Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Unofficial Tournaments => Topic started by: SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx on July 30, 2018, 04:05:29 PM
-
I've been wanting to host an unofficial tournament for a while now with expansions Limited-Priests only T-1. The rules would be the same as T-1 currently except obviously you can only use those cards and Haman's Plot will be banned. I'm not sure the prize pool yet I'd like to see how many people are interested first (at least a couple FoM packs for 1st with a potential for a 2nd/3rd place). I'd like to get at least 12 people. Games can be played however both parties agree and it would be swiss style. Post here if you'd be interested.
EDIT - Changed to Priests
-
Don't know if I have the time to commit to being in it but I certainly am interested and would want to participate if I have time when it happens.
-
Definitely interested
-
Are you looking at doing this in-person or on lackey?
-
Are you looking at doing this in-person or on lackey?
Online (although I may be interested in hosting one in person at some point as well). Doesn't have to be on lackey, can be done however the 2 people playing agree whether that be lackey, skype, etc. (I know you like Skype).
-
I would be interested, more so in person. I just started my new job in Spring Hill today, and we are still cleaning out our old house in Winter Haven, so I can't commit to a time right away, but perhaps soon.
I might be willing to host one of these in FL and maybe talk to Rob and see if I can make it an official local special tournament or something. But the one I am currently doing will be online. (If you want to play your games in person if you are local to the person you have to play that is fine).
-
I'd love to play!
Why through Angel Wars?... I wouldn't exactly say Angel Wars was the prime of Redemption. I did have oodles of fun back in the day using a Morg deck... ;D
I think either playing up through Kings or all the way up through Priests would make more sense.
How would you be doing rules? Current rules or rules of the time period?
-
I'd love to play!
Why through Angel Wars?... I wouldn't exactly say Angel Wars was the prime of Redemption. I did have oodles of fun back in the day using a Morg deck... ;D
I think either playing up through Kings or all the way up through Priests would make more sense.
How would you be doing rules? Current rules or rules of the time period?
You're right I'm going to make it Priests. I was thinking Angel wars was the last old expansion before box packs but it was Priests.
-
You're right I'm going to make it Priests.
Well that bumps me from a maybe to big definitely.
-
KoT, KoT, KoT!!!
-
I would like to play too!
-
I would play as well!
-
*I'm thinking about making the rules as follows as well, you can rescue your own lost souls with SoG,NJ. You can use NJ with your opponents SoG. You can rescue any soul with SoG/NJ (N.T only and female only can be rescued by them). What other rules might make this more realistic for "Oldschool Redemption"???
Current entries.
1.) Myself
2.) Dermo4christ
3.) jesse
4.) Kevinthedude
5.) Isildur
-
Matrix, the ones you mentioned are the big ones. Everything else is pretty minor... by the time Priests rolled around a lot of the finickier rules got ironed out.
Actually... the biggest rule changes (this one was my fault :P) was decreasing toughness below zero used to not kill characters in battle. *Edit*
The only other thing that might get wacky is errata on cards... so I'm not sure if you'd want to go for a more literal play cards as written like we did in the olden days, unless if a card is completely broken like ANB, or play the current errata on cards.
-
Matrix, the ones you mentioned are the big ones. Everything else is pretty minor... by the time Priests rolled around a lot of the finickier rules got ironed out.
Actually... the biggest rule changes (this one was my fault :P) was decreasing toughness below zero used to not kill characters.
The only other thing that might get wacky is errata on cards... so I'm not sure if you'd want to go for a more literal play cards as written like we did in the olden days, unless if a card is completely broken like ANB, or play the current errata on cards.
Probably play the cards as is and maybe add ANB to a ban list just for the sake of complexity prior to nationals. I can tell you at nationals in 2003 if a character's toughness was below 0 it was discarded because it was part of my deck's strategy. I will probably pull the old 63 card deck out and see what happens.
-
Sorry, I should have worded that better my memory is getting foggy :P
The rule was that characters with toughness below */0 in territory were not discarded, only ones in battle would be discarded. *EDIT* This was wrong... the threads linked have a better memory then I do!
So you used to being to have Crown of Thorns up and ECs in territory would not be discarded in territory but would instantly die when entering battle. I had a weird combo abusing the old rule at one point with Miraculous Hankies because of this rule.
I'll see if I can dig up the thread... but the rule changed happened during the tin era, I think. The card Gates of Samaria was made specifically because of the rule change.
Found it! http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/changes-to-decrease-rules/
hehe I also stumbled on the thread where I got the rule changed ;D http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/hunger-ect/msg405935/#msg405935
The rule wasn't changed till 2011, quite a bit after Priests came out.
The reason I mention it is because it was a pretty big rule change. Hunger and Plague of Flies for example became significantly stronger after the rule change.
-
Sorry, I should have worded that better my memory is getting foggy :P
The rule was that characters with toughness below */0 in territory were not discarded, only ones in battle would be discarded.
So you used to being to have Crown of Thorns up and ECs in territory would not be discarded in territory but would instantly die when entering battle. I had a weird combo abusing the old rule at one point with Miraculous Hankies because of this rule.
I'll see if I can dig up the thread... but the rule changed happened during the tin era, I think. The card Gates of Samaria was made specifically because of the rule change.
Found it! http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/changes-to-decrease-rules/
The rule wasn't changed till 2011, quite a bit after Priests came out.
The reason I mention it is because it was a pretty big rule change. Hunger and Plague of Flies for example became significantly stronger after the rule change.
Than judges ruled wrong during 2003 nationals lol because I used Crown to get rid of so many EC's (including my own).
-
Maybe I'm just getting things confused!... haha someone correct me! :scratch:
-
AHHH MY MEMORY IS BAD!!!
http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/crown-of-thorns-12516/msg191926/#msg191926
This one jogged my memory!
Ok... SO in battle characters decreased below */0 were not discarded until end of the battle phase. Characters in territory were discarded anytime they went below */0.
Sorry, guys I've only played like 5 games since 2012... things get rusty ;D
-
If the characters were protected from discard in territory through a protect fortress - like High Priest's Palace for Pharisees/Sadducees - then they could stay alive in territory with 0 toughness, and then in battle were not automatically discarded at 0 toughness so could play out the battle at 1/0 IIRC.
-
Thanks for the clarification Kor!
I think one reason why I got the rule confused like I did was because everyone and their cousin used the protection fortresses released in Priests and the Tins so we didn't have to worry about Crowns and Plague of Flies!
-
1 Year bump. I am still looking to make this happen! Really want at more people though.
-
Depending on when it happened, I would be interested