Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If you haven't seen the article on Land of Redemption for the background on this topic, be sure to give it a read before voting. I'm not going to take the time to restate it all here.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

**EDIT - I don't want to give the impression that I have the authority to make any change or that there are any changes planned. This topic has been raised multiple times in the past and makes an interesting discussion.

I voted for allowing play in all levels of tournaments.

Many of the reasons for my vote were covered in Gabe's article, but I'll speak to a few that I consider important.  Elders are volunteers; since Cactus does not pay them, the only material reward they have for participating in the game is the potential winnings they can receive in tournaments.  Considering the time investment required of Elders, I feel it's fair that they have a shot at winning the end result of their labor.  Redemption also has a very small competitive group of players - we had less than 50 people playing our 'main event' at Nationals this year.  Excluding Elders will have a noticeable impact on the number of players in a tournament.  Perhaps if the game takes off again, it would make more sense to exclude Elders at Nationals, but until that point I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the number of players eligible for tournaments.

To give a real-life example of tourney size being impacted, if Elders/playtesters were excluded from tournaments last season here's what would have happened in the PA/MD area: either we would have lost up to 3 of our most experienced and skilled players (~25% of the participants at 2015 PA States; we had 2 more Elders attend NE Regionals, and so would have excluded ~20% of participants there), or the Elders/playtesters would have lost up to 3 amazing resources for improving the quality of the game.  The first case only benefits maybe 3 players (disclaimer: that includes me) who would have an easier time winning categories, but at the cost of not needing to push as hard or innovate as much in our playing and deckbuilding skills.  The second case benefits absolutely no one, and in fact causes more harm to the game overall as we lose several great playtesters and one of the driving forces behind the REG update.

I understand why this is a discussion, but I don't see any real benefit to excluding Elders from competitive play at this point.  Maybe when the player pool gets larger.

If you haven't seen the article on Land of Redemption for the background on this topic, be sure to give it a ready before voting.

Haha 

I voted for they should play. If the elders didn't play it would take out a lot of the competition, and that's one of the draws of the higher tournaments.

I agree with everyone above that removing elders in general from the competitive scene would be an undesirable direction to go. I would add one caveat to this, however.

I think it is worth discussing the possibility that people with pre-release knowledge of a new set *not* be allowed to play in Booster Draft at the Nationals in which the set is released. To me this is the only real possible conflict of interest in the competitive play scene.

The caveat I'd put there is that we don't get to do any drafts with the packs before nationals either.  Any knowledge we have for new cards as it relates to booster draft is purely based on theorizing how good cards will be there, which other players can do as well as the set tends to get fully revealed before nationals.

If everyone thinks its unfair for us to play in booster, I don't have a huge problem not playing booster at nats (although I love playing booster at nats), but I don't really think it is that much of an advantage.

there is absolutely no reason why the elders should not be able to play!! they have put their time in to get to the position to where they are at most likely due to skill, not to mention a ton of dedication!!

they deserve to be able to play in all tournaments.

confusion is a huge factor here as even play testers and elders may have used some cards before, but they probably have changed not only that everyone gets a year to develop their own strategies and combinations so it's not like anyone can't read the cards and develop their own! winning strategies and combinations have been repeated and changed only slightly. there are no cards now or before from one single set release that give anyone an unfair advantage over anyone else who has access to those cards.

now if you factor dedication in to experience, yes the elders may be the most dedicated and experienced.. how isn't that going to apply anywhere? that is certainly not a reason for anyone to be excluded.

As much as I would enjoy greatly increasing my chances of winning any Twin Cities tournament, I think the competition presented by the elders here (particularly Justin, Jordan, and soon to be John and Tim) is what makes the game interesting for high-level players. However, that being said, I am a higher-level player (or so I like to think) which means the elders' advantage isn't quite as substantial as it would be against someone who plays casually here and there and doesn't stand a chance. On the other hand, not being able to win tournaments encourages the casual player to play more often, experiment with more decks, and learn to avoid mistakes.

One more idea that would be interesting if tournament play for elders was ever limited, is that elders could only play in T2 and sealed categories. The downside of that being upset elders who don't have the patience for T2 and that it may discourage non-elders from playing T2.

I voted I don't care, this is silly. But in actuality, I do care and this is a silly debate. I agree with most of the responses above except this quote here:

One more idea that would be interesting if tournament play for elders was ever limited, is that elders could only play in T2 and sealed categories. The downside of that being upset elders who don't have the patience for T2 and that it may discourage non-elders from playing T2.

only because, I actually hate T1 and often do face an Alstad at some point before a Nats. I love playing the Elders, even if I get smoked. But T2 is where it is at. However, the playing field should be even between T1 & T2 with elders. I mentioned this in another post about this a few weeks ago and I noticed it hasn't been brought up here so I will add it as well. Gabe, do with it what you will with the voting, as I said, I think this is all silly, and having the Elders play is great for this game. Here it is:
Elder's who place in said category at Nats cannot play in said category at next years Nats.

I don't really want this, but I can see people being in favor for it to give them a chance to place. But then I wouldn't be able to get my revenge...J/K...LOL!

I agree it is worth discussing, however, keep in mind that since 2007 (when new sets started being used in Booster Draft) there have been only 2 playtesters that have placed in the top 3 at Nats (and maybe even only one, as I'm not sure if Gabe was a playtester in 2008 when he got second).

I was not a play tester, nor did I help Kevin Shride (the play tester I was connected with) during the first Faith of Our Fathers set.

I've also added the following disclaimer to the original post as I don't want to give people the wrong idea about the purpose of bringing up this topic.

I don't want to give the impression that I have the authority to make any change or that there are any changes planned. This topic has been raised multiple times in the past and makes an interesting discussion.

I cannot help but be reminded of the original Bad News Bears movie from the 1980s, when all the fans and MLB players in the Astrodome started chanting:

LET THEM PLAY! LET THEM PLAY! LET THEM PLAY!

Either way it's unfair so I don't think the status quo is a bad thing.

I agree with people in saying they should play. The only advantage i see is the booster draft dynamic. The other CCG's though must have excluded them for a solid reason that maybe we have not discussed yet, after all they are pretty successful . Also i was wondering how many people were saying let them play because of their own christian character and that they love having them in the mix over the actual fairness issue. Some people as well do not know all the things that the elders do to possibly give them an advantage since they are not elders themselves. I just want to restate, i do think they should play, but i do not know all the things like i said above that would give them a possible advantage if any at all. I would be curious how the talks go between elders and Rob when it comes to this, since you guys would probably know best about it, and will be able to make the best decision. Unless you can not have a fair presentation on both sides because people are so passionate about playing. I could keep going, but i am done for now haha

I agree with Brian here.  I think the card knowledge doesn't make a difference but the ruling knowledge is another story.  For instance if I come up with some ridiculous combo based off of an old cards wording I have the chance to discuss is with people like Justin, John, Jordan, Gabe ect and I never have to make it public knowledge.  Someone without the same kind of inside connection or track has to put the combo in the public forum get the answer.

Being able to more easily get a ruling for a combo and being able to keep it hidden is definitely an advantage.

Instead of posting it on the public forum, could not one simply PM an elder?

I agree with Brian here.  I think the card knowledge doesn't make a difference but the ruling knowledge is another story.  For instance if I come up with some ridiculous combo based off of an old cards wording I have the chance to discuss is with people like Justin, John, Jordan, Gabe ect and I never have to make it public knowledge.  Someone without the same kind of inside connection or track has to put the combo in the public forum get the answer.

To go even further I'm sure being in the loop clears up some of these ruling questions that arise with combos during playtesting and perhaps a direct question is even unnecessary to ask. That's fairly significant because you wouldn't have to telegraph a combo your playing to a top player you might see you later on in the tournament season.

If the last option is viable then we also need to include any non-Elder who may be utilized during the play testing process.

Just my 2 cents worth:

I think one needs to think about what some of the objectives of Redemption and the community fostered through the playing of Redemption are.
If we are building a community of fun, fellowship, and friendly competition for all who show up at a an event (from Nats to even a tiny  local in someone's living room), then exclusion is not the answer because that can take away some of the fun for people who really love the game and have committed a great deal of time (and, let's be honest, money) to the game. If fun is not to be had because of being excluded from play, then some of the elders/playtesters may not prioritize going to tournaments (causing fellowship to lost) or they may have only closed tournaments for others of their status (causing isolated fellowship and a definite split in the community).

I say, "Let 'em play!" No need to flirt with isolating/alienating a group of people from a card game just because they "might" have an advantage over the typical (or atypical) player.

I do think that there would be a benefit of making more transparency in rulings.  Could there be some sort of rule implemented where neither elders nor other players can have things ruled for them privately, where any official ruling questions must be posted on the main rulings board?  Obviously this doesn't work for ruling questions that arise for the next set as we are playtesting it, but those won't be the cards we are able to use at that year's nats except for booster (and really are you going to try to get a sneaky ruling in for booster).

This also wouldn't change people from bringing a deck with a combo they aren't sure will be ruled in their favor to nats and just hope the ruling goes in their way, but I think that's generally fine, as you are having to take risk to do so.

but what about the people that cant get on the forums regularly to ask, but have an Elder Handy. I was at school with Mr.Underwood, and I would ask him questions about cards quite a bit. would that mean he would have to post the question for me, or that I would have to keep a list of questions that I would have to post as soon as I got home from school, so that everyone was on exactly equal footing? I think making people post every ruling question about cards that they have is a bit excessive. if someone wants a small advantage because of one combo, then let them.  They would only be able to use it at one event, if that, before people figure it out.

I figure most of the times any questions you would ask would generally be cards that have already been ruled on, or follow the rulings of other cards that have already been ruled on.  If you found something that was new, and there was no ruling for, that's when you'd have to post it.

The Elders should most certainly be allowed to play in any and all tournaments. The reasons are very simple.

1. There are no large prizes on the line.
2. They are not employees, simply volunteers. Without them, Redemption as we know it doesn't exist.
3. Excluding them sends the wring message, that the game is focused on competitive play. The main focus is fellowship and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the Elders for their dedication and hard work.

Let them play cause when you beat them.......'Bragging Rights' 😎 At least till next tourney when they win using a deck based off Angel Wars and Prophets...egg in face 🍳

Was this ever resolved?

There isn't anything to actually resolve. It was more of a discussion for the community to have. It comes up from time to time but hadn't really been talked through by the players and elders before now.