Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Game Play Variations => Topic started by: New Raven BR on October 29, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
-
type 1 deck building with t2 deck size minimum
no doms
no arts
no forts
no sites
covenants and curses play as enhancements (no exceptions)
-
So it's old school Redemption (Original-era) but with a bigger deck size. Why the T2 size minimum?
-
So it's old school Redemption (Original-era) but with a bigger deck size. Why the T2 size minimum?
It's more of a way to focus the game on the battle by getting rid of the main reason to avoid the battles. And the 100 card minimum is to make it more interesting.
-
I could see mass banding being popular, if not the only way to win, in this style.
-
I could see mass banding being popular, if not the only way to win, in this style.
here was a rule on no enhancements then yes but considering that's not a rule, I would say not by a long shot.
you still have your captures, converts, ignores, immunes, discards, and removal battle winners which pretty much still leaves the type unbroken but challenging and I would think more interesting
-
Will it have t2 deck building limits? I also fear for AOC/P before battle.
-
Will it have t2 deck building limits? I also fear for AOC/P before battle.
He said "type 1 deck building with t2 deck size minimum" which I take to mean as using T1 restrictions on number of cards per deck, etc., but requiring a minimum of 100 cards in the deck. Might be easier to say it that way than even bringing T2 into it, lol.
-
This would be really interesting to play.
-
So it's Redemption with even less strategy. Got it.
-
I am always a fan of new ways to play. This sounds interesting to me and would allow a larger variety of cards to see play. Foreign Spearman would be more viable in this play style as well with lots of enhancements to toss.
-
I'm assuming you'd play to seven lost souls unless not having any doms would make a big difference?
-
Do you really need to cut forts and arts to make the concept work?
-
Do you really need to cut forts and arts to make the concept work?
Forts and sites both have power that can be on-par with artifacts, they are just harder to kill. If you REALLY want to focus on the battle phase, you want to eliminate them as well.
Considering there are no doms, this would need to be played to 5.
-
Will it have t2 deck building limits? I also fear for AOC/P before battle.
He said "type 1 deck building with t2 deck size minimum" which I take to mean as using T1 restrictions on number of cards per deck, etc., but requiring a minimum of 100 cards in the deck. Might be easier to say it that way than even bringing T2 into it, lol.
Well, I assume that if you're using the T2 minimum that the T2 maximum would also be used so perhaps that's why it was worded such, however, I still would've said T1 deck-building but between 100-252 cards. Anyway, back too the main idea...
I've considered trying something similar to this before--a limited play with only characters enhancements and should although I haven't really thought about using a larger deck size. I think that would be pretty interesting and allow the game to possibly go on a little longer and be a bit more action-packed.
-
You know what else makes the game go longer? No NJ... I know I'm beating a dead horse, a long dead horse, but the issue of more strategy and a longer game comes up all the time. A game to four instead of three seemes like a simple answer.
I admire the idealism of never banding cards, however sometimes it's easier to admit you made a mistake than trying to fix it. A longer game would result in more complex decks. And 50 card speed decks might not hold up as strongly as they do now.
Back on topic, this type would creat more in battle interactions. With that being the goal of the type I think it's an excellent idea. (Although for pure strategy I think I'd still prefer type three)
-
I have always been in favor of banning NJ. Without NJ, we would probably see a lot of balanced deck archetypes.
-
And 50 card speed decks might not hold up as strongly as they do now.
Although I agree with the general sentiment of the rest of the post, 50 card speed decks are a direct result of the game's mechanics (just as super friends decks are). There is no card or set of cards that you can ban that will change that.
If you really want games to go long and force new deck types into the meta, you could institute the "simple" rule that defense gets to go first in battle.
-
I think something like this could be fun for a T1 game that is "battle-oriented"
1 Good dom
1 Evil dom
1 Good Fort
1 Evil Fort
1 Art
1 Site
1 Covenant
1 Curse
Assuming a 50-56 card deck, that's between 35-41 character/enhancements.
-
Why not type 3?
-
Why not type 3?
Because there's already an unofficial Type 3 variant, and looking back through this board, jmhartz posted a Type 4 before this one. Hence Type 5.
Also, there's only 5 card types allowed in a deck in this structure - Heroes, good enhancements, EC's, evil enhancements, and Lost Souls.
-
the whole point of this type idea is to make things a lil more challenging without taking the fun out of the game but reducing how many of the same enhancements you can have in a deck
Why not type 3?
Because there's already an unofficial Type 3 variant, and looking back through this board, jmhartz posted a Type 4 before this one. Hence Type 5.
Also, there's only 5 card types allowed in a deck in this structure - Heroes, good enhancements, EC's, evil enhancements, and Lost Souls.
neve3r thought of it THAT way before but very well put
-
I like the idea of a category that's more centered on the battle phase, but I would make a couple tweaks to this particular idea. First, I think 100 card singleton is more likely to drag on and be unfun than anything else. While 50 cards might be too small, 100 is a huge reversal, which will result in a lot of really boring cards ending up in decks. I think a medium of 70 is better. Large enough that a player is forced to abandon the usual CBN/CBI/CBP battlewinners and characters, but small enough that it's not just a battle of the numbers. The second change I would make is to restrict playing enhancements outside of battle. If you want to emphasize the battle phase, this is important, as most of the out-of-battle stuff spread OT offenses have access to is in the form of TC enhancements, not forts, sites, or artifacts. Even so, this will pretty quickly be dominated by FBTNB/The Deck hybrids.
-
Another thing to consider is that speed would also rule a battle phase-oriented game as the player with more cards in hand is inherently going to have an advantage as he will have many more options in battle.
-
Another thing to consider is that speed would also rule a battle phase-oriented game as the player with more cards in hand is inherently going to have an advantage as he will have many more options in battle.
covenants and curses would be allowed if you intend to use them AS ENHANCEMENTS so technically rain becomes dust would still effect speed