Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Game Play Variations / Re: Effective Play Variations & Revisiting the EfaE Format or Others
« Last post by Hymn on April 03, 2023, 02:55:50 PM »
Quote from: Sean on March 29, 2023, 06:39:25 PM
I would like to see a modified version of this for Redemption where the players go through the phases simultaneously. There would still be some aspects of taking turns but you can't get around that without making for an insane shared battle phase. This would sort of eliminate rounds because each turn is shared with exception of battle phase.

Good afternoon Sean,
This sametime concept is something I have been tinkering with in my own game design. One of the alternative formats I spoke about in the OP is very similar to the idea you wrote about! In the Eye for an Eye format, interation is cranked up to 11 to allow both players to draw and take actions on each others turns. The idea is not fully fleshed out and I am looking for others to help me pioneer the format rule set and meta. Please take a look when you have the chance: https://www.cactusforums.com/game-play-variations/eye-for-an-eye-alternative-redemption-format/

Thank you,
Jared
62
Redemption® Market / Re: RobM’s trading post
« Last post by robm on April 02, 2023, 04:54:44 PM »
My needs have been updated. I am not looking to trade online just in person. Upcoming events I will be at include;  Midwest Regionals, NY States, Northeast regionals, PA States.


Cards I am looking to sell.
Season promos - most of them

Nats promos
SOG 2020
AotL 2020
Michael 2020
Glory of the Lord 2020
63
Game Play Variations / Re: Effective Play Variations & Revisiting the EfaE Format or Others
« Last post by Sean on March 29, 2023, 06:39:25 PM »
Are you familiar with Same Time Risk?
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/366241/risk-ii-same-time-risk-session-report-lots-pretty

I would like to see a modified version of this for Redemption where the players go through the phases simultaneously. There would still be some aspects of taking turns but you can't get around that without making for an insane shared battle phase. This would sort of eliminate rounds because each turn is shared with exception of battle phase. The order would be as follows:

Opening Draw (determine priority via dice roll, player with priority becomes P1, both players draw 10, alternate LS activation P1 then P2, alternate stars P2 then P1)

Turn 1
Draw Phase (skip)
Upkeep Phase (skip)
Preparation Phase (players alternate actions P1 then P2)
P1 Battle Phase
P1 Battle Resolution
Discard Phase (players alternate actions P2 then P1)

Turn 2
Draw Phase (both players draw 4, alternate LS activation P2 then P1, alternate stars P1 then P2)
Upkeep Phase (both players update counters and use any triggered special abilities, triggers alternate P2 then P1)
Preparation Phase (players alternate actions P2 then P1)
P2 Battle Phase
P2 Battle Resolution
Discard Phase (players alternate actions P1 then P2)

Turn 3
Draw Phase (both players draw 4, alternate LS activation P1 then P2, alternate stars P2 then P1)
Upkeep Phase (both players update counters and use any triggered special abilities, triggers alternate P1 then P2)
Preparation Phase (players alternate actions P2 then P1)
P1 Battle Phase
P1 Battle Resolution
Discard Phase (players alternate actions P2 then P1)

Repeat
64
Game Play Variations / Effective Play Variations & Revisiting the EfaE Format or Others
« Last post by Hymn on March 29, 2023, 04:05:50 PM »
Howdy y'all and Godbless,
It has been awhile since I've struck similar conversations but as your resident Texan Tinkerer, how have you been enjoying the new Hard Stop Solution (A Schaefer original patent pending) of one territory class enhancement per turn?
After unwinding for a few months watching and helping out in the community from behind the scenes I came back in full force to testing and playing with the new rules set enjoying it thoroughly. I'd like to hear some others testimonies about this.
Originally I was resistant to this rule change when Joe and I discussed it multiple times in 2022. To me it seemed to be too arbitrary of a number to limit it to just one per turn. However there is a precedent for this number in the rules with unique characters only able to enter battle once per battle, and  limit of one artifact per turn. This hard stop rule change does solve my initial analysis of the systemic issue Redemption had which was interactivity. One TC enhancement per turn pushes the action economy back into the battle phase which makes it vulnerable to counterplay. In time this rule change could be called for review depending on what the future holds. For the foreseeable course of the game this doesn't worry me.

This brings me to my main topic which  is in regards to possible rulechange solutions I had presented in the past. After going back and listening to The Treshing Floor episode 48 by John Hendrix ft. Josh Potratz (aka Prostrats) it became apparent to me some of those gameplay changes might still be of interest to the community. Would y'all be interested in pursuing these solutions in an alternative format? The Eye for and Eye format is already outlined so that would be one direction. Other rule variations such as my Exhaust Solution and Joe's Scaefer solution both prove to be fun building and gameplay challenges. I have tested all 3 of these rule sets enjoying them all in the past. If even one person is interested, we can start pioneering these as alternative formats. The EaE format is very different fundamentally from the core rules people are used to which is why I shelved it seeing it as too radical of an option for existing players. Josh is correct however in the fact it retains Redemption identity while enhancing the interation of the original gameplay loop.
If anyone wants to join me on pursuing these alternative formats please let me know.

Thank you for your time,
Jared Strauss
65
Redemption® Resources and Thinktank / Re: Big (Overdue) Announcement
« Last post by Sadness on March 28, 2023, 08:28:30 PM »
Is there anything on discord about this?
66
Testimonials / Re: The Birth of Royal Rangers Redemption
« Last post by MrMiYoda on March 25, 2023, 05:28:45 PM »
The pin (not the Miyoda seal nor album -- lol) will be given to all RR demo team members who has taught the game at PowWow 3 times since 2019. Kudos!
67
Complete Decks / Re: Wanted: Poor Man's PURELY I/J T2 Deck Designs
« Last post by MrMiYoda on March 25, 2023, 03:17:40 PM »
Another dek build challenge is mix n match!!!
68
Complete Decks / Re: Wanted: Poor Man's PURELY I/J T2 Deck Designs
« Last post by Crashfach2002 on March 25, 2023, 11:29:46 AM »
Yeah, you couldn't quite make it legal with just two mostly because of the duplicate doms. But you could get about 90 cards with just two sets. K/L on the other hand. . . .
69
Ruling Questions / Re: Clinging to Power is a Taunt card?
« Last post by RedemptionAggie on March 24, 2023, 05:08:47 PM »
You could also use the line about having to add to a side of the battle you control, since you don't control any side of the battle if there's not one currently happening.

It should be easy enough to expand the Clarification about not adding in battle resolution to include something about the battle having had to begun.
70
Ruling Questions / Re: Clinging to Power is a Taunt card?
« Last post by jhendrix6426 on March 24, 2023, 04:01:57 PM »
I would say you worked through that thought pretty well and came to the proper conclusion. The REG could probably use a clarifying sentence in the "Add to Battle" entry that specifices add to battle abilities can only be activated/resolved during the battle phase to clear that up. Could be a fun interaction to set up a taunt battle, but I'm sure there's valid reasons to exclude add to battl abilities from triggering the start of a battle phase as that would let one player resolve an enhancment to move to the next phase and circumvent Dominant Initiative before changing the phase.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10