And another thing...

[Minister Polarius]

TGT encourages speed, which is the last thing this game needs! I am and have been for most of my Redemption career a defense specialist, but I am seriously considering abandoning non-Site defense altogether! Why waste 20ish cards in my deck if TGTerritory Destruction will render them all useless? I'd be much better off just going all offense in an attempt to lolwtfbbqpwn my opponent before he lolwtfbbqpwns me.

The alternative is adding still more defense, which I do for online play, but the time allotted at tournaments is laughably low per round and ludicrously high per play. You could time a game out by perfectly legal means in only a few rounds. This well-intentioned mechanism is yet another element of the game that bolsters the most boring and powerful archetype. I know that some people need a bit more time to play as they have to read all the cards, but I still can't help but remember in the back of my mind the time I could have taken first at my first nationals instead of third if only a spiteful player, whose defense I had already annihilated and simply needed three turns to walk, stalled me out legally giving him a timeout victory. I'm not bitter, I just wonder why we are allowed SO MUCH TIME to do everything and SO LITTLE TIME to play a round.

Speed and TGT would cease to be the blight on the Redemption meta that they are, becoming merely another option rather than the only viable option, if slower, more strategic decks weren't so heavily penalized.

/rant

[Red Dragon Thorn]

For the record, I've been playing with various Zebulun decks for the last two years, and I've timed out ONCE. And that was because Tim and I locked each other out. Additionally I haven't had all that many issues with TGT. Yeah, a few, but who doesn't lose to TGT everyonce in a while?

I don't think Prof U has had that many problems either, and he's a pretty prominant Zebby user also.

[lightningninja]

These seem like to completely unrelated ideas. The first is that TGT encourages speed and wastes away a defense, a defense that takes up much of you deck. I can see your point here and I've been frustrated too.

The second seems to be about timeouts... isn't that the opposite of speed? But yes, 30 seconds per card during a battle is a bit much, and that's just the start of the stalling.

Could you please explain the correlation between these? I agree with both statements, I just don't see the connection. Maybe there isn't one?

[Minister Polarius]

Well, they're not really related so much as two sides of the coin. I'm moaning about TGT/Speed because it's lame and boring. However, they wouldn't be so much of a problem to control decks.

Which brings me to the other side of the coin. Large defenses aren't an option because you have to win quickly to win within the time limits. The reason few people have a problem with timeouts is that nobody uses a control deck. Nobody uses a control deck because of time constraints.

So they're not related per se, but the one fuels the fire for the other.

[hi123]

TGT encourages speed, which is the last thing this game needs! I am and have been for most of my Redemption career a defense specialist, but I am seriously considering abandoning non-Site defense altogether! Why waste 20ish cards in my deck if TGTerritory Destruction will render them all useless? I'd be much better off just going all offense in an attempt to lolwtfbbqpwn my opponent before he lolwtfbbqpwns me.

The alternative is adding still more defense, which I do for online play, but the time allotted at tournaments is laughably low per round and ludicrously high per play. You could time a game out by perfectly legal means in only a few rounds. This well-intentioned mechanism is yet another element of the game that bolsters the most boring and powerful archetype. I know that some people need a bit more time to play as they have to read all the cards, but I still can't help but remember in the back of my mind the time I could have taken first at my first nationals instead of third if only a spiteful player, whose defense I had already annihilated and simply needed three turns to walk, stalled me out legally giving him a timeout victory. I'm not bitter, I just wonder why we are allowed SO MUCH TIME to do everything and SO LITTLE TIME to play a round.

Speed and TGT would cease to be the blight on the Redemption meta that they are, becoming merely another option rather than the only viable option, if slower, more strategic decks weren't so heavily penalized.

/rant

TGT? I thought that SOG, and NJ Was why basicly everyone was using Speed?

[Prof Underwood]

I agree with Pol that playing enough defense to be able to consistently survive a TGT deck requires a deck that is slow enough that timeouts are a serious consideration.  This is one reason why I love ROOT so much (no time limits on games).

I have played Zeb based defensive decks in live tournaments and have only had 2 timeouts that I remember.  But those were the 2 times I played against a slow player, too.  I would not recommend using a defensive heavy deck at Nats.  There's just too much chance that you'll run into a slow player there, and almost definitely time out.

I think the main problem here is that Rob wants the game to be weighted towards the offense.  For spiritual reasons, it is important that the side of good defeats the side of evil.  For gameplay reasons, it is more fun for someone to get to 5 LSs, than to have both players get stuck.  The problem is that if good is overall more powerful than evil, then making a deck of all good, is more powerful than making a deck of all evil.  In theory, even putting evil into your deck makes it less powerful than it would be if you had put in more good.  Thus speed dominates, and people only put token (or zero) defensive cards in their deck.

Other than nerfing egregious imbalances (pre-block ignore), I don't think that there's really much that can be done to change anything along these lines.

[STAMP]

Is it only me or is it extremely ironic that the most vocal against pre-block ignore plays a Zebulun deck?

 

[Red Dragon Thorn]

He gets interaction in the game all the way through until the very end. He has to test his wits against his opponent to see if he can even get to use Zeb during the end game.

[stefferweffer]

I am still new compared to the rest of you, and Pol and I don't agree on everything, but this is something that we have agreed on from the beginning.  He was one of my supporters when I listed everything I didn't like about Garden Tomb, and also when I wrote a separate article about how "speed" was making every tournament deck I ran into look alike.  I won't relist all those points again here, but I agree that it IS linked with the tournament round time limits.  You CAN make a defense heavy deck that will beat Speed and the Garden Tomb, given enough time.  The problem is that 30 or 45 minute rounds usually don't allow that to happen.  So the Speed/Garden Tomb player hits their dominants first (don't get me started on New Jerusalem -another article I wrote), and if they haven't won already by territory destruction (made even better with Abom now, and AOC promo), they win 3-2, 3-1, etc.  I listed out the eleven "casual" decks I play with, and the one with the best track record is still Garden Tomb/Sites.  I know that cards have been made to slow these strategies down, and I appreciate that, but now it seems that other strategies need a "boost", rather than keep making counters for things the designers seem to agree in hindsight were too powerful and/or overused.

I was curious about something, not having played Magic the Gathering or Star Wars CCG for years and having never played another CCG.  Does the same thing happen with those games, where you can expect to face one of 3 or so decks at a tournament?

[Gabe]

I would not recommend using a defensive heavy deck at Nats.  There's just too much chance that you'll run into a slow player there, and almost definitely time out.

That is irony.  I've only timed out in tournament play twice.  Once was against Prof U at Nationals and I wasn't even using a defense heavy deck...

He gets interaction in the game all the way through until the very end. He has to test his wits against his opponent to see if he can even get to use Zeb during the end game.

Only if the opponent isn't playing a similar strategy.  The last time I played against Prof U I was also playing a defensive deck.  The game lasted three hours, most of which was waiting for him to deck out and realize neither of us could win.  It was excruciating.

[Red Dragon Thorn]

Hah, that's awesome. That's a great example of why people play Offense heavy

[Minister Polarius]

I was curious about something, not having played Magic the Gathering or Star Wars CCG for years and having never played another CCG.  Does the same thing happen with those games, where you can expect to face one of 3 or so decks at a tournament?

Idk about Star Wars, but in MTG you'd be hard-pressed to find two like decks (except Blue Control, but even then there's a lot of variance). Part of this is because people jealously guard their decklists, but a lot of it comes from the fact that every set is more or less balanced between the colours, and they're not afraid to ban mistakes (TGT, NJ, Uzzah).

[Red]

in pokemon(bad example ik)there is at the momet no domant deck no that is subject to change but in the past there have been dom strats. trust me we do not need to ban anything save NJ.(redemption's meta is quite healthy trust me) redemption's stenth comes in it's mechanacs for example the win condition is undublcated.also TGT is NOT broken let see Ioj, destutive sin, self + Kotw and protect forts heck it know where near broken!

[Minister Polarius]

Herp derp. IoJ is the only real concern out of everything you listed.

[Red]

i can stop a vanilla tgt buld with assyan camp bye bye terrtory destuction.(and say idk HUGE def)all that i just said may or may not be true.(i never really play agenst TGT decks)

[Minister Polarius]

Right, because Protect Forts are so hard to deal with...

[TheKarazyvicePresidentRR]

My two sides of the coin. As everyone who has ever played me (and people who haven't) know I am also a heavy defense specialist. My decks run at a whopping 70 cards and only 10-15 of that is offense.

On point one, I agree and disagree. TGT does promote speed, however due to the slowness of my offense (as in, it doesn't win ls till opp has decked). TGT doesn't effect me much.

On point two, I completely agree. Any time I play an opp that doesn't play fast I run a high risk of time out because I use such a large deck, my own play speed is under 20 seconds a turn unless I am in a bad situation. Which saves me alot of time outs but even so I get very close. I think we need an hour for rounds. I don't mind the 30 seconds a card rule (though 15 is much more reasonable) because my little brother does take quite a bit of time (albeit he is 11) to choose exactly what to do.

All in all, give us longer rounds.

He gets interaction in the game all the way through until the very end. He has to test his wits against his opponent to see if he can even get to use Zeb during the end game.

Yup, someone, Idk who, but someone commented on my deck that they liked that they got to bash into my defense as much as they could before s/p or my JS killed everything off. Honestly, I wish more people would use a bit more defense in their decks.

Right, because Protect Forts are so hard to deal with...

They can be. Unless someone Jeremiah's us but thats an odd choice for a TGT deck.

[Minister Polarius]

Not the best kind of TGT decks.

[Prof Underwood]

Is it only me or is it extremely ironic that the most vocal against pre-block ignore plays a Zebulun deck?

It is ironic.  In fact, I play a TGT deck sometimes, too.  Just because I hate something doesn't mean that I don't recognize it's power.  And if I want to win games, I have to sometimes use the tools that are available.  I'd rather they not exist, but they do.

That is irony.  I've only timed out in tournament play twice.  Once was against Prof U at Nationals and I wasn't even using a defense heavy deck...

Oddly enough, I was using a relatively fast Z-temple deck in that game, if I remember right.

Only if the opponent isn't playing a similar strategy.

This is definitely true.  I will admit that playing a game between 2 defense-heavy decks is actually really dull.  So maybe it's not bad that the game leans toward offense so that there are less people using defense-heavy decks, and less chance of 2 of them meeting.

[STAMP]

Is it only me or is it extremely ironic that the most vocal against pre-block ignore plays a Zebulun deck?

It is ironic.  In fact, I play a TGT deck sometimes, too.  Just because I hate something doesn't mean that I don't recognize it's power.  And if I want to win games, I have to sometimes use the tools that are available.  I'd rather they not exist, but they do.

Okay, Mr. Phil Mickelson.   

[Prof Underwood]

Okay, Mr. Phil Mickelson.   

If I knew more about golf, I'm sure I'd get that

[Professoralstad]

Okay, Mr. Phil Mickelson.   

If I knew more about golf, I'm sure I'd get that

This is what STAMP is talking about.