Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: jtay on December 17, 2009, 12:28:47 AM
-
...if Cactus had banned cards? It appears to me that, instead of banning cards, they print cards that counter overly used/difficult to bypass strategies: FBTN(B), Standalone defenses, Speed, etc. Even now they're printing more fort killers, since taking out forts can be difficult, even though many of these forts were made to counter the aforementioned overly used strategies. In my mind, this kind of process makes the viability of every strategy questionable, since in order to maintain any one of them, you have to consider all possible scenarios, include sufficient counters for them, and include sufficient counters for your opponents' counters, all the while trying to keep your deck unique to your person. Eventually, I see it being difficult for people to maintain the central ideas of their decks and include all the counters they need at the same time. But I digress.
So what if Cactus had banned cards like AoCp, NJ, big FBTN(B) guys, etc.? Where do you think we would be now? What cards would we have or not have? Would we be better or worse off?
-
There really has only been one card that has garnered a large amount of backing to be banned and that would be New Jerusalem. I mean, come on, you get access to any site...TWICE!! That's way OP.
-
LoL @ Sean's joke...that was great!
I think a slippery slope would have been started. Banning those would have led to the asking of banning other cards. When you combine the creative, imaginative mind that God has blessed us with and the competitive spirit of finding the absolute best way to win...you get a deck that maximizes every card to use it to inflict pain. Then as that deck succeeds, you get copycat decks to come along to follow...because after all everyone wants to succeed.
Where would we be now?
People like to complain because of the above statement. There will always be a top card. When you take away one top card, then another card will become the top card by sheer default. Someone will always be on top of the food chain. People will continue to cry foul as each new top card inflicts "pain & suffering".
What cards would we have?
Worst case scenario: we will only have cards with numbers (basically unlimited, with a few of the prophets cards)..then the complaining will start about how the game is boring and allows no creativity.
Would we be better or worse off?
Frankly, I think we would be worse off. Not only will creativity be stifled, but in addition there will STILL be complaining about the current top card! Plus, you would have cards that are totally worthless....a waste of ink and cardboard [a poor tree's death :'( ]
Do I find some cards annoying...absolutely! However, banning is never the solution. Ever.
-
There really has only been one card that has garnered a large amount of backing to be banned and that would be New Jerusalem. I mean, come on, you get access to any site...TWICE!! That's way OP.
I miss the good ol' days in multi-player games when a flurry of NJ would be slapped down at endgame. :P
-
Hey,
If Cactus didn't have a policy of not banning cards, I think the biggest difference would be that we'd have a lot of threads on these boards with people complaining that "I lost a game because of card X, it's too powerful and needs to be banned."
There's not that many cards that have merited banning over the years, Authority of Christ Promo and Provisions being the two most obvious exceptions. If you take multiplayer seriously False Peace and Search should have been banned too. Other than that you can make an argument for New Jerusalem, Falling Away, and Haman's Plot but that's about it. As Soul Seeker said, we can't get too ban happy or there wouldn't be anything left.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
If you look at all the cards Cactus should band, the only cards that are in MOST decks are New Jerusalem and Falling Away. All of the other cards require you to play that color or style. I believe that there will be some many styles in this game that you cannot counter EVERY style. Not to bring up a lesser game, :D, but if you play pokemon or other games, you pick a style of play and pray you don't run into the style that will kill yours! If there comes a point where there are that many styles, I do believe each of those need there own "bandable" (for lack of better term) cards so that each style of play is appealing to each player!
-
Hey,
All of the other cards require you to play that color or style.
In my mind one of the things that makes a card worthy of being banned if when it is so good that players begin to feel obligated to play the color or style it is a part of so that they can use the card because they don't feel they can be competitive without it.
False Peace in Type 2 - Multi is the best example of this. It is not uncommon to see all four players at a T2-MP table with gray defenses, because so many players feel like they can't win T2-MP if they aren't using False Peaces.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Instead of banning cards, I wish Cactus would retire old cards once they have been reprinted. Benaiah and Benaiah for example.
-
Hey,
All of the other cards require you to play that color or style.
In my mind one of the things that makes a card worthy of being banned if when it is so good that players begin to feel obligated to play the color or style it is a part of so that they can use the card because they don't feel they can be competitive without it.
False Peace in Type 2 - Multi is the best example of this. It is not uncommon to see all four players at a T2-MP table with gray defenses, because so many players feel like they can't win T2-MP if they aren't using False Peaces.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
For me it's kind of the other way around. I see a lot of the powerful cards being printed nowadays that require me to be playing a particular pre-defined style. I just don't see much creativity in picking a style. I would much rather come up with my own style. That's how styles used to be created. Speed, heroless, stonewall, and probably others were all the fruits of some individual's creativity. Personally, I believe that if Cactus had banned cards instead of doing what they're doing, we might not have went down the Cactus-defined theme route, since many of the cards they printed (particularly protection forts) to combat top strategies, came with theme restrictions.
-
If I were to rate the top 5 cards I think should be banned, it would go a bit like this:
1. Buckler (seriously, way too OP)
2. Falling Away (making Guardian useless, too)
3. AoCP (making protect forts less useful and thus allowing for more theme flexibility)
4. New Jerusalem (obvious)
5. Haman's Plot (never should have been printed)
-
Hey,
If you don't like the predefined themes then don't use them. I never do (or at least very rarely). I actually built a deck last year that had a prophets offense and a crimson defense, but I didn't use any green heroes or Babylonians just to spite the themes :) You don't have to use themes to win.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Glad to hear I'm not alone. Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us. ;)
-
I can see it now! A home-made solution:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
-
If I were to rate the top 5 cards I think should be banned, it would go a bit like this:
1. Buckler (seriously, way too OP)
2. Falling Away (making Guardian useless, too)
3. AoCP (making protect forts less useful and thus allowing for more theme flexibility)
4. New Jerusalem (obvious)
5. Haman's Plot (never should have been printed)
1. no, then my collection of them will be worthless!
2. ehh, maybe. But if we were to do that, then put NJ higher up on the list.
3. Protect forts will be useful either way. Does everybody use protect forts just for AoCP? no. it's helpful against many things.
4. lol at Sean's joke. that was wyn.
5. why not just wait until they're all shredded? it'll be like a ban, but it will merely cease to exist. The Card that Disappeared.
Banning is bad. don't do it.
I can see it now! A home-made solution:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
I'd ban your Banned Card.
-
I can see it now! A home-made solution:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
And a picture:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.overclock3d.net%2Fdwn%2F071437425656%2Fbanhammer.jpg&hash=637cdb509ada958e388c3b18655650f48106c8a1)
-
I can see it now! A home-made solution:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed by a tournament judge.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
I can see it now!
Son of God
Lamb Dominant
"Rescue any Lost Soul in play."
Identifier: Cannot be banned.
-
Touche to Ring Wraith! However, did you read the full ability? Maybe this would work:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed or banned.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
Thanks for the pic, Cameron, that would fit nicely!
-
or for something a little more dramatic....
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wiiwii.tv%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F10%2Fban_hammer.jpg&hash=45c342eb460392d4283c4fef35155651f58c6755)
:D
-
Mario FTW. Norse gods in Redemption?
-
Ooh! Shiny!
Mario FTW. Norse gods in Redemption?
Whereas Mario is more Biblically correct? *scratches head*
To jtay:
I think all of this goes to say that I agree with you... at least to a certain extent. However, bear in mind that banning cards adds another unfortunate complexity to the already complex game of Redemption. Just like errata's, this sort of thing could easily turn a winning game upside down when someone corrects the winner of the game. I know that banned cards would be declared pretty openly, but the problem is still there.
-
Also, 'Banned Card' would necessitate another REG entry on what it means to ban a card. And we'd have arguments on whether 'ban' is harm or negative effect. Also, where does a 'banned' card go? Is it removed? Why not just say removed then? So many questions...
-
Overcomplications
Evil Dominant
"If played simultaneously with Banned Card...Tartaros Help!??"
-I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Wiener
-
Hey,
If you don't like the predefined themes then don't use them. I never do (or at least very rarely). I actually built a deck last year that had a prophets offense and a crimson defense, but I didn't use any green heroes or Babylonians just to spite the themes :) You don't have to use themes to win.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Yeah, watch out for my Red N.T. Heroes, and my Peter who walks by you because of the Garden Tomb!
-
Shush, that's actually a good deck. Well, red/purple, anyway.
-
Shush, that's actually a good deck. Well, red/purple, anyway.
Well of course, but it doesn't fit with any current strategy.
-
One of the things I like about Redemption, is it doesn't have any banned cards. Reprinted, errettaed, yeah. But every card is as legal as the day it first came out. I like its commitment and dedication not to ban any cards. I also think Cactus knows what is "to powerful" and tries to keep the game balanced. I don't think one Archetype has clearly dominated for to long...but I could be wrong on that. Do I think it stifles creativity, with counters and counters for your opponents counters? Nope. I figure its impossible to try to counter every card and every style. Back to the topic, are some cards to powerful in Redemption? Maybe. But before we start going and banning cards, lets ask if the game has balance, and can we attempt to balance a card before we ban it. I honestly think Goys is an attempt to balance Falling Away. Angel at the Tomb attempts to balance cards like Confusion. Maybe we need to try to find a way to balance these cards. Like AOCP could be balanced by an artifact simular to Chariots of Fire, except that targets evil characters in stead of heroes. (Or Davids Harp, Chamber of Angels, Everlasting Beings) Maybe have an "anti-NJ" lost soul, like "While this lost soul is in play, no player may play NJ" IDK, just throwing out ideas. But if it these things are truely broken, then try to balance them not Ban them.
-
5. Haman's Plot (never should have been printed)
Although this won't be banned, theoretically this card will stop being used. ;D
-
Also, 'Banned Card' would necessitate another REG entry on what it means to ban a card. And we'd have arguments on whether 'ban' is harm or negative effect. Also, where does a 'banned' card go? Is it removed? Why not just say removed then? So many questions...
So a ban is just a permanent negate?
-
Also, 'Banned Card' would necessitate another REG entry on what it means to ban a card. And we'd have arguments on whether 'ban' is harm or negative effect. Also, where does a 'banned' card go? Is it removed? Why not just say removed then? So many questions...
So a ban is just a permanent negate?
No. Yes. Maybe. I don't know. Aargh!
-
5. Haman's Plot (never should have been printed)
Although this won't be banned, theoretically this card will stop being used. ;D
Ah, but it never will. The supply of them is so great that it will never run out, but over time the supply will slowly diminish to the point that they are so extremely rare that virtually no one will want to rip them anymore. Then, every once in a while some player with tons of money will go to a tournament and rip one and win, and it will be no fair to the players who actually took their time to build a good deck instead of squandering money and throwing the rarest cards all into the same deck. That's my vision, at least. This is, of course, assuming that the world does not become dominated by the digital world anytime soon.
By the way, my list was only meant as an if; I don't believe banning is good, except in the case of Haman's Plot.
-
Although this won't be banned, theoretically this card will stop being used. ;D
In real life yes. But online, it lives FOREVER!!!!!!
-
This is, of course, assuming that the world does not become dominated by the digital world anytime soon.
define "dominated."depending on your definition, you could say that we already have
-
banning cards can do nothing but improve the game as a whole. the whole 'no-ban policy' suggests to me as being unwilling to be open-minded. there are certainly quite a few overpowered cards in this game, and making counters is not always the answer. also, yes, if cards were banned, that would lead to vastly changing meta's to make up for the bans (for example, banning provisions might result in increaesed play of jacob/rtc or jeremiah/ht/burning incense), and yeah, people will probably complain about them (because someone somewhere will always complain about something), but that does not mean those cards are necessarily broken and need to be banned. tgt is a ridiculously broken card and is certainly more broken than jake/rtc. personally, i feel the game can only get better by banning cards. not every card is perfect. not every card is created equal. that is what banning is for.
few ideas of cards that need the banhammer desperately:
1. dominants (if not, then more restrictions, or at least nj)
2. tgt
3. aocp
-
define "dominated."
Dominate - to annihilate in a competitive environment (see pwn).
Dude, I totally just dominated humanity.
-
Seriously people STILL think AOCP needs to be banned? That's just sad... who even uses that anymore in their top decks...? Okay, a decent amount but the nationals winning deck didn't.
-
Seriously people STILL think AOCP needs to be banned? That's just sad... who even uses that anymore in their top decks...? Okay, a decent amount but the nationals winning deck didn't.
Californian noobs. ;)
-
Seriously people STILL think AOCP needs to be banned? That's just sad... who even uses that anymore in their top decks...? Okay, a decent amount but the nationals winning deck didn't.
because it wasnt included in the 'nationals winning deck' does not dictate whether a card is broken or not. because tgt/hamans plot/etc was in a nationals winning deck does not dictate if its a broken card.
-
because it wasnt included in the 'nationals winning deck' does not dictate whether a card is broken or not. because tgt/hamans plot/etc was in a nationals winning deck does not dictate if its a broken card.
But... TGT, HP, and ETC are broken...
-
Nah, TGT is beatable - Very beatable, Haman's Plot is very, very nasty, But it has a huge draw back, ETC on the other hand, is very, very broke, - I mean c'mon [EDITED BY R.O.S.E.S]
-
because it wasnt included in the 'nationals winning deck' does not dictate whether a card is broken or not. because tgt/hamans plot/etc was in a nationals winning deck does not dictate if its a broken card.
But... TGT, HP, and ETC are broken...
ETC... :miss:
-
Shh... not so much about ETC, Red Dragon. It may be too epic for Sean.
-
Right, I suppose I shouldn't spill the beans ;)
-
Only one card needs to be band.. Hameend plotd. Totoly redecalesly over powered!
-
Shh... not so much about ETC, Red Dragon. It may be too epic for Sean.
I'm just trying to figure out if you did it by accident or on purpose. :P
-
If haman's plot is so broken then why is it in most of the games that I have seen (live) and recorded (online RooT) that the player who uses it loses? It is hardly a guaranteed anything, in my experience. It has a very versatile special ability, but the success rate is iffy which hardly equals broken. :preach:
-
If haman's plot is so broken then why is it in most of the games that I have seen (live) and recorded (online RooT) that the player who uses it loses? It is hardly a guaranteed anything, in my experience. It has a very versatile special ability, but the success rate is iffy which hardly equals broken. :preach:
just because a potentially OP'd card is in a deck that loses does not somehow automatically not make it broken. PLAYER A can include a hamans plot in his deck and the rest all non-special ability cards, and history tells us this player will more than likely lose. everyone loses, even with broken cards in their decks.
-
The whole 'ban TCG' sounds to me as some is being unwilling to be open-minded. :)
TGT can't rescue a single lost soul. The Strong Angel can rescue 7 souls in a single game all by itself, and can negate ALL special abilities on opponent's ECs and EEs. THAT's OPed! ;)
-
The whole 'ban TCG' sounds to me as some is being unwilling to be open-minded. :)
Indeed. Only us enlightened folk play trading card games. ;)
-
on that same line of thinking, timothy is broken because he can also rescue 7 lost souls...and WAIT. he can also gain 3/3! wowzers!
a broken card is determined by its power creep. while there are many reliable answers to tsa, there are hardly any for tgt. the only honest-to-goodness reliable counter i can say currently exists in this game is image of jealousy. that is it, but even then, a true tgt deck will have answers for that.
-
a broken card is determined by its power creep.
Did you just call Bryon a "creep?" :o
-
think he did break out the ban hammer might not work on cards but i hear it works on people lol
-
the only honest-to-goodness reliable counter i can say currently exists in this game is image of jealousy.
Destructive Sin > IoJ IMO.
-
or play philistines respond to the attack by slipping second character out oh noes you can block hooray
-
the only honest-to-goodness reliable counter i can say currently exists in this game is image of jealousy.
Destructive Sin > IoJ IMO.
not really. its easy to suidice a character to get it off. try suiciding a fort.
or play philistines respond to the attack by slipping second character out oh noes you can block hooray
hezekiahs signet ring/set fire say hello.
-
lol yeah bring it im on aim Sinclairmgc
-
I find it REALLY funny that the ONLY counter listed by Master KChief is Image of Jealousy... I always find that 12 evil characters will survive to a garden tomb, as long as they have some kind of protection. THAT'S the best counter. Just use a fricking defense! If all you n00bs didn't use standalone defenses for years we wouldn't have to come to this... sheesh!
::)
-
amen
-
Hey,
The whole 'ban TCG' sounds to me as some is being unwilling to be open-minded. :)
TGT can't rescue a single lost soul.
So only heroes are ban worthy, because they're the only ones that can rescue lost souls. That doesn't sound very open minded ;)
The Strong Angel can rescue 7 souls in a single game all by itself, and can negate ALL special abilities on opponent's ECs and EEs. THAT's OPed! ;)
My Armorbearer has rescued 5 souls in a single game all by itself. He must be OPed! The Strong Angel doesn't negate any of the significant abilities on the evil enhancements in my Old Faithful deck.
... I always find that 12 evil characters will survive to a garden tomb, as long as they have some kind of protection. THAT'S the best counter. Just use a fricking defense! If all you n00bs didn't use standalone defenses for years we wouldn't have to come to this... sheesh!
How many defenses are there that can provide protection to evil characters? About Six? Limit myself to six possible defenses, that sounds like about the worst plan imaginable.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
protection forts are good, but as maly said, you pretty much have to commit yourself to those defenses exclusively, which doesnt make it reliable. also, not every protection fort gives protection for conversion, discard, shuffle, etc all at the same time, which dedicated tgt decks all plan to do. and again, like i said before, set fire kills every commonly used protect fort in the game.
i also find it comical how he consistently uses the term 'n00b', when almost everyone in this thread has been around longer than he has.
-
LOL! Jehoiada, the High Priest, singlehandedly won me an entire district booster draft! WAY OP!!
-
i also find it comical how he consistently uses the term 'n00b', when almost everyone in this thread has been around longer than he has.
:rollin:
I don't think discussing counters is really the point of this thread. The point of banning cards is to get rid of stuff that is just too ridiculous and strong. Cactus has chosen not to ban so they have been forced to make counters to the cards that are ban worthy, which is an extremely short list to begin with.
-
protection forts are good, but as maly said, you pretty much have to commit yourself to those defenses exclusively, which doesnt make it reliable. also, not every protection fort gives protection for conversion, discard, shuffle, etc all at the same time, which dedicated tgt decks all plan to do. and again, like i said before, set fire kills every commonly used protect fort in the game.
i also find it comical how he consistently uses the term 'n00b', when almost everyone in this thread has been around longer than he has.
In Redemption, no. On the boards, yes. Also, I was joking, hence the ::). Well joking about the n00b thing, I wasn't joking about everyone using standalone and forcing a card like TGT to come into play.
-
quite a few of us have been around longer than you, both redemption IRL and on the boards.
how about we refrain from using 'noob', 'n00b', 'nub', 'noobsauce', or any variation thereof altogether? not only is it derogatory, but its also something only little children still say.
-
When TSA was first printed, he negated just about every evil character and enhancement. Everyone thought that he was OPed, or else they used him in their deck. :)
But he served a purpose. Prior to FBN heroes, most defenses counted on gaining initiative and playing a battle winner. Players were SO used to that routine that they felt cheated and complained that the numbers heroes ruined the game. Rather than simply include some 10/10 or 8/12 ECs and a bunch of set asides and number enhancements, they just complained.
Well, TSA was probably a little over the top, and if those 8/8 and 10/8 heroes had been 7/7s instead, that would have been a lot more managable, but still, 10 years later, TSA has plenty of counters, so we see that there was no need to ban him. Just make some counters and we see he is not as bad as people first thought. (Though I still argue he is the best stand-alone hero in the game).
Players who want to ban TGT are complaining about only ONE card out of the bunch that are required to make that deck work. Why not complain about Holy Grail? Why not complain about Women as Snares? Why not complain about Jephthah? TGT does not kill, convert, or capture any characters. It does not rescue lost souls. It can be used in conjunction with the above cards, plus some heroes that didn't see use for YEARS before TGT released. It has accomplished a few things that we wanted it to do:
1) STOP the use of the "5 stand-alone EC defense", which was used by WAAAAAAY too many players. Red Dragon, Emperor Nero, King of Tyrus, Prince of This World, Sabbath Breaker. TGT had to be powerful enough to beat that deck more often than it lost. Otherwise, 1/3 of the top players would still be using that defense today (perhaps plus PG). Another third would be using the defense that Tim Maly used: also only 1-2 characters from each brigade, plus the one CBN battle winner from those brigades.
2) increase the playability of the garden tomb visitors. 4 old heroes, most of which were not used anymore, suddenly become HIGHLY playable. A side benefit is that many players have learned who those 6 named garden tomb visitors are.
3) increase the amount of defenders players put into their decks. 7 ECs is simply not enough. Designers thought it would make players build decks that include several ECs of mostly 1 or 2 brigades. This encourages more variety in deck design. Otherwise, you just simply use the best 5-6 ECs in the game, or else the 5-6 CBN combo defense, and ... refer to point 1.
4) make defensive themes playable. One way to make defensive themes playable is to make cards that benefit characters from the same "theme." Another way to make themes playable is to make slash defenses unplayable. :)
In retrospect, I wish we had replaced the "2 characters of that brigade" with "2 cards of that brigade." That way, if you had a curse that matched, or an enhancement in your storehouse, or an evil enhancement on your site, or a weapon on your EC, you could still block.
Regardless, I like TGT, and think it has been good for the game as a whole. We will continue to make counters to it, since it is still very strong. But I think, like TSA, it will be shown to have been a major steering mechanism for the game.
Plus, if there was ever a card in the game that SHOULD be OPed, the garden tomb is a top choice. :)
-
ill say it again amen you tell it byron
-
Players who want to ban TGT are complaining about only ONE card out of the bunch that are required to make that deck work.
one card plus an applicable hero make the deck 'work'. all other cards are supplementary to the strategy.
Why not complain about Holy Grail? Why not complain about Women as Snares? Why not complain about Jephthah?
because those cards play second fiddle towards the archetype. remove tgt, what do you have? a not-so-broken deck.
1) STOP the use of the "5 stand-alone EC defense", which was used by WAAAAAAY too many players. Red Dragon, Emperor Nero, King of Tyrus, Prince of This World, Sabbath Breaker. TGT had to be powerful enough to beat that deck more often than it lost. Otherwise, 1/3 of the top players would still be using that defense today (perhaps plus PG). Another third would be using the defense that Tim Maly used: also only 1-2 characters from each brigade, plus the one CBN battle winner from those brigades.
unless im mistaken, it still didnt exactly stop it. i still see plenty of standalone to this day being used by top tier players...even the last nationals deck used the stand-alone defense. also, stand-alone ec's have never been hard to deal with, given the plethora of interrupt and remove cards, as well as simple numbers to beat a kot and such. personally, i dont think this is an issue that should have been addressed, as the game is already terribly weighted in favor of the offense. there was nothing wrong with maly creating the turtle archetype in lieu of all the speed decks running rampant back then...and even to this day.
-
how about we refrain from using 'noob', 'n00b', 'nub', 'noobsauce', or any variation thereof altogether? not only is it derogatory, but its also something only little children still say.
FWIW, I'm a noob.
-
1) STOP the use of the "5 stand-alone EC defense", which was used by WAAAAAAY too many players. Red Dragon, Emperor Nero, King of Tyrus, Prince of This World, Sabbath Breaker. TGT had to be powerful enough to beat that deck more often than it lost. Otherwise, 1/3 of the top players would still be using that defense today (perhaps plus PG). Another third would be using the defense that Tim Maly used: also only 1-2 characters from each brigade, plus the one CBN battle winner from those brigades.
unless im mistaken, it still didnt exactly stop it. i still see plenty of standalone to this day being used by top tier players...even the last nationals deck used the stand-alone defense. also, stand-alone ec's have never been hard to deal with, given the plethora of interrupt and remove cards, as well as simple numbers to beat a kot and such. personally, i dont think this is an issue that should have been addressed, as the game is already terribly weighted in favor of the offense. there was nothing wrong with maly creating the turtle archetype in lieu of all the speed decks running rampant back then...and even to this day.
I must agree. Gabe's 1st place deck used standalone, my deck (T-3rd) used it, and I think 2nd might have too. Yes, it has definitely made me consider not using it as much, but I find an Image of J is plenty to stall a TGT deck enough for my speed to either win or lose.
-
I must agree. Gabe's 1st place deck used standalone, my deck (T-3rd) used it, and I think 2nd might have too. Yes, it has definitely made me consider not using it as much, but I find an Image of J is plenty to stall a TGT deck enough for my speed to either win or lose.
The fact that you have to play a brown EC, and a brown EE, means that you have at least 2 brown cards in your deck, and likely more if you want a reasonable chance of having a brown EC on which to play the IoJ. The old "5 stand-alone ECs" deck did not have a single brown card, and certainly not the 3-4 you likely have.
MasterKChief, the game MUST be weighted in favor of the offense. Timed out games are frustrating for many players, time-consuming for judges, create longer breaks between rounds and thus longer tournaments or fewer rounds, and not as satisfying as true wins. If a game needs to be over in 45 minutes, then the offense needs to be beat the defense the vast majority of times.
Regardless of your preference as to the strengths of the alignments, the fact that so many of the top decks used the same 5 ECs for defense meant that the game was not very fresh.
If the Garden Tomb is not a big enough threat to make that defense go away, then I guess it isn't as powerful as the whiners claim it is - further proof that it need not be banned.
-
I must agree. Gabe's 1st place deck used standalone, my deck (T-3rd) used it, and I think 2nd might have too. Yes, it has definitely made me consider not using it as much, but I find an Image of J is plenty to stall a TGT deck enough for my speed to either win or lose.
The fact that you have to play a brown EC, and a brown EE, means that you have at least 2 brown cards in your deck, and likely more if you want a reasonable chance of having a brown EC on which to play the IoJ. The old "5 stand-alone ECs" deck did not have a single brown card, and certainly not the 3-4 you likely have.
i've had 2 brown ec's and ioj as standalone since texp, and it has worked to great success in ROOT. even so, there are 3 solid stand-alone brown ec's to play it on now: TAS, uzzah, and gomer.
MasterKChief, the game MUST be weighted in favor of the offense. Timed out games are frustrating for many players, time-consuming for judges, create longer breaks between rounds and thus longer tournaments or fewer rounds, and not as satisfying as true wins. If a game needs to be over in 45 minutes, then the offense needs to be beat the defense the vast majority of times.
i see, so we create a card that skips the battle phase completely and gives the rescuer a free lost soul. you're right, that DOES save on time consumption! BRILLIANT!
Regardless of your preference as to the strengths of the alignments, the fact that so many of the top decks used the same 5 ECs for defense meant that the game was not very fresh.
and there have been many top decks that have used full-fledged defenses: maly, timmierz, etc. defense has never won a game, and it never will. isnt it a bit presumptuous thinking that since every 'top deck' has a stand-alone defense, it must make it broken? no. instead, see what kind of deck its usually contained in (speed 99% of the time). do you think a stand-alone defense will work in a non-speed deck? more than likely not. speed decks rely on these small speed bumps in hopes of setting up quickly and getting to 5 in the shortest time possible. instead of making a qualm with stand-alone, work on the t1 meta and fix speed first.
If the Garden Tomb is not a big enough threat to make that defense go away, then I guess it isn't as powerful as the whiners claim it is - further proof that it need not be banned.
even though your problem is misplaced, tgt has done far more than destroy stand-alone decks: its even caused mono and dual brigaded defensive decks to break apart at its seams. even if you have 10 or so mono-brigaded ec's in your deck, what if you dont top deck any? what if you pull only 1 that you can place down? what if your deck does not have the necessary room for reliable counters? tgt has done far more damage than it has fixed. clearly, there is a problem if 90% of us 'whiners' (so professional when individuals cannot take responsibility for their own mistakes) complain about a single card. the other 10% not complaining about it are the ones abusing it.
-
clearly, there is a problem if 90% of us 'whiners' complain about a single card. the other 10% not complaining about it are the ones abusing it.
First, how can a whiner not complain? you said 10% of the whiners arent complaining... how are they whiners then? wouldnt 100% of whiners complain about something?
Second, if you meant 90% of players complain about TGT... show me proof of THAT many people disliking TGT and I will agree with you.
-
90% as a numeric value is unprovable since nobody knows how many people play Redemption. 90% as a euphemism is totally believable.
-
If you don't top deck a couple ECs, and you think your opponent might be playing TGT, don't rescue yet. Be patient. Wait a turn or two to begin your rescues. Set up your defense. TGT does nothing to you if you have not rescued yet. You can block all you want if you have not rescued yet. If you don't want to be patient, then you just might have to suffer the consequences. If this card changes the way you play the game, then it changs the way you play the game. If you don't want to change the way you play the game, then don't complain if you lose. :)
It isn't that difficult for a 9-10 EC deck to destroy a TGT deck more often that not, especially if you play it smart. Really.
Oh, and about the "whiners" comment. Just because someone want more counters to a card does not make the person a whiner. Its all in how you say it.
Non whining: "TGT is sometimes frustrating to play against, because more often than not they combine it with Holy Grail, Jephthah, or Women as Snares that take away the defense outside of battle, leaving me with too few ECs of my main evil brigade. I hope we get a few more counters in the next set. Cards like Philistine Outpost and Territory Class enhancements are nice, but I'd really like some more options."
Whining: "Ban TGT. It ruins the game, is way OPed, and makes it so I can't use the same kind of defense or strategy I used from 1999 to 2007. Wahh."
:)
-
amen
-
even though your problem is misplaced, tgt has done far more than destroy stand-alone decks: its even caused mono and dual brigaded defensive decks to break apart at its seams. even if you have 10 or so mono-brigaded ec's in your deck, what if you dont top deck any?
That shouldn't be a problem, if you can manage being patient with your own rescues until a decent defense is set up.
what if you pull only 1 that you can place down?
Same as above.
what if your deck does not have the necessary room for reliable counters?
While reliability may be an issue, I have found that some of the best counters, Philistine Outpost, Destructive Sin, IoJ, etc. are useful for many purposes, and can fit into a variety of defenses. I do think there should be cards in every brigade that are capable of countering TGT, and being useful enough to be good for other things too, and I imagine that more are in the works. I have a strong feeling that EC's that cannot be ignored while they are in play will be a part pf the next set.
tgt has done far more damage than it has fixed. clearly, there is a problem if 90% of us 'whiners' (so professional when individuals cannot take responsibility for their own mistakes) complain about a single card. the other 10% not complaining about it are the ones abusing it.
Rob has decided that he will not have cards banned in Redemption. That doesn't mean that he thinks all cards are good for the game, or that he doesn't regret how certain cards were worded, just that he won't 'fix' that problem by banning cards. I doubt your line of reasoning will affect that decision.
It is clear you are an experienced player, MKC, in Redemption and other TCG's. You have made your opinion on this particular card very clear several times in several threads since it came into being. I just don't know what you're trying to accomplish. Trust me, I am not a fan of TGT either, and have never used it, because I see it as too easy of a strategy. Would I want it banned? I don't know, maybe, but it's not going to happen; that's what I do know.
When I started playing again this summer after having not played since '08 Nats, I played and lost to three TGT decks in a row. Then when I built my Philistine deck after TxP, I took the next 6 or so TGT-playing opponents by surprise with how easily Philly Outpost dominated TGT. Sure, PO isn't 100% reliable as a counter, but it works pretty well. Eventually there will be more and more counters to the point where a TGT player has to include a fair amount of strategy in order to make it work, just like FBTN decks do now, which is a good thing.
-
If you don't top deck a couple ECs, and you think your opponent might be playing TGT, don't rescue yet. Be patient. Wait a turn or two to begin your rescues. Set up your defense. TGT does nothing to you if you have not rescued yet. You can block all you want if you have not rescued yet. If you don't want to be patient, then you just might have to suffer the consequences.
so, you're telling us the answer to teching against tgt is...not rescuing? i see. i've been playing this game completely wrong for 10 years.
It isn't that difficult for a 9-10 EC deck to destroy a TGT deck more often that not, especially if you play it smart. Really.
i can name 9-10 ways to destroy ec's with reliable, oft-used cards.
-
If you don't top deck a couple ECs, and you think your opponent might be playing TGT, don't rescue yet. Be patient. Wait a turn or two to begin your rescues. Set up your defense. TGT does nothing to you if you have not rescued yet. You can block all you want if you have not rescued yet. If you don't want to be patient, then you just might have to suffer the consequences.
so, you're telling us the answer to teching against tgt is...not rescuing? i see. i've been playing this game completely wrong for 10 years.
What's wrong with holding off a little bit to completely stall their advantage, until you have enough defense to stop them? If their TGT isnt working, they lose like, 50% of their offense, if not more. By stalling your Rescues, you stall theirs. I see no issue with this. In fact, I love the fact that some decks make you play the game differently.
It isn't that difficult for a 9-10 EC deck to destroy a TGT deck more often that not, especially if you play it smart. Really.
i can name 9-10 ways to destroy ec's with reliable, oft-used cards.
I wanna see that list.
-
Holy Grail, WaS, Jephthah, AoC, SS, Head of Gold, He Is Risen! (better than Discard), IA, and Habbakuk Stands Watch for starters.
-
stalling does not stall a tgt deck, it only delays the inevitable. many decent tgt decks utilize many ways to discard/remove evil characters, many of which make decent battle winners themselves. a simple top 10 list...
1. aocp
2. holy grail
3. holy grail
4. zeal
5. zeal
6. meeting the messiah
7. passover & unleavened bread
8. jepthah
9. women as snares
10. holy unto the lord
to name a few.
edit:
Holy Grail, WaS, Jephthah, AoC, SS, Head of Gold, He Is Risen! (better than Discard), IA, and Habbakuk Stands Watch for starters.
completely forgot about he is risen, thats a staple for tgt.
-
Holy Grail, WaS, Jephthah, AoC, SS, Head of Gold, He Is Risen! (better than Discard), IA, and Habbakuk Stands Watch for starters.
HG - valid, but fails against demons.
WaS - requires you to make a RA, but, i agree this can be legitimate.
Jephthah - valid.
AoC - protect forts
SS - Demons live, and its tricky to play this without me negating it.
Head of Gold - unless you use it in a side battle, this requires me to make a RA.
He is Risen, legitimate, but negatable.
IA - only WC ec's.
HSW, i put a warror class enhancement or a single color site down and this card is ruined.
*Edit to add in MKC's list*
Zeal, only kills two if you use more than two brigades. band two same-brigade ec's in battle, and laugh at zeal.
Meeting the Messiah - good, but fails against demons.
Passover - Darius Decree? If it works, legit.
Holy unto the Lord. yeah, but you ruin your own defense as well, so i get to walk in next turn.
Now, how many of these are usually in one deck? If you fit all of those in, thats gonna be one small defense... I could just walk right in probably.
*EDIT 2*
Also, from that list, seems like Demons are extremely effective against TGT... as quite a few of those only target humans.
-
Holy Grail, WaS, Jephthah, AoC, SS, Head of Gold, He Is Risen! (better than Discard), IA, and Habbakuk Stands Watch for starters.
HG - valid, but fails against demons. yes, because orange decks are so rampant these days.
WaS - requires you to make a RA, but, i agree this can be legitimate.
Jephthah - valid.
AoC - protect forts jep is valid while aoc isnt? ooook.
SS - Demons live, and its tricky to play this without me negating it.
Head of Gold - unless you use it in a side battle, this requires me to make a RA. right, because it would be silly to make rescue attempts.
He is Risen, legitimate, but negatable. but still a powerful answer.
IA - only WC ec's. pre-block discard? sign me up.
HSW, i put a warror class enhancement or a single color site down and this card is ruined.
*Edit to add in MKC's list*
Zeal, only kills two if you use more than two brigades. band two same-brigade ec's in battle, and laugh at zeal. nonetheless, its an oft-used and guaranteed discard.
Meeting the Messiah - good, but fails against demons. see above.
Passover - Darius Decree? If it works, legit. you'd think more people would use this card, but the fact of the matter is people dont.
Holy unto the Lord. yeah, but you ruin your own defense as well, so i get to walk in next turn. irrelevant towards my point, but what you state is not always the case.
Now, how many of these are usually in one deck? If you fit all of those in, thats gonna be one small defense... I could just walk right in probably. gabes nats deck says hi.
-
The current deck im running is largely demons, which is why i brought up the point of how a lot of those are only effective on humans.
Still, theres many ways around many of those methods of EC disrupting that are relatively simple, you just have to plan for them. Also, another thing about my current deck... not only is it largely demons, but it has 34 EC's in it. Have fun killing off every last one. :)
-
a tgt deck doesnt have to kill off 'every last one'...it only has to kill off X - 1, where X = how many evil characters of one brigade you have in play.
and with 34 evil characters, you must have an exceptionally large deck! good luck pulling all of them before tgt walks in...and with it largely being demons and no protection outside of purple site/colorguard, give my regards to aocp.
-
I don't see why people focus so much on Garden Tomb as the problem. Garden Tomb wouldn't have teeth without Holy Grail, AoC, Jepthah, or Women as Snares. You would be hard pressed to find a Garden Tomb deck without those four cards, and if you did you are not going to have any trouble blocking with your mono-color defense. It isn't Garden Tomb that makes decks that use it good, its all the territory deconstruction. Garden Tomb just gets all the glory while the territory decon is doing all the work.
Also, from that list, seems like Demons are extremely effective against TGT... as quite a few of those only target humans.
That might be true if Garden Tomb didn't reside primarily within white, the most anti demon focused brigade. It also only takes one mid-late game block with Women as Snares to ruin a demon defense. Nobody plays with Spiritual Realm and people who do will find they've wasted a card slot in at least half of their games.
Now, how many of these are usually in one deck? If you fit all of those in, thats gonna be one small defense... I could just walk right in probably.
Actually, considering all the rest of the offense has to be comprised of is GT and then the coinciding Heroes, that's an offense of about 16 cards. Let's count just for kicks and giggles. Mary, Mary, Salome, Joanna, John, Peter, ET, two negates plus SoG, NJ, AotL, Grapes, and Guardian. Oh, and The Garden Tomb and let's toss in a spot for another good fortress. That's 16 cards plus the ~10 that were mentioned. That's 26. You'll need Heroes to match some of that stuff so let's add 5 to bring us to 31. That leaves 18 card slots left for you to make a defense in a 56 card deck. Seems pretty doable to me.
-
a tgt deck doesnt have to kill off 'every last one'...it only has to kill off X - 1, where X = how many evil characters of one brigade you have in play.
and with 34 evil characters, you must have an exceptionally large deck! good luck pulling all of them before tgt walks in...and with it largely being demons and no protection outside of purple site/colorguard, give my regards to aocp.
It's 133 cards and the defense is most of the deck. I've done many test draws of it, and I usually get 2-3 ec's on the d8, with the rest drawing quickly.
Also, Demons deal with AoCP surprisingly well. Madness, Gates of Hell, site guard soul, and wandering spirit for example. Also, only way AoCP could take out every EC I have (almost every one of which is duplicated) is if you wait till i've gone through all 133 cards. By that time I'd probably have won.
That might be true if Garden Tomb didn't reside primarily within white, the most anti demon focused brigade. It also only takes one mid-late game block with Women as Snares to ruin a demon defense. Nobody plays with Spiritual Realm and people who do will find they've wasted a card slot in at least half of their games.
That is true. However, how much of whites anti-demon stuff is commonly used? Also, I do realize WaS can be an issue for demons, but my play style is that of a slowe offense, so their hand will likely end up being crammed with too much defense, and they may end up not being able to keep WaS in their hand. After that, easy pickings.
-
I don't see why people focus so much on Garden Tomb as the problem. Garden Tomb wouldn't have teeth without Holy Grail, AoC, Jepthah, or Women as Snares. You would be hard pressed to find a Garden Tomb deck without those four cards, and if you did you are not going to have any trouble blocking with your mono-color defense. It isn't Garden Tomb that makes decks that use it good, its all the territory deconstruction. Garden Tomb just gets all the glory while the territory decon is doing all the work.
but thats the thing...territory construction is nothing without tgt. the cards you named does absolutely nothing to making a successful rescue...they're only supporter cards towards the strategy. tgt makes the strategy absolutely broken. it used to be we could save a defensive answer or two in hand just in case an opponent uses a territory discarder/remover. that is no longer the case with tgt.
-
but thats the thing...territory construction is nothing without tgt. the cards you named does absolutely nothing to making a successful rescue...they're only supporter cards towards the strategy. tgt makes the strategy absolutely broken. it used to be we could save a defensive answer or two in hand just in case an opponent uses a territory discarder/remover. that is no longer the case with tgt.
Exactly, Garden Tomb needs all those things to even be a threat. It is for that reason that it isn't broken. It makes territory decon effective because it forces ECs into play. You have to combine all those cards together to have something that is effective. If I toss GT, Mary Mag, Jo, and John into my white female offense, GT isn't really going to do much for me. A prefect example of this is a game I played shortly after RoA. My opponent was using the stuff from the tin with GT for his deck. He didn't use Jephthah, AoC, Women as Snares or Holy Grail. I had no worries about blocking for the entire games once I actually read GT and realized I needed to have 2 ECs in play. My opponent ended up just having a female NT white offense with Mary Mag an Joanna. The banding was more problematic for me that game than GT was by leaps and bounds.
Also, Demons deal with AoCP surprisingly well. Madness, Gates of Hell, site guard soul, and wandering spirit for example. Also, only way AoCP could take out every EC I have (almost every one of which is duplicated) is if you wait till i've gone through all 133 cards. By that time I'd probably have won.
So I'm going to assume that you have some crimson ECs as well because if you didn't then GT would prevent 7Sons from entering battle to discard 3Nails. If Lampstand is in the picture then you're really sunk.
they may end up not being able to keep WaS in their hand.
Never, she always, always, always blocks from hand. Unless she's already blocked once, in which case she's already dealt a blow that would have resulted in a walk in rescue by any of the GT Heroes.
-
Exactly, Garden Tomb needs all those things to even be a threat. It is for that reason that it isn't broken. It makes territory decon effective because it forces ECs into play. You have to combine all those cards together to have something that is effective. If I toss GT, Mary Mag, Jo, and John into my white female offense, GT isn't really going to do much for me. A prefect example of this is a game I played shortly after RoA. My opponent was using the stuff from the tin with GT for his deck. He didn't use Jephthah, AoC, Women as Snares or Holy Grail. I had no worries about blocking for the entire games once I actually read GT and realized I needed to have 2 ECs in play. My opponent ended up just having a female NT white offense with Mary Mag an Joanna. The banding was more problematic for me that game than GT was by leaps and bounds.
I agree, just plan on protecting your territory and maybe holding off a rescue for a turn or two, and TGT looses its bite. Now, in all of my comments, I've never intended to come off sounding like TGT is epic weaksauce, because its not. However, I feel it is nowhere near broken.
So I'm going to assume that you have some crimson ECs as well because if you didn't then GT would prevent 7Sons from entering battle to discard 3Nails. If Lampstand is in the picture then you're really sunk.
and some other humans; its grey/orange... and the pit... and SSoS because I dont play speed offense, meaning TGT may not even be active... and Destructive Sin to negate TGT to allow SSoS to block... and captured ark to deal with either artifact... I have my ways around 3 nails.
Never, she always, always, always blocks from hand. Unless she's already blocked once, in which case she's already dealt a blow that would have resulted in a walk in rescue by any of the GT Heroes.
I agree she SHOULD be played that way, but hand pressure kills.
-
I'm seeing a lot of territory protection in the next set. :)
Multiple cards that protect ECs in territory from capture, conversion, and hero abilities. That takes care of WaS, HG, and Jephthah. Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
-
I'm seeing a lot of territory protection in the next set. :)
Multiple cards that protect ECs in territory from capture, conversion, and hero abilities. That takes care of WaS, HG, and Jephthah. Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
Yay!
-
Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
You know, gold is the weakest metal...
-
Hey,
I never thought I'd see a wall of text from Bryon.
1) STOP the use of the "5 stand-alone EC defense", which was used by WAAAAAAY too many players. Red Dragon, Emperor Nero, King of Tyrus, Prince of This World, Sabbath Breaker. TGT had to be powerful enough to beat that deck more often than it lost. Otherwise, 1/3 of the top players would still be using that defense today (perhaps plus PG). Another third would be using the defense that Tim Maly used: also only 1-2 characters from each brigade, plus the one CBN battle winner from those brigades.
I believe TGT failed almost entirely in achieving this objective, which I believe was the primary objective in mind when TGT was printed. As intended, TGT does well against stand alone and splash defenses. What wasn't intended is that TGT does almost as well against two brigade and single brigade defenses. If a splash/stand alone defense is the best defense against stuff other than TGT and using something other than splash/stand alone doesn't significantly increase my odds against a TGT deck, then I might as well stick with my splash/stand alone defense, which is what I believe is what happened.
I know I stuck with my splash defense last year and in five tournaments it won regionals (beating Gabe's TGT deck that won nationals in the process), won a state, placed third at state, and won a district. The only tournament it did poorly at was nationals, and I think my only game against a TGT deck at nationals was a 5-4 loss where I didn't draw Son of God. [And for the record it has 2-3 evil characters of each brigade not 1-2.]
If you don't top deck a couple ECs, and you think your opponent might be playing TGT, don't rescue yet. Be patient. Wait a turn or two to begin your rescues. Set up your defense.
With all due respect, that's some of the worst advice I've ever heard. Every TGT deck I've ever seen was more than capable of winning souls without TGT being active. So not rescuing is just going to put you behind, and it's really hard to catch up against a TGT deck. Patience against a speed deck is suicide, and 90% of TGT decks are speed decks. I believe the best strategy against TGT (or any other speed deck for that matter) is to get out as fast as possible and hope you get to five before they draw the cards they need to slow you down.
It isn't that difficult for a 9-10 EC deck to destroy a TGT deck more often that not, especially if you play it smart. Really.
If that's the case, why were none of the eight people that played Gabe at nationals able to destroy his TGT deck?
I don't see why people focus so much on Garden Tomb as the problem. Garden Tomb wouldn't have teeth without Holy Grail, AoC, Jepthah, or Women as Snares. You would be hard pressed to find a Garden Tomb deck without those four cards, and if you did you are not going to have any trouble blocking with your mono-color defense. It isn't Garden Tomb that makes decks that use it good, its all the territory deconstruction. Garden Tomb just gets all the glory while the territory decon is doing all the work.
You do realize that Gabe's TGT deck that won nationals accumulated 28 of its 36 wins without any of those four cards, right? The only one that was in his deck at nationals was Holy Grail which he added after regionals.
Territory destruction is worthless if I hold my evil characters in my hand. Prior to the release of TGT I always held an evil character in my hand. I'd rather discard one of the weaker dominants than put down my last evil character out of my hand. TGT forces a player to put their evil characters into their territory so that territory destruction can pick them off. TGT is what makes territory destruction work, that's why it's the card that gets complained about. Ultimately, the problem isn't TGT; the problem is the vulnerability of evil characters in a player's territory.
I'm seeing a lot of territory protection in the next set. :)
Multiple cards that protect ECs in territory from capture, conversion, and hero abilities. That takes care of WaS, HG, and Jephthah. Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
Of course this only helps if you draw your territory protection cards before they draw their territory destruction cards. Which just encourages them to use speed so that they are more likely to draw what they need before you do.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
would tgt and jseat be good cuz bam clear their ec.
-
Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
You know, gold is the weakest metal...
It will bend yes but not break.
-
Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
You know, gold is the weakest metal...
It will bend yes but not break.
it will melt at the Gates of Hell.
Touche to Ring Wraith! However, did you read the full ability? Maybe this would work:
Name: Banned Card
Type: Good Dominant
SA: Ban one card in play for the remainder of the game. Cannot be repealed or banned.
Verse: 'Now Cactus just needs to print more cards that help out people like us.' ~jtay
Thanks for the pic, Cameron, that would fit nicely!
I just realized, I could still ban it. it's an SA :P
do identifiers work in the draw pile?
-
Territory destruction is worthless if I hold my evil characters in my hand. Prior to the release of TGT I always held an evil character in my hand. I'd rather discard one of the weaker dominants than put down my last evil character out of my hand. TGT forces a player to put their evil characters into their territory so that territory destruction can pick them off. TGT is what makes territory destruction work, that's why it's the card that gets complained about. Ultimately, the problem isn't TGT; the problem is the vulnerability of evil characters in a player's territory.
I'm pretty sure I said that, just in less words.
It makes territory decon effective because it forces ECs into play.
You do realize that Gabe's TGT deck that won nationals accumulated 28 of its 36 wins without any of those four cards, right? The only one that was in his deck at nationals was Holy Grail which he added after regionals.
Gabe's deck was primarily ZTemple. He only added Garden Tomb because of how it easily feeds off of the EC discard and territory destruction that teal has.
Teal works great with TGT because it has so many ways to remove opposing Evil Characters from play, which clears the way for TGT ladies to rescue unblocked. Teals biggest weakness is lack of access to the NT LS and Female LS, which is also solved by TGT ladies.
His deck also only had 4 "GT cards," in Mary, Joanna, Salome, and GT itself. The rest is ZTemple with the possible exception of Passover&Unleavened Bread but I've seen people use that in strictly ZTemple decks without GT.
-
how about we refrain from using 'noob', 'n00b', 'nub', 'noobsauce', or any variation thereof altogether? not only is it derogatory, but its also something only little children still say.
FWIW, I'm a noob.
:rollin: I was going to say the EXACT same thing except that I was going to add: "who lucked out and got a medal." :laugh:
-
*Goes back to his heroless happily*
-
*Goes back to his heroless happily*
He said, apparently forgetting that Grapes of Wrath had been printed.
-
Dear Cactus,
To save the most time honored and loved deck strategy of heroless, please make a card to protect a hero from shuffle.
Love,
Me
-
I'm seeing a lot of territory protection in the next set. :)
Multiple cards that protect ECs in territory from capture, conversion, and hero abilities. That takes care of WaS, HG, and Jephthah. Activate DD, and you are golden. :)
Sweet! Nothing protecting against shuffle.
...wait...oh yeah, whoop-de-doo, they neutered ANewbadoobadoo.
;)
-
ikr...?
-
Dear Cactus,
To save the most time honored and loved deck strategy of heroless, please make a card to protect a hero from shuffle.
Love,
Me
I has 2 HG uses.
-
I has 2 HG uses.
I hopes you has 2 uses of each set aside* also. ;)
*I know your heroless didn't usually rely on set asides, but Grapes totally destroys the Saul/Paul Rambo decks, which is kind of sad.
-
I has 2 HG uses.
I hopes you has 2 uses of each set aside* also. ;)
*I know your heroless didn't usually rely on set asides, but Grapes totally destroys the Saul/Paul Rambo decks, which is kind of sad.
Yes it does :( but no worries. I has a new one in progress.
-
i thought heroless used built on a rock?
-
If that's the case, why were none of the eight people that played Gabe at nationals able to destroy his TGT deck?
1) None of them had 9-10 ECs in their deck, which is what I said could beat TGT.
2) He won with Z's Temple. The splash of TGT probably didn't win the majority of his rescues.
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said. :)
As to the point about speed, that is not unique to territory destruction vs protection. The same argument for using speed could just as easily be used to talk about the relationship between sites vs access, Guardian vs Falling Away, getting character+ enhancement combos first, and simply getting to Son of God first.
And as to the point about not rescuing, I have won games because I waited one extra turn to rescue my first lost soul. My opponent had TGT. I could have rescued. I waited one turn so I could pull off a block with my lone EC the next turn. I Confusioned his Women as Snares (Son of God in another game and Holy Grail in another game), and I was good for the game. There is a chance I could have won if I had rescued first, but waiting certainly helped in those instances. If the TGT decks you have faced could beat you without TGT - so badly that you simply CANNOT afford to wait one turn to begin your rescue attempts, then TGT isn't the chief problem.
-
i thought heroless used built on a rock?
Red'Rocks was playing heroless before there was a Built on the Rock. I think he built his first heroless deck shortly after Holy Grail was released in Warriors. :)
To your question--some heroless do use BotR and some don't. Towards the end of the heroless wave a number of decks built upon Saul/Paul and BotR were all the rage.
Heroless first became top-class (meaning a heroless deck could win tournaments at any level) playable archetype following the release of Priests. For reasons that escape me the subsequent three releases (FoOF, RoA, and TexP) have all hit the heroless archetype pretty hard. One example of this was mentioned earlier--Grapes totally destroys Saul/Paul decks--and since Grapes is a versatile Dominant it is going to be found in a most competitive decks,
-
9-10 ec's still doesnt beat tgt. in a normal 56 card deck, thats only roughly 2 ec's every 3 turns. tgt can consistently snipe anything every turn given the plethora of territory destruction/removal.
-
tgt can consistently snipe anything every turn given the plethora of territory destruction/removal.
tgt can't snipe anything.
Territory destruction can't hurt you if you have your protection. Most of the protect forts have a character that can search for it. The protection artifacts are not bad either.
My Philistine deck does very well, since Temple and Altar of Dagon protect them so well.
I know the next comment already: "but I don't have aprotect fort for my ECs!" The answer is coming. It was a few years after Warriors before every evil brigade could beat a FBN deck consistently.
-
amen
-
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said. :)
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2 :)
-
protect forts do not protect from every possible situation. phillies have no protection against discard or shuffle. even so, a properly built tgt deck will have answers for protect forts (high places + set fire = woops, there goes all your so-called protection). after that, its curtains.
and what if a person doesnt want to submit to a culture (and who really does, it doesnt exactly encourage creative deck building)? they're pretty much left out to dry unless they use brown or orange?
-
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said. :)
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2 :)
:) I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand. :)
-
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said. :)
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2 :)
:) I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand. :)
Then why didn't the PtB try to come up with additional cards to counter to combo decks as opposed to taking the easy way out and change a fundamental game mechanic (i.e., imposing hand limits) that has effects far beyond stopping combo decks? Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?
These are serious questions because I am curious about how we got to where we are, and this seems like a good thread to ask about it.
-
These are serious questions ...
Your current picture ... SQUIRREL!! .... makes it difficult to take you ... SQUIRREL!! .... seriously. ;)
-
3) It was Gabe. 'Nuff said. :)
Too bad the PtB didn't take the same attitude regarding Gabe's victory in T2 :)
:) I would not have minded facing (read: losing to) his Type 1 deck. But I could have taken a nap during his marathon turn in Type 2, and then continued napping though the rest of the game with no hand, and no possible way to ever get a hand. :)
Then why didn't the PtB try to come up with additional cards to counter to combo decks as opposed to taking the easy way out and change a fundamental game mechanic (i.e., imposing hand limits) that has effects far beyond stopping combo decks? Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?
These are serious questions because I am curious about how we got to where we are, and this seems like a good thread to ask about it.
Those are great questions.
When LotR released its first few sets, players quickly came up with a way to draw out many, many cards during a fellowship phase (akin to our Preparation phase). Rather than ban cards immediately and/or create counters (to which there would inevitably be counter-counters, etc.), they decided to institute "The Rule of Four," which meant players could draw (or take into hand from a deck or discard pile) no more than 4 cards during the preparation phase. I was playing this game heavily at the time, read the thought processes given by the game designers and official rules gurus on the Decipher boards, and witnessed the perfect fix this became. Some players wished they'd made the "rule of 5" or the like, but in general, the rule was met with positive reactions by top players.
When Rob and Chris Bany and I (and others) discussed this, we knew that a basic rule fix was needed. For years, players have been complaining about rediculous speed decks, and having a 56-card hand give a player too many options for piecing together game-breaking combos.
My first thought was to create a "cap" on the number of cards you could draw per phase, just as Lord of the Rings had done. Except raise the number to 7, I thought. And make allowances for shuffle+draws, like Hur and Love at First Sight. But this seemed a little clunky, and required players to keep track of how many cards they'd drawn. I think it was Chris (though it might have been Rob) suggested a hand cap instead. I immediately saw the benefits of this and agreed that it was the best way to go.
Deck building is another area where rule changes can be made. But this MUST be kept simple. We have no interest in forcing players keep their defenses to a certain number of brigades. We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.
-
We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.
It all made sense except the quote above. Getting players to use only 1 or 2 defense colors is not most EASILY accomplished by making cards that push that way. It is much EASIER to simply make a rule that says you are only allowed to use 1 or 2 colors. Then you're done. Doing it with cards allows players the flexibility to continue using more than 2 colors if they either don't mind being at a disadvantage, or if they are creative enough to figure out a way to do it without being at a disadvantage.
Given the choices above, I'm glad that the PTB chose to encourage deckbuilding in a certain direction rather than mandating it. It's not easier for them, but it is more freeing for us players :)
-
Let me clarify. By "steering" I just meant "encouraging." Not mandating, and not making it impossible to win with just stand alones. Just making it dangerous. We want SOME decks to be able to win the vast majority of games against stand alones. Currently, we have given tools to Judges, Genesis, and TGT decks to beat stand alone defenses rather easily. Other offenses will have a harder time.
By "that is more easily accomplished with cards" I meant that it is easier to accomplish the steering with cards than it is to put a cap on hand size with cards.
-
Similarly, if the problem was too many multi-brigade defenses, why not just just pass a deck building rule that limited players to three defensive brigades or somesuch?
We do want to steer players to a 1-brigade or 2-brigade defense, but we will do it with cards, since that is more easily accomplished.
It is much EASIER to simply make a rule that says you are only allowed to use 1 or 2 colors. Then you're done. Doing it with cards allows players the flexibility to continue using more than 2 colors if they either don't mind being at a disadvantage, or if they are creative enough to figure out a way to do it without being at a disadvantage.
Given the choices above, I'm glad that the PTB chose to encourage deckbuilding in a certain direction rather than mandating it. It's not easier for them, but it is more freeing for us players :)
Odd. Some of the new orange cards encourage the use of many brigades. :-\
I agree with Prof in that I would hate to see the creativity taken out of deckbuilding.
-
Right. There are cards to encourage players to use 2 evil brigades. Orange + culture decks are encouraged. Cards like RTC encourage the use of a second evil brigade. However, there are cards that punish you for having a large number of brigades. Judge's Seat, Shibboleth, and Elon are examples from the Judges theme. Genesis/Job has its share of examples, and TGT is an obvious one.
-
i thought heroless used built on a rock?
Red'Rocks was playing heroless before there was a Built on the Rock. I think he built his first heroless deck shortly after Holy Grail was released in Warriors. :)
To your question--some heroless do use BotR and some don't. Towards the end of the heroless wave a number of decks built upon Saul/Paul and BotR were all the rage.
Heroless first became top-class (meaning a heroless deck could win tournaments at any level) playable archetype following the release of Priests. For reasons that escape me the subsequent three releases (FoOF, RoA, and TexP) have all hit the heroless archetype pretty hard. One example of this was mentioned earlier--Grapes totally destroys Saul/Paul decks--and since Grapes is a versatile Dominant it is going to be found in a most competitive decks,
Now I feel old.... I made the first heroless after kings and as said it became a full archtype after priests. Why must they pick on my heroless? :( My original heroless didn't use Built on the rock (because it wasn't out) nor saul/paul. It used babylon the great (7/2) and I feel this sort of blatant creativity is what is going to be needed to get heroless back to a playable archtype. I honestly have NOT used heroless in TEXP but I feel even s/p could do well if you play it right. /End rant
I am RR, and I may or may not approve of this message.
-
I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.
-
i feel grapes is an incredibly balanced card. some games its useful, and some games its downright useless.
-
Bryon, thanks for answering my question. It's always interesting (at least to me) to get a glimpse at the thinking behind certain decisions.
-
I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.
I gave up on Heroless soon after Z's Temple came out. The theory behind my deck was to eradicate their offense completely, then use AoC to get rid of their defense after converting a 1/1 King or 1/3 Sadducee. Eradicating offenses became rather difficult when my opponent's offense was all but untouchable. RoA and TexP didn't help much either.
Oh, but it was fun while it lasted. Who knows, I may someday try again, just to see what happens.
-
I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.
I gave up on Heroless soon after Z's Temple came out. The theory behind my deck was to eradicate their offense completely, then use AoC to get rid of their defense after converting a 1/1 King or 1/3 Sadducee. Eradicating offenses became rather difficult when my opponent's offense was all but untouchable. RoA and TexP didn't help much either.
Oh, but it was fun while it lasted. Who knows, I may someday try again, just to see what happens.
Yes, characters in territory have much more protection than they ever did. No wonder everyone is going to hand and deck destruction.
-
I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.
I gave up on Heroless soon after Z's Temple came out. The theory behind my deck was to eradicate their offense completely, then use AoC to get rid of their defense after converting a 1/1 King or 1/3 Sadducee. Eradicating offenses became rather difficult when my opponent's offense was all but untouchable. RoA and TexP didn't help much either.
Oh, but it was fun while it lasted. Who knows, I may someday try again, just to see what happens.
Yes, characters in territory have much more protection than they ever did. No wonder everyone is going to hand and deck destruction.
Going back? ;)
Idk, with each brigade having a fort killer it seems easy to me but maybe thats just me.
-
I am also extremely unhappy with Grapes. Heroless is one of the great traditions of Redemption. If a card that was introduced that protected a hero from shuffle, it would be much appreciated.
I gave up on Heroless soon after Z's Temple came out. The theory behind my deck was to eradicate their offense completely, then use AoC to get rid of their defense after converting a 1/1 King or 1/3 Sadducee. Eradicating offenses became rather difficult when my opponent's offense was all but untouchable. RoA and TexP didn't help much either.
Oh, but it was fun while it lasted. Who knows, I may someday try again, just to see what happens.
Yes, characters in territory have much more protection than they ever did. No wonder everyone is going to hand and deck destruction.
Going back? ;)
Idk, with each brigade having a fort killer it seems easy to me but maybe thats just me.
Shhh! ;)
-
The way to do Heroless now is use Crimson and Brown. Use High Places+Gibeonite Treaty to make a Green Hero out of Prophets of Baal or another Prophet in Crimson or Brown. Then use Hidden Treasures to start a side battle of Gomer+Ashpenaz or Astrologers against a huge EC. Proceed to play Great Image and whatever you need to clear Protection. Their offense is gone. Now it wou;it would be a lot easier and better to play hero-lite and just use some Prohets, utsome people like to be pure rather than viable.
-
The way to do Heroless now is use Crimson and Brown. Use High Places+Gibeonite Treaty to make a Green Hero out of Prophets of Baal or another Prophet in Crimson or Brown. Then use Hidden Treasures to start a side battle of Gomer+Ashpenaz or Astrologers against a huge EC. Proceed to play Great Image and whatever you need to clear Protection. Their offense is gone. Now it wou;it would be a lot easier and better to play hero-lite and just use some Prohets, utsome people like to be pure rather than viable.
I tried a Hero-lite once, just by adding a couple of purple Heroes to my Heroless, and it was a disaster. Both games I used it I got cocky and made bad moves with my actual heroes before I should have. I'm certain that if I had played it right I would have been fine, but I stuck with nor Heroes for the remainder of my Heroless' life.
-
The way to do Heroless now is use Crimson and Brown. Use High Places+Gibeonite Treaty to make a Green Hero out of Prophets of Baal or another Prophet in Crimson or Brown. Then use Hidden Treasures to start a side battle of Gomer+Ashpenaz or Astrologers against a huge EC. Proceed to play Great Image and whatever you need to clear Protection. Their offense is gone. Now it wou;it would be a lot easier and better to play hero-lite and just use some Prohets, utsome people like to be pure rather than viable.
Note: original heroless was Crimson/Brown/Green
-
I think Saul/Paul, Healing of Namaan, and now Proud Pharisee have made Grey the best heroless option. Combine Pharisees with Emperors and you get hand destruction also, which is rather useful for heroless. High Priest's Palace is awesome not only as a protect fort for when you play AoCP, but also as a holder for two artifacts which go well with heroless. Namaan is a pretty good option also, especially if you have a spare Gold Shield. So with all that, who cares if someone plays a Grapes on you? You have potentially three ways to convert EC's, and an EC that will convert himself. Maybe putting in brown is good, because you have Gibeonite Trickery for conversion, and stuff like Crucify Him to do some awesomeness.
Bottom line, heroless is not (or at least should not be) dead.