Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: lightningninja on October 11, 2011, 11:38:06 PM
-
I guess after thinking of the new proposed rule changes, I'm getting a little confused.
The argument is that we need to make Redemption extremely simple, so that it's easier for new players to learn, which I understand. That's why ignore is under consideration. But then why the sog/nj rule change for rescuing souls? This is MORE confusing, not only does it cause confusion for anyone who doesn't read the whole new rulebook, it requires another game rule to remember.
So what's more important, simplicity or balance?
-
It actually is more simple. It's changing "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondages except with these two particular cards" to "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondges."
-
balance- simplicity only equal fun until you are more advanced. For example chess is harder to learn buy more fun to play than checkers. It might take longer to learn the ins and outs of chess but when you do it will be much more entertaining
-
balance- simplicity only equal fun until you are more advanced. For example chess is harder to learn buy more fun to play than checkers. It might take longer to learn the ins and outs of chess but when you do it will be much more entertaining
Chess is an understatement when compared to Redemption's rules ::)
-
balance- simplicity only equal fun until you are more advanced. For example chess is harder to learn buy more fun to play than checkers. It might take longer to learn the ins and outs of chess but when you do it will be much more entertaining
Chess is an understatement when compared to Redemption's rules ::)
That is so true. but it was a basic comaprison
-
It actually is more simple. It's changing "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondages except with these two particular cards" to "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondges."
I agree with Pol. Many people are surprised when they first learn the game that they can use SoG to rescue their own LSs. I have to actually TEACH that as a "strategy tip" to all my new players because at first they assume that they can't.
balance- simplicity only equal fun until you are more advanced. For example chess is harder to learn buy more fun to play than checkers.
1 - Checkers is still fun.
2 - Redemption will always be more complicated than checkers regardless of minor simplifications that we are able to implement.
-
I didn't like the "only opp LS" when I first heard about it, and now like it even less. I think that rules that make sense, even if they are complicated, are preferable. For instance, the change to Lampy was a good idea.
-
It actually is more simple. It's changing "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondages except with these two particular cards" to "you can only rescue Lost Souls in opponents' lands of bondges."
I agree with Pol. Many people are surprised when they first learn the game that they can use SoG to rescue their own LSs. I have to actually TEACH that as a "strategy tip" to all my new players because at first they assume that they can't.
To be perfectly honest, I've never seen that as the case. Everyone I know of has always known that you can rescue any (because any means any and all means all) souls with Soggy Waffles. Or does any not mean any anymore? I also disagree with Pol that the change is simpler for the reason I stated in my previous sentence. It's changing "you can only rescue Lost Souls from opponents' Lands of Bondage with characters and enhancements; any means any and all means all" to "you can only ever rescue Lost Souls from opponents' Lands of Bondage; all means all, but any only means any if it's not on Dominants that the PTB (and some REPs) think are too powerful."
I didn't like the "only opp LS" when I first heard about it, and now like it even less. I think that rules that make sense, even if they are complicated, are preferable.
^This.
-
I find that people starting out are often surprised to learn that SoG/NJ can be used on your own souls, and also are surprised to learn that I can band to their characters. It's the same concept really (defining "any" as "any card in play, not just yours or just your opponent's"), but it's just something that people need to learn. I agree that it would be more complex to make the change, because, as Browarod said "any" means "any" is one of the bases of Redemption's abilities, and making SoG/NJ the one exception is, as with all exceptions, adding a further bit of complexity.
-
KING'S DAUGHTER SAYS I HAVE ACCESS TO ANY SITE SO I CAN RESCUE MY OWN LOST SOULS IF THEY'RE IN A SITE
-
KING'S DAUGHTER SAYS I HAVE ACCESS TO ANY SITE SO I CAN RESCUE MY OWN LOST SOULS IF THEY'RE IN A SITE
King's Daughter gives you access to those sites, sure, but she doesn't give you access to the souls in them. Nice try, though. ;)
-
Why not? Any means any, right? My point is there there's already a fundamental rule regarding rescuing souls, and the change would make that rule less complicated, not more.
I would like to add that I do not support the ruling, but not because it makes anything more complicated, which it doesn't.
-
Because you still have to attack the player you're rescuing the soul from, and you can't attack yourself. I can't rescue a soul from someone I'm not attacking in multi even if I have access to the site their soul is held in, also.
-
Why not? Any means any, right?
Yes, any means any. But KD doesn't say "Hero has access to any Lost Soul", just "any site." SoG does specify "any Lost Soul" which is different, but also does not break the "any means any" rule.
Imho, it's less complicated for any means any to always hold and be able to overrule game rules (since that's what special abilities do, they overrule game rules) than to make an exception for two specific cards that don't get to break game rule.
Because you still have to attack the player you're rescuing the soul from, and you can't attack yourself. I can't rescue a soul from someone I'm not attacking in multi even if I have access to the site their soul is held in, also.
^This, too.
-
than to make an exception for two specific cards that don't get to break game rule.
Actually you've got it backwards. Right now, SoG and NJ are exceptions. The proposed rule would standardize how rescuing works. Furthermore, "any" would still mean any, because there are already rules restricting "any" to mean "any legal target." You can't use Sanctifying Faith to Convert a Demon, even though it says "any evil character," because demons are not legal targets for conversion. It's no more complicated to say that you can't use SoG on your own Lost Soul, even though it says "Any lost soul," because your own lost souls would not be legal targets for rescue.
-
Pol, there is no game rule that you can only rescue opponent's souls. Only that you can only make a RESCUE ATTEMPT against your opponent, and not yourself. Sog/nj do not violate any game rule, and making the new change ALSO doesn't violate any game rules, it just creates one. Which is why I think it is more complicated. It limits Sog/nj to disallow them from doing what their ability says they should do.
-
Pol, there is no game rule that you can only rescue opponent's souls. Only that you can only make a RESCUE ATTEMPT against your opponent, and not yourself.
There is no practical difference when the discussion is in relation to simplicity. "You may only rescue your opponents' souls"="you may only attack your opponents" with SoG/NJ being the only exception.
making the new change ALSO doesn't violate any game rules, it just creates one
Only if you assume your initial premise is accurate, which I've already debunked.
Which is why I think it is more complicated. It limits Sog/nj to disallow them from doing what their ability says they should do.
The conversion rule limits Sanctifying Faith by disallowing it from doing what its ability says it should do.
-
I don't think changing Son of God and New Jerusalem to only work on opponents lost souls will make much of a difference in game complexity, its like saying that a drop of salt water will make much of a difference in my bathtub, yes technically it will change it, but not my anything noticeable.
Redemption is a complex game because we have lots of cards, lots of card types (that work differently) and the initiative system is fairly complex (especially when dealing with removal by special abilities), old card wordings that we refuse to update (we explain how they work sort of), lots of seemingly arbitrary rulings (there are reasons for them, but most of them would be unknown to players who don't know the history of the game)
If you want to simplify the game the place to start is Special Initiative, not Son of God/New Jerusalem, because that is a simple "It says any so you can rescue your own" or "you can only rescue lost souls from your opponent so it even though it says any it only works on your opponent" whereas for Special Initiative we need often find new and exciting ways to be confused, so defining that would be a much better place to start.
(If you couldn't tell I really don't care what happens with Son of God and New Jerusalem, I would prefer to see confusing game rules and special abilities have well defined rules to follow)
-
There is no practical difference when the discussion is in relation to simplicity. "You may only rescue your opponents' souls"="you may only attack your opponents" with SoG/NJ being the only exception.
Yes absolutely there is. The difference is, that with the new rule, there is a whole new rule to remember, and if you don't remember you are going to be very confused as to why Sog can't rescue ANY lost soul, like it states. With how things are now, you only have to remember that you can't attack yourself (which is pretty simple and players don't get confused about this very long), and then everything else works like it says.
-
How is explaining "you can only rescue your opponent's Lost Souls" to a new person more complicated than explaining "you can only attack your opponent?"
-
Because Sog says, "any" lost soul. So they will, and should, think they can rescue any.
-
Brandon, if I activate Jacob's Ladder, can I rescue one of my own lost souls?
Why not?
It doesn't say it has to be in an opponent's land of bondage. It just says I have to have "access." If I have access to the Lost Soul in my territory to rescue with Son of God, then don't I have access to rescue with Jacob's Ladder?
-
Brandon, if I activate Jacob's Ladder, can I rescue one of my own lost souls?
Why not?
It doesn't say it has to be in an opponent's land of bondage. It just says I have to have "access." If I have access to the Lost Soul in my territory to rescue with Son of God, then don't I have access to rescue with Jacob's Ladder?
So are you saying we CAN rescue Lost souls in our own Land of Bondage (other than Soggy/NJ)?
-
Brandon, if I activate Jacob's Ladder, can I rescue one of my own lost souls?
Why not?
It doesn't say it has to be in an opponent's land of bondage. It just says I have to have "access." If I have access to the Lost Soul in my territory to rescue with Son of God, then don't I have access to rescue with Jacob's Ladder?
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vagandoenlanet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fmother-god-meme-150x150.jpg&hash=1961cf4aa0c4d8ed59ca19cb708d1b23743448bf)
loopholes!
-
Brandon, if I activate Jacob's Ladder, can I rescue one of my own lost souls?
Why not?
It doesn't say it has to be in an opponent's land of bondage. It just says I have to have "access." If I have access to the Lost Soul in my territory to rescue with Son of God, then don't I have access to rescue with Jacob's Ladder?
I could have sworn there was an errata....
-
It doesn't say it has to be in an opponent's land of bondage. It just says I have to have "access." If I have access to the Lost Soul in my territory to rescue with Son of God, then don't I have access to rescue with Jacob's Ladder?
SoG doesn't have "access", but it doesn't need it either. Access is strictly the relationship between heroes and lost souls (and sites, when applicable). I'd rule you cannot use Jacob's Ladder to rescue your own Lost Soul since it doesn't explicitly state you can (which means it has to abide by game rules) but you can rescue your own Lost Soul with SoG since it DOES explicitly state you can (any means any).
-
Actually, access isn't defined in the REG, so I have no clue what it is.
-
I'm pretty much going completely off battle resolution and abilities with "access" in them since there isn't anything in the REG. :P
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
But that's not simpler overall.... You have to take the impact on other rules/cards into consideration, which you don't seem to be doing. I've already pointed out in another thread, and been backed by an Elder, that this would utterly screw with the (already simple) "any means any" rule.
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
-
But that's not simpler overall.... You have to take the impact on other rules/cards into consideration, which you don't seem to be doing. I've already pointed out in another thread, and been backed by an Elder, that this would utterly screw with the (already simple) "any means any" rule.
I actually dont support the rule change due to strategy reasons but I would like to ask what "impact" would be made? The only thing this will effect is Sog and NJ.... And assuming new players read the rule book for a game they dont know how to play this shouldnt pose any problem.
-
All I'm trying to point out is that Bryon's idea of a "simple" change isn't as simple as he seems to think. Currently, you have to read the rulebook to figure out how battles work, SoG does exactly what it says, and any means any. If the change was made you'd have to read the rulebook to figure out how battles work, SoG doesn't work how it says so you'd have to read about that as well, and any doesn't always mean any which means you'd have to read that, too, in the rulebook.
I'm not claiming that either is "right", I just don't think the latter is any simpler than the former (in my opinion it's even more complicated).
-
You seem to be hating on the fact you have to read the rule book... Just because you have to read a rule book to understand how a game works isnt the end of the world ::)
-
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....
-
You seem to be hating on the fact you have to read the rule book... Just because you have to read a rule book to understand how a game works isnt the end of the world ::)
End of the world? No. But reading 1 page of the rulebook is simpler than reading 3 pages of the rulebook. The current discussion is about simplicity, so I'm stating my thoughts in that regard.
-
i agree more people should read the rulebook not just try learning the game off the reg which isn't meant to be a rulebook just a support guide one that they are working on updating the past 5 years have brought alot of concepts to the game that have changed some of the basics so yeah things need rewriting were working on that but oversimplifying the game just so people can not read will only make it boring.
-
Bryon, you make a valid point. But I would still argue that since you are attacking your opponent, and the card says "holder may choose which lost soul is rescued this rescue attempt," you're attacking your opponent. But I guess Jacob's Ladder could cause confusion, I can see both sides.
-
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....
That reminds me. Don't listen to anything that comes out of Randall's mouth. He's busy trying to convince us that Son of God should be considered human for Herod's Temple.
-
yeah and thats a prime example why reading the rulebook is better and in fact prolly simpler to understand yes it may be a bit dry and boring but its easier to have someone explain something you can't grasp then to just watch people play and be potentially taught something thats wrong.
-
Actually if you defined access better you could avoid any confusion to the whole thing, heroes can't have access to your own lost souls, which is fairly logical, that would eliminate the annoyance of Jacob's Ladder and any random site access character. Primary Objective specifically says from opponent's land of bondage, leaving only Son of God and New Jerusalem. You can change it such that SoG and NJ can't rescue your own, but I don't think it will make the game any simpler or more complicated, its a simple binary rule, either you can or you can't, it doesn't effect any other cards.
However changing the rule will decrease the number of characters used in the rule name by 8, which I suppose is simpler.
-
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....
Yes but thats not the point and I think many players have never read the rule book. I myself havnt read a rule book since the A/B days when the game didnt even have sites or artifacts :o The only reason I have not bothered to read one again is due to me playing hundreds upon hundreds of games. But back in the day when I first started we were all still learning how to play the game so we had to read the rule book. You pick up any random CCG at a store and what comes in the starter deck? A rule book! So I really dont think its that hard to read a rule book. Just my :2cents:
Ive also got about 20 more cents to add haha
Imo the game needs to not necessarily be simplified as Bryon has been wanting to do but what needs to be done is the wording on cards needs to make sense. I started playing in oh.... right after Womens came out I think... and back then when I played a card the card did what it was supposed to do. This trend of cards doing what they say continued till around FooF when the game first started the culture craze and errata was spreading like wild fire.
Now a days I cant post in a ruling thread with out being wrong because I always assume that cards do what they were ment to do. I play tested many of the cards that have been released and for example when I play Doubt or Kings Sword and hear that it doesnt work how it was intended to be played whats up with that?
Moral of the story is I fully understand how to play the game and what basic abilities do. But when I have placed in more tournies then I can count and even won a National Title but I cant understand what a card does or the card doesnt do what it was intended to do that I playtested and want to use in my deck. Something is seriously wrong here! Also think if I cant understand whats going on in this game think of what 10 year old Timmy will be thinking :'( Yeah he will have his mind blown!
Well thats about my :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: :2cents: 8 cents
-
So much agreeance with Isildur. :) I agree 100% with everything he said. Nothing seems the way it used to be.
-
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....
That reminds me. Don't listen to anything that comes out of Randall's mouth. He's busy trying to convince us that Son of God should be considered human for Herod's Temple.
He's also tried to convince me I can't martyr OT heroes (because they aren't Christians, Jesus wasn't born yet), CAN rescue the NT only LS with SOG (which actually just makes sense, how is Jesus NOT a new testament hero? The whole new testament is about him dangit!)
Disclaimer:All of those things were said one time, in jest he was not actually trying to convince me of those things.
-
One position that rarely gets represented on the EZboard is "Starter Deck Sam" who goes to his local Christian business and buys enough cards to play with his friends. Sometimes we assume that "we" (the forum members) represent the Redemption community. Having led 5 different playgroups, I've pulled a lot of "Sams" into my group by advertising at the store. Our "meta" is not the representative meta of the masses.
Sometimes we need to step back and realize what a minority of the Redemption-Card-Owning community we are (an important and involved minority, albeit). There are going to be times that our decisions will seem to drastically change the game for everyone, when in reality it only changes the meta for the 30 people actively discussing the issue.
Those of us in the grass roots out here teaching new people appreciate a game that relies more upon the RULEBOOK in "Sam's" hands than the ERRATA in Eric's e-machine. Posts don't reflect tone well, so just know I'm not being argumentative, arrogant, or angry (ah the preaching alliteration monster cometh out!). I'm just excited to see a new rulebook that I can be proud to put in my pocket. Then when "Sam" shows up at your playgroup, he may just be able to jump into a fun game with you :)
I say all this mostly in favor of the ignore='send back' ruling, but I am being persuaded toward the opp' rescue rule as well.
-
Sometimes we need to step back and realize what a minority of the Redemption-Card-Owning community we are (an important and involved minority, albeit). There are going to be times that our decisions will seem to drastically change the game for everyone, when in reality it only changes the meta for the 30 people actively discussing the issue.
Mumbles about how we are a pretty large majority of the people playing... But you are correct that these rule changes are being made for random players who do not use the forums. Also note that part of this is the reason I posted my big wall of text earlier.
-
I can only speak from personal experience...
1st playgroup: Rising Sun Church of Christ, Altoona/Des Moines, IA
2nd playgroup: South East Polk High School (simultaneously with RSCC group)
(Players: Grey, David, Shawn, Ian, Addie, Kara, Nick, Zac, Mike, Kray, Mick, Josh L., RJ, Ashley, Joey L., Grant - frequent
guests -> Mitch, Jeff, Brian, Travis, Sarah, Josh N., Jeremy and John Kemp... )
---Forum Members from Group: Zac (sepjazzwarrior) Mitch (mitchrobstew) Jeremy (princeofthisgame)
---note: Mitch and Jeremy, from other towns, knew about the tourneys because of the EZboard: Zac is the only native forum member
3rd Playgroup: Trinity Christian Church, Leon, IA
(Players: Caleb, Cody, Zach, Jacob)
---Forum Members from Group: Zach (The Archangel) ... never online
4th Playgroup: Central Christian College of the Bible, Moberly, MO
(Players: Robby, Josh, Josiah, Ian, Ashley, Andrew, Austin, Raybo, Bryan, Emylie, Marie, Britney, Mike, Aaron, Terry, Jonathan, Daniel... )
---Forum Members from Group: 0
5th and current Playgroup: Braymer Christian Church, Braymer, MO
(Players: Nathan, Nicki, Alex, Jordan, Autumn, Connor, Anna, Kallen, Bob, and growing!)
---Forum Members from Group: 0 - Alex may join some day
I don't think this is an inaccurate picture of the forum member-to-playergrouper ratio in other groups.
-
At the risk of seeming "off-topic", the above is a monument to players who enjoy, or have enjoyed, the game of Redemption over the years equipped with nothing more than their Rulebook, experience and suggestions from other players, and Rulings made (when possible) by simply citing the rulebook.
I love the excitement of new players, lets pave a brighter future for them (cheesy commercial music comes to a hault).
...or just pass the new ignore and opp' LS rules. ;)
-
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type a paragraph of wild speculation, but then end with Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.
I have played dozens and dozens of games with this rule, and I have seen it change how I play the game.
Before, the game was always about the "Big Two," and the most consistent way to get them was speed. There were no drawbacks to drawing tons of cards. You could tell who was winning a game most often by looking at who had the smallest deck left.
Now, I can build a balanced deck with zero draw abilities and still have a fair fight. I have also felt hope in games where I would have given up in the past. I have played dozens of games against Samuel and Genesis decks and had much closer games (and even won a few times) when, in the past, the game would have been over in 5 minutes. It bought me some time to set up my defense, my sites, etc. We got a chance to have some battles.
In that other thread, I saw a couple people complain that the proposed rule increases "luck" instead of "skill." That's hogwash. For years, people have complained that SoG/NJ makes the game too much about luck. 2 cards give you 40% of the victory condition of the game, PLUS they can be used defensively. Discarding Son of God from opponent's deck gave you a "lucky win," since it effectively took away half your opponent's defense, not just 40% of their victory.
If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the power of the 2 cards that are all about Luck. If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the all-powerful status of "speed," which gets you the "Lucky Big Two" before your opponent. If anything, the proposed rule increases the need to play defense, or else continue to rely on luck and lost soul generation.
Do you all know that the top 2 Type 1 decks at nationals had a combined total of 1 EE? Did you know that the EE was not played in 10 rounds? If you can't rescue your own lost souls with SoG/NJ, then you may have to actually use an evil enhancement to stop your opponent's rescue attempt, rather than just rely on dominants and Uzzah to stall. Or, you could continue to build decks the old way, then complain about the "increased luck factor" when the luck you rely on doesn't work for you.
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.
-
this rule is a bad idea for advanced play it seems that should matter too not just new players
-
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
Bryon, with all due respect, I am confused by this response. As anyone could see if they have read the posts since you and the other playtesters proposed this rule, there have been multiple threads devoted to this very topic, and I just went back and read the feedback thread from Root and understood everyone's position. (Where is the non-ROOT feedback thread by the way? I would like to comment on what effects OPP LS only rule had on Gretel and my games). Can you clarify what specifically you mean by wild speculation rather than blanket statements? Appreciate it.
-
Someone made the comment that "if playtesters make this change against the wishes of players, then that means they don't care about the wishes of the players." Let me put your mind at ease:
1) The rule is being tested. Most players on the boards have not played enough games with this rule to make anything close to an informed decision. I'm pretty much ignoring speculation posts. I've liked reading results of other players' games who have used the rule. Mostly, I've read things like "didn't really make a difference" or "it made the game closer" or "I felt like I had a chance" or "it was frustrating to have the Big Two in hand and not have the autowin that they usually give me."
2) The wishes of the players are not set in stone. Opinions may change after some time actually using this rule, and especially trying different types of decks using the rule (Speed, Balanced, Turtle, Heroless, etc.) and seeing how they fare under the proposed rule vs. how they perform with the old rules. You cannot seriously expect your old deck to perform as well with the proposed rule as with the old.
3) The wishes of the playtesters are not set in stone. If evidence is shown that the new rule creates too many time-outs or lockouts, then I for one will drop my support of the rule. So far, I've seen nothing that would make me drop my support.
4) Even now, the playtesters are not united. They span the spectrum that the players do: from whole-hearted support to "this would be terrible for the game."
5) Playtesters have made unpopular decisions in the past that have upset some players enough that they left the game. But that does not mean that the descision were not right. One of those decisions was that Son of God cannot rescue lost souls that are protected from rescue. If you were not here when that was announced, you missed some crazy fireworks! It was far less popular than even this proposed change. Yet the game improved as a result. That is not to say that this rather unpopular proposed change would certainly have an equally positive impact on the game, but it does mean that it could be the right thing, in spite of its lack of popularity.
6) Redemption isn't a democracy. It is a benevolent dictatorship, and the King (Rob) has some advisors he trusts. Rob sometimes wants to know how popular an idea is with the players as a whole before changing big rules. Rob has expressed wilingness to limit NJ to opponent's Land of Bondage, but didn't want to limit SoG, at least not without a Son of God that can negate and rescue a Lost Soul.
If you read to the end of this, thank you. Rather than pick apart my post and respond to it, please go play another couple dozen games with the proposed rule with a mind open to both sides of the issue. Better still, try to break it. See if you can create a deck where the new rule makes a broken situation. We know that the proposed rule weakens the power of the "Big Two," and weakens the usefulness of the Lost Souls card, and makes players need to increase either defense or lost soul generation. We know that it makes most games a little bit longer, but shortens games when no defense is drawn. We know it makes most games a little bit closer. Point out some things we don't know yet.
Again, I really don't care what you think about my post. I want to know how the games are going with the proposed rule.
-
I didnt read the rule book. I watched people play in a tournament for 5 hours....
That reminds me. Don't listen to anything that comes out of Randall's mouth. He's busy trying to convince us that Son of God should be considered human for Herod's Temple.
He's also tried to convince me I can't martyr OT heroes (because they aren't Christians, Jesus wasn't born yet), CAN rescue the NT only LS with SOG (which actually just makes sense, how is Jesus NOT a new testament hero? The whole new testament is about him dangit!)
Disclaimer:All of those things were said one time, in jest he was not actually trying to convince me of those things.
I never argued that bit about the NT only. You're probably thinking of the time I attempted to prove that Disciples (and other NT purple heroes) could use Royal Parade.
Bryon, with all due respect, that thread has a lot of interesting debate going on. It's not wild speculation, a lot of the points made were backed up with actual (ROOT) games.
Red Warrior, as a fellow playgroup starter, I have to disagree. Every player I've seen learn has learned from another player instructing them, not the rulebook.
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.
How is this post supposed to help, other than to decrease my opinion of your opinion?
-
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
-
#OccupyWhateverStreetCactusHQIsLocatedOn!
-
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
*Actually in a lecture right now, didn't read the textbook*
I don't like steering players to the rulebook. It's fairly old now, and any questions they have can be quickly answered by either me or you guys on the ruling boards.
#OccupyWhateverStreetCactusHQIsLocatedOn!
751 Tusquittee Road, Hayesville, NC 28904
-
except thats just the point there being answered a million diffrent ways because nobody knows what the rules actually say since no one reads them. and new rules are only gonna make that worse
-
Almost every question is answered quickly and correctly, and the conflicts arise when the rulebook/REG doesn't have the answers.
-
and thats a complete lie theres been how many debates not answered quickly that could have been solved by reading the actual rulebook not just the reg heck some of the things asked could be handled just by reading without needing to ask at all.
-
and thats a complete lie theres been how many debates not answered quickly that could have been solved by reading the actual rulebook not just the reg heck some of the things asked could be handled just by reading without needing to ask at all.
If it's such a complete lie, then the facts should clearly disprove it. Of the front page of the Ruling Questions sections (an appropriate sample) there are 13 threads. (I disregarded the locked one, as that's a clear outlier. The question was answered early, but people were arguing *sigh*. Said arguing did not come from your claim of not reading the rulebook/REG.) There are a total of 47 replies, leading to a mathematical conclusion of 3.6 replies per question. (5.4 with the locked thread) This doesn't take into consideration followup questions, elder +1's, or multiple questions per thread topic. This seems to be a perfectly acceptable number. As to the questions that could have been answered through reading the rulebook, oftentimes it's quicker to ask here.
-
quicker haha maybe still often takes days when a rulebook takes a few minutes to get the same answer
-
Most of the questions that take days are advanced and just can't be answered by a rule book. Like the 6 months it took for someone to explain why Far Country doesn't work even though it should.
-
ok so there advanced so is sog/nj to a new player when it says any and we tell them oh no it means any except yours thats still an added stress we really don't need speed decks are a result of poor design on the part of the playtesters but ive seen anti meta decks out there the solution isn't new rules its making stuff to encourage them and not giving speeed anything stop making drawing cards stop making cbn everything let the game catch up with itself
-
In terms of the time investment by me, posting is quicker. Usually, I don't need the answer immediately.
-
investment by me
So you're not going to #OccupyTusquitteeRoad?
-
Nope, I'm a rich businessman who thinks those little punks need to suck it up and let Jesus rescue whoever he wants.
-
well normally for me im in a game and need the answer immediately to finish the game
-
Or, we could simplify the whole thing by simplifying the "rescue attempt" rule to a "rescue" rule. (you can only rescue a lost soul from your opponent's Land of Bondage).
Said rule would only destroy the meta-game.
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type paragraphs of wild speculation, then then end with
It's not wild speculation. It's fact. The rescue rule destroys the game.
How is this post supposed to help, other than to decrease my opinion of your opinion?
I was simply stating my opinion. The reason I said what I did is because of the fact every single time I have played with your so-called proposed rule change it has effected the game in asinine ways to the point to where the game was simply no longer fun and degenerate, turning into soul generation wars.
-
have you been keeping up with the ROOT testing thread?
Evidently not.
Do you mean the thread where people type a paragraph of wild speculation, but then end with Disclaimer: I have not actually played any games with this rule, I am speaking strictly from hypothetical impact.
I have played dozens and dozens of games with this rule, and I have seen it change how I play the game.
Before, the game was always about the "Big Two," and the most consistent way to get them was speed. There were no drawbacks to drawing tons of cards. You could tell who was winning a game most often by looking at who had the smallest deck left.
Now, I can build a balanced deck with zero draw abilities and still have a fair fight. I have also felt hope in games where I would have given up in the past. I have played dozens of games against Samuel and Genesis decks and had much closer games (and even won a few times) when, in the past, the game would have been over in 5 minutes. It bought me some time to set up my defense, my sites, etc. We got a chance to have some battles.
In that other thread, I saw a couple people complain that the proposed rule increases "luck" instead of "skill." That's hogwash. For years, people have complained that SoG/NJ makes the game too much about luck. 2 cards give you 40% of the victory condition of the game, PLUS they can be used defensively. Discarding Son of God from opponent's deck gave you a "lucky win," since it effectively took away half your opponent's defense, not just 40% of their victory.
If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the power of the 2 cards that are all about Luck. If anything, the proposed rule increases "skill" by reducing the all-powerful status of "speed," which gets you the "Lucky Big Two" before your opponent. If anything, the proposed rule increases the need to play defense, or else continue to rely on luck and lost soul generation.
Do you all know that the top 2 Type 1 decks at nationals had a combined total of 1 EE? Did you know that the EE was not played in 10 rounds? If you can't rescue your own lost souls with SoG/NJ, then you may have to actually use an evil enhancement to stop your opponent's rescue attempt, rather than just rely on dominants and Uzzah to stall. Or, you could continue to build decks the old way, then complain about the "increased luck factor" when the luck you rely on doesn't work for you.
'
Yeah I could put more defense in my deck. Or i could just replace that one EE with Amalakites slave, still play my speed deck, throw in a few more soul gen cards and decrease my D even more, cause I'm not taking my offense out. Yeah there's some wild speculation in there, but there's also some good points and I feel like everything I've said in there is a valid point. And I'd like to not wait until this rule has an unfair effect on a major tournament for someone to say "yeah I guess I could see why this is bad" because by then it's already to late. this rule doesn't change anything except maybe screw over people in a tournament when things come down to LS differential. Please read my last post in that thread before responding, I don't want to repeat myself on two different threads.
-
I can appreciate the comments of this new rule affecting type 1, are we seeing a difference in type 2 which does have an equal balance of evil and good cards (I would think that 16 ECs and 18 EEs are plenty)? Especially since I can count on my fingers the number of times I get SOG/NJ together to play before my opponent plays mayhem or A New Beginning, etc...
-
I can appreciate the comments of this new rule affecting type 1, are we seeing a difference in type 2? Especially since I can count on my fingers the number of times I get SOG/NJ together to play before my opponent plays mayhem or A New Beginning, etc...
Most of the feedback seems to be coming from the ROOT testing, which is T1. If you would help me test it out in T2 i could build a deck (albiet a poor one) though LS drought seems like less of an issue in T2 as a whole
-
Yeah in T2 it mostly takes away the autoblock with sog/nj. I got sog/nj every game at nats for blocks. And in 4/6 games forced opponents to use Son of God without New Jerusalem defensively to stop me from getting to 5 (prior to me playing sog/nj) or getting the win. Not as big of an impact as T1 I suppose. But I dislike the impact I think it would have on T2 multiplayer.
-
yeah thats good to teach the basics but they should still read the rulebook its like going to lecture at college and never reading the textbook same thing.
*Actually in a lecture right now, didn't read the textbook*
I don't like steering players to the rulebook. It's fairly old now, and any questions they have can be quickly answered by either me or you guys on the ruling boards.
Just a brief point: there have been several references to the rulebook as out of date or inadequate... isn't that the issue at hand?
We're working together to make a rule book that is UP TO DATE and FUNDAMENTAL in its ability to answer questions. So I have no problem agreeing with this point... I tend to be wired like a Barnabas (go team!) than a Jonah (turn or burn!), so I'm probably naive... but I'm excited to help form a new rulebook.
With that I'll stop occupying this page with Rulebook talk. Let's bring more results (especially PLAYGROUP related results) to the table. ROOT is cool, but it's not the whole picture in the game of Redemption.
-
Thanks Bryon for taking the time to give us a logical outline of how the rule is fairing in the eyes of the community thus far. I agree with most of your points. I for one am looking forward to the rule change (if it happens) to see how it changes the game.
As for the ROOT games, so far I've seen three types of responses, primarily.
1. Loved it, gave me a chance or let me win on a comeback. +1 for the rule
2. Hated it, I had sog/nj, couldn't use it, I decked out and just had to wait. +1 for the rule, this is a good thing considering all the complaining for the past 9001 years about speed decks.
3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.
-
I like how Bryon takes my (admittedly completely opinionated) post and uses it to invalidate an entire thread of good discourse and discussion. Way to go Bryon, really shows us you care....
-
3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.
-
3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.
It's not entirely luck-based. If anything, though, it's skewed far too much in the direction of drawing souls less often, though, with cards like Susanna, Divination, etc. I don't know of any cards that specifically sort souls to the top of a deck. Maybe that's an idea for cards in the starter decks next year to balance things?
-
It is entirely luck based, you can just change your luck.
-
Plumbing Line
Artifact
"During each draw phase before player draws, you may look at top 3 and bottom 3 cards of his deck. You may switch the location of those cards."
-
3. This rule destroys the game/is based solely on luck/I hate it I didn't win. +0 for either side because this doesn't make sense.
Try explaining how anything I've said doesn't make sense if you're so sure it doesn't.
-
I like how Bryon takes my (admittedly completely opinionated) post and uses it to invalidate an entire thread of good discourse and discussion. Way to go Bryon, really shows us you care....
He didn't invalidate it, he responded to it. Trust me, Bryon cares a lot. You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community. I've personally heard tons of ideas that were in the making, but didn't get here because they were thoughtfully rejected. This idea is a good one, made it past preliminary testing, and Bryon took the time to write a very comprehensive list of why the rule is a good idea, specifically responding to almost every point made at one point or other in the ROOT thread.
You should consider the issues and think about who you are talking to before you make blatantly untrue personal attacks. Not that unfounded personal attacks should be tolerated against anyone.
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.
Like Bryon said, did you change your decks to accommodate the rule? Because you should have, and you'll find it's not based on luck, it's based on deckbuilding, just like it is without the rule. If the Sin in the Camp deck kept playing after the new rule of 16 card hand limit was put in play, should the user of the deck blame luck or not accommodating the rule change?
-
You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community.
Bryon is a Deckcepticon.... he can't be trusted. :maul:
-
How does this not make sense? Drawing souls is entirely luck based.
Like Bryon said, did you change your decks to accommodate the rule? Because you should have, and you'll find it's not based on luck, it's based on deckbuilding, just like it is without the rule. If the Sin in the Camp deck kept playing after the new rule of 16 card hand limit was put in play, should the user of the deck blame luck or not accommodating the rule change?
Fine. I'll concede the point that the ENTIRE COURSE OF THE UNIVERSE can be changed by my deckbuilding skills.
-
I was simply stating my opinion. The reason I said what I did is because of the fact every single time I have played with your so-called proposed rule change it has effected the game in asinine ways to the point to where the game was simply no longer fun and degenerate, turning into soul generation wars.
That is much more coherant. Thank you for your feedback. I have not had the same experience in my testing, but I trust that you did, and that you didn't like it. This is the kind of feedback I'm looking for. :)
Also, have you tried using ECs that send captured characters to opponent's Land of Bondage? That takes care of many common LS generators: Amalekite's Slave, Pharaoh's Cupbearer, Gibeonite Delegates, etc. I've found Blue Tassels to be a very effective counter to King Amazing, and to the above characters as well. Also, Jerusalem Tower stops Harvest Time and The Woman at the Well. There are several ways to search for Jerusalem Tower, if you are afraid you won't draw it in time. These are not foolproof, since some of them have to beat to the table the cards they counter, but transfering a captured character from your LoB to your opponent's is priceless when playing against a Speed+LSgen deck.
There is nothing like watching a speed player have to wait. The speed player fidgets and squirms in his seat because he knows his defense can't possibly protect all the lost souls for long.
I've been having that kind of fun. I'm still curous what others have experienced.
-
Plumbing Line
Artifact
"During each draw phase before player draws, you may look at top 3 and bottom 3 cards of his deck. You may switch the location of those cards."
Gold! *copy, paste to "future cards" list*
You're talking to the person who has made 80%+ cards in EVERY set since about Patriarchs, for hardly anything. He tests the cards he designs more than anyone else in the game, and is constantly thinking of new ways to appease the community.
Bryon is a Deckcepticon.... he can't be trusted. :maul:
...as if Redemption really needs another Autoblock...
-
There is nothing like watching a speed player have to wait. The speed player fidgets and squirms in his seat because he knows his defense can't possibly protect all the lost souls for long.
I've been having that kind of fun. I'm still curous what others have experienced.
Yay! Let's enjoy torturing someone who genuinely likes an archetype! That'll bring all sorts of people to the game.
-
You can call it an arechetype, but for MANY players speed = Redemption. And that's not good. There's no denying it basically dominantes the meta.
-
You can call it an arechetype, but for MANY players speed = Redemption. And that's not good. There's no denying it basically dominantes the meta.
I agree. Yeah lets all complain because our decks that are clearly op'd dont work! That seems to be the only complaint im hearing from a majority of the players every one else (except type 2 people) seem to be in support of the rule change.
-
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
-
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
And you thought ignore dominated the meta last season.
-
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
And you thought ignore dominated the meta last season.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lshw4w5Thj1qhe380.png&hash=4143ceeb44cc3796b1764b1517048a87f8242824)
bravo sir
-
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
I wasn't talking directly to you in my post. I was talking about the people who are saying it destroys the game without ever giving a reason. I don't possibly see how this "destroys the game."
-
So I see that neither of the people who I specifically asked to evaluate the feedback I've been giving felt the need to actually do so.
I wasn't talking directly to you in my post. I was talking about the people who are saying it destroys the game without ever giving a reason. I don't possibly see how this "destroys the game."
I was talking specifically too you when I said told you to read my feedback on this rule in the other forum but since you chose to ignore that let me provide you with a link to the specific response that provides that window of "how this could destroy the game"
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-online-official-tournament/feedback-on-opp-lss-only-(used-in-oct-root)/msg447285/#msg447285 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-online-official-tournament/feedback-on-opp-lss-only-(used-in-oct-root)/msg447285/#msg447285)
-
1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.
2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.
-
To Type 2 players: I have not tested the new rule in Type 2 at all. If those who ahve tested it so far do not like it, there are other solutions. Type 2 already has its own special rules for rescuing (rescuer's choice). It is not that big of a step to say that in Type 2, rescue abilities can rescue even your own lost souls, unless specified otherwise (see Primary Objective). NJ isn't really that big of a deal in Type 2.
In Type 1, NJ is pretty much a problem, in my opinion. I'd much rather simplify the rescue rule than ban NJ in Type 1. Some people have the opposite preference. That is fine. Others would prefer to keep status quo. That is a fine opinion, too. We really can't make everyone happy. I'm just hopeful that playtesting the proposed rescue rule will reveal problems (if there are any), and benefits, so we can make an informed decision. Regardless, the change wouldn't happen until the release of the new Starter decks anyway (based on the results of the poll). That is IF it happens at all (which is in no way even close to a guarantee).
The dominant cap is pretty much guaranteed, though. It seems popular with players and playtesters. Given that Rob suggested it, I don't see how that won't happen. :)
-
1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.
2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.
1) "it will balance out. It has to."? So instead of making an informed decision about the rule change, we should just implement it and have faith that it'll all work out in the end? Excuse me, but lolwut?!?
2) wait....what? So why exactly do you support this rule if you think the premise on which it was based (giving lesser players a chance) is faulty in this place? This isn't going to hurt speed, it will actually make my deck a little faster since I can use AS and grab yet another card out of my deck, and all of the cards like AS that will become staples. So why are you in favor of this rule?
-
all of the cards like AS that will become staples.
If all those cards become staples, then simply block with an EC that transfers a captured character to an opponent's land of bondage. Or activate Blue Tassels. If these happen enough times, the supposed staples won't be staples for long.
-
1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.
2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.
1) "it will balance out. It has to."? So instead of making an informed decision about the rule change, we should just implement it and have faith that it'll all work out in the end? Excuse me, but lolwut?!?
2) wait....what? So why exactly do you support this rule if you think the premise on which it was based (giving lesser players a chance) is faulty in this place? This isn't going to hurt speed, it will actually make my deck a little faster since I can use AS and grab yet another card out of my deck, and all of the cards like AS that will become staples. So why are you in favor of this rule?
1. There is a reason it will balance out. A new rule goes into place. BOTH players have to wait for ls. BOTH players will adjust their decks for the rule. Scores will remain relatively unchanged. It will balance out. I gave a reason.
2. When did I say that? It doesn't give lesser players a chance. That's never been the problem. The point of the rule is to simplify (maybe?) the game and help curb speed. New players having a better chance has never been a reason.
-
1. Once again, you're not accounting for adjustments. If the rule goes into play, people WILL change their decks. Then, since both players are playing with the same rules, it will balance out. It has to.
2. Why shouldn't a new player with a starter deck lost 5-0 to me? No matter with the rule or without, I expect to beat that player 5-0, I'm sure Gabe or any other top player will as well. It won't change how it works, because once again people will adjust to the new rule.
1) "it will balance out. It has to."? So instead of making an informed decision about the rule change, we should just implement it and have faith that it'll all work out in the end? Excuse me, but lolwut?!?
2) wait....what? So why exactly do you support this rule if you think the premise on which it was based (giving lesser players a chance) is faulty in this place? This isn't going to hurt speed, it will actually make my deck a little faster since I can use AS and grab yet another card out of my deck, and all of the cards like AS that will become staples. So why are you in favor of this rule?
1. There is a reason it will balance out. A new rule goes into place. BOTH players have to wait for ls. BOTH players will adjust their decks for the rule. Scores will remain relatively unchanged. It will balance out. I gave a reason.
2. When did I say that? It doesn't give lesser players a chance. That's never been the problem. The point of the rule is to simplify (maybe?) the game and help curb speed. New players having a better chance has never been a reason.
1) Drawing of lost souls is already based on luck, now we're putting a spot light on the problem. Unless we implement a rule that each player has to evenly space LSs in their deck it's not going to work out like that. and yeah, 8/10 games the rule isn't going to cause a problem. But those 2/10 have the potential to swing tournament results in a way that's not fair. My game isn't going to decide this months ROOT but if I hadn't lost my first game it could have. That's the problem. If I had gone undefeated and lost the tournament by 2 or less in LS differential, I would not be happy because those 2 were the direct result of nothing but luck. My opponent didn't draw a single lost soul for 7 TURNS!. That's 21 cards out of 56 that did not contain a lost soul. How does that have anything to do with skill or deck building? I used my hopper, I used my harvest time, I used my revealer, but 21 cards in a row not containing a lost soul is something that has nothing to do with the skill or deck building of either player and yet changed the LS differential of my game, even though she never made a real successful rescue attempt against me. I gave her the shuffler to shuffle my own souls away, and then fell it away, and her last rescue attempt I tapped the three liner without blocking simply because I had been about 25 minutes since I had last made a rescue attempt and I was bored and wanted to get her next draw faster. I knew she wasn't getting through my defense I hadn't even used my best EE's yet.
2) I'm still not getting how SOG/NJ being able to rescue own LSs is so incredibly confusing, and I don't want to have to be the one to explain to all the current RLKs that play the game why they can't do that anymore. You wanna talk about confusion.
-
I don't understand how that's different from now. There's luck now. There's luck then. It doesn't change the amount of luck. It just makes you create a deck that tries its best to counter luck in a different way (aka ls generation instead of speed).
-
I don't understand how that's different from now. There's luck now. There's luck then. It doesn't change the amount of luck. It just makes you create a deck that tries its best to counter luck in a different way (aka ls generation instead of speed).
It does change the luck because it means I have to wait for my opponent to draw even more of those LSs that are buried entirely by luck. Without the new rule, the fact that so many of her LSs were buried would not have come in to play, when I rescued my 3rd LS I had SOG/NJ in hand and 4 LSs in my land of bondage, but I couldn't rescue those I had to wait for her to draw LSs and she didn't draw any for 7 turns based entirely on the luck of them being buried, how can you say that's no different that's a difference of 7 turns and 2 LSs (she got her SOG/NJ during those 7 turns) based entirely off of the new rule, it didn't effect the outcome of that particular game, it didn't simplify ot balance out anything, all it did was frustrate the heck out of me and could have potentially cost me a tournament for something that is completely out of my hands and my opponents.
-
Just to clear up the confusion about this rule:
The primary reason is to transform NJ from a 2-edged sword into a 1-edged sword. It can only be used offensively, and not defensively. That reduces its usefulness. That takes almost half the teeth out of what many players see as the most-desired-to-be-banned card in the game.
A secondary benefit is the decrease in the appeal of speed, due to the decreased benefit of getting NJ first, and the increased threat of drawing lost souls that you have to defend (which you can't defend with NJ).
A tertiary benefit is the simpler rescue rule. It is simpler to tell kids "You can only rescue lost souls in opponents' lands of bondage" then to have one rule for heroes and another for rescue abilities. A secondary benefit of this benefit is that it allows us to create more cards like Primary Objective without having to add "from opponent's land of bondage."
Other benefits that have been discovered in playtesting are: closer games, time to catch up, more legit reasons NOT to use a draw ability, and others.
-
Just to clear up the confusion about this rule:
The primary reason is to transform NJ from a 2-edged sword into a 1-edged sword. It can only be used offensively, and not defensively. That reduces its usefulness. That takes almost half the teeth out of what many players see as the most-desired-to-be-banned card in the game.
Why must it also apply to SOG then?
A secondary benefit is the decrease in the appeal of speed, due to the decreased benefit of getting NJ first, and the increased threat of drawing lost souls that you have to defend (which you can't defend with NJ).
I thought that this would happen to but having played a couple games I don't think this is the case, the only thing I'm going to change about my deck is to add soul gen cards that just make it even faster since some of them grab cards out of my deck, and will still use speed to get to these soul gen cards. there's really no way to kill speed. Getting to the cards you need as fast as possible, no matter what those cards are, will always be a strategic advantage.
A tertiary benefit is the simpler rescue rule. It is simpler to tell kids "You can only rescue lost souls in opponents' lands of bondage" then to have one rule for heroes and another for rescue abilities. A secondary benefit of this benefit is that it allows us to create more cards like Primary Objective without having to add "from opponent's land of bondage."
It seems to me that it's going to be a lot harder to explain to current players that the cards they've been using a certain way for a long time no longer work the way they always have then to explain that you can only "attack" your opponent but SOG/NJ can rescue any soul in play which includes your own.
Other benefits that have been discovered in playtesting are: closer games, time to catch up, more legit reasons NOT to use a draw ability, and others.
if the closer games were a universal thing then I would see this being good for the game, but it's not universal it's just increasing the luck factor when it comes to soul drought.
-
A secondary benefit is the decrease in the appeal of speed, due to the decreased benefit of getting NJ first, and the increased threat of drawing lost souls that you have to defend (which you can't defend with NJ).
Unfortunately that's simply not true.
As long as Redemption is a game with a single win condition, Speed will always be the most viable option. Even with a dominant cap, Speed is still the most viable option. Even is you ban NJ, speed is still the most viable option. Even if you remove every dominant from the game, speed will still probably be the most viable option.
-
Speed will always be the most viable option.
Not if speed players end up waiting all the time. When that happens, their speed was useless because they outpaced the availability of LSs.
it means I have to wait for my opponent to draw even more of those LSs...I had to wait for her to draw LSs...all it did was frustrate
More of these frustrating experiences, and we'll start to see some changes. People say they'll just add more LS generation, but then like Bryon said, people will start playing with J-Tower or Blue Tassels. Then speed decks will have to either include defense to buy them time while waiting for opponent's LSs to show up -OR- they'll have to include more counters to take out J-Tower and Blue Tassels.
You're probably right that at first people will just add the counters because they're addicted to speed. But every card they add to counter those and every card they add to generate LSs is one less card of defense (allowing even easier walk-ins by their opponents) or one less card of offense (which means less speed). Both of these outcomes will lead to less wins, and therefore in the long run will lead to less people playing straight speed. Variety ftw!
-
all of the cards like AS that will become staples.
If all those cards become staples, then simply block with an EC that transfers a captured character to an opponent's land of bondage. Or activate Blue Tassels. If these happen enough times, the supposed staples won't be staples for long.
That's what they said about Sam. And Genesis. And Thaddeus. And TGT. And Z-Temple.
There's a difference between counters existing and effective counters existing. Oh, and what happens if I don't draw my counters? I'll need to add some draw abilities so I can ensure I'll get them faster. Oh look, we're still all playing speed.
There'll be less variety because now everyone will use Tassels, JT, AS, HT, Hopper, King Amazing, etc, etc. What'll I take out to put in the new soul gen? No, not my speed, I need that to get my soul gen. I'll take out the fun quirks I work into my decks. Yup, now I'm like everyone else.
-
Speed will always be the most viable option.
Not if speed players end up waiting all the time. When that happens, their speed was useless because they outpaced the availability of LSs.
Correct. Further, this is not just speculation. It is already happening here. RedDragonThorn is correct that some drawing is still making its way into nearly all decks, but in many cases it is drawing so that you can get some defense. Not just draw, draw, draw, dominants, offense, dominants, offense.
And if you don't have souls to protect, you don't use the draw abilities.
With emphasis on the "Lucky big 2" being reduced by a factor of 2, the game becomes about timing smart drawing, not the old stupid speed.
-
Needs more balance:
(https://sites.google.com/site/ssbassmaster/_/rsrc/1318604740150/home/morebalance.jpg)
-
There is nothing like watching a speed player have to wait. The speed player fidgets and squirms in his seat because he knows his defense can't possibly protect all the lost souls for long.
I've been having that kind of fun.
So how exactly are my logical musings on how games will play out so much worse than your, frankly, not very Christian comments about deriving pleasure from watching people squirm? I just don't understand how you can sit there and say things like that and at the same time just throw out everything other people say for doing the same thing you are doing.
Also, I agree with Kittens, RDT, and lp670sv, though apparently my opinion is worth less than 0%.
-
I'm hoping your comment is a joke. UnChristian? Lolwut? If your opponent is honestly in pain because he built his deck poorly, he needs to check his priorities. I have fun, yes FUN watching my opponents try to figure out how to beat my decks, unsuccessfully. That's squirming, it's not them actually in pain because of something you are doing. And almost everyone on Bryon's side of this debate, including Bryon, have taken time to respond to people's claims, even admitting faults like the one presented by Red Dragon Thorn. I'm assuming he'd just rather not worry about your ad hominem attacks.
-
I'm sorry if I was offensive at all, I did not mean such. I'm just trying to explain my position.
No, I really don't think it's a very good attitude to enjoy when any player is losing a game due to poor luck. Bryon mentioned that one of the positive things about this rule change is that people who are behind get to have a chance to come back and not feel as bad since they at least got some souls, but as has been posted (by people who HAVE played games with this rule, so it's not even just my "unfounded" ramblings) the people who are ahead just end up getting frustrated by the whole thing. Bryon seems to think the players losing deserve to have more fun (looking at his comments about "stupid speed" and the one I quoted previously about enjoying seeing people squirm), but who are we to decide who is allowed to have more fun? Isn't this supposed to be a game of fun and fellowship for all? I don't think it's right or appropriate for the rules to dictate who gets to have fun.
-
Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?
-
Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?
Yes. By adding a few Samaritans and Water Jar to their Samuel decks.
-
Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?
Yes. By adding a few Samaritans and Water Jar to their Samuel decks.
Are those the people complaining about being in the lead but not being able to win? And that's not really your best strategy. You need five to win, they only have 7 ls in their deck. A better strategy is to generate souls, not make your opponent draw theirs.
-
Ok, that makes sense. But still I'd ask, are people accommodating the rule?
Yes. By adding a few Samaritans and Water Jar to their Samuel decks.
Are those the people complaining about being in the lead but not being able to win? And that's not really your best strategy. You need five to win, they only have 7 ls in their deck. A better strategy is to generate souls, not make your opponent draw theirs.
Actually, with the new rule, a majority of people have at least 8 LS's in their deck...and if they don't draw hopper before you get W@tW and/or SWJ, they'll be stuck with it. And considering they can't use SoG/NJ on any of their 7-8, then I'd say getting theirs out is a pretty good strat (it's worked well for me, barring the one game where a Di deck pulled off a few more autoblocks than I was able to).
And I have yet to complain about being in the lead but not being able to win, because I have easily been able to generate enough souls (my deck has other ways to generate souls as well, of course) to win. With my Speed deck. The only loss I have had with that deck is vs., like I said, a Di deck (i.e. not what you would call balanced) and it was by one turn.
-
See that's pretty much what I thought. If you adjust for the rule, you can definitely get by without waiting for souls.
Which brings up the whole other issue of does this rule actually do ANYTHING, since speed is still king. But I didn't think waiting for your opponent to draw ls was that much more of an issue than it already was.
-
since speed is still king.
Speed will always be King in a game where you need to draw your cards to get them. Various things like counters or rule changes may make speed decks have to adapt, but the concept will always be there.
My argument is that this rule changes does nothing except force speed decks to adapt, and take away one of the few effective blocks that a slower/balanced deck will have vs. a powerhouse offense, which is using SoG/NJ on your own LS's.
-
Which brings up the whole other issue of does this rule actually do ANYTHING, since speed is still king.
I think that's what people like RDT and Kittens have been saying. Sure, it'll cause speed players to change their decks a little, but it doesn't seem like it'll create the drastic change away from speed that Bryon and Underwood think it will. I mean, anti-ignore (like Golgotha) was touted to be the bane of Garden Tomb speed, yet all it did was make people run Benedictus and other cards on their offense to take care of sites, but it didn't really do anything to kill speed (or even TGT, for that matter) and I think is more used for EE recursion nowadays. :2cents:
My argument is that this rule changes does nothing except force speed decks to adapt, and take away one of the few effective blocks that a slower/balanced deck will have vs. a powerhouse offense, which is using SoG/NJ on your own LS's.
Case in point. :P
-
Yeah, that's mostly true... but I would argue that, with this new addition, speed will even more need to draw their ls generation, which means you should always have lost souls to rescue AGAINST a speed player. Hold them off for 2 or more turns, you could easily win.
-
I find it humorous that players keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on speculating about about a secondary benefit of the ruling. You don't think it will stop speed completely. Fine. I agree. I never said it would.
The PRIMARY purpose was to take half the teeth out of NJ, which most players agree is too powerful in Type 1. Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.
In my EXPERIENCE (in dozens of games, not mere speculation),the proposed rescue rule change has given players some situations where they do not want to draw extra cards. In my opinion, that has been good for the game.
In my experience, it has given balanced decks a chance to come from behind. It has not usually been quite enough to snatch the victory from the speed deck, but in at least a few cases, it has allowed the balanced deck to win, where it otherwise could not.
About the argument that "it takes away a block against a speed deck": Balanced decks have defense for that. If you have not drawn the defense yet, then give up a couple early. You will have a chance to come from behind. It has worked in testing.
About the attack on my Christian character: I did not mean "squirm" as in pain. I meant "squirm" as in "I'm winning 3 to 1, but I'm getting nervous that my speed deck that used to win 90% of its games just might lose to a much slower Daniel deck since I'm running out of defense." When a player using a SamuelSpeed deck or a Genespeed deck gets to 3 lost souls quickly, and has to wait for a few turns while you catch up (due to his utter lack of defense), that is good for the game, in my opinion.
If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck. At a minimum, it gives (and has given in testing) a balanced deck a chance to compete with Speed. That is good for the game.
-
Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.
I've never found anything inherently wrong with NJ. I don't think it should be banned (nothing should be), I don't think it should have game rules made just for it, and I don't think attacking it is the best way of reducing its impact. What about the idea of increasing the number of souls in deck and/or souls needed to win ideas? The dominant cap is an interesting idea, too, though I think NJ is useful enough that people will still include it even if that rule is added, but at least that rule doesn't single a specific card (or two cards) out. If we're trying to make the game simpler, coming up with game rules for specific cards is not, in my opinion, the way to go about that.
About the attack on my Christian character: I did not mean "squirm" as in pain. I meant "squirm" as in "I'm winning 3 to 1, but I'm getting nervous that my speed deck that used to win 90% of its games just might lose to a much slower Daniel deck since I'm running out of defense."
I wouldn't call it an "attack" but whatever. I guess you and I just use different definitions of "squirm", then, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.
If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck.
I think the only thing that people keep going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on and on) about is their disagreement with the above. The only thing people will be more likely to put in is LS generation, which does not necessarily equate to "defense". If I was going to update my Gardenciples speed deck for this rule, I would end up taking out some of the EC's in favor of self-capturing ones. That's not an increase in defense, that's just a shift in what my defense is composed of.
-
The only thing people will be more likely to put in is LS generation, which does not necessarily equate to "defense".
I don't have the list in front of me, but when players talk about LS generation I hear a lot of TAS, Malchus, DoM, etc., basically cards that are played on defense. ???
-
I find it humorous that players keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on speculating about about a secondary benefit of the ruling. You don't think it will stop speed completely. Fine. I agree. I never said it would.
The PRIMARY purpose was to take half the teeth out of NJ, which most players agree is too powerful in Type 1. Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.
In my EXPERIENCE (in dozens of games, not mere speculation),the proposed rescue rule change has given players some situations where they do not want to draw extra cards. In my opinion, that has been good for the game.
In my experience, it has given balanced decks a chance to come from behind. It has not usually been quite enough to snatch the victory from the speed deck, but in at least a few cases, it has allowed the balanced deck to win, where it otherwise could not.
About the argument that "it takes away a block against a speed deck": Balanced decks have defense for that. If you have not drawn the defense yet, then give up a couple early. You will have a chance to come from behind. It has worked in testing.
About the attack on my Christian character: I did not mean "squirm" as in pain. I meant "squirm" as in "I'm winning 3 to 1, but I'm getting nervous that my speed deck that used to win 90% of its games just might lose to a much slower Daniel deck since I'm running out of defense." When a player using a SamuelSpeed deck or a Genespeed deck gets to 3 lost souls quickly, and has to wait for a few turns while you catch up (due to his utter lack of defense), that is good for the game, in my opinion.
If you can't use SoG/NJ defensively, you will be more likely to put defense in your deck. At a minimum, it gives (and has given in testing) a balanced deck a chance to compete with Speed. That is good for the game.
I find it humorous that after asking us to drop the secondary argument your very next paragraph talks about drawing cards again.
But, since you wanted a response to your primary argument, my response is that it simply doesn't matter what power level NJ has. The reason for that is that it affects both players. If I can't use my NJ defensively, I don't care, because you can't either. The flaw in your logic is that you believe that NJ gets used defensively by 'Speed' players more often than balanced deck players. This is why we continue to talk about point 2, because point 1 can be mitigated by point 2, a speed player drawing cards to generate lost souls for his NJ to resuce. Since you yourself agree that point 2 isn't completely true either, then we're simply left with point 3, which was a weak argument to begin with.
There are only two possible rule changes that would convince me not to play a speed deck. Instituting a rule ala MtG/YGO where when you can no longer draw cards, you lose.
Or, remove time limits from type 1, so that defensive heavy decks aren't threatened by time-out points.
-
I don't have the list in front of me, but when players talk about LS generation I hear a lot of TAS, Malchus, DoM, etc., basically cards that are played on defense. ???
Yes they are evil cards, but when the whole idea is for them to be defeated so they make themselves a LS in opponent's LoB I don't really see how they're much of a "defense." In the case of TAS, I can leave my defense exactly the way it is, add TAS in, and if anything my deck is faster AND has LS generation since he searches for whatever human EC would be most useful at that point in time while at the same time becoming a LS for me to rescue next turn.
Evil cards are not strictly used for defense just as good cards are not strictly used offensively. I've seen Grapes used far more often by the defending player than the attacking player, for example.
Does that explain where I'm coming from?
-
I don't have the list in front of me, but when players talk about LS generation I hear a lot of TAS, Malchus, DoM, etc., basically cards that are played on defense. ???
Yes they are evil cards, but when the whole idea is for them to be defeated so they make themselves a LS in opponent's LoB I don't really see how they're much of a "defense." In the case of TAS, I can leave my defense exactly the way it is, add TAS in, and if anything my deck is faster AND has LS generation since he searches for whatever human EC would be most useful at that point in time while at the same time becoming a LS for me to rescue next turn.
Does that explain where I'm coming from?
Exactly! The best defense is a good offense!
Er,...or is it, the best offense is a fast defense?!?
No, wait, I got it -- the best deck is the one that draws the cards you need at the time you need them, regardless of how fast or slow.
Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)
-
Or, remove time limits from type 1, so that defensive heavy decks aren't threatened by time-out points.
WOW Hey there! No one put that idea up before! Im up for increasing the time limit up to 1 hour+
-
I don't think it's right or appropriate for the rules to dictate who gets to have fun.
I like to play a defensive heavy deck that tries to stop everything my opponent can throw at it before walking in for the win in the end. But the rules about time limits at tournaments make it impossible for that deck style to consistently win at top tournaments without timing out too often. But I doubt you have a problem with this :)
Speed will always be King in a game where you need to draw your cards to get them. Various things like counters or rule changes may make speed decks have to adapt, but the concept will always be there.
To some extant this is true. But at some point there are so many adjustments that have to be made that it just stops being dominant anymore. I used to play site lockout, but then last year Fishing Boat came out (and was popular) which made that hard enough to pull off that it wasn't worth it. I used to play Zeb decks, but after a couple years of adding counters to keep it viable, I've decided that it's just not a good way to go anymore. The offenses nowadays are so hard to stop that I can't seem to build a defense tough enough to stop them all, and still have enough room for Zeb and all the necessary counters.
anti-ignore (like Golgotha) was touted to be the bane of Garden Tomb speed, yet all it did was make people run Benedictus and other cards on their offense to take care of sites
This is a great example of how a commonly useful card (for recursion as well as anti-ignore as well as site stall) forced TGT decks to add a counter. And every counter necessary moves a deck one step closer to losing dominance.
you believe that NJ gets used defensively by 'Speed' players more often than balanced deck players.
This is of course true. speed players by definition get their SoG/NJ combo faster than balanced deck players in general. Therefore they are able to use them defensively more often. Everyone uses that combo defensively if they can (unless there is a 2-liner involved or rare instances of FBN LS or shuffler - which is still a defensive move). And the speed play will be able to do it more often.
-
Browarod, but if that becomes the main way to generate ls, James son of Alpheus and Ishmaiah now destroy all your ls generation. And both decks this year that I've made have included one of them. They are very popular, especially Ishmiah.
-
Or, remove time limits from type 1, so that defensive heavy decks aren't threatened by time-out points.
WOW Hey there! No one put that idea up before! Im up for increasing the time limit up to 1 hour+
Absolutely not. One hour is plenty of time for Type 1. Tournaments need to end at a decent hour, otherwise the younguns' won't be allowed to play.
-
Yes but how to word this.... Some "older" players who take hours upon hours to read cards are the reason many players have problems with the 45 minute time limit thus causing many players to use speed decks to finish within the time limit.
-
Yes but how to word this.... Some "older" players who take hours upon hours to read cards are the reason many players have problems with the 45 minute time limit thus causing many players to use speed decks to finish within the time limit.
I have one-hour rounds for Type 1 2-Player, and hour-fifteen rounds for Type 1 multiplayer. Those were the suggested times in the Tournament Guide, so that is what I have always used. That's plenty of time for Josh Kopp to set up his heroless deck, and for Kirk to set up his Saint of Virtue deck.
-
No, wait, I got it -- the best deck is the one that draws the cards you need at the time you need them, regardless of how fast or slow.
Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)
And that is exactly why I've stuck with prophets for over a year now. Speed is nice, yeah, but being able to search for the specific card I need when I need it is way better, imho. :P
I like to play a defensive heavy deck that tries to stop everything my opponent can throw at it before walking in for the win in the end. But the rules about time limits at tournaments make it impossible for that deck style to consistently win at top tournaments without timing out too often. But I doubt you have a problem with this :)
In a perfect world, everyone would be able to play whatever deck type they want. I'm all for increasing the time limit of T1 rounds. Ken's defense-heavy deck was hilarious to watch and if it meant he could legitimately win more games with it then I'd be happy to see that happen.
To some extant this is true. But at some point there are so many adjustments that have to be made that it just stops being dominant anymore. I used to play site lockout, but then last year Fishing Boat came out (and was popular) which made that hard enough to pull off that it wasn't worth it. I used to play Zeb decks, but after a couple years of adding counters to keep it viable, I've decided that it's just not a good way to go anymore. The offenses nowadays are so hard to stop that I can't seem to build a defense tough enough to stop them all, and still have enough room for Zeb and all the necessary counters.
Honestly, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Speed isn't necessarily the issue, it's just a symptom. Offenses these days are just too powerful, so powerful that even full defenses have trouble keeping them out. As such, the ony way to have a chance at winning it to include your own huge offense and try your best to draw into your better cards before your opponent, which speed allows. I think the game would be a lot more balanced if the defense was not always left out to dry. I know that Redemption is all about the good being stronger and bringing the Souls to Redemption, but for the sake of the gameplay mechanics I think stronger defense would have much more of an impact on winning vs losing than trying to get people to not play speed.
Browarod, but if that becomes the main way to generate ls, James son of Alpheus and Ishmaiah now destroy all your ls generation. And both decks this year that I've made have included one of them. They are very popular, especially Ishmiah.
I should have specified before that my Gardenciples deck already contains Harvest Time and the Hopper, so characters are the only things I could possibly add to it.
-
Yes but how to word this.... Some "older" players who take hours upon hours to read cards are the reason many players have problems with the 45 minute time limit thus causing many players to use speed decks to finish within the time limit.
I have one-hour rounds for Type 1 2-Player, and hour-fifteen rounds for Type 1 multiplayer. Those were the suggested times in the Tournament Guide, so that is what I have always used. That's plenty of time for Josh Kopp to set up his heroless deck, and for Kirk to set up his Saint of Virtue deck.
I agree I have no problem with the time limit but go to nationals and the story is different.
-
I agree I have no problem with the time limit but go to nationals and the story is different.
Since I have never been to Nats, you will have to elaborate.
-
Yes but how to word this.... Some "older" players who take hours upon hours to read cards are the reason many players have problems with the 45 minute time limit thus causing many players to use speed decks to finish within the time limit.
Solution: bigger cards
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmandelweb.com%2F2006gsmpics%2F2006gsmpics027.jpg&hash=e9f45bda2df6aad14264435521709f7c7b6b57fb)
-
I agree I have no problem with the time limit but go to nationals and the story is different.
Since I have never been to Nats, you will have to elaborate.
To make a 45 minute story short. Alot of times the game doesnt finish.
And.... Stamp that is a great idea!
-
you believe that NJ gets used defensively by 'Speed' players more often than balanced deck players.
This is of course true. speed players by definition get their SoG/NJ combo faster than balanced deck players in general. Therefore they are able to use them defensively more often. Everyone uses that combo defensively if they can (unless there is a 2-liner involved or rare instances of FBN LS or shuffler - which is still a defensive move). And the speed play will be able to do it more often.
Ah, so what you're saying is that it's nothing more than a rule change designed to hurt speed decks? And you're ignoring every speed deck player thats saying that its not hurting them at all as far as winning percentage goes?
-
To make a 45 minute story short. Alot of times the game doesnt finish.
Are you saying that you don't even get 45 minutes for a Type 1 2-player game at Nationals?
-
To make a 45 minute story short. Alot of times the game doesnt finish.
Are you saying that you don't even get 45 minutes for a Type 1 2-player game at Nationals?
No I'm saying you only get 45 minutes which as we all know many times just isn't enough.
-
So all of this talk of speed deck dominance is a direct byproduct of Nationals time issues. More players use speed decks at the major tournaments since there isn't enough time for them to use any other decks.
-
It's not just nationals, It's any tournament following the proper time limit's. I can understand Locals and Districts being more lax, but anything above that should be following the 45 min/round for T12P.
-
It's not just nationals, It's any tournament following the proper time limit's. I can understand Locals and Districts being more lax, but anything above that should be following the 45 min/round for T12P.
"Proper?"
"Lax?"
The tournament guide from Cactus specifically says one hour rounds for T1-2P. How is the "proper" time 45 minutes, and how am I being "lax" if I follow the tournament guide from Cactus.
-
So all of this talk of speed deck dominance is a direct byproduct of Nationals time issues. More players use speed decks at the major tournaments since there isn't enough time for them to use any other decks.
Nailed it right on the head.
-
It's not just nationals, It's any tournament following the proper time limit's. I can understand Locals and Districts being more lax, but anything above that should be following the 45 min/round for T12P.
"Proper?"
"Lax?"
The tournament guide from Cactus specifically says one hour rounds for T1-2P. How is the "proper" time 45 minutes, and how am I being "lax" if I follow the tournament guide from Cactus.
Because you're not properly interpretating the document. The 1Hour is the suggested time that it will take for the entire round, including making pairings, shuffling decks, reporting scores etc. This time is given so that tournament hosts can give the best possible estimate as to time of completion. Actual gameplay is 45 Min.
My apologies, I take back my statement about interpretation of the document. I know that the rest of what I said is accurate as far as time limits goes, but you are correct as to what the guide says.
-
A speed deck vs a nonspeed deck is more one sided than a mobius strip.
-
I think the most important factor in this argument is to pin down why exactly speed is the top dog, and the answer is because of the nature of card games. The actual game play of Redemption is largely based on luck, and speed minimizes that luck as much as possible. Thus, unless drastic, overpowered counters are produced, speed will remain the best strategy out there. It's worth noting that for all the talks of "this will hurt speed and increase diversity," most good speed decks already have some soul generation (at the very least, Harvest Time and Hopper, and many include TAS). What's interesting to note is that despite the claims of the side that believes this ruling won't hurt speed, it's very obvious that it will. Nearly every single form of soul generation can be stopped mid-to-late game, whether it be via Naz, Jerusalem Tower, FBTN Lost Soul, or Tassels. If a person were to build a defense entirely around Soul Stalling (which is undoubtedly what the strategy would be called), it could potentially be very successful. However, how am I going to make sure I draw all those counters early enough to matter? I've got it! I'll put some SPEED in my deck! Plot twist! Thus, we discover that "Bryon" is actually M. Night Shyamalan.
Now, regarding my opinions on the rule itself (which I'm avidly against). First off, I don't really think that a person needs to play a lot of games before their opinion should be considered valid. My own credentials are not "dozens and dozens of games," however, I've played roughly ten games with the rule, in ROOT or otherwise, and if you decide that that doesn't mean that I'm qualified to have an opinion, then feel free to disregard me. My overall impression of the rule has been extremely negative. It's going to increase the popularity of specific themes, one of which is already quite powerful (Genesis). Additionally, you cannot logically say that this will not increase the amount of luck required in a game. If I put five forms of soul generation in my deck (Hopper, Harvest Time, A Slave, Cupbearer, and Woman at the Well), I'm still only going to draw one of them every four or five draws, unless I use speed to get them faster. If my opponent is using Covenant with Death, one of those options are no longer effective, which leaves me with three (I can get that back up to five if I manage to draw DoN quick enough - if only I had more drawing). If they're using Nazareth, I'm down to one option that can be used, and if they use the FBTN Soul (which will become a staple should this rule be placed into effect), suddenly, none of my soul generation works anymore. My only option to reduce this risk is to use speed to draw quickly.
Bryon, specifically addressing your comment about this not being a democracy (I was the one who made the comment that mentioned that, if the rule would be implemented, it would show severe apathy on the part of the Elders towards the regular members), I agree that it's not, however, you did put this issue to a vote, and the vast majority of members said they would not want to see the rule applied this tournament season (and many of them not at all). I forget the exact figure, but it was something like 2/3 didn't want to see it happen. For Rob and the Elders (a great rock band name by the way - somebody work on this) to just ignore something like that because the game isn't being played the way you all would like does show a distinct disregard for the popular opinion. Regardless of whether or not this is a democracy, if a leader (or body of leaders) does something that only 1/3 of the population agrees with that affects the whole, they're considered a bad leader. Not that I'm calling Rob or any of the Elders bad leaders, I'm simply making a point.
Finally, if you want to reduce the punch of New Jerusalem, ban it. Don't propose and defend extremely controversial rules to try to appease those who don't like it (I am not one of them - I don't have a problem with it). Either ban it or leave it alone.
-
An interesting sidenote, but a good read nonetheless (the author is one of the top designers for MTG, his column should be required reading for our playtesters):http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/148 (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/148)
Now, they did end up banning the cards in question, but they tried many other solutions first (not, as you'll note, a massive rule change).
-
Chronic apathy, great points. Here's a couple comments to consider.
1. What about all the games with successful attempts at stopping speed? Of course, there are tons of games where speed is still great, but what about all the times that players have reported where speed IS stopped, or at least not as effective? I understand the argument that you'll want more speed to get out your lost soul generation, but wouldn't you agree there's another side to that coin that you have to be attacked to use most of that? Nazareth is not hard to get, after that you're basically down to evil strategies. A defense-heavy deck with little offense won't give you very many opportunities to block and give them ls to rescue.
2. You talk about complaints about the rule. But how many complaints have there been about Samuel decks and TGT decks? Now whether or not this rule can stop them is another issue, and is what the above comment is talking about, but assuming it WOULD stop them, there are a lot more people frustrated at TGT than at this potential rule change.
3. As to my own personal experiences, my fastest decks do get me frustrated with this rule. I have a LOT of soul generation, both on offense and defense, and I get frustrated because as fast as your deck is, I typically can't get 5 ls in my opponent's land of bondage by turn 3. Without this rule, it's relatively common to win a game in three turns.
-
Chronic apathy, great points. Here's a couple comments to consider.
1. What about all the games with successful attempts at stopping speed? Of course, there are tons of games where speed is still great, but what about all the times that players have reported where speed IS stopped, or at least not as effective? I understand the argument that you'll want more speed to get out your lost soul generation, but wouldn't you agree there's another side to that coin that you have to be attacked to use most of that? Nazareth is not hard to get, after that you're basically down to evil strategies. A defense-heavy deck with little offense won't give you very many opportunities to block and give them ls to rescue.
2. You talk about complaints about the rule. But how many complaints have there been about Samuel decks and TGT decks? Now whether or not this rule can stop them is another issue, and is what the above comment is talking about, but assuming it WOULD stop them, there are a lot more people frustrated at TGT than at this potential rule change.
3. As to my own personal experiences, my fastest decks do get me frustrated with this rule. I have a LOT of soul generation, both on offense and defense, and I get frustrated because as fast as your deck is, I typically can't get 5 ls in my opponent's land of bondage by turn 3. Without this rule, it's relatively common to win a game in three turns.
I realize it's frustrating to have to wait for LSs to SoG/NJ for the win, but it's also very frustrating to lose in three turns. That doesn't make for a very fun game...
-
Bryon I've been trying very hard not to come off as disrespectful, because I know you have the best interests of the game in mind but we are talking about things other than just the rule hurting NJ because the consequences of the rule are farther reaching than just "this nerfs NJ." Yeah, this rule does somewhat hurt NJ. But that's not the only thing that does. And making a rule like that because it accomplishes it's intended purpose, without considering the other potential problems, is how we end up with broken cards in the first place. As you are a play tester, I find it comical that you're disregarding the players feedback that goes against this rule. This is the point of play testing. I'm hoping you can see that. Lastly, if you aren't going to at least pretend to consider our input when problems with the rule change do arise why are we being asked to test it in the first place? Why is it being play tested at all?
-
Lastly, if you aren't going to at least pretend to consider our input when problems with the rule change do arise why are we being asked to test it in the first place? Why is it being play tested at all?
I believe that was ROOT's choice, not any kind of official test.
-
Lastly, if you aren't going to at least pretend to consider our input when problems with the rule change do arise why are we being asked to test it in the first place? Why is it being play tested at all?
I believe that was ROOT's choice, not any kind of official test.
Point still remains. It's being playtested, and all negative feedback is being disregarded.
-
What makes you think it is being disregarded?
-
What makes you think it is being disregarded?
I'm gonna go with the responses of anyone in this thread of anyone in this thread being first written off as "WAH MY SPEED DECK DOESN'T DOMINATE ANYMORE!" and then "The point was to nerf NJ, stop talking about other things"
-
Quite the paraphrase.
-
Ah, so what you're saying is that it's nothing more than a rule change designed to hurt speed decks?
No, I freely admit that the main reason behind the rule was to decrease the power of NJ as Bryon has said. My personal support for the rule is also enhanced by the fact that I think it will end up decreasing the monopoly of speed decks at the top of top tournaments.
the vast majority of members said they would not want to see the rule applied this tournament season (and many of them not at all).
I think that this was due to putting the poll up there too soon before people had a chance to play enough games with the new rule to even know if they supported it. Without knowing, they felt like they had to vote against it. I suspect that if another poll is taken a month or 2 from now, that the results would be very different.
I believe that was ROOT's choice, not any kind of official test.
This is correct. ROOT leadership (currently me) decided to give this a test for a month because I was curious to get some real game feedback from players. It is not an official test however, and Bryon didn't ask me to do it. So you can put that one on me, not him :)
And the negative feedback is being considered. Just because I'm arguing against the opposition doesn't mean that I'm not listening to it as well.
-
Quite the paraphrase.
I agree. Yeah lets all complain because our decks that are clearly op'd dont work! That seems to be the only complaint im hearing from a majority of the players every one else (except type 2 people) seem to be in support of the rule change.
I find it humorous that players keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on speculating about about a secondary benefit of the ruling. You don't think it will stop speed completely. Fine. I agree. I never said it would.
The PRIMARY purpose was to take half the teeth out of NJ, which most players agree is too powerful in Type 1. Do all the players who oppose this ruling really want NJ to keep its current power level? Drop the secondary speed debate and answer that question.
Quite the paraphrase indeed.
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
Oooh now you're twisting MY words. Making a step up. If individuals just keep up with these sarcastic points that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand, then I'll lock the thread.
-
Chronic apathy, great points. Here's a couple comments to consider.
1. What about all the games with successful attempts at stopping speed? Of course, there are tons of games where speed is still great, but what about all the times that players have reported where speed IS stopped, or at least not as effective? I understand the argument that you'll want more speed to get out your lost soul generation, but wouldn't you agree there's another side to that coin that you have to be attacked to use most of that? Nazareth is not hard to get, after that you're basically down to evil strategies. A defense-heavy deck with little offense won't give you very many opportunities to block and give them ls to rescue.
I'm not really familiar with any other CCGs, however, I would be willing to bet that at least a few of the ones that were able to put a stop to speed as the dominant strategy used some kind of overpowered card or cards to do it. Like, something to tune of RBD only maybe as a CBN protected fortress or something along those lines. The problem however, is that Redemption as a whole has a tendency to release counters to any effective cards. It would not surprise me, if such an overpowered anti-speed card were to be released, that in the set following it, there would be a healthy amount of CBN protected drawing. Thus, the cycle continues. The main point that people keep bringing up in support of this rule change is that, were it to be implemented, it would hurt speed. Many people are doubtful, and I feel I'm one of the few people who agree that it would hurt speed, but still don't want it implemented.
Splashing in a soul generation defense is something that a lot of speed decks already do. I cited Genesis before and I'll bring it up again. TAS and Cupbearer both generate a soul, the latter unnegatably so. They both fit in very well with what is likely the fastest defense in the game - Gentyptians, which can't really be used effectively without the third fastest offense in the game (behind Disciples and Sam in all his forms): Genesis. If this rule would get implemented before the spring/summer tournament season rolls around, you're looking at Genesis taking a big leap and becoming potentially more used than Disciples were last year. At least right now we have two offenses in the proverbial "S tier". Should the rule be implemented, you're looking at only one being at the top.
It's also worth noting that I love defense heavy decks. I've played several people in this thread with my 154 card heroless. It's my favorite deck to play, and I mourn that I'll never be able to play it in regular tournament play, due to it's tendency to take an hour before my opponent finally concedes (it's only finished a win twice - otherwise the opponent breaks through or concedes after they realize they won't be able too). Playing defense heavy is so fun to me, and I do find it quite sad that it's not as viable as it should be. In this week's ROOT game, I opted to take a chance and I played a defense heavy deck, a decision that was made in part because of the testing of this new rule. It was an Isaiah/Israelite Royalty deck. This deck has five heroes: Isaiah, King Hezekiah, both Seraphs, and Cherubim. Guess which hero got removed from the game during a rescue attempt on the first turn? I ultimately lost that game 4-5, because Son of God was literally the bottom card of my deck. Had I played a faster deck, even my normal Prophets deck (where the ratio of good/evil is reversed), I'd have easily pulled a win, due to my opponent not drawing heroes for 3/4 of the game. What I'm getting at here is that I'm as much a proponent of defense heavy as anyone else, and I wish it was more viable. However, I don't believe a rule change like this is the way to go about making defense heavy better.
I will be entirely the honest, the concept of Soul Hiding as a defensive strategy is extremely appealing. For the last couple years, I've toyed with the idea of making that sort of strategy, until the FBTN LS came out last year and forced me to abandon the idea. The idea of locking my opponent out without using sites, and merely using discard and protection is extremely appealing. While this ruling wouldn't that, Soul Stalling would certainly become a top-tier defense overnight. I like that aspect of the idea, however, I still can't condone the ruling as a whole.
Cont...
-
2. You talk about complaints about the rule. But how many complaints have there been about Samuel decks and TGT decks? Now whether or not this rule can stop them is another issue, and is what the above comment is talking about, but assuming it WOULD stop them, there are a lot more people frustrated at TGT than at this potential rule change.
I'm not sure that that's actually true. Just because more people might be really vocal about not liking certain strategies doesn't mean more people would prefer this rule to that. I'm not saying more people would rather have it one way or the other, because I don't really know, but that's a pretty bold statement without anything to back it up with. Personally, I hate Sam, I'm using an anti-meta deck right now, and I've vowed to never build a Sam deck this season. That said, I'd rather have every deck I face be some variant of Sam or Genesis or Disciples or TGT (this is, of course, how it already is) than see this rule put into effect (which would, as I noted, just mean that Genesis would overtake everything else).
I'm simply of the opinion that for all these problems people think this ruling would help fix, there are better ways to go about fixing them. Every single year I've been playing this game, I hear people complain about speed and how overpowered it is, and that includes the powers at be (Elders for the last year or so, and just general prominent members before that). Yet, every single year, cards like Fishing Boat, Matthew, and Samuel get released, and I just absolutely scratch my head over that. If speed is that big a problem, release a couple sets with no drawing at all. That could balance out speed so that it's not ridiculous anymore. Just look at Disciples for this year. Top tier? Yes. Overpowered? Not really, because Sam and Gen are just as strong.
What makes you think it is being disregarded?
I can kind of see where Alec is coming from here. Earlier in the thread, Bryon was pretty quick to disregard all the comments in the feedback thread as unimportant, due to our inexperience with the rule. I did very much feel like the comments made there, unless they supported the rule, were pretty much disregarded. I'm not going to make a big deal out of that, but that's definitely the way it came across early on in the thread, though it hasn't been that way for the last three or four pages.
Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Darn it guys...
I think that this was due to putting the poll up there too soon before people had a chance to play enough games with the new rule to even know if they supported it. Without knowing, they felt like they had to vote against it. I suspect that if another poll is taken a month or 2 from now, that the results would be very different.
I don't think so. I think as of right now, the leaning is still heavily towards not liking the idea, and at this point, that isn't likely to change. In fact, I haven't heard of anyone changing their mind about the idea one way or the other, and if anyone has, I'd highly encourage them to post, explaining why (either they didn't like it at first but like it now, or vice versa). So far, I've only seen people become more and more entrenched in their viewpoints. In fact, I don't believe I've seen any of the powers at be post on the subject at all other than you and Bryon (as huge proponents of the idea) and Prof A on the other side of the debate. I might be missing these comments, but I just haven't seen anything else. I'm especially curious to see what Gabe (who uses speed as often as anyone else does) and Rob have to say about it, and what their leanings are.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
DARN IT GUYS!
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
Can this not turn into a petty debate that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (5000 characters).
GAH!
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
....
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
He didn't say Isildur doesn't matter, he just said he doesn't count. Arithmetic was never his forte.
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
He didn't say Isildur doesn't matter, he just said he doesn't count. Arithmetic was never his forte.
This made me laugh enough that I though it deserved a response instead of just a plus 1
Oooh now you're twisting MY words. Making a step up. If individuals just keep up with these sarcastic points that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand, then I'll lock the thread.
You're the one who said he didn't count. I didn't edit your post. He isn't official so you said he didn't count. So if you're not official you don't count. How is that twisting anything?
-
Isildur doesn't count, he's not in any ways official.
You only matter if your a playtester. I'll have to write that down.
Oooh now you're twisting MY words. Making a step up. If individuals just keep up with these sarcastic points that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand, then I'll lock the thread.
My guess is that lp670sv is getting sarcastic because he feels that's the only way to get his point across. It'd help if you openly responded to his points instead of saying "oh, that doesn't count".
RDT has come out against the rule, and it's been rumored that Rob only wants NJ to get opps LS.
-
Splashing in a soul generation defense is something that a lot of speed decks already do. I cited Genesis before and I'll bring it up again. TAS and Cupbearer both generate a soul, the latter unnegatably so. They both fit in very well with what is likely the fastest defense in the game - Gentyptians, which can't really be used effectively without the third fastest offense in the game (behind Disciples and Sam in all his forms): Genesis. If this rule would get implemented before the spring/summer tournament season rolls around, you're looking at Genesis taking a big leap and becoming potentially more used than Disciples were last year. At least right now we have two offenses in the proverbial "S tier". Should the rule be implemented, you're looking at only one being at the top.
I too hate how hard it is to be competitive with defense heavy decks, it's frustrating. I've always preferred defense heavy decks and it just keeps getting harder and harder to make them competitive. I can definitely see where you are coming from.
As for the Genesis thing, I don't see it. First of all, Genesis Egyptians can still be very competitive without Genesis offense. It just requires a couple extra defensive cars. YAY! ;) Second of all, I definitely don't see it as being any more competitive with this rule. Only the defense gets a boost, and a minor one at that. Honestly, the best defense for soul generation is black canaanites. Egyptians only has the one card, plus Potipher's wife if you add battle winners, once again boosting speed. Without considering the defense, Genesis has Joseph before Pharoah, but other than that they are a searching offense that doesn't draw all that much and it stopped cold by Nazareth. I would see Disciples and TGTspeed getting bigger boosts than Genesis.
lp670sv, I'm sorry if I came off too rude, I wasn't really sure how to respond to your points. Your first that I responded to was directed at Bryon, and I was just correcting a mistake because it wasn't Bryon's fault. And your next two were just sarcastic. If you would share your concerns I'd be more than willing to address.
-
Better still, try to break it. See if you can create a deck where the new rule makes a broken situation.
Challenge Accepted.
-
As for the Genesis thing, I don't see it. First of all, Genesis Egyptians can still be very competitive without Genesis offense. It just requires a couple extra defensive cars. YAY! ;) Second of all, I definitely don't see it as being any more competitive with this rule. Only the defense gets a boost, and a minor one at that. Honestly, the best defense for soul generation is black canaanites. Egyptians only has the one card, plus Potipher's wife if you add battle winners, once again boosting speed. Without considering the defense, Genesis has Joseph before Pharoah, but other than that they are a searching offense that doesn't draw all that much and it stopped cold by Nazareth. I would see Disciples and TGTspeed getting bigger boosts than Genesis.
I disagree. I rocked a small Genyptians defense with one enhancement paired with Genesis to great success. Not only does it generate a soul, but it's fast too. You can potentially get nine cards of drawing out of it, and that's not including using TDP more than twice if you use Writ or CM to win a battle. Canaanites might have more soul generation, but TAS fits better with Gen, and Genyptians is a better defense for small numbers in my opinion. Genesis isn't really stopped cold by Naz either. If you get Joe and Zeb out early enough, even with a first turn Naz, it's over.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=c6dd4284aeaa62202252d54b53708538fe9ae05e)
-
you believe that NJ gets used defensively by 'Speed' players more often than balanced deck players.
This is of course true. speed players by definition get their SoG/NJ combo faster than balanced deck players in general. Therefore they are able to use them defensively more often. Everyone uses that combo defensively if they can (unless there is a 2-liner involved or rare instances of FBN LS or shuffler - which is still a defensive move). And the speed play will be able to do it more often.
This thread is so long I'm not certain if this has been commented on, but literally every new or beginning player I know uses SOG/NJ defensively. Its my best defense. The only time I ever use SOG/NJ on my opponent is if I have no lost souls or my opponent has a shuffler out.
-
This thread is so long I'm not certain if this has been commented on, but literally every new or beginning player I know uses SOG/NJ defensively.
Unfortunately, the concerns of beginner players are not relevant, otherwise there would be no debate at all.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
-
Unfortunately, the concerns of beginner players are not relevant, otherwise there would be no debate at all.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
This thread is so long I'm not certain if this has been commented on, but literally every new or beginning player I know uses SOG/NJ defensively.
FTFY.
-
Unfortunately, the concerns of beginner players are not relevant, otherwise there would be no debate at all.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
Except....of course...that it was not a hyperbole.
-
SoG/NJ is probably one of the best blocks a new player can have.
-
Unfortunately, the concerns of beginner players are not relevant, otherwise there would be no debate at all.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or what, but those two comments directly contradict one another. You're basically saying, "Beginners don't matter - WE tell the new players what's easy to understand." I don't think the "it would be simpler" argument really carries any weight here. Either way would be extremely easy to explain, and really isn't an issue one way or the other. I really, really think anyone who's trying to present it as an argument (for either side) is making a mountain out of a molehill.
-
Unfortunately, the concerns of beginner players are not relevant, otherwise there would be no debate at all.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or what, but those two comments directly contradict one another. You're basically saying, "Beginners don't matter - WE tell the new players what's easy to understand." I don't think the "it would be simpler" argument really carries any weight here. Either way would be extremely easy to explain, and really isn't an issue one way or the other. I really, really think anyone who's trying to present it as an argument (for either side) is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I've never had to explain to a beginner that you can't make a rescue attempt against your own souls. Some (not all) figure out that you can rescue your own on their own.
-
I've never had to explain to a beginner that you can't make a rescue attempt against your own souls.
I have.
Some (not all) figure out that you can rescue your own on their own.
The "not all" is the key.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or what, but those two comments directly contradict one another. You're basically saying, "Beginners don't matter - WE tell the new players what's easy to understand." I don't think the "it would be simpler" argument really carries any weight here.
It doesn't carry any weight among the top players, and it never has. I have been on the boards for many years trying to weigh in on the beginning player's side because I have had so many "new player" groups. I have started new playgroups in four different states, so I see the same problems over and over again. But, whenever I bring those concerns up in these kinds of debates, they are quickly disregarded. I will admit that I find that frustrating, which is why I rarely post in these threads, other than to try to calm the negative talk with occasional jokes. But since the Elders want feedback, I'm going to post anyway.
The other type of player that needs representation is the player that is not as deep a thinker as the average Redemption player (who I would argue has an above average IQ). What is obvious to most is not obvious to all. The others need to be conisdered as well.
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
I stand behind this statement because it applies to all players, not just the majority.
-
"You cannot rescue Lost Souls in your own territory" is the easiest thing for beginners to understand.
Nuh uh. See, I can make statements like that too. You can that like it's a fact all you want, but I know that I picked up on SoG/NJ being used to rescue from my own territory right away, without even asking. Again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but you can't make this blanket statement and assume that there won't be beginning players who won't get why it's not possible.
-
I've never had to explain to a beginner that you can't make a rescue attempt against your own souls.
I have.
Must be the Florida water. Zing!
Though comparing New Yorkers to Floridians is like comparing apples to oranges.
-
You can that like it's a fact all you want, but I know that I picked up on SoG/NJ being used to rescue from my own territory right away, without even asking.
Again, you are a regular Redemption player, who typically has a higher IQ. You are not among the lower quartile.
Again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but you can't make this blanket statement and assume that there won't be beginning players who won't get why it's not possible.
They won't ask why when the rulebook specifically says so, which is what we are talking about here - a rule change to be added to the new rulebook in starter decks.
-
I've never had to explain to a beginner that you can't make a rescue attempt against your own souls.
I have.
Must be the Florida water. Zing!
Though comparing New Yorkers to Floridians is like comparing apples to oranges.
The playgroup was in Connecticut, with players from New York. ;)
-
You can that like it's a fact all you want, but I know that I picked up on SoG/NJ being used to rescue from my own territory right away, without even asking.
Again, you are a regular Redemption player, who typically has a higher IQ. You are not among the lower quartile.
So isn't he the sort of person Cactus should be focusing on?
-
You can that like it's a fact all you want, but I know that I picked up on SoG/NJ being used to rescue from my own territory right away, without even asking.
Again, you are a regular Redemption player, who typically has a higher IQ. You are not among the lower quartile.
So isn't he the sort of person Cactus should be focusing on?
I would say "no," for the aforementioned reasons, but I realize that I am a minority in my opinion. If we cater only to the current players, and not consider the recruitment of new players, then Redemption will eventually fade away with the interests (and age) of the current Hall of Fame.
-
Sorry, that's not what I meant. Shouldn't Cactus market (and design the game toward) people like Chris and I, given that we're the target audience?
-
You can that like it's a fact all you want, but I know that I picked up on SoG/NJ being used to rescue from my own territory right away, without even asking.
Again, you are a regular Redemption player, who typically has a higher IQ. You are not among the lower quartile.
Again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill, but you can't make this blanket statement and assume that there won't be beginning players who won't get why it's not possible.
They won't ask why when the rulebook specifically says so, which is what we are talking about here - a rule change to be added to the new rulebook in starter decks.
You still can't make this blanket statement and assume it applies to everyone without an above average IQ. People with above average IQs are the ones that are going to stick around anyways.
-
People with above average IQs are the ones that are going to stick around anyways.
I disagree. The other players just don't go to major tournaments. They have more fun in the local setting where they have more fellowship.
Sorry, that's not what I meant. Shouldn't Cactus market (and design the game toward) people like Chris and I, given that we're the target audience?
I understood what you meant. I am saying that you and Chris are not the target audience of a new Starter Deck set.
-
I disagree. The other players just don't go to major tournaments. They have more fun in the local setting where they have more fellowship.
In which case, it doesn't matter how they play Son of God and New Jerusalem because it will prove to be inconsequential to the community.
I understood what you meant. I am saying that you and Chris are not the target audience of a new Starter Deck set.
I actually prefer to be called sir. ;)
-
In which case, it doesn't matter how they play Son of God and New Jerusalem because it will prove to be inconsequential to the community.
The community exists because of the grassroots recruitment. The Chronic Apathys of tomorrow are my primary concern.
I actually prefer to be called sir. ;)
My apologies. Kittens and Sir are not the target audience of a new Starter Deck set. ;D
-
In which case, it doesn't matter how they play Son of God and New Jerusalem because it will prove to be inconsequential to the community.
The community exists because of the grassroots recruitment. The Chronic Apathys of tomorrow are my primary concern.
If it's chronic, wouldn't they be apathetic today anyway?
-
YMT, have you really found that Sog/nj being able to rescue your own souls is more confusing than the proposed rule change for the majority of new players that you've taught? That's really interesting, and that's definitely being considered by the playtesters. That's why the ignore rule is also being considered. Almost all the experienced players hate it, but for the 70% of Redemption players across the nation who are not on the boards, or who do not frequent them, these rules are appreciated.
So, is that really the case with new players? They are stumbling on this? And then I'd also ask, do you think this rule would help or hurt them in gameplay?
-
It doesn't carry any weight among the top players, and it never has. I have been on the boards for many years trying to weigh in on the beginning player's side because I have had so many "new player" groups. I have started new playgroups in four different states, so I see the same problems over and over again. But, whenever I bring those concerns up in these kinds of debates, they are quickly disregarded.
Perhaps I'm being presumptuous to include myself in the "top player" category, but your perspective has always carried some weight with me. I too have a playgroup at a school which leads to a LOT of players going through the system over the years, and many of them are younger and lacking in game experience. I also see some of the same things that you refer to with kids who have to be TAUGHT that they can rescue their own LSs with SoG/NJ because they start off assuming that they can't.
It also is worth noting that the primary reason for this change was to weaken NJ, but the second reason talked about by Bryon is that it simplifies the game for players like you and I are talking about. In fact, there have been a lot of changes talked about recently that have been partially or even primarily motivated by trying to make the game simpler for new players. So please don't feel like your perspective has gone unheard or unheeded :)
Though comparing New Yorkers to Floridians is like comparing apples to oranges.
I saw what you did there :)
-
YMT, have you really found that Sog/nj being able to rescue your own souls is more confusing than the proposed rule change for the majority of new players that you've taught? That's really interesting, and that's definitely being considered by the playtesters. That's why the ignore rule is also being considered. Almost all the experienced players hate it, but for the 70% of Redemption players across the nation who are not on the boards, or who do not frequent them, these rules are appreciated.
"Confusing" is not the best word. It's like the Prof just said... players need to be taught that it is OK. They do not generally assume that they can rescue their own LS since they normally cannot in battle.
FTR, I still support the Ignore rule change because of the impact on new players learning the game.
So, is that really the case with new players? They are stumbling on this? And then I'd also ask, do you think this rule would help or hurt them in gameplay?
In local gameplay, it will not make a big difference. As far as new players in major tournaments, being able to use SoG/NJ on their own LSs is the least of their worries. This rule would at least buy them time to get their SoG/NJ so they can lose 5-2 in 45 minutes rather than 5-0 in 10 minutes. Psychologically speaking, if you are playing a game whose premise is to win Lost Souls, but you leave a game having rescued none, then you will become disheartened quickly. That is one of the reasons that I do not use Falling Away against new players. They need the game to end with something in their Land of Redemption. It's kind of like going to a baseball game and getting a foul ball that just drops in your lap. You didn't really do anything special, you just got lucky (like drawing your SoG). But, even if your team loses the baseball game, you still leave happy because you got that ball. In fact, if it was a playoff game and a superstar hit the ball, then it will be a day you never forget (i.e. playing Gabe at Nats and getting 2 Lost Souls against him).
-
[So, is that really the case with new players? They are stumbling on this? And then I'd also ask, do you think this rule would help or hurt them in gameplay?
In local gameplay, it will not make a big difference. As far as new players in major tournaments, being able to use SoG/NJ on their own LSs is the least of their worries. This rule would at least buy them time to get their SoG/NJ so they can lose 5-2 in 45 minutes rather than 5-0 in 10 minutes. Psychologically speaking, if you are playing a game whose premise is to win Lost Souls, but you leave a game having rescued none, then you will become disheartened quickly. That is one of the reasons that I do not use Falling Away against new players. They need the game to end with something in their Land of Redemption. It's kind of like going to a baseball game and getting a foul ball that just drops in your lap. You didn't really do anything special, you just got lucky (like drawing your SoG). But, even if your team loses the baseball game, you still leave happy because you got that ball. In fact, if it was a playoff game and a superstar hit the ball, then it will be a day you never forget (i.e. playing Gabe at Nats and getting 2 Lost Souls against him).
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Yes I know people will just bring up lost soul differential complaints but it's really really frustrating to end the majority of your games 5-0. I have been playing this game for about 6 months and have won over all 1 game last weekend 5-3, tied a game 3-3, and lost 2 games 5-4. The rest we are all totaly wipeouts for me, never getting to RA or play a defense.
-
In local gameplay, it will not make a big difference. As far as new players in major tournaments, being able to use SoG/NJ on their own LSs is the least of their worries. This rule would at least buy them time to get their SoG/NJ so they can lose 5-2 in 45 minutes rather than 5-0 in 10 minutes. Psychologically speaking, if you are playing a game whose premise is to win Lost Souls, but you leave a game having rescued none, then you will become disheartened quickly. That is one of the reasons that I do not use Falling Away against new players. They need the game to end with something in their Land of Redemption. It's kind of like going to a baseball game and getting a foul ball that just drops in your lap. You didn't really do anything special, you just got lucky (like drawing your SoG). But, even if your team loses the baseball game, you still leave happy because you got that ball. In fact, if it was a playoff game and a superstar hit the ball, then it will be a day you never forget (i.e. playing Gabe at Nats and getting 2 Lost Souls against him).
Yeah, this is a really good point and a reason I support the rule. Despite the arguments that speed will just adjust, I do think this will allow at least a small stall for players to get a couple souls, or perhaps a comeback in a more evenly matched game.
As to the argument that we are the target audience, that's not true. The target audience is the new players that we need to recruit, so that the game can GROW. I mean, we're not going to leave the game because of this rule. In fact, everyone with speed decks is admitting that they will just adjust easily. If this rule can potentially make it easier and more satisfying to play the game, it's a success.
-
since speed is still king.
Speed will always be King in a game where you need to draw your cards to get them. Various things like counters or rule changes may make speed decks have to adapt, but the concept will always be there.
My argument is that this rule changes does nothing except force speed decks to adapt, and take away one of the few effective blocks that a slower/balanced deck will have vs. a powerhouse offense, which is using SoG/NJ on your own LS's.
+1
-
As to the argument that we are the target audience, that's not true. The target audience is the new players that we need to recruit, so that the game can GROW. I mean, we're not going to leave the game because of this rule. In fact, everyone with speed decks is admitting that they will just adjust easily. If this rule can potentially make it easier and more satisfying to play the game, it's a success.
It's quite clear that you don't know what a "target audience" is. When I say target audience, I mean a type of person. (Slightly nerdy, most likely Christian, enjoys TCG's, has disposable income, etc). These are the kind of people that Cactus wants to turn into new players. "New Players" is not really a target audience per se. Not only that, but a large portion of Cactus' Redemption sales come from current players. Growing the game is important, but we have no indication whatsoever that this will help, just theory.
One thing about your last sentence. That's entirely true, but we have not determined in any way, shape, or form that this rule change will do that.
-
Yes, I know what a target audience is. I was purposefully redefining the word, if you will. The point is, in order for Cactus to increase sales and Redemption to grow, they need new players to join, not players like us to like the game MORE. If this rule can do that, and yes it's VERY arguable, but this is what the heart of the debate comes down to, then it's a good rule, even if some players hate it and think it makes speed more powerful. I hope that makes sense. My last sentence should have said, "...make it easier and more satisfying for NEW players to play the game..." Sorry for the confusion.
-
It's quite clear that you don't know what a "target audience" is.
That was unnecessarily negative, as well as untrue. "Target audience" is a term that suggests who products are designed to entice. The general game of Redemption may have the target audience you suggest (although I disagree), but specific products like Starter Decks also have a target audience. They are typically intended to entice new players that are just starting to play or collect, hence the name. In Redemption, Starter Decks are also used for the Sealed Deck category, but that is the least populated category. This new set would bolster that category temporarily. But, in the long run, Starter Decks are intended for hosts to get new players started quickly. Therefore, new players are indeed the target audience.
-
@lightningninja
1.) "Purposefully redfining" words does not help your case, especially on an internet forum, where you don't have tone and body language to back it up.
2.) If it's so arguable, where are all your points? The side for the rule has brought little factual proof to the table, claiming to have played lots of games, but never showing any real life examples.
@YMT
I'm frustrated with the lack of response from the people arguing the other side, thus my negativity. As to target audiences, lightningninja's use of the word was incorrect (new players aren't a target audience, they're a market segment), but yours is much better. Starter decks are absolutely designed for new players, and that's done fairly well. (I really like how well they match up against each other). However, what does that have to do with the rule change?
-
I'm frustrated with the lack of response from the people arguing the other side, thus my negativity.
You are always in control of your responses to life's frustrations. Choose wisely. ;D
However, what does that have to do with the rule change?
If we are ever going to make significant rule changes (both this and the ignore rule are significant), then now is the time. Starter Decks include the very important new rulebook. New players will have no prior knowledge of the rules that we take for granted. They will do what the rulebook says. If the rulebook says that you can only rescue Lost Souls in your opponents' territories, then they will do that without question. The rule would have no exceptions, so there is no room for misunderstanding. This is the ideal situation for that new player trying to learn the game.
We have to remember that there are an unknown number of people around the country that are playing Redemption right now with no clue that this Message Board exists. They do not go to tournaments, nor do they even know about the tournaments. They just gather around a table with family or friends on game night and play for the fun of it. The dad at the table wants the game to be as easy to learn as possible, so that he can play with even his youngest child.
-
I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes. I agree that the printing of a new rule book is a good time to solidify rulings one way or another because then they can be put it into print so people that don't know about the REG can still update to the changes. However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true. Everyone is affected whether they actually buy the new starter decks or not, so I don't think catering to one group of people over another should even be considered (whether it be catering to the new players who have to rely on the starter deck's rulebook or catering to the advanced players here on the board).
Simplicity is completely related to how you word something. If you use the proper verbage, anything can be simple to understand. "You can only rescue Lost Souls from opponent's Lands of Bondage" is simple, sure, but so is "You can only attack opponents; "Any" on a card means you can choose any target regardless of who controls it." It's all in how you word it (I'm an English minor, I would know, lol). Tell me this, do these new players that have trouble understanding that SoG/NJ can rescue your own souls also not realize that you can capture or convert or discard your own characters with special abilities that don't specify "opponent's"? Because, honestly, if you try to spell everything out completely in a rulebook it'll end up being so long it's not feasible to print, so some things are forced to be understood (like the fact that if some cards specify "opponent's" then there must be a reason that some don't).
You talk about exceptions, special abilities ARE exceptions, that's what they do. You can't normally draw other than your draw phase, yet Matthew lets you do it whenever he attacks; you aren't normally allowed to take an opponent's character and put it in your land of bondage as a lost soul, but capture cards let you do it. It's impossible to have a card game with unique game mechanics and anything other than battles by numbers without exceptions to game rules.
Also, since Bryon demands game experience otherwise he completely ignores comments, I will say this: While I still have not actually played any games with this rule, had it been a rule in place at today's tournament I would have lost my final match 5-0 since I had to use my SoG+NJ defensively against my opponent's Samuel speed deck. As it stands without this rule, I managed to pull out a loss with 2 rather than 0, otherwise he would have won 4 straight games 5-0. As I mentioned several pages back, I personally do not think speed is the root of the issue, it's that offenses are too powerful, and speed just helps people get those powerful cards as fast as possible.
-
I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes.
I do. We agree to disagree.
However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true.
I was not insinuating that.
-
I still haven't seen any real evidence that this rule will increase the simplicity of the game one way or the other, other than by a negligible amount. I'm not really sure why the phrase, "except when using the Son of God and New Jerusalem cards" would be such a bad idea. I'm all for making the game simpler for newer players (I struggled for a very long time with the nuances of post-block ignore, which is why I'm in favor of that specific rule change), but I think that this rule change would change the meta drastically, for very little payoff. YMT, I neglected to mention this earlier, but I actually had an extremely hard time picking up the game. It's only been since last April that I've truly started to understand the way 95% of the stuff in the game works and why it works. For the two years before that, it was only through the patience of Gabe and other players on RTS that I was able to stick with it and grow as a player, and a member of this community.
On another note, I understand that Rob is fundamentally against the idea of banning cards, and I do understand his reasoning. However, I'm forced to conclude that every single argument that has been presented in favor of this rule change could be solved with simply banning the card. This would appease those who don't like NJ to begin with, give newer players a chance to rescue a soul or two on their own since their opponent would have to rescue one more soul the "traditional" way before they could win, and it would help reduce the impact of speed. I guess what I'm saying is, can we at least open the possibility up to discussion? What if we only banned it at State level tournaments or higher, where new players will likely only be able to go with more experienced players and thus, have more knowledge of deck building than a regular player without much prior tournament experience? I just hate how the most feasible solution to the problem is being disregarded because of a long-standing rule by Rob.
-
Yes, I know what a target audience is. I was purposefully redefining the word, if you will. The point is, in order for Cactus to increase sales and Redemption to grow, they need new players to join, not players like us to like the game MORE. If this rule can do that, and yes it's VERY arguable, but this is what the heart of the debate comes down to, then it's a good rule, even if some players hate it and think it makes speed more powerful. I hope that makes sense. My last sentence should have said, "...make it easier and more satisfying for NEW players to play the game..." Sorry for the confusion.
It's more important to have a high retention rate then a high rate of new players. If this rule makes it easier for new players to learn the game (which I really don't think it will) then great, but right now it's frustrating a lot of current players, some to the point of them saying they'd no longer play if this rule were out in place. Honestly if I started having a lot of games end up like this weeks root game, then I'd probably quit to. That game was not fun. I worked hard to build and test that deck, and every single card in it. It's not my fault that my opponent couldn't compete with that deck, but having to site around and wait like for nearly half an hour without being able to do anything was frustrating. Why punish players who have been playing for a long time and have built top tier decks for investing the time and money in the game that it takes to be a top player, and I'm not even a top player yet and it's Already frustrating me. What good is adding a bunch of new players if the old ones quit and what's to keep the new ones from quitting once they become the top tier and another rule change is made in favor of new players?
-
I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes.
I do. We agree to disagree.
I fail to understand why, though. If we're so concerned about the new players that we alienate the long-standing players, I really don't see how that is beneficial for the game in the long-run. I understand your concerns about the continued influx of new players, but if we bring them in just to disregard them later down the line then what was the purpose of bringing them in to start with?
I was not insinuating that.
And yet you make comments like the first quote above that make your opinion clearly apparent that new players are more important to you than current players. From my perspective all players are equally important, new and old. And unless you find yourself willing to explain your difference of opinion I'm afraid I will continue to be in the dark. Agreeing to disagree is a cop out, I'd much rather know exactly where you're coming from so that I can talk with you on a level playing field.
I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but you're not making it easy. I don't have the experience with starting a playgroup that you have, so your references to it don't mean as much to me as you intend them to, which is not a fault of either of ours just a lack of specific common ground. We have several experienced players, some moderately experienced players, and several relatively new players in the playgroup I attend, though, so I do have a fair amount of experience with varying levels of player skill, understanding, and style. I don't claim that this is enough to understand everything, but I think it gives me enough right to receive more than just "I disagree......<silence>" as an answer.
Did you even read what I posted past the first three sentences?
-
I really don't think that the target audience of the starter deck should have any impact on rule changes. I agree that the printing of a new rule book is a good time to solidify rulings one way or another because then they can be put it into print so people that don't know about the REG can still update to the changes. However, you seem to be insinuating that the new players are the only ones who are going to be affected by this, which is very much not true. Everyone is affected whether they actually buy the new starter decks or not, so I don't think catering to one group of people over another should even be considered (whether it be catering to the new players who have to rely on the starter deck's rulebook or catering to the advanced players here on the board).
100% I think this is incorrect, and I've said why. Setting aside the previous 14 pages, to isolate this argument for simplicities' sake. Cactus needs new players to grow. The simpler the game, the more new players can adapt. If you are [upset] about this rule, but 5 new players join, Cactus is OVERJOYED that they made the change. I mean, they will regret that you are upset, and they hope you understand, but if it gets new players, it's worth it. You're not going to quit the game because of this, it's not THAT big of an issue. But it could be big enough to bring in new players, which is a good choice. Once again, setting aside the argument of "if it simplifies the game," IF it were to simplify the game for argumentation's sake, it would be a good rule. Even if it upset some experienced players.
-
Except I'm not sure how you can even entertain the idea that this rule change will make or break someone joining the game. If someone gets to that point in the rules and throws their deck away because this particular rule is too complicated for them, they weren't going to last very long anyways. To imply that something so minor to the actual rules themselves would make that big of an impact is nothing short of wild speculation.
-
I agree with the Ninja that I did not see this rule as "alienating" experienced payers. Throughout the years we have all had debates about rulings and rule changes. There are times when I was very vocal about the changes, even saying that I would leave the game. But, ultimately, I remember that this game is not about me. I have a higher purpose as a host, as I have explained, which is to bring more players into the game. Ideally, I am not bringing them into the game to win tournaments. I am bringing them into the game so that they are inundated with the Word of God in a fun way. We just added a new player to Redemption Disney yesterday. He is unsaved and his family needs a miracle. Redemption is just a foot in the door.
When I sit back and look at the bigger picture, I realize that whatever rulings occur that I disagree with (even vehemently), I will get over it in time, and life will move on. There are a few players who will let it get to them enough to walk away (STAMP, I'm looking at you), but we are hopeful that we can lure them back in eventually. ;)
So, for those that oppose this ruling, I have nothing against your stance. Your voice may win the debate, and that is fine. I would like to see the rule change for reasons I already mentioned, but that is the end of it for me. I have no desire to alienate (or infuriate) any of my brother/sisters in Christ. I just want the game easier to teach because of my specific bias. Peace be to all. ;D
-
:o
Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby. Now that my boat is gone it's not expensive anymore. So I'm back. But not in the same capacity.
My motivation for the rules ebbs and flows. For every great rule change (unredeemable demons, this one) there are some real McFly ones (pre-loaded enhancements). But overall it's improving greatly. It's like the stock market over the course of time.
I'm really enjoying the game right now. I play games at home with TJ and our old playgroup gets together every once in awhile to play unsanctioned tournaments. That probably won't change for awhile.
-
100% I think this is incorrect, and I've said why. Setting aside the previous 14 pages, to isolate this argument for simplicities' sake. Cactus needs new players to grow. The simpler the game, the more new players can adapt. If you are [upset] about this rule, but 5 new players join, Cactus is OVERJOYED that they made the change. I mean, they will regret that you are upset, and they hope you understand, but if it gets new players, it's worth it. You're not going to quit the game because of this, it's not THAT big of an issue. But it could be big enough to bring in new players, which is a good choice.
I'm not denying that new players are important, I'm really not. I just disagree that they're the ONLY important people. No, most people aren't going to leave if one ruling doesn't go their way, but that doesn't mean they're not important. Growing is great for a game, but you can't grow if current players flood out even as new players flood in. One ruling going their way is not going to make most people leave, but ignore them enough times and yeah they will leave because it's not going to be worth it to them anymore when their opinion doesn't seem to matter to anyone. Would you enjoy a hobby where the people in charge trick you into getting into it with "simple" gameplay and promises of your voice mattering just to get you within their folds and promptly treat you like you don't matter? That's what you and YMT seem to be advocating. The mark of a good game is one that can attract new players AND keep long-standing players, I don't see why you're so vehement about helping one and avoiding the other.
Besides, as YMT has clearly pointed out, new players aren't only brought into the game by their own volition with a starter deck and rulebook. YMT himself has said he's started new playgroups in 5 states, presumably including bringing some new players into the game. Without his experience and years with the game I doubt it would have gone nearly as smoothly. If we choose to throw away the importance of players once they're playing, they'll be less likely to bring new people in as they continue which, in the end, leads to a decrease of new players coming in. That seems to be the opposite result that you and YMT think is all-important.
Once again, setting aside the argument of "if it simplifies the game," IF it were to simplify the game for argumentation's sake, it would be a good rule. Even if it upset some experienced players.
That's a big if, and so far there hasn't been any proof that it really simplifies the game like you say. Like I said earlier, concepts can be as simple as you word them. You can word the current rule as simply as you are saying you can word the new rule.
tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?
-
tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?
Really really stuck because its the veterans who bring in the new players. Im pretty certain Im a convert, of a convert of a convert. SomeKittens can correct me if I'm wrong onthis order. ,
-
I'm not denying that new players are important, I'm really not. I just disagree that they're the ONLY important people.
And I'm not denying that experienced players are important, nor am I saying that new players are the ONLY important people. I am saying that new players are the most important to me, for my own selfish reasons. ;D
...but ignore them enough times and yeah they will leave because it's not going to be worth it to them anymore when their opinion doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
So I should leave the game because you continue to ignore the fact that I was offering my opinion to those that asked for my opinion. I was never interested in debating my opinion, or having someone else tear it apart. I was offering my opinion because it was asked for. The end.
Would you enjoy a hobby where the people in charge trick you into getting into it with "simple" gameplay and promises of your voice mattering just to get you within their folds and promptly treat you like you don't matter? That's what you and YMT seem to be advocating.
LOL. I have nothing more to say to such comments.
-
Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby.
My apologies, then, for pointing you out. I may have been the only one that thought that. I guess all the talk about ANB and redeemed demons led me to believe that those were contributing factors to your decision. Sorry about that. :-\
-
Wow, I apologize to the community if anyone felt I left because of a disagreement with rules. That was never an issue. I left because I had a more expensive hobby.
My apologies, then, for pointing you out. I may have been the only one that thought that. I guess all the talk about ANB and redeemed demons led me to believe that those were contributing factors to your decision. Sorry about that. :-\
No harm, no foul. :)
Most of the time I'm like Steve Irwin. I see a dangerous ruling thread, I'm like, "Look, mate, it's a highly dangerous ruling thread! I'm going to poke it with a stick." ;)
-
tl;dr - New players are important, yes. But growth requires retention, not just addition, and if you ignore the veterans long enough they're inevitably going to stop caring and leave and then where will we be?
Really really stuck because its the veterans who bring in the new players. Im pretty certain Im a convert, of a convert of a convert. SomeKittens can correct me if I'm wrong onthis order. ,
John M's the one who got me into the game.
-
No harm, no foul. :)
I decided to make it up to you by being right about the 49ers. ;)
-
And I'm not denying that experienced players are important, nor am I saying that new players are the ONLY important people. I am saying that new players are the most important to me, for my own selfish reasons. ;D
Well, now we're getting somewhere. :P
So I should leave the game because you continue to ignore the fact that I was offering my opinion to those that asked for my opinion. I was never interested in debating my opinion, or having someone else tear it apart. I was offering my opinion because it was asked for. The end.
I haven't ignored anything, not on purpose at least. This whole time I've just been trying to understand why you hold your opinion so that I can reflect upon that and determine exactly why I hold my differing opinion (and make sure that's how I really feel, which I believe it is). I'm sorry if you felt ignored, it was not my intention. However, I really did read your comments and take away that you thought new players were the ONLY important people, which you have since said is not true so I will do my best to remember that.
-
No harm, no foul. :)
I decided to make it up to you by being right about the 49ers. ;)
Then no one was more right than you! ;)