Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on February 15, 2010, 09:35:17 PM
-
I feel the need to again rant about Dominants. Someone said on another thread that they were unaware of some problem or other, so I just want to make dang sure the PTB know how fed up a lot of us are with Dominants. Feel free to add your piece either in favor of or against Dominants.
They frustrate me so much, because Redemption has fantastic dynamics. In my opinion, better than even MTG. But these cards (most SoG, NJ, AotL and CM) take SO much strategy completely out of the game it's infuriating. Without those four cards, the most (or maybe second-most now) complained about archetype would entirely disappear, and strategy would return to T1. I just can't even really articulate how much I hate those four dominants, and I'm not a fan of FA or Burial either.
-
dominants do stink. please ban them.
and the only area mtg is inferior to in regards to other card games is the mana mechanic. otherwise, its pretty stellar everywhere else.
-
I agree, but that's kind of like saying that a water supply is pure except for the anthrax.
-
i wouldnt compare the mana problem in mtg to anthrax in a water supply...more times than not i dont get mana screwed or mana flooded, but still enough to be a concern to many. but the mulligan also helps alleviate those problems...something redemption could really use.
-
But not as much as it needs to be rid of Dominants.
-
so true, dominants are on par with the power nine.
-
The jewel of Redemption is the initiative system. Anything that throws a wrench into that is detrimental to the game as far as I'm concerned. Christian Martyr, Angel of the Lord, and Grapes of Wrath each fall into this category.
-
I support this thread.
Dominants, in particular NJ and SoG, need some serious nerfing. There is nothing right now to keep people from filling 1/5 of their deck spaces with Dominants, and most regularly do. I'm not sure I support an all-out ban (particularly on SoG), but there needs to be some serious toning down.
-
The jewel of Redemption is the initiative system. Anything that throws a wrench into that is detrimental to the game as far as I'm concerned. Christian Martyr, Angel of the Lord, and Grapes of Wrath each fall into this category.
good point, probably why cbn battle winners are detrimental to the game as well.
-
When there is no reason not to use a card, I think it is pretty broken.
-
When there is no reason not to use a card, I think it is pretty broken.
couldnt have said it better.
-
All dominants except Doubt, Mayhem, and Glory of the Lord fall into this category, as well as Captured Ark, Unholy Writ, Wall of Protection, and maybe even Uzzah or The Amalekite's Slave. Falling Away and Guardian are the only other cards even close to balanced on the dominant side.
Just my thoughts.
-
doubt? :)
-
Wut? I do not Doubt any of my comments. There is no Doubt card. Lies.
-
Dominants, in particular NJ and SoG, need some serious nerfing....I'm not sure I support an all-out ban (particularly on SoG), but there needs to be some serious toning down.
I agree that dominants shouldn't be banned. However, I love the idea from another thread about an artifact that someone could put into their deck that would discard itself to "If owner has not played any dominants this game, then remove all dominants in all draw piles, discard piles, and hands from the game".
This would make people think twice about using up 10 slots in their deck with cards that COULD all disappear and give their opponent a big advantage.
-
I would want such a card banned before any dominant is ever banned.
-
I would want such a card banned before any dominant is ever banned.
Assuming that you're concerned about what I'm guessing you're concerned about. I forgot an important part of the special ability. I edited my post to add that back in :)
"If owner has not played any dominants this game, then discard this artifact to remove all dominants from all players hands, draw piles, and discard piles."
-
That made it even more broken.
-
I have to say that I agree that dominants are a big annoyance in the game. I hate when I lose a game 2-5 and the only rescue made by me was with SoG NJ. I know that isn't the general idea behind this thread but I get annoyed at that. It is like saying "I didn't REALLY rescue a single soul". I will say that I like Redemptions "no banned cards" way of thinking. I think they should just make a lost soul that nerfs all Dominants until rescued. That would make it impossible for an opponent to force you to rescue it unless they used Jacob's Ladder.
-
That made it even more broken.
OK, I thought you were worried about someone using all their doms early and then playing this to get rid of all their opponents (which would not work with the full wording). But obviously you are seeing something I am not. How would this be broken?
I think they should just make a lost soul that nerfs all Dominants until rescued.
This is also a great idea :)
-
If you successfully pull off that artifact, and you have even an average deckbuild, I find it hard to foresee a situation where you would lose. I would use it in every deck I build. And if I did not, then I better be using a speed deck, because that's the only semi-viable counter.
-
I support this thread, and I believe that dominants really truly do need serious counters. Some top-of-my-head ideas:
TC Enh.
"Place this card in a player's territory. During a battle with that player, protect all characters from dominants. Cannot be removed by an opponent."
Good Dominant (perhaps ironic (and probably cliche))
"Search deck for Lampstand of the Sanctuary and place it in your good temple or tabernacle. Place this card on Lampstand of the Sanctuary. That artifact cannot be discarded, and may be held in that temple regardless of other artifacts in it."
Evil card of some sort (Dominant? :P)
"Search the draw piles of all players. Take up to three cards besides Lost Souls that appear in each player's deck and discard all versions of them from the players' decks."
Lost Soul
"No dominants may be played while this Lost Soul is in play."
-
I know, let's just make every card from here on out a dominant. Then we can just play slap-jack instead.
-
This thread is why Type NW was created. good times, good times.
Godspeed,
Mike
-
Here's some ways to stop the Doms that people keep complaining about:
SOG/NJ:
1) discard SOG from deck/hand and then NJ will be useless (there's multiple ways to do this and Angel At The Tomb is quite rare to find in decks to worry about it)
2) Altar Of Ahaz (stops them cold (especially with a great defense/auto-blocks))
3) The two lost souls that can't be rescued by them (*/4 and NT)
Angel Of The Lord/Christian Martyr
1) Same as number one above
2) Band
3) Healing Cards
DON:
1) Same as above
2) Lampstand
3) Use another artifact that you know are DON magnets to keep your other ones safe
Burial:
1) Same as above
2) Lampstand
3) Anti-burial LS
For all the other ones, they are not that big of deal (since there are plenty of cards that will do basically the same thing).
-
Here's some ways to stop the Doms that people keep complaining about:
SOG/NJ:
1) discard SOG from deck/hand and then NJ will be useless (there's multiple ways to do this and Angel At The Tomb is quite rare to find in decks to worry about it)
2) Altar Of Ahaz (stops them cold (especially with a great defense/auto-blocks))
3) The two lost souls that can't be rescued by them (*/4 and NT)
Angel Of The Lord/Christian Martyr
1) Same as number one above
2) Band
3) Healing Cards
DON:
1) Same as above
2) Lampstand
3) Use another artifact that you know are DON magnets to keep your other ones safe
Burial:
1) Same as above
2) Lampstand
3) Anti-burial LS
For all the other ones, they are not that big of deal (since there are plenty of cards that will do basically the same thing).
SoG/NJ
Altar of Ahaz isn't very good. For one thing, you lose it whenever they rescue. Also, it stops your SoG/NJ as well. No one ever uses it.
Almost every time, people rescue their own LS with SoG. Changing your LS selection won't be very effective at stopping it.
If there is a card that everyone uses, and the only effective way to stop it is to get rid of it before they use it, then I think it is broken. Plus, you can't exactly discard half a dozen Dominants from an opponent's deck before they draw them.
AoTL/CM
I oppose these dominants to a lesser extent. But how does an unnegatable, playable-on-anyone-at-any-time battle winner improve the game? BTW, healing cards aren't very helpful, as you still lose the battle if that's where they're using it.
I don't think the other two are too overpowered (with the possible exception of DoN). However, I've never really been a big fan of dominants in general. They ruin initiative, as Sean pointed out. And as I said before, unstoppable cards that can be played at any time are bad news in my book.
-
No one ever uses it.
Lies ;) I saw one in ROOT just tonight, and it mattered.
-
I like dominants that have a certain strategy to them i.e. Mayhem, Doubt, Grapes...have strategy, somethng that can throw a twist into the game so people have to think on their feet, but not so much as "if you draw this card you win"... i.e. SOG ,NJ ,AOL thats three lost souls right there and after that even a just semi good offence can rescue two lost souls in a lot of cases...
-
Grapes...have strategy, somethng that can throw a twist into the game so people have to think on their feet, but not so much as "if you draw this card you win"...
You don't play Grapes to its full potential then. Its a copy of Angel of the Lord wrapped in a new box.
-
SoG/NJ
Altar of Ahaz isn't very good. For one thing, you lose it whenever they rescue.
So make sure you have a good defense to go along with it
Also, it stops your SoG/NJ as well. No one ever uses it.
I guess I'm a nobody
Almost every time, people rescue their own LS with SoG. Changing your LS selection won't be very effective at stopping it.
However, I've seen and been in plenty of games where there isn't a plethora of choices for rescue and all that is out is one lost soul in each territory (or they are having a drought and need yours to use SOG/NJ)
If there is a card that everyone uses, and the only effective way to stop it is to get rid of it before they use it, then I think it is broken.
is HT and ANB broken? It only takes two cards (like SOG/NJ) and basically can't be stopped unless you discard it before they use it. I know it's not an automatic two LS but I'm just using it as another example of two cards that can't really be stopped unless you get rid of them before they can play them.
Plus, you can't exactly discard half a dozen Dominants from an opponent's deck before they draw them.
Never said that you had to discard them all (it was just an option to deal with each individual dominant). Also, there are multiple ways to get rid of cards from your opponent's deck (those a lot of them do rely on chance).
AoTL/CM
I oppose these dominants to a lesser extent. But how does an unnegatable, playable-on-anyone-at-any-time battle winner improve the game? BTW, healing cards aren't very helpful, as you still lose the battle if that's where they're using it.
It's called banding...learn it...love it...live it :)
Something you have to think about, though. I there were no Dominates, what do you think Jesus should be? It's hard to have a whole Bible Based game (that spans the entire Bible and not just certain areas) without having Christ in it.
I do agree that Doms are powerful but Cactus is taking the right steps by having any new ones not a pure guarantee win and more situational. It would be good to have more cards that counter Doms instead of outright banning them (imagine that headline, "Jesus Is Banned In Christian Card Game" :P).
-
Hypothically, yes there are counters. But my "anti-dominant" deck prove that it wasn't practical. The fact that every single year at nationals, the winner in type I 2P has aotl, sog, cm, etc. in his/her deck supports this. And how many have used Altar of Ahaz in the 4 years it's been released? None. Can you band or heal, sure. But banding can be stopped MUCH easier than doms can (which you failed to mention Ironica), and healing doesn't help you at all; you still lost the battle.
Bottom line: No, there really aren't effective counters.
-
Oh, I just thought of a good LS or place card ability! "Protect all Lost Souls in an opponent's territory from being removed from play by a dominant."
-
Grapes...have strategy, somethng that can throw a twist into the game so people have to think on their feet, but not so much as "if you draw this card you win"...
You don't play Grapes to its full potential then. Its a copy of Angel of the Lord wrapped in a new box.
Pah, I find grapes to be much more effective as a defensive card. Its especially funny to use it on my own Wandering Spirit.
-
If you successfully pull off that artifact, and you have even an average deckbuild, I find it hard to foresee a situation where you would lose.
But that is an important "if". "If" you don't get that artifact until late in the game after your opponent has already played several dominants, then they will probably have a big lead against your deck which completely lacks dominants. So it's a risk to play without the dominants, and its a risk to play with them. A strategic choice either way. That's what I like :)
-
what if doms had a discard requirement,
sog =2
NJ =1
Don =1
fa =1
Goys =1
aotl =1
.....
that way a person playing sog nj has to get rid of three other cards making it much more of stratigic timeing.
-
I think this game would have been much better if SoG had been the only dominant ever made. That would have made him special, and made the game more balanced.
-
I think this game would have been much better if SoG had been the only dominant ever made. That would have made him special, and made the game more balanced.
This. Although now that the horse is out of the barn, I do really like Mayhem and GotL.
-
Not sure about that combo, Ironica. For one thing, it actually requires three cards: HT, ANB, and a hero. Secondly, you have to draw HT and the hero after playing ANB, meaning they have to be in the top 11 cards in your deck after the shuffle. Also, the combo has many counters. Such as blocking. If your opponent draws defense (which is no less likely than your drawing offense), then you aren't guaranteed anything.
I think this game would have been much better if SoG had been the only dominant ever made. That would have made him special, and made the game more balanced.
+1
Except Doubt.
-
I know for T1 dominants can be a problem, but playing T2 dominants actually help balance the game, and any dominant nerfing in T1 that spills over to T2 could actually hurt the game (or at least T2)
Try fighting 5 pre battle ignores without soaking some up with dominants or stopping a CBN character with a weapon if you haven't drawn your weapon discard cards.
Also Angel of the Lord is far from a guaranteed rescue, Madness or Unknown Nation, a 2Khorses weapon, banding, a character like Judas, Auto block character, another dominant (yes most dominants actually balance other ones)
-
Not sure about that combo, Ironica. For one thing, it actually requires three cards: HT, ANB, and a hero.
Then SOG/NJ require four cards (SOG, NJ, 2 LS). Also, any prophet deck will have no problem having a green prophet available when they to get it.
Secondly, you have to draw HT and the hero after playing ANB, meaning they have to be in the top 11 cards in your deck after the shuffle.
I think you misunderstood my example. Here's a play by play:
I activate HT. I start a rescue attempt with a random green prophet. Using the ability of HT, I play ABN before you are even allowed to block. Everything is shuffled and I start a new turn. The only way to stop this combo besides discarding it before it get's going is to use DON.
Also, the combo has many counters. Such as blocking. If your opponent draws defense (which is no less likely than your drawing offense), then you aren't guaranteed anything.
As previously mentioned:
I know it's not an automatic two LS but I'm just using it as another example of two cards that can't really be stopped unless you get rid of them before they can play them.
Also, I used that example to reply to this quote:
the only effective way to stop it is to get rid of it before they use it, then I think it is broken.
I was just giving another example of a combo that is basically unstoppable and asking if they thought it was broken.
Again, I do agree that there needs to be some more counters to SOG/NJ. I am, however, against banning cards. I remember a thread talking about banning NJ and in the middle of it, people started talking about banning other cards. Once you start, you just can't stop.
-
Hey,
I like dominants that have a certain strategy to them i.e. Mayhem, Doubt, Grapes...have strategy, somethng that can throw a twist into the game so people have to think on their feet, but not so much as "if you draw this card you win"... i.e. SOG
There can be a lot of strategy involved in how you play Son of God, if you're playing it right. Of course there are a lot of players that don't play it right.
SOG ,NJ ,AOL thats three lost souls right there and after that even a just semi good offence can rescue two lost souls in a lot of cases...
As I've said before, I couldn't disagree more. Rescuing two souls against a decent defense is a lot harder than it seems. And Son of God, New Jerusalem, and Angel of the Lord are a far cry from an automatic three souls.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Ironica, I misunderstood you because I interpreted "HT" as Harvest Time. :D My bad.
However, I still don't see how this particular combo is very effective: it doesn't really guarantee anything (unless I'm missing something).
Lost Souls are fairly easy to come by. I didn't count them as part of the combo. Also, your HT combo still needs 4 cards as well. HT, a Hero, ANB, and a Lost Soul. :)
-
And Son of God, New Jerusalem, and Angel of the Lord are a far cry from an automatic three souls.
I don't think "a far cry" is a worthwhile term to use to describe the difference between how often these three cards rescue three Lost Souls and them being stopped somehow.
Also, in response to your contending that rescuing twice against a good defense is difficult, yes and no. The main problem I have with these dominants is how VAST they make the gulf between a good opening hand and a bad opening hand. With dominants, you could, through no fault of your own, lose on the third round simply because you got 3 Lost Souls and either only one EC who got AotL'd, no EC's, no EE's, in the 17 cards you had to work with. Without Dominants, games would be, at minimum, five rounds long. In five rounds, you get ~24 cards to work with, even without drawing, or almost half your deck. If you drew no defense in all that, your deck is constructed poorly. The way Dominants skew the game now, you could have a Heroless deck and still not draw any EC's in the time it takes your opponent to win.
The objections to why I hate dominants so much seem to be very simple in face of how vastly complex the problems that Dominants cause are.
-
Ironica, I misunderstood you because I interpreted "HT" as Harvest Time. :D My bad.
However, I still don't see how this particular combo is very effective: it doesn't really guarantee anything (unless I'm missing something).
Lost Souls are fairly easy to come by. I didn't count them as part of the combo. Also, your HT combo still needs 4 cards as well. HT, a Hero, ANB, and a Lost Soul. :)
So it's even then :).
Actually, I was just thinking of a two card combo that is basically unstoppable to show that just because something ends up being unstoppable, doesn't necessarily means it's broken.
-
Ironica, what's your point about ANB? They can't rescue two ls. If ANB and HT with a green prophet is unstoppable, who cares? But sog and nj are two ls, instantly. And they are rarely stopped. That's like saying, you can't stop a hero from entering battle. That's a 1 card unstoppable combo! Yeah but who cares? It's just one hero.
-
Honestly, I think the best card to create to counter dominants would be a fortress. Dominants are most effective in speed decks. Counters to dominants (as they are now) must either be played in battle, or be in your artifact pile. Speed decks effectively deal with both of these situations. They play their dominants in battle or don't let their opponent block effectively nerfing cards like confusion. With artifacts like AoA or LotS, I have yet to see a speed deck that doesn't play with both DoN and Captured Ark... also nerfing those counters.
A speed deck, does not however, contain substantial defense. A great majority of the cards that hurt fortresses are on the defensive side. I realize how much fortresses have been complained about recently, but I honestly think that this would be the best type of card to make to "semi-counter" some dominants. At the very least, it would make speed decks play with some defense, effectively decreasing the speed at which they get their dominants.
-
Or, we could do what everyone's been clamoring for for years and make T1 6LS with a 60 card minimum.
-
Or, we could do what everyone's been clamoring for for years and make T1 6LS with a 60 card minimum.
I also like this plan.
I have yet to see a speed deck that doesn't play with both DoN and Captured Ark... also nerfing those [artifact] counters.
Neither DoN nor CA would stop the artifact that I'm talking about.
"If owner has not played any dominants this game, then discard this artifact to remove all dominants from all hands, decks, and discard piles from the game."
-
That artifact encourages speed (on both sides) even more...
-
I think Prof U may be talking about this (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19308.0).
-
No. That card will break the game. It will make any deck that successfully pulls it off completely unbeatable. It makes approximately 6-10 cards in the opponent's deck worthless if pulled off early (which in an era of rampant speed and searching isn't hard to do). Therefore, it essentially makes your 50 card deck about 10 cards "bigger" than a normal 50 card deck with dominants. It does not promote either fun or fellowship, which Prof so often campaigns for.
-
Or, we could do what everyone's been clamoring for for years and make T1 6LS with a 60 card minimum.
Game over if that happens. The 60 card isn't too bad, but 6LS will instantly break the game. SoG + NJ + Burial = 3 available. All I have to do is one Hormah + Exchanger and I don't need any defense.
60card + 8ls might work, but not 6ls.
-
Or, we could do what everyone's been clamoring for for years and make T1 6LS with a 60 card minimum.
Game over if that happens. The 60 card isn't too bad, but 6LS will instantly break the game. SoG + NJ + Burial = 3 available. All I have to do is one Hormah + Exchanger and I don't need any defense.
60card + 8ls might work, but not 6ls.
I think he meant you need to redeem 6 instead of 5.
I wouldn't be opposed to the 60/6 rule.
No. That card will break the game. It will make any deck that successfully pulls it off completely unbeatable. It makes approximately 6-10 cards in the opponent's deck worthless if pulled off early (which in an era of rampant speed and searching isn't hard to do). Therefore, it essentially makes your 50 card deck about 10 cards "bigger" than a normal 50 card deck with dominants. It does not promote either fun or fellowship, which Prof so often campaigns for.
+1 That art just fuels the need for speed even more. Maybe a better version....
"When activated, holder may discard a dominant from hand to discard a dominant from opponents deck." I realize theres still a "MUST GET THIS ASAP" element to this, but its nowhere near as severe as profs suggestion had.
-
"When activated, holder may discard a dominant from hand to discard a dominant from opponents deck." I realize theres still a "MUST GET THIS ASAP" element to this, but its nowhere near as severe as profs suggestion had.
In T2 I would gladly run searches and Angel at the Tomb to discard every dominant in my opponents deck at little cost (I'm not sure if it would work as well as I imagine it now)
-
"When activated, holder may discard a dominant from hand to discard a dominant from opponents deck." I realize theres still a "MUST GET THIS ASAP" element to this, but its nowhere near as severe as profs suggestion had.
In T2 I would gladly run searches and Angel at the Tomb to discard every dominant in my opponents deck at little cost (I'm not sure if it would work as well as I imagine it now)
It would have to be "holder may discard a dominant from hand to search opponent's deck for the same card and discard it." Otherwise, I discard your SoG with my GoTL.
-
No. That card will break the game. It will make any deck that successfully pulls it off completely unbeatable. It makes approximately 6-10 cards in the opponent's deck worthless if pulled off early
Yes it means that the opponent's deck will have up to 10 useless cards (minus the ones that they've already played), but it also means that the deck that pulls it off won't have any dominants in it. That is a HUGE balancing factor. At least the other deck will probably get to play a couple dominants early in the game. I really think this could work.
-
I agree with Prof that a card like this would be well-balanced. And it should be made usable by every brigade so that decks will begin to put fewer dominants in their decks. There should also be a card that allows you to discard some of your cards to discard the same cards from your opponent(s). This would obviously be balanced because although your opponent(s) lose the cards, so do you. And keep in mind that discarding still allows for Angel at the Tomb (or Goods Recovered) use.
P.S. I think those who want to change T1 to 60/6 should be playing T2. That's what it was made for.
-
Upping the minimum deck size by 10 cards and requiring the rescue of another soul is a far cry from T2, where the decks are 100+ plus cards and you can have 5x of everything (and equal good and evil). I sometimes play causal games to 6 souls, minimum 63 cards. It's nothing like T2.
-
I agree with Prof that a card like this would be well-balanced. And it should be made usable by every brigade so that decks will begin to put fewer dominants in their decks. There should also be a card that allows you to discard some of your cards to discard the same cards from your opponent(s). This would obviously be balanced because although your opponent(s) lose the cards, so do you. And keep in mind that discarding still allows for Angel at the Tomb (or Goods Recovered) use.
P.S. I think those who want to change T1 to 60/6 should be playing T2. That's what it was made for.
Yeah, I play t1 because I don't want to have to deal with AoCPx5 every game.
-
I love the idea of T1 going to a 60/6 rule. Longer more thrilling games, less 4 turn wins. We should do it, how do we get the idea momentum?
-
I'm just saying T1 is meant to be quick games in general, and T2 is meant to be longer games in general. I think it's best for them to be as different as possible.
In fact, when I think about it, dominants really aren't that big a deal to me in T1. They make the game faster. If I'm looking for a fast game, I typically go T1.
-
Thats the problem, people make T1 TOO fast. I don't want a 4 turn game. The 60/6 rule would still keep it faster than T2, but not nearly as fast as it currently is. If anything, the 6 ls rule is all that needs to be added.
-
60/6 has been and always will be the perfect fix to type 1. lets get on the ball, cactus.
-
60/6 has been and always will be the perfect fix to type 1. lets get on the ball, cactus.
I wouldn't say always. But certainly since the New Jerusalem dominant came into being.
-
well, it more than likely will be, since i sincerely doubt cactus will make another mistake like new jerusalem.
-
60/6 has been and always will be the perfect fix to type 1. lets get on the ball, cactus.
I believe that was already brought up and was shot down due to the potential increase in time-out games.
-
A couple of thoughts.
one) why 60/6? that messes up the whole deckbuilding rules for the entire game. I could see 57 or 63 minimum since they are already the precidented deck limit requirements (for the stage 2 deck). The 6 soul requirement is a good idea though.
two) I don't understand (and never did for that matter) why the NJ Dominant was another free soul. Biblicaly, New Jerusalem isn't a salvation event, based idea. NJ is the dwelling place of the already saved, and at that point in time all have already made the decision one way or the other. There isn't a "oh shoot, here comes the New Jerusalem dad told me about. Better get saved." loophole that I see in scripture. I just feel that we nitpick other card abilities to death about the biblical-ness of the ability. Why not this card?
-
new jerusalem should be a fortress. a super-goshen.
-
New Jerusalem should have been a Guardian of Your Souls.
-
New Jerusalem should have been a Guardian of Your Souls.
AMEN to that!
New Jerusalem
Good Fortress
Place in your Land of Redemption.
Place all rescued souls here, Evil cards have no effect on cards in this fortress.
or
Protect all redeemed souls from Falling Away.
-
New Jerusalem should have been a Guardian of Your Souls.
AMEN to that!
New Jerusalem
Good Fortress
Place in your Land of Redemption.
Place all rescued souls here, Evil cards have no effect on cards in this fortress.
or
Protect all redeemed souls from Falling Away.
If that happens, then it will be the first card that has three different types (site/dom/fortress). That would be interesting :P
-
It wouldn't happen because the fortress idea I had is already being used by GoYS. This is more of a "what should have been".
-
I agree with Prof that a card like this would be well-balanced. And it should be made usable by every brigade so that decks will begin to put fewer dominants in their decks. There should also be a card that allows you to discard some of your cards to discard the same cards from your opponent(s). This would obviously be balanced because although your opponent(s) lose the cards, so do you. And keep in mind that discarding still allows for Angel at the Tomb (or Goods Recovered) use.
P.S. I think those who want to change T1 to 60/6 should be playing T2. That's what it was made for.
Yeah, I play t1 because I don't want to have to deal with AoCPx5 every game.
There are far worse things that 5 AoCP that you can face in T2, especially when you build your T2 deck to be able to survive it. I'd rather face AoCP than pre battle ignores or mass angel by the numbers (and my deck doesn't even have a proper protect fort)
-
The 60/6 rule would mean that you have to rescue 6 ls, correct?
-
The 60/6 rule would mean that you have to rescue 6 ls, correct?
I think that's right.
I actually would vote in favor of the 60/6 (or 63/6 or w/e) change. I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less. The games that I have enjoyed the most are ones that have taken upwards of 30 minutes with epic battles on both sides and the victor pulling ahead by a smidgen.
-
I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.
Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes :)
-
False - we've played four turners before ;)
-
False - we've played four turners before ;)
I should restate. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes ... unless I lose :)
-
I should restate. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes ... unless I lose Smiley
Thats kind of the point, trying to reduce the number of 4 turn wins by making it a just a touch harder. Playing a short race to the dominants game takes some of the fun out of redemtpion.
-
I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.
Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes :)
Games with you were usually some of those ones I enjoyed the most :P
-
I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.
Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes :)
Yeah..our game last night was almost 2 hours and my deck has a 7 card defense. :)
-
Hey,
Playing a short race to the dominants game takes some of the fun out of redemption.
There's an easy solution to that, don't play a "race to the dominants" deck.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
There's an easy solution to that, don't play a "race to the dominants" deck.
Well I have no control over what deck my opponent plays, so what I play is sometime irrelevant.
-
One person can make a difference.
-
One person can make a difference.
??? I am unsure of what you are saying.
-
Would the 60 card limit even be needed if they made it a 6 lost souls victory requirement? I know that people drawing out their decks is so common now, but I don't mind that so much if they have to make a minimum of 2 or 3 dominant-free rescues for the win. Keep in mind that there are a lot of 50 card starter decks out there on store shelves, whereas an addendum saying 6 lost souls for the win would be easy to make. We'd also I assume need to increase tournament round times by 5-15 minutes?
And I would just like to chime in with others, as I have said ever since I started playing seriously about a year ago, that when 15-20 cards of every tournament deck are exactly the same, this is not a good thing. Most of us use 7 of about 10 particular lost souls, and most of use at least 9 dominants in our decks. Throw in cards like Am Slave, Hopper, Unholy Writ, Captured Ark, Uzzah, KOT, etc, and you are near 20 identical cards in 50 card decks. That's 40% people!
Regarding lost souls (which I know this thread is not about), I wish there had been some way to link them to particular brigades/themes. Oh well :)
-
problem with not upping the deck count, is that it makes it easier to lock some one out, 7 lost souls, SOG+NJ+Burial only leaves 4 for rescue. Not a good idea IMHO.
-
Thinking about it more, to make it so some people can still use "faster" decks if they want, how about a 57/6 rule? 8 ls would still be the minimum in the deck, but they should be allowed to have the minimum amount of cards per ls if they want. Its their choice if they want to draw LS faster.
-
problem with not upping the deck count, is that it makes it easier to lock some one out, 7 lost souls, SOG+NJ+Burial only leaves 4 for rescue. Not a good idea IMHO.
That is an excellent point I had not thought of. Yes, you would need a minimum of 8 lost souls in a deck. Thanks!
On the other hand, once they made the female only and NT only lost souls, many decks got "locked out" anyway, especially if someone removes their opponent's SOG via Confusion :) Fortunately the Wanderer LS and I am Salvation mitigate this somewhat.
-
^ That fact is kind of a sad truth. The only heros typically used are O.T. men... I think that needs to change. White has a good start on making women and N.T. more useful, but I'd like to see most of the brigades except teal have a strong O.T. and N.T. offering.
-
^ That fact is kind of a sad truth. The only heros typically used are O.T. men... I think that needs to change. White has a good start on making women and N.T. more useful, but I'd like to see most of the brigades except teal have a strong O.T. and N.T. offering.
Yeah, even Sarah and Rebekkah are only in my casual Genesis deck just for Simeon and the female-only LS :(
-
I have to say, I completely overlooked the issue of starter decks. It's true that if we upped the minimum deck requirement, there would be a bunch of starter decks out there that would no longer be usable outside of a starter game (and thus playing with those starter decks would not help a new player learn the game very well). So the only thing we could change if we didn't bumb up card minimum is the Redeemed Soul requirement, a problem with which, as others have stated, would be lockout. So...
Option 1: We don't change any rules and we fix the Dominant problem with cards, or...
Option 2: We bump up the Redeemed Soul requirement and focus our energy on combating lockout.
Or...we could leave it alone and keep games short and Dominant-dominated?
-
I have to say, I completely overlooked the issue of starter decks. It's true that if we upped the minimum deck requirement, there would be a bunch of starter decks out there that would no longer be usable outside of a starter game (and thus playing with those starter decks would not help a new player learn the game very well). So the only thing we could change if we didn't bumb up card minimum is the Redeemed Soul requirement, a problem with which, as others have stated, would be lockout. So...
Option 1: We don't change any rules and we fix the Dominant problem with cards, or...
Option 2: We bump up the Redeemed Soul requirement and focus our energy on combating lockout.
Or...we could leave it alone and keep games short and Dominant-dominated?
The last time this issue was brought up, I brought up the fact that starter decks would become illegal if we bumped the deck minimum. The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.
-
Another solution is to create starter expansions or new starters. The idea is a 20 card expansion for E/F and a 20 card expansion for G/H. 10 cards for each deck that you add to your current starters. They could add to the themes already in the decks or bring some of the newer themes in.
New Starters is just as easy, I very rarely see people retropurchasing Starters. If a new 60 card per deck starter came out (maybe with the expansions for the older starters as a Deluxe Starter) then I doubt anyone would use the older ones very much.
-
Another solution is to create starter expansions or new starters. The idea is a 20 card expansion for E/F and a 20 card expansion for G/H. 10 cards for each deck that you add to your current starters. They could add to the themes already in the decks or bring some of the newer themes in.
New Starters is just as easy, I very rarely see people retropurchasing Starters. If a new 60 card per deck starter came out (maybe with the expansions for the older starters as a Deluxe Starter) then I doubt anyone would use the older ones very much.
I don't like the idea of making "starter expansions." I don't know why exactly... Maybe I just like I buy it, I can use it as is, kaput kind of things, rather than so, I just bought this, but it's useless unless I buy more for it? Lame.
A plus for starter expansions though would be that all the previous starter decks could be made equally playable.
-
The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.
The only problem with this though, is people are constantly trying to tweak a new deck for tournaments, so most people won’t ever play “casual” games anymore, because perfecting those decks would be useless.
-
The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.
The only problem with this though, is people are constantly trying to tweak a new deck for tournaments, so most people won’t ever play “casual” games anymore, because perfecting those decks would be useless.
People build tons of "useless" (fun) decks though. So while I agree changing it would be bad, I don't think it'd be any deterant.
-
Just release a new starter with it. When C/D came out, there was no reason to use A/B. When E/F came out, there was no reason to use C/D. When G/H came out, there was no reason to use E/F. Just up it to 60/6 and release I/J at 60 cards.
-
Just release a new starter with it. When C/D came out, there was no reason to use A/B. When E/F came out, there was no reason to use C/D. When G/H came out, there was no reason to use E/F. Just up it to 60/6 and release I/J at 60 cards.
I actually still use the e/f decks. I find them easier to teach others to play than the g/h started decks.
-
Yeah, but now you're moving the goalposts. You're not using E/F as a new player, you're using E/F as an experienced player to teach new players. Just like in any card game, if you're a new player, you buy the newest starter. Nobody starts YuGiOh today by buying a Yugi deck.