Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Online Gaming => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Online Official Tournament (ROOT) => Topic started by: Prof Underwood on December 21, 2011, 11:36:47 AM
-
Please post here specifically with feedback regarding how the limitation of NOT being able to make rescue attempts or play dominants on your 1st turn affected your games during the Jan ROOT :)
-
To clarify, are battle challenges allowed during the first turn? Can I make a battle challenge even if I'd otherwise have access to my opponent's lost souls?
-
If it was doms only I'd play. But I like my first turn attacks.
-
Preliminary thoughts: This is the best rule change that has been proposed so far. It has the best chance to allow a fair set up. However, I would like Battle Challenges to be allowed (even if souls are in play).
-
Preliminary thoughts: This is the best rule change that has been proposed so far. It has the best chance to allow a fair set up. However, I would like Battle Challenges to be allowed (even if souls are in play).
YAY SPEED!
This should be interesting. I'm less posting here to share my thoughts, and more so that it'll pop up in "show new replies."
This solves the Mayhem issue, but there's very little collateral damage in deckbuilding. hmm.
-
Preliminary thoughts: This is the best rule change that has been proposed so far. It has the best chance to allow a fair set up. However, I would like Battle Challenges to be allowed (even if souls are in play).
YAY SPEED!
This should be interesting. I'm less posting here to share my thoughts, and more so that it'll pop up in "show new replies."
This solves the Mayhem issue, but there's very little collateral damage in deckbuilding. hmm.
I don't think we should punish good opening hands. If I get an ET + Reach first hand, I don't see why I should have to wait a turn to BC. At least that way it comes as a cost (using it as a BC instead of an RA). I don't think there's that many gamebreaking first turn BC hero abilities, so I don't see why not.
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
If I am playing a speed deck, one turn isn't going to change anything. If anything, if you drop a bunch of stuff because you are scared of Mayhem, I have an easier time beating you, because there are less variables to consider.
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
Speed is not the end all of the game matt. Speed is more balanced now than ever. And I would be fine if it had battle challenges.
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
Speed is not the end all of the game matt. Speed is more balanced now than ever.
The first sentence is ok, but the second sentence is just obviously false.
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
Except this rule isn't designed to stop speed. It's designed to stop FTM.
/Question, is the second player draw rule still in effect?
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
Except this rule isn't designed to stop speed. It's designed to stop FTM.
/Question, is the second player draw rule still in effect?
Not sure. Unless we can BC, there is virtually never a reason to go first. Hoorah imba.
-
Well if you use a super turtle... or cov of death gcow com RBD nazzy and hezzys ring...
-
We definitely need more information on this rule. It looks fun, but there's some serious deck building choices that hinge on how this is working.
-
To clarify, are battle challenges allowed during the first turn?
Offense can not enter battle on the 1st turn. If you happen to be playing with Goliath promo, then you ARE allowed to taunt 1st turn. Probably will never happen, but since it never happens anyway, might as well make it slightly more likely :)
Unless we can BC, there is virtually never a reason to go first. Hoorah imba.
The person who goes 1st will still be the first person to get to make a rescue attempt (just on their 2nd turn).
Question, is the second player draw rule still in effect?
Because there is LESS of a benefit to going first, I think we'll drop it to "the 2nd player gets to draw 1 card on their 1st turn"
-
Sounds good. Having been a supporter of the intro-prep idea for a while now, it's nice to see some variants of it being looked at.
-
Just make this no dominants on the first turn. Don't screw with the draw rules, battle phase etc... the more you screw with rules more you annoy people.
-
you annoy people.
Thanks Red. When I got out of bed this morning, I thought to myself, I wonder what I can do today to annoy people. After all, it is my mission in life to be annoying. Just see my recent comments insulting My Little Ponies in the chat box :)
-
you annoy people.
Thanks Red. When I got out of bed this morning, I thought to myself, I wonder what I can do today to annoy people. After all, it is my mission in life to be annoying. Just see my recent comments insulting My Little Ponies in the chat box :)
I can't +1 this but I feel like I need to clarify that I definitely would if I could.
-
I can't +1 this but I feel like I need to clarify that I definitely would if I could.
Thanks :)
-
I think we should stick with D3 if we are going to allow the second player to draw. It keeps it simple. If it doesn't work, we could always look at the rule again with a different first turn drawing option.
-
except that still lets speed decks draw if we allow bc making them wait to attack at all still lets the other player have 1 more turn to setup and maybe defend so i say no attacks at all
Except this rule isn't designed to stop speed. It's designed to stop FTM.
/Question, is the second player draw rule still in effect?
Not sure. Unless we can BC, there is virtually never a reason to go first. Hoorah imba.
Alex, why make this a bigger issue than it already is?
-
I think we should stick with D3 if we are going to allow the second player to draw. It keeps it simple. If it doesn't work, we could always look at the rule again with a different first turn drawing option.
I kinda like this. It makes it more of a challenge when you're deciding who's going first.
-
I think we should stick with D3 if we are going to allow the second player to draw. It keeps it simple.
It would be simpler. I'm open to doing either D1 or D3 for second player 1st turn depending on what everyone likes better.
I kinda like this. It makes it more of a challenge when you're deciding who's going first.
Do you mean you like the 2nd player D1 on 1st turn, or the 2nd player D3 on 1st turn?
-
With D3, going second has more of an advantage. If it's just D1, I can play speed and not really think about going second and just RA an opening hand like I currently can pretty much. D3 is safer to test I think. If it's super imbalanced (which I at first thought it might be), we could always test again (assuming we liked the first turn limit).
-
It's worth noting that, if the rule is indeed D3, this essentially becomes an intro prep that's more advantageous to speed, since you could theoretically play two set-aside enhancements instead of one.
-
It's worth noting that, if the rule is indeed D3, this essentially becomes an intro prep that's more advantageous to speed, since you could theoretically play two set-aside enhancements instead of one.
Wait, how does the rule becoming D3 change how setasides work?
-
It's worth noting that, if the rule is indeed D3, this essentially becomes an intro prep that's more advantageous to speed, since you could theoretically play two set-aside enhancements instead of one.
Wait, how does the rule becoming D3 change how setasides work?
It doesn't, it just makes this entire rule more like intro prep than D1 does.
-
I would say that D1 is closer to intro-prep than D3, as there are fewer cards being drawn.
/And we still haven't figured out how intro-prep works anyways.
-
I would say that D1 is closer to intro-prep than D3, as there are fewer cards being drawn.
/And we still haven't figured out how intro-prep works anyways.
Your mother is intro-prep.
At any rate, despite my comments, I do support D3 over D1.
-
I would say that D1 is closer to intro-prep than D3, as there are fewer cards being drawn.
/And we still haven't figured out how intro-prep works anyways.
This is really only going to combat Mayhem anyway, so why not allow a D3? Speed doesn't care about this rule.
-
I would say that D1 is closer to intro-prep than D3, as there are fewer cards being drawn.
/And we still haven't figured out how intro-prep works anyways.
Your mother is intro-prep.
At any rate, despite my comments, I do support D3 over D1.
My mother still has trouble figuring out how to play Angry Birds.
I also support D3, as it makes a player think more strategically.
-
She's really nice. Your whole family is.
-
I like D3 as well.
-
D3 for me
-
OK, just to clarify, we'll go with NO DOMINANTS or BATTLES CHALLENGES or RESCUE ATTEMPTS on the first turn of each player, and keep the 2nd player draw 3 rule.
-
I just had a reminder of Yu-Gi-Oh! When I saw First-turn no Battle. Lol.
For those that don't know, in Yu-Gi-Oh! The player who goes first can't attack, although if it was a Multi-Player game, no one can attack the 1st Round. But u still want to go first in that game because u want to get setup before ur Opponent can.
-
In my case I think that this rule effected the game. I pulled out a good chunk of my offense off the draw and definately could have pulled off a larger lost soul count. probably 3 instead of 2 because of Falling away
-
Personally I love the no dominates on the first turn part of the rule, but not the no battles, though the lack of battling didn't really have an effect on my first match so I'll reserve judgement until it does.
-
This rule sort of affected the game but mostly didn't.
How it affected the game: It did slow my Mayhem by one turn.
How it didn't affect the game: I had no early heroes and couldn't attack so I wasn't hurt by the don't do anything aggressive 1st turn.
I played Mayhem the second turn which was still devastating to my opponent
(to his credit: he got 2 heroes, a site to protect 1 LS, and an important art in play first)
Very few lost souls were pulled early in the game, so it was a slow start anyway.
That's my 1st game perspective on it.
-
Same as Soul Seeker. New Rule slowed my FTM down a turn and gave my opponent a chance to put down heros and Arts. It also gave them SoG/NJ.
I got more LS than opponent and chose them to go first knowing they couldnt attack or play FTM.
-
This rule influenced my game in a couple ways. First off, because he was unable to play GoYS (or any other doms), he got hand-clogged right out of the gate, due to a large number of Doms and enhancements. He also had Mayhem, which he was unable to play, so I was able to get my hand down to a small size to keep him from being able to justifiably play it.
-
Yeah I had to discard to get my hand down first turn without having drawn any extra cards.
Also: To Chronic's future opponents, you have no shot. He has psychic powers. When I was trying to choose what to discard he jokingly said son of god and mayhem. I had both in my hand. No chance.
-
In my first game, it just made a good opening hand even better. I like the rule, and I support it, but I caution people not to think of it in the same way as an intro-prep, which it isn't.
-
In my first game, it just made a good opening hand even better. I like the rule, and I support it, but I caution people not to think of it in the same way as an intro-prep, which it isn't.
Do you mind elaborating on that a bit? It's not that I disagree, it's that I do largely view them as interchangeable right now, and I'd like to here your views on what distinguishes them from one another.
-
The difference is in soul availability and card pool. The most effective way to show the difference is by means of example:
Situation - One player draws Lost Souls, the other doesn't.
-With Intro-Prep, if the player with the LS's chooses to go first, he won't be able to rescue and will have to defend. If he allows his opponent to go first, he'll be a turn behind in the LS race.
-With first-turn amnesty, if the player with the LS's chooses to go first, he's got another D3 for his opponent to draw LS's, and his own D3 to draw Hopper/Revealer.
Maybe not a huge deal, but that should be enough to prove that they're not the same. There's also the fact that the player who attacks first will have a pool of up to 11 cards in hand while the defender will have 8 (again, not a huge difference, but a difference). There are even more subtle differences, such as Denarius being able to DD2 before the first attack instead of DD1, being able to use $4 and then activate Crown of Thorns on the first attack, and many others.
tl;dr, the differences aren't massive, but they are numerous.
-
My game was with Polarious: I think if this is a rule then the person to go 1st should be able to draw on their 1st turn because there is no benefit to going 1st without being able to attack or play doms. It actually makes Mayhem stronger IMO, because it gives the person drawing 1st a better chance of getting Mayhem into their hand without giving you the benefits of going 1st. It hurts the guy going first without a draw, thus I disagree with this rule. Intro/prep is better IMO.
-
My game was with Polarious: I think if this is a rule then the person to go 1st should be able to draw on their 1st turn because there is no benefit to going 1st without being able to attack or play doms. It actually makes Mayhem stronger IMO, because Mayhem played right after that restriction period is almost as powerful if not more powerful. It hurts the guy going first without a draw, thus I disagree with this rule.
I disagree. Going first still gives you first shot at a lost soul, which is pretty important to a speed deck. Additionally, without being able to play Mayhem first turn, it gives a chance for the opponent to put down characters, reducing the amount of luck it would take to get anything that could block or rescue.
-
My game was with Polarious: I think if this is a rule then the person to go 1st should be able to draw on their 1st turn because there is no benefit to going 1st without being able to attack or play doms. It actually makes Mayhem stronger IMO, because Mayhem played right after that restriction period is almost as powerful if not more powerful. It hurts the guy going first without a draw, thus I disagree with this rule.
I disagree. Going first still gives you first shot at a lost soul, which is pretty important to a speed deck. Additionally, without being able to play Mayhem first turn, it gives a chance for the opponent to put down characters, reducing the amount of luck it would take to get anything that could block or rescue.
intro/prep is better though, unless you allow the 1st person to draw.
-
But then there's absolutely no reason to go second.
-
But then there's absolutely no reason to go second.
And, hence, intro prep is better
-
Why is it better to have a less strategic beginning? There are both advantages and disadvantages this way, the other way is straight up advantage.
-
Why is it better to have a less strategic beginning? There are both advantages and disadvantages this way, the other way is straight up advantage.
Because its too much of a disadvantage to the guy who goes 1st. the only advantage given to the guy going 1st is that he gets to attack 1st but if the 2nd player has mayhem, the game is all but over unless the 1st guy got a killer draw with a majority of his field playable cards... its too much of a disadvantage to the 1st player. the advantage of going 1st without drawing with the standard rule is that you can rescue 1st, you take this away and its a significant disadvantage. You can equalize by allowing the 1st player to draw or allow attacks/RA's on the 1st turn but no doms but not both...
-
Because its too much of a disadvantage to the guy who goes 1st. the only advantage given to the guy going 1st is that he gets to attack 1st but if the 2nd player has mayhem, the game is all but over unless the 1st guy got a killer draw with a majority of his field playable cards... its too much of a disadvantage to the 1st player. the advantage of going 1st without drawing with the standard rule is that you can rescue 1st, you take this away and its a significant disadvantage. You can equalize by allowing the 1st player to draw or allow attacks/RA's on the 1st turn but no doms but not both...
I don't see how this rule makes Mayhem stronger. It essentially forces it into a second turn, which will never be as bad as an FTM. You aren't taking away the rescue first, it's just on the next turn. If everybody rescues a soul every turn, whoever went first wins. I would argue it's more advantageous to go first because of this. Making both players draw first turn gives a much more significant disadvantage to going second.
-
Because its too much of a disadvantage to the guy who goes 1st. the only advantage given to the guy going 1st is that he gets to attack 1st but if the 2nd player has mayhem, the game is all but over unless the 1st guy got a killer draw with a majority of his field playable cards... its too much of a disadvantage to the 1st player. the advantage of going 1st without drawing with the standard rule is that you can rescue 1st, you take this away and its a significant disadvantage. You can equalize by allowing the 1st player to draw or allow attacks/RA's on the 1st turn but no doms but not both...
I don't see how this rule makes Mayhem stronger. It essentially forces it into a second turn, which will never be as bad as an FTM. You aren't taking away the rescue first, it's just on the next turn. If everybody rescues a soul every turn, whoever went first wins. I would argue it's more advantageous to go first because of this. Making both players draw first turn gives a much more significant disadvantage to going second.
Image this is your turn: you have Isaiah and a couple battle winning enhancements, defensive enhancements and chariot of fire. your opponents drawn 3 lost souls and you none. He chooses you to go 1st. You play your 2 field playable cards but you can't rescue. He goes and has like 6 field playable cards. Then you get your 1st draw, he Mayhem's, and you can't recover afterward, he wins 5-0... huge disadvantage. (the deck I was using has a winning record with only 1 lose by 5-4 and I had won with it against a standard rules FTM, thus from my experience, this is not the best way to do this rule)
-
That's still better than an FTM.
-
That's still better than an FTM.
With a FTM, if your the 1st guy going, at least you had an opportunity to rescue, so I disagree... also this is why intro/prep is much better than this rule as it stands.
-
ok im sorry i just gotta say it maybe if decks had to be reliant on more then just 1 main hero and could actually win in several ways but nah im just a random nobody feel free to ignore me
-
ok im sorry i just gotta say it maybe if decks had to be reliant on more then just 1 main hero and could actually win in several ways but nah im just a random nobody feel free to ignore me
this deck has many different heros but never got a chance to catchup due to the 1st round restrictions. I'm not discussing deck build here, I'm discussing the rule as it stands. I am saying there are better ways to enact this type of rule and I've given a few suggestions that would make it better at mitigating Mayhem and making it a less of a disadvantage.
-
again with enough proper support i don't feel ive ever lost a game directly cause of mayhem yes its annoying but generally i can recover i think its these off balance offense hvy decks that because there already off balance get nailed because mayhem tips the stool and they fall over so i propose the problem is in how people are building decks and not mayhem itself at all. (waits for flame war)
-
again with enough proper support i don't feel ive ever lost a game directly cause of mayhem yes its annoying but generally i can recover i think its these off balance offense hvy decks that because there already off balance get nailed because mayhem tips the stool and they fall over so i propose the problem is in how people are building decks and not mayhem itself at all. (waits for flame war)
It is a very balanced deck. Once again, not discussing deck building but rather the rule and that's what this forum post is about.
-
That's still better than an FTM.
With a FTM, if your the 1st guy going, at least you had an opportunity to rescue, so I disagree... also this is why intro/prep is much better than this rule as it stands.
IF you're the first. If you're the second, you lose. With this ruling, the person who goes first at least has a shot at catching up, depending on the draw.
-
That's still better than an FTM.
With a FTM, if your the 1st guy going, at least you had an opportunity to rescue, so I disagree... also this is why intro/prep is much better than this rule as it stands.
IF you're the first. If you're the second, you lose. With this ruling, the person who goes first at least has a shot at catching up, depending on the draw.
My experience proves it doesn't if the 2nd guy gets mayhem in their initial 11 cards (which puts you at a huge disadvantage) you allow the 1st guy to either draw 1st or make an attack then it evens it out... Intro/prep is better than this rule change as it stands.
-
ok im not exact sure the diffrences here but i think im gonna agree with ringwraith
-
My experience proves it doesn't if the 2nd guy gets mayhem in their initial 11 cards (which puts you at a huge disadvantage) you allow the 1st guy to either draw 1st or make an attack then it evens it out... Intro/prep is better than this rule change as it stands.
Okay, the first guy making an attack is irrelevant. The guy who goes first still makes the first attack. They may have two less cards than they would otherwise, but seriously, it's not going to make a huge difference. Giving him the chance to draw just makes it pointless to go second, reducing strategy.
I'm not sure how Intro Prep is better. Suppose you go first, and your opponent puts down a whole two cards (like in your case). You get a soul, their turn. They draw, you drop an FTM. Your opponent just lost. It's still the same situation, but it gives the person who goes first an extra soul, making it even more broken.
-
My experience proves it doesn't if the 2nd guy gets mayhem in their initial 11 cards (which puts you at a huge disadvantage) you allow the 1st guy to either draw 1st or make an attack then it evens it out... Intro/prep is better than this rule change as it stands.
Okay, the first guy making an attack is irrelevant. The guy who goes first still makes the first attack. They may have two less cards than they would otherwise, but seriously, it's not going to make a huge difference. Giving him the chance to draw just makes it pointless to go second, reducing strategy.
I'm not sure how Intro Prep is better. Suppose you go first, and your opponent puts down a whole two cards (like in your case). You get a soul, their turn. They draw, you drop an FTM. Your opponent just lost. It's still the same situation, but it gives the person who goes first an extra soul, making it even more broken.
Doing it with no attacks in the 1st round is absolutely relevant. I could have gotten a soul on my 1st turn with a high probability.... If i'm the guy with the most lost souls in the 1st round and I have mayhem in my deck, I am letting you go 1st every time... cuz i have a chance to get mayhem and to draw more cards than you getting more of my cards out 1st.... no reason for me not to go 1st, ever!
-
Doing it with no attacks in the 1st round is absolutely relevant. I could have gotten a soul on my 1st turn with a high probability.... If i'm the guy with the most lost souls in the 1st round and I have mayhem in my deck, I am letting you go 1st every time... cuz i have a chance to get mayhem and to draw more cards than you getting more of my cards out 1st.... no reason for me not to go 1st, ever!
Ah, I see. You want a cheap lost soul. Okay, so it is relevant, but again, that destroys strategy.
Go ahead and let me go first. All I need to do is put down Angel Under the Oak and Mayhem is void. I would still get the first rescue, no problem, and end up winning because I get a soul every turn.
The problem here is you're assuming a bad hand (enhancement clogged) against a good hand (character clogged). Even throwing Mayhem out the window, you're in a bad situation, and there's no easy solution.
-
Doing it with no attacks in the 1st round is absolutely relevant. I could have gotten a soul on my 1st turn with a high probability.... If i'm the guy with the most lost souls in the 1st round and I have mayhem in my deck, I am letting you go 1st every time... cuz i have a chance to get mayhem and to draw more cards than you getting more of my cards out 1st.... no reason for me not to go 1st, ever!
Ah, I see. You want a cheap lost soul. Okay, so it is relevant, but again, that destroys strategy.
Go ahead and let me go first. All I need to do is put down Angel Under the Oak and Mayhem is void. I would still get the first rescue, no problem, and end up winning because I get a soul every turn.
The problem here is you're assuming a bad hand (enhancement clogged) against a good hand (character clogged). Even throwing Mayhem out the window, you're in a bad situation, and there's no easy solution.
The whole reason you limit drawing on the 1st turn is because they get a 1st round rescue. You take this away, there is no reason to not have them draw 1st. My experience and feedback on this rule is that it should be changed to balance out the significant disadvantage it creates for the person who goes 1st... Had I been able to rescue in the 1st round my hand was really good, with restrictions it became my doom because of his mayhem. Intro/prep mitigates FTM better than this rule.
-
I actually have kind of the same issue as TSE. All the rule in its current state does is allow the second player to never be FTM'd effectively and makes it so that the first players can get STM (which is essentially a FTM in this case since its his first draw) much more often.
-
I actually have kind of the same issue as TSE. All the rule in its current state does is allow the second player to never be FTM'd effectively and makes it so that the first players can get STM (which is essentially a FTM in this case since its his first draw) much more often.
100% agree
-
You know, you say that deck building is being ignored for this, but isn't it kind of the pivotal point of it all? You build your deck well enough and Mayhem at anytime becomes merely an inconvenience. I've had Mayhem played against me numerous times, a fair amount were FTMs. I can honestly state that it's never been the direct cause of me losing a game. In fact, I won many of those times, even against the FTMs.
I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about. If Mayhem screws you up, then there's something you should fix in your deck. I don't see the reason to be trying all these possible rule changes and whatever else when just building better decks can solve it.
:2cents:
-
You know, you say that deck building is being ignored for this, but isn't it kind of the pivotal point of it all? You build your deck well enough and Mayhem at anytime becomes merely an inconvenience. I've had Mayhem played against me numerous times, a fair amount were FTMs. I can honestly state that it's never been the direct cause of me losing a game. In fact, I won many of those times, even against the FTMs.
I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about. If Mayhem screws you up, then there's something you should fix in your deck. I don't see the reason to be trying all these possible rule changes and whatever else when just building better decks can solve it.
:2cents:
I agree, like I said in a previous post, my same deck won in a game where my opponent played an FTM. This rule made the *STM worse than a FTM
-
again with enough proper support i don't feel ive ever lost a game directly cause of mayhem yes its annoying but generally i can recover i think its these off balance offense hvy decks that because there already off balance get nailed because mayhem tips the stool and they fall over so i propose the problem is in how people are building decks and not mayhem itself at all. (waits for flame war)
If anything those "off balance offense hvy decks" are BETTER prepared for mayhem than a balanced deck.
-
You know, you say that deck building is being ignored for this, but isn't it kind of the pivotal point of it all? You build your deck well enough and Mayhem at anytime becomes merely an inconvenience. I've had Mayhem played against me numerous times, a fair amount were FTMs. I can honestly state that it's never been the direct cause of me losing a game. In fact, I won many of those times, even against the FTMs.
I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about. If Mayhem screws you up, then there's something you should fix in your deck. I don't see the reason to be trying all these possible rule changes and whatever else when just building better decks can solve it.
:2cents:
I've heard people that they don't see what the big problem is, because they've never been too affected by it, and my response has always been that you have been fortunate. Is it possible to recover from a FTM? Absolutely. I think everyone who plays the game enough has some sort of victory story (TSE actually beat me after I FTM'd him a couple nights ago). Here's the thing though, it still presents an undeniably large advantage if a player gets it off. For instance, even if you draw it on a bum hand and can't lay anything down, it is still a +4 over your opponent (provided they don't lay down Guardian, in which case, it is only a +3). However, on a good draw (especially when using a very enhancement-light theme like Genesis or Disciples), I can get my hand size down to 3 or 4, then play Mayhem, which can be as much as a +7 or +8. Having that large of an advantage over your opponent in the first minutes of the game, assuming that both players are using competitive decks, is an extreme advantage.
Now I don't know about anyone else, but for the most part, I always choose to go first when I can, due to the fear of a FTM. Even if I'm only able to lay down two cards and am unable to make an effective rescue, I'll still opt to go first most of the time. Paranoid? Yes, however, that's the kind of power we're talking about, and I know I'm not the only person to do this. If you honestly don't see this as a problem, then you're either extremely lucky, haven't played anyone with a noteworthy amount of skill who got a FTM on you, or you're the best deckbuilder in Redemption. The fact of the matter is, it provides such a large advantage that it does absolutely need to be dealt with in some manner or another. The 6 out of 10 FTMs that won Nats just adds to this argument.
I agree, like I said in a previous post, my same deck won in a game where my opponent played an FTM. This rule made the *STM worse than a FTM
Just because you won a game where you got hit by a FTM and then lost one with a STM doesn't mean anything. I presume that you're talking about the deck I played (and lost too, even after a FTM), and your win was due to poor drawing. I haven't fully formed my opinions yet, but using that as an example is not a good way to win people over to your way of thinking, because it's an extremely poor example.
-
You know, you say that deck building is being ignored for this, but isn't it kind of the pivotal point of it all? You build your deck well enough and Mayhem at anytime becomes merely an inconvenience. I've had Mayhem played against me numerous times, a fair amount were FTMs. I can honestly state that it's never been the direct cause of me losing a game. In fact, I won many of those times, even against the FTMs.
I honestly don't know what the fuss is all about. If Mayhem screws you up, then there's something you should fix in your deck. I don't see the reason to be trying all these possible rule changes and whatever else when just building better decks can solve it.
:2cents:
I've heard people that they don't see what the big problem is, because they've never been too affected by it, and my response has always been that you have been fortunate. Is it possible to recover from a FTM? Absolutely. I think everyone who plays the game enough has some sort of victory story (TSE actually beat me after I FTM'd him a couple nights ago). Here's the thing though, it still presents an undeniably large advantage if a player gets it off. For instance, even if you draw it on a bum hand and can't lay anything down, it is still a +4 over your opponent (provided they don't lay down Guardian, in which case, it is only a +3). However, on a good draw (especially when using a very enhancement-light theme like Genesis or Disciples), I can get my hand size down to 3 or 4, then play Mayhem, which can be as much as a +7 or +8. Having that large of an advantage over your opponent in the first minutes of the game, assuming that both players are using competitive decks, is an extreme advantage.
Now I don't know about anyone else, but for the most part, I always choose to go first when I can, due to the fear of a FTM. Even if I'm only able to lay down two cards and am unable to make an effective rescue, I'll still opt to go first most of the time. Paranoid? Yes, however, that's the kind of power we're talking about, and I know I'm not the only person to do this. If you honestly don't see this as a problem, then you're either extremely lucky, haven't played anyone with a noteworthy amount of skill who got a FTM on you, or you're the best deckbuilder in Redemption. The fact of the matter is, it provides such a large advantage that it does absolutely need to be dealt with in some manner or another. The 6 out of 10 FTMs that won Nats just adds to this argument.
I agree, like I said in a previous post, my same deck won in a game where my opponent played an FTM. This rule made the *STM worse than a FTM
Just because you won a game where you got hit by a FTM and then lost one with a STM doesn't mean anything. I presume that you're talking about the deck I played (and lost too, even after a FTM), and your win was due to poor drawing. I haven't fully formed my opinions yet, but using that as an example is not a good way to win people over to your way of thinking, because it's an extremely poor example.
Not trying to win anyone over to my way of thinking (that's about impossible on these boards, too many stubborn people on here, me included) I'm just reporting my experience and giving my feedback. That's what this thread is for...
-
My apologies if you took that as me attacking you; that wasn't at all my intent. We're simply trying to present the best argument possible for our respective viewpoints, and I don't think that using the example of two games is strong enough to merit credibility.
-
My apologies if you took that as me attacking you; that wasn't at all my intent. We're simply trying to present the best argument possible for our respective viewpoints, and I don't think that using the example of two games is strong enough to merit credibility.
No need for an apology, just expressing my experience and my own perspective. What you think of it is what you think of it and I don't expect you to apologize for saying what you think. I'm just expressing my own experience and opinion based on that experience. IMO there are better ways to go about this rule and I have stated them and that's about it.
-
I don't disagree. I'd much prefer having no dominants in the first turn and that's it.
-
I don't disagree. I'd much prefer having no dominants in the first turn and that's it.
That is certainly one way that I would agree.
-
After my second game, I believe this new rule was made to just counter Mayhem. Otherwise, it does nothing. Cliff's and my game was extremely close and could have gone either way with or without this rule. Had either of us had a 2nd turn Mayhem, then we would have been fine. However, we both got our Mayhems at the end of the game where they appeared to be just as crucial. Since we were both expecting them late, we were able to counter each other's Mayhems.
After 2 games, this rule seems to be pretty inconsequential.
-
After my second game, I believe this new rule was made to just counter Mayhem. Otherwise, it does nothing. Cliff's and my game was extremely close and could have gone either way with or without this rule. Had either of us had a 2nd turn Mayhem, then we would have been fine. However, we both got our Mayhems at the end of the game where they appeared to be just as crucial. Since we were both expecting them late, we were able to counter each other's Mayhems.
After 2 games, this rule seems to be pretty inconsequential.
I managed a perfect second turn mayhem in my game to get a +6 and I walked all around my opponent for a 5-1 victory. I got a great draw, but Mayhem still does stuff early.
The issue is NOT first turn mayhems, it's first DRAW mayhems.
-
It didn't have any problems for me.
-
Me neither
-
First turn limits didn't really have too much of an effect on my game. It only slowed the game down a turn, as my would have been first turn mayhem was almost as effective in the second round.
-
First turn limits didn't really have too much of an effect on my game. It only slowed the game down a turn, as my would have been first turn mayhem was almost as effective in the second round.
confirm
-
This time First Turn actually was a bit beneficial to me. I like this rule!!!
-
The rule did little in my third game. If anything, it helped the Hobbit by allowing a bit more setup. Neither of us had Mayhem (or any other Dom for that matter) at the start, so this rule seemed to do nothing. In fact, it was so far off my radar that I attacked my first turn and Hobbit reminded me of the rule...it didn't phase me much, I apologized and waited to attack my next turn.
-
This rule actually did have a minor affect on my last game (which could have turned out to be important, but didn't) even though at first glance it appeared that there was no way it would affect anything at all.
-
I like the rule. It works because it stops FTM, without banning the card. It is less important in T2, but makes a large difference in T1. It may? encourage different deck sizes in T1 since your best odds of getting a FTM is in a 50 carder.
In T1 I have been FTM enough times to see how devastating it can be. Also, an aggro deck can often get easy 1st turn LS's even though I have a useless (without the rule) unholy writ or burial shroud.
Thanks for listening to our feedback and allow playtesting of the rule! :)
-
This rule actually helped my Gardensciples immensely. I had a superb draw, with First Fruits (and a white hero) Fishing Boat, and two Disciples out of the gate, along with Mayhem. This meant I got a +5 out of the gate while letting my opponent get the +3. He went down to seven, and on my next turn, I did some more drawing and got my hand to somewhere around 4, when I played the FTM. I ended this game being roughly 30 cards ahead of my opponent, and a good chunk of that was because I was able to go first, knowing I wouldn't be sacrificing anything by doing so.