Author Topic: Type 3 (Read 7607 times)

Korunks · « **on:** April 09, 2012, 06:34:20 PM »

This came up in another thread, So I am condensing what I remember of the basic premise:

Type 1 Deck building rules with the following additions:

1. Must have the same number of Good and Evil cards in a deck.
2. Deck must be exactly 60 cards.
3. Game is won at 6 lost souls.

Thoughts? I am very interested in trying this at my tournament locally.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2012, 06:35:22 PM »

I'd be willing to try this out at one of the tournaments. Maybe we could register a tournament as a T12P local (on top of the regular categories we have) and play by these rules?

Wings of Music · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2012, 06:36:27 PM »

I would say you should make the minimum deck size 70. Other than that I like it.

Korunks · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2012, 07:19:09 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on April 09, 2012, 06:36:27 PM

I would say you should make the minimum deck size 70. Other than that I like it.

I think 70 is a little too big, trying to keep the shuffling more manageable

Josh · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:20:26 PM »

I think that requiring the deck to be exactly 60 cards would be nice, in addition to your other stipulations.

Arrthoa · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2012, 10:06:23 PM »

What I heard was that it qualifies for both T1 and T2 by having 100 cards and follows T1 deck rules

Redoubter · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2012, 10:33:37 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 10, 2012, 09:20:26 PM

I think that requiring the deck to be exactly 60 cards would be nice, in addition to your other stipulations.

I actually really like this idea myself. I'll make a deck to try out soon.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:20:58 PM »

Quote from: Arrthoa on April 10, 2012, 10:06:23 PM

What I heard was that it qualifies for both T1 and T2 by having 100 cards and follows T1 deck rules

This was the first Type 1.5 deck that I heard about, and was created by a guy named Rick Majus I think down in the South Florida playgroup. Apparently he had quite a bit of success with it down there.

However, I also like the idea of a 60 card minimum with a requirement of 6 LS for victory. I just wouldn't call it Type 1.5.

Red · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:29:54 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 10, 2012, 11:20:58 PM

Quote from: Arrthoa on April 10, 2012, 10:06:23 PM
What I heard was that it qualifies for both T1 and T2 by having 100 cards and follows T1 deck rules
This was the first Type 1.5 deck that I heard about, and was created by a guy named Jonathan Majus I think down in the South Florida playgroup. Apparently he had quite a bit of success with it down there.

However, I also like the idea of a 60 card minimum with a requirement of 6 LS for victory. I just wouldn't call it Type 1.5.

People keep getting that mixed up. so FTFY.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2012, 12:49:17 AM »

Calling it T 1.5 would probably be fine since most people have never heard of the first version. However, calling it Standard Type or something with more of a catchy name may be better anyway.

I'd love the idea if it were, as suggested, exactly 60 cards rather than minimum 60 cards.

Korunks · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2012, 01:33:41 PM »

Hrmm we can banter about the name later, I suppose. I chose 1.5 because it is halfway between Type 1 and Type 2 no? Regardless, A select group of us are testing this out in our weekly playgroup meeting and will see how it shakes out. If any of them see this before we get together lets try to keep it at 60 exactly, I like the idea of a standard format.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2012, 01:44:33 PM »

In that case I would suggest calling it T60

Redoubter · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2012, 01:46:26 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 11, 2012, 01:33:41 PM

If any of them see this before we get together lets try to keep it at 60 exactly, I like the idea of a standard format.

Already done. Let's see how this goes.

Asahel24601 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2012, 08:23:35 PM »

If I bring my deck up to 60, it works in this. is that sad?

MattsterNinja · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2012, 08:52:42 PM »

Making a deck with 60 cards and 6 lost souls would be cool...I don't get the part about having the same # of good and evil cards though.

Drrek · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2012, 08:55:27 PM »

Quote from: MattsterNinja on April 13, 2012, 08:52:42 PM

Making a deck with 60 cards and 6 lost souls would be cool...I don't get the part about having the same # of good and evil cards though.

its a deck-building requirement borrowed from type II being used in this variation in order to combat the prevalence of expanding offense sizes in type I. Since the deck must have equal good and evil card numbers, people are forced to actually play defense.

Redoubter · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2012, 09:32:42 PM »

Quote from: Asahel24601 on April 13, 2012, 08:23:35 PM

If I bring my deck up to 60, it works in this. is that sad?

No, that means that you actually play defense, which I always like

And yes, the balanced aspect requires you to not just overload your deck with powerful offense in the hope of out-drawing and out-lucking your opponent. I played my polished deck brought up to 1.5 vs another polished deck brought up to 1.5 and we had a battle phase almost every turn, resulting more interaction and a lot more fun.

Korunks · « **Reply #17 on:** April 14, 2012, 09:16:56 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 13, 2012, 09:32:42 PM

And yes, the balanced aspect requires you to not just overload your deck with powerful offense in the hope of out-drawing and out-lucking your opponent. I played my polished deck brought up to 1.5 vs another polished deck brought up to 1.5 and we had a battle phase almost every turn, resulting more interaction and a lot more fun.

What a game that was! So far I am really enjoying this variation. Our game went till we decked but in the end was still (barely) under an hour, not bad.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** April 14, 2012, 09:19:36 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 14, 2012, 09:16:56 PM

What a game that was! So far I am really enjoying this variation. Our game went till we decked but in the end was still (barely) under an hour, not bad.

Yeah, but that was also because of our deck types. The other 1.5 game ended way faster than ours. I think ours was about as long as you can take a game of this type, which is a good thing

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #19 on:** April 15, 2012, 05:28:07 PM »

I'm very excited about this the more I think of it. It has the best of all worlds. Making it exactly 60 cards stops it from being a deckingfest or race for doms, but also prevents the sluggish and boring turtle games which are the converse and no less problematic to T1.

Drrek · « **Reply #20 on:** April 15, 2012, 06:29:17 PM »

Hey if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to run an unofficial online tournament to test out this type.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** April 15, 2012, 06:35:33 PM »

I am.

Korunks · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:16:18 PM »

I am really enjoying this variation, I have played several IRL games with this variant and the games are very interesting. It is hard to adjust to getting stopped on offense often. The games have been more complex, battles more robust, and I have yet to win 6-0 and I have often won 5-0 in T1 ,So far so good. We really need to test this in multiplayer more but I am pleased with the results so far. I will probably be running this as an unofficial category at one of my next tournaments, just not sure which one yet.

Korunks · « **Reply #23 on:** April 18, 2012, 08:55:21 AM »

Updated the initial Post and changed the name, any objections to Type 3?

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #24 on:** April 18, 2012, 10:00:18 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 08:55:21 AM

Updated the initial Post and changed the name, any objections to Type 3?

No way! No objections whatsoever. I am pretty sure you saw my thread, because i remember starting one not too long ago. Anyway, lets do it. Perhaps you should make a new thread for results from what people saw from palying type 3.

Josh · « **Reply #25 on:** April 18, 2012, 12:27:08 PM »

One more idea. At the risk of getting flamed by people saying "you're just copying off of other games"... A new type such as this with the standard deck size may be a good time to test the very first Redemption mulligan. There's nothing worse than drawing a bunch of LS and no ECs at the beginning of a game, so please hear me out.

Here's my idea, just as a start. The original D8 with LS going to play occurs as normal. Then, before determining who goes first, the players may select a mulligan. Mulligans would have 3 requirements:

1. All LS already drawn stay in play. Only the 8 cards in hand are shuffled back into deck. You should never be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw. You should be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw and a bad hand though.
2. The opponent may choose who goes first, regardless of LS count. This is to prevent mulliganing as a way to play more LS and guarantee going first (not sure why someone would do this, but I think this should be the rule just in case). If both players mulligan an equal number of times, then going first is determined normally. If both players mulligan but one player mulligans more times, then the player who mulliganed fewer times may choose.
3. The mulligan draw is 1 less card than the prior hand. So 1 mulligan = D7, 2 mulligans = D6, etc., with each time LS remaining in play.

Thoughts?

Drrek · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2012, 02:07:04 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 18, 2012, 12:27:08 PM

One more idea. At the risk of getting flamed by people saying "you're just copying off of other games"... A new type such as this with the standard deck size may be a good time to test the very first Redemption mulligan. There's nothing worse than drawing a bunch of LS and no ECs at the beginning of a game, so please hear me out.

Here's my idea, just as a start. The original D8 with LS going to play occurs as normal. Then, before determining who goes first, the players may select a mulligan. Mulligans would have 3 requirements:

1. All LS already drawn stay in play. Only the 8 cards in hand are shuffled back into deck. You should never be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw. You should be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw and a bad hand though.
2. The opponent may choose who goes first, regardless of LS count. This is to prevent mulliganing as a way to play more LS and guarantee going first (not sure why someone would do this, but I think this should be the rule just in case). If both players mulligan an equal number of times, then going first is determined normally. If both players mulligan but one player mulligans more times, then the player who mulliganed fewer times may choose.
3. The mulligan draw is 1 less card than the prior hand. So 1 mulligan = D7, 2 mulligans = D6, etc., with each time LS remaining in play.

Thoughts?

I'm against implementing this in type III, and not because I hate the idea of mulligans or anything, but because I think that with the significant rule changes to the standard type of redemption it already has, I would very much like to see how the games play out with those rules before implementing any more large changes to the structure of it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2012, 03:27:50 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on April 18, 2012, 02:07:04 PM

I'm against implementing this in type III, and not because I hate the idea of mulligans or anything, but because I think that with the significant rule changes to the standard type of redemption it already has, I would very much like to see how the games play out with those rules before implementing any more large changes to the structure of it.

Actually experience has taught me the opposite perspective. When I first created the format of TEAMS, it obviously was a big change to the way the game was played, but in addition to having a partner, I also added in some other big rule changes. These included "Intro-Prep", the first "Dom-limit", changing the definitions of "your" and "opponent's", and giving eratta to the card "Doubt". It was fun to test all these things out in an event that quickly caught on as being very popular.

When Rob decided to make TEAMS an official event, he dropped some of these changes (the errata for Doubt and the definitions of "your" and "opponent's"), but he kept some of the others (Intro-Prep and the Dom limit). I suspect that this could work the same way. You could create Type 3 with a new deck card limit, LS goal, good/bad ratio, and mulligan rule. Then if this becomes very popular and Rob decides to make it official, he could keep/drop any of those. But if you like the idea of mulligans, then you might as well try it. Other than ROOT, there's not really any other way to try out new ideas like this on a big scale. And sometimes it is easier to add a new thing to a new category, than it is to change an existing one.

Korunks · « **Reply #28 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM »

Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM »

I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #30 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM

Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O

Korunks · « **Reply #31 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:47:39 PM »

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O

I better go into hiding then.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #32 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:48:48 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O
I better go into hiding then.

Yes, before the forum assassins come for you. (whom i assume are already on their way)

Josh · « **Reply #33 on:** April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM

I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I understand this, but even if you put 20 ECs in your 60 card T3 deck, you will on (rare) occasion draw no ECs and a bunch of lost souls. That's not bad deckbuilding, that's an inconvenient outcome that defied the odds. Sure, if you put 10 ECs in your 60 card deck, that's different. But if the mulligan rule is balanced, this won't matter.

So that leads to my next question. Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced? Is the cost high enough so that mulligans will only be used if necessary (as opposed as a way of players simply trying to improve their hand a little bit), while still providing a possible remedy to the deadly combination of terrible starting hand + lots of LS available?

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #34 on:** April 20, 2012, 12:01:22 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM
I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I understand this, but even if you put 20 ECs in your 60 card T3 deck, you will on (rare) occasion draw no ECs and a bunch of lost souls. That's not bad deckbuilding, that's an inconvenient outcome that defied the odds. Sure, if you put 10 ECs in your 60 card deck, that's different. But if the mulligan rule is balanced, this won't matter.

So that leads to my next question. Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced? Is the cost high enough so that mulligans will only be used if necessary (as opposed as a way of players simply trying to improve their hand a little bit), while still providing a possible remedy to the deadly combination of terrible starting hand + lots of LS available?

The punishments are somewhat ridiculous. The punishment for mulligan is to lose that one card to fix your hand. All this extra stuff is fluff that is completely unnecessary. And, if your opponent has more cards in hand AND fewer lost souls in play than you, dont you think you should be given the advantage of at least choosing to first or play first just because of LS count? (or course, if you mulligan and still have less than your opponent, they would choose.) normal rules there. Otherwise, too complicated and noone would EVER mulligan. It has to be balanced and actually usable at the same time.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #35 on:** April 20, 2012, 01:16:36 PM »

Agree with IAKAB. The original idea was better.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2012, 01:52:25 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM

Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced?

I'd drop the part about choosing who goes 1st, but I'd increase the hand-downsize to -2 each mulligan. Leave the LSs out, and whoever has the most can choose who starts.

Since a player would be down 4 cards after mulliganing twice, no one would do that on purpose just to get to draw first (only 3 cards). Therefore the LS thing would be unnecessary.

Korunks · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2012, 02:22:10 PM »

I don't really want to add mulligan to this rule set. The main goal of this category is to balance T1 and T2. We haven't really added any rules that aren't already in the game and I kinda want to keep it that way. I couldn't drum up much support for this idea with our group testing this, and even though it's a long shot to ever become an official category but IMO adding this won't help that objective and may hurt it.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2012, 02:41:11 PM »

but honestly, if someone has even a decent hand... mulliganing a decent hand is still going to hurt them, even if there strategy works. They don't know if they're going to get good cards with additional lost souls, or even still be able to get more lost souls out! its all chance. You cant say that people are going to start doing it just to go first, because even if they do mulligan, that doesnt guarantee them more lost souls or the same level of power of cards that they mulliganed. In the end, its a major risk with a high chance of only hurting them.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2012, 06:44:22 PM »

While I like the idea of mulligans personally, I don't see them having enough support across the whole Redemption community, and I also think it adds complexity that doesn't need to be there (and makes things harder for new players, always something to be avoided).

This game already has a draw 3 each turn, which makes up for bad hands in most cases. Mulligan is more needed in games that only draw 1 per turn and therefore cannot recover as quickly from a bad starting hand.

News:

Author Topic: Type 3 (Read 7607 times)

Chronic Apathy