Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: SerpentSlayer on July 11, 2009, 11:53:13 PM
-
I know you've all heard the same story before of poor little jimmy had the perfect draw but couldn't win because bob just wouldn't draw any lost souls during the game. This one thing is super annoying and takes away from the game, and many times determined Nats. I had a couple of thoughts on how to make this problem be less of a game damper. What if we increased the lost soul count to like 10 per fifty cards. Or start the game with the lost souls already out on the board. I think the lost soul issue is something that really needs to be addressed. You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck because all his lost souls are on the bottom the whole game. What do you guys think?
-
Your first idea about 10 souls is woah no. Too many. The second idea isn't horrible. Maybe start each game with one soul on the table of your choosing. (Lol, nvm, two line abuse).
-
I don't think it's too many. We need to find a way to make sure that there's almost always a soul on the board and I think this is one way we could make sure that would almost always happen.
-
This would be problematic for site lockout decks. It would make those strategies much more difficult, but I understand where this is comming from and agree with it on prinicple. finding a way to ramdomly distribute LS's would be much better. It would ensure that the best deck has a chance to prove itself.
How about this. You take the LS's that you would have had in the deck and you randomly mix them face down and then put them in a pile face down next to your draw pile. Each upkeep phase you draw three from your draw pile and one LS. This means you would draw at least one LS for hte first 7 turns (8 if you played with a hopper) You would be guarranteed a LS to go after and you could choose the starter with a dice roll or something instead of LS count on the opening draw. After LS's are in your LoB, then they can be shuffled into your deck via game mechanics and such (shuffler, ANB, Hormah etc.) but you would also continue to draw one off of your LS stack until they were all in play.
This would eliminate both problems of LS drought and LS flood.
-
I sorta like that idea, but it makes Son of God/ Burial way too powerful IMO. Hmmm very interesting... I think that could very likely be the solution to our problem.
-
I, too, have become very frustrated with this. So one of the themes running through my gold deck is to retrieve Lost Souls from my opponent whether he draws them or not (i.e. Wedding Party, the new Thankful Leper hero, etc). I don't, however, have Harvest Time (but it would probably find its way into my deck if I ever had it). The problem is that not every brigade (in fact, I'm not sure if any other than gold) has a good way to go through and get Lost Souls if their opponent is having a Lost Soul drought.
I definitely think something should be done to address this issue.
-
Hey,
To the OP, if player A's deck is necessarily better than player B's deck then it should include either a way to generate lost souls for player B, or the ability to hold out defensively until player B draws lost souls. If player A's deck can do neither of those two things, then it isn't necessarily a better deck.
The problem is that not every brigade (in fact, I'm not sure if any other than gold) has a good way to go through and get Lost Souls if their opponent is having a Lost Soul drought.
Silver has Commissioned which does the same thing as wedding party but is slightly easier to play (Cherubim banded to ET), but I wouldn't consider either of those very good ways to generate lost souls. The best ways to generate lost souls seems to be Harvest Time, Hopper, and The Amalekite's Slave. Seeker of the Lost and Hur can also work but the are of course less reliable. My favorite way at the moment to generate lost souls for my opponent is attacking with Spy holding Warriors Spear and withdrawing each turn.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
To the OP, if player A's deck is necessarily better than player B's deck then it should include either a way to generate lost souls for player B, or the ability to hold out defensively until player B draws lost souls. If player A's deck can do neither of those two things, then it isn't necessarily a better deck.
The problem is that not every brigade (in fact, I'm not sure if any other than gold) has a good way to go through and get Lost Souls if their opponent is having a Lost Soul drought.
Silver has Commissioned which does the same thing as wedding party but is slightly easier to play (Cherubim banded to ET), but I wouldn't consider either of those very good ways to generate lost souls. The best ways to generate lost souls seems to be Harvest Time, Hopper, and The Amalekite's Slave. Seeker of the Lost and Hur can also work but the are of course less reliable. My favorite way at the moment to generate lost souls for my opponent is attacking with Spy holding Warriors Spear and withdrawing each turn.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Yeah, but the problem is if you have multiple decks, it's not really feasible to use some of these cards in every single deck. Your decks would all start to feel the same after a while.
-
Hey,
Yeah, but the problem is if you have multiple decks, it's not really feasible to use some of these cards in every single deck. Your decks would all start to feel the same after a while.
If you're going for always having a "better" deck sometimes you have to sacrifice uniqueness and originality.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I shouldn't have to put a hopper in every single deck. Even then it usually isn't enough even with back up things like HT, hopper, Malchus, M Slave etc... Even with all these "counters" we still have the same problem. We need to change something to make LS's more accessible.
-
My favorite way at the moment to generate lost souls for my opponent is attacking with Spy holding Warriors Spear and withdrawing each turn.
The only problem with that is that It doesn't work.
Because Spy withdraws before the Spear can activate.
-
Lol you fail Tim
-
And if you want me to I can give you example's of past Nationals where the game was decided on bob's lost souls being on the bottom of his deck the entire game to prove my point that the lost soul problem needs to be addressed.
-
Hey,
My favorite way at the moment to generate lost souls for my opponent is attacking with Spy holding Warriors Spear and withdrawing each turn.
The only problem with that is that It doesn't work.
Because Spy withdraws before the Spear can activate.
Spy does withdraw before Warriors Spear takes effect. But I'm pretty sure that Spy withdrawing does not stop Warriors Spear from taking effect.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Really? I've always heard it ruled that it didn't activate.
-
I think I heard that same ruling before too.
-
I remember reading somewhere that a combo like that does not work...
Anyways. I personally think Lost Souls should stay as they are. LS manipulation can be a VERY powerful strategy, albeit a risky one. Also, you all seem very offense oriented, which is why this is such a problem for you guys. I myself am a defensive player, so I'm not the type to rush in on turn 1. This means I'm able to sit back, take the blows, and wait for souls to appear on their own.
So, perhaps its better to keep souls as they are, since the risk of playing high offense is that you may not get a chance to use it, while your opponent can walk right through your thin defense. You shouldn't be allowed to get a free ride with a huge offense.
-
Hey,
SoulSaver, I agree that lost soul availability can play a significant role in determining who wins a given game. And I will admit that lost soul availability can influence who wins nationals, but I disagree with the idea that they can determine who wins nationals. An available lost soul can be the final determining factor in who wins nationals, but it is never the only determining factor.
Lost Soul availability is an aspect of luck of the draw, which as a card game Redemption cannot (and should not try to) eliminate. Luck of the draw is part of what creates the variety in Redemption games which is a good thing. Sometimes the luck of the draw is with you, sometimes it is against you, it's something we have to learn to deal with, accept, and hopefully - in the end - it's something we learn to enjoy.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
That's the thing though you shouldn't have to wait for eternity to rescue a lost soul. What fun is that? I think my point still stands. This lost soul issue has reared its ugly head way too many times. It's simple as this a better deck should win every time over an inferior deck, but because of the lost soul issue many great decks fall to the inferior because Points aren't available. It just isn't right. And I'm not saying eliminate the luck of the draw, just make sure there is a point available for both players so they both have equal opportunity to score almost every turn.
-
That's the thing though you shouldn't have to wait for eternity to rescue a lost soul. What fun is that? I think my point still stands. This lost soul issue has reared its ugly head way too many times. It's simple as this a better deck should win every time over an inferior deck, but because of the lost soul issue many great decks fall to the inferior because Points aren't available. It just isn't right. And I'm not saying eliminate the luck of the draw, just make sure there is a point available for both players so they both have equal opportunity to score almost every turn.
Again, this is very much an offensive players perspective. You want to win ASAP. Myself on the other hand... I am used to completely decking out WITHOUT speed, just because I wait for the best moment to attack. The game would get very boring if all the lost souls were out immediately. Know why? EVERYONE would switch to offense heavy decks and hope they get the first turn. That and Death of Unrighteous would become a staple... which would honestly just mess up the whole "solution" in the first place, unless you choose to ban those cards...
As far as your "what fun is that?" question... you ever played with a heavy defense deck? I find defense to be a LOT more fun than offense to be honest. Also, theres the fun of (A) mind tricks while waiting, (B) planning ahead, and (C) you can still do a lot with BCs, artifacts, etc... so theres still plenty fun to be had.
I stand firm in my believe that if you choose to play a hard hitting deck with minimal defense, you are taking the risk of not having souls to rescue. Every deck needs to have its pros and cons. If you could make RA's 100% of the time, what disadvantage do you have?
-
Also I wasn't just talking about type 1, but type 2 as well. Again I have to disagree with you on pretty much every point, and if you think about it if I'm playing a speed deck and I have no defense and have a soul to defend each turn what do you think will happen? Of course the answer to this is there will be more balenced decks out there. I just think this could solve a lot of problems and frustration with many people. No one wants to lose primarily because of luck, and I can't blame them if I have a better deck I don't think I should lose to a newb. I've seen this happen time and time again. It needs to be fixed and I'm not the only one that knows that.
-
Look at T1 Multi... Speed decks are rampant because the chance of availible lost souls is MUCH higher. From what I've seen, "balanced" decks dont do as well in that situation. I havent played it so I may be wrong but... havent most T1-Multi winners been speed decks?
You can't deny that most people seem to go crazy about offense. What have been the most complained about cards of recient years? U&T, Jake + RTC/OoN, Z Temple, TGT... all primarily offensive.
You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck
It's simple as this a better deck should win every time over an inferior deck
I don't think I should lose to a newb.
I HIGHLY dissagree with your mentality of "best deck should always win." What is the best deck? If that was the case, EVERYONE would just play with the best deck, and newer players would always loose, because they cant build the best decks. That is not fair. The luck of the draw can give less fortinate players a chance to even the odds. Put yourself in the shoes of a new player.
-
uh, correct me if im wrong, but usually the point of a game is to try and win it...
-
uh, correct me if im wrong, but usually the point of a game is to try and win it...
Zebulun decks can win, and there is almost no way you can rush one of those on turn 1. Heroless can win, you dont use that on turn 1.
Your point?
-
my point, obviously, is that the point of a game is to win it.
-
My point is that you can wait for souls to come out and still win. Show me a game where Heroless has lost because the opponent didn't draw souls.
Also, please tell me you don't agree with the whole "noobs should never ever be able to beat good decks" thought process.
-
if by noob you mean 'less fortunate players that play with sub par decks'...then yes, probably. but thats only because im a highly competitive gamer, and despise luck.
-
but thats only because im a highly competitive gamer, and despise luck.
This is a Christian game, so "luck" is not involved. It was part of God's Plan for the noob to beat you. ;D
------------------------------------------------
New players (especially young players) get very frustrated by the lack of Lost Souls. I know that in "friendly" games, my students would often put out all their lost souls and just play for rescues. Or, they would use a "general" land of bondage where everyone's lost souls were available for rescue. I realize that this undermines the very idealogy of most defenses, but the kids had fun and that is ultimately what matters.
There are indeed ways to draw out LSs, but they are all conditional. I like using War Officer types of cards, but there have plenty of times when they simply don't work.
This certainly can't be a new problem. Drawing LSs has been around since the inception of the game. The game has survived, so it probably still will. I think we should consider all the possibilities, as I'm sure Rob has. We just have to make sure that our decisions are not just reactionary. I've lost games because my opponent didn't draw LSs in time, but I've also won my share because my deck was fortunately thin with LSs at opportune times.
Personally, I like the idea of increasing the number of LSs to 10. Most people use the same seven (eight with the Hopper) LSs. This idea may increase creativity with LSs, especially since RoA introduced so many new ones. Site Lock-out decks won't be shut down completely, since you would be allowed to increase the number of sites as well.
-
10 is a bit much for a 56 card deck.
I'd make it 8 or something... even though I personally think 7 is fine as it is.
I guess I'm the odd one out here because I normally play slow offense decks, meaning I rarely run into the problem of not having souls, while my opponent tries to hammer through my 30 card+ defenses.
-
8 lost souls would hardly make a difference in game play. 10 lost souls per 50(56) almost insures that both you and your opponent will have lost souls out in play. So the number should be increased to like 2/3 lost souls every seven cards added to a deck.
-
... I'm sorry but need to add TWO lost souls just to add FIVE cards to my deck? In my opinion this would be a HORRIBLE change.
-
No not horrible, but necessary to fix the game so lost souls are available for rescue on a more regular basis. YourMathTeacher is right the site rule would still apply so site decks would still work.
-
The only problem with increasing the number of ls required is that it takes away from slots that could be used for offense/defense.
-
necessary to fix the game
How can you fix what isn't a problem? My play style eliminates this problem for me. I'm not saying you need to change your play style, but I honestly just find this "problem" to be the catch 22 of the most common strategies. I seriously think the game would get boring if Lost Souls were always availible. Also, 10 souls in a deck forces you to squash your deck down a lot, leaving less room for experimentation.
How about If I started going on about how my decks always time out, and that the game is broken because I can never win in time? Same deal. You might loose because souls arent drawn fast enough, I might loose because of a time out.
-
This may sound blasphemous but if you have ever played a game of Magic where you need to draw "Mana" to even do anything even there is the same problem the #1 player still has to hope hes a lucky man cause if he doesnt draw enough or too much hes dead. Same thing goes with Redemption in the Lost Soul world and I dont think it should be changed, its all in the luck of the draw. Just my :2cents:
-
1. The point of a game is to have fun, win or lose. How hard is it to accept that for what it is? Redemption was made for fun and fellowship. Winning is nice, sure. But, honestly, I've had more fun at epic games (the last T2-2p game I played yesterday- thanks for the fun game Robm!) than I do in stressful, competitive times (my last booster draft game yesterday- I was at the top table, in second place till I was totally toppled).
2. Agreeing with Russ and several others, 10 lost souls would be nuts. Now, upping one more per 7 cards added? Although you say that isn't going to change the game, statistically, the chances of drawing an LS would be more probable. But, agreeing with Chris, that takes away from slots, which I believe is a bad idea.
3. It's amusing to me that the game has it's own built in counter to speed decks. Speed decks fail pretty hard if there's no souls to rescue, and your Storehouse/Tables/insert other ways of keeping all your cards here. Anyone think that this would be, oh I don't know, good for the game? Speed decks don't always win the day.
4. You're not alone Lambo, I play slow decks as well and believe that half the fun is requiring people to be patient.
5. General statement I made at NE Regionals for various reasons: I don't believe some things are as "broken" as they are made out to be. It's just that we're so used to using certain archetypes and certain strategies that we don't think outside the box enough to actually get AROUND stuff. I'm not saying I'm perfect at this; I will think something is ( insert OP'ed, not good, etc) until someone points out that I can easily stop it... I was wary of Garden Tombs until I realized I could walk right around them if done correctly, I was wary of Z-Temple, same thing happened. Maybe the problem isn't so much needing new stuff, but utilizing old (isn't that the point of some of the new stuff that's come out?)
Just my... 5 cents?
~Marti
-
Hey Daniel, I know how to fix your problem.
Step 1: Put down your Type-1 deck.
Step 2: Pick up Type-2 deck.
Step 3: Never again play Type-1.
Problem solved. :-*
-
1. The point of a game is to have fun, win or lose.
I think that was the basic premise of increasing the number of LS. More lost souls available for rescue means more fun, especially for beginners. I realize that this would change some current strategies and archetypes, but I think that would be good for the game, rather than bad. We have enough brilliant minds on these boards to come up with new deck-building strategies to overcome (and for a few, abuse) having more LSs.
Frustration quickly settles in when you have to start discarding your perfectly selected cards just to keep the 8-card limit, all because you could not use cards in battle since your opponent hasn't drawn LSs for several turns.
... I'm sorry but need to add TWO lost souls just to add FIVE cards to my deck? In my opinion this would be a HORRIBLE change.
I agree that this would be overboard. I think a 10 LS minimum with the standard 1-per-7 increments would suffice.
This may sound blasphemous but if you have ever played a game of Magic ....
Blasphemy!!! ;)
Same deal. You might loose because souls arent drawn fast enough, I might loose because of a time out.
For new and younger players, they are not the same deal. At least they got to play cards and have fun trying for 45 minutes. When there are no LSs, they do nothing but draw and discard. Woo-hoo?
I'm really not trying to argue here. I think a good point has been made and it should be discussed. I am speaking purely from my experiences, which encompasses many new players that are young, which should be considered a target audience. We don't want the game to get out of their reach before they can get their feet off the ground.
-
Thank you YourMathTeacher very well said. More LS's = more fun
-
Not for those of us who play against the norm. Redemption has tried to equalize archetypes as much as possible, when FBTN was rapant they made tons of counters, now they're making counters to Speed. Increasing the soul count while it may help the normal civilization decks out, gives a huge boost to speed decks, while cutting into the effectiveness of Site-lock and other defense heavy strategies.
-
You could just compromise.
Instead of having a limit/minimum/whatever you want to call it, we could change it up. For every 21 cards a lost soul change is implemented. For example, if you are playing with 50-77 cards, you must have 10 Lost Souls, no more or less. Then if you want a 78-98 card deck, you must have 13 Lost Souls, no more or less.
This would change up the way strategies work, as well as make it fun for newer players. It would even bring out some oddly numbered decks (60 card deck, 65 card deck, etc).
If you want to play speed, you're going to make it 50 cards which means 10 out of your 50 will be Lost Souls, meaning less options for drawing/defense/etc..
It would cause more players to stray from the usual strategies and start building 63/70 card decks with balanced offense and defense decks. (Which is something most players would like to see, it makes games more interesting)
I personally think if we used something similar to what I mentioned, then the games would be much more exciting. I don't like the fact that rules are going to be changed, but considering two years in a row I've been in first place at Nationals in sealed deck and lost my final game because my opponent did not draw ANY lost souls, I'm all for it.
-
I have one little problem with your suggestion and that is if I'm playing with a 70 card deck and only have 10 lost souls in the deck we're back to square one with the lost soul to other cards ratio. I really, really, really like what YourMathTeacher suggested when he said the minimum for a 56 card deck is 10 ls and then keep the old rule about adding a lost soul every 7 cards like before.
-
For new and younger players, they are not the same deal. At least they got to play cards and have fun trying for 45 minutes. When there are no LSs, they do nothing but draw and discard. Woo-hoo?
You seem to miss the fact that they block the opponent during this time... which lets you have all sorts of fun if you choose. RR and I know how much fun can be had while blocking. You can totally shred an opponents offense and defense with a well built defense if you know what you're doing.
Frustration quickly settles in when you have to start discarding your perfectly selected cards just to keep the 8-card limit, all because you could not use cards in battle since your opponent hasn't drawn LSs for several turns.
Yes it can be frustrating some times, but thats where a HUGE amount of strategy comes into play.
Not for those of us who play against the norm. Redemption has tried to equalize archetypes as much as possible, when FBTN was rapant they made tons of counters, now they're making counters to Speed. Increasing the soul count while it may help the normal civilization decks out, gives a huge boost to speed decks, while cutting into the effectiveness of Site-lock and other defense heavy strategies.
Exactly.
I've said it before and I'll risk sounding like a broken record... this "no soul" problem seems to be largely a problem to those who play with more offense. While it'll make the game more fun for you, it'll force me to change my play style. How's that fun for me or anyone else who uses out of the ordinary decks? with 10 lost souls in a 56 card deck, I'd have to include a LOT more defense to deal with the increased soul sount, leaving me even LESS space for offense. So, basicly it'll force me to play offense heavy. I honestly believe if a change like that was made, games would then be decided by who goes first, or who draws SOG/NJ first... because everyone would have to play offense heavy. Otherwise, they'll always get steamrolled. I don't want Redemption to turn into a race to SOG/NJ any more than it already is.
-
Odds are that if what I suggested was in place, you wouldn't be playing with a deck that wasn't at least 60+ cards, so your opponent could have the same problem. If you still play with a 50 card deck, it will probably be speed and with 10 lost souls, odds are you will be drawing Harvest Time and Hopper early in the game. Besides, how many people are really going to play with a 70 card deck?
10 Lost souls required in a 50-56 card deck is ridiculous, to be honest... if that was implemented then I would probably never play Type-1 again. It restrains too much creativity when it comes to making a type-1 deck.
Think about it: 50 cards - 10 Lost Souls / 9 Dominants - That leaves you with only 31 cards to use for offense, defense, artifacts, sites, fortresses, etc.. So if you were to not play with any artifacts at all, or fortresses, or sites, then you could have an 8 hero/7 enh offense and an 8 EC/8 enh defense. Most of my (and probably most other's) 50 card decks have 4-5 artifacts, 2 access sites, and 1 fortress.
So now we're at: 50 cards - 10 Lost Souls / 9 Dominants - 4-5 Artifacts / 2 Access Sites / 1 Fortress - 23-24 cards left for offense and defense. That is by far not enough.
-
Besides, how many people are really going to play with a 70 card deck?
Me and RR. Mabye a few others... All us "oddball" players. :D
-
I've said it before and I'll risk sounding like a broken record... this "no soul" problem seems to be largely a problem to those who play with more offense. While it'll make the game more fun for you, it'll force me to change my play style. How's that fun for me or anyone else who uses out of the ordinary decks? with 10 lost souls in a 56 card deck, I'd have to include a LOT more defense to deal with the increased soul sount, leaving me even LESS space for offense. So, basicly it'll force me to play offense heavy. I honestly believe if a change like that was made, games would then be decided by who goes first, or who draws SOG/NJ first... because everyone would have to play offense heavy. Otherwise, they'll always get steamrolled. I don't want Redemption to turn into a race to SOG/NJ any more than it already is.
Yet again I have to disagree with you. Yeah, if there are more lost souls on the board sure offense has a great opportunity, but I argue that this will encourage people to play with a little more defense to protect those souls that are in play so your opponent doesn't take freebies every turn. I think this is the answer which this game needs terribly to be more balanced and fun.
-
More souls out means that defenses will be a LOT harder to make and use, since you have more souls to protect, AND less time to prepare before they appear. Not only that, they'd have to be a lot bigger. I seriously think the game would turn into a offense race if that were to happen. Again, I simply point to T1 multi.
-
Besides, how many people are really going to play with a 70 card deck?
Uh.... Considering how popular 63 is right now (Zebby decks etc) Midwest region loves big decks
I have a feeling that if this was implemented 70 would become very popular. RR would be thrilled.
-
I think you are forgetting that in the next set we get cards that allow for play during the prep phase, that could change how lost soul drought/flood is seen, maybe it won't change it that much.
Maybe it won't change it all that much, but I would rather wait to see what we can play outside of battle before asking for a drastic change to T1 deck building rules.
-
I have a feeling that if this was implemented 70 would become very popular. RR would be thrilled.
I'm sure he would be; that would be broken. Or if you girls are still not pleased with this sentence maybe this will suffice. > I am sure he would be. That would be broken.
-
I'm sure he would be that would be broken.
That sentence broke my head. ._.
-
I know, took me like three re-reads to get what he meant. :D
-
I agree with the belief that this type of change will encourage bigger decks, and that may be a good thing.
Lambo, no offense, but a defense-heavy deck is not a desirable scenario for new and young players from orthodox-type churches. You have no idea how much of a struggle I have had trying to circumvent parent complaints about having demons in a Christian card game. I really don't want parents looking at their child's deck and seeing the vast majority of the deck riddled with all the evil characters and events of the Bible. This is a PR nightmare.
-
There it's fixed. Are you girls happy now? :-*
-
I agree with the belief that this type of change will encourage bigger decks, and that may be a good thing.
Lambo, no offense, but a defense-heavy deck is not a desirable scenario for new and young players from orthodox-type churches. You have no idea how much of a struggle I have had trying to circumvent parent complaints about having demons in a Christian card game. I really don't want parents looking at their child's deck and seeing the vast majority of the deck riddled with all the evil characters and events of the Bible. This is a PR nightmare.
LOL! I never thought about it in that light... thats just kinda goofy to me, but I can see how that could be a problem for some.
There it's fixed. Are you girls Manly Men happy now? :-*
Yes. :-*
-
lol ::) :-*
-
There it's fixed. Are you girls Manly Men happy now? :-*
Yes. :-*
We're men, Manly men, were men in tights!
-
Oh wow.... look what you started now....
I agree with whoever said we should wait to see what the new set brings
-
I didn't start anything. ::) They just sorta came out of the closet. :-*
-
FWIW, I was never in that closet.
-
FWIW, I was never in that closet.
I laughed so hard when I saw that post. ^
-
well, I leave for a weekend and you guys add 5 pages. I still like my LS pile idea. You can even add 10 LS's to the pile for a 56 card deck and draw them one at a time during your opening draw and subsequent draw phase. Daniel mentioned that SoG and Burial would become more powerful but I dissagree. Burial becomes powerful only if you draw it in the first couple of turns and SoG already has a way to limit its use in opening rounds...the need to team it with NJ.
In my scenario you have a 56 card deck full of offense and defense and whatever you want, and then you have another 7-10 card draw pile of just LS's and you pull them out one at a time while you draw a hand full of other playable cards. This opens up 7 more slots for "fun" cards and still settles the LS drought/Flood problems. HT can still be played on the opponents LS deck and you are still free to include A Slave/malchus/Servant Girl/War officer/Recruiting officer/ Night Raid/Joseph in Prison/ Dungeon of malachi...etc, etc, etc in your deck to produce even more LS Should you choose.
I think this will help new players find a more enjoyable game because they can rescue from the first round, as well as seasoned vetrans worried that their "superior" deck falls victim to the best defense in the game...No LOST SOULS.
BTW. as a horror story, I saw a game where someone did not volluntarially draw a LS until there were only 12 cards left in his deck. His opponent rescued only the hopper and the other hopper due to HT. it was probably the worst case of LS droungt i had ever seen.
-
ok heres an idea of fun
10 ls in a 50 card deck and we all can just give each other lost souls each round. the winner will be who draws the most lost souls first so they get to attack first
fun(sarcasm) :o
-
Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.
-
Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.
I agree with everything that lambo said. Also if me being happy breaks the game, You will hate the next set.
-
I'm with you guys RR. I'm just trying to point out that people will always complain.
-
I agree with whoever said we should wait to see what the new set brings
The problem with this reasoning is that after we see what the new set brings, then there will be the next set being talked about and we will just say the same thing again. If something is a problem, sometimes it is best to simply make the change.
As for what change to make, I agree with everyone saying that increasing the number of LSs in a deck is a bad idea because it reduces the amount of slots in a deck to put cards that make decks unique. I also really like CP's idea of the separate LS stack. If it didn't count toward the deck size then it would actually increase the amount of slots in a deck for cards that make it unique.
As long as the LS stack was shuffled upside down, there would still be randomness in which order the LSs came out. I personally like the idea of them coming out based on cards drawn from the deck (ie. 1 LS for every 6 cards). This steady stream of LS would prevent both "LS drought" and "LS glut". It would be more fair to both players.
-
If the game is "fair", then it's no longer a card game. The essence of it being a card game implies some sort of randomness via a drawing mechanism. If you want to play a "fair" game, go play a computer game with set laws of how the world works.
-
Crustpope, your idea will just make people complain about not getting ECs.
Oh Alex, you would find something to compain about regardless of what I suggest ;)
-
Haha. I'm just saying, when you put a bunch of competitive christians together in a somewhat anonymous setting, complaining and/or bickering is guranteed to occur. ;)
-
I have worked in enought churches to recognise the unfortunate truth in that statement.. :-\
-
Which is why I almost didn't put the smiley. But I figured it'd be safer to keep it there,
-
As long as the LS stack was shuffled upside down, there would still be randomness in which order the LSs came out.
If the game is "fair", then it's no longer a card game. The essence of it being a card game implies some sort of randomness via a drawing mechanism.
Did you read my post?
-
Yes. But a controlled drawing mechanic is in no way in the spirit of randomness that has correctly dominated card games. You of all people should not be arguing for this. All a consistant flow of lost souls does is shorten games while removing the random element of chance (providence) from the game in such a way that whoever draws SoG, NJ and can block 1-2 times first will win.
-
The more I think about the separate LS stack Idea, the more I like it.
1. IT frees up 7 spaces for more evil or good cards,
2. you can increase the number of LS's in a game without crowding up a deck by simply adding them to the LS pile.
3. The lost souls would still be randomized but they would come consistently.
4. It owuld force people to play defense knowing they woudl have to defend from the very beginning :o
-
4. It owuld force people to play defense knowing they woudl have to defend from the very beginning :o
Or that if they get their SoG NJ super fast and have two stall blocks (Uzzah, TD), they will win.
-
I did, and I agree with him.
A consistant stream of Lost Souls eliminates a LOT of luck from the game, which is what card games are KNOWN for. Luck is not a problem, its a simple factor of a game like this. Should I complain if I can't win a slot machine due to luck? Should I tell the casino operators to make it payout every certian number of pulls? It's the same thing.
IMO, randomness is what makes the game FUN in the first place. You never know whats going to happen, and it makes it all the more a strategic game, because you have to anticipate what will happen.
Yes. But a controlled drawing mechanic is in no way in the spirit of randomness that has correctly dominated card games. You of all people should not be arguing for this. All a consistant flow of lost souls does is shorten games while removing the random element of chance (providence) from the game in such a way that whoever draws SoG, NJ and can block 1-2 times first will win.
Agreed. All of these ideas will truely turn Redemption into a 3-turn race to the finish. I would quit if that happened.
4. It owuld force people to play defense knowing they woudl have to defend from the very beginning :o
Problems arise if you have an EC drought. Should we just sort every card into piles and take ALL luck out of the game? No.
-
Problems arise if you have an EC drought. Should we just sort every card into piles and take ALL luck out of the game? No.
If we pile everything, I'm drawing all my dominants piles first, then my Fortress (which is just TGT) and my heroes (all the TGT heroes) next.
-
All a consistant flow of lost souls does is shorten games while removing the random element of chance (providence) from the game in such a way that whoever draws SoG, NJ and can block 1-2 times first will win.
I don't understand this at all. If I only draw 1 LS (from my LS stack) for every 6 cards, then my defense can hold up. Even if you get the one on the opening draw, then I'll get 2 more draw 3's before my next one comes up. That gives me time for my defense to set up. By then, I'll probably have a site to put the LS in, or a defensive art to help out, etc. I think having a slow, steady influx of LSs would actually make the game LESS of a race to SoG/NJ.
-
I think we should do away with Lost Souls all together, and then everyone could just battle challenge endlessly. Winners can be determined - if at all - by a panel of judges, like in boxing or American Idol.
-
I think we should do away with Lost Souls all together, and then everyone could just battle challenge endlessly. Winners can be determined - if at all - by a panel of judges, like in boxing or American Idol.
This is sounds akin to what Type NW does, where you have a set time limit, then play that entire time and the winner is the one with the most lost souls at the end. This means that having a bad opening draw and giving a few up early is not so detrimental if you can bounce back.
-
or American Idol.
[simon] That match was ABSOLUTELY AWEFUL. Worst performance of the night!
-
Dude, you need to go back and read this whole thread. What happens in the closet stays in the closet.
-
Let's face it, the majority of complaints come from people known to play speed or known to want to try to cause parity and fairness within the game structure.
To those players of speed, I feel your complaints are completely unjustified. Speed as a strategy is inherently trying to shorten the game. Just because you failed because of elements out of your control does not mean we should change the rules. It means you should either accept, adapt, or change.
To those who like to made the game have more parity and fairness, your motives are good, but your applications are not. Your making the essential element of every single card game that has ever succeed go away. That's a horrible way to make the game fair. Sure, maybe it'd be fairer, but at the cost of ruining the essense of it to an unthinkable point.
All a consistant flow of lost souls does is shorten games while removing the random element of chance (providence) from the game in such a way that whoever draws SoG, NJ and can block 1-2 times first will win.
I don't understand this at all. If I only draw 1 LS (from my LS stack) for every 6 cards, then my defense can hold up. Even if you get the one on the opening draw, then I'll get 2 more draw 3's before my next one comes up. That gives me time for my defense to set up. By then, I'll probably have a site to put the LS in, or a defensive art to help out, etc. I think having a slow, steady influx of LSs would actually make the game LESS of a race to SoG/NJ.
We both start with one soul on the table. We draw. I get a few heros,including a purple one and my Uzzah and an artifact. I get to go first. I RA with a hero. My opponent didn't get an EC, so I get a soul. He RAs. I use Uzzah. Next draw I get my Pentecost, Hur, and Reach to go with the purple hero I got first turn. I set aside my hero with Pentecost. My opponent RA's again. They win, I have no EC. 1-1. Next Turn, I draw 6, and a soul is added. I get a KoT and an ET in my draw. I RA with my ET and use Reach. I get SoG, and a soul goes to the table. It's the hopper, so this is now a RA. My opponent still got hoses by his first 11 cards; no EC. I get a soul. Next Turn he draws and one of his souls goes out. He RAs. I block with my KoT and the BTNs ability works to get me the win. I draw. I get NJ and AoC. I RA with ET. He blocks with a character that gives me initative. I win the soul. My opponent draws. He still can't fight my big FBTN KoT. He waits for his counters. I draw 3, setting a soul to come in. I play SoG and NJ and win 5-1. GG.
See what I mean? Same problems. It's the luck of the draw for a reason.
-
To those players of speed, I feel your complaints are completely unjustified. Speed as a strategy is inherently trying to shorten the game. Just because you failed because of elements out of your control does not mean we should change the rules. It means you should either accept, adapt, or change.
It's funny you said this as I'm one of "those" players. I didn't start this thread on my behalf for the most part, but for the very talented players (these players play type 2 as well as type 1 and are very balanced players not really defensive, not really offensive) I know that have suffered from this issue.
-
To those players of speed, I feel your complaints are completely unjustified. Speed as a strategy is inherently trying to shorten the game. Just because you failed because of elements out of your control does not mean we should change the rules. It means you should either accept, adapt, or change.
It's funny you said this as I'm one of "those" players. I didn't start this thread on my behalf for the most part, but for the very talented players (these players play type 2 as well as type 1 and are very balanced players not really defensive, not really offensive) I know that have suffered from this issue.
Yes, but the funny part is that most of the time these type of threads are started by those who play speed or sudo-speed the very talented players that you talk about (For the most part) understand that bad draws are part of the game and learn to accept it when it happens, also in Type 2 bad draws are minimized by the fact that you play to 7 and that O, D are balanced (at least IMO they are)
Now if they all want to post and yell at me thats cool, From what I've seen most of the complaining doesn't come from them.
-
If these very talented players have a problem with it, I haven't seen a voice from anyone but people who chronically play speed. I don't seen Tim Maly or Gabe Isbell commenting about how RLK beat them because of soul drawing. They either accept it, or it doesn't happen because they find away to get around soul drawing incapabilities.
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just teach people how to shuffle? 90% of the games I've played where my opponents' souls didn't show were people that just kinda cut their deck once or twice, as opposed to a decent, honest shuffle.
Hey Daniel, I know how to fix your problem.
Step 1: Put down your Type-1 deck.
Step 2: Pick up Type-2 deck.
Step 3: Never again play Type-1.
That (and the fact that there are only ever been 2 other consistent T2 players in CA) is the reason that I switched to T2. I like the whole "chance to make a comeback after a bad draw" thing.
-
Would that include teaching RTS to shuffle better? :D
-
I think it was Kirk that used to reset the game a couple times before playing for that exact reason.
-
I think it was Kirk that used to reset the game a couple times before playing for that exact reason.
No, its Prof who does that trick.
-
Wow, this thread got big really quick. Although I appreciate Daniel's concern, it does come from the perspective of "speed" player. And even though I gravitate towards that style myself I think adding more Lost Souls would be a bad idea as it would give fast decks an even larger advantage. The "randomness" of the draw is not determining who wins Nationals. All you have to do it look at the top three placers from recent years in almost any category. If you've ever played any of them you know that they are quality players capable of rising to the top.
I've played against people who don't draw souls until they're over half way through their deck. Even so I think the current system of 7 LS per 56 doesn't need to be changed. Sure, on occasion a game is decided by one player getting a "really bad draw" (no ECs, all their LS, etc). That excuse is way over used though. The problem usually comes down to poor deck design or less than optimal plays by the person who experienced the "bad draw".
There are plenty of ways to generate a Lost Soul to rescue if you're opponent isn't drawing any. And we'll see even more getting play next year. One in particular that I really love will also punish a person who plays little to no defense.
No matter how you change it, this is a CCG. If you don't like the randomness of drawing cards from a deck, then you're probably playing the wrong kind of game.
-
My personal opinion is to leave things as they are and here are a few reasons why.
1. Increasing the lost soul requirements in decks. I don't like this because as others have stated it takes away spots in decks for cards taht are fun to play with. No player gets excited about adding a lost soul to their deck but adding a card that can be helpful in a battle is kind of nice.
2. Doing a lost soul stack next to the deck. At first glance this doesn't seem to bad for most players but I am a pale green defensive player and I love using Death of the Unrighteous. This idea would make that card alot weaker. I play DoU in hopes of going a turn or two without drawing a lost soul but if there was a stack that I had to draw a lost soul every turn or two then it would be frustrating.
3. My third idea for people who really have a problem with the balance in the game is to play TYPE 2!!!!! Its great, I love it, been playing it for like 5 years now. Ya there are games where my opponent doesn't draw a lost soul and it forces me to play better defense but in the end I don't think I've ever seen a lost soul drought so bad in T2 that it ended one players chance of scoring and winning. Heck yesterday I played a game where my opponent drew almost all his lost souls in the first 6 turns and I only draw one about every 3 turns and he beat me so its far more balanced then T1.
4. Did I mention T2 is better then T1?
5. Type 2
6. Actually the less players in T2 the better chance I have of winning events and RNRS so EVERYONE PLAY TYPE 1 ;D ;)
-
I would like to see something along the lines of you have to win a battle challenge or side battle to bring a lost soul into play. This would encourage more battles and larger decks and discourage speed decks.
-
Hey that's a great idea!
-
That's so OP'd. Searching through a deck, getting to see the contents just because you won a BC. And on top of that, you get to pick which soul comes out.
No way.
-
I would like the game to be kept the way it is. I have no problem losing to bad draw for me, or a drought to my opponent. I understand that this is a card game and random happens. I instead teach my players about good shuffling so that lost soul clots happen less frequently. I have not seen one option in this entire discussion that would enhance the "fun" aspect of the game, or would actually make the game more "fair". Just wanted to put my :2cents: in.
-
That's so OP'd. Searching through a deck, getting to see the contents just because you won a BC. And on top of that, you get to pick which soul comes out.
No way.
I didn't imply that. But then again I didn't imply how it would work at all. :D
I think this idea would work the best: lost souls would be shuffled into a separate face down pile placed in the LoB. When an opponent wins a battle challenge or side battle against you, the top lost soul is drawn and placed face up in the LoB. Cards with SA's that search for LS would allow the player to search the lost soul pile and select one, shuffled on return.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Maybe a wrinkle to add to Type NW...
-
STAMP, I really like this idea...alot, but I'm not sure it is practical.
How much do you think they would need to extend the time limit per T1 game to allow for a minimum of eight successful battles--3 x (1 BC + 1 RA) for rescuing 3 + 2 BC for SoG/NJ? This would be most excellent, however, for Type NW.
-
that would just double the game time, and pretty much force people to use offense heavy decks since they need to win twice as many battles. I don't really like that idea much either...
-
I don't think it would add much game time, just more deck building strategy. Seriously, how many people play with Commissioned or Wedding Party? And there are so many HTs in circulation it just begs for everyone having it in their deck. Suddenly, you'd start seeing a lot of Malchus, Gib Treaty, etc.
I'm liking it more and more!
Oh! And you'd see a lot more side battles, which I think everyone can agree would make the game better!
-
I don't think it would add much game time, just more deck building strategy. Seriously, how many people play with Commissioned or Wedding Party? And there are so many HTs in circulation it just begs for everyone having it in their deck. Suddenly, you'd start seeing a lot of Malchus, Gib Treaty, etc.
I'm liking it more and more!
Oh! And you'd see a lot more side battles, which I think everyone can agree would make the game better!
Pot of mana might actually see play if this is the case.
-
Would that include teaching RTS to shuffle better?
... says the guy who once beat me in an RTS game where like six of his last seven cards were the bulk of his Lost Souls. That was the most agonizing game I think I've ever played.
I actually was just thinking of another alternative, only to discover that you guys are talking about separate LS piles here already. This idea is not exactly like that but there are similarities. If any of you have played Vs system, you know that each turn you (may) put a card from your hand into your resource row, and the number of cards in that row is the maximum "cost" to which you can recruit characters or flip over certain resources. My thought was to give Lost Souls a treatment slightly like that.
Players start out with the required number of Lost Souls for their deck, but stacked separately from the remainder of their cards. At the beginning of the game, before opening hands are drawn, players may arrange the Lost Souls face down on the table in a left-to-right order of their choosing. And then each turn, the players would flip over the next Lost Soul in their row to face-up and make it available for rescue. So everybody has Lost Souls out relatively early and the number snowballs as the game goes on.
There are obviously some difficulties with this since the game was not designed around handling Lost Souls this way. I'm still wondering whether the best course of action is to flip souls all at once each round, or have the player do it for their Upkeep phase. If everyone flips at once, that would leave some players vulnerable while allowing others (particularly those with first turn) the chance to put them in a Site or something first. On the other hand, doing it individually means that the first player is at a significant disadvantage (especially in the first turn) because he will always have souls available earlier than other players, and might not have any chance to rescue something himself.
Searching, drawing and shuffling/return to draw pile would be impacted also. I guess searching for a Lost Soul would mean the opponent can look at the face-down souls, select one to flip, and randomize the rest. Shuffling and returning to draw pile (e.g. Hormah) would return face-up souls to draw pile but I would say leave the rest on the table face-down. So then they would be flipping Lost Souls and potentially (re)drawing more during his Draw phase. "When drawn" would apply to when the player flips his own Lost Soul each round, as opposed to having it selected by an opponent. That only leaves Confusion as an unsolved problem, on the rare chance someone might deliberately want to discard a Lost Soul.
A player could put all the "protected" Lost Souls in the front to make them more difficult to rescue and/or stop Dominants. But the nice thing about arranging before the draw is that they can't stack the souls to compensate for their own draw. In other words, they have to decide where to put the souls before they know whether they're getting SoG/NJ early or late.
So what I'm left now to wonder - the big question - is how that would impact deck-building and normal play. Obviously I would want the impact of that to be minimal, other than reducing the randomness of LS draws. A normal T1 deck would have all its souls out in the first 7-8 turns, with a deck intended to draw out in approximately 14 turns (barring speed draws and shuffling cards back in). Now the power of cards and cost in Vs is such that there's usually little damage in the early rounds, but by turn 7 or 8, if the game is not already over, it's about to end real quick with a 20 attack character or whatever. Redemption has no scaling cost and therefore no scaling power, so I wonder how things will work when all your Lost Souls are out and you're only halfway through the deck. But if we made it every two turns or something like that, would we be timing out matches by making them all go 10 or more turns? Is 7 a good or bad number for this? Like I said, I have a basic idea for a basic idea, but it needs more brains burning on it.
-
I cannot help but re-iterate what a bad Idea I think these are. This is fundamentally changing the way the game is played. I normally try to stay out of these kind of discussions but I really feel that this is not what Redemption should be. Why should lost souls be something that come out in regular intervals? Taking away the luck of the draw is something that makes it possible for a beginner to defeat a much more experienced opponent. I have been teaching a lot of redemption lately and have seen(and experienced) losing by lost soul drought, bad draw and it has never bothered me or anyone else in my play group. I remember when playing more experienced players for the first time, the hope I had that even if I have none of the powerful or ultra rare cards, that luck of the draw still gave me a chance. Now I know that luck of the draw may still exist under some of the suggestions given here, but it will be very weakened. Sometimes a lost soul drought gives that weaker player a chance to survive a few more turns than he is otherwise able to maybe earning a rare win, and wins are rare when you are new and playing seasoned players. Making the game more of a race to power cards only would help those who have the rare cards. Most of my playgroup doesn't have those cards and it is hard to convince parents that they don't need to drop a couple hundred for their kid to have fun, but under some of these considerations that would be the case. I still fail to see what is so broken that we need to drastically alter the game to "fix". Someone please enlighten me!
-
It is because some of us enjoy the strategy of the game. I do not enjoy the luck factor. I would rather it be more like chess and less like Las Vegas.
-
If the game was only about luck I could see your analogy being true, but there is still a large amount of strategy in Redemption with the luck of the draw. Sorry but that comparison is not apples to apples. Luck of the draw is one of the Huge differences between Redemption and games like chess, and luck of the draw is primarily why I play redemption and not chess. I like the unpredictability of a game, there is a thrill to knowing that even though I have the better cards, more experience, and better strategy I can still be defeated by the underdog.
It shouldn't have to take a genius to defeat seasoned players, which it just might without the wild card of randomization thrown in there. Players would then have to know all the combo's and work really hard to try to counter them, sometimes with limited resources. Like I should expect my 8-10 year old players to be able to conceive of a way to topple the top strategies, with out the chance that they can get lucky. Maybe it was my mistake but I have emphasized to my players that luck of the draw can help them in a tough game, and sometimes it gives them hope that they can win, when otherwise they would just quit and go play some video games or watch a movie because Redemption is no fun anymore because they would know that they couldn't win, and do not have the means to compete at the higher level. I still fail to see how making redemption harder for the young people who play it, who(let's face it) the game is primarily designed for. How is this bad?
-
Make the game go faster and then add rounds.
-
As is obvious by my previous posts, I fully agree with you Korunks. I honestly feel luck of the draw ADDS strategy to the game. Taking luck of the draw out would make games start to feel way too similar to eachother. You know for a fact that a soul would come out at X time, and so you know to do Y. Currently, you have no clue when ANYTHING is comming unless you use John, and therefore need to plan much much farther ahead.
Are, Korunks, myself, Gabe, RR, and Janisarry the only ones to see the game as being far more strategic now than it would be with easier souls?
-
Are, Korunks, myself, RR, and Janisarry the only ones to see the game as being far more strategic now than it would be with easier souls?
I guess you didn't read my post? :P
-
Leave the randomization of the game. My thoughts are summed up by several who have already posted.
Kirk
-
Well, y'all know I'm getting out so my points are moot. But Schaef is a playtester and he makes good points.
-
I guess you didn't read my post? :P
Fixed. :)
-
A normal T1 deck would have all its souls out in the first 7-8 turns, with a deck intended to draw out in approximately 14 turns (barring speed draws and shuffling cards back in). Now the power of cards and cost in Vs is such that there's usually little damage in the early rounds, but by turn 7 or 8, if the game is not already over, it's about to end real quick with a 20 attack character or whatever. Redemption has no scaling cost and therefore no scaling power, so I wonder how things will work when all your Lost Souls are out and you're only halfway through the deck. But if we made it every two turns or something like that, would we be timing out matches by making them all go 10 or more turns?
I also like these ideas. Due to Redemption not having a scaling cost, I think a LS entering play every 2 turns is better than every 1 turn. That gives more of a chance for site-based decks and other defensive-based decks to get set up. Of course I also like having it be based on cards drawn so that speed decks would have their LSs enter play faster than slow decks to compensate for them having more of their "power" cards faster.
-
I also like these ideas. Due to Redemption not having a scaling cost, I think a LS entering play every 2 turns is better than every 1 turn. That gives more of a chance for site-based decks and other defensive-based decks to get set up. Of course I also like having it be based on cards drawn so that speed decks would have their LSs enter play faster than slow decks to compensate for them having more of their "power" cards faster.
Wouldn't basing it on the draw complicate the game even more so? Every one card drawn? every three? It might cause players to have to remember how many they have drawn towards their lost souls. Lets say every six they had to play a lost soul. I draw three, play a card that lets me draw one, draw another one via Gifts of the Magi, than play a card to draw three. That puts me at eight, do the two draws that went over count towards the next one, if it does it adds a layer of complication to the game because now in addition to everything else going on, I have to keep track of where I would be on the "lost soul scale". If it doesn't count then it doesn't fully "punish" speed players, so it doesn't maintain "fairness".
I think it would add too much difficulty to an already complicated game. Having recently taught an 8 year old, and 9 year old and a 10 year old how to play I have a unique perspective on how hard it is to learn for that age group, adding this in addition to all of the other effects Lambo, myself, and all the others have made I think might push them towards something easier, like pokemon, or yugioh. I say keep it as is, it is simpler.
-
The game is fine. Please, wait for the next set and then if you still don't like it keep complaining. But at least wait to see the new cards. It could change your mind.
-
I'm not sure that I understand why suggesting new ideas automatically amounts to complaining.
-
I'm not sure that I understand why suggesting new ideas automatically amounts to complaining.
The context and tone of some of the suggestions can be construed as complaining, and to be fair some the posts in this thread could be seen as complaining.
-
There will always be some, but a general statement was not necessary. There have been more than enough thoughtful posts on this thread.
Not that I'm complaining or anything.... ;)
-
Look if it takes complaining to figure out how to make the game better does it really matter that much to you girls? I know I might have hit a nerve or ten when I started this thread, but I honestly just wanted this issue to just be looked at by our officials and the Redemption Public. And maybe something good can come of this discussion.
The game is fine. Please, wait for the next set and then if you still don't like it keep complaining. But at least wait to see the new cards. It could change your mind.
The game is not fine or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? Also that's your opinion not mine.
-
The game is not fine or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?
Ok, do this. Next 20-40 games you play, write down how many of them you lost due to nothing but no lost souls. I would be fine with this whole argument of yours if every game played had soul issues, but please, prove to us with real evidence that the game is broken.
Go out, do some legwork, and show us how broken the game is.
-
There will always be some, but a general statement was not necessary. There have been more than enough thoughtful posts on this thread.
Not that I'm complaining or anything.... ;)
True, but a lot of it was just "I got screwed with a draw so let's make more ls."
Also, for my actual input with the current cards...
1. Have more ls generators. Malchus, dungeon of Malchiah, night raid, gibeonite treaty, hopper, HT, comissioned, wedding party, generous widow, seeker of the lost, and more can all generate ls for your offense. That's a lot of ls generators.
2. It's the same with evil characters, heroes, and any other card. Sometimes you draw them like crazy and sometimes they hide. It's the game.
3. This is not an exclusive problem. Assuming two decks have about the same ls generators, you will get the luck 50% of the time. You win games because of this too.
4. It's a lot about how you build your decks. Look at the top players. They are consistently in the top. They don't get lucky most of the time, they build their decks to generate what they need and win. They do a better job setting up before the game even starts. A lot of times I think I got the short end of the stick, and then I look back at the game and realize that my opponent had A-slave, malchus, Hur, HT, and all those other cards and I didn't put those cards in, cause I wanted for battle winners. It was a sacrifice and it backfired.
The game is not fine or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? Also that's your opinion not mine.
So if I made a discussion about how we should ban dominants there is a problem with the game? Just cause there's a discussion doesn't mean that the game isn't fine. It's been this way for 15 years and it's still running strong. I think it is "fine."
-
The game is not fine or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? Also that's your opinion not mine.
But all opinions are, and should be considered equally.
Look if it takes complaining to figure out how to make the game better does it really matter that much to you girls? I know I might have hit a nerve or ten when I started this thread, but I honestly just want this issue to just be looked at by our officials and the Redemption Public.
This change making the game better is also only YOUR opinion, we are having this discussion because some people, you included have the opinion there is a problem with the current meta-game. This conversation does not prove that something is broken, just that people believe there is some thing wrong. Not trying to be nit-picky but things are what they are.
does it really matter that much to you girls?
I know the name may be confusing but I am most certainly male ;)
-
Ok, do this. Next 20-40 games you play, write down how many of them you lost due to nothing but no lost souls. I would be fine with this whole argument of yours if every game played had soul issues, but please, prove to us with real evidence that the game is broken.
Go out, do some legwork, and show us how broken the game is.
It's already been a proven problem. A ton of tournament outcomes including recent Nationals have had this issue come up frequently often determining our National tournament winners.
-
The game is fine. Please, wait for the next set and then if you still don't like it keep complaining. But at least wait to see the new cards. It could change your mind.
The problem with this reasoning is that after we see what the new set brings, then there will be the next set being talked about and we will just say the same thing again. If something is a problem, sometimes it is best to simply make the change.
-
It's already been a proven problem. A ton of tournament outcomes including recent Nationals have had this issue come up frequently often determining our National tournament winners.
Hence the beauty of a CCG. :D
Kirk
-
@prof, But we haven't yet seen that it's a problem. Most people are fine with the status quo.
-
It's already been a proven problem. A ton of tournament outcomes including recent Nationals have had this issue come up frequently often determining our National tournament winners.
Again, I want to see a percentage of how often a game is lost COMPLETELY due to the Lost Soul issue. As in, no souls at all the entire game.
I need more proof then just "several games" in order to believe the game doesnt function as it is.
-
The game is fine. Please, wait for the next set and then if you still don't like it keep complaining. But at least wait to see the new cards. It could change your mind.
The problem with this reasoning is that after we see what the new set brings, then there will be the next set being talked about and we will just say the same thing again. If something is a problem, sometimes it is best to simply make the change.
This is only a problem if you assume that Rob & crew will sweep the issue under the rug and ignore. This not what I have seen them do. This problem has only really been brought to a pointed and thorough debate recently, right?
Maybe they have solutions on the drawing board to address it? Lets not forget to appreciate the staff of Cactus Game Design for they willingness to listen to feedback. You would be fooling yourself if you thought companies like WotC care like they do. I am probably reading more into your post then you said but that is the issue I see with that line of reasoning.
-
But we haven't yet seen that it's a problem. Most people are fine with the status quo.
You guys may have not personally witnessed this problem, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't care if a 99.99% of the people are fine with the status quo. I'm still standing my ground from personal and eyewitness experience that there is a major problem with this game.
-
The context and tone of the suggestions can be construed as complaining, and to be fair some the posts in this thread could be seen as complaining.
Do you think I'm complaining about a game in which I have a small hand in the design and direction?
It's not my anticipation that these ideas will be implemented any time soon, if ever. But I don't see the harm in exploring these ideas and seeing where they shine and where they falter. In particular, I like to look at mechanics that work well in other card games and see if there's a way to make something like that work in the world of Redemption.
For example, another idea I considered was having a Prophecy or similar card type that, like my LS idea, would be placed face-down, and then flipped up each turn. If there was a certain condition that was met, the player would get some kind of bonus. "Leaders" is another idea in Vs that I was curious to see working in Redemption.
Yes, the game is fine the way it is, but if it was perfect the way it was, there would be no point in even adding more cards. The question is where and how can the game be improved, and what different options do we have?
As long as we have a card game, we'll have a draw system that inherently introduces randomness. There's no way around that. So the question is how do we work WITH it. You'll notice that a lot of these ideas are so radically different from the norm that existing cards have to be "adjusted" to "fit" the mold, and there aren't really any cards now that would take advantage of a design that exists only in theory (example: manipulating my soul row in some way).
-
Whitten, there's clearly a problem when your deck loses to a noob because of lost soul draw. You know what it is?
No Defense.
-
Again, I want to see a percentage of how often a game is lost COMPLETELY due to the Lost Soul issue. As in, no souls at all the entire game.
I need more proof then just "several games" in order to believe the game doesnt function as it is.
It really doesn't matter what I say. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind or other people's mind that are on the same side of the fence with you.
-
An interesting statement coming from someone who proclaimed he would stand his ground even if 99.99% of people disagreed with him.
This is only a problem if you assume that Rob & crew will sweep the issue under the rug and ignore. This not what I have seen them do. This problem has only really been brought to a pointed and thorough debate recently, right?
I think what he's saying is that if we wait to implement a solution, then by the time we know whether the new set changes the game enough or not, we'll already be deep into tournament season, and we should wait for that, and then we'll be deep into planning the next set, and we should wait until that comes out, and so on.
I don't know if that is necessarily going to happen, but I think it's a valid concern if that scenario actually happens. At the moment, one of the biggest concerns is checking the number of games that time out. There seem to be a lot, not quite too many, but enough to keep an eye on that issue. Rob wants to make sure - as a standard - a regular T1 game can be played in 45 minutes or less. If more games start timing out, then the game is getting dragged down too much, and that is one of the major concerns with dropping NJ from play, is the possibility of increasing timeout percentages. We'd be going in the wrong direction.
-
You guys may have not personally witnessed this problem, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't care if a 99.99% of the people are fine with the status quo. I'm still standing my ground from personal and eyewitness experience that there is a major problem with this game.
If 00.01% of the people think there is a problem with the game still doesn't mean there is, It just means they think there is. Just because some people don't like how the game unfolds due to chance means that we have to upend the game system to appease them, that's called minority rule and it is as much of a danger as any "broken" part of the game. What if 00.001% think there is a major flaw in the way artifacts work, so we need to change the way artifacts work for them to? If the majority is happy the PTB have a responsibility to maintain balance
***EDIT***
@Schaef I am sorry I mistyped, I did not mean to lump all dissenting opinions as complainers, I just forgot to put "some of" in that sentence, a typing problem I have when I type to fast. I apologize, no slight towards any one is ever intended. I edited the post in question.
-
And, FWIW, I do see a problem. However, I feel the problem is what makes the game great. I have to build and plan for games where theres more lost souls than I could rescue and games that there are no souls in sight. I find this to be strategic. The game is making me choose to use various cards to counter situations that may or may not happen. It's just another way that deck building is strategic.
-
What's wrong with providing some proof to make your argument stronger? If every style deck lost 1 out of 10 games due entirely to no lost souls, then I would agree theres a problem. However, I highly doubt that many games are lost due to nothing but souls. There are ways around it, there are ways to use it in your favor, etc.
If Lost souls on the bottom bug you that much, throw John (promo) into your deck so you know if you will win or loose.
-
I'm not complaining. I play a better category anyway. I was throwing up ideas in case I ever decide to play T1 again. T1 == Las Vegas. T2 == chess. ;)
-
However, I highly doubt that many games are lost due to nothing but souls.
FWIW, the other point of this discussion is the fun & fellowship, which can be lost in younger players who are forced to do nothing but draw & discard for several turns while no LSs appear. Can you see how that could be a deterrant to new players?
-
I disagree I feel that
T1 == Beginner, More accessible to n00bs
T2 == pro
but thats because I hate Las Vegas ;)
-
Actually that's when I strike up a conversation with my opponents during non tournament play. I feel them getting to know people will draw them back as much as the game itself.
-
Plus, my idea encourages more battles. ;)
-
FWIW, the other point of this discussion is the fun & fellowship, which can be lost in younger players who are forced to do nothing but draw & discard for several turns while no LSs appear. Can you see how that could be a deterrant to new players?
On the other hand, if a newer player is forced to draw a ton of souls and all their defense hides, the fun and fellowship can be lost due being walked over by the other player. I feel that forcing souls to come out faster seriously offsets the game. Right now, if you have 7 ECs in a 56 card deck, you have an even chance of drawing a soul and an EC. All these other ideas would force you to use like, 10 ec+ in a 7 (or 10) soul 56 card deck if you want an even chance of defending.
-
I'm done here. I hope a new lost soul rule gets implemented.
-
On the other hand, if a newer player is forced to draw a ton of souls and all their defense hides, the fun and fellowship can be lost due being walked over by the other player. I feel that forcing souls to come out faster seriously offsets the game. Right now, if you have 7 ECs in a 56 card deck, you have an even chance of drawing a soul and an EC. All these other ideas would force you to use like, 10 ec+ in a 7 (or 10) soul 56 card deck if you want an even chance of defending.
The younger players I dealt with all used 75+ card decks. I'm talking about young players just wanting to have fun. The souls are out, so start battling. ;D
-
I just think that strategy would be demolished. You no longer need to try to jam in ls generators, cause your opponent would already have a fixed number every turn. I thought people also made a good points about death of unrighteousness. And if you just need more ls... I guess I'm not opposed to that entirely, even though I do think that the game is fine.
-
Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.
-
Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.
+1
-
Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkara.allthingsd.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F11%2F357503.jpg&hash=95114b9bcb64550ef71103352c48b6b1591ca037)
-
I disagree I feel that
T1 == Beginner, More accessible to n00bs
T2 == pro
but thats because I hate Las Vegas ;)
I disagree. I play T1 because I like the deck building rules better. I may be inclinded to build a T2 deck at some point, but for now T1 is just more enjoyable for me.
-
I disagree. I play T1 because I like the deck building rules better. I may be inclinded to build a T2 deck at some point, but for now T1 is just more enjoyable for me.
I apologize, but my point stands, T1 is more accessible to new players. I didn't mean just new players, but very few new players are able to jump right into T2 and expect any success. I also prefer T1 games to T2 so I get ya. ;)
-
Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun. They are welcome to play "sandlot" rules if they want during playgroup. But they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.
Wow. I didn't realize that Redemption was so elitist. My mistake.
-
These girls seem to think so... ::)
-
These girls seem to think so... ::)
Ironic that you say that...
You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck
It's simple as this a better deck should win every time over an inferior deck
I don't think I should lose to a newb.
All said by you. ;)
-
Wow. I didn't realize that Redemption was so elitist. My mistake.
It has nothing to do with elitism, it has everything to do with not being able to cater to one group exclusively. I am no elitist and take offense at that remark. But like Jannisary said house rules can make up for what tournament rules restrict. I expect my players to behave differently at a tourney then at our weekly meetings. I allow players to play open hand when they are learning but I don't expect the community to adopt that as its standard of play.
-
I'm done here. I hope a new lost soul rule gets implemented.
Oh sure, open up a can of worms. Cause a huge mess. Then leave. :-* ::) :-*
:rollin:
-
These girls seem to think so... ::)
Ok this is the third time i've seen you use the word 'girls" as an obvious attempt at an insult. Please stop. Sexism is not funny, it's just idiotic. It also only goes to prove how insecure you are.
-
It certainly deturs from the fun and fellowship of the game when my opponent draws no lost souls for 6 turns in a row. I don't understand why people don't think this is a problem.
These girls seem to think so... ::)
Ok this is the third time i've seen you use the word 'girls" as an obvious attempt at an insult. Please stop. Sexism is not funny, it's just idiotic. It also only goes to prove how insecure you are.
lol. BTW it was actually pretty funny.
-
These girls seem to think so... ::)
Ok this is the third time i've seen you use the word 'girls" as an obvious attempt at an insult. Please stop. Sexism is not funny, it's just idiotic. It also only goes to prove how insecure you are.
Totally misquoted:
Oh sure, open up a can of worms. Cause a huge mess.
-
It has nothing to do with elitism, it has everything to do with not being able to cater to one group exclusively. I am no elitist and take offense at that remark.
So you agree that whether or not the younger players are having fun playing Redemption has no place for discussion on these boards and should not even be remotely considered in any conversation here?
That is what I stated was elitist.
Perhaps we need to change the age requirement for Redemption:
For serious gamers only ages 16 & up (or hobbits age 12 & up).
-
Tell that to Kurt Hake... he starting at like 5. ::)
-
Tell that to Kurt Hake... he starting at like 5. ::)
The youngest Alstad was around that age when I played against him at Nats 2005. :o
-
@Hobbit: No more than you drawing souls consistantly without defense will if the pile were to happen.
@YMT: It's not elitist to say the the fun and fellowship expirienced through sandlot rules shouldn't be practiced in real rules. If it's elitist to follow the rules, my bad.
-
Tell that to Kurt Hake... he starting at like 5. ::)
The youngest Alstad was around that age when I played against him at Nats 2005. :o
So let me rephrase:
The younger players who are not directly related to the serious gamers have no place in any discussion about the game of Redemption, since it isn't about them anyway?
@YMT: It's not elitist to say the the fun and fellowship expirienced through sandlot rules shouldn't be practiced in real rules. If it's elitist to follow the rules, my bad.
It is elitist to say:
Gameplay isn't obligated to allow little kids the most fun.... they should not be brought into a discussion about rule changes.
The young, new players deserve as much consideration in rule change discussions as you do. To think otherwise is elitist.
-
Not really. The games rules should be determined devoid of ages of players and other factors. The only thing that should matter is the integrity of the game, the relative brokenness of it, and other such game related things.
But, further on, it's just as elitist to argue that we shuold change rules to make it more fun for younger players as it is to say they shouldn't be considered. Two way streets work like that.
-
So you agree that whether or not the younger players are having fun playing Redemption has no place for discussion on these boards and should not even be remotely considered in any conversation here?
That is what I stated was elitist.
Perhaps we need to change the age requirement for Redemption:
For serious gamers only ages 16 & up (or hobbits age 12 & up).
I do not think Redemption needs to be altered for younger players. I have taught 8-12 year old young people how to play and have met many many bright young people who are satisfied with the game AS IT IS. They have neither been discouraged, or disappointed at a 7 turn lost soul drought, they were to eagerly anticipating what came next, and the next battle. Anticipation can be a joy all in its own. What I agreed with is that no one groups point of view should overrule other groups point of view. Or maybe I have an exceptionally mature group of young people.
-
But like Lambo said house rules can make up for what tournament rules restrict.
I said that? Never knew that... :P
These girls seem to think so... ::)
Ok this is the third time i've seen you use the word 'girls" as an obvious attempt at an insult. Please stop. Sexism is not funny, it's just idiotic. It also only goes to prove how insecure you are.
If you knew his sense of humor, you'd have picked up it was entirely a joke. I took no insult to it when he said it.
A good way to tell if he's joking is look for one of these two emotes: ::) or :-*
-
I dissagree. Emoticons or no, it is still sexist to say that "being a girl" is a negative thing. We all said it when we were young but when we get older we realize that those types of phrases are hurtful. There are plenty of ways to say something is stupid or foolish without calling people "girls" or saying things like "Thats gay"
While I am on SoulSavers side on this, id rather he (or anyone else for that matter) not reffer to the opposition as "girls" in a deroggatory way.
-
I said that? Never knew that... :P
I am sorry I got all mixed up Jannisary said that, fixing the post.
-
i think the main issue here is that some games are being lost by the lack of lost souls that one player puts into play. there is no proof needed, as its common knowledge this situation has occured in the past before. its not just strictly saying one player draws NO lost souls either...he just doesnt draw enough for the other player to effectively have a chance to win the game.
i really really REALLY like STAMPS idea alot. making a completely seperate lost soul pile for the game changes the fundamental rules and weakens the power of some cards and strategies. however, having the option to pull a lost soul out of a draw pile for each successful battle challenge/side battle seems to be a clear, logical answer. battle challenges serve no purpose other than to use a special ability on a hero, and usually with no evil character even attempting to block...however, this would encourage a more battle-orientated game if a player does not wish for his draw pile to be ransacked. this idea would also retain much of the power behind other cards and strategies as well. i have to give my vote for this solution.
-
I think this drastic of a rule change this late into the life of Redemption would be a very bad idea. If your deck's weakness is your opponent's drawing of souls, then prepare for that. Use cards that not only generate lost souls, but also that shuffle their deck as well. If you don't wanna do that, change strategies.
-
I think this drastic of a rule change this late into the life of Redemption would be a very bad idea.
...why?
-
I am going to ignore your pointedly insulting tone, an address the issue..... Perhaps I should have been more clear, then people wouldn't feel the need to label me as something that I clearly am not and if you knew me would not say.
Korunks,
The age requirement line was a joke. I'm not sure why you are taking my statements personally since I was quoting Janissary. He was dismissing a segment of gamers, but then trying to push that off onto me as I try to represent that group.
That's all I was saying. Janissary's post was dismissive, so I responded. I never quoted you the first time, and I tried to redirect you the second time.
This discussion is going no where. Some good points were made and the PTBs have hopefully read them by now and taken them into consideration. Even if no changes occur (which I wouldn't care either way), at least the voices of concern were heard. I think there should be more leeway in allowing concerns to be aired and discussed without them being written off as ludicrous, which a handful of you have.
-
i think the main issue here is that some games are being lost by the lack of lost souls that one player puts into play. there is no proof needed, as its common knowledge this situation has occured in the past before.
I never said it doesn't happen. Heck, it has happened to me in both directions. But the serious question is this: does it happen often enough to "break" the game?
Some games are lost to this of course, but I HIGHLY doubt that it happens as often as one would think after reading SS's original post.
Unless someone proves me wrong, this situation is a very rare occurance and is not as big of a deal as you all make it out to be. I already said that if it were like... 1 in 10 games then there would be a problem, but im guessing its more like 1 in 50... mabye even 1 in 100.
Please, someone prove to me that it happens often enough to warrant a change and then I will support you all fullheartedly. Also, please provide numbers with a wide range of decks, not just speed.
-
Oh sure, open up a can of worms. Cause a huge mess. Then leave. :-* ::) :-*
:rollin:
Lol oops did I do that? I guess I did... Have fun girls(I'm sorry I mean guys). :-* lol
lol. BTW it was actually pretty funny.
I thought it was too. I had myself a good chuckle :-* :laugh:
PS Girlz Rule, boys drool. :-*
-
I'm not going to debate this. I almost hesitate to post here because this thread is already about 10 pages too long.
Suffice to say that such a fundamental change in the rules is almost certainly never going to happen. There are LOTS of cards that produce lost souls in your opponent's LOB whether he draws any or not. Consider the Hopper, Harvest Time, TAS, Dungeon of Malchiah, etc, etc, ETC. Plus, there are more in the next set.
Has anyone ever seen a successful speed deck? Don't they, by their very definition, draw their lost souls faster than other decks? Yet they win. How can this be if person who draws more souls is at such a disadvantage?
As Gabe so aptly put it, this is a card game. If you want pure strategy, go play chess. I don't mind having a little luck in the game, but that hardly makes it "Vegas".
Someone ought to lock this before it gets (even more) out of hand.
Kevin Shride
-
Someone ought to lock this before it gets (even more) out of hand.
I'm not going to lock this thread because I think this can still be and should be discussed. Also, I think we're all adult enough to keep this going as a proper debate. It's not getting out of hand.
-
Kevin you do make make some good points about redemptions ability to create Lost Souls, but the discussion about how LS are generated in a game cannot hurt any and if you have a problem with the thread then dont post. I appreciate your points and they are well taken but the idea that just because you dont agree with the idea behind a thread that it should be locked is a little extreme.
It seems that some people feel that the element of Luck should be at least minimized in some of the categories. Sure it cannot be completely eliminated but what harm can come by a discussion on how to minimize the "randomness" of a game that many people spend hours building decks for only to have them get beaten in that "one in a million" chance at a major tournament like Regionals or Nats by something that they cannot control?
Perhaps this is the beginning of a different category of redemption like Teams may soon become. Probably not, but at least it should be discussed.
-
Now don't be too hard on Kevin. He actually may be on to something. It's not like players travel hundreds of miles to get beat that "one in a million" chance at a major tournament by something they cannot control...
...oh, wait...
They DO travel hundreds of miles. Well, at least in the WEST we travel hundreds of miles. I could attend three state tournaments in the NE during a trip to 7-Eleven. :D
-
And just because a rule change doesn't happen doesn't mean that Rob and the Playtesters aren't trying to lessen the blow of LS drought or flood, we already have a bunch of cards that generate souls, 2 of which are lost souls themselves (Hopper and Revealer) plus we have a Lost Soul that can exchange with harder to rescue LS, not to mention TAS which can be used in almost any deck without too much negative impact (assuming your opponent isn't attacking with BtN or Hezekiah's Signet Ring) several heroes already can help and there's a Dominant, and I'm guessing that we might get a territory class enhancement that can get out Lost Souls.
I think that if it is a big enough problem to cause a rule change I think it would have happened before we got all these cards to help combat it, but if the game was ok when the only card to combat it was Dungeons of Malchiah I think its ok now when you can win a game without your opponent drawing any lost souls if you have the right cards.
-
Kevin you do make make some good points about redemptions ability to create Lost Souls, but the discussion about how LS are generated in a game cannot hurt any and if you have a problem with the thread then dont post. I appreciate your points and they are well taken but the idea that just because you dont agree with the idea behind a thread that it should be locked is a little extreme.
I did not say the post should be locked because I don't agree with it. I think you have all made lucid, rational arguments. But you've made the same arguments for 13 pages now without truly considering what the other people in the discussion are saying. There's no end in sight to this thread, which is why I suggesting locking it.
It seems that some people feel that the element of Luck should be at least minimized in some of the categories. Sure it cannot be completely eliminated but what harm can come by a discussion on how to minimize the "randomness" of a game that many people spend hours building decks for only to have them get beaten in that "one in a million" chance at a major tournament like Regionals or Nats by something that they cannot control?
No harm at all, except when it goes on forever. Randomness is part of any card game. You can never completely eliminate it. Let's take your example of a second lost soul pile. Pretend we change the rules and you have the two draw piles: one lost soul pile and one for everything else. What prevents the randomness that all your Heroes are in the bottom third of your deck? Nothing, and if any other card you may have in your deck to get a Hero out (I Am Creator or Holy Grail for instance) is also at the bottom, what can you do? You're going to sit there for a few turns and your opponent has a tremendous advantage. So what should we do now? Revise the rules where you have different piles for lost souls, Heroes, Evil Characters, Good Enhancements, Evil Enhancements, Fortresses, Artifacts, etc., and you draw from each pile on alternating turns or something just so you can say you're eliminating randomness? How about every player just stacks his own deck? There is no good way to eliminate randomness from Redemption. It's always going to be there.
They DO travel hundreds of miles. Well, at least in the WEST we travel hundreds of miles. I could attend three state tournaments in the NE during a trip to 7-Eleven.
I live in Iowa and I've attended every Nationals for the past eight years. I'm going again this year. Regionals tournaments for me are usually in Minnesota or Ohio. Even when they were close, it's Des Moines, nearly three hours away. I travelled 90 minutes this year just to HOST my state tournament. I travel as much as anyone, maybe Chris Bany excepted, and I don't think that's a good argument for changing the rules.
Kevin Shride
-
They DO travel hundreds of miles. Well, at least in the WEST we travel hundreds of miles. I could attend three state tournaments in the NE during a trip to 7-Eleven.
I live in Iowa and I've attended every Nationals for the past eight years. I'm going again this year. Regionals tournaments for me are usually in Minnesota or Ohio. Even when they were close, it's Des Moines, nearly three hours away. I travelled 90 minutes this year just to HOST my state tournament. I travel as much as anyone, maybe Chris Bany excepted, and I don't think that's a good argument for changing the rules.
Kevin Shride
First, you live in the WEST, too. Anything west of the Mississippi is WEST. Furthermore, you're an adult with a well-paying job. I would anticipate you could attend most any tournament. Little 12-year-old Johnny has to convince his parent(s) to transport him to tournaments. It's one thing to see a young kid lose in 3 turns and stomp off in disappointment, but quite another for the parent to see this. Forget seeing Johnny at the next tournament. YMT and I feel THAT is a good reason to at least take any change into consideration.
I'm just amazed that a playtester (Schaef) has even mentioned any support for an idea brought up by a player. I guess Obama was right and we just have to hold on to hope for a change {pauses to shed tear}.
But seriously, I'm just tossing an idea out there. Do with it what you all want. :)
-
um... there have been a lot of changes that originated with player suggestions. I'm not sure how to take this.
The ideas that I tend to discount are the ones that are wrapped in flowery phrases like "this game has become totally stupid and this card is obviously broken and you guys would know this if you weren't a bunch of Nazis who don't know beans about card games".
-
um... there have been a lot of changes that originated with player suggestions. I'm not sure how to take this.
The ideas that I tend to discount are the ones that are wrapped in flowery phrases like "this game has become totally stupid and this card is obviously broken and you guys would know this if you weren't a bunch of Nazis who don't know beans about card games".
Whew, then I'm glad I didn't use that phrase, because you didn't discount this particular idea. :)
-
The ideas that I tend to discount are the ones that are wrapped in flowery phrases like "this game has become totally stupid and this card is obviously broken and you guys would know this if you weren't a bunch of Nazis who don't know beans about card games, and also don't realize that 0.4% is less than 0".
Fixed.
Little 12-year-old Johnny has to convince his parent(s) to transport him to tournaments. It's one thing to see a young kid lose in 3 turns and stomp off in disappointment, but quite another for the parent to see this. Forget seeing Johnny at the next tournament.
Honestly though this can still happen even if you change lost souls. Making more lost souls availible just makes EC's more critical.
If Little johnny's EC's hide at the bottom of the deck, it can very easily go like this (and this is using the ls pile, one ls drawn per 2 turns):
Turn 1, both d8 and draw a soul. Johnny goes 2nd.
Opponent RA's and Johnny can't block. 0-1.
Johnny RA's hoping to even the game, but opponent blocks with TAS and ultimately wins. 0-1.
Opponent RA's for his TAS. 0-2.
Johnny draws a LS and RA's, fails. 0-2.
Opponent RA's for his 2nd drawn soul and wins since johnny still has no ECs. SoG/NJ. 0-5.
I dont see how this ls issue will truely stop 3 turn losses. ECs are very good at hiding as well.
-
I agree that a fundamental change ( though I would like it) is not practical. A more practical solution is one that Tim Maly suggested, create more cards that get out lost souls. It is a problem and one of the draw backs of Redemption, while it may not turn up in every game or even one tournament (for a person) it still can happen. Because the game of Redemption revolves around rescuing souls this is certainly an issue. There is simply not enough cards that get out souls. And even though there are alot of cards that create lost souls I still have to deck them which takes up space.
-
Turn 1, both d8 and draw a soul...
Why do they draw a lost soul? With my idea, no lost soul is drawn at the beginning.
-
Well in that case, it can still happen.
HT
drawn soul
TAS
SOG/NJ
-
I'm just amazed that a playtester (Schaef) has even mentioned any support for an idea brought up by a player. I guess Obama was right and we just have to hold on to hope for a change {pauses to shed tear}.
We are the change we've been waiting for.
Not only that but,
We are the world.
We are the children.
We are the ones who make a better day
So let's start giving.
-
Well in that case, it can still happen.
HT
drawn soul
TAS
SOG/NJ
But the odds are increased. I can still lose in one hand in Pinochle, but the odds of that happening are so high it's an amazing event when it happens. And Pinochle is a game of chance using cards. That's how Redemption should be, too, but that's just my opinion. :)
-
Yeah... my point earlier is that as the game stands, it is already a rare occurance for a game to be lost due to nothing but lost soul flood/drought.
I still want to see some people do a test on this. RR and I were discussing it, and we could do the following.
See how many games it takes for various deck styles to reach 3 to 5 games where a loss was due COMPLETELY to lost soul drawing. So, use speed, offense heavy without speed, balanced decks, defense heavy, and herolite/combo decks, and count how many games it takes for each category of deck.
I'd be willing to register any games I play towards this study. If we get a lot of players to participate, perhaps we could bump the number up to 10, just to have clearer results.
This will give us a good idea just how big of a problem this really is. However, I'm almost positive that the slower the deck runs, the less likely it'll run into problems. Also, Heroless is excluded, since it waits for the opponent to deck out anyways.
-
Also, Heroless is excluded, since it waits for the opponent to deck out anyways.
Not always. I've won 5-0 with a heroless deck in 4 turns before. (Ridiculous draw) ;)
Kirk
-
Also, Heroless is excluded, since it waits for the opponent to deck out anyways.
Not always. I've won 5-0 with a heroless deck in 4 turns before. (Ridiculous draw) ;)
Kirk
If Heroless can win in 4 turns, then we got problems. :rollin:
-
1st turn my opponent played Destruction on some defensive artifact. Then on the 2nd turn, I had Saul/Paul, Holy Grail, a healing card, and a battle winner. I got 3 straight plus SoG/NJ.
Kirk
-
I think that both sides have brought up good points. These are some thoughts that I have on them.
Pro-LS piles:
I hope that Redemption is "young" in it's life cycle, not old. So I don't see a problem making a change at this point.
In addition to my support for the LS pile idea, I also really like the idea of letting someone pull out a LS each time they win a battle challenge. This adds to the interactivity of the game by encouraging both more attacks and more blocks.
Con-LS piles:
Even if the LSs come out at regular intervals, people could still have to wait if they don't have GCs, and would still have to give them away if they don't have ECs, and we don't want separate piles for everything.
As for evidence of how often LSs cause people to lose, I'll point to my Sealed Deck experience at EC Regionals last weekend. I drafted a deck with the ability to generate 3 LSs (Hopper, Wedding Party, Commissioned). Most open category decks wouldn't have more than that. In spite of that, I lost 2 of my 4 games solely due to lack of LSs to take. For details look here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16641.0)
-
Couldn't another solution be to allow more shuffling time between rounds? I have limited Tournament experience, but I watched most players just pick up their cards shuffle a bit and play. I only saw two other people doing a full shuffle. Poor shuffles result in card clots, and lost soul drought. Maybe we need to enforce some good shuffling at tournaments?
-
Possibly find some people who know how to properly shuffle, and if somebody wants to, they can bring their decks to the shuffle station.
-
or possibly mandate a style of shuffling, I know I am always experimenting with shuffling to find find which gives a good mix of cards. I commonly use cards that shuffle my opponents deck, just so I can shuffle it, knowing that usually that the way I shuffle has better distribution(has won me a few games because of ending lost soul drought). Just some thoughts, why change game architecture if better shuffling also fixes it?
-
Two bridge shuffles, Opponent cuts your deck, and then one to two more bridges. That should do it.
If you don't know how to bridge shuffle, take it to the shuffle station. :)
-
Couldn't another solution be to allow more shuffling time between rounds? I have limited Tournament experience, but I watched most players just pick up their cards shuffle a bit and play. I only saw two other people doing a full shuffle. Poor shuffles result in card clots, and lost soul drought. Maybe we need to enforce some good shuffling at tournaments?
I agree...
Wouldn't it be simpler to just teach people how to shuffle? 90% of the games I've played where my opponents' souls didn't show were people that just kinda cut their deck once or twice, as opposed to a decent, honest shuffle?
-
Two bridge shuffles, Opponent cuts your deck, and then one to two more bridges. That should do it.
If you don't know how to bridge shuffle, take it to the shuffle station. :)
Listen to some players weep as there cards get bridge shuffled :maul:
-
Just did a test with 56 playing cards, 7 being inverse color ones so they're easy to spot. I bridge shuffled four times, with all 7 souls starting together on the bottom.
Test 1: all spread equally through the deck, top card was a soul. No bunches.
Test 2: spread well, no bunches.
Test 3: Spread well, but two bunches of two.
Test 4: Spread well, two near the top that were seperated by one card.
Test 5: Spread a little more towards the bottom, but there are still 3 within the top 50% of the deck. 2nd to last card was a soul.
Just from these 5, I think 4 bridge shuffles is a good way to avoid clumping AND mix souls throughout fairly evenly.
-
I watch my opponents' shuffles. If they do not seem sufficient then I cut their deck.
-
but sometimes a cut isn't enough, if they have a run of lost souls all on the top, you cut it to the bottom it doesn't help you.
-
Or you could shuffle their deck too.
Start by thoroughly shuffling your deck. Your opponent(s) may also shuffle your deck.
-
"Stack shuffling" also seems to work pretty well. Start each stack with a LS, mix the rest of the deck and then place the cards in the stacks. Pile up the stacks and do a couple hand shuffles. If your deck was sorted previous to starting the process, maybe do a second stack shuffle.
-
I know opponents may shuffle, but in tourneys is enough time given to shuffle well? I like the idea of a Shuffling station where you can get your cards shuffled. Maybe we should make it mandatory so it would be fair. Poor shuffling seems to be rampant in the tournament scene.
-
well if people have good decks then there should be a way to make your opponent draw alost soul, cause there are plenty of cards and other combos to make your opponenet get a soul
-
I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).
Also, there are some people who do not wish to bridge their cards or have another person bridge for them. As much as we all want to help, be on the lookout for people who will feed your deck to you if you try this with their cards.
-
I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).
Also, there are some people who do not wish to bridge their cards or have another person bridge for them. As much as we all want to help, be on the lookout for people who will feed your deck to you if you try this with their cards.
+1
But would mandating a stack sort be something people would support? I would support it because I already do it, because I know a good shuffle helps me as much as it helps my opponent.
-
The piles method works the best. From a sorted deck, I put it a deck in 7 piles, pick them up randomly, and do hand 4+ hand shuffles. Then I do another 7 piles method, and pick them up randomly before doing another 4+ hand shuffles. I repeat the process once more. I find this is one of the best ways to shuffle from a sorted deck.
Before each of the following games, in which one game has been played so the deck isn't sorted, but cards will be clumped from how I cleared my cards off the table, I do some hand shuffles, a piles method, more hand shuffles, another piles method, and more hand shuffles.
Kirk
-
I like that shuffle too, but will any mandatory shuffling styles be accepted by tourney players?
-
The piles method is generally accepted as the better method for shuffling. It makes a statistically well-shuffled deck, and is very gentle to the cards.
-
Dragon sleeves can be merge-shuffled very easily, including T2 size decks. This is how I shuffle during a game. At the start of a game, I do pile shuffling.
-
"Stack shuffling" also seems to work pretty well. Start each stack with a LS, mix the rest of the deck and then place the cards in the stacks. Pile up the stacks and do a couple hand shuffles. If your deck was sorted previous to starting the process, maybe do a second stack shuffle.
This method of shuffling--which is the most common one I have seen--is no where near being random. The first pass artificially forces an flat distribution of LS. At this point you are creating a situation that is entirely equivalent (putting aside to a single card that might get messed up by a cut) to the idea of using a separate LS stack that gets fed into the main game. This artificial distribution is not--in general--going to be undone by the couple of hand shuffles.
Let me point out that this is precisely why many people have the mistaken belief that RTS shuffles poorly. The problem isn't with RTS (which appears to actually generate a random card distribution). The problem lies with the fact that the method of shuffling we do by hand are no where near random. So when RTS actually does shuffle randomly we blame the program.
The piles method is generally accepted as the better method for shuffling. It makes a statistically well-shuffled deck, and is very gentle to the cards.
While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.
-
I am aware that we don't create a statistical shuffle when we shuffle. However it is superior to having a separate pile of ls. First of all take into consideration all of the errata and play as that would accompany a mechanic change like separate piles, and then compare it to the ease of allowing a few extra minutes in between rounds to allow better shuffling. You said it yourself that they produce equivalent results. Why force a change that is more difficult when there are simpler solutions?
-
While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.
If the piles are only done once, yes, the souls are evenly distributed. If it's done three times, which Chris Bany once told me is proper, they will not be evenly distributed.
-
That is why I do several 3 piles methods from a sorted deck and 2-3 after a game. I get clumped lost souls in some games, and others I don't. My draws seem to be pretty random, but not the 7 Lost souls and all enhancement draws that RTS sometimes gives me in T2... ::)
Kirk
-
I know you've all heard the same story before of poor little jimmy had the perfect draw but couldn't win because bob just wouldn't draw any lost souls during the game. This one thing is super annoying and takes away from the game, and many times determined Nats. I had a couple of thoughts on how to make this problem be less of a game damper. What if we increased the lost soul count to like 10 per fifty cards. Or start the game with the lost souls already out on the board. I think the lost soul issue is something that really needs to be addressed. You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck because all his lost souls are on the bottom the whole game. What do you guys think?
my noob friend b eats me a lot cuz of this.....
-
I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).
I did four bridge shuffles in a row on cards and they ended up fairly random and spread apart. Also, I probably did those faster than you can pile shuffle.
However, I understand some people may not want their cards bent.
I think MJB nailed the shuffling issue. I've never had problems with RTS's shuffling because I can shuffle fairly well.
-
I know opponents may shuffle, but in tourneys is enough time given to shuffle well? I like the idea of a Shuffling station where you can get your cards shuffled. Maybe we should make it mandatory so it would be fair. Poor shuffling seems to be rampant in the tournament scene.
That is the main issue at nationals IMO. The timer starts at a set time, so if you weren't at your table quickly (Back of the crowd/forgetting which way your table is) can cut into shuffle time if you wanna start with the others. I believe nationals should wait till everyone has shuffled up. Locals/districts Seem to do this well cuz its not rushed.
-
While I've never been there I agree.
Mabye just have everyone who is shuffled and ready hold their hand up, then once everyones hand is up, the clock starts and they all d8.
-
Mabye just have everyone who is shuffled and ready hold their hand up, then once everyones hand is up, the clock starts and they all d8.
Why do they roll eight-sided dice?
-
To determine the number of cards they get to draw. :)
-
While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.
If the piles are only done once, yes, the souls are evenly distributed. If it's done three times, which Chris Bany once told me is proper, they will not be evenly distributed.
Sorry, sk. I was thinking your piles method was the same as the one Justin proposed (mostly because I've learned to ignore Kirk. :laugh:).
-
stack-shuffling is the commonly accepted norm for most ccg's. there is no way i will ever let anyone bridge shuffle my deck. i find this point moot anyways, as if you arent satisfied with an opponents shuffle, you are allowed by rule to do it for them.
-
i find this point moot anyways, as if you arent satisfied with an opponents shuffle, you are allowed by rule to do it for them.
That only works if you have time...
-
stack-shuffling is the commonly accepted norm for most ccg's. there is no way i will ever let anyone bridge shuffle my deck. i find this point moot anyways, as if you arent satisfied with an opponents shuffle, you are allowed by rule to do it for them.
Fine, I'd faro shuffle your deck then... :P (fancy "interweaving" method that doesnt bend the cards almost at all)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lNk7bfkFq8&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lNk7bfkFq8&feature=related#)
There. Would you allow me to do that? *ignore the fact that they end up in the exact same order at the end, a PERFECT faro like he is doing is a perfect every-other shuffle, so 8 of those would return the deck to its original order.
-
i find this point moot anyways, as if you arent satisfied with an opponents shuffle, you are allowed by rule to do it for them.
That only works if you have time...
um, it works because it is a rule.
Fine, I'd faro shuffle your deck then... (fancy "interweaving" method that doesnt bend the cards almost at all)
yeeeeeeeeeah im gonna have to give you a big fat no on that...i prefer not to have my cards bent at all.
-
Watch the video and see for yourself. You probably end up bending them more just by handling them individually.
-
after watching that video it seems the top/bottom edges of my cards would be prone to more wear and tear than usual. i prefer the stack method, as whatever stress im putting on the card is distributed evenly to the whole card, not just the edges.
-
after watching that video it seems the top/bottom edges of my cards would be prone to more wear and tear than usual. i prefer the stack method, as whatever stress im putting on the card is distributed evenly to the whole card, not just the edges.
+ 1 Lambo wouldnt know this though because he doesnt own any cards :P
-
That bends the front of the card...
-
heh lambo owns many cards and is quite crafty with them :)
-
after watching that video it seems the top/bottom edges of my cards would be prone to more wear and tear than usual. i prefer the stack method, as whatever stress im putting on the card is distributed evenly to the whole card, not just the edges.
+ 1 Lambo wouldnt know this though because he doesnt own any cards :P
Actually I own about 2000+ I've just never gotten to use them :-\
Also, I'm about to test with redemption cards in sleeves... the sharper edges would probably make it a LOT easier to shuffle like that. I tried with bare cards and it is signifigantly more difficult than I thought. Problem is that they arent all the exact same size... I'll report back once I try this.
That bends the front of the card...
Barely. Its considerably easier on the cards than a bridge.
-
i would probably do this with a deck i really didnt care about...to give it some extra shazam...like 'BAM! L00K WU7 1 K@N D0!!!' maybe it'll have a psychological effect on my opponent, and make them mess up alot and lose terribly. hmm you should test that out too lambo...make a deck full of poisons/boils/limited/unlimited cards, then add the cool shuffle before the round to see if it throws them off their game :D
-
Well, the issue with redemption cards is... they're too thick, different cut sizes, and have NOTHING compared to the air-flow finish on most bikes.
I just tried with 56 sleeved cards, and its still a little tricky, but I found a way to still get a good weaving without bending the cards. I split the deck, and weave the side of one "packet" into the bottom corner of the other. top/bottom weaving utterly fails with sleeves because they get stuck inside eachother. Only issue I run into now is that I'm so used to the cards gliding together... these sleeves kinda stick...
Still, if you have sleeves, I have found a good way to shuffle quickly and efficiently. ;)
i would probably do this with a deck i really didnt care about...to give it some extra shazam...like 'BAM! L00K WU7 1 K@N D0!!!' maybe it'll have a psychological effect on my opponent, and make them mess up alot and lose terribly. hmm you should test that out too lambo...make a deck full of poisons/boils/limited/unlimited cards, then add the cool shuffle before the round to see if it throws them off their game :D
LOL! Yeah, I'd do all sorts of fun tricks like fans and spreads... if redemption cards were capable of those moves -_-
-
So i didnt go through and read all 16 pages...
But i would say that if its not broken, don't fix it. Its just the luck of the game. I feel that most of my time my SoG is on the bottom of my deck. Just because I dont draw it when i want to, doesn't mean we increase the number of SoG allowed per deck... you just work around it. By thinking of ways to get to your cards quicker, or card specific searchers. There are plenty LS creating cards. Try using a deck discarding defense.
pushing the LS count up to 10 just adds more unnecessary offense potential to a game that is already stacked towards the offense.
Adding another pile to draw from will render many staple cards in the game useless (and makes Given Over To Egypt wayy OP)
-
Adding another pile to draw from will render many staple cards in the game useless (and makes Given Over To Egypt wayy OP)
LOL! VERY good point!
-
So i didnt go through and read all 16 pages...
But i would say that if its not broken, don't fix it. Its just the luck of the game. I feel that most of my time my SoG is on the bottom of my deck. Just because I dont draw it when i want to, doesn't mean we increase the number of SoG allowed per deck... you just work around it. By thinking of ways to get to your cards quicker, or card specific searchers. There are plenty LS creating cards. Try using a deck discarding defense.
pushing the LS count up to 10 just adds more unnecessary offense potential to a game that is already stacked towards the offense.
Adding another pile to draw from will render many staple cards in the game useless (and makes Given Over To Egypt wayy OP)
...What does that have to do with shuffling? ::)
-
i still like STAMPS original idea about the bc/side battle. there really should be some kind of reward for winning a battle challenge.
-
What does that have to do with shuffling? ::)
So i didnt go through and read all 16 pages...
-
Lol, glad you got the joke. ;)
-
i still like STAMPS original idea about the bc/side battle. there really should be some kind of reward for winning a battle challenge.
Isnt causing the world to explode for actualy winning a battle challenge good enough? ::)