Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: robm on April 25, 2009, 01:14:52 PM
-
Highway: Gold Enhancement
Hero may withdraw from battle unharmed. All enhancements cards played may be returned to hand except this one.
Not to spoil someone elses deck but I had my whole deck discarded in one turn by the use of 2 highways and a bunch of other cards in between. (In a type 2 Game)
Question: Can you play Highway on one Gold hero. Then highway remains in play as long as another Gold hero is in battle. Play a bunch of other cards. Then play another highway to return the first highway to hand and repeat the process.
I don't think you should be able to get the first highway back because it says "except this one".
Is there an official ruling on this somewhere?
-
I don't think you should be able to get the first highway back because it says "except this one".
Is there an official ruling on this somewhere?
You are correct, "except this one" refers to all copies of Highway.
-
I don't think you should be able to get the first highway back because it says "except this one".
Is there an official ruling on this somewhere?
You are correct, "except this one" refers to all copies of Highway.
sk, you are incorrect. "This one" refers to the specific copy of Highway used to retrieve enhancments.
Say I have a gold hero in battle (Hero #1) and I play a bunch of enhancements on him and then band in another gold (Hero #2). If Hero #2 plays Highway (Highway #1) he can choose to withdraw Hero #1 and all enhancements played on him. Then Hero #2 plays a bunch of enhancements and bands in a new gold hero (Hero #3--because Hero #1 cannot re-enter battle). If Hero #3 plays Highway (Highway #2) he can choose to withdraw Hero #2 and all enhancements played on him, including Highway #1.
This process can repeat until there are no more new gold heroes to band in.
My main T2-2P Nats deck was built around this combo. It stinks to get hit with this and not be able to stop it. The only bright side is that you probably won't see a deck like this at a big tournament because it does not win consistently enough to take a tourney.
-
or until they throw down The Long Day and start it over again.
-
or until they throw down The Long Day and start it over again.
There's a good possibility they are revisiting that ruling (The Long Day ruling).
-
That works, except that Highway has to withdraw the hero it's played on. It says "hero" not "a hero".
-
You are correct, "except this one" refers to all copies of Highway.
sk, you are incorrect. "This one" refers to the specific copy of Highway used to retrieve enhancments.
Do you have a reference? I specifically saw this ruled differently in the pre-plurge era, but can find any remaining quotes on here on in the REG that specify. Besides, wouldn't the ruling on Sin in the Camp (all copies of "this card") apply?
-
Highway cannot return another copy of Highway to it's owners hand.
Highway is worded like Momentum Change and we've already been told that Momentum Change cannot return another copy of itself to your hand. The original thread was purged but you can check this discussion. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14153.0)
Momentum Change
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Return all Evil Enhancements except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle. • Play As: Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.
Highway
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero may withdraw from battle unharmed. All enhancement cards played may be returned to the player's hand except this one.
-
So a deck that uses this combo would be illegal then?
-
So a deck that uses this combo would be illegal then?
The deck is perfectly legal but not very effective since the combo doesn't work.
-
True. The deck is legal, but someone using the combo on you is not.
It wasn't very fun to watch my whole deck get discarded.
-
Highway cannot return another copy of Highway to it's owners hand.
This specific combo was ruled legal by Bryon prior to Nats last year. For further discussion this year,and possible change to make these kinds of combos not work, see this thread for discussion. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14294.0) The interesting bits begin on about page 4 and continue to page 16.
Highway is worded like Momentum Change and we've already been told that Momentum Change cannot return another copy of itself to your hand.
The difference is that Momentum Change is a triggered ability, whereas Highway is not. Since both Momentum Change activate simultaneously, each one's "except this one" clause exempts itself from being returned to hand. Highway is different. By the time the second Highway triggers, the first one is no longer active, so it doesn't exempt itself from returning to hand.
"Except this one" means except that exact card, not except every card with the same name. If "this one" meant every copy, then how would the "discard this Fortress" part of Headquarters at Riblah's SA work if we both had it active?
Do you have a reference? I specifically saw this ruled differently in the pre-plurge era, but can find any remaining quotes on here on in the REG that specify.
I'm not sure what those rulings are, because I've never seen them (and for obvious reason I was looking for them). Are your sure you are not confusing them with the rulings about which hero and which enhancements must withdraw?
Besides, wouldn't the ruling on Sin in the Camp (all copies of "this card") apply?
Nope, the Sin in the Camp example actually demonstrates my point that "this card" means "this specific card." There was no Sin in the Camp ruling, Sin in the Camp required an errata to make "this card" mean "all copies of this card."
That works, except that Highway has to withdraw the hero it's played on. It says "hero" not "a hero".
Its been ruled that these are equivalent. This is most clearly seen in the case of set asides where "Set hero aside" and "Set a hero aside" are treated identically.
-
For further discussion this year,and possible change to make these kinds of combos not work, see this thread for discussion. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14294.0) The interesting bits begin on about page 4 and continue to page 16.
It was not my impression, nor is it specified in that discussion that I can see, that Highway is allowed to be abused in this manner just because we're having the discussion about dealing with extended do-nothing combos.
The difference is that Momentum Change is a triggered ability, whereas Highway is not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Momentum Change ruling. The ruling is that the card cannot be returned to hand regardless of what other cards are played. That makes no distinction about whether the ability is triggered.
-
For further
The difference is that Momentum Change is a triggered ability, whereas Highway is not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Momentum Change ruling. The ruling is that the card cannot be returned to hand regardless of what other cards are played. That makes no distinction about whether the ability is triggered.
I'm trying to udnerstand what you are saying here. So let's say that a new Black brigade enhancement was made with the same SA as Momentum Change (using MC's Play As), call it Not Again...
Not Again SA Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.
If I played Antiochus IV Epiphanes, could I drop both Momentum Change and Not Again during the battle and get both back (MC gets me NA and vice-versa) in my hand after I let Antiochus die?
-
Question. What if you used Stillness and Highway? Could you return Stillness with Highway, and Highway with stillness?
-
Question. What if you used Stillness and Highway? Could you return Stillness with Highway, and Highway with stillness?
That has to work. If you can't recur withdraws how could you possibly make a turn last 15-20 minutes, which is what Rob is concerned about in the Breaking the Game thread.
-
The concern which he spelled out was getting infinite initiative (e.g. Red Dragon Stalemate) - usually with choose blocker - playing a bunch of cards, playing a withdraw that retrieved all those cards, and then doing the whole thing over again. It said nothing about stacking withdraws to pick them both back up.
The solutions he proposed included a limit on which blockers you can choose, a limit on being able to pick up other Enhancements with withdraw cards, and a limit on the number of times initiative can be passed back to you in a row. Since none of the solutions address the problem you are laying out in this thread, the real question is, how could that possibly be the problem he was trying to solve?
-
I think the best answer to that issue was limit the number of times The Long Day can be used. It doesnt cut into any other combos except for the one-turn-wonder, which is what he wanted to get rid of.
-
A couple of things on this issue.
The player that Rob brought up into question is operaning under the assumption that this deck is legal based on several past rulings. Of all the rulings, probably the highway recursion is the shakiest that he has. the rest of the deck is solid.
Question. What if you used Stillness and Highway? Could you return Stillness with Highway, and Highway with stillness?
This is a very good point and this is one possible way around the highway recursion problem. (by the way..I need some stillnesses if people have them!!) and this is a real life example of mjb's "not again" example that we already have.
I dont see any reason why a highway/stillness continued recurrsion cannot continue ad nauseum. YOu may have a point about the higway/highway not being able to recurr (although it has been ruled differently in the past) but I think the highway/stillness combo is much harder to make a case against.
-
The concern which he spelled out was getting infinite initiative (e.g. Red Dragon Stalemate) - usually with choose blocker - playing a bunch of cards, playing a withdraw that retrieved all those cards, and then doing the whole thing over again. It said nothing about stacking withdraws to pick them both back up.
I can point to at least one post in that thread where I talked about picking withdraws back up and no one had any issues with it. But, seriously, who cares? I threw the comment in to provide robm some context about the whole "combo decks are mean" plaint. If this is a big deal to you, then you're right, you win, whatever it takes to get you to look at the actual question being asked if you feel it wasn't resolved earlier.
I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.
This is a very good point and this is one possible way around the highway recursion problem. (by the way..I need some stillnesses if people have them!!) and this is a real life example of mjb's "not again" example that we already have.
Crustpope, the problem is that two situations are not the same. The hypothetical Momentum Change/Not Again combo will not work--for the same reason that Momentum Change x2 doesn't work. The reason Momentum Change x2 does not work is because both Momentum Change are active at the same time. The first Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand. The second Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand.
For the Highway x2 it is entirely different. The first Highway activates and returns a hero and all enhancements played on him (except itself). Then it is done. Sometime later the second Highway activates and pulls back the first hero and all enhancements played on him back to hand. What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
I dont see any reason why a highway/stillness continued recurrsion cannot continue ad nauseum.
Eventually you will eventually run out of heroes.
-
The first Highway activates and returns a hero and all enhancements played on him (except itself). Then it is done. Sometime later the second Highway activates and pulls back the first hero and all enhancements played on him back to hand. What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
It wasn't played on him, right? It was played on the hero that was returned.
-
This type of debate keeps coming up with the same defense of semantics. Frankly there is only one quote in this whole thread that stands out as the most important to me:
It wasn't very fun to watch my whole deck get discarded.
Can't we get past the semantics and just have fun & fellowship? A game like robm is describing will drive younger players away from Redemption. If we are not trying to expand the player base of this game, then we are sealing its demise with word games that lead to "awesome combos."
I already know who is going to respond to my post and what you are going to say, so to save time I will not respond. I have said what I wanted to say and that is all.
-
I can point to at least one post in that thread where I talked about picking withdraws back up and no one had any issues with it.
If it's the one I'm looking at now, you only said that you thought limiting Option 2 to withdrawal cards would be enough to satisfy the situation. Having not actually said anything about addressing multi-withdrawal-pick-up combos and having said nothing to explain that your deck relied on that combo and not a CtB combo like Rob described, exactly what evidence do I have from that information that's supposed to allow me to divine your subtextual meaning and respond about that exact combo?
If this is a big deal to you, then you're right, you win, whatever it takes to get you to look at the actual question being asked if you feel it wasn't resolved earlier.
This isn't about winning, Matt, or about being a "big deal", you were the one who provided that thread as evidence of a discussion about this question, and I'm looking at it and not seeing discussion about this question. It's perfectly reasonable to question whether that thread is actually lending anything to this discussion, especially when you think that it is; otherwise, we're speaking from two different sets of information with no hope of a common ground.
I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.
And I can tell you that I wound up spending most of that tournament in the main hall herding cats, and so much of what went on in the game room happened apart from my observation, and a lot of ruling discussions did not include me. I think it's pretty evident from what's going on right here and now that there would not have been a consensus if everyone was involved, unless a satisfactory explanation was proffered.
...The first Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand. The second Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand...
What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
Well, why not itself? Your logic is that Mo Change prevents itself from being returned to hand. Why would Highway not prevent itself from being returned to hand? It seems the same to me.
-
The first Highway activates and returns a hero and all enhancements played on him (except itself). Then it is done. Sometime later the second Highway activates and pulls back the first hero and all enhancements played on him back to hand. What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
It wasn't played on him, right? It was played on the hero that was returned.
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "played on him." Let me give the precise scenario...
Highway says "Hero may withdraw..." It has been ruled that in this situation "Hero" is the equivalent of "A Hero." (Asked specifically on the board about withdraw enhancements last year prior to the MN Type-2 tournament in 2008.) This means I can use use Highway-A on Hero #2 and choose to return Hero #1 and all the enhancements played on him. In that case, I am not even attempting to return Highway-A to my hand--because you can only return enhancements played by the withdrawing hero and Hero #1 did not play Highway.
I now play some more enhancements on Hero #2, one of which bands in gold Hero #3. I now play a second Highway, Highway-B on Hero #3 and return Hero #2 and all enhancements played on him. One of the enhancements played on Hero #2 was Highway-A.
What would prevent Highway-A from being returned to hand?
Having thought about this some more, what does "played by or "used by" mean when a character is forced from battle, but there is another character of the same brigade is in battle? The enhancements slide over along with all their abilities and ongoing SAs. In what sense are these enhancements not played or used by the second character?
...The first Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand. The second Momentum Change prevents itself from being returned to hand...
What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
Well, why not itself? Your logic is that Mo Change prevents itself from being returned to hand. Why would Highway not prevent itself from being returned to hand?
The Withdrawal SA is an instant ability. The "except this one" part of the SA is not a separate ability but is included as explanatory text to the withdrawal, i.e., what may not be withdrawn. That would make the "except this one" instantaneous also would it not? Put another way, what evidence is there that the last three words of Highway's SA--"except this one"--is meant to be an ongoing prevent or protect or what-have-you when the rest of the SA completes immediately?
It seems the same to me.
In the Momentum Change x2 case, there is no question that both Momentum Change have their "except this one" active, because both cards activate at the same time. In the Highway x2 case, the SA for the first Highway already completed x-cards ago when the second Highway is played. Those strike me as qualitatively distinct examples.
What would prevent the first Highway from being returned to hand?
I already know who is going to respond to my post and what you are going to say, so to save time I will not respond. I have said what I wanted to say and that is all.
Here is my answer, YMT. The general issue about decks like these has already been ruled on by Rob.
-
Here is my answer, YMT.
Are you trying to provoke me? :maul:
-
I dont see any reason why a highway/stillness continued recurrsion cannot continue ad nauseum.
Eventually you will eventually run out of heroes.[/quote]
Yes, but not before a lot of damage can be done
-
In the Momentum Change x2 case, there is no question that both Momentum Change have their "except this one" active, because both cards activate at the same time.
Yes, but they both return "all cards"... "except this one". The argument for the two-card combo, as you may recall, is that each would return all cards. The ruling, however, states that you cannot. Logically, if I cannot stack Mo Changes, my assumption is that I similarly cannot stack other withdraw/return cards. For me to think otherwise would violate the spirit of the ruling and ignore the entire reason it was made in the first place.
-
So you are claiming that any cards that pull cards back to hand, even if they are different such as stillness and highway, wont pull the other card back into your hand if one has been previously played and is still in battle?
-
Yes, but they both return "all cards"... "except this one". The argument for the two-card combo, as you may recall, is that each would return all cards. The ruling, however, states that you cannot. Logically, if I cannot stack Mo Changes, my assumption is that I similarly cannot stack other withdraw/return cards. For me to think otherwise would violate the spirit of the ruling and ignore the entire reason it was made in the first place.
The Momentum Change ruling was not pulled out of thin air, however. There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand. The card's own SA prevents the return from happening. The same cannot be said for the Highway case. By the time the second Highway is played the SA on the first has already completed.
Unless you are going to special case this, it seems to me your options are two:
1) Declare "except this one" to be an ongoing prevent/protect/what-have-you SA.
2) Rule "this one" to refer to every copy of the same card in play.
-
It seems to me that this stillness combo is a the result of a loop hole in Redemption. It is a combo that someone came up with, that probably was never intended to be allowed to be played that way,
Stillness was basically a card to save all your other enhancements in battle when you knew you were going to lose.
I think it should be an ongoing ability if that is what the problem is.
Or I think we should learn to read what the cards say in plan english. "except this one" should apply to any highway played. So in Type 2 they may be able to Highway 5 times as long as they have 5 in their deck.
This would still allow them a combo of discarding half on my deck but limit the boringness for the player being attacked.
Also Red Dragon is used to block and i didn't have any red in my hand or deck for that Game.
Maybe we should limit the time of a battle phase. 10 minutes??
-
There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand.
Does "darned good" have a definition in Minnesota that means "arbitrary"? An exception is not a protect ability. It was ruled that - simply - that you can't stack the Mo Changes, and the logic does not support disallowing the stack more than it supports allowing it. If anything, the logic that allows the stack is more sound; the ruling was made to retain gameplay integrity, much like Rob reserves the right to declare a character unique if he deems it necessary.
All I am saying, is that if the rule is we can't stack Mo Changes, and the reason is to prevent stacking them to pull them all back into your hand, then logically it doesn't make sense to turn around and say it's okay to stack Highways. Those two concepts strike me as wholly inconsistent.
-
I agree with Schaef.
-
There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand.
Does "darned good" have a definition in Minnesota that means "arbitrary"?
You made the Mo Change ruling, and the explanation provided above was the one you gave at the time as the basis for your ruling. Although the original ruling was lost to the purge, go back to the Mo Change thread that Gabe referenced and you'll see that I gave exactly the same reason--YOUR reason--as the basis for the ruling.
I really don't understand how your decision to base the ruling on standard game rules would be considered arbitrary. At least compared to the alternative of "I think it's just bad for the game so I rule X."
-
I think if anything, it's more accurate to say that I passed along the Mo Change ruling, since things like this are usually discussed in committee and passed down from Rob's final decision.
"My reason" is the one that I gave above, that the Mo Changes provide exceptions for themselves independent of other Mo Changes played in the same turn. However many Mo Changes are played, that one is not returned because it says it's not returned. And that reasoning has more to do with gameplay than with a purely logical construct, because as I said, one could (and did) make a perfectly valid argument for allowing them to be picked up. Just like one can make a logical case for Widow being generic. Just like one can make a logical case for an interrupt stopping a prevent rather than the other way around. In the end, one or the other has to be decided, and the compelling factor is gameplay, even in instances where it might support the weaker logical conclusion.
I don't think there's some unstated "protect ability" that applies only to this one card. The reason that you paraphrased was that each card gave an independent exception, which is what I've been saying in this thread. The logical support for ruling it that way is no better than the logical support for allowing them to be picked up, and may be even weaker. Having to decide between two imperfect and uncertain conclusions, we went with the one that was better for gameplay. That's the very definition of arbitrary: decided on personal discretion in the absence of an airtight factual argument.
The short version of all this: I don't appreciate being told what I supposedly think, when I've made the effort to explain what I think and give the reasons for it; or having a committee ruling - with Rob as the final arbiter - held up as an example of some unilateral decision made exclusively by myself and as evidence of contradictory reasoning on my part. Especially when you refer back to a post you made which specifically says "independent exception" and not "unwritten protection". Is that really what this discussion is now boiling down to; whether or not I actually know what I think?
-
I agree with Schaef.
Bottom line. In playing this game and participating on this message board for many years, I have NEVER seen any ruling that Bryon and Schaef agreed on overturned. Now that this has happened, any further discussion of allowing Highway / Stillness / Momentum Change cards being allowed to stack is guaranteed to be useless and will only lead to greater frustration.
It was a sneaky combo.
Good job to whoever thought of it.
It doesn't work anymore.
Move along :)
-
The question of if Highway can return stillness is still at large.
-
This seems like a silly ruling to me, particularly if the motive behind it is that it can lead to devastating combos. Seriously, a lot of the useful cards in Redemption can lead to devastating combos. I see no reason why Highway, band, Highway, band, should not be legal, but Long Day, Stillness, Jubilee, Long Day, Stillness is.
Limiting the metagame for something like this seems like a bad idea to me, I'm sure it's frustrating for some people to not be able to do anything for a while during a game of Redemption, but really, it's not an overpoweringly ridiculous combo.
The Momentum Change ruling makes logical sense (both activate at the same time, it's a bit of a stretch to say that they can't return each other, but I see the reasoning behind it). To say that Highway cannot target Highway seems totally different to me. The "except this one" part of the ability of Highway specifically refers to itself being the target of its own ability. Once its ability is completed, it is, in effect, useless, and has no lasting ability that is active in the battle (unless it is erratta'd to be protected from being returned to hand...). Returning the first Highway with a second one is a completely separate action, and I don't see what the problem is.
Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship. If we limit ourselves to what the playtesters thought of, the metagame would NEVER advance in the ways that it does. There are a LOT of fantastic and inventive Redemption players out there, and they will come up with powerful, innovative ways to use the cards that are released. I think this should always be encouraged.
-
The question of if Highway can return stillness is still at large.
I don't think it is. One cannot return the other.
On a withdraw card, ‘All enhancement cards played’ includes enhancements used by the withdrawing character only.
If I have two characters in battle and play Highway on one of them, only enhancements used by the character that I target with Highway are returned. If the other character is able to keep Highway and later play Stillness, they aren't the character that used Highway so it wouldn't return.
Some cards in Redemption® make reference to a special ability being ‘played by’. The phrase ‘played by’ refers to cards played directly on the holder’s character(s) in battle.
-
Couldn't you go....
RA with blue guy.
play blue banding card and band in a gold hero, play some blue stuff, Highway on the gold guy and target the blue guy to return. Highway is now left chilling in battle. Band in a blue guy. Play some gold stuff, Stillness on the blue guy, targeting the gold guy. That returns Highway to your hand. Band in a gold guy now and restart the process.
Its a bit longer and needs more cards, but why would that not work?
-
On a withdraw card, ‘All enhancement cards played’ includes enhancements used by the withdrawing character only.
If I have two characters in battle and play Highway on one of them, only enhancements used by the character that I target with Highway are returned. If the other character is able to keep Highway and later play Stillness, they aren't the character that used Highway so it wouldn't return.
Some cards in Redemption® make reference to a special ability being ‘played by’. The phrase ‘played by’ refers to cards played directly on the holder’s character(s) in battle.
ding ding ding. We have a winner!
-
Lemme explain my example in a more step-by-step method.
1. Rescue attempt with Jacob, play RTC to pick red dragon.
2. Play Courage to band in Deborah.
3. Play book of Hozai.
4. Play Highway on Deborah, targeting Jacob. He returns and I get RTC, Courage, and Book of Hozai back.
5. I play Deborahs Directive to band in Dan.
6. I play Furnace of God's Wrath on Deborah.
7. I play Stillness on Dan, targeting Deborah. She returns, and I get Deb's Directive, Furnace of God's Wrath, and Highway back.
8. I play courage to band in another gold hero.
Why can't I repeat that until I run out of heroes?
-
I think they're saying that you can only target a gold hero with Highway, and a blue hero with Stillness.
-
When Highway/stillness do not specify brigade? Check MJB's post about "Hero / A Hero."
-
So does the Long Day/Stillness/Jubilee/Long Day/Stillness combo still work, even though the Highway/Band/Highway/Band combo doesn't work?
-
Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship.
It was in a multiplayer game. I actually did not lose that game I came in second. We timed out and the player with the combo actually lost.
I not asking for a rule change. I'm asking people to read their cards correctly.
I'm sorry, having your deck discarded on you is bad sportsmanship. Asking for a rule clarification is not bad sportsmanship.
Please don't make assumptions about things. Its not nice.
-
Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship.
I'm sorry, having your deck discarded on you is bad sportsmanship.
LOL no.
-
I agree with Hue, having your deck discarded is a part of the game. Using a powerful combo isn't unsportsmanlike.
-
Its not nice to laugh at other people. This is a Christian Game and it is suppose to be wholesome and fun. Not onesided and boring.
-
Not onesided
Someone will win eventually. Besides, throw Lurking in your deck if these combos bug you that much.
-
My point is these combos, Highway specifically, are illegal.
Wow lurking is a cool card. I don't have one. Anyone want to trade for one?
-
You really have no room to talk about it being one-sided and boring if you don't have a lurking (assuming that's a reflection of a small cardpool overall). If you don't have all of the good cards and someone else does, it's going to be fairly one-sided. Should we ban all good cards?
-
You really have no room to talk about it being one-sided and boring if you don't have a lurking (assuming that's a reflection of a small cardpool overall). If you don't have all of the good cards and someone else does, it's going to be fairly one-sided. Should we ban all good cards?
YOUR NOT BEING NICE AT ALL!!!
-
And if you would just read the posts. This type of combo is illegal so I did not need to have lurking.
To quote myself.
My point is these combos, Highway specifically, are illegal.
-
Both rob and I have been the victims of this combo. I think there is a misnomer out there that this deck can be contered with a few card additions (Kingdoms of this World -Preists version, darkness, Lurking, Love of money, etc.) the problem is, I revamped my deck, adding all of these cards and still got beat...twice. And one of the times he got the combo he needed in only 4 turns. If this deck goes to nats, it will win 80-90% of the time. and it is devastating.
This is a game changing deck and will likely have to be ruled against much like the infinite side battles decks were ruled against earlier in redemption history. In the end I guess it is not a bad tribute. This guy has literally broken the game and there are not that many defenses against it so he will go down in redemption history as the guy who can say..They had to make that rule change because of me.
ANd you guys need to stop picking on rob, because it is easy to play monday morning quarterback not having been through the meat grinder that is this deck. Rob is not "whining" and he is not being "unsportsmanlike." he is merely questioning a play and making sure whether it is legal or illegal.
Pol and Hue need to need to think before they speak. The idea that adding lurking as a one time stop would somehow destroy this combo is laughable and shows how much you do not know about what you are talking about. both of you should know better than that.
-
ANd you guys need to stop picking on rob, because it is easy to play monday morning quarterback not having been through the meat grinder that is this deck. Rob is not "whining" and he is not being "unsportsmanlike." he is merely questioning a play and making sure whether it is legal or illegal.
Pol and Hue need to need to think before they speak. The idea that adding lurking as a one time stop would somehow destroy this combo is laughable and shows how much you do not know about what you are talking about. both of you should know better than that.
Thanks for backing me up Matt.
-
No problem. These guys just dont understand. They are really good guys, they just dont understand what is actually going on and they think t hat since you are a jr member that you must not know how to play....
and they'd be wrong because even nats vetrans like me get eaten in this meat grinder.
-
Yeah that deck just tears you right apart. I may not have been playing as long as them or be as well versed in ways to play the game, but I was still a force to be reckoned with at my first tourney last year.
Beside membership status seems to have to do with the number of post you have up. I use to play redemption when it first came out.
Back to the topic of highway and cards like it. Perhasp it needs to be a new type of card within enhancement card. Like healing and set asides are special enhancements. Highway could be called a Withdrawal enhancement. A ruling could be that one withdrawal enhancement cannot return another withdrawal enhancement to hand. So that combo could be used five time with five highway, even five more times with stillness but that is about it.
-
So does the Long Day/Stillness/Jubilee/Long Day/Stillness combo still work, even though the Highway/Band/Highway/Band combo doesn't work?
-
Bottom line. In playing this game and participating on this message board for many years, I have NEVER seen any ruling that Bryon and Schaef agreed on overturned. Now that this has happened, any further discussion of allowing Highway / Stillness / Momentum Change cards being allowed to stack is guaranteed to be useless and will only lead to greater frustration.
I think this post is premature. Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year. This is also a ruling that affects current decks, and we're into state-level tournament season now. I am offering my opinion on what I feel the rule SHOULD be, but I am not in a position to just overturn that or make different rules for "my" tournament based on that.
What I expect will happen is that the current ruling will remain intact at least through the current tournament season. I plan to take it up with "the elders" and IF the consensus is there's an issue and IF we feel the rule can be applied consistently (this may indeed be a loophole as some have said), only then will a full change be made. Until then, just take this for what it is: my feeling that this isn't following the spirit of the other ruling.
-
That is what I was told and what I thoguht might happen. Then if this deck is legal, I truly hope it makes it to nats and lays waste to the competition. It will be real fun to see how many "unsprortsmanlike" threads we see pop up on these boards if that happens.
-
I think I will have to opt for t-1 player in the upcoming upper level tournaments over t2-2player then.
Thanks for the clarification schaef.
Or as some might say If you can't be them join them.
-
Shouldn't protect forts stop this combo? or am I missing a cog?
-
Robm, if you don't mind, what card was used as the one to discard your deck (obviously piece by piece)? I've searched the cardlist, and can't find ANY GE's that say to discard from opponent's Draw Pile (other than Mary's Prophetic Act). Just wondering, as I WAS already in the process of trying to make this type of deck (just for fun, not for tourney play), but couldn't find anything that targeted opponent's draw pile. Thanks!
-
Warrior's Spear?
-
It all happpened so fast, over and over again. I don't know what card it was that discared. Also don't want to ruin his deck secrets since its still legal and all.
-
Warriors Spear from RoA.
-
It all happpened so fast, over and over again. I don't know what card it was that discared. Also don't want to ruin his deck secrets since its still legal and all.
I want to commend Rob. He got killed by a combo. Asked whether it was legal. Got criticized for being unsportsmanlike. And after all that still is mature enough to not spoil the surprise of the player's deck that killed him. A lesser man would broadcast it for all to see out of revenge for the beating and criticism that followed. Keep up the good work Rob.
-
No problem. These guys just dont understand. They are really good guys, they just dont understand what is actually going on and they think t hat since you are a jr member that you must not know how to play....
and they'd be wrong because even nats vetrans like me get eaten in this meat grinder.
I don't care how many posts someone has, if you think that affects my reactions to people. I was pointing out that saying that discarding someone's deck is unsportsmanlike is not a credible statement. It is frustrating for the other player, but so is losing in every other way. If a strategy is within the rules of the game, and is not specifically taking advantage of the rules in an unsportsmanlike manner (i.e. stalling), it's legit.
I said nothing about how to stop this combo, nor did I imply that it wasn't powerful. Especially in Type II, the point of building your deck is to have a powerful strategy or combo that you exploit, and you try to get your deck up and running before your opponent does. In the case of a combo deck, if you get your combo out, you have a good chance of winning. Having a deck that can do this, however, does not make you unbeatable, as luck of the draw comes into play.
In my opinion, the fact that Redemption is a Christian card game should have very little effect on the gameplay itself, and even less on how rulings are handled. A card/combo is either acceptable according to the rules, or it is not. You CANNOT ban a strategy just because it is not conducive to fellowship and giving both players a happy ending to the match. In the end, Redemption is a competitive game. The "wholesome and fun" aspect of it largely comes from player interaction outside the actions of the game.
This discussion reminds me of playing Cutthroat Caverns at last Nationals. A certain card called Edge Out!, which basically prevents one player from taking any action for a turn, was played on me early in the game, and from then on everyone played nearly every Edge Out! they drew on me. If you weren't there at the time, you would think that this was very poor sportsmanship and that I would be completely frustrated, as I was able to do very little for much of the game. As it was, however, it was actually a lot of fun anyway, because we were playing with a fun group of guys, and even now you'll see some people jokingly "Edge me out."
I also want to make it clear that I did not intend to offend Rob with my comments. I apologize if I posted something that was hurtful to anyone.
-
Both rob and I have been the victims of this combo. I think there is a misnomer out there that this deck can be contered with a few card additions (Kingdoms of this World -Preists version, darkness, Lurking, Love of money, etc.) the problem is, I revamped my deck, adding all of these cards and still got beat...twice. And one of the times he got the combo he needed in only 4 turns. If this deck goes to nats, it will win 80-90% of the time. and it is devastating.
This is a game changing deck and will likely have to be ruled against much like the infinite side battles decks were ruled against earlier in redemption history. In the end I guess it is not a bad tribute. This guy has literally broken the game and there are not that many defenses against it so he will go down in redemption history as the guy who can say..They had to make that rule change because of me.
ANd you guys need to stop picking on rob, because it is easy to play monday morning quarterback not having been through the meat grinder that is this deck. Rob is not "whining" and he is not being "unsportsmanlike." he is merely questioning a play and making sure whether it is legal or illegal.
Pol and Hue need to need to think before they speak. The idea that adding lurking as a one time stop would somehow destroy this combo is laughable and shows how much you do not know about what you are talking about. both of you should know better than that.
Tim Maly has said many times in the past that the best decks, in the hands of the best players, will win about 80% of the time. He should know..
FWIW, decks like the ones Emjaybee and Captain Kirk used at nationals last year had some combos that did something similar to this one. They did it all legally, but because the combo was so intricate it was difficult to pull off. The bad-draw aspect of the deck kept them from winning the whole tournament. I haven't played against the deck in question so I can't speak for it. However, I don't think that overly-complex intricate-combo decks are going to be the ones competing for the top spots at nationals in the foreseeable future. It's easier to win with "quick" combos like pre-block ignore, CTB, cannot be negated combos, etc.
-
First off I wanna say that somewhere in the blury spots in my far memory, I remember there being discussions very close to this that all ended with something like "...well, this combo is so hard to get off, it doesn't win consistently, so we shouldn't worry too much about it..."
Second, I agree. This combo absolutely stinks to have done on you. It's really hard to still have a good time when you lose your whole deck in one turn and have absolutely nothing to do about it. However...(refer to above)
Third, if that many people REALLY DO think that this is a big problem, I would say, to make this combo unplayable and still have consistent rulings, the easiest thing to would be to say that no withdraw/pick up enhan could pick up another withdraw/pick up enhan EVER. No matter what the brigades, same or diff, or who they were played on. However, I believe the quote that Gabe gave was something pretty similar to this or at least with the same outcome (but it seemed like everyone besides Bryon realized it).
Lastly, let's all remember why we play this game. For me, tournaments are the best. I've lost 4 games in a row in a tournament, all somewhere between 7-0 and 7-3, and still, though being a little disappointed in my deck, had an amazing time. Just remember that this game, tho being a competitive game, is all about the purpose of fellowship and fun with other Christians. I normally wouldn't bring this up...but this thread really seemed to have A LOT more bickering than discussion. Let's just remember why we play and why we love it, ok?
-
So if Highway/Band/Highway doesn't work, would Highway/Band/Reach of Desperation/Highway?
Of course by Reach of Desperation I mean any Interrupt and Play Next card.
From the bits above, I can see how this could set up faster than my deck did last year. I'm not sure if it would be much faster than Captain Kirk's deck however.
-
This deck sets up MUCH faster than any of the other combos. There are only a few cards you would need in your hand to get it started.
@ Prof. I agree. questioning the legality of the deck is one thing, but Rob has done well to disclose as little as possible about this deck. Props to him.
@ Hue, If you did not say anything about how to counter the deck then I must have misread your post and I apologize for lumping you in with Pol. When Rob claimed that dicarding someones deck in one turn is unsportmanlike you have to put it in persepctive. is beating an opponent 100-0 in a game of HS basketball unsportmanlike? yeah probably. Just because it is legal doesnt make it right. Now B-Ball is different from redemption, but you have to acknowledge that there is somethign wrong with this type of strategy from a playing persepctive. This is the ultimate hand control/deck discard deck. While the guy playing it may be the best person in the world, the intent behind this deck is to totally destroy your hand and deck they way the New England Patriots would devasatate a HS football team. Yeah it may be legal, but if you were ont he recieving end, wouldnt you begin to think that something was wrong here?
@TKP Protection forts dont do anything but delay, which works if you can delay him long enough to win. Forts that protect EC's in territory dont do anything because they arent targeted until the game is already over. you have no hand, no deck and then its just a Romans destroy Jerusalem away from that deck picking off your EC's at its leisure
-
These kind of combo decks are hard to pull off. They are win or lose decks. All or nothing. To be the most consistent with the combo one must push the combo to the edge. Would you play a deck with no dominants?...anyways all or nothing decks are quite vulnerable. Especially to hezzy's ring and by the numbers.
when you build a deck- you have to build against major strategies or least weaknesses to your build. Or you can do like top players and scout all the other top players's decks and deck check in 3 other different decks. Thats why other games have sideboards and best two out of three games.
the combo is not overpowered, it's just not prepared for. Dont get me wrong, i give it props and i saw all the arguments about no matter what you do it's not enough. I got beat by a taking egypts wealth deck for months. And ive had to rebuild a sin in the camp deck for times already from buing stolen twice, sold the cards another and built from friends cards. Needless to say when i go to any tournament and someone knows
-
im going to be there, they make sure they turn in a deck that counters combo decks. Idont know what to tell you guys-
longday stillness jubilee has been around forever. Add in foof jacob and oon and its even better. Coat w\ warriors spear for insanity.
how about a place card that says:
place in a players territory. If a card besides a dominent would be placed in that players discardpile from anywhere, instead place card under players deck.
(playtesters)
-
it can go in your anti discard deck you turn in.
-
@ Hue, If you did not say anything about how to counter the deck then I must have misread your post and I apologize for lumping you in with Pol. When Rob claimed that dicarding someones deck in one turn is unsportmanlike you have to put it in persepctive. is beating an opponent 100-0 in a game of HS basketball unsportmanlike? yeah probably. Just because it is legal doesnt make it right. Now B-Ball is different from redemption, but you have to acknowledge that there is somethign wrong with this type of strategy from a playing persepctive. This is the ultimate hand control/deck discard deck. While the guy playing it may be the best person in the world, the intent behind this deck is to totally destroy your hand and deck they way the New England Patriots would devasatate a HS football team. Yeah it may be legal, but if you were ont he recieving end, wouldnt you begin to think that something was wrong here?
If you're using a deck that cannot do anything similar to your opponent, your basketball/football analogy makes more sense, but I can't see why you wouldn't use a powerful deck in Type II (not necessarily a combo deck, but there are a LOT of powerful strategies out there). It seems like the idea of not being able to take an action during your opponent's turn is what's bothering you, but just remember that you get your turn also. The "ultimate hand control/deck discard deck" can still easily lose to another good deck, even one with a completely different strategy.
Let's say I come up against a speed deck in a tournament, and am either not prepared to stop it or just get a bad draw. I lose 5-0, and hardly get to do anything to my opponent. Is he a bad sport? Maybe, but that is determined by how he acts, not by how he plays.
Combo decks can be incredibly powerful, but also come with increased risks. It's very difficult to build a combo deck that can win consistently without relying on the combo it is based on.
-
The basketball analogy fails, too, because in that game it's over if you're up 30 points at halftime. In Redemption it's not over until you have 7 souls. I can't tell you how many times in the past I lost a game I should have won because I didn't engage in overkill.
-
At a regional tournament here, a player was beating Chris Bany 6 to 0. Chris FINALLY got his devastator combo set up, destroyed his opponent's hand, territory, and deck in a 20 minute turn, and proceeded to win over the the next 5 turns 7-6.
Even after such a close win, that could have been a loss, Rob changed the rules about side battles to fix the game. It is NOT a bad thing that you can destroy a player's hand, deck, and/or territory. The bad thing is that you can do it all in one turn, and that turn could be turn 3 if you get a lucky draw. 20 minute solitaire is not fun for the spectators. Some might want it that way, but most do not.
-
This deck sets up MUCH faster than any of the other combos. There are only a few cards you would need in your hand to get it started.
You can't possibly make such a claim unless you have seen every other T2 combo deck play out.
Kirk
-
This deck sets up MUCH faster than any of the other combos. There are only a few cards you would need in your hand to get it started.
You can't possibly make such a claim unless you have seen every other T2 combo deck play out.
Kirk
True. It sets up much faster than any other combo deck I have played. In the three times I have played this deck it set up in an average of 7-8 turns. In two of those games I got Kindoms in my first or second draw so it set him back a few turns until he could play vengeance on a provisioned character.
Both Rob and I are finding a lot of resistance to this idea, it seems like many of you are sittign there thinking to your self. hmm, these turkeys just dont play the right defense or they dont have the right cards in their deck.
fine, believe what you wan.. I just hop ehe take the deck to nats.
-
Yea, that isn't any faster than decks that have existed for several years (decks that all influenced the most recent influx of such decks).
It isn't that people are saying you don't play the right defense or have the right cards in your deck. We are speaking from the perspective that this type of deck has never done better than 3rd at nationals. We realize how effective they are as that has been proven for many years. However, any deck that relies on a combo to win a game is susceptible to bad draws or your opponent can play his cards perfectly and the combo deck fails.
Kirk
-
Both Rob and I are finding a lot of resistance to this idea, it seems like many of you are sittign there thinking to your self. hmm, these turkeys just dont play the right defense or they dont have the right cards in their deck.
IMO, the reason both Rob and you are facing a lot of resistance because we've seen the same claims before.
Last year around this time, we had a huge thread about Cooper's invincible Puple deck that set up in no time and abused Trust and Prosperity. My Nats 2008 deck's took slightly less less than 8 turns (although the number was helped by a four turner early on) on average to set up. Captain Kirk's combo deck was the best combo deck I've seen and it set up in 8 or fewer turns in five out of six games in Nats 2007, and he played the same deck for a few games at Nats 2008.
Those three decks have--combined--one place (a 3rd place Nats finish in 2007) in major tournaments.
-
Both Rob and I are finding a lot of resistance to this idea, it seems like many of you are sittign there thinking to your self. hmm, these turkeys just dont play the right defense or they dont have the right cards in their deck.
IMO, the reason both Rob and you are facing a lot of resistance because we've seen the same claims before.
Last year around this time, we had a huge thread about Cooper's invincible Puple deck that set up in no time and abused Trust and Prosperity. My Nats 2008 deck's took slightly less less than 8 turns (although the number was helped by a four turner early on) on average to set up. Captain Kirk's combo deck was the best combo deck I've seen and it set up in 8 or fewer turns in five out of six games in Nats 2007, and he played the same deck for a few games at Nats 2008.
Those three decks have--combined--one place (a 3rd place Nats finish in 2007) in major tournaments.
That doesn't include Justin Alstad's earlier version of a similar deck which didn't do well when he played it at nationals either. I helped him play-test his ideas and they worked out well. However, if an opponent had played against a similar-type deck before a well-place dominant would ruin the combo. Unfortunately for him, he played against some people that had opportune draws to stop his combo.
-
eh, I may be chicken little claiming that the sky is falling. but that does not change the fact that having someone's entire deck discarded in 15-20 minutes cannot be good for the game.
I don't ming getting beat, heck ive done it before, I just like to be able to play a hand every now and then.
-
the decks and the combos are there, no mistake about it. The question is are they overpowered to the point of change? My recommendation is- not at this point. So at what point should there be an official declaration of change?
if we take a look at type 1 (b\c there is no way this is happenning in type 1) with justins speedfreak it completly changed the metagame. Would this combo be considered overpowered? I mean i maynot affect my opponents deck-but there'd be plenty of times where i would put all my lost souls on the bottom of my own deck to stall a couple of turns. Is it ok if i put all of my lost souls on the bottom of my deck and put my whole twenty + card hand on top of them?:) anyways, seems a little overpowered to me. And im sure bryon can remember nationals 2 years ago when that guy couldnt believe i took all of his doms out of his deck, put his cards from hand on his library and proceeded to play 3 sin in the camps. Which usually happens on turn 6 by the way if not sooner depending on wheher i feel
-
its safe to go off or not. I mean get over it. Thats just type 2 for ya. We's the big boys.
anyways. Just wanted to put in some things to think about
-
I can almost guarantee that no one will see this paticular combo deck at nats. He cannot afford to go, sorry Matt.
BTW BrianGabe's explanation of "used by" is incorect according to the reg. Used by refers to the card itself not whom the target of the special ability is.
Used by
See also Played by.
Played by
Some cards in Redemption® make reference to a special ability being ‘played by’. The phrase ‘played by’ refers to cards played directly on the holder’s character(s) in battle. It does not refer to cards played by another player.
-
I quoted that exact statement. ::)
-
I can almost guarantee that no one will see this paticular combo deck at nats. He cannot afford to go, sorry Matt.
Heck then I will build it and take it ;D
-
how mean of this deck tape are out there? if its just one or 2 than I see no need to change it
-
how mean of this deck tape are out there? if its just one or 2 than I see no need to change it
Yeah, but it will be copied. Especially if it lays waste to the competition. then there will be millions. just like speed in type 1 multiplayer.
-
Yeah, but it will be copied.
Only if it's revealed. ;)
The Guardian posted Speed Freak after all.
-
I can almost guarantee that no one will see this paticular combo deck at nats. He cannot afford to go, sorry Matt.
Heck then I will build it and take it ;D
I suppose there are worse ways to finish in the middle of the T2-2P pack
-
it doesnt take a genious to figure out how to build such a deck...or maybe it does ;p
-
Will this thread ever end? I think it needs to hit the Highway.
-
I think it needs to hit the Highway.
A wise man once said, "Are you trying to provoke me? :maul:"
-
he could play vengeance on a provisioned character.
Wasting provisions is game breaking?
-
Wasting provisions is game breaking?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
-
A wise man once said, "Are you trying to provoke me? :maul:"
It appears that the answer was "yes." :kenobi:
What happened to the good ole' threads like:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45)
***EDIT*** Interesting side note - having Darth Maul in the quote box makes him look like a marble (If you are logged on using Metalistic theme). I will forevermore refer to him as Darth Marble.
-
@crustpope and robm and the mystery creator of the new deck:
Last year at this time I was almost completely convinced my deck was going to be one that forced Rob to come over in the middle of Nats and ban it on the spot. In fact, that was my goal in designing the deck--because every year someone wins T2-2P but a mid-tournament Rob ban-hammer is a ultra-rarity. Alas and alack it 'twas not meant to be.
So all the bantering isn't meant to ridicule the deck or how effective it is, or to minimize how much it stinks to lose to a combo deck. It also definitely isn't aimed at denying the amount of work that went into developing and tweaking it. Everyone is just having a bit of fun--mostly at themselves--for thinking about all the times that they thought they had come up with the perfect unbeatable deck.
It would be cool if this deck is ban-hammer worthy. To be able to put it on a shelf next to the Devestator would be most excellent. I'm pulling for ya.
What happened to the good ole' threads like:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45)
I don't know. The Schaef seemed to be getting pretty worked up any time I would mention Mosquito Coast. Not that he's wrong mind you; it is one of the worst movies of all time.
-
...Mosquito Coast...
ban
-
Wow - was reading the other thread and laughing at it sooooo much that I almost forgot to come back to this one to see how it ended... ::) :P :laugh: ;D :D
-
A wise man once said, "Are you trying to provoke me? :maul:"
It appears that the answer was "yes." :kenobi:
What happened to the good ole' threads like:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13679.45)
***EDIT*** Interesting side note - having Darth Maul in the quote box makes him look like a marble (If you are logged on using Metalistic theme). I will forevermore refer to him as Darth Marble.
Looks more like Darth Ladybug to me. ;)
-
Ok I think we can put this one to bed. lol
-
I have such an awesome way to close this out...
But I am going to save it for another day and another thread.
-
I'm shocked at how many people "know what's best for the game".
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftimstvshowcase.com%2Fhighwaytoheaven0.jpg&hash=092e1f643fa67c4dd42b6a9df02135ab13f2c7a6)
(https://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Charles/hulk-bill-bixby-hitchhikes.jpg)