Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: crustpope on May 21, 2010, 01:06:28 PM
-
I have a few suggestions for Redemption.
1. Redemption needs a Ruling Council (aka PTB). These people need to be clearly identified (an given a formal and official position) and posted so that any ruling questions can be sent to them. This committe should be small and consist of an odd number of members (5-7), so that rulings can be decisive (majority vote) and quick. The procedeings should be in secred but can be revealed if all members of the Ruling council consent. This is to prevent players making judgements based on discussions/rulings on these boards they believe to be true only to find out that they are not at a later date.
2. Redemption needs to streamling its policy for making major rule changes. Here are my suggestions:
a) All major ruling changes will be announced before Nationals and will take effect following nationals for the next tournament season.
b) Emergency Rulings can be used but they are reserved only for game breaking combinations that are a result of unanticipated card combinations that would most likely involve previously released cards as they are integrated with the newest set. These Emergency rulings can be made before the start of MAJOR tournament season. (Major tournament season is defined as beginning with the first state tournement and ending at Nationals)
c) Decks during the Major tournament season can only be undone by a misunderstanding on the part of the deck owner of how the rules work. No erattas should be made to change the way a card is played until after Nationals.
c) Anyone who quesitons the legality of their deck should submit it to the Ruling council for review before the major tournament season. A ruling on the legality of the deck will be made at that time. If a deck is played that hads not been submitted, and if this deck includes some form of "lock out" and or stalemate battle that involves an infinite loop, then the judges are free to ban it upon the spot and make a ruling on the particular cards at a later date after discussion with the other members of the ruling council.
If you agree with these guidelines, please post here below. From time to time I will update this first post to update the list. I am also open to any suggestions to these guidelines. This may go down as an epic fail by me, but I feel strongly that some changes should be made. I know I have no power to make those changes on my own, but I hope that at least those who can make these changes would at least listen to my suggestions.
If you want your name added to the petition, please make that known in your post. something to the effect of "Please add my name" would suffice.
Sincerely
Crustpope- Matthew Archibald
1. Matthew Archibald (crustpope)
2. Master KChief
3. Minister Polaris
4. Good Samaritan 2010
5. Ben Wilk
6. Emjaybee
7. YourMathTeacher
8.
9.
10.
11. Bubbleboy
-
This post reserved
-
Matt, I don't know what good can come from this. I think this petition should, at the most, be in Open Discussion. That way, guests and new members can't see the battle that is going on. I know you're disappointed & frustrated, but I would encourage you to move this petition there.
-
New members have just as much right as anyone else to call for change in the way things are done. Like I said, I dont really expect anything to change, I just want my voice heard. If others agree, then they are free to do so. I dont believe that the PTB are afraid of a little conflict, and if they are they shouldn't be, besides, the other thread is public as well, why should this one be hidden? These are suggestions designed only to be helpful. There is no malice here.
-
I think that in this situation, a few standards would be a good idea.
-
Matt I appreciate your passion. I will only speak for myself on this issue - the issue of the recent errata on Highway et. al.
My silence should not have been interpreted as consent for the simple reason that I was not aware that Highway was being recurred multiple times on a turn. When I learned that some players thought you could use it this way, I saw the immediate need for the errata. Other players apparently were under the impression that I knew this for months and months and did nothing about it. On the contrary, I addressed it as soon as I learned of it. Can anyone cite my participation is a discussion about recurring Highway before two days ago? To let this combo continue all the way through nationals is more detrimental to the tournaments IMO. We have had no regional tournaments yet and only a handful of state tournaments and most of the state events thus far have had fewer than 15 total players - yours being the exception so far with 26 players.
I agree with you that major rule changes are best saved for after Nationals. But, I question this being a major ruling. Maybe I am wrong - how many players are playing this type of deck to recur Highway? If that number is less than 10, can it truly be called a major ruling change?
No malice from me either and your voice is being heard.
-
As to the specific matter of this thread, I agree that this would be a good idea. I don't particularly have any beef with the Highway ruling, and thank you Rob for clarifying your position, but I still think that this would be good moving forward. However, I'm not sure if we really need to petition, I think that using this thread as a springboard for discussion. I believe that there was another thread addressing such a ruling board though. But it might be a good idea to figure this out. Because no matter my feelings, many loyal players were negatively affected by the ruling, and such guidelines would prevent that from happening again.
-
I echo the comments of SS and "the other Prof". This is a good idea, but putting it here as a petition is only going to foster dissension and come across as combative to the very people who have the power to make something like this a reality. I repeat what I said in the previous thread that was along these lines, please let us handle this without doing it on a public thread like this one. I will send you a PM.
-
I appreciate your response Rob.
In many ways it seems that this is a huge misunderstanding. People assuming one thing while reality is actually another. I still feel that there needs to to be some sort of formal position for those who make the rules. The members of the ruling council should be publicly known so that issues can be sent direclty to them so that insteadof relying on other peoples best judgement, players who want to reveal a combo for approval should know who to go to to get an offical answer.
as far as when and what to eratta, I would be open to suggestions as to how that should proceede.
@ Professoralstad, if you have trouble with the "petition" title, then think of it as an "agreeing with the idea that some structure should be in place for when rulings are made" list. the word Petition may have unecessary political connotations that I want to avoid, but if you agree with me that some sort of guidelines need to be in place for how and when changes are released then that is good enough for me.
-
Matt, I don't know what good can come from this. I think this petition should, at the most, be in Open Discussion. That way, guests and new members can't see the battle that is going on. I know you're disappointed & frustrated, but I would encourage you to move this petition there.
Alright, I have to know something: I've heard of Open Discussion many times, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say it. Am I missing something?
-
I have a few suggestions for Redemption.
1. Redemption needs a Ruling Council (aka PTB). These people need to be clearly identified (an given a formal and official position) and posted so that any ruling questions can be sent to them. To often on these boards people make decisons based on ruling they believe to be true only to find out that they are not at a later date.
We do. Brian and Sir nobody and the play testers.
a) All major ruling changes will be announced before Nationals and will take effect following nationals for the next tournament season.
b) Emergency Rulings can be used but they are reserved only for game breaking combinations that are a result of unanticipated card combinations that would most likely involve previously released cards as they are integrated with the newest set. These Emergency rulings can be made before the start of MAJOR tournament season. (Major tournament season is defined as beginning with the first state tournement and ending at Nationals)
c) Decks during the Major tournament season can only be undone by a misunderstanding on the part of the deck owner of how the rules work. No erattas should be made to change the way a card is played until after Nationals.
I thought it was this way....
-
Matt, I don't know what good can come from this. I think this petition should, at the most, be in Open Discussion. That way, guests and new members can't see the battle that is going on. I know you're disappointed & frustrated, but I would encourage you to move this petition there.
Alright, I have to know something: I've heard of Open Discussion many times, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say it. Am I missing something?
open discussion is a private board for members of age. its usually for discussing material not best around younger audiences. that is also where you will find m-rated video game discussions. :) *shameless plug*
crustpope, i shall sign your petition! :)
-
How is "of age" defined? Also, is The_Warrior in there beings his profile says he is 9001?
-
i believe its for members 18 and older. and no, you dont get in automatically based on the age in your profile.
-
Sadface. They should lower it to 6.
-
How do you verify that? I'm 19, and can't find it.
-
i believe its for members 18 and older. and no, you dont get in automatically based on the age in your profile.
Oh yeah? Well, I started my own secret section of the boards only for cool people, and you're not invited! >:(
-
Although I understand and agree the age limit is a good thing, as it allows to have more mature conversations without attacking the little'uns....
8. There is to be no formation of groups or other clubs that will in any way exclude other members on this board.
-
How do you verify that? I'm 19, and can't find it.
if you would like to gain access to the open discussion board, simply pm schaef and let him know you're of age and would like to be in open discussion.
Oh yeah? Well, I started my own secret section of the boards only for cool people, and you're not invited! >:(
secret sections on the boards are only cool if you get secret decoder rings. and we all have decoder rings.
Although I understand and agree the age limit is a good thing, as it allows to have more mature conversations without attacking the little'uns....
8. There is to be no formation of groups or other clubs that will in any way exclude other members on this board.
its not really trying to exclude anyone...just trying to give the more mature members an outlet to discuss generally more serious matters that wouldnt always be appropriate around younger people. its also kind of like how there is a secret playtester forum here on the board, but us regular members dont have access to it.
-
Wait, we haverules?!?!
-
I understand that I am new, and I understand that I don't know all that much about Redemption. However, IMO it's quite obvious to me what the difference between a card that has an issue that gives it the appearance of contradicting itself, and cards that are being used beyond their original design. I am a big fan of strategy, but I am an opponent to finding questionable uses for cards and combos. IMO this is like the guys who scour video games for glitches and take advantage of them instead of addressing the issue with the creators of the game. I don't like card manipulation. I may joke about about not revealing a secret, yet sketchy, combination because it will most likely be "fixed," but in truth, it's no fun when things are over-analyzed to the point where it seems people are 'taking advantage' of the game. I know, you find something and technically it hasn't been mentioned as illegal, but when you look at the point of Redemption and then use a little bit of brain power, it's quite easy to see when something just isn't right.
I encourage you guys to at least think about this if you haven't already. I like the game of Redemption and I love the strategies that are possible, but I encourage you to take any discrepancy and report it ASAP and refrain from utilizing it until a ruling has been made. IMO, it doesn't matter if it's changed 1 year, 3 months, 2 weeks, or 7 days from a tournament or tournament season, if it doesn't work the way it was originally intended, you shouldn't place it in your deck until it's been ruled upon. I understand, some people don't have time to be building multiple decks and for some people it takes a long time, but from my own experiences, it only takes me about 2 hours to build a deck, and one night of playing with it to figure out how to improve it. Once I learn more about the cards, I won't need even that much time, so I'm not sure why you guys need more than 2 weeks notice about an issue. Again, this is all IMO and it doesn't matter to me if you agree or disagree, but I see no reason to be complaining.
:2cents:
-C_S
-
Counter sniper, you are new here but I wont hold that against you ;)
The problem is not trying to do anything illegal. no one does anything illegal or unintended with the cards, it is just that most of these cards are designed by type 1 players without thinking about what a type 2 player can do with 5 copies of a single card. For instance, the Sin in the Camp card had to be erataed because in Type 2 you can lock someone out easily and the cost to d/c all of those Sin in the Camp's would be too high to use.
Sin in the Camp is still a strong strategy even after the eratta, but at least now it is a bit easier to counter. No one was doing anything wrong, they were simply playing the game the way the card was written.
This Current eratta I have NO problem with. In fact it has come about 3 or more years too late. No one is trying to do anything illegal, the problem is that it can start an endless loop that cannot (or at least it is very hard to stop) in which you can do a lot of damage to your opponent.
That is just the nature of type II. Frankly I liked playing against Jonathans deck even though it d/ced my deck over a dozen times this year (and yes it is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING) but it was fun to try and find counters to the deck. after the first time I tweaked my deck to make it more resistant to Jonathans deck and had greater success, even beating it on a few occasions. Personally I would rather there not be any erattas on cards because I dont mind the 20 minute stalemate battles. I figure it is part of the risk of playing Type II.
-
How is "of age" defined? Also, is The_Warrior in there beings his profile says he is 9001?
i believe its for members 18 and older. and no, you dont get in automatically based on the age in your profile.
On the contrary, i heard u can get in to OD regardless of age, just based on the maturity level
-
How is "of age" defined? Also, is The_Warrior in there beings his profile says he is 9001?
i believe its for members 18 and older. and no, you dont get in automatically based on the age in your profile.
On the contrary, i heard u can get in to OD regardless of age, just based on the maturity level
Thats not good. If it is one's maturity level that allows entry to open discussion, I'm not going to get in for atleast 50 years.
-
Wait, there's an Open Discussion board? Where?
-
Gone fishin
-
Wait, there's an Open Discussion board? Where?
How can this message board be taken seriously if even the most mature members such as YMT don't know about the Open Discussion forum?!
-
Wait, there's an Open Discussion board? Where?
How can this message board be taken seriously if even the most mature members such as YMT don't know about the Open Discussion forum?!
But see that's the thing... You and me haven't seen this "Mystery OD Board" so I wonder if it even exists :laugh:. It's a conspiracy I tell you! A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!! ;D
-
Wait, there's an Open Discussion board? Where?
How can this message board be taken seriously if even the most mature members such as YMT don't know about the Open Discussion forum?!
But see that's the thing... You and me haven't seen this "Mystery OD Board" so I wonder if it even exists :laugh:. It's a conspiracy I tell you! A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!! ;D
[Lost Reference]]You sound like jack in season 2[/Lost reference]
-
Yes, but there's another hidden board that you find out about only when you've joined OD. And this one requires maturity and "protection cards".
-
even the most mature members such as YMT
You know Tim's printing this post out and hanging it on his wall :)
-
even the most mature members such as YMT
You know Tim's printing this post out and hanging it on his wall :)
Next to his cowboy hat
-
Wait, there's an Open Discussion board? Where?
How can this message board be taken seriously if even the most mature members such as YMT don't know about the Open Discussion forum?!
Frankly, it can be taken seriously because of the lack of spam on the OD which, IMO, is refreshing.
-
this is a christian card game not a democracy so you need to let it be and grow up let the judges and rulings be grow up and end this petition delete it geez
-
AngelFreak: You might want to tone it down a bit. crustpope is entitled to his opinion, and voicing it this way is perfectly allowable.
-
this is a christian card game not a democracy so you need to let it be and grow up let the judges and rulings be grow up and end this petition delete it geez
this is a public message boards not your website so you need to act like a Christian and grow up let other people opinions be grow up and edit your post delete it geez
-
crustpope is entitled to his opinion, and voicing it this way is perfectly allowable.
Allowable? Who are you kidding? Haven't you noticed that Crustpope hasn't posted in a while? That's because an unmarked van pulled up next to him while he was walking. Three masked men jumped out of the van, put a dark hood over his head and dragged him into the van. He has not been seen since.
One of the masked men was not wearing pants.
-
this is a christian card game not a democracy so you need to let it be and grow up let the judges and rulings be grow up and end this petition delete it geez
this is a public message boards not your website so you need to act like a Christian and grow up let other people opinions be grow up and edit your post delete it geez
But also make sure not to stoop to their level.
-
i believe its for members 18 and older. and no, you dont get in automatically based on the age in your profile.
Oh yeah? Well, I started my own secret section of the boards only for cool people, and you're not invited! >:(
Dude, this new section is awesome! Everyone on it just got free ice cream vouchers for Baskin Robins!
-
and fuzzy kittens!
-
this is a christian card game not a democracy so you need to let it be and grow up let the judges and rulings be grow up and end this petition delete it geez
Ok, i may have to because the spam content of this thread is getting a bit too much.
One of the masked men was not wearing pants.
Yes, Eric "I was't wearing any pants when I kidnapped crustpope" Largent was one of the assailants. I dont know who the other two were but one had large hands and smelled of herring and the other was a cheeky lad with orange hair sticking out from behind the ski mask.
I got away by boring them to death when I began to talk about this thread
-
They're not done yet. They'll be back. This could be a recurring problem, so it may be best for you to stay off the highway.
-
Ooops, forgot to mention in my last post (too busy spamming), add my name to the petition-that-isn't-a-petition.
-
They're not done yet. They'll be back. This could be a recurring problem, so it may be best for you to stay off the highway.
Pants, however, are still optional.
-
Gosh I just love being ignored so....
I will say it once more every thing in that petition is how it is! Most of the time.
I have a few suggestions for Redemption.
1. Redemption needs a Ruling Council (aka PTB). These people need to be clearly identified (an given a formal and official position) and posted so that any ruling questions can be sent to them. To often on these boards people make decisons based on ruling they believe to be true only to find out that they are not at a later date.
We do. Brian and Sir nobody and the play testers.
a) All major ruling changes will be announced before Nationals and will take effect following nationals for the next tournament season.
b) Emergency Rulings can be used but they are reserved only for game breaking combinations that are a result of unanticipated card combinations that would most likely involve previously released cards as they are integrated with the newest set. These Emergency rulings can be made before the start of MAJOR tournament season. (Major tournament season is defined as beginning with the first state tournement and ending at Nationals)
c) Decks during the Major tournament season can only be undone by a misunderstanding on the part of the deck owner of how the rules work. No erattas should be made to change the way a card is played until after Nationals.
I thought it was this way....
-
You were ignored because you were being silly. But since you insist on acknowledgment:
1. Sir Nobody and the Playtesters do not have rubber-stamp powers.
2. It's Bryon
3. It's Bryon, Rob, and Mike
4. Thought wrong. If it was that way, why would be be making a post asking for it to be that way?
6. An ellipsis has three periods, not four.
7. "Brian and Sir nobody and the play testers" is not a sentence. The preceding period should have been a colon for it to be remotely correct.
8. Both words are capitalized in "Sir Nobody."
9. There is no five. Woah, blew your mind!
-
10. ???
11. Profit
-
Gosh I just love being ignored so....
I will say it once more every thing in that petition is how it is! Most of the time.
I have a few suggestions for Redemption.
1. Redemption needs a Ruling Council (aka PTB). These people need to be clearly identified (an given a formal and official position) and posted so that any ruling questions can be sent to them. To often on these boards people make decisons based on ruling they believe to be true only to find out that they are not at a later date.
We do. Brian and Sir nobody and the play testers.
Even if it were this way...who are these playtesters? This is some nebulous term to include a group of people who few people can identify. I cant tell you all the playtesters and I have been playing since 2004. In fact, I can guess on several of them but I only knew 2 of them and one of them has since died. Only once have I been involved in a game that had playtest cards. it was fun and I got spanked but we need a group of people to focus on ruling, establishing erattas, and focusing on these details and we should all know who they are so that we can go to them if we have a problem that needs an official ruling on it. The only person I know who are in this group for a fact are Rob, Bryon and Mike, Mike is never on, Rob is easy to get a hold of but he never makes rulings publicly, only Bryon makes rulings publicly, but even he misses things...like the Highway ruling which was somethign that should have been done along time ago.
a) All major ruling changes will be announced before Nationals and will take effect following nationals for the next tournament season.
b) Emergency Rulings can be used but they are reserved only for game breaking combinations that are a result of unanticipated card combinations that would most likely involve previously released cards as they are integrated with the newest set. These Emergency rulings can be made before the start of MAJOR tournament season. (Major tournament season is defined as beginning with the first state tournement and ending at Nationals)
c) Decks during the Major tournament season can only be undone by a misunderstanding on the part of the deck owner of how the rules work. No erattas should be made to change the way a card is played until after Nationals.
I thought it was this way....
You obvioiusly thought wrong if we are having this discussion. Decks have been nerfed at Nats before and obviously this highway ruling has come in the middle of major tournaments.
-
none of the playtesters outside of bryon and co. can make official rulings, so that is a moot point.
-
In fact, I can guess on several of them but I only knew 2 of them and one of them has since died.
... Who died?
The only person I know who are in this group for a fact are Rob, Bryon and Mike
Really?
You obvioiusly thought wrong if we are having this discussion. Decks have been nerfed at Nats before and obviously this highway ruling has come in the middle of major tournaments.
I can only think of one (infamous) instance of a rule being changed on the floor at Nats to nerf a deck, and that was a number of years ago. Granted I wasn't judging the last two so it's not an ironclad statement, but I don't think this is the kind of thing that can be painted as a regular occurrence.
-
Really, I think it's the Lost Souls that are the problem. We should get rid of those.
-
My silence should not have been interpreted as consent for the simple reason that I was not aware that Highway was being recurred multiple times on a turn. When I learned that some players thought you could use it this way, I saw the immediate need for the errata. Other players apparently were under the impression that I knew this for months and months and did nothing about it. On the contrary, I addressed it as soon as I learned of it.
Rob, we were specifically told that you had addressed this issue. In this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15463.msg241618#msg241618), we were told...
Bottom line. In playing this game and participating on this message board for many years, I have NEVER seen any ruling that Bryon and Schaef agreed on overturned. Now that this has happened, any further discussion of allowing Highway / Stillness / Momentum Change cards being allowed to stack is guaranteed to be useless and will only lead to greater frustration.
I think this post is premature. Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year. This is also a ruling that affects current decks, and we're into state-level tournament season now. I am offering my opinion on what I feel the rule SHOULD be, but I am not in a position to just overturn that or make different rules for "my" tournament based on that.
What I expect will happen is that the current ruling will remain intact at least through the current tournament season. I plan to take it up with "the elders" and IF the consensus is there's an issue and IF we feel the rule can be applied consistently (this may indeed be a loophole as some have said), only then will a full change be made. Until then, just take this for what it is: my feeling that this isn't following the spirit of the other ruling.
This entire thread is more than a year old. It was started by Matt Archibald seeking clarification on precisely the same deck, and he was expressly told that "Yes the combo was legal" and that the ruling wouldn't change because we were already in State tournament season. In other words the current change contradicts precisely what Matt what told that all of the PTB, including Rob, had decided.
At minimum I hope providing some context to this discussion helps explain why CrustPope is taking this so hard. To be told to man up against a deck last April because we are in the major tournament season and your hands are tied and then to have your similar deck invalidated the next year--when we are in the major tournament season--would have to be very frustrating.
-
Rob, we were specifically told that you had addressed this issue. In this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15463.msg241618#msg241618), we were told...
...Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year.
I'm a little concerned that you consider repeating hearsay as being specifically told. The reason I said that is because I was specifically told...
I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.
... and...
Here is my answer, YMT. The general issue about decks like these has already been ruled on by Rob.
You also seem to have discarded all of the significant context to my post while quoting it. I said that I would not arbitrarily overturn a significant ruling during a tournament season. I also said that I did not expect the rule to change. Saying that I'm not going to go off and do my own thing, and that I don't think it will be addressed at large, is not some kind of unilateral commandment that Thou Shalt Not Change Thy Rulings Against My Expectations.
It seems the harder I work to qualify a statement, the more eager you are to pin me down with it. The irony is that you're doing the exact same thing now that you did in that thread. Back then, you claimed I was contradicting myself by saying two different things for Mo Change and Highway, just because I was repeating what someone else had said. The most significant piece of context missing from that discussion is that I had supposed BACK THEN that this combo should probably be illegal, but that events had transpired without my knowledge and I was not in a position to contest it AT THAT TIME. In short, I was TAKING MATT'S SIDE in that discussion, but was deliberate in NOT issuing some unilateral fiat.
-
Quote
The only person I know who are in this group for a fact are Rob, Bryon and Mike
Really?
Pfft, Schaef you don't count. You're just ruling the boards with an iron fist! ;)
-
I can name about 4 more :) But I never heard that Schaef was..... Is this a recent addition?
;)
-
@ schaef. The only playtest game I ever played in was with you anr Brian Ried. I will let you guess which one is still around...
I had forgotten about that thread. It is over a year ago.
-
Hey! I was in that thread! Does that make me important?
Is there really an Open Discussion board or is this just some sick joke?
-
i dont think Reyzen would lie.. he told me.... u could get in by maturity
-
@ schaef. The only playtest game I ever played in was with you anr Brian Ried. I will let you guess which one is still around...
Don't you think that comment is a little insensitive?
Brian was never a playtester, he simply had access to the cards in development. I don't remember exactly who brought him in on it, maybe Mike or Bany. So when I am aware of who has an official part of the playtest staff off and on for the last six years, and I hear you say that one of them has died, and I don't know that information, you don't think I'm going to be a little curious about that?
Tom and I have both been on the staff for years, and we've had some minor discussions about several of the sets that have been wrapped and on their way to the printer, so I also think it's reasonable to think it strange that after all that, Mike Bryon and Rob are still the only ones that spring to your mind.
-
Didnt mean to be insensittive. and this only points to the bigger problem no one know exactly who id "in" and who is "out" Brian had playtest cards, how was I to know how he got them and that he wasn't "In". And from many of your posts you seem to give the impression that you arent always in the "know" about reent rulings so that lead me to believe that there was even a hierarchy among those who are on the inside. sort of like a "big three" with Bryon, Rob and Mike and then a bunch of other people on the second ring that know "alot" but not "everything"
There is no "offical" group and there is no list of who would even be considered to be "official" and this is one of the problems that this thread is trying to address. I am trying to get Redemption to see these things as worthy of official notice. there needs to be a Ruling council, these people should be known to everyone and their word should be final. I dont care about whether they clue us in on thier discussion regarding rulings (although that would be good) But I am tired of having one person say one thing and another say another.
In that very thread you even admitted that there was no consensus regarding the Highway ruling at that time. How is that anyway to run the way rulings are made? It only breeds confusion and hurt feelings in the end.
-
Here is Rob on this general topic in January of 2009...
There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.
The combo starts off with Choose the Blocker where you pick your own character to block that would grant you initiative (like Red Dragon). Then you play some cards that allow you to draw cards and discard cards from your opponent, then play a Withdraw card and keep it going...
[further discussion of possible options deleted...]
Note: whatever we decide would likely happen soon (before state and regional events, rather than after nationals).
Many posts later...
Here is my read on it at this point: Most people don't want to see any of the options I listed become a rule. However, if forced to choose they pick their least objectionable option. Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season. We have some new cards coming in the next set that will affect this type of combo and it's not a piece of cake to pull off at any rate. We can revisit the issue if needed after Nationals and after the new cards make their way into decks.
Given this (and especially the parenthetical remark in the first post), it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players, I think everyone can agree that Matt Archibald's frustration is not out of place here, especially when last year at this time his concerns about the exact same deck were treated rather disparagingly.
I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.
This was true.
Here is my answer, YMT. The general issue about decks like these has already been ruled on by Rob.
This is correct if you are speaking about combo decks in general, which is quite clear from context (i.e.,YMT's "word games that lead to 'awesome combos,'", my "decks likes these") that both YMT and I were. I have quoted the sections from Rob's posts up above that make it clear that was I was saying was a fair assessment of the situation as it stood in April of last year.
Rob, we were specifically told that you had addressed this issue. In this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15463.msg241618#msg241618), we were told...
...Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year.
I'm a little concerned that you consider repeating hearsay as being specifically told. The reason I said that is because I was specifically told...
My bad. In the passage I quoted (the entire post) I assumed that you were talking about the deck under discussion (which implied the Highway recurring Highway combo) specifically--especially given that you were responding to Prof Underwood's post which was quite focused on that point. I didn't realize you were relying on a misreading of what I wrote when you made your original claim. Nor having quotes scattered over four pages previous was it particularly obvious you were doing so. I apologize for my misinterpretation.
-
The current errata has sealed its fate until there is a way to add a hero to battle after another one has been withdrawn ( ie like an unknown nation for the good guys) Even if one highway didnt recur another it would not be a problem because battle prayer could easily get it out of the discard pile, you just have to band a non-gold hero into battle to make sure that the Highway got d/ced. The real key was having another hero in battle in order to continue the loop.
I would rather they have limited the battles to 10 minutes. That because then you could still d/c their deck over two or three turns, giving them a fighting chance but still keeping the combo.
-
And from many of your posts you seem to give the impression that you arent always in the "know" about reent rulings so that lead me to believe that there was even a hierarchy among those who are on the inside.
I don't think there's any single person that's aware of every single ruling made at any given time. For many, the role is a part-time one when they're not bogged down with other things, so not everybody gets in on every discussion. In particular, I was out in the main hall of the hotel managing the tournament when the 2008 discussion was taking place among the judges inside, so obviously I was out of the loop at that time. I consider that a very good visual example of how this kind of thing can happen at times.
In that very thread you even admitted that there was no consensus regarding the Highway ruling at that time. How is that anyway to run the way rulings are made? It only breeds confusion and hurt feelings in the end.
You think there's anyone in this room that's more frustrated with that situation than I?
...it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players...
And why would I disagree with that contention? Especially when I made the effort to explain to you in the other thread that I specifically would not do that myself and would not expect the others to do it?
To make one last point, the thrust of my various posts through that discussion was to the prevailing logic that if Mo Change was ruled in order to prevent infinite looping turns, then other combos should probably be ruled based on that same logic. An argument to prevailing logic is an argument to a general issue, just as you and YMT were discussing, even if it is directed at a specific instance as with Mark's post.
-
I don't think there's any single person that's aware of every single ruling made at any given time.
Is there any way we could attempt to fix this? Would it be possible to make a stickied thread in the Rulings forum that has either a brief description from Rob, or a link to any thread that involves a rule change? It'd be nice to have EVERY ruling that has been made on the forums in ONE list.
-
There is the eratta list and it is already stickied. I don't knwo what other rulings you would want to include on that.
-
Given the number of threads in the Ruling Section, I think you can understand the weight of what you're asking.
-
I didn't mean the answer to EVERY thread, but rather a list of every CHANGE to rulings or cards. Most of the threads in that forum are just asking how a situation plays out, a simple explanation is given, and thats the end of it.
-
Stickie every thread that changes anything? :o
-
Matt himself referred to the errata thread.
-
Matt himself referred to the errata thread.
So... where is there any mention of that one discussion that took place, regarding the long day combos? I'm pretty sure it was ruled that characters can only enter battle once per turn, but its not in either of those two threads.
-
I'm pretty sure that's been a rule for years. Isn't it in the withdraw section of the older REG?
-
Didnt mean to be insensittive. and this only points to the bigger problem no one know exactly who id "in" and who is "out"
If you're having problems remembering who is an official playtester, check your rulebook. The list is there, although Justin might be too new to the team to be listed in most editions.
-
Normally I would agree, and there's still some 70% accuracy to that list, but it's six years old. Not a reliable resource in this case.
-
Brian was never a playtester, he simply had access to the cards in development. I don't remember exactly who brought him in on it, maybe Mike or Bany.
If memory serves me, he was brought into the card development loop by Will Kludy.
As far as a list of playtesters, I think that Rob, Bryon, Mike B., Justin A., Eric "playtester" Largent, Schaef, RedemptionTom, Kludy, Kevin Shride, Chris Bany, and most recently Tim Maly are all in that group.
-
Don't forget John Michasomeatorother, And I guess technically we should add Schaef to the list :) Not sure if Roy is officially a playtester or not, but he's in the loop for sure.
-
As far as a list of playtesters, I think that Rob, Bryon, Mike B., Justin A., Eric "playtester" Largent, Schaef, RedemptionTom, Kludy, Kevin Shride, Chris Bany, and most recently Tim Maly are all in that group.
As RDT says, add John and Roy to the list and it is complete.
-
As far as a list of playtesters, I think that Rob, Bryon, Mike B., Justin A., Eric "playtester" Largent, Schaef, RedemptionTom, Kludy, Kevin Shride, Chris Bany, and most recently Tim Maly are all in that group.
As RDT says, add John and Roy to the list and it is complete.
Of this group:
John M.
Roy Cruz
Mike Berkenpas
Eric "no pants" Largent
Steven Schaefer
Tom Gibson
Wil Kludy
Kevin Shride
Christ Bany
Justin Alstad
Tim Maly
Rob Anderson
Bryon Hake
The ones in Red are the only ones who are regularly available. Of these I have seen dissagreement in rulings between many of these mainly between Maly and everyone else. If this is the "Ruling Council" aka the PTB, then that is fine, but we need swifter and more decisive action from this group. This Highway issue has been around for a long time and specifically about this deck for over a year and just now there has there been action on it.
-
John M.
Man, you didn't even try. ::)
-
I can't spell shuhshevsky, you know that.
-
...it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players...
And why would I disagree with that contention?
I don't think you would disagree with that contention, which is why the statement is made in the opening section, and not directed at you. There are other who have expressed a "tough nookies" attitude, however, and I was trying to explain to them why this issue appears to frustrate Matt and others.
Just to be crystal clear--using your post from April of last year was not meant as a swipe at you. Even had I understood your post earlier this morning as I do now, I would still have used it* because it was the clearest articulation of where I thought we stood a year ago. I intentionally kept the second paragraph because it demonstrated the most important point--as I see it--which was the belief (that everyone seemed to hold) that huge rule changes don't get handed down once the major tournament season began.
*Although I wouldn't have misinterpreted your first comment posted, and I am sorry about that.
-
It was my understanding also.
-
I can't spell shuhshevsky, you know that.
*Michaliszyn.
And he's awesome.
-
This is never ending :doh:
-
This is never ending :doh:
Well his last name is long, but "never ending" is a bit over the top, don't you think?
-
Imagine if your name actually ended in a facepalm.
-
As good of an idea as a petition is.
Cactus probally likes their ruling system the way it is then the way everyone else wants it.
-
Six pages and only three signatures, and one is the author. Where's the love???? At least Master KFC and Minister Snowmobile understand the value of brotherhood.
You can add my name to the list, but only if you put me in at #7. ;)
-
Normally I'm all for change, but I don't want to go rocking the boat this early. (Though that's probably the most hypocritical statement I've put up here)
-
So four people?
We got a long way before change.
-
1. Matthew Archibald (crustpope)
2. Master KChief
3. Minister Polaris
4.
5.
6.
7. YourMathTeacher
8.
9.
10.
Woo-hoo!!!! I'm #7 !!!!!!
-
LOL! :D
-
Uh,what the hay.
Sign me up!
-
I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting. Seems just about everyone was complaining about the way rulings are handled last week. Then, a rational, intelligent solution is proposed and instead of jumping on board, everyone just gets cold feet and switches from complaining about the PTB to complaining about the complaining about the PTB. What, do you just like complaining? I complain because I want things to get better, but it seems like we're in the minority there.
-
A humans LOVE to complain B +1 C only reason I haven't signed is I haven't read through the 7 plus pages, Have any addendums to the first page been made?
-
I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting. Seems just about everyone was complaining about the way rulings are handled last week. Then, a rational, intelligent solution is proposed and instead of jumping on board, everyone just gets cold feet and switches from complaining about the PTB to complaining about the complaining about the PTB. What, do you just like complaining? I complain because I want things to get better, but it seems like we're in the minority there.
I cant speak for everyone else, but there are 2 main reasons why I have not signed up:
1) I tend to avoid posting in flame threads for lack of anything constructive to add.
2) Directly related to point 1, after reading the last 7 pages of posts, I have seen this argument come full circle several times with only 2 conclusive results. Many insults being handed out resulting in relationships being shaken, and a two-sided argument that has somehow resulted in both sides arguing the same point.
My Conclusion: Why sign a petition to maintain a status quo that is in no danger of change?
Obvious disclaimer that I hope is not needed: After reading the last 7 pages, this is my point of view on the subject, please do not treat these statements as attempted facts on my part.
-
I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting.
I am dissapointed as well, but then again, I just wanted to see how many feel as strongly as I do. The way this Highway ruling was handled was really frustrating to me, especially since it has a long history of discussion...and a long history of inaction. It is quite likely that this situation will never be repeated given the amount of feathers that have been ruffled here.
But I would like to see some safeguards put in place. Specifically when major changes should be made (before tournament season) and the establishment of an official ruling council. They can all be appointed by Rob, I think it should be limited to 5-7 people (A smaller group can get answers quicker and more decisively) and you can rotate these people in and out of this group in whatever terms Rob thinks appropriate.
I have been thinking of the "not nerfing decks at Nat's Rule." I think that anyone who has a deck that makes use of a "questionable" combo should submit it to the Ruling Council before it is used. If it has not been sumbitted for review then I would say that it is open season to ban the deck if it proves to be problematic, but this type of action should only be used for those types of decks that involve some sort of "lock out" or stalemate battle to do unlimited damage.
Personally I LIKE those types of decks and I like playing against them and trying to beat them. I hear all this talk about how it is "unsportsmanlike " and "bad for the game" but in my opinioin it is just the nature of the Beast that is type II. It's not for rookies since it demands alot more cards. I just think there should be a disclaimer for anyone entering type II that you could end up getting locked out or have something else "not nice" happen to you.
-
+1
-
I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting. Seems just about everyone was complaining about the way rulings are handled last week. Then, a rational, intelligent solution is proposed and instead of jumping on board, everyone just gets cold feet and switches from complaining about the PTB to complaining about the complaining about the PTB. What, do you just like complaining? I complain because I want things to get better, but it seems like we're in the minority there.
Well, so far most of my posts have been spam. I might sign up for this, but honestly, I'm not even sure what the implications of this are.
If I could get some kind of a summary...
-
@Crustpope
I agree. Isn't the point of Redemption to find new and creative ways to win rescue Lost Souls? And if your new way is better (and not totally game breaking), than why can't we use it?
*Disclaimer: I have no idea what's going on with Highway.*
-
Well, so far most of my posts have been spam. I might sign up for this, but honestly, I'm not even sure what the implications of this are.
If I could get some kind of a summary...
Summary is in my first post.
@Crustpope
And if your new way is better (and not totally game breaking), than why can't we use it?
The problem is the definition of the phrase "game breaking". The recent trend by the PTB has been that id it involved any sort of "lock out" (Speed Camp) or any form of stalemate Battle that makes use of an infinite loop, then it is "bad for the game."
I understand where they are coming from but I tend to see type 1 as the Jv and type 2 as the varsity. and if you are going to play in the big leagues you should be prepared to get roughed up. The first time I came across a SitC deck I was at KC nats in 2007. I was literally in awe of that deck because it had locked me out and it was ingenious. True I didnt like getting so close to placing at nats only to get locked out in my final game, but I couldn't stop thining about the deck and trying to figure out a way to beat it. and actually, it is a pretty fragile deck once you understand the mechanics.
I think that many of these decks have counters that can be developed to them if we let people play against them and let them start thinking of counters to them. A real quick way to defeat the deck Jonathan pewquinot and I have been playing ts to get coat in the d/c pile and then hit it with a "remove x cards fromthe d/c pile" card. Once you kill coat, the combo is basically broken. because yo ucannot play warriors spearand/or book of jashar on a hero tha tcould recurr them through highway. I added two gideons call to help portect against this but that is three cards in the deck that are essential and if they are all removed my deck is basically impotent.
But we will never have counters develop against this deck because it is now illegal.
-
What would happen if I developed an anti-Highway deck and you were playing something else?
-
I'm shocked and angry that this thing didn't fill up within hours of its posting....I complain because I want things to get better, but it seems like we're in the minority there.
You may complain because you want things to get better. I actually do stuff to try to make things get better. The reason I haven't (and won't) sign this petition is because I have already been working behind the scenes to try to come up with a process that will formalize the process of ruling changes here on the boards, and I don't want a petition to derail these efforts. Petitions tend to come across as combative and lead to excessive dissension, which is NOT going to help the cause.
-
Actions speak louder than words! Glad to see someone with connections is doing something.
-
Sincerely
Crustpope- Matthew Archibald
1. Matthew Archibald (crustpope)
2. Master KChief
3. Minister Polaris
4. Good Samaritan 2010
5.
6.
7. YourMathTeacher
8.
9.
10.
Ca-Chow! Number four!
-
Petitions tend to come across as combative and lead to excessive dissension, which is NOT going to help the cause.
I disagree. I Think people can express their disatisfaction in a legitimate exercizre of free speech. Sometimes the people in position dont know the full extent of the dissatisfaciton until people speak up. Of course with 5 signatures, it doesnt look like much dissatisfaciton so why be afraid?
I think it is unfortunate that you have been scared into holding a view (that you claim you dont actually hold) simply out of fear. It betrays a low opinion of those you are talking with that you fear that they would "punish" you for responsibly exercising a freedom guarranteed in our first ammendment.
To me this is an exercize in civics. I have already won because I actually called for change and have presented options as a starting point. That lots of people have not joined in and that no one with real power has bothered to adress them with me is not my fault. I seem my job as one who calls attention to a percieved injustice and seeks some remediation.\
You claim to be at the barganing table with those who count and have asked me to remove this thread. I asked for some guarrantees which yo ufailed to provide. It seems to me that you are doing just as much as I am and getting just as far. So dont begrudge me my actions and I wont begrudge you yours since we seem to be equally ineffective.
-
Esther also petitioned the King in her book.
I don't think there's any "I won", both of you are taking action. Claiming to beat someone who's on the same side as you only causes division.
-
I fear nothing. I have a high opinion of Rob and the playtesters. I tried to answer your questions that you PM'd me. I'm not claiming to "win" anything. I'm not going to post on this thread anymore.
-
I fear nothing.
Not even...R.O.U.S.?!
I'm not going to post on this thread anymore.
I dare you now. ;)
I would like to have a set and observable system of decision making, so I guess go ahead and sign me up....but I want to be #11! :)
-
My Conclusion: Why sign a petition to maintain a status quo that is in no danger of change?
Because the status is not QUO!
-
and I don't want a petition to derail these efforts.
Aren't you afraid that the petition will derail these efforts? If not, and since you have already claimed to agree in prinicple to what I am asking, Why do you not sign on and show your solidarity?
I would ask that you reconsider your decision not to post here anymore because a frank and open discussion is what we need. Less spam and more real meat.
-
Is this over,or is this topic going to get bumped for the rest of the year?
If so,just in advance :doh:.
-
Aw, crud, my post isn't there!
-
Looking at the events of the past week or so, it seems fairly clear to me that some form of change in the process is necessary. As such, could you please add my name to the petition?
-
ad me to it
-
Wow, you actually put me at 11...:laugh:
-
There is now a Council of Elders, so to speak.
-
Given the recent action by Cactus, I am locking this thread.
Let us hope that specific guidelines are in place to ensure that rulings continue to come in a timely and organized fashion, but this is a step in the right direciton. I applaued Cactus for their continued efforts to promote a favorable and positive playing evironment for all involved.