Author Topic: [Proposal] Three rules and an errata (Read 3909 times)

JSB23 · « **on:** May 05, 2012, 12:39:20 PM »

It's no secret speed decks are a problem, they're dominating the meta and choking out all deck variety. Card based counters are worthless because you need to draw the card before they get set up, meaning you need to outdraw them, which forces you to use speed to counter speed. So I propose the following rules:

1. Haste Makes Waste. - Each time a player draws outside of their draw phase due to a special ability on their card, they must discard X cards from the top of their deck. Where X equals the number of cards drawn divided by two, rounded up. (IE 3/2 = 1.5 rounded up = 2)

2. CBI No More (credit to MJB). - CBI no longer exists, CBN becomes CBP.

3. Interrupt on change in battle type (sorry, no clever name). - If a battle shifts from RA to BC the rescuer gets a chance to interrupt the last card played. Likewise, if a battle shifts from BC to RA the blocker is given a chanc e to interrupt.

4. Change Angel under the Oak to say: "Protect Gideon from all cards," which means you can't play enhancements on him if you use AutO to protect him.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on May 05, 2012, 12:39:20 PM

It's no secret speed decks are a problem, they're dominating the meta and choking out all deck variety. Card based counters are worthless because you need to draw the card before they get set up, meaning you need to outdraw them, which forces you to use speed to counter speed. So I propose the following rules:

1. Haste Makes Waste. - Each time a player draws outside of their draw phase they must discard X cards from the top of their deck. Where X equals the number of cards drawn divided by two, rounded up. (IE 3/2 = 1.5 rounded up = 2)

2. CBI No More (credit to MJB). - CBI no longer exists, CBN becomes CBP.

3. Interrupt on change in battle type (sorry, no clever name). - If a battle shifts from RA to BC the rescuer gets a chance to interrupt the last card played. Likewise, if a battle shifts from BC to RA the blocker is given a chanc e to interrupt.

4. Change Angel under the Oak to say: "Protect Gideon from all cards," which means you can't play enhancements on him if you use AutO to protect him.

First off, I like the ideas behind these rules, but they all need some tweaking.

1. It would need to specify "when players draw because of a special ability on their card". If I force my opponent to draw, they shouldn't be extra punished by having to discard the top X. What I think might be a better idea is to make a rule that ALL draw abilities (except forced draws like Hur) become optional, and in order for a player to use a draw ability, he has to discard a card from deck/hand/territory, etc. That would add a cost to use an ability.

2. I would tweak this to only apply to abilities that can target opposing characters in battle. What would happen, for example, if Hur was blocked by King of Tyrus in your example? And if play abilities lost their inherent CBI status, then we get loops again. The other option is to make all CBI/N/P abilities optional, and associate a cost to use them. I.e. If you attack with Hur, you can either do nothing, or you can, say, discard a card from your territory to use his ability and it becomes CBN. Or you can block with Assyrian Survivor, and either his protection doesn't activate, or you have to discard a card from your hand/deck to activate his protection.

3. This rule is intriguing, but I think it's overall unnecessary, and logisitically complicated. Yes, Uzzah is annoying, but he is only good for one block a game, and is completely useless vs. a lot of decks (especially Prophets decks). DoU/SSS/Banquet type cards also have plenty of counters, and will most often only available for one block per deck.

4. Protecting Gideon from cards would not restrict players from playing enhancements on him, it would have to be a restrict ability. I also think that is unnecessary, especially if the other changes were made. If there was a cost to making AutO's protection CBN, then he wouldn't be as bulletproof all the time. Also, bulletproof Gideon really isn't that OP'd, since he was some of the worst stats that a Hero can have. Plenty of EC's can get initiative to play the things that can stop him (Stone of Thebez, end the battle cards, DoU/SSS/Banquet-type cards, and plenty of other EC's can block him and force him to play an enahncement to defeat them (including all of the FBTN EC's) and since most decks with Gideon have 1-2 enhancements that they can use on him, this isn't always going to be an option. Lastly, if there is a cost to making Edict CBN, then Gideon is hardly a problem at all.

Overall, some good ideas, and perhaps they can be rules alterations that can be tested in future ROOT tournaments.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2012, 05:24:07 PM »

You have some great concepts here. I really like the cbn with a cost thing that the prof mentioned. What I would really like to see however is a rule that harms decking out rather than a rule that harms drawing.

Isildur · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2012, 05:35:48 PM »

Rule 1: The thought behind it is great but in all practical sense wasnt thought out much. This would make so many cards in the game useless we would need to start the game back from scratch. I would guess around 25% of the cards released in the past 5 sets have draw abilities on them

Rule 2: I REALLY like only problem is it would create errata mayhem and is completely impractical. Now if we had a Fort, Dom or Art that did what said rule change would do then I would be fully behind it.

Rule 3: Is actually practical... I have no complaints there lol

Rule 4: Is pointless its really easy to stop Gideon if you use a NORMAL deck and not one from the Botanical store.

All in all good ideas but some of them are just not practical.

Oh and my word of the day is Practical :p

Chris · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2012, 06:51:56 PM »

1. As Wings of Music said, I'd prefer a rule that penalizes a player for decking out - not drawing. Drawing is a fundamental part of the strategy behind Redemption, and while I agree it needs a nerf that's beyond RBD or similar cards, I don't believe that hurting drawing in itself is the answer. This is taking the idea to too big an extreme in my opinion, and I'll continue support not allowing a player to make a rescue attempt while he is decked out, until his opponent is also decked out.

2. I'd see certain cards banned before I'd like to see this put in place. Absolutely hate it.

3. Hurting defense isn't the answer right now. I understand the want to stop chump blocks, but if this rule were to be implemented, I think a lot of speed players would simply take out Uzzah and keep going, making games even shorter.

4. Gideon isn't OP in my opinion.

JSB23 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2012, 07:12:02 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM

It would need to specify "when players draw because of a special ability on their card". If I force my opponent to draw, they shouldn't be extra punished by having to discard the top X.

Didn't think about forced draws. Fixed.

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM

What I think might be a better idea is to make a rule that ALL draw abilities (except forced draws like Hur) become optional, and in order for a player to use a draw ability, he has to discard a card from deck/hand/territory, etc. That would add a cost to use an ability.

The idea behind the original penalty was to provide uncertainty. Yes you can deck really fast, but you may not get your SoG/AotL/Cardyoureallyneed. The (simplified) odds (2/3 vs. 1/3) are in your favor, but there's still a decent chance you'll lose it. I also wanted Watchful servant to be a slightly more viable counter

Quote

I would tweak this to only apply to abilities that can target opposing characters in battle.

Good idea.

Quote from: Chris on May 05, 2012, 06:51:56 PM

I'd see certain cards banned before I'd like to see this put in place. Absolutely hate it.

Care to explain? Without drawing and CBN almost all of the broken themes/combos from the last few sets lose a lot of steam.

Chris · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2012, 07:17:38 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on May 05, 2012, 07:12:02 PM

Care to explain? Without drawing and CBN almost all of the broken themes/combos from the last few sets lose a lot of steam.

First, you're using "broken" much too liberally. There are maybe five separate themes that each have a solid shot at winning nationals this year, and a couple of the rule changes have leveled the playing field significantly. "Overpowered" and "broken" are significantly different in my opinion. Second, as much as I would love to see more themes given playability, I don't think drastic rule changes like this are the answer to it. Smaller changes like the ones recently put in place are the way to go, short of simply banning cards. The problem is the rules you proposed don't just change the way players approach the game's strategy, it changes the way the game is played, and I don't like that idea.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2012, 07:30:54 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on May 05, 2012, 07:12:02 PM

Quote from: Chris on May 05, 2012, 06:51:56 PM
I'd see certain cards banned before I'd like to see this put in place. Absolutely hate it.
Care to explain? Without drawing and CBN almost all of the broken themes/combos from the last few sets lose a lot of steam.

Yeah that's...kind of the point, isn't it? You want to render completely useless a lot of cards that people have paid for, collected, and there are a lot of them. Neutering cards like this is the bad way to go, and it is the same reason they haven't been outright banning cards.

I thought we were trying to make the game simpler, easier to play, and better for new players. Changing every card that they got from the new sets and when they get to the tournament tell them they might as well just box them up is the wrong tactic.

Also, if you take the CBI/CBN off of some cards (like, say, Hur?), you will COMPLETELY ruin the game. Some things are CBI/CBN because they have to be, and are too hard to take back. As others said, this idea is far to the extreme. Too far.

On the draw issue, yes, there should be a penalty for decking out. There are no CCG at all that have anything similar to your idea for very good reason. Drawing is an inherent part of pretty much any CCG, and is an integral part to every theme in this game almost. It isn't speed that's bad, it's the overuse, and you'd fix that with a punishment for decking out too fast.

On stopping chump-blocks, like the idea of limiting it, but there are plenty of things that are out there and could be duplicated. More protecting of LS from opponents. More protecting of shuffling. Those kind of things. Changing the mechanics of the game or even rewarding speed decks that get their interrupt-battle-winners fastest to stop chump-blocks is not even close to an answer.

And not sure about your hate for the AUtO-Gideon protection, there are plenty of ways around it to not lose the battle and you can just blow up their territory/deck/hand without passing initiative ("Yeah, I'm going to play a couple of Confusions here, and then DoU. Huzzah, thanks for the protection!" or "Hunger Hunger Hunger Tricked!"). Use it to your advantage. There are worse cards than AUtO (and I find it interesting you singled out that card).

Also: Side-note, your errata would protect against exchanging to Gideon so...yeah, you'd just break the card. Needs more thought.

Drrek · « **Reply #8 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:21:45 AM »

#1 Is horrible, it would make the game significantly more luck-based, as people are going to have to just draw and hope a significant portion of the time. A much tamer counter to drawing, like a deck out penalty, is much more appropriate.

#2 Is interesting, but I'd be against it. Some cards just need to be CBI, and I don't think you can get around that.

#3 Is an idea I'd be all for, if defenses had any real punch to them. Defense needs the chump blocks since it is so much weaker than offense usually.

The errata would be an entirely unnecessary hard counter to something that doesn't really need a counter, for the reasons already posted by others in this thread.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #9 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:31:58 AM »

If we're looking for a penalty to decking out, then let's use the Pokemon Rule: If you deck out, you lose.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:33:57 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on May 05, 2012, 12:39:20 PM

1. Haste Makes Waste. - Each time a player draws outside of their draw phase they must discard X cards from the top of their deck. Where X equals the number of cards drawn divided by two, rounded up. (IE 3/2 = 1.5 rounded up = 2)

My personal preference for this would be...
1. Haste Makes Waste (redux). For each card a player draws outside of their draw phase, they lose the abiity to draw one card from their next draw phase. So if I interrupt and draw three I wouldn't get to draw any cards at the start of my next turn.

As for #3, a better approach would be to add another Loss Condition--losing by loss of access--to the rules and allow that to be interrupted just as you can interrupt losing by being discarded.

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM

2. I would tweak this to only apply to abilities that can target opposing characters in battle. What would happen, for example, if Hur was blocked by King of Tyrus in your example?

What happens if I make a rescue with John Promo or Foretelling Angel or King Solomon or ... and you block with King of Tyrus? There are already any number of cards (that are not even designated as CBN) that actually are CBN simply on practical grounds and no one sees any issue with that. The problem with Hur is that it the phrase "Cannot be interrupted, negated, or prevented" should never have been included in the first place just like the CBI is not included on John Promo. Or--as Bryon would say--the last sentence in Hur's SA is extraneous explanatory text.

Quote

And if play abilities lost their inherent CBI status, then we get loops again.

But most cards in this camp are not denoted as CBI--it is just recognized that they are because you need to prevent loops. Think of rule two as saying--"Replace the phrase 'cannot be negated'/'cannot be interrupted' written on any card with the phrase 'cannot be prevented.'" Then de facto CBI and inherent CBI are left untouched.

Quote from: Redoubter on May 05, 2012, 07:30:54 PM

Also, if you take the CBI/CBN off of some cards (like, say, Hur?), you will COMPLETELY ruin the game. Some things are CBI/CBN because they have to be, and are too hard to take back. As others said, this idea is far to the extreme. Too far.

Redoubter, if you really believe this is true than you should move on to another game pronto because Redemption is already "COMPLETELY ruined." As I pointed out above, Redemption already has a bunch or cards that are CBN (even though it doesn't say that) simply because they are too hard/impossible to take back. Moreoever, as Prof Alstad mentioned, in Redemption any number of other SAs can be granted CBN status depending on when they are played for game play consistency purposes. If you can swallow the camel on those I am unsure why you are straining at the gnat of Hur.

Quote from: Chris on May 05, 2012, 06:51:56 PM

2. I'd see certain cards banned before I'd like to see this put in place. Absolutely hate it.

You might actually want to get together a few players, design decks to take advantage of the rule, and play a game or two with this before declaring you hate it. What you would end up seeing is that interrupts become extremely valuable cards and that the battle phase will actually involve actual battles between good and evil. I know in today's game of "chump-block-this and CBN-battle-winner-that" that the idea of a prolonged battle phase seems foreign to newer players, but back in the day Redemption used to have actual interactive play occur during the battle phase (even in Type 2 if you can believe it).

And it was wicked fun.

A late-breaking follow-up to one of Drrek's comment...

Quote from: Drrek on May 06, 2012, 12:21:45 AM

#3 Is an idea I'd be all for, if defenses had any real punch to them. Defense needs the chump blocks since it is so much weaker than offense usually.

A huge reason defenses lack punch is because of CBN battle-winners. If you give up initiative once you are done for.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #11 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:39:23 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 06, 2012, 12:33:57 AM

I know in today's game of "chump-block-this and CBN-battle-winner-that" that the idea of a prolonged battle phase seems foreign to newer players, but back in the day Redemption used to have actual interactive play occur during the battle phase...

This happened today at our Local Tournament in Florida.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 06, 2012, 12:33:57 AM

And it was wicked fun,

Totally wicked.

JSB23 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:40:50 AM »

Quote from: Drrek on May 06, 2012, 12:21:45 AM

#1 Is horrible, it would make the game significantly more luck-based, as people are going to have to just draw and hope a significant portion of the time.

Or they could just be happy with 3 cards a turn

Believe me, the game worked just fine before speed Sam-speed. The only reasons standard drawing seems slow is because you're used to drawing 5+ cards cards every turn.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 06, 2012, 12:31:58 AM

If we're looking for a penalty to decking out, then let's use the Pokemon Rule: If you deck out, you lose.

Then every game turns into a turtle match.

Chris · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2012, 01:19:47 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 06, 2012, 12:31:58 AM

If we're looking for a penalty to decking out, then let's use the Pokemon Rule: If you deck out, you lose.

This has been discussed to death, and the main problem with it is that Redemption uses small deck sizes and larger draw phases for it to be particularly feasible. 154 card Luke decks would become top-tier, and Jerusalem Tower would become a staple in every deck. I love the idea of a deck out rule, but something so drastic would shape the game negatively I think; it would be solving one problem and causing a whole host of others.

Quote

1. Haste Makes Waste (redux). For each card a player draws outside of their draw phase, they lose the abiity to draw one card from their next draw phase. So if I interrupt and draw three I wouldn't get to draw any cards at the start of my next turn.

I like and dislike this. I think the main thing is that it hurts a little drawing (otherwise slow decks that throw in a little oomph like Pentecost) a lot more than it hurts a lot of drawing like +7 Samuel banding chains. I'd like to see it tweaked (I'm not sure how) to hurt big banding more, but I'd be more open to an idea like this. I think the main problem with such a concept is it starts to get complicated for newer players.

Quote

Redoubter, if you really believe this is true than you should move on to another game pronto because Redemption is already "COMPLETELY ruined." As I pointed out above, Redemption already has a bunch or cards that are CBN (even though it doesn't say that) simply because they are too hard/impossible to take back. Moreoever, as Prof Alstad mentioned, in Redemption any number of other SAs can be granted CBN status depending on when they are played for game play consistency purposes. If you can swallow the camel on those I am unsure why you are straining at the gnat of Hur.

The main thing is that the list of abilities that are inherently CBN are very few. Look, shuffle, reveal, and a small handful of others that I can't recall right now are the only ones that have inherent CBN status, and there's absolutely nothing that be done about that, short of coming up with a Men in Black scenario. I think you're overstating just how many abilities need to be CBN under the current rules, so issues like what to do with Hur and similar cards become more legitimate in comparison.

Quote

You might actually want to get together a few players, design decks to take advantage of the rule, and play a game or two with this before declaring you hate it. What you would end up seeing is that interrupts become extremely valuable cards and that the battle phase will actually involve actual battles between good and evil. I know in today's game of "chump-block-this and CBN-battle-winner-that" that the idea of a prolonged battle phase seems foreign to newer players, but back in the day Redemption used to have actual interactive play occur during the battle phase (even in Type 2 if you can believe it).

I've played Redemption for four years now, which was just early enough to get a taste of prolonged battle phases. I can say with complete confidence that the most fun I've ever had with the game has been this season, and the two best battle phases I've ever encountered were at Nats last year and during a ROOT game this season. I don't think stripping CBN/CBI status is the way to go about it; again, it's too extreme for me. There have been many rumors about of cards that will specifically target cards with CBN status (protect abilities, restrict abilities, etc). Wouldn't a fortress or artifact that restricts players from playing a card with CBN status be a good place to start?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #14 on:** May 06, 2012, 01:35:44 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 06, 2012, 12:33:57 AM

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
2. I would tweak this to only apply to abilities that can target opposing characters in battle. What would happen, for example, if Hur was blocked by King of Tyrus in your example?
What happens if I make a rescue with John Promo or Foretelling Angel or King Solomon or ... and you block with King of Tyrus? There are already any number of cards (that are not even designated as CBN) that actually are CBN simply on practical grounds and no one sees any issue with that. The problem with Hur is that it the phrase "Cannot be interrupted, negated, or prevented" should never have been included in the first place just like the CBI is not included on John Promo. Or--as Bryon would say--the last sentence in Hur's SA is extraneous explanatory text.

There's a difference between "look" abilities (which are inherently CBN because of the nature of the ability) and shuffle abilities. If a typical shuffle ability (like Two Bears) is negated, then the shuffled card(s) are fetched and returned to here they were. There's no reason why Hur would be inherently CBN, he got that ability because it was necessary. And that's just one example. Certain CBN cards are okay and not at all abusive, the problems come from CBN abilities that win battles. That's what makes battles short and "unfun" for some people.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 06, 2012, 02:50:32 AM »

Quote from: Chris on May 06, 2012, 01:19:47 AM

Wouldn't a fortress or artifact that restricts players from playing a card with CBN status be a good place to start?

So I couldn't even place Hur in battle if the artifact/fortress were active? I'm not sure that would necessarily be a better starting point. I mean this in the sense that I am not really increasing player interactions if I stop my opponent from playing is cards. So yeah--it may be a good counter to a CBN strategy but I am not primarily concerned with countering the strategy. I am trying to maximize a different goal.

The other issue is that single-card counters rarely work as hoped. (The notable exceptions being cards like Golgotha which shut down a strategy all by their lonesome). In this case it is not enough to stop CBN from working. You would need to include interrupts to make a complete strategy, but the interrupts are worthless unless the anti-CBN comes into play. So I get dependent on a "lucky" draw compared to my opponent to win. This is definitely sub-optimal.

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 06, 2012, 01:35:44 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 06, 2012, 12:33:57 AM
Quote from: Professoralstad on May 05, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
2. I would tweak this to only apply to abilities that can target opposing characters in battle. What would happen, for example, if Hur was blocked by King of Tyrus in your example?
What happens if I make a rescue with John Promo or Foretelling Angel or King Solomon or ... and you block with King of Tyrus? There are already any number of cards (that are not even designated as CBN) that actually are CBN simply on practical grounds and no one sees any issue with that. The problem with Hur is that it the phrase "Cannot be interrupted, negated, or prevented" should never have been included in the first place just like the CBI is not included on John Promo. Or--as Bryon would say--the last sentence in Hur's SA is extraneous explanatory text.

There's a difference between "look" abilities (which are inherently CBN because of the nature of the ability) and shuffle abilities. If a typical shuffle ability (like Two Bears) is negated, then the shuffled card(s) are fetched and returned to here they were.

You're correct, and this was my mistake. I was thinking you brought up Hur because his SA was made CBN because it was impossible to unshuffle a deck (especially when people were mentioning this ruining the game). Obviously there is no such requirement.

So I guess I don't understand why you brought up Hur in the first place. If a player can go in and fetch out two cards shuffled in by the Bears, why couldn't he go in and fetch out the seven shuffled in by Hur? If King Of Tyrus would make you undraw a card gotten via Parmenas, why couldn't he make you undraw seven from Hur?

Quote

There's no reason why Hur would be inherently CBN, he got that ability because it was necessary. And that's just one example.

Why? Specifically why is Hur's CBN status *necessary*? If If one were to consider doing away with CBN (in the form stated) what is it about Hur's special ability that makes it somehow privileged compared to Isaiah's special ability or DoM played on King Zed such that we could imagine doing away with CBN status for the latter two but not for the former?

If it is easier feel free to provide a different example of a CBN ability *that is CBN solely because of the phrase CBN on the card* whose change to CBP would have a significant detrimental effect on the game. (Maybe it is just that I am just hung up the Hur example and that is preventing me from understanding your claim.)

Quote

Certain CBN cards are okay and not at all abusive, the problems come from CBN abilities that win battles.

I completely agree with the first half of this sentence and mostly agree with the second half. The difficulty I have is figuring out any way to nerf CBN battle winners while leaving other non-abusive optional CBN alone.

Quote

That's what makes battles short and "unfun" for some people.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the current situation is "unfun." I am saying that interactive battles are "more fun."

Chris · « **Reply #16 on:** May 06, 2012, 12:56:03 PM »

Quote

So I couldn't even place Hur in battle if the artifact/fortress were active? I'm not sure that would necessarily be a better starting point. I mean this in the sense that I am not really increasing player interactions if I stop my opponent from playing is cards. So yeah--it may be a good counter to a CBN strategy but I am not primarily concerned with countering the strategy. I am trying to maximize a different goal.

What exactly is your goal then? Simply making battle phases longer? How is completely reshaping the economy a good way to fix the problem that some people have with the game? Have you considered the fact that it would make the game a lot less accessable to new players, because little Johnny who was excited to go to his first tournament after he spend all of his allowance on new cards has zero chance of winning because not only did he miss out on a fundamental rule, but all those "CBN" cards he is so darn fond of aren't nearly as good as the rulebook told him they were. I'm just not sure how starting out with such an extreme solution is the answer.

Quote

The other issue is that single-card counters rarely work as hoped. (The notable exceptions being cards like Golgotha which shut down a strategy all by their lonesome). In this case it is not enough to stop CBN from working. You would need to include interrupts to make a complete strategy, but the interrupts are worthless unless the anti-CBN comes into play. So I get dependent on a "lucky" draw compared to my opponent to win. This is definitely sub-optimal.

Nazareth is actually a really good example of where this worked perfectly; it is good enough to slightly change the way a lot of good players approach deck-building, but not so powerful that it breaks the game at all. Having a similar card, even if it's just a "Protect all cards from special abilities that cannot be negated" instead of restricting play, the point is, it's a better jumping off point than fundamentally changing the game. I think simply releasing a hard counter can work for the same reason Nazareth works. Hard counters don't get the job done against drawing because you have to draw them to make them work, but if you implement a deck out rule while offering a few hard counters to CBN, this could solve the problem quite cleanly.

Quote

So I guess I don't understand why you brought up Hur in the first place. If a player can go in and fetch out two cards shuffled in by the Bears, why couldn't he go in and fetch out the seven shuffled in by Hur? If King Of Tyrus would make you undraw a card gotten via Parmenas, why couldn't he make you undraw seven from Hur?

For Two Bears, both players know what was shuffled so if there's any confusion, there's two people who can fill in any blanks. For Parmenas, it's one card. For Hur, it's memorizing seven cards that were shuffled, and frankly, I rarely remember every card I shuffle from Hur, since at that point, having drawn them is moot. If I forget even just one card I shuffled, what do I do? Draw? It also makes cheating extremely easy for the dishonest among us.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 06, 2012, 03:44:39 PM »

Quote from: Chris on May 06, 2012, 12:56:03 PM

What exactly is your goal then? Simply making battle phases longer?

No. It is to return the battle phase to being a battle phase as opposed to two players playing parallel games of solitaire.

Quote

How is completely reshaping the economy a good way to fix the problem that some people have with the game?

Because interactive battle is way may enjoyable all around than parallel games of solitaire. And because the game mechanics of Redemption are such that it could have the most awesome battle phase of any TCG, and if you took advantage of that it might possibly expand its overall popularity.

Quote

Have you considered the fact that it would make the game a lot less accessable to new players, because little Johnny who was excited to go to his first tournament after he spend all of his allowance on new cards has zero chance of winning because not only did he miss out on a fundamental rule, but all those "CBN" cards he is so darn fond of aren't nearly as good as the rulebook told him they were.

This sounds like a fine theory, but the fact is that the game was way more accessible to new players back when there actually was a battle phase. Now new players drop out at a much higher rate than they did even four years ago because in a lot of instances new players don't get to play--they merely get to watch their opponent play.

Quote

Quote
The other issue is that single-card counters rarely work as hoped. (The notable exceptions being cards like Golgotha which shut down a strategy all by their lonesome). In this case it is not enough to stop CBN from working. You would need to include interrupts to make a complete strategy, but the interrupts are worthless unless the anti-CBN comes into play. So I get dependent on a "lucky" draw compared to my opponent to win. This is definitely sub-optimal.

Nazareth is actually a really good example of where this worked perfectly;

Yes--because Nazareth, like Golgotha, shut down an entire strategy by itself.

Quote

Having a similar card, even if it's just a "Protect all cards from special abilities that cannot be negated" instead of restricting play, the point is, it's a better jumping off point than fundamentally changing the game.

There is *no* similar card to stop CBN. I don't need to build a deck around Nazareth to make it useful. That is *not* the case for your proposed cards for the reason I stated in in my previous message (quoted above).

Also, do you really want to protect against Hur's shuffle and draw ability just because they happen to be CBN? Both of your proposed solutions so far would make Hur completely useless as opposed to simply making the ability negatable. Your solutions strike me as considerably more radical in this regard than what I have proposed.

Quote

Quote
So I guess I don't understand why you brought up Hur in the first place. If a player can go in and fetch out two cards shuffled in by the Bears, why couldn't he go in and fetch out the seven shuffled in by Hur? If King Of Tyrus would make you undraw a card gotten via Parmenas, why couldn't he make you undraw seven from Hur?

For Two Bears, both players know what was shuffled so if there's any confusion, there's two people who can fill in any blanks. For Parmenas, it's one card.

These distinctions strike me as special pleading. If I placed ET into battle and then played Reach of Desperation followed by Prosperity are you going to claim that we have no choice but to make that CBN? After all there is only one person who can fill in the blanks as to what cards were drawn and there are 6 whole cards to keep track of.

Quote

For Hur, it's memorizing seven cards that were shuffled, and frankly, I rarely remember every card I shuffle from Hur, since at that point, having drawn them is moot.

It wouldn't be moot if you knew that you might possibly negate Hur's ability. You have trained yourself to ignore it now because you know that it's ok to ignore it.

Quote

If I forget even just one card I shuffled, what do I do? Draw? It also makes cheating extremely easy for the dishonest among us.

The same arguments stand against ET + RoD + Proposerity.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #18 on:** May 06, 2012, 04:36:46 PM »

I don't like any of these changes.
1) Makes the game far more complicated in a bad way.

2) Several reasons have already been stated, it would shift the game, probably in the wrong direction. I know I'm not the "average" player, but I actually enjoy redemption as much as I always have, and the battle phase is still fairly reasonable (at least in T2 where I play) CBN battle winners don't mean a thing if you can't play them, I have more problems with interrupt + CBN battle winner all in one card.

3) I have the least problem with this one, however it will just speed up every offensive deck there is, because Uzzah, DoU and similar cards, as well as several other cards become interrupt-able, yes that means these ares mostly CBI, however they usually have a major cost (losing the character) so I would say that those cards aren't really a problem, but instead a counter to the CBN battle winners on the offense

4) This one I also wouldn't have too much of a problem with, although I'd prefer if it was a rule change as opposed to errata on one card (so it would also affect purple kings protected by Isaiah) however I really don't think it's necessary.

JSB23 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 06, 2012, 05:33:14 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on May 06, 2012, 04:36:46 PM

CBN battle winners don't mean a thing if you can't play them, I have more problems with interrupt + CBN battle winner all in one card.

That's the problem, the game shouldn't be anti-war (smallest numbers win).

Chris · « **Reply #20 on:** May 06, 2012, 05:51:44 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 06, 2012, 03:44:39 PM

Because interactive battle is way may enjoyable all around than parallel games of solitaire. And because the game mechanics of Redemption are such that it could have the most awesome battle phase of any TCG, and if you took advantage of that it might possibly expand its overall popularity.

I'm not arguing that more expansive battle phases aren't more fun, I'm simply disagreeing with your proposals of how to make it more exciting again.

Quote

This sounds like a fine theory, but the fact is that the game was way more accessible to new players back when there actually was a battle phase. Now new players drop out at a much higher rate than they did even four years ago because in a lot of instances new players don't get to play--they merely get to watch their opponent play.

Can you actually back this up with anything? If the overall amount of players who are trying to pick up the game goes down, then the amount of players who stick around will also go down. I've seen more people like Red Wing, Knot a Blonde, and Wings of Music join the forums and become active members in the last year and a half than I have at any other point since I started playing. The actual numbers might be different, but that's been my observation. Even if you're right, there's no point comparing how accessible the game was before because it's not like that anymore. Making the game more complicated and creating more contradictions isn't going to bring in new players, because they're going to be off-put by the disadvantages before they see what's good about it.

Quote

Yes--because Nazareth, like Golgotha, shut down an entire strategy by itself.

Not really. Golgotha really only works against TGT and a handful of other cards, and last season, most of those other cards weren't played much. "Ignore" is not a strategy; TGT is. Negating search shuts down at least two themes that are used a lot, and does some collateral damage to a handful of others. A card that protects cards from special abilities that are cannot be negated could be similarly implemented, because it wouldn't fit into every theme, and so not everyone would use it, but it would still be good in some circumstances. It's not that you have to build a deck around Nazareth, it's that you have to be mindful of what decks you're putting it into.

Quote

Also, do you really want to protect against Hur's shuffle and draw ability just because they happen to be CBN? Both of your proposed solutions so far would make Hur completely useless as opposed to simply making the ability negatable. Your solutions strike me as considerably more radical in this regard than what I have proposed.

More radical in some circumstances, sure. On the other hand, my proposed idea doesn't fundamentally alter the economy, the way the game is played and has been played for years now, and make many cards not worth the time anymore. Plus, yes, my idea would render Hur useless, but only if the card is being played by one of the players, and even then, it has to be drawn first to do anything.

Quote

These distinctions strike me as special pleading. If I placed ET into battle and then played Reach of Desperation followed by Prosperity are you going to claim that we have no choice but to make that CBN? After all there is only one person who can fill in the blanks as to what cards were drawn and there are 6 whole cards to keep track of.

There's two distinct differences here. First, if I draw six cards, I'm going to remember which cards I drew, as opposed to the cards I shuffled into my deck, because I can see them so I have a visual cue to remember. Second, you're talking about playing three specific cards as opposed to one, which makes it much less likely to actually happen.

Quote

The same arguments stand against ET + RoD + Proposerity.

To an extent, sure. The difference is that, in the case of RoD + Prosperity, all I can do is choose which cards go back on top of my deck, and in some cases, a player can tell where their opponent put their cards in their hand, so it can be easy to see if someone's cheating. With Hur, you're allowing me to pick and choose any seven cards I want from my deck and say that I definitely had them, and you can't prove otherwise. Implementing rules that make cheating easier is just not good.

I didn't find a place to put this in, so I just wanted to mention it, there have been at least one or two steps taken to help prolong the battle phase. I just want to point out Herod's Temple as a unique and creative example of the way the playtesters managed to put a dent in CBN abilities.

Josh · « **Reply #21 on:** May 06, 2012, 06:08:02 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 06, 2012, 12:31:58 AM

If we're looking for a penalty to decking out, then let's use the Pokemon Rule: If you deck out, you lose.

As mentioned by JSB23 and Chris, the unfortunate side effect of a rule like this would be turning all decks into turtles. And you would have the same problem as before (centralized meta around one deck type), except the games would last longer.

What about this idea: Each/any time a player decks out on that player's turn, their opponent may EITHER 1. rescue any lost soul in that player's LoB, OR 2. return a Redeemed soul in that player's LoR back to its owner's LoB. This would only happen once per turn, so things like Mayhem-with-6-cards-left don't cause a second deck-out, and it can't be forced by the opponent (otherwise I think Watchful Servant/Luke decks would be too strong). Examples:

Speed player's turn, game tied 2-2, decks out. Opponent holding SoG/NJ? Rescue a soul via the Decking Rule, then SoG/NJ for the win. Opponent not holding SoG/NJ? Return a Redeemed soul back to LoB from Speed player's LoR, make the game 2-1.

Speed player thinking about using Chariot of Fire to bring back a few heroes? It will cause him to deck again in a turn or two, so he at least thinks about it before activating.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #22 on:** May 06, 2012, 06:25:32 PM »

I would really like to see this idea playtested thoroughly. This might be a good answer.

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** May 06, 2012, 08:54:48 PM »

First, on the Hur thing, I have actually seen a player shuffle their hand then draw only to remember after the fact that they had a Nazareth out. This was a very experienced player in a tournament. It was not possible to reconstruct the hand, and frankly, it is impossible to make sure it was reconstructed correctly. This game may be a Christian card game, but that much of an 'honor system' is too much.

Moving on, you are going too extreme, that's the whole point. Try something less extreme, like help us develop Type 3. If you want actual battle phases, help us make that into something more viable, or just play Type 2. That's what I do. Trying to turn the entire game on its head and render everyone's collections worthless is silly and several steps too far.

Find something creative (thanks Chris, Herod's Temple is a great one

) to suggest ways to corral things you think are "OP" if you want, but remember that there are still several themes in the running this year. You'd have more going for your argument if only one or two themes were actually viable.

Master KChief · « **Reply #24 on:** May 06, 2012, 09:55:59 PM »

5. Offense and Defense must be equal. Problem solved.

News:

Author Topic: [Proposal] Three rules and an errata (Read 3909 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris

Chris

Chris