Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: Gabe on June 23, 2015, 12:35:22 PM
-
Teams have been an official format for a few years now. We have had plenty of opportunity to test out the Intro Prep phase to see how it impacts the game and evaluate if it's worth keeping it for official Teams play. (We are only evaluating this for Teams and not considering adding intro prep to any other categories at this time.)
We would like to get feedback from tournament hosts and Teams players about the Intro Prep phase. Should we keep it? Should we eliminate it? Should we change it?
If you regularly play Teams or host tournaments, please vote on the poll above. Feel free to leave comments below to explain your vote.
-
In my area Teams is an extremely popular event. In fact, most players will choose Teams over T1-2P. Here, we've found Intro Prep to be a burden that offers very little actual benefit.
- Because this phase is unique to this one event, we always have players that get confused about Intro Prep resulting in wrong play and/or questions
- It adds 2-5 minutes of play where the game doesn't progress. We usually have tables time out, which makes the extra time taken for intro prep appear to be a detriment to the game
In addition to my observations locally, it seems that different regions use different rules for intro prep, playing it differently across the country. This adds problems when we play together at Nationals.
In case there's any question, I'm fully in favor of eliminating Intro Prep from the Teams format.
-
Just so the community is aware, I am advocating that intro-prep not be eliminated.
I did not want anyone to get the impression Gabe was presenting this on behalf of the Elder team (which we sometimes do with important potential rule changes)--
*Edit--I should have been more clear. Gabe WAS presenting the proposal on behalf of the Elder team, but his preference for eliminating it is not shared by all Elders/playtesters. He rightly split the proposal and personal preference into two separate posts so I apologize for any confusion this post caused--I was at work and did not write my entire post at one time so what I meant to say and what I ended up saying got a little disjointed.
There are several Elders/playtesters who are in favor of eliminating it, myself who outright opposes that idea and others who are undecided/have not yet weighed in, but ALL of us want as much feedback as we can get from the Redemption community...that is the important thing for us to know. :)
A couple points/counter-points that I will present in favor of not eliminating intro prep:
--It keeps the team that goes second from being at a disadvantage in terms of set up. For example, to me it would be frustrating to watch the other team do a bunch of drawing on their two turns while I'm sitting in the last seat with Golden Cherubim in my hand because there was no intro-prep for me to activate it.
--Because TEAMS always finishes the current round when time is up, the extra couples minutes that intro-prep sometimes takes is unlikely to change the number of rounds that a game lasts. Obviously there might be an occasional game where the intro-prep takes up to 5 minutes, but if that's the case then it's likely that the players have taken several actions to "progress" the game even though no attacks have been made.
--While timeouts are not ideal, I would rather have some games time out than have games where a teams wins primarily because they got set up faster during the first round because they went first.
--While there are some rules that need to be clarified and solidified, I believe the basic rule of intro-prep can be fairly simple: "During the intro-prep phase, a player may take any actions he could during a normal turn except to make an attack."
-
It really doesn't add 2-5 minutes of game play at all. Usually people have nothing to play and pass. Usually it takes under a minute in my experiences. And players are always going to be confused about rulings, gameplay, and situations honestly I don't think that's the categories fault. Finally its so unique to TEAMS and I have never heard anyone complain about it, where is all the disapproval coming from all of a sudden, I haven't heard any.
-
I'm not voting because I don't play anymore, but intro prep seemed necessary when 1st turn Mayhems were an issue. Not any more.
-
It certainly helped in that regard, but intro-prep has been a part of TEAMS since before Mayhem was even made.
-
In all of the playgroups that I have run, those that play TEAMS always liked the Intro-Prep Phase. Not only do I not want it to go away, but I think we should add it to other categories, especially multiplayer.
-
If you read my original post, please see edits--I should have been more clear on a few points.
-
If you read my original post, please see edits--I should have been more clear on a few points.
Whoa... seriously? So what will be the determining factor? Majority wins? Two-thirds of the House? This seems a bit drastic out of the blue, and believe me this is coming out of nowhere for people like me.
I will echo Justin's concerns with being the fourth player who sits helplessly while both of his opponents get to play cards like crazy, even combo-ing off each other. I definitely do not support the elimination of the Intro-Prep Phase.
-
--It keeps the team that goes second from being at a disadvantage in terms of set up. For example, to me it would be frustrating to watch the other team do a bunch of drawing on their two turns while I'm sitting in the last seat with Golden Cherubim in my hand because there was no intro-prep for me to activate it.
I am one of the proponents of removing intro-prep, and honestly don't feel that this particular issue is an 'issue' as is being put forward. This is not a unique situation to TEAMS, it is in all categories, and part of the advantage of going first (hence the shift of who draws first). Further, it relies on anecdotal cases where the player has their counter or key piece and yet is also chosen to go last due to soul count (which often would not be a choice their opponents make, due to the ability to draw on turn 1, so almost always this would be the holder's team's choice). We can always imagine cases where there is a disadvantage being the last player at the table to go, but that does not necessitate a rule change and is not actually based on a consistent pattern in-game, due to the need to actually draw said counters and be put in the four-hole.
Further, I put forward that intro-prep actually benefits the speed decks and perpetuates their use in TEAMS more than anything. Last year, my brother and I played super-speed-Disciples, and the games where I started my first turn at or near max hand size was incredible, and greatly aided by an intro-prep phase. As with all categories, your opponent still has to draw those counters, and my ability to use all of my crazy drawing in an intro-prep to set up further drawing in the following upkeep phase, which made sure I had everything I needed by my first actual prep phase and I had whatever I needed for that first battle (and every battle afterwards).
I don't see an actual benefit to the category from having intro-prep (except with old-school Mayhem plays), and see more benefit in removing it (limits speed's options, does not actually cause constant counter-strife, alignment with normal play, etc.).
-
how does intro prep work?
-
Whoa... seriously? So what will be the determining factor? Majority wins? Two-thirds of the House? This seems a bit drastic out of the blue, and believe me this is coming out of nowhere for people like me.
The team that wins TEAMS at Nationals gets to decide.
Just kidding... ;)
I believe it was brought up as part of a concerted effort to continue streamlining the game and the rules. We have a pretty good level of Elder/playtester involvement right now and several projects are being worked on to iron out some of the wrinkles that still exist within the rules as well as issues that come up with outdated wording for special abilities on older cards. Why it was presented now is because if a change were to be made, we would want to start the new rule right after Nationals.
As far as I know, any change like this would need to be approved by Rob before happening. He has informed the Elder group that he is open to eliminating it. I will let Gabe expand on any other input Rob shared as he was the one to contact Rob before presenting this proposal.
-
how does intro prep work?
This is why I'm in favor of eliminating Intro-prep. I really feel the cons of it being unique to it's category far outweigh the limited pro's
-
If that's what this is about then that's fine but then consideration should be taken to streamline rules so that the second and consecutive players always draw first.
-
I believe it was brought up as part of a concerted effort to continue streamlining the game and the rules. We have a pretty good level of Elder/playtester involvement right now and several projects are being worked on to iron out some of the wrinkles that still exist within the rules as well as issues that come up with outdated wording for special abilities on older cards. Why it was presented now is because if a change were to be made, we would want to start the new rule right after Nationals.
As far as I know, any change like this would need to be approved by Rob before happening. He has informed the Elder group that he is open to eliminating it. I will let Gabe expand on any other input Rob shared as he was the one to contact Rob before presenting this proposal.
Justin is spot on. I don't have anything further to add.
In addition to possibly eliminating Intro Prep, we also might consider revising the 1st player doesn't draw but everyone else does rule in Teams. That's a topic for another thread and probably another poll.
-
--It keeps the team that goes second from being at a disadvantage in terms of set up. For example, to me it would be frustrating to watch the other team do a bunch of drawing on their two turns while I'm sitting in the last seat with Golden Cherubim in my hand because there was no intro-prep for me to activate it.
I am one of the proponents of removing intro-prep, and honestly don't feel that this particular issue is an 'issue' as is being put forward. This is not a unique situation to TEAMS, it is in all categories, and part of the advantage of going first (hence the shift of who draws first).
--and--
how does intro prep work?
This is why I'm in favor of eliminating Intro-prep. I really feel the cons of it being unique to it's category far outweigh the limited pro's
This is why I am in favor of extending Intro-prep into all categories. It fixes both the concerns that Redoubter has raised about the going-first advantage in all categories and RDTs concern about TEAMs being distinct.
-
This is why I am in favor of extending Intro-prep into all categories. It fixes both the concerns that Redoubter has raised about the going-first advantage in all categories and RDTs concern about TEAMs being distinct.
(We are only evaluating this for Teams and not considering adding intro prep to any other categories at this time.)
-
I vote to stop calling it intro prep and instead change the basic rules to not allow an attack on your first turn (preferably in all categories). This is already the case in MTG, the place most Redemption players will be recruited from, and has never caused any confusion.
*EDIT* I may be mistaken about it actually being a rule and not just that there is no way to get a creature with Haste down on your first turn most of the time. Regardless "you can't attack on your first turn" seems simple, coming from the guy who is at the front of the simplicity parade waving the flag.
-
If that becomes a rule then we need to introduce Haste into the cavalcade of key words. Only creatures with Haste can attack first turn. Anyway...on to my actual post.
I am in favor of eliminating Intro Prep. I have several reasons, none of which are ground breaking or which will change anyone's mind. I will give a small glimpse into what have thought about in relation to this idea. In every other multi-player category we have no need to have such a phase. The reason for that is because in no other category do two players play as one unit but separately as well. That is why we need an awkward phase like Intro Prep to make up for that fact. Why not just have each team have a turn and then the other team have a turn together. If anyone has ever played 2-Headed Giant in the magic based CCG, this layout works very well. Players sit on the same side of the table together and can discuss strategy in a less cryptic way than goes on in Redemption Teams. That way, like in every category the first team doesn't draw and get's to attack first but the second team gets to draw and attack with a better arsenal in theory. Just my thoughts... 8)
-
This is why I am in favor of extending Intro-prep into all categories. It fixes both the concerns that Redoubter has raised about the going-first advantage in all categories and RDTs concern about TEAMs being distinct.
(We are only evaluating this for Teams and not considering adding intro prep to any other categories at this time.)
The fact that we won't even consider extending intro-prep to other events means that harmonizing event rules is not an important issue.
-
The fact that we won't even consider extending intro-prep to other events means that harmonizing event rules is not an important issue.
Or that is not what this thread is about.
We've considered it in the past and the idea has been rejected.
-
I am strongly in favor of keeping the intro-prep phase, and echo the sentiments of Justin, MJB, YMT, Pol, etc. They've laid out some good reasons, and I don't have much to add. I agree with the "You can't attack on your first turn" is really what intro prep boils down to, and I'd be curious how 4 turns in which players can't attack would take 5 minutes to play.
One thing that I would add: TEAMS has a unique environment (and in my opinion, one that makes it so enjoyable for me) in which support cards (Fortresses, Sites, and Artifacts) can be used to create MANY more viable strategies. TEAMS gives you the unique opportunity to include counters or strategies in your deck builds, and get the counters or strategies out faster. Cards that you'd never include in a T1 deck all of a sudden could be worth the slot in TEAMS decks. You have much more freedom to be creative and build competitive decks that would never win T1 2P.
And as for all these meta counters that are being printed because of AUTO and company... When you have two 50 card decks slotting CWD, DD, Naz, Hez Ring, etc., these counters can actually show up at the beginning of a game and make an impact. But they still need that intro prep phase to work to maximum efficiency.
I just think an intro prep phase creates more viable TEAMS decks. Otherwise, why bother printing meta counters? If the intro prep phase is eliminated, there's not much point in playing anything other than drawing+banding decks.
-
We've considered it in the past and the idea has been rejected.
When was that exactly? Who was a part of that discussion?
Or that is not what this thread is about.
I think that is part of the concern for me. Why is there no other possibility under discussion? This thread seems to be the after-effect of discussions that some of you have had, that the rest of us were not privy to.
-
I'd be curious how 4 turns in which players can't attack would take 5 minutes to play.
So very easily in TEAMS...everyone trying to discuss their strategies without their opponents knowing what they have and talking about.
"Should I put the banana peel down?"
"I don't know...I have shortcake, so...hrm..."
"Wait, shortcake?"
"Yeah you know the one that...um if you want to...well can you pull stuff...from not your hand? Or do you want to?"
"Wait do you have Naz?"
"USE THE CODE WORDS!"
"I CAN'T REMEMBER THE STUPID CODE WORDS!"
"WELL SHOULD I PUT DOWN NAZ NOW?!"
"NO I HAVE PUDDING!"
"...what was pudding again?"
Now of course this is a dramatization, but 99% of the time spent in TEAMS in my experience is hilarious attempts at communicating without revealing information to the opponents, and intro-prep is not immune to this since you don't want to duplicate certain effects or turn off your teammate's options (such as Naz when they have their few draws available early, or Lampstand when they have Shipwreck and Falling Away already in hand). That's a whole other issue that we can discuss with TEAMS, but I can tell you that intro-prep can easily take up that time.
I think that is part of the concern for me. Why is there no other possibility under discussion? This thread seems to be the after-effect of discussions that some of you have had, that the rest of us were not privy to. And now, we are thrust into this "vote," which fits well into the USA version of voting: the Democrats people who support nixing Intro-Prep and the Republicans people who oppose a change have already locked in their vote and will not be swayed. We're not really having an open discussion here. Your minds are already made up. We just need to see who has the most hands raised after the voting is done.
This is a very poor representation of the discussion here.
First, we are looking at one particular point of discussion that was raised among the Elders/playtesters while we were discussing other rule changes that could be on the way. We did not want to be making a decision without hearing from the players themselves, hence this post. This is an open discussion; just because people are set in their minds currently does not mean that discussing the issue at hand is useless, and it gives a good idea as to whether this one change would be good for the game. As noted earlier, Rob already looked at this and said that he'd be open to a change, so we are addressing just that issue.
That's not to say that other changes in the future would be out of the question, but frankly that is not being discussed right now as part of the rule changes. It may be as a result of what is said in this thread, but we have a question we are looking to answer. I'm also not sure that this is a 'majority of votes in this thread decides the outcome' sort of thing. We'll take the results and the feedback and discuss it as a group in order to determine what is the best option moving forward.
-
... but we have a question we are looking to answer.
That's the problem IMO. You want a "yes" or "no" because you have already discussed it. I'll admit that I never saw this question coming, and feel completely blindsided by it. I think we should be considering all possibilities before making a MAJOR change to an existing category.
-
...before making a MAJOR change to an existing category.
No MAJOR changes are being considered. We're only looking into making one small change to an existing category. That change being the elimination of a partial turn that bogs down the start of the game and allows speed players to set up combos that enable massive drawing and searching before both their opponents get a turn.
-
You want a "yes" or "no" because you have already discussed it. I'll admit that I never saw this question coming, and feel completely blindsided by it. I think we should be considering all possibilities before making a MAJOR change to an existing category.
We are constantly reviewing rules, rulings, and potential ways to improve the game in any number of ways. Almost none of those result in a change, and very few even make it to this side for opinions. We are looking for input from the players on something that we have discussed, yes, but consider that we have discussed just about everything imaginable at some point or another (the others far more than me). And I'm a little offended that you personally would assume we wouldn't discuss all possibilities, when you know how we think and operate, and can see that not all Elders even agree with the proposal. Trust me when I say that we discuss far more than is necessary in most cases (there are plenty of long-winded arguments...too many...).
There is constant complaint on the boards about how the Elders do not listen to the players (I can say that's not true). So in this case we had a discussion about a potential change and genuinely asked for input (and again, I don't believe Gabe is looking at a 'majority rules' from this thread to make a final decision). Now we get complaints about that.
I'm not sure what we can do to appease everyone, but know that we are actually, actively trying to improve the game. If you disagree with the proposed change being discussed, we want to hear about it. But complaints about us wanting to have a discussion with the players is simply not helpful.
-
No MAJOR changes are being considered.
How is Intro-Prep not a major part of TEAMS? It is one of its defining qualities.
That change being the elimination of a partial turn that bogs down the start of the game and allows speed players to set up combos that enable massive drawing and searching before both their opponents get a turn.
You want to change a problem that you are having. Nothing in that statement is a problem (or has ever been a problem) in my playgroups.
-
You want to change a problem that you are having. Nothing in that statement is a problem (or has ever been a problem) in my playgroups.
You yourself have said on multiple occasions that your playgroup operates differently ;) In all seriousness, just because we don't see something happen in literally every playgroup does not mean that we don't examine the entirety of the category everywhere.
I also encourage you to read through my previous post if you still believe that we don't actually discuss all of the options or how things play out in different areas.
-
That change being the elimination of a partial turn that bogs down the start of the game and allows speed players to set up combos that enable massive drawing and searching before both their opponents get a turn.
You want to change a problem that you are having. Nothing in that statement is a problem (or has ever been a problem) in my playgroups.
And that's why we want to ask people on this side if they want it gone or not, so that we can see how the general population feels about intro-prep in teams.
It would be a major change to mandate into-prep in all categories. It would not be as major a change to standardize teams to the way all other official categories have always been. If the community thinks that intro-prep is an essential part of Teams then I think everyone will be fine with that.
-
And I'm a little offended that you personally would assume we wouldn't discuss all possibilities, ...
I meant that you have not discussed other possibilities with the rest of us. Sometimes those of us in more obscure parts of the country can come up with ideas that you have not considered. ;D
FWIW, I am sorry if I offended you (or Gabe). I really am caught in a bit of shock by this. My son really likes TEAMS, so I may be taking it a bit personally.
-
But complaints about us wanting to have a discussion with the players is simply not helpful.
I agree. We ask for player and host input and suddenly we've "blind sided" them. How can we better ask for input than starting a topic on the boards to get feedback?
You want to change a problem that you are having. Nothing in that statement is a problem (or has ever been a problem) in my playgroups.
I'm hardly alone in this. You must remember that your group is a small sampling. I'm glad you haven't experienced problems. You also don't encourage high levels of competition which sometimes lead to players attempting to exploit every powerful combo they can find. I've spoken with players and hosts from around the country and others have had a variety of problems with this unique rule we're using for Teams.
What really highlights that it's not just a problem in my area is that problems have come up multiple times at Nationals, when we have people from most play groups across the country. Those are just the ones I've heard about. I'm certainly not in the know on everything or I wouldn't have needed to ask for the communities input. ;)
-
I really am caught in a bit of shock by this. My son really likes TEAMS, so I may be taking it a bit personally.
I get it, and honestly I'm happy to see passion about the game. As pointed out by others, removing intro-prep from the only category it is in is something we can discuss at this point as a potential option, as Rob has indicated that a change could occur and it would bring it to be the same as other categories. Adding it to all categories is just not something that is on the table now, so that is why we wanted to focus on what could actually change instead of what else could change in the further future.
One additional note to emphasize from an earlier post: This would NOT change any rules for this season (including Nats).
-
I agree. We ask for player and host input and suddenly we've "blind sided" them.
Since I am the only one that used the term "blindsided," this comment was apparently meant for me. Please note that your sarcasm does not promote a sense of "discussion," but rather, disdain. Why would I want to post my thoughts if I am just going to be the butt of your jokes?
-
Since I am the only one that used the term "blindsided," this comment was apparently meant for me. Please note that your sarcasm does not promote a sense of "discussion," but rather, disdain. Why would I want to post my thoughts if I am just going to be the butt of your jokes?
You make more jokes here than anyone. If I'm not allowed bad attempts at humor I'll cease immediately after this post. :)
-
No MAJOR changes are being considered. We're only looking into making one small change to an existing category. That change being the elimination of a partial turn that bogs down the start of the game and allows speed players to set up combos that enable massive drawing and searching before both their opponents get a turn.
@Gabe,
Whether it's a major change or not is a matter of opinion. While some do not consider it a major change, it is apparent that many do.
Regardless of whether we keep intro prep or not, the team that goes first and third is going to have the upper hand in setting up drawing/searching combos. At least with intro-prep, both players on the opposing team have a chance to play some counters. You say that intro-prep bogs down the start of the game, but then in the same sentence say it helps players get their combos going faster. So does intro-prep slow the game down or speed it up? IMO, it helps balance the early game in a way that is needed for the TEAMS format. Yes there will still be games where one team hits all their cards and the opponents have nothing to counter, but at least they won't be stuck with counter cards in hand wishing they had just been luckier and gone first.
-
I think that is part of the concern for me. Why is there no other possibility under discussion? This thread seems to be the after-effect of discussions that some of you have had, that the rest of us were not privy to. And now, we are thrust into this "vote," which fits well into the USA version of voting: the Democrats people who support nixing Intro-Prep and the Republicans people who oppose a change have already locked in their vote and will not be swayed. We're not really having an open discussion here. Your minds are already made up. We just need to see who has the most hands raised after the voting is done.
Not so! I am on here reading the thread and contemplating everyone's views. Let's please try to deal with each other in good faith.
-
...before making a MAJOR change to an existing category.
No MAJOR changes are being considered. We're only looking into making one small change to an existing category. That change being the elimination of a partial turn that bogs down the start of the game and allows speed players to set up combos that enable massive drawing and searching before both their opponents get a turn.
See this is why I love intro-prep phase. At OH states me and my brother got Rain becomes dust up in intro prep phase and it pretty much shut down their speed, not to mention we also got burial shroud up (before the recent ruling which makes it a detriment to use in teams). I think intro-prep is fun and lets you set up defense as well as offense. I've played before in matches where if I just could have this card or that card down already I could make a block, but since I don't I end up giving away a soul. Intro-prep allows you to set up things like magic charms, unholy writ, or other things which would otherwise sit dead in your hand as you wait for the chance to put it down and let it become useful when otherwise you might have gotten off several solid blocks.
I also appreciate that the elders are getting our feedback before making any decisions. Thanks for hearing our opinions! :)
-
You make more jokes here than anyone. If I'm not allowed bad attempts at humor I'll cease immediately after this post. :)
Except that my jokes do not target people personally. I would like to think that I do not use sarcasm at all, but I guess I would have to go back and check my posts individually to be sure that I am not delusional.
Not so! I am on here reading the thread and contemplating everyone's views. Let's please try to deal with each other in good faith.
As I stated in a later post (see above), some of what I said was reactionary because I do not want to see a change to one of my son's favorite categories. It seemed a bit tedious to go back and revise all my posts, but if people are going to keep quoting them, I guess I should. :-\
I get it, and honestly I'm happy to see passion about the game.
Thank you for your continued attempts to keep me on track, rather than make fun of my passion. :)
One additional note to emphasize from an earlier post: This would NOT change any rules for this season (including Nats).
I think this is part of what got me on edge. This season is pretty much over. We're running all the major tournaments now, and Nats is only a month and a half away. This is just one thing that is being considered behind the scenes, so I would guess that there won't be a whole lot of time spent on it. I could simply be wrong, but it seems like you were working on major rules overhauls, then this was just thrown in as a "Oh, by the way."
And yet, the consideration of other ideas has been met with "We'll have to wait until next season." I don't understand why this change is being rushed to the forefront when there are much more important, overarching issues that can be attempted with the rules overhaul (like mulligans).
-
This is just one thing that is being considered behind the scenes, so I would guess that there won't be a whole lot of time spent on it. I could simply be wrong, but it seems like you were working on major rules overhauls, then this was just thrown in as a "Oh, by the way."
I'm happy to report (and hopefully you will be too) that you are wrong ;) This was not just an 'oh by the way' but something that we have had serious discussions about and plan to continue debating. The playtest group has been incredibly active these past months, more than I think anyone will realize until they start to see the fruits of that labor, but we haven't been idle on any one concern or activity by any stretch.
And yet, the consideration of other ideas has been met with "We'll have to wait until next season." I don't understand why this change is being rushed to the forefront when there are much more important, overarching issues that can be attempted with the rules overhaul (like mulligans).
First, there is nothing in these posts that indicated that we would not consider other rules for next season as well. I think that's what I've been trying to guide you to, is that this is just an issue that we feel that we have discussed deeply enough among the playtesters and seen the impact (been used for years, we have data and experience with it) that we can talk about whether to implement a change at this point.
Mulligans, side-decks, intro-prep into non-TEAMS categories, and other such issues have not been ignored; note that Cactus has authorized TLG tournaments that have some of those concepts for testing. Until we can see how it works, we only have theory to go off of. But we are very interested in seeing those results and making determinations on future rule changes as a direct result.
So it is not that we are ignoring other ideas. This is just a proposal which we have enough 'testing' and playtester discussion on to determine if it is something that we can move forward on. However, before making any change (or keeping it the same), we want to hear from the players (for additional viewpoints and a general sense of where the community falls). That's the purpose here, and hopefully you see that nothing is being 'rushed' nor any ideas ignored.
-
Thank you again for your continued patience with me, Dayne. ;D
I'm happy to report (and hopefully you will be too) that you are wrong ;)
Just like Malcolm from Jurassic Park, there are indeed times when I am happy to be wrong. ;)
First, there is nothing in these posts that indicated that we would not consider other rules for next season as well.
I think this idea should wait until next season like the rest of them. ;)
I think that's what I've been trying to guide you to, is that this is just an issue that we feel that we have discussed deeply enough among the playtesters and seen the impact (been used for years, we have data and experience with it) that we can talk about whether to implement a change at this point.
I don't agree with this assertion. I don't think we have enough research on the impact of NO Intro-Prep, since we have only ever been using Intro-Prep in TEAMS. We need time to research the effects of removal.
Mulligans, side-decks, intro-prep into non-TEAMS categories, and other such issues have not been ignored;
FWIW, I did not say the others were "ignored," but rather "put off until next season."
-
I'd be curious how 4 turns in which players can't attack would take 5 minutes to play.
So very easily in TEAMS...everyone trying to discuss their strategies without their opponents knowing what they have and talking about.
The entirety of TEAMs would be better served if this "mambo dogface to the banana patch"* kind of junk were just cut out, IMO. I have played against multiple TEAMs where you would easily regain five minutes per game if you simply limited code talk.
Just for topicality--I would prefer to retain intro-prep because it adds to the tactical and strategic play of TEAMs.
*Bonus props to anyone who can provide the reference this quote is taken from.
-
So very easily in TEAMS...everyone trying to discuss their strategies without their opponents knowing what they have and talking about.
"Should I put the banana peel down?"
"I don't know...I have shortcake, so...hrm..."
"Wait, shortcake?"
"Yeah you know the one that...um if you want to...well can you pull stuff...from not your hand? Or do you want to?"
"Wait do you have Naz?"
"USE THE CODE WORDS!"
"I CAN'T REMEMBER THE STUPID CODE WORDS!"
"WELL SHOULD I PUT DOWN NAZ NOW?!"
"NO I HAVE PUDDING!"
"...what was pudding again?"
Now of course this is a dramatization, but 99% of the time spent in TEAMS in my experience is hilarious attempts at communicating without revealing information to the opponents, and intro-prep is not immune to this since you don't want to duplicate certain effects or turn off your teammate's options (such as Naz when they have their few draws available early, or Lampstand when they have Shipwreck and Falling Away already in hand). That's a whole other issue that we can discuss with TEAMS, but I can tell you that intro-prep can easily take up that time.
Ok, I laughed really hard when I read this, and if a conversation such as this actually transpires during a TEAMS game, I would gladly give up 5 minutes of gametime to witness it ;)
Maybe my experiences with TEAMS cloud my judgment... At OH States, Matt and I developed no code words, and we pretty much only talked with each other when deciding how to attack or defend (which, obviously, wasn't happening during Intro Prep). The decks we used also didn't have much at all in the way of "conflicting abilities" (like Lampstand/Falling Away or Naz/TC search abilities), so there wasn't much to discuss in terms of harming each other's decks.
-
Ok, I laughed really hard when I read this, and if a conversation such as this actually transpires during a TEAMS game, I would gladly give up 5 minutes of gametime to witness it ;)
These types of conversations truly do occur--and while amusing at first they quickly become tedious as each turn is filled with the same pile of gibberish.
At Nationals three? years ago Craig Fountain and I were playing, and about halfway through the game the opposing team went through like a 2 1/2 minute discussion about memphis ribs, moonlight, and sweet baby james (or somethings like that). After they finally completed their discussion Craig asked me, "Do you like your hand?"
I answered "No."
Craig played Mayhem, top decked both SoG and NJ (out of 20+ cards in his deck), and scored us out.
-
I agree that this decision could use more research and could wait until next season.
I would consider this a major change to teams because I also consider it one of the defining aspect of teams. I really like the additional ability to work together that the intro-prep facilitates. You could argue that teams allows that anyway, you just have to wait until your turn. The problem with teams is that if you go last that 2/3 of the game could already be over and that the other team wins on the 1st players second turn.
In a regular 2 player game, if I have unholy writ, unknown nation, etc in my opening hand and my opponent goes first, then I might miss the chance to block their 1st rescue attempt. They still have to make at least 2 more rescues where I will get the chance to have those answers ready. If I have those answers in teams and go last then they can potentially get 2 rescues before I can play those answers. The possibility for the opposing team to have SoG/NJ is also higher if they both run it in small decks.
As a side effect, I think no intro-prep would make decks using a lot of support cards (arts, forts, sites) less viable and those decks is part of what I like about teams.
I know we don't want timeouts but was also don't want teams to end up like type1 multiplayer but worse. Besides, I don't think timeouts is a team issue; it is a Redemption issue that could use help across all categories. I now encourage any teammate to forgo all "code" and just plainly say what they want to speed things up. What you gain by cooperation is more than what you lose by no secrecy. While "code" can be hilarious in friendly games, it quickly gets old when 50% of timed team games are consumed by it.
Adding it to all categories is just not something that is on the table now, so that is why we wanted to focus on what could actually change instead of what else could change in the further future.
I understand the desire to be pragmatic and only focus on the now. However if you limit the discussion to yes/no then you eliminate the discussion of various ideas which could lead to potential solutions which might bring us to the ideal endpoint. If you are under time constraints then sometimes you have to eliminate that discussion to make a decision but I just don't see that here.
I know that you are not currently considering changing all categories but I don't think this issues is a simple a/b scenario. Why not talk about what would be ideal and what could currently happen?
-
To be clear on team talk, I don't want to get rid of being able to talk to your teammate but instead the delay of game that happens from ridiculous discussions. I have seen this happen even without code where teammates can spend 20 minutes of the game "discussing" (really arguing) about whether they should block or rescue or use a Dominant, etc.... I think it is the same problem of slow play that happens in all categories but can be magnified in teams. Redemption has just never dealt well with this in tournaments.
-
If I have those answers in teams and go last then they can potentially get 2 rescues before I can play those answers. The possibility for the opposing team to have SoG/NJ is also higher if they both run it in small decks.
As a side effect, I think no intro-prep would make decks using a lot of support cards (arts, forts, sites) less viable and those decks is part of what I like about teams.
1, You have to draw those cards in the opening hand.
2. Your teammate did not draw his own (or similar).
3. Both of you have to not have blocks in your hand (can't say that the possibility of SoG/NJ is higher in two small decks but that the same can't apply to blocks).
4. Your team has to have fewer souls.
5. The other team has to choose you going last (which also means your team draws first). This is the real point of contention I have with this argument, because the majority of the games I see teams that win the soul count choose to go second so that they can draw. If the winning team did not do that, and just happened to pick the player with the counters to go last somehow, they also have fewer cards with which to make their rescue than the other players do on their first rescue.
It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).
On the second point, I have seen winning decks make use of sits/forts/arts offensively more than anything. Changing intro-prep would not change that fact because of the sharing aspect of TEAMS.
-
It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).
Without having data to back up your belief that these situations are hyperbolic, I really don't think you can disregard these concerns that have been brought up by multiple people.
-
It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).
Without having data to back up your belief that these situations are hyperbolic, I really don't think you can disregard these concerns that have been brought up by multiple people.
I don't disregard it, but call it hyperbolic with confidence after giving a very detailed explanation about why this happening with any frequency is just not something to consider plausible.
I don't see any 'data' to support the argument that it happens, simply hypothetical situations given by those with a concern, yet you don't have a problem with that.
I gave explicit reasons to back up my conclusion, by looking at how such a situation could result. Given everything that must occur, to continue to throw this hypothetical out there as a reason for keeping intro-prep does not pass any sort of test, and so I will call it what it is.
-
Well, based on my experience of playing TEAMS with intro-prep, I consider it a reasonable hypothetical.
You can call it what you think it is, but that's all any of us can do at this point since we've never done TEAMS without intro-prep.
-
If you want to reduce time-outs consider eliminating/putting limits on table talk. Otherwise you are failing to eliminate the primary culprit for timeouts. All this gibberish and code word garbage takes 1-2 minutes each turn when playing against some teams during and prior to the battle phases and makes games drag on much longer than they should. It makes teams a painful category to play at times.
-
Well, based on my experience of playing TEAMS with intro-prep, I consider it a reasonable hypothetical.
You can call it what you think it is, but that's all any of us can do at this point since we've never done TEAMS without intro-prep.
While I agree with you to some extent on the second part, I cannot agree on the first due to the reasons given previously. As stated elsewhere, we will just have to disagree on this point.
If you want to reduce time-outs consider eliminating/putting limits on table talk.
The time for intro-prep where no actual battles occur is just one point being raised in favor of removing it, but it is certainly not the reason to approach the matter in the first place. As you point out, table-talk is the main culprit for time issues in the category. However, this is something that will take a far different discussion, in order to determine how to actually implement a system that keeps the game flowing but allows communication of some kind between teammates.
-
If you want to reduce time-outs consider eliminating/putting limits on table talk. Otherwise you are failing to eliminate the primary culprit for timeouts.
Based on several posts so far, it seems that we have one major alternate idea that needs to be tested alongside removing Intro-Prep, as stated by Mitch. Polarius also offered another alternative with the "no attacks on first turn" idea. I think we should give the necessary time to work out the possibilities before making a change that would occur in the next month.
-
(in response to redoubter)
I don't think your detailed explanation passes any test. I think you are overlooking things in real gameplay or making some assumptions. I don't have statistical data but these are not just hypothetical points but things that have happened repeatedly.
1. that is not really a point. are there cards in the game that matter while they are still in your deck?
2. not really true. your teammate drawing his cards does not eliminate the need for you to play yours. blocks can depend on his Kot and your Gomer, his Gates of Samaria and your King of Isreal, his gates of hell and your demons, etc..
3. not really true. just because I have KoT or Gomer/haman's plot, etc. does not mean I don't need those other cards available. If our team has unknown nation active then our chance of blocking goes up whereas if we don't the chance of the opposing team having the answer for our block goes up.
4. of course but that is true for all categories and randomly about 50%.
5. That is not the experience I have had. Furthermore, if a team is building decks to take advantage of no intro-prep (and weaker defense) then they are likely to build offensive heavy speed decks that choose to go first and also draw first. They probably don't have a problem with having fewer cards to make a rescue with.
It just is not something that will be happening with any sort of regularity, and as pointed out above it is hyperbolic because of the many things that have to go that specific way (including the decision about going first).
I disagree. Do you have statistical facts to back that up? My experience says that it happens fairly often and is relevant because of the inherent difference between 1 rescue (in 2-player) and 2 rescues (in teams) happening before you can play your answers.
On the second point, I have seen winning decks make use of sits/forts/arts offensively more than anything. Changing intro-prep would not change that fact because of the sharing aspect of TEAMS.
also not my experience and I think it would change things. For the defense to matter, it needs to come together before they rescue. For the offense, it can help whenever it gets there. I see the viability of using defensive arts, forts, sites, etc. declining with no into prep. (see point 2) all of this reinforces to me that we need to test the comparison of no intro prep more.
-
I think we can all agree that experiences with TEAMS are different based on the playgroup. It appears that Gabe and Redoubter have had issues with TEAMS that they feel need to be addressed, so we need to be sensitive to this request. Others of us have had no issues, so we would like to move cautiously with a change that doesn't seem necessary.
I think we can come up with a solution that will make everyone happy if we are given enough time to make it happen. Who knows, maybe eliminating Intro-Prep will end up being that solution, but I would guess there would be other changes alongside it. :-\
-
To galadgawyn, I think you missed the point of my post. It is the combination of all of those things going together that makes it impractical to consider happening with any frequency, and you really have to stretch to make scenarios where it happens. Assumptions have to be made to make it happen, and there are too many that go into it to have it make any sense (and more assumptions in each of those items).
To YMT's point, he's correct and we'll always have people in favor of a change and opposed and each side is going to be 'sure' of their position.
-
I don't think so, I just don't think your points are valid. Even combined it seems the points don't add up to much in actual gameplay. I didn't have to stretch at all to come up with scenarios where it is relevant. How is it impractical to consider scenarios that multiple players have encountered frequently?
For some decks and players this won't matter but for certain decks I think this could be a fairly high percentage, maybe close to 50% that it makes a difference. I of course don't know the actual number but that is an educated guess based on playing decks where it does matter. A LOT more testing or complicated math would be needed to come up with reliable statistics.
Have you played with team decks that use significant defense and rely on their teammates cards to block with? If you have just used disciple decks and blocks like Uzzah then I would bet you wouldn't encounter this much.
-
I of course don't know the actual number but that is an educated guess based on playing decks where it does matter.
We don't have to base this on an educated guess or gut feelings. I'm sure there are people here that are much better at calculating probabilities than I am, but simple probabilities tell us that the odds are stacked against your position even if you're playing a deck where it matters. But as you pointed out, it doesn't even matter for some decks lowering the percentage of times when really matters overall.
-
One more point I wanted to bring up that I just thought of: There's nothing quite as painful as giving up free souls in Redemption. You can come back from a game where you draw defense and no offense, but you can't come back (except by luck and soul drought) from games where you draw offense, Lost Souls, and no defense. Couple this with the fact that in TEAMS, the opponents get to attack twice before the 4th player even takes 1 turn, and you just need the Intro Prep Phase.
-
One more point I wanted to bring up that I just thought of: There's nothing quite as painful as giving up free souls in Redemption. You can come back from a game where you draw defense and no offense, but you can't come back (except by luck and soul drought) from games where you draw offense, Lost Souls, and no defense. Couple this with the fact that in TEAMS, the opponents get to attack twice before the 4th player even takes 1 turn, and you just need the Intro Prep Phase.
Except you're even less likely to draw no defense in a teams game because both players get the opportunity to block. If you are straight up having both teammates not draw any defense with any sort of regularity, I would state that really, you just built your decks wrong.
-
One more point I wanted to bring up that I just thought of: There's nothing quite as painful as giving up free souls in Redemption. You can come back from a game where you draw defense and no offense, but you can't come back (except by luck and soul drought) from games where you draw offense, Lost Souls, and no defense. Couple this with the fact that in TEAMS, the opponents get to attack twice before the 4th player even takes 1 turn, and you just need the Intro Prep Phase.
Except you're even less likely to draw no defense in a teams game because both players get the opportunity to block. If you are straight up having both teammates not draw any defense with any sort of regularity, I would state that really, you just built your decks wrong.
Absolutely, and the other question is how is intro-prep going to help you with defense? Are you basing your ability to block solely on artifacts, sites, and fortresses? Some decks work better with those, but if you're relying on that for a block and not being able to put it down is what is 'hurting you', then I agree that you did not build your deck with the capability for early blocks (since you have to draw those cards in the first place), and intro-prep isn't actually helping you anyway.
-
Do people really build their decks around writ, rbd, covenant with decks, Nazareth, magic charms (sure you need magicians but its functional without), household idols, Darius' Decree... No, not really they help decks significantly but are not completely necessary.
I appreciate everyone trying to save us from broken draw combos and bad deck building I really do but I'm not sold
-
We don't have to base this on an educated guess or gut feelings.
I'd say that is not exactly true. The amount of variables makes an accurate formula basically impossible. You can look at similar strategic questions in other card games that have far more players and more money and they are largely still dealing with theories and not fact. We also don't have anywhere near enough play experience to arrive at reliable answers with the same degree of certainty that games like MtG have. Even with millions of players playing more frequently, it still takes them months to settle some of these types of questions. So we do the best we can but some of this is going to be based on personal experience and guesswork.
Except you're even less likely to draw no defense in a teams game because both players get the opportunity to block
The question isn't simply do you draw defense/no defense but whether you draw sufficient defense to block or even matter. Your gomer banded to your teammates KoT has a much better chance of blocking their judge with Sam's edict than if either blocked alone.
Absolutely, and the other question is how is intro-prep going to help you with defense?
Your comments like this is why I asked if you had played the kind of decks I'm talking about in teams. The ones I can think of right now: Unholy writ, magic charms, rain becomes dust, Hezekiah's signet ring, household idols, darius decree, covenant with death, confusion of mind, unknown nation, go into captivity, asherah pole, plagued with diseases, philistine outpost, gates of samaria, gates of Jerusalem, gates of hell, Assyria's tribute?, that caananite fortress, Golgotha, Nazareth, hormah, and I know there are many more I can't think of right now. All of these can matter if you or your teammate have them in play the first round and can be the critical difference between blocking or getting steamrolled. It is also not just those support cards but the characters you can put down for your teammate to band to. There is a big difference between blocking with just your Jezebel or adding your teammates Ahab to that. You can have decks with early block attempts but being able to actually stop the high powered offenses out there without a very heavy defense deck is not so easy. If you don't see how the intro prep phase can make a huge difference here then I don't know what else to say.
Whether affected decks should be considered or only the total percentage, is its own discussion I think. I would favor rules that make a greater variety of strategies playable so we don't end up like multiplayer where the decks are 90% alike. imho that would ruin the fun of teams.
aside from offensive speed decks, what strategies would eliminating intro help?
-
You forgot Golden Cherubim--if there's one card I could guarantee to have in my opening hand every game, that might be it.
-
One possibility I could see is to make intro-prep an optional rule for tournaments for the next year. Judges/hosts who don't like it can announce when the tournament is announced that it will not be included, and those who prefer it can keep it. Then we should have a fair amount of data to base a decision on that would apply to Nats 2016 and beyond, whether to keep it optional or to go permanently one way or the other. At this point, with such a divided set of viewpoints on the topic, I am not confident that a good solution could be determined in the next month before Nationals to apply to any tournaments coming up after that. However, perhaps a year from now people will be more in favor of one side or the other, and even if not, we can at least discuss some actual benefits that the intro prep or lack thereof has, instead of remaining in the theoretical realm where only one side of the argument has ever been tested.
-
+1
I would be willing to test TEAMS (in local/district tournaments and non-tournament play) without intro-prep, but ProfA is exactly right that we only have "data" (which is really just a bunch of personal experiences) for one side.
-
It looks to me like the real solution is something I've been wanting for years: more stringent time limits on play. Nobody likes a timeout, and I think with the overly-liberal time allotments we currently have, stalling out when you know you've lost the game is not only possible but a great idea. There have been a few times I lost an entire tournament because of running into either a player who was so slow the game reached timeout even though my winning was a foregone conclusion in the first handful of rounds, or an even more infuriating situation with an unscrupulous opponent who realized his inevitable loss and then started playing way slower than he had been up to that point.
If people are truly having multi-minute-long conversations while playing nothing, that's not even a case of needing stricter time limits but just enforcing the ones that already exist.
-
It looks to me like the real solution is something I've been wanting for years: more stringent time limits on play. Nobody likes a timeout, and I think with the overly-liberal time allotments we currently have, stalling out when you know you've lost the game is not only possible but a great idea. There have been a few times I lost an entire tournament because of running into either a player who was so slow the game reached timeout even though my winning was a foregone conclusion in the first handful of rounds, or an even more infuriating situation with an unscrupulous opponent who realized his inevitable loss and then started playing way slower than he had been up to that point.
If people are truly having multi-minute-long conversations while playing nothing, that's not even a case of needing stricter time limits but just enforcing the ones that already exist.
My (negative) experiences with TEAMS have not necessarily been people having minute long conversations about what to do, but rather with people having several 10-15 second conversations throughout the course of the game (sometimes seemingly every play has to be determined together). As for the rest of your point, I couldn't agree more. The time limits issue is one that has been a serious issue with Redemption for years. The problem is that there is no truly elegant solution to instituting a stricter application of time limits while maintaining the "fun and fellowship" environment that is the primary purpose and mission of Redemption. People who bring timers or clocks or call judges over are seen as over-competitive or legalistic. And while there are clearly players who have used the time limits to their own advantage to get the 1 timeout point, there are also players who have reading/recall issues who may have legitimate needs to take a bit longer. There have been so many proposed solutions to that issue, but none have ever gotten a lot of traction because there are so many different perspectives on each potential solution.
-
It's probably mine and Jayden's fault that Jordan doesn't like talking in TEAMS...ever since we started using Jordan's baby nicknames as code words in our games against him... 8)
Kidding of course, but I think code/table talking in TEAMS needs to have its own discussion. :)
-
Maybe a time out win should be considered a full win. Let's be honest here, for all intensive purposes you did beat them. Which also discourages stalling to tie and when you're losing. Not to mention It encourages defense which is always good.
-
Maybe a time out win should be considered a full win. Let's be honest here, for all intensive purposes you did beat them. Which also discourages stalling to tie and when you're losing. Not to mention It encourages defense which is always good.
I know that people have been in love with the idea of defense heavy being viable for a while now, but honestly, I think offense should always be significantly stronger. Defense heavy games are frankly often not very fun. And 45 minute games are bad for the game.
-
Defense heavy games are frankly often not very fun for the person facing the defense heavy deck
FTFY
And 45 minute games are bad for the game.
Again, a matter of opinion. For me, I'd much rather play a 45 minute game and potentially time out in a close game than have a game last 5 turns because one team had a great draw and the other team couldn't play the counters until after the damage had been done.
-
Defense heavy games are frankly often not very fun for the person facing the defense heavy deck
FTFY
It is very bad for the game when the general case is for one person to have fun, and the other person to not. Yes the winning player will usually be having more fun, but the goal should ALWAYS be to have both players having fun.
And 45 minute games are bad for the game.
Again, a matter of opinion. For me, I'd much rather play a 45 minute game and potentially time out in a close game than have a game last 5 turns because one team had a great draw and the other team couldn't play the counters until after the damage had been done.
Both 45 minute games and 5 turn games are bad for the game. However I find in general that 45 minute games are common in tournament, and 5 turn games in general aren't.
45 minutes is a long time for each match in a game you are playing a tournament. There's a reason that other CCGs are able to play best of 3's in the same time it takes Redemption to play one game.
-
If you're not having fun, maybe you built your deck wrong... :o
;)
-
Prof A and I were discussing this a bit last night, and here is a potential solution that we came up with:
The term intro-prep is eliminated and instead there is just a rule for TEAMS that you cannot make an attack during the first round (as Polarius suggested earlier). This keeps Mayhem from being an issue and doesn't create fuzziness with a "turn" that isn't really a turn. It also maintains the balance of power between getting to play cards first (except attacking) for the first team and getting the opportunity to counter for the second team.
For example--the first player goes first and plays down Samuel and Wheel within a Wheel to grab AutO. He can't attack this first round, but he's all set up to make a strong opening rescue on his second turn. The opposing players can now see that and get an opportunity to play a counter card (say RBD or Golden Cherubim) during their first turn. Assuming they drew a counter (which I grant is not a given) they now have the upper hand because they had the opportunity to react before a rescue was made. Consequently we have pros and cons both for going first and for going second.
With that in place, I feel we could also eliminate the "first player doesn't draw" rule so that the player who goes first will draw first. This makes TEAMS consistent with other multi-player categories. It does shift the balance towards the team that goes first, but since the team with the most souls on the table determines who goes first, that advantage is controlled by them.
-
Prof A and I were discussing this a bit last night, and here is a potential solution that we came up with:
The term intro-prep is eliminated and instead there is just a rule for TEAMS that you cannot make an attack during the first round (as Polarius suggested earlier). This keeps Mayhem from being an issue and doesn't create fuzziness with a "turn" that isn't really a turn. It also maintains the balance of power between getting to play cards first (except attacking) for the first team and getting the opportunity to counter for the second team.
For example--the first player goes first and plays down Samuel and Wheel within a Wheel to grab AutO. He can't attack this first round, but he's all set up to make a strong opening rescue on his second turn. The opposing players can now see that and get an opportunity to play a counter card (say RBD or Golden Cherubim) during their first turn. Assuming they drew a counter (which I grant is not a given) they now have the upper hand because they had the opportunity to react before a rescue was made. Consequently we have pros and cons both for going first and for going second.
With that in place, I feel we could also eliminate the "first player doesn't draw" rule so that the player who goes first will draw first. This makes TEAMS consistent with other multi-player categories. It does shift the balance towards the team that goes first, but since the team with the most souls on the table determines who goes first, that advantage is controlled by them.
I agree with everything here, except the first player drawing. The first player gets the only guaranteed uninhibited shot at doing anything he/she wants without any counters on the board. The first player also gets to attack first. I think these combined benefits are strong enough that they need to be balanced with the first player not drawing on their first turn.
I think this would be ideal:
Player 1 doesn't draw, takes a turn (can't attack)
Player 2 draws 3, takes a turn (can't attack)
Player 3 draws 3, takes a turn (can't attack)
Player 4 draws 3, takes a turn (can't attack)
Player 1 draws 3, takes a normal turn
...and so on.
Under this scenario, by the time player 1 gets to attack, he still has drawn just as many cards by game rule as everyone else. I think it would be too much if player 1 would get to attack first, AND have drawn 3 more cards by game rule than either of his opponents.
-
One other advantage that the 2nd player/team has is the potential last turn when time is called. With the current system, I don't see anyone ever choose their own team to go first, but I'm not sure what that is like in other areas. I think that removing it would tip the scales in favor of going first (so it would be like every other multi category in that sense) but there would still be some potential advantages as Justin mentioned, in addition to the last chance turn, so I don't think it would be quite 100% choosing yourself/team, like it essentially is in other multi categories.
-
I think first player draws is too much advantage in a category where Land of Redemption is pooled. Basically you get one attack where no opponent has drawn a card and you're up 3, not to mention you always get a shot at the lead if you don't fall behind. So yes, everyone would choose their team to go first. And if you say second player, third, and fourth player draw then its just a more complicated intro prep phase.
-
One other advantage that the 2nd player/team has is the potential last turn when time is called.
But that only matters if neither team can get to 5. In a race to 5 where the game could end by the first player's second turn (I'm only counting turns where a player can attack), going first is monumentally more important than going second.
And going last doesn't really get teammates 2/4 much. It only guarantees that they get the same number of turns as teammates 1/3, which is the most they ever have a chance at anyways. If they win by getting to 5, they took the same number of turns as their opponents, and if their opponents get to 5, then their opponents took one additional turn.
-
I agree with jmhartz.
If it would help to have a rule "players can't attack on their first turn" instead of intro prep then I'm fine with that.
Is there any practical rule difference between the two? I don't see any difference but if that change in terminology would help clarify things for players, then great.
P.S. on second thought, the no attack first turn rule might actually help decks even more with setup, so I'm fine with that.