitting the community = very bad!).
Counterpoint: historically, the largest population of competitive magic players play Standard (rotation set) - yes there have been a few rough patches for Standard from time to time, but most are in that category. So, if a rotation set is done well in Redemption, could that bring in new players to bolster numbers? Could those new player begin to rub shoulders with existing players? I think that would be the goal
You could also "fill" packs with the new core, or just have new cards in the packs. (as a personal preference, i dont open Redemption packs because there are cards not from the set in them).
-
This is a great discussion! There are concerns, questions and problems being presented that John, Justin and I have already thought through and believe we can adequately address. Because a future set rotation is not certain we haven't gone into much detail about our plans before now. When the time is closer we will cover this in detail with the rest of the elder team before presenting a plan to Rob. I'd like to see this discussion continue. It can probably be done in a more productive way if you know some of what is going on behind the scenes.
The idea of set rotation first came up on the elder team when we were testing I/J and it was revealed that the new card face would be implemented. It almost seemed like a passing comment at the time, a dream so far into the distant future that we might never see it. The idea that some day there would be a format that only used the new card face was born but quickly forgotten about.
Fast forward to early in the FoM testing. We were looking for solutions to some of the games strongest card interactions, Hypocrisy+Mayhem, Liners+lots of cards, Children of Light offenses, Besieging the City (and friends)+Mayhem...
Dealing with past cards in combination with the introduction of Legacy Rares led us to revisit the idea of set rotation. Is it healthy? Is it feasible? We believe the answer is yes, eventually, but as many of you have already noticed there are a lot of barriers to get past. We discussed this idea in detail and feel that we've found answers to many of the questions we came up with.
Q - The current pool of cards using the new face (since I/J and tin XXVI) doesn't create a very balanced environment. Will the format would mostly consist of offenses and defenses made of a select few brigades?
A - Before this topic started we had a plan to revisit neglected brigades and themes over the course of the "Christ Centric" block (http://landofredemption.com/?p=7210). We believe that when we reach the end of this block of sets the card pool will be large enough and brigades will have enough depth that we will have a healthy diverse format. We don't expect to pursue a rotation before then.
Q - What about all of my old cards? I spent a lot of money on those and have a huge collection! Will they be worthless now?
A - We have no plan to stop supporting the current formats. Our desire is to introduce a new option that involves a smaller card pool. Hosts can pick and choose which type of play they want to use at tournaments. They might choose the "new" format for their T1 players and choose the "old" format for their T2 veterans.
Q - If a card is reprinted as a Legacy Rare will I be able to use my old version in the "new" format?
A - This is completely undecided right now. My instinct is "no". While it's convenient for you not to have to get a new version, that is outweighed by the benefits of only using the new card faces in a format where only those are supposed to be legal. The benefits of only allowing new card faces are 1) uniformity of the special ability wording, 2) consistency at deck check in for hosts and 3) ease of reading the abilities for all players at the table.
Q - Isn't this going to make certain Legacy Rares and National Winner Promos have a really high price on the secondary market?
A - Possibly. It's too early to tell the value of Legacy Rares or how a rotation will impact their prices. If we get close to implementing a set rotation we have strongly considered releasing a set that consists of mostly old (as in old card face) staples that we feel are healthy for the game. It's extremely likely that many (or all) of the Legacy Rares and cards used as National Winner promos will also be included in that set, only with a more standard look (meaning not full art). The idea is to add staples to brigades and themes that need them while making all "new" cards more easily accessible to the player base.
Q - If a set rotation happens, which format will be used at Nationals?
A - It's WAY too early to tell. I could see us running more formats simultaneously to allow all formats to be played. Trimming down an 80 player T1 pool to roughly 40 in "T1-new" and 40 in "T1-all" could make things run smoother for everyone.
In summary...
If you don't like the idea of set rotation, don't worry, there aren't any concrete plans to make it happen! If it does happen it's still a few years away. A lot can happen between now and then!
If you believe the game needs set rotation, don't worry, it might happen in a few years! Decisions are being made now to make sure it's possible and done in a healthy way.
We've considered a lot of things but it's likely that we've overlooked things too. What potential problems do you see with our plan? What have we completely missed? Is there something you think we could do better?
-
This is super helpful info and I really agree with the thought process going on. Personally, I feel it would be cool for T2 to have all the cards available (except banned cards).
My question is, would it be helpful for the elder team for the community to start suggesting cards from sets pre-I/J that we think should be kept in the game post-rotation (so, reprinted on the new card face)?
-
Thanks Gabe.
thought for reprints:
As by way of reference, other games have dealt with similar issues. Players are permitted to play with the older version of the card IF they can present a correct version of the card to any opponent who asks (so, Jimmy ask me what that card does, I can pull out the newer copy to show him. Alternatively, Jimmy can ask a judge to show him the ORCID version on an app).
I would suggest that Promos be considered more like a LR (if you do what I recommend above). If you want to use a promo, there must be a legal copy of the card in an expansion of the "rotation format."
-
This is super helpful info and I really agree with the thought process going on. Personally, I feel it would be cool for T2 to have all the cards available (except banned cards).
My question is, would it be helpful for the elder team for the community to start suggesting cards from sets pre-I/J that we think should be kept in the game post-rotation (so, reprinted on the new card face)?
You mean like this (http://www.cactusforums.com/new-card-ideas/step-right-up!-fix-a-card!-any-card!/)... ::)
-
This is super helpful info and I really agree with the thought process going on. Personally, I feel it would be cool for T2 to have all the cards available (except banned cards).
My question is, would it be helpful for the elder team for the community to start suggesting cards from sets pre-I/J that we think should be kept in the game post-rotation (so, reprinted on the new card face)?
You mean like this (http://www.cactusforums.com/new-card-ideas/step-right-up!-fix-a-card!-any-card!/)... ::)
Similar- that particular thread seem to focus more on fixing old cards that were problematic, whereas I was thinking more of just a straight list from each set of cards that we think should be reprinted as-is (with updated wording).
-
Q - If a card is reprinted as a Legacy Rare will I be able to use my old version in the "new" format?
A - This is completely undecided right now. My instinct is "no". While it's convenient for you not to have to get a new version that is outweighed by the benefits of only using the new card faces in a format where only those are supposed to be legal. Those are 1) uniformity of the special ability wording, 2) consistency at deck check in for hosts and 3) ease of reading the abilities for all players at the table.
Huge fan of this post and that you guys are actively thinking about this sort of thing and designing for the future. I do want to offer my :2cents: about the subject in the quote while it's still undecided. I believe that any version of a legal card should be legal for tournament play. I understand the counter arguments that you mention and I can see the decision going the other way but I believe there are various different ways old versions could be allowed and certain policies that would lessen the cost of doing so. All, none, or some of these things can be implemented:
1. Require players using old versions to own an updated version that they can show their opponent on request. This is the most heavy handed and would still result in players complaining about being required to obtain cards they already own but at least they would get some amount of value from their old cards.
2. Only allow old versions of cards that have never received errata. This immediately removes the biggest issue with old versions in that cards like CoL and Mayhem now function drastically differently than their original versions.
3. Only allow old versions who's text is exactly identical to the updated version. This would limit the pool of playable old versions to an extreme but is IMO still better than not allowing them all.
I would prefer none of these restrictions but if I had to pick one it would be just #2. Players really love being able to play old cards whether it be for bragging rights, nostalgia, or simply preferring the old art. I hope you'll strongly consider allowing it.
Edit: A 4. I would add after seeing a post made while writing this is only all old versions in Type 2. I don't play T2 primarily because getting multiple copies so many cards is daunting and if I had managed to build a T2 collection I would be quite peeved to have to once again collect several copies of cards I already own.
-
This is super helpful info and I really agree with the thought process going on. Personally, I feel it would be cool for T2 to have all the cards available (except banned cards).
My question is, would it be helpful for the elder team for the community to start suggesting cards from sets pre-I/J that we think should be kept in the game post-rotation (so, reprinted on the new card face)?
You mean like this (http://www.cactusforums.com/new-card-ideas/step-right-up!-fix-a-card!-any-card!/)... ::)
I think there might be a difference between what Jesse is asking and what Justin pointed to, but both are needed and useful!
Jesse might be asking about cards that don't need changes but make a good candidate to be done in Legacy Rare style - an exact reprint. If so, we have a pretty big list we've compiled already. But it's not complete and we could overlook something. Feel free to start a new post and suggest away!
What Justin pointed to is a list of cards that we'd like to print in a "fixed" version. Both those and standard 1 to 1 reprints will probably appear in a future set eventually.
-
thought for reprints:
As by way of reference, other games have dealt with similar issues. Players are permitted to play with the older version of the card IF they can present a correct version of the card to any opponent who asks (so, Jimmy ask me what that card does, I can pull out the newer copy to show him. Alternatively, Jimmy can ask a judge to show him the ORCID version on an app).
Out of curiosity, what games are those? MtG, Pokemon, and Yugioh allows players to play old cards in place of reprints. Recently FFG issued a second edition of the Android NetRunner core set with new art, but still allows players with the original cards to play them.
-
Yes, that's correct, Gabe, as far as what I was referring to. Ok so since we already have the "cards to change" list going (that Justin cited), I would be happy to start a "cards to keep as-is (but update old wording) post-set rotation" thread where we can try to make a community list together.
I think it'll be easy at first but get pretty difficult as we get into the last sets before I/J. But it should be fun, thanks! :)
-
I am concerned how old cards (pre I/J) are still being added to new packs (less of a problem with TexP and Di). I could envision a "legacy set" of ~240 reprinted identical/rebalanced old cards from pre I/J being made to fill that spot and be used over the course of 3-4 years VS taking up a whole year just to reprint old cards. I think that would lay a very solid groundwork for set rotation. I'm not sure how set rotation could ever happen as long as old cards are included in new packs :/. That's just my :2cents:.
Edit: Personally I would be very happy if it was just 5 cards from a "legacy set" included in a pack with 5 new cards. (so 5 new cards 4c 1r with 5 "legacy set" cards 4c 1r) and that could also give the opportunity to add a Legacy Rare as a replacement to the "legacy set" rare instead of a replacement to the new rare ;)
P.S. That was a long edit lol
-
I am concerned how old cards (pre I/J) are still being added to new packs (less of a problem with TexP and Di). I could envision a "legacy set" of ~240 reprinted identical/rebalanced old cards from pre I/J being made to fill that spot and be used over the course of 3-4 years VS taking up a whole year just to reprint old cards. I think that would lay a very solid groundwork for set rotation. I'm not sure how set rotation could ever happen as long as old cards are included in new packs :/. That's just my :2cents:.
Edit: Personally I would be very happy if it was just 5 cards from a "legacy set" included in a pack with 5 new cards. (so 5 new cards 4c 1r with 5 "legacy set" cards 4c 1r) and that could also give the opportunity to add a Legacy Rare as a replacement to the "legacy set" rare instead of a replacement to the new rare ;)
I know many share the opinion that old cards shouldn't be included in the new packs (myself included). But are we, and more importantly the casual consumer, willing for fork over twice as much money to add another 5 new cards to the packs? Adding the old cards is cost free for Cactus. Adding new ones is not.
-
thought for reprints:
As by way of reference, other games have dealt with similar issues. Players are permitted to play with the older version of the card IF they can present a correct version of the card to any opponent who asks (so, Jimmy ask me what that card does, I can pull out the newer copy to show him. Alternatively, Jimmy can ask a judge to show him the ORCID version on an app).
Out of curiosity, what games are those? MtG, Pokemon, and Yugioh allows players to play old cards in place of reprints. Recently FFG issued a second edition of the Android NetRunner core set with new art, but still allows players with the original cards to play them.
Ya, all of those are great examples of what I mentioned. (I try not to reference other specific games as best as possible, but reference the principle being discussed)
-
Hold on, would an additional 5 new cards really add $5 to the price tag? I can’t pretend to know Cactus’ production costs but this is just cardstock and ink
-
Hold on, would an additional 5 new cards really add $5 to the price tag? I can’t pretend to know Cactus’ production costs but this is just cardstock and ink
Probably not, that was inaccurate on my part. But it does increase the price beyond the current $5 price point. We spent a good deal of time looking at options this year to make that happen and didn't find anything better than the current distribution method.
-
Hold on, would an additional 5 new cards really add $5 to the price tag? I can’t pretend to know Cactus’ production costs but this is just cardstock and ink
This is just a guess based off of what I used to know... since the sets are print on demand, Rob is doing smaller print runs then what he used to do back in the Apostles (which was over printed) or Pats days. Smaller print runs equals a higher cost per card. The American print on demand services are a bit more expensive then the traditional American printers that Rob used to use back in the day.
I'm sure if Rob switched to a Chinese printer like he did with Priests and G/H the cost would drop but he would have to put up a larger initial investment which I'm not sure is a viable option.
-
From what I know, that is essentially correct. I believe Rob is getting the best "bulk price" available for print on-demand, but it's still much more expensive on a per card basis than the foil pack sets.