To the point where you should probably be limited to one lost soul copy per team.
QuoteTo the point where you should probably be limited to one lost soul copy per team.
That's another topic for discussion but I am very intrigued by that idea. 8)
As far as rotating sets, we need to keep in mind that a large part of the Redemption player base is younger players who may not have easy access to online information. Yes, playgroup leaders and hosts can help, but what is a host to do when 5 young/new players show up with decks that include a bunch of cards from sets that have been rotated out?
Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.
As far as rotating sets, we need to keep in mind that a large part of the Redemption player base is younger players who may not have easy access to online information. Yes, playgroup leaders and hosts can help, but what is a host to do when 5 young/new players show up with decks that include a bunch of cards from sets that have been rotated out?
And quite frankly if a new player came to a tournament with a deck made mostly from priests and older cards they would probably not have a good time.
Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.
Producing multiple sets per year has nothing to do with the viability of set rotation. If Redemption used rotation then the playable years would simply be a larger range and/or slower rotation than TCGS that produce sets faster and rotate more quickly.
As for rotation making the scene "most exclusive" and unfriendly to new players, it actually has the opposite affect. Players would no longer have to buy old, expensive, out of print cards to make tournament viable decks.
QuoteAnd quite frankly if a new player came to a tournament with a deck made mostly from priests and older cards they would probably not have a good time.
That's not necessarily true. The tournament I ran last weekend included 2 young players who are still in the "upgraded" starter deck phase. They both have I starter decks which they have gradually upgraded (using a mix of older and newer cards). They both had a good time, and one of my favorite moments was when Asahel24601 gave one of the young players a Goliath promo to replace the Unlimited version he was using in his deck.
If I come to a tournament and find out a 20+ year old card is banned, I chalk it up to not being knowledgeable on my part. If I come to a tournament and find out what's printed on a card is vastly different than what it actually does, I would be less inclined to trust the cards going forward.
QuoteIf I come to a tournament and find out a 20+ year old card is banned, I chalk it up to not being knowledgeable on my part. If I come to a tournament and find out what's printed on a card is vastly different than what it actually does, I would be less inclined to trust the cards going forward.
What if the card with errata was also a 20+ year old card? ::)
Would it be nice to start chopping down the errata list by retiring the older sets from competitive play? Perhaps, but I also don't think it's a huge issue to need to know the mere handful of "significant" erratas (i.e. those that fundamentally change how the card works and are not intuitive based on how the card is printed).
Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.
I am just saying that at a fundamental level Redemption is not set up to do a rotation successfully (small player base, card pool, and financial reasons). I think we would agree that a set rotation would add to competitive experiences and meta enrichment.
I agree with Hobbit...
Quote from: YourMathTeacherI agree with Hobbit...
Is this a sign of the Apocalypse??? :o
A) reprints of errata'd cards (such as Mayhem), even if it took up a slot out of a future set
QuoteA) reprints of errata'd cards (such as Mayhem), even if it took up a slot out of a future set
Taking that a step further--an entire set (a Redemption Legacy set perhaps?) comprised of cards from older sets that we don't want to lose if we ended up banning certain sets from competitive play. They would be given fresh looks (new design layout, possibly new art if the old art is not that great) and obviously be updated with modern language. 8)
QuoteA) reprints of errata'd cards (such as Mayhem), even if it took up a slot out of a future set
Taking that a step further--an entire set (a Redemption Legacy set perhaps?) comprised of cards from older sets that we don't want to lose if we ended up banning certain sets from competitive play. They would be given fresh looks (new design layout, possibly new art if the old art is not that great) and obviously be updated with modern language. 8)
Expanding on this idea (which I a pretty sure some of us have thought about in the past) there are ~80 cards from priests back that range from balanced and useful to even remotely useful and somewhat broken.If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?
This conversation is all over the. place...
I'm going to resist the temptation the bite on the spoilers Justin feeding us and discuss the idea of set rotation. At some point in Redemption's future I expect that we'll have a large enough pool of cards that use the new card face that we could divide the game into two formats using the design change as the dividing point. The "new" format will only use cards that don't have text over the picture (I/J forward) while people could still play the original format where everything back to the beginning of the game is legal. If we get close to going this direction we will very likely see some old cards printed on the new card face in a set, or maybe as a set all their own.
Seriously, what problem(s) are you (you == all the set rotation proponents) trying to solve?
Seriously, what problem(s) are you (you == all the set rotation proponents) trying to solve?
Removing cards that are unhealthy (Mayhem), removing the cards that cause consistency creep and enable over powered decks (CoL), and removing cards that stifle design space (Throne).
There are a few other posts I've made that have a bit more detail on each of these points if you have questions.
If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?
I agree with Hobbit on both of these posts:Ccgs that do set rotation produce multiple sets per year and don't have to worry about building a player base anymore. Redemption naturally loses people who don't want to collect the new set each year, set rotation would set up a much more exclusive atmosphere. Not to mention a drop in sales of older product which would, imo, be unfair to 3 Lions Gaming.I am just saying that at a fundamental level Redemption is not set up to do a rotation successfully (small player base, card pool, and financial reasons). I think we would agree that a set rotation would add to competitive experiences and meta enrichment.
My son and I used to play in Pokemon tournaments, but we stopped because I could not afford to keep up with purchasing each new set. It was also frustrating to take the time to put together an effective deck, only to have some of the cards end up banned because of the set rotation. I am just the kind of person that wanted to tweak a really fun deck, rather than start from scratch every other year.
If I wanted to return to Redemption tournaments now, after several years away, I would want to be able to take my old deck and play, even if it got overpowered by new cards. What I would not want is to have no deck whatsoever and have to go buy a bunch of boosters to start all over again, likely with a theme that I have never played before. That would definitely be a turnoff for me.
For the record...
I am for set rotation to a degree as long as the sets being rotated out still have a place in competitive play via their own category or play (i.e. Legacy).
I am for reprinting cards from said "Legacy" card pool with updated wording and the new card face in place of another set in the future.
I am for printing this "Legacy' set in the same year that we split the formats and outline that plan on the packaging of the set.
I am for doing this in three to four years when our cardpool of new card faces will be around 1700+ cards and Cactus has sold down their old inventory.
I don't like banning specific cards unless we decide to not split formats in which case it is the most desirable option. (as a player and host, not as TLG)
I really don't like issuing errata on cards when only a small percentage of people playing the game are privy to that change. (due to lack of access or initiative)
Seeing the list that Justin shared, it might be beneficial for us to have something (i.e. poster) for playgroups to post that outline all the cards that have had errata issued for them with specific focus and space spent on the handful of often used cards that have the most significant errata.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests. If you want to maintain a viable, diverse card pool with one smallish set a year coming in you are looking at four or five years before any of these rotate out. If they are really a problem that need to be addressed now then ban them.Seriously, what problem(s) are you (you == all the set rotation proponents) trying to solve?
Removing cards that are unhealthy (Mayhem), removing the cards that cause consistency creep and enable over powered decks (CoL), and removing cards that stifle design space (Throne).
There are a few other posts I've made that have a bit more detail on each of these points if you have questions.
If the cards are *not* played, they are not a problem. If you don't want to play Angel Food or Bad Figs or ..., then don't play them. They cause absolutely zero harm being left in the card pool. So how many problems does the old wording/design of those "80" cards cause.If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?
This is the exact reason why these sets should be rotated out, whatever cards are useful in them use old wording/design and the rest of the undeniably useless cards have no reason to exist. :)
If the cards are *not* played, they are not a problem. If you don't want to play Angel Food or Bad Figs or ..., then don't play them. They cause absolutely zero harm being left in the card pool. So how many problems does the old wording/design of those "80" cards cause.If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?
This is the exact reason why these sets should be rotated out, whatever cards are useful in them use old wording/design and the rest of the undeniably useless cards have no reason to exist. :)
Like I said, set rotation is designed to fix a set of problems with *CG's. If those problems are not ones that currently plague Redemption, set rotation won't resolve them.
Like I said, set rotation is designed to fix a set of problems with *CG's. If those problems are not ones that currently plague Redemption, set rotation won't resolve them.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests.
I never said I wanted to rotate at Priests. I'm aware the card pool doesn't support this yet but I believe the tin sets and TexP should be included in the rotation.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests.
I never said I wanted to rotate at Priests. I'm aware the card pool doesn't support this yet but I believe the tin sets and TexP should be included in the rotation.
Just to clarify why I said Priests and before.
I was specifically talking about reprinting cards from original-Priests that are useful and include the in a single boxed set.
Once you get to the point of rotating sets like FooF, RoA, TExP Those will need to be dealt with separately.
Again, starting with the old sets is a stepping stone that can be built upon.
None of these cards would be hit by rotation at the start because they are all post-Priests. If you want to maintain a viable, diverse card pool with one smallish set a year coming in you are looking at four or five years before any of these rotate out. If they are really a problem that need to be addressed now then ban them.Seriously, what problem(s) are you (you == all the set rotation proponents) trying to solve?
Removing cards that are unhealthy (Mayhem), removing the cards that cause consistency creep and enable over powered decks (CoL), and removing cards that stifle design space (Throne).
There are a few other posts I've made that have a bit more detail on each of these points if you have questions.If the cards are *not* played, they are not a problem. If you don't want to play Angel Food or Bad Figs or ..., then don't play them. They cause absolutely zero harm being left in the card pool. So how many problems does the old wording/design of those "80" cards cause.If there are only 80 cards that even see play, why are you looking at set rotation?
This is the exact reason why these sets should be rotated out, whatever cards are useful in them use old wording/design and the rest of the undeniably useless cards have no reason to exist. :)
Like I said, set rotation is designed to fix a set of problems with *CG's. If those problems are not ones that currently plague Redemption, set rotation won't resolve them.
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.
If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).
It doesn't matter if all of the benefits of rotating sets are seen at the moment it's implemented, even though a lot still would be (liners for example). What matters is setting up a system whereby we don't need to have the discussion of whether or not to ban, errata, or change game rules to fix cards that are 12+ years old, because of new cards/strategies/themes/metas that they conflict with.Re-opening design space is a legitimate game design reason for having set rotation. So what new cards/strategies/themes/metas are the cards in Unlimited or Kings or Angel Wars or ... hindering? If anything I have seen the design team trying to come up with new ways to get the older cards to be *more* interactive rather than worrying about them causing issues.
Whether we started rotating sets right now with a 1700+ card pool going back to tins/priests or if we started it 4-5 years from now with a 1700+ card pool from I/J it will ultimately prolong the sustainability of the game.Why? Given that Redemption--without set rotation--is now the second oldest CCG in existence, and that a goodly number of failed CCGs have had some form of set rotation, what evidence can you provide that this set rotation for Redemption will prolong the game's sustainability or longevity?
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point...Why?
Why?
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
What evidence can you provide that this set rotation for Redemption will prolong the game's sustainability or longevity?
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.
If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point, I would not be in favor of cutting that many sets right off the bat (Priests and earlier or even everything pre-Priests). If my math is correct, cutting everything Priests and earlier takes over 1800 cards out of the card pool. I know that a majority of those cards are never used in open deck play, but there's still going to be hundreds of cards that are playable and get lost as a result.
If set retirement were implemented in the near future, I would prefer to start more gradually (say with the first 3 sets).
Anything done in this fashion would absolutely not be able to include Priests, as that would basically put an end to the priests themselves and hinder demons as well. I could easily see Pre-Kings. That would allow for each color to be represented well, and even eliminate several of the problem cards people are talking about (Liner, Haman's Plot, ANB).
I see no downside whatsoever to rotating out every set from priests and before IF a set is printed similar to a starter deck that gives players easy access to the cards from those sets that are playable because it will start the cycle of rotating sets and eventually lead to the rotation of sets with more problem cards.
One possible solution to avoid one mass rotation of Original - Priests would be to make the change over the course of 4 years and every year create a small pack of perhaps 20 reprinted cards.
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existenceWhere did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...
While I am in favor of retiring the oldest sets from competitive play at some point...Why?
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existenceWhere did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...
Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existenceWhere did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...
Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existenceWhere did you get this idea? It's completely untrue ...
Wait, what? What other CCGs have been active longer than MtG and Redemption?
There are quite a few but the most well-known one is MTG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collectible_card_games
MTG is the only still active ccg from pre-1995
You mean I should simply make a bald assertion of my own with no support at all? OK... Having set rotation would cause Redemption to falter and fail. Whoo-hoo!Why?
You would greatly contribute to the discussion if you rebutted the people answering your "Why?" instead of simply repeating "Why?" ad nauseam.
Given that Redemption is now the second oldest CCG in existence
Where did you get this idea?
Seriously, I don't see how simply throwing out unsupported assertions really advances the discussion. Nor do I understand why asking people to provide support for their claims is too much to ask for.
Unless you are complaining that I simply asked The Guardian, "Why?" That was an expression of interest in hearing more about the reasons behind his opinion since I find it slightly at odds with his other posts on this thread, and I respect his insight.
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?
Sorry, didn't read the intervening posts. I was indeed talking about active CCGs--of which Redemption is now the second oldest.
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?
Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.
Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?
Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.
Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.
I think we're all in agreement on this point. ;D
You have MtG and... Huh, I can't think of any other active CCG that has been around as long as Redemption. Which ones do you think have been around longer?
Can we just be clear that you are talking about TCGs that are being currently produced by the original publisher.
Because there are plenty of TCGs that you could consider to have "been around" before Redemption besides MTG.
I think we're all in agreement on this point. ;D
Yeah, but ours is still the best though, that's the main point to take away from this.
For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?
That was actually a fun deviation. We should do that more often. ;D
Back on topic, I just want it to be stated that I am opposed to banning cards, and I do not support set rotations. I will not be posting any dissertations, nor will I provide formal argument procedures. I just don't like the idea and I'm grumpy. :P
QuoteFor starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?
I have some thoughts on this, but I think it should be it own discussion. We're starting to stray pretty far from the original topic. I know things are inter-connected (ban list/rotation/power creep/consistency creep), but we should probably circle back to the Liner topic.
Hyper link for u lazy scrubz (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/positive-and-negative-effects-of-set-rotation/)QuoteFor starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?
I have some thoughts on this, but I think it should be it own discussion. We're starting to stray pretty far from the original topic. I know things are inter-connected (ban list/rotation/power creep/consistency creep), but we should probably circle back to the Liner topic.
As you wish: http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/positive-and-negative-effects-of-set-rotation/
I don't want to seem rude but that kind of stats-quo thinking isn't gonna solve any problems :P
I don't want to seem rude but that kind of stats-quo thinking isn't gonna solve any problems :P
No offense taken. ;D
I don't see the Liner as a problem. It's been around since the very first set and it will be fine for 23 more years.
And it has been causing problems for 23 years as well.
For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?I believe arguments about mathematics need to be shown to have a relation to reality. I look at the CoL deck list from Nats and I see few cards that would be rotated out (under the proposals here), and the ones that would are not the real culprits. Looking at the deck it also seems to me that CoL is the card that is way above the curve, and one that should not have been printed knowing nothing more than what was in the set immediately before.
As far as Redemption ccg being the second oldest ccg still around....I know MtG and Pokemon have also been here since the 90's too.MtG was the oldest at 1993. The first wave appeared in 1994-1995, of which Redemption is the only survivor. Pokemon was 1999.
As far as Redemption ccg being the second oldest ccg still around....I know MtG and Pokemon have also been here since the 90's too.
Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the CoL specifically. I started writing about before deciding it was going to be way off track.
It would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.
QuoteIt would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.
If you think of the card pool that was available at the time, there were no "autoblocks" besides Christian Martyr. Therefore a card like Liner could help a player extend the game by another turn (unless his opponent was wise enough to hold onto Son of God). I wasn't around at the very beginning, but that's my educated guess on the thinking behind the Liner.
Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the CoL specifically. I started writing about before deciding it was going to be way off track.
I am very interested to hear what you were writing over here (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/consistency-creep-and-col/) 8)
TGT was phased out of the meta because of a significant rule change, several years of printed counters and a massive amount of power creep.For starters, what is your opinion of the mathematical inevitability of consistency creep sans rotation and the specific example of how it is already plaguing Redemption in the form of the CoL deck?I believe arguments about mathematics need to be shown to have a relation to reality. I look at the CoL deck list from Nats and I see few cards that would be rotated out (under the proposals here), and the ones that would are not the real culprits. Looking at the deck it also seems to me that CoL is the card that is way above the curve, and one that should not have been printed knowing nothing more than what was in the set immediately before.
Since you disagree, please explain to me how any of the proposed set rotation schems would make the CoL deck less OP. Please do not, however, put forward the claim that it will help things in four or five years, unless you can show that CoL will still be a problem in four or five years. Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.
And it has been causing problems for 23 years as well.
And yet we're still here... ;)
Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.
This is exactly why Liner shouldn't be a thing anymore. Defenses nowadays have plenty of powerful options without a free block.QuoteIt would be genuinely helpful to know the actual initial intent of the card.
If you think of the card pool that was available at the time, there were no "autoblocks" besides Christian Martyr. Therefore a card like Liner could help a player extend the game by another turn (unless his opponent was wise enough to hold onto Son of God). I wasn't around at the very beginning, but that's my educated guess on the thinking behind the Liner.
I concur. A stall technique to buy time for building defense.
If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play.If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.
If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.
Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.
I don't feel that Redemption's goal should be to mirror other TCGs. The obvious other reason that companies use set rotation is to make more money. If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play. ...
I have no problem with a "Legacy" type format, but I have found that those formats are not present at the local tournaments in my area, which once again limits my participation.
Every other major TCG uses set rotation to avoid the problems I mentioned above and that's why I'm for it.
I don't feel that Redemption's goal should be to mirror other TCGs. The obvious other reason that companies use set rotation is to make more money. If you don't buy the newest cards, then you don't play. I have no problem with a "Legacy" type format, but I have found that those formats are not present at the local tournaments in my area, which once again limits my participation. For Redemption, if a host holds both formats, but I'm the only one that brought a Legacy deck, then I'm out. I do not support this option.
I have no problem losing.Then you are in the minority. There is a reason we keep score and have tournaments that determine winners and losers.
If you don't have the newest cards you won't be very competitive even without rotation.
I have no problem losing. I'm actually quite good at it. But not being able to play at all will make me grumpy(er).
Yes, but should competitive play be sacrificed in the long run because we want casual players to be comfortable in a competitive tournament setting?
I think you guys missed my point, which was about being able to play versus not being able to play (in sanctioned tournaments). I hate to break it to you, but there can only be one winner. The rest all lose at some point, so I think we all lose plenty of times. ;)
Yes, but should competitive play be sacrificed in the long run because we want casual players to be comfortable in a competitive tournament setting?
LOL. You really can't see through my tongue-in-cheek words to get to my main point? This isn't about comfort. It's about not being able to play because my deck is not legal. Why should I have to shell out hundreds of dollars to play Redemption when I already have thousands of cards?
After TGT* came Thaddeus. After Thaddeus came AUtO. Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.TGT was phased out of the meta because of a significant rule change, several years of printed counters and a massive amount of power creep.
Inconsistent wording, erratas to change how cards fundamentally work, the complexity of the game rising and rising, power creep, constantly printing counters to broken meta strategies makes casual play a chore. I don't think it's asking much to say only the last 10-12 years of sets can be used in a competition setting. That means any card you acquired in the last 10-12 years is legal for tournament play. Don't increase the frequency of sets, don't make the rotation like 2-4 years, don't continue to make OP Ultra rares that are essential in every deck and there's no additional money required to play competitively and enjoy the game.I don't see your argument. Specifically I don't see how rotation would fix card errata, rising complexity, power creep, broken meta, and printing of OP ultra rares. Or are you saying that given all of these other problems, set rotation would be small potatoes?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the argument...
After TGT* came Thaddeus. After Thaddeus came AUtO. Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?Back in the day TGT was a similar above-curve card. It seriously warped the meta for over two years. Nowadays no one seems to have much of a problem with it. By the time CoL would rotate out (under any of the proposals here), it too will most likely be an after thought in the meta.TGT was phased out of the meta because of a significant rule change, several years of printed counters and a massive amount of power creep.
*TGT was no longer the dominant deck well before the ignore ruling?
From a historical perspective, TGT makes CoL look like a piker, in that it almost destroyed the game single-handedly. For two plus years the *only* deck you could play that had a chance to win was TGT.After TGT* came Thaddeus. After Thaddeus came AUtO. Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?
A. I don't believe any of those cards are even comparable to CoL except maybe AUtO and even that isn't close because it only affects one offense.
B. Those cards got replaced because of power creep. Recent sets have hit the desired power level the designs want and thus there will no longer be intentional power creep (I assume so since I have faith in the card designers), so no, I do not believe anything with replace CoL unless it is actively nerfed in some way. If ignored it will get stronger over time, not weaker.OK.
I'm old enough to remember those days, but CoL is definitely worse.From a historical perspective, TGT makes CoL look like a piker, in that it almost destroyed the game single-handedly. For two plus years the *only* deck you could play that had a chance to win was TGT.After TGT* came Thaddeus. After Thaddeus came AUtO. Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?
A. I don't believe any of those cards are even comparable to CoL except maybe AUtO and even that isn't close because it only affects one offense.B. Those cards got replaced because of power creep. Recent sets have hit the desired power level the designs want and thus there will no longer be intentional power creep (I assume so since I have faith in the card designers), so no, I do not believe anything with replace CoL unless it is actively nerfed in some way. If ignored it will get stronger over time, not weaker.OK.
From a historical perspective, TGT makes CoL look like a piker, in that it almost destroyed the game single-handedly. For two plus years the *only* deck you could play that had a chance to win was TGT.After TGT* came Thaddeus. After Thaddeus came AUtO. Are you saying that you believe that nothing will replace CoL?
A. I don't believe any of those cards are even comparable to CoL except maybe AUtO and even that isn't close because it only affects one offense.
That's a nice sentiment but entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
But again if the only reason to not do something that improves the competitive side is because the casual side is affected I do not think that is a good thing to do.
I'm old enough to remember those days, but CoL is definitely worse.If that is the case, I hope y'all don't lose another 50% of active players due to a rancid meta.
But again if the only reason to not do something that improves the competitive side is because the casual side is affected I do not think that is a good thing to do.
Likewise, let's not concern ourselves with those silly casualplayersplayerYMT.
----------------------------
FWIW, I do realize that my opinion is in the vast minority, and I'm fine with that. I admit that I am concerned with the general sentiment that the minority doesn't deserve the same voice as the competitive majority. If the goal is to be just like Magic the Gathering, then we are just about there. Congratulations.
Tournaments are primarily for competitive players.
Therefore, options that favor the competitive playerbase are more important...
This is not the same thing as saying casual players are not an important part of the Redemption community
... nor does it have anything to do with Magic: The Gathering.
Tournaments are primarily for competitive players.
But not only for competitive players. Almost all of my tournaments were for young players at my school. Kids get so excited about playing in an official tournament. They love getting the free promo, and taking part in something beyond just Game Club. Casual players enjoy the thrill of the tournament just the same as competitive players. The difference is that the casual player can leave a tournament having lost all their games and still be giddy because they got to be in an official tournament.Therefore, options that favor the competitive playerbase are more important...
That's your biased opinion, because you are a competitive player. I happen to disagree. Of course, I'm biased too. ;DThis is not the same thing as saying casual players are not an important part of the Redemption community
Read as "You can play at home all you want, just don't come to our tournaments because we're super serious! :maul:... nor does it have anything to do with Magic: The Gathering.
It does actually, since catering only to the competitive players creates an atmosphere where winning is everything. This, in turn, leads to a feeling that winning at all costs seems worth the risk, especially when lucrative prizes are on the line.
However, I was actually referring to JonathanW's post about being like the other TCGs. :)
It honestly sounds like you're saying rotating sets would make it impossible for casual players to participate in tournaments....
My evidence to that is that not only did CoL win Nats but every proper CoL deck placed higher than every non CoL deck. If that isn't dominance I don't know what is.
It honestly sounds like you're saying rotating sets would make it impossible for casual players to participate in tournaments....
I was simply giving an opposing view. You were not dismissing me as quickly as the others, so I appreciate your patience.
When I start playgroups in schools, I give away hundreds of cards each year to get them started. Since I cannot afford to keep buying cards, I give them the older cards from my vast collection. Many of my students (and their parents) cannot afford to buy cards either, so they are quite content to use the old cards I give them. Limiting the use of these cards in any way creates a problem for them, so I will not condone this practice.
However, with that said, I realize that my situation is unique. The PTB have to make decisions that impact far more than just my tiny circle. I will support whatever decision is made, and enforce it at my school. I just find it necessary to make sure that my students are spoken for, no matter how insignificant they may seem to the competitive majority.
Set rotation wouldn’t make your students cards unplayable, they simply wouldn’t be able to bring their decks to official competitive tournaments. You can still play for fun and hold unofficial tournaments to your heart’s content.
Set rotation wouldn’t make your students cards unplayable, they simply wouldn’t be able to bring their decks to official competitive tournaments. You can still play for fun and hold unofficial tournaments to your heart’s content.
So again (as stated in my other post), my students do not get to have promos and the satisfaction of playing in an official tournament, which would make their semester. I will never support such a brush off of my students.
Set rotation wouldn’t make your students cards unplayable, they simply wouldn’t be able to bring their decks to official competitive tournaments. You can still play for fun and hold unofficial tournaments to your heart’s content.
So again (as stated in my other post), my students do not get to have promos and the satisfaction of playing in an official tournament, which would make their semester. I will never support such a brush off of my students.
What if, at the local and district level, Cactus let the tournament organizer specify whether the tournament they were holding was using a "legacy" or standard format for constructed events to that the big competitive tournaments could be standardized around the competitive format while smaller tournaments could decide for themselves based on their playground and still be official and receive promos either way?
As Redemption is uniquely based on the Bible, I believe that fellowship and witnessing should always be the primary factors to consider when making such important decisions as we're discussing.
I really like that all the cards in the game are legal and hope that it will always be that way (although I would be ok with a select very very few cards being banned if they were deemed detrimental enough to the game). Each card represents a Bible character, event, etc. and therefore is special and that's why I want them all to remain part of the game. Even if a particular card isn't likely to be included in a deck, it still represents something important because it's from the Bible and that's what this game ultimately is about.
If each of the seldom-played cards were to reprinted with an upgraded special ability, that would be really cool, but I don't know how realistic that is at this point.
Is this for real??? Would be terrific to keep in Reserve!!
Is this for real??? Would be terrific to keep in Reserve!!
If that we're real it would become the new definition of "patch" lol.... :P
Is this for real??? Would be terrific to keep in Reserve!!
If that we're real it would become the new definition of "patch" lol.... :P
I think you mean "deterrent." ;)
I don't see the Liner as a problem. It's been around since the very first set and it will be fine for 23 more years.
So you would be free from the unpleasantness that was the 2016 Nats meta, where just about every other deck (that I seemed to play against) ran Confusion (CoW), DoU &/or Suicidal Swine Stampede...and the Liner was the worst offender in it.
QuoteSo you would be free from the unpleasantness that was the 2016 Nats meta, where just about every other deck (that I seemed to play against) ran Confusion (CoW), DoU &/or Suicidal Swine Stampede...and the Liner was the worst offender in it.
Or you could just play T2 where Rescuer's Choice is a thing... ::)
;)
QuoteSo you would be free from the unpleasantness that was the 2016 Nats meta, where just about every other deck (that I seemed to play against) ran Confusion (CoW), DoU &/or Suicidal Swine Stampede...and the Liner was the worst offender in it.
Or you could just play T2 where Rescuer's Choice is a thing... ::)
;)
I came into this post late and have only read a few pages of the discussion so just ignore me if this has already been discussed or mentioned. Why not test a "standard" format at Nationals? That way we can see the viability of such a format as well as gauge the interest in this format over the current format.I really think this whole 'casual vs competitive' player thing is a false dichotomy. No one is making a living off of winning Redemption tournaments, and even the recent increased value of Nationals prizes will not cover travel expenses for most players. In the four Nationals I've attended since 2012, I've placed in the top 20 in T1-2P each time. In all my time at the top tables, the atmosphere is almost always very enjoyable. I believe it was Polarius who commented at Nats last year about how even in the latter rounds of T1 everyone was cracking jokes and having fun. Sure there will always be a few try hards, but those people are the exception in my experience.
Also as a more casual player I kinda side with YMT in the fact that cutting card pools might prevent casual players from playing and in most tournaments I've been at there have only been a handful of people (aside from nationals). While I understand players who want to see more of a competitive format for redemption, for me redemption wasn't made to be a competitive format and was made for fun and fellowship. I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive.
Disagree.QuoteSo you would be free from the unpleasantness that was the 2016 Nats meta, where just about every other deck (that I seemed to play against) ran Confusion (CoW), DoU &/or Suicidal Swine Stampede...and the Liner was the worst offender in it.
Or you could just play T2 where Rescuer's Choice is a thing... ::)
;)
As much as I love t2, I despise t2. rescuer's choice makes a deck full of auto and chump blocks the only viable kind of deck to run at a competitive tournament.
Ok, that's just been my experience, partially with how i built my deck, and partially what i have experienced playing against other t2 players. The only decks that beat mine were ones that had chump blocks (Protect 1 soul, shuffle/topdeck, etc), or had play first cbn enhancements as the main block. And justin. Justin always beats me in t2, but, that's because he's justin.Disagree.QuoteSo you would be free from the unpleasantness that was the 2016 Nats meta, where just about every other deck (that I seemed to play against) ran Confusion (CoW), DoU &/or Suicidal Swine Stampede...and the Liner was the worst offender in it.
Or you could just play T2 where Rescuer's Choice is a thing... ::)
;)
As much as I love t2, I despise t2. rescuer's choice makes a deck full of auto and chump blocks the only viable kind of deck to run at a competitive tournament.
Justin always beats me in t2, but, that's because he's justin.(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_-VsSxc2u9GhUV-HUsifVV8MZg2GwAQPhJTEF2k1ZMSalvQ9D)
I'm not sure it's a false dichotomy, but perhaps simply one where people draw the line at different points.
The "competitive" top tables can certainly be fun and relaxed, but that doesn't mean people there are going to let an opponent undo a misplay whereas in a game between two people with more casual attitudes they might be okay with a misplay being undone.
I'm not sure it's a false dichotomy, but perhaps simply one where people draw the line at different points.
The "competitive" top tables can certainly be fun and relaxed, but that doesn't mean people there are going to let an opponent undo a misplay whereas in a game between two people with more casual attitudes they might be okay with a misplay being undone.
I agree with this definition clarity. Other examples:
1. Back when you could win more than 5 Lost Souls in T1, a casual player would not try to win 7-0 just to pad their differential.
2. A casual player would not try to intimidate a 10-year-old or try to trick them into not playing the card they were about to play.
3. A casual player would not raise their voice to an 11-year-old girl because she was taking too long to choose her next card to play.
4. A casual player would not cheat.
I hope you are not generalizing about every competitive player here, I assume you are not but it could be read that way.
2. A casual player would not try to intimidate a 10-year-old or try to trick them into not playing the card they were about to play.
3. A casual player would not raise their voice to an 11-year-old girl because she was taking too long to choose her next card to play.
4. A casual player would not cheat.
**EDIT**My point was that no casual player would even think of doing these things, but specific competitive players actually did these things at my major tournaments.
I don't think this really helps move forward any of the discussions in this thread.
I don't think this really helps move forward any of the discussions in this thread.
What I am saying is that competitive players should not have exclusive rights to determine the future of Redemption.
Btw, why is the 3-liner worth more than the 2-liner? Anybody know?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have not been to recent Nats, right?
Btw, why is the 3-liner worth more than the 2-liner? Anybody know?
Should've been out then, as that was also the year I ran my 150 card T1 deck to abuse Gates of Hell and the 2 copies of the Liner. Of course, that was more of a joke than anything. But it was probably the least funny joke deck I've ever ran. :POf course it wasn't real funny. You forgot the third copy of the Liner.
Best use of the 3-Liner: In a T2-MP game, give half to any player not named Justin.