Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The Guardian on July 08, 2009, 04:13:15 AM
-
On behalf of Rob and the other playtesters, I would like to make a more or less official announcement regarding New Jerusalem.
Due to the many people who have respectfully requested for Rob to consider banning New Jerusalem as well as the multiple discussions regarding "the loss of hard-fought battles," Rob opened up a discussion amongst the playtesters on the possibility of banning New Jerusalem from Type 1 play for a trial period during next tournament season to see what effect it would have on the game. After a week-long discussion, a consensus was reached that for the time being, New Jerusalem will not be banned: Redemption will continue to have no banned cards. Although it would take too long to repost the entire discussion, here are some of the major reasons.
1. We want to see what effect TexP will have on the game before making such a drastic change.
2. We are concerned that the loss of New Jerusalem would cause many more games to time out, which we believe is not good for the game. The game is intended to be slightly weighted in favor of the offense.
3. Decks would be weighted even more heavily towards offense, especially in T1 MP. No one enjoys watching a defenseless T1 MP deck give away free LS, and banning NJ would likely make even more players sacrifice defensive space so they would be sure to have enough offense to get 4 non-dominant rescues.
These are the primary reasons we believe it is in the best interest for the game to continue with New Jerusalem. This is not to say that there will never be a time when NJ or another card will be banned, but now is not that time. If there continues to be a general consensus that banning New Jerusalem would improve the game, we will again discuss the possibility of doing a trial period of banning NJ from Type 1.
It was the desire of Rob for players to know that he does pay attention when people make respectful and well supported requests to consider making a change, and that is why he asked me to summarize our discussion.
I encourage everyone to keep making suggestions on ways the game can be improved!
Justin
The Guardian
-
the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.
i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.
-
Glad to hear that it has been considered. Thanks for the update
-
Since this is something that I've pushed for several times in the past, I'm happy to see that Rob is at least putting it up for discussion. Even if it isn't banned in T1 immediately, the fact that Rob is willing to take suggestions like that from the players is a very cool thing. :)
-
I want to thank Rob for his community involvement, and the play tester's also for this decision. The fact that Redemption currently has no banned cards is one of the main Reason's I came back to playing it after a few years off. I have played Magic the Gathering extensively as well as other CCG's and am thoroughly tired of banned cards. It takes a lot of fun out of a game when I have new people learning the game, they see this awesome card and think its cool. Only to find out that its banned in "official" tournaments. I stopped going to MTG tournaments because of that, and I would hate to add Redemption tournaments to that list. Especially as I am working hard to begin consistent tournament hosting here in MD and spread the game. If the game is gonna fundamentally change by banning cards and other unpopular decisions, that defeats a lot of the work I am trying to accomplish.
-
if you are a hater of dominants rescuing souls, just play altar of ahaz....
-
if you are a hater of dominants rescuing souls, just play altar of ahaz....
If you can draw it in time. If you never lose a rescue. If you want to tie up your precious artifact slot the entire time.
As has been said, I'm glad this was discussed, although the outcome wasn't what I'd hope for.
Don't mean to stir things up, but one of the points of reasoning bothered me...
No one enjoys watching a defenseless T1 MP deck give away free LS
But we enjoy watching someone play a practically unstoppable two-card combo for two free LSs in every single deck?
-
I also thank Rob and the playtesters for considering this issue as well as the concerns of the community in general. I would like to know whether it was also discussed as to raising the LS count to win in T1 to 6 (and the LS min/deck to 8). I think that this would be a terriffic way to solve the problem of NJ without banning any cards.
-
for all the people who are for banning NJ think about this:
how many times has it saved you? I can think of 5 times this year!
think of is weaknesses has to be played with SoG, can't rescue the N.T. only, */4, or the women only lost souls you can't use it with your opponents SoG.
if any card needs to be band its GoYS
[modbreak=The Schaef]This post was better before you edited it.[/modbreak]
-
the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.
i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.
I understand what your saying but I think that the lack of New Jerusalem would actually hurt the battle phase rather than help it. Think about it, if decks became increasingly more offensive the battle phase would diminish because more of the power offensive cards are being used and less of the defensive cards.
If you ban New Jerusalem you have other cards as well or it won't do anything. If New Jerusalem is banned it makes the other power cards more powerful. There goes a way to stop Garden Tomb or Jacob RTC for a turn or two.
-
the game is already slightly weighted in favor of offense with the sole inclusion of son of god. nj makes it more than slightly weighted in favor of the offense...almost by 50% of the total score needed.
i wouldnt be too afraid of games timing out either...more offensive cards would be used to offset the loss of nj. which i feel strengthens the meta as a whole, as many have been complaining about the degradation of actual battles nowadays anyways...which i feel is where the game should be focusing at.
I understand what your saying but I think that the lack of New Jerusalem would actually hurt the battle phase rather than help it. Think about it, if decks became increasingly more offensive the battle phase would diminish because more of the power offensive cards are being used and less of the defensive cards.
If you ban New Jerusalem you have other cards as well or it won't do anything. If New Jerusalem is banned it makes the other power cards more powerful. There goes a way to stop Garden Tomb or Jacob RTC for a turn or two.
even if people start using more tgt's and jacob/rtc's, thats still leaps and bounds better than just getting an automatic lost soul for free. so yes, in this case, tgt/rtc/prov/etc. would be far better for the meta because its much much much slower to play successfully than nj.
i also dont see any lack of playability with tgt/rtc/prov now anyways; they're all played pretty heavily as it is. i think your beef is with those cards, not nj.
-
MKC,
I appreciate your and Tim's concern that NJ is the ultimate "LS for a non-battle" card. In some sense, if no one ever thought anything could be improved about the game, that might be more disconcerting :P
Let's see what TexP does though and then see where we're at. (I might add that I also believe there's still untapped strategies from the past few sets as well.)
Regarding the "Play to 6, min deck 60" idea, this is something I've been a proponent of for years...I might even have been the one who originally suggested it back on the old forum, I don't remember... (Also, didn't STAMP run a small online tournament testing that idea also?) The one major issue with that is then you have to increase the game length to avoid time-outs, so the issue would be how much longer to make the games.
-
I like that idea as well as it allows me to put more cards for offense/defense in my deck and slows down speed decks a little. =D
-
Considering that all of my decks are 63 cards, I wouldn't mind the change :).
-
i agree upping the lost souls needed to win up to 6 and deck sizes up to at least 60 would work well in lessening the effects of nj while still going by the no-banning policy.
-
all of you who say "its 2 free LS" Realize that it go both ways don't you?
-
all of you who say "its 2 free LS" Realize that it go both ways don't you?
We do. We're not saying we dislike the card because our opponents use it. We dislike it because its existence is not only practically a requirement for any deck, but causes less fun to occur. Most of us don't play because we enjoy winning, we play because we enjoy playing.
-
We do. We're not saying we dislike the card because our opponents use it. We dislike it because its existence is not only practically a requirement for any deck, but causes less fun to occur. Most of us don't play because we enjoy winning, we play because we enjoy playing.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Removing NJ, expecially from type 1 would make games alot more interesting. "Do I add more offense battle winners to compensate for the fact that acouple of my battle winners will probably be negated/thwarted?" "Do I add more defense in the hopes of really locking my opponent out of LS's by compensating for all their battle winners?" Do I add OTHER dominants (Doubt?, Grapes?, GotL?)that currently dont have much use because a deck is pretty strapped for space as it is?
I am beginning to wonder if with grapes coming out, will NJ lose a spot in some decks because people want to use grapes and they take out NJ due to space? That means your SoG can much more easily be used defensively because you dont have to wait for NJ?
I think waiting to see what TxP does to the game is a wise decision at this point.
-
Coming from a slightly different perspective. I play another game that currently had no other banned figures...until...today. And I'm slightly bummed about it. Was General Obi Wan powerful, indeed...did he deserve to get banned..I didn't think so. What I fear now is the slippery slope of banning more Star Wars figures.
How it translates to redemption?
What about other powerful or "broken" cards? Are those getting banned too? Why is banning always the first cry of the "people" (which by the way..Justin said consensus and I don't think there is one on NJ-->I think it's more like 50/50 on this subject)? Why not limit the amount of Dominants in a deck the way LS, Forts, Sites, etc. are limited in deck building? I don't like the entire Deck building rules to change for T1 but I like that better than any banned cards.
Personally, I'm happy with the decision. Of course, I'm really happy that the creator is still keeping a pulse on the game and it's players too.
-
I think that there are far more people in favor of the (better) idea of increasing deck size and LS's to win than banning NJ.
-
banning nj or upping lost souls needed to win is pretty much the same thing, so i dont care either way it goes, as long as one of those are implemented.
in regards to kenobi, thats the first time i've heard of a figure being banned in any figures game. i guess i just kind of assumed only ccg's would implement bans...haha guess it extends to figs as well. which kenobi got banned?
-
It may have pretty much the same result if you're looking at it only from the anti-NJ standpoint, but each has different ramifications for the game as a whole. Banning would have mostly negative, I believe, and upping would have mostly positive.
-
How much longer should T1 games go then do you guys think? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?
-
I think if LS numbers were upped then you'd need to account for at least 1-3 more battle per game, so maybe a 10-15 minute increase would suffice?
-
How much longer should T1 games go then do you guys think? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?
I think an hour would be fine.
-
What about 55 minutes with a 5 minute buffer so hosts can generally expect each T1 round to last 1 hour accounting for time between rounds?
Does T1 MP need to be extended to 6 LS as well?
Not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's helpful to have this kind of input for Rob to read and consider. :)
-
Please don't extend MP. X.x It takes long enough as is. I think the only realy problem is t1 2player
-
What about 55 minutes with a 5 minute buffer so hosts can generally expect each T1 round to last 1 hour accounting for time between rounds?
Does T1 MP need to be extended to 6 LS as well?
Not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's helpful to have this kind of input for Rob to read and consider. :)
55 min game / 5 min break sounds good :)
I would extend T1-2p first, and then after seeing the effects think about T1-mp.
-
i agree with arch angel. extending t1mp to 6 ls would result in terribly long games. although, usually t1mp games are the fastest due to the sheer number of speed decks...
-
i think a 1hr time limit meaning 60 minutes to play then going to 6 ls is just accurate cause heck magic the gathering has 60 card decks and they pay for 1 hr heck most other ccg's usually have 1 hr rounds and can do a 4 -5 maybe even 6 round tourney just fine. i think the bigest isue with redemption as far as time is concerned is fitting all the diffrent categories in. but shouldn't be an issue when events last 2-3-4 days now anyway. at least at the top lvl.
-
Isn't it kinda funky to have two different objectives in the two T1 categories? Is it still really T1?
-
Isn't it kinda funky to have two different objectives in the two T1 categories? Is it still really T1?
I don't mind having T1-mp go to 6 also, and in fact would like to see that in the long run. I was just suggesting changing one at a time.
-
I like the way games run as it stands now, but maybe I'm just the minority. ;)
-
I don't think you are the minority, I happen to like Redemption as it sits at the moment. I don't really know if I like the idea of raising the lost soul count for T1 2p. I may have to have my play group test it out and see how it goes over. Either way I like Redemption as it is now! ;D
-
IDK how I feel bout banning NJ. Are their ways to stop it? Yeah, like with Confusion or Alter of Ahaz. From the sounds of things, TexP might have a way to stop it, or at least slow down its use. Since Cactus is in the business of stopping problems with cards/decks, could we see an anti-NJ lost soul? (maybe in 2010) Would that idea even work? "While this lost soul is in the land of bondage, No one can play NJ" Even if you play it with SOG at the end of the game, odds are your opponet has more than 1 LS out, and in T1 2P, isn't it "Defenders choice" on which lost soul gets rescued? Or maybe a site that has a simular ability. "Protect all Lost Souls in here from rescue by a dominat" Just a thought...
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6 LS, 55 minute game increase. Because some people play to 6 anyways, especially in tournaments. Ok, so they just do that to get a better LS differential, but it has been done on numerous occasions. If we do increase the LS count to 6, do you think people won't try to get 7 LS?
I do think NJ is a good card for these reasons: Its powerful, and easy to get. It is one of the really good cards that Newbs can easily add to their deck. After all, who here doesn't have extras of NJ that they would be willing to give to help out a new player. Someone who can't afford AOC promo. It helps keep the game competitive for new players, which has been something Cactus has tried to do. In that aspect, I like the idea of keeping it around. Does it deserve to be banned? IDK. But if you don't like it, don't use it and encourage other people not to use it...didn't MASK get started by people against Speed decks in Multi Player?
-
in regards to kenobi, thats the first time i've heard of a figure being banned in any figures game. i guess i just kind of assumed only ccg's would implement bans...haha guess it extends to figs as well. which kenobi got banned?
It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set. Yep, the most broken piece in Star Wars miniatures came in a standard, cheap starter. It just came down the line on the DCI floor rules update before most of the big tournaments.
-
...some people play to 6 ... to get a better LS differential ... didn't MASK ...
A couple pieces of your post seem to be out of date. Rob capped T1 games at 5LS for figuring differential, so people don't really play to 6 anymore (but they use to, and still finished games on time, so that is a good point). And MASK didn't really "do" anything, since all the MASK players were playing Booster :)
-
It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set.
What were his abilities. Just curious..
-
Because some people play to 6 anyways, especially in tournaments. Ok, so they just do that to get a better LS differential, but it has been done on numerous occasions. If we do increase the LS count to 6, do you think people won't try to get 7 LS?
This used to happen, but the rules were changed recently to not allow counting LS beyond 5 (or 7 for T2). You can rescue 6+, but you only get LS dif points for 5.
-
It is General Obi Wan Kenobi from the Clone Wars starter set.
What were his abilities. Just curious..
Most of his abilities were kind of ordinary until they were all put together into a formidable 55 point leader.
The most deadly of all was his: Soresu Style Mastery which didn't cost force points and did the following:
All attacks (in the game Attack=rolling of dice), both melee and shooting could be prevented with the roll of 11 or better.
Which doesn't seem like much until you add Mettle which is:
If this character uses a force point to reroll add +4 to the roll...if he can do it again then it is cumulative.
Which seems pretty powerful, until you add...
Master of the Force 2:
He can use up to two force powers per turn
Which also had this added to it...
Force Renewal 1:
This character gains 1 force point per turn.
Which if you think through the possibilities of his offensive firepower then you realize that his followers are not without boosts either because he has the commander effect of...
Each follower gains +4 attack and +4 defense as long as it has an ally within 6 squares of it.
The above doesn't even have his offensive stats for brevity and not bore people, but the above is only defensive. So in summary...
You have a general of 55 points in a standard 150 point army that can block practically all attacks with as low as 3+ on a 20 sided die who continually renews this option.
Could you beat him? yes. Was it easy? No.
-
Wow, yeah, that is pretty broken. and it came in a starter set? You would need your whole group to focus on him just to get enough attacks on him that possibly one of them woudn't be prevented.
-
Hey,
I like the way games run as it stands now, but maybe I'm just the minority. ;)
I agree with this sentiment.
What is the average attention span 10-12 year old kid? That is the target audience of the game after all.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
oops...sorry...been a little while since I was at an tournament.
-
What is the average attention span 10-12 year old kid? That is the target audience of the game after all.
I support banning anyone over 12 from playing type 1. ;D
-
I support whatever CountFount supports... ;D
-
I support whatever CountFount supports... ;D
Great!. Every over 40 year old starts out with 3 redeemed lost souls and SoG NJ in hand until Justin, Tim and anyone else who has beat me turns 40.. ;)
-
As long as I get Altar of Ahaz in my opening hand, it's all good. ;)
-
I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.
1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.
-
I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.
1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.
good observations. i completely agree we should mix it up a little bit.
-
I so hate that player really only need to rescue 3 and then play SOG/NJ, but I just can't bring myself to want a card banned. We are supposed to be different than the world!!!!! (just kidding :] )
-
I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.
1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.
1. Why fix what isn't broken? While some say it is, if anyone objectively looks at it, the game is fine. Games only become broken when all decks are the same because a broken group of cards create an unstoppable deck. Sorry, Redemption does not have this.
2. How does no NJ = more defense? A lack of an instant rescue means that I have one extra soul to give to my opponent through RAs. That means I can put less defense in my deck, because I am able to give up an extra soul per game. That means I get more offense. Which means I get more unstoppable RAs and abuses.
3. Not true. That category will always be dominated by speed because you need to have a hero at all times due to the erratic nature of lost soul drawing that often occurs.
4. Not if all three are pretty much wrong.
-
Those were just my observations.
My concept was with two is that you can't just rely on getting a quick rescue. The game is more balanced, so you'll need more defense, instead of just relying on a quick offense to get ls before you opponent wins.
-
I never saw Rob's thread about banning it... but I would have been TOTALLY for it.
1. It's for a time. We've tried new Jerusalem for about 10 years. We can go one trial year without it.
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals. I think that New Jerusalem being banned would cause people to not rely so much on speed and just rescuing three lost souls and then "all I need is sog and nj."
3. People would be forced to make decks other than speed to win multi-player.
4. The combination of the 3 above factors would make more balanced games and more clash.
1. Why fix what isn't broken? While some say it is, if anyone objectively looks at it, the game is fine. Games only become broken when all decks are the same because a broken group of cards create an unstoppable deck. Sorry, Redemption does not have this.
2. How does no NJ = more defense? A lack of an instant rescue means that I have one extra soul to give to my opponent through RAs. That means I can put less defense in my deck, because I am able to give up an extra soul per game. That means I get more offense. Which means I get more unstoppable RAs and abuses.
3. Not true. That category will always be dominated by speed because you need to have a hero at all times due to the erratic nature of lost soul drawing that often occurs.
4. Not if all three are pretty much wrong.
1. you dont have to have a 'group' of cards to have a broken meta. its usually just one particular card that is so op and imbalanced that creates rifts in the meta. sog/nj are the two most powerfully broken cards in the game, and everyone uses them. even though they wont necessarily win you the game, they put you 40% closer to that goal. that seems pretty imbalanced to me.
2. it can go either way. i might pre-empt the meta that is pushing more offense by using more defense in my decks. in fact, i think defense decks will probably be given more of a push because by upping the lost soul count to 6 makes it 1 more harder for offensive decks to win. sorry, but there is no 1 card combo in redemption that can match the power of nj, so offensive decks will be taking a hurting here.
3. true. speed will more than likely always reign t1mp.
-
No way. The first thing I do when NJ gets banned is exclusively play with Speed and >10 defenses because I have to rescue more souls through battles, and I can give up more. Also, I definately can't afford have very many stopped and my enhancements wasted, so Jacob + RTC + Captain + ET + AoC + TGT/Heroes become almost instant staples in my decks. By banning NJ, a cascade effect occurs that creates more speed, more offense, and less fun.
@MKC
They're matched by FA. GOYS further unbalances the attempted balance. Ban GOYS first.
-
banning goys = same as banning nj. that is, if everyone still uses fa. banning nj would be far easier than banning goys anyways, as dropping sog/nj nets you +2 instantly, whereas goys only stops a deficit of -1.
-
I completely disagree. GOYS is not a deck staple nor is it a gurantee rescue. It's a useful card that most decks could use, but their is usualy a strategic cost to adding it. There is no real cost to adding NJ. They are fundamentally different cards.
-
By the way... I don't see how strategies would change at all. I change my position.
You need to get more, but so does your opponent. So wouldn't deck strategies stay the same? o_O
-
Just for clarification and curiousity, would you agree with my deckbuilding sentiments? More ignore, more cheap rescues, more broken?
-
Nope. My deck could rescue 4 ls as is. I'd prefer to rescue 3, but it wouldn't suffer. And I don't think most would.
-
I completely disagree. GOYS is not a deck staple nor is it a gurantee rescue. It's a useful card that most decks could use, but their is usualy a strategic cost to adding it. There is no real cost to adding NJ. They are fundamentally different cards.
i think you pretty much summed it up there. NO REAL COST to adding nj. most good ccg's work on the risk/reward system to create a balanced game. sog/nj has no risk, but a huge reward. its broken. ban one, or both ideally.
i partially agree on your newly proposed deckbuilding. however, you're glossing over the fact how there is not another single card in the game that could possibly match the power of nj (save sog, natch). to add in all these 'instant staples' of yours needs deck space...of which you are only at -1. where do you find such deck space?
-
Notice I said I'm changing my decks to less defense more offense. I believe the point here is to get more defense, and imo, this idea is fail at that. The only way to get more D is to go 60 and 6, and even that is only a maybe. Personally, I don't want to see a major change to the meta simply because the game has survived in its place for 15 years. I don't want to see something like this pass and have the game fall apart.
-
Notice I said I'm changing my decks to less defense more offense. I believe the point here is to get more defense, and imo, this idea is fail at that. The only way to get more D is to go 60 and 6, and even that is only a maybe. Personally, I don't want to see a major change to the meta simply because the game has survived in its place for 15 years. I don't want to see something like this pass and have the game fall apart.
...hence the proposed trial period of banning nj.
im pretty much open to anything that balances the game at this point. personally, i dont believe 60 and 6 will help all that much, now that i think about it. i think the main problem with sog/nj is the fact it gives you +2 to score instantly. i reason that if nj was banned, it would force players to use alternates (such as your proposed usage of tgt/cap/rtc/etc) that are still slower in execution than nj by all means...which means a player has a chance to recover and put some D up. it forces the game to 'spread out' that +2 instant net from sog/nj into something else spread out over a few more turns. i believe slowing it down like that is ultimately healthy for the game.
-
I don't have the time to read through the whole thread but I would just like to say that I think if a card is banned, no matter what card and no matter what the reason, I feel it should be banned for all categories. It seems much more simple that way, well, to me anyway.
-
Hey,
2. I don't even remember the last time a defense heavy deck won nationals.
Um...how about last year? The deck that won nationals last year had 24 evil cards and 20 good cards.*
The decks that won nationals in 2003 and 2004 also had more evil cards than good cards.
The deck that won nationals in 2005 had 18 good cards and 17 evil cards, so not defensive heavy, but not offensive heavy either.
I don't have a card list of the deck that won nationals in 2006 but the prototype for it had more evil cards than good cards.
The only time an offensive heavy deck has ever won nationals was in 2007 (at least as far back as 2000 which is as far back as my memory/records go).
Unless by "defensive heavy" you mean extremely defensive heavy. The nature of Swiss Style, time limits, and differential tie-breaker make it nearly impossible for an extremely defensive heavy deck to win nationals.
* Good and Evil card counts are based on how cards are identified as good an evil for Type 2 deck building requirements.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
OK so if balance is what we need than, I prepose:
Ban GoYS and crate a card that is "play this card simultaneously with falling away and you may take one more redeemed soul from your opponent"
-----OR-----
make a card that says "if this card is played simultaneously with falling away you may interrupt GoYS and fall away 2 lost souls"
-
Or leave the game as it is. If Rob decides something, it's official. ;D
-
OK so if balance is what we need than, I prepose:
Ban GoYS and crate a card that is "play this card simultaneously with falling away and you may take one more redeemed soul from your opponent"
-----OR-----
make a card that says "if this card is played simultaneously with falling away you may interrupt GoYS and fall away 2 lost souls"
LOL i like these. ::)
-
...sog/nj has no risk, but a huge reward. its broken. ban one, or both ideally.
Ban Jesus from a Christian card game. o_O Wow.
It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.
Plus, I think Jannissary is making some great points. I would highly recommend his posts to be read in this thread. Twice.
-
It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.
1. Only a small percentage of NJ-dissenters have advocated other cards as well.
2. If it helps the game to ban more cards (which is the only reason any banning is being discussed), then it's not the great evil you make it out to be.
-
It just proves my point that nobody is ever happy with one banned card...they start a witch hunt for others. Banning cards start down a slippery slope that I don't think is wise.
2. If it helps the game to ban more cards (which is the only reason any banning is being discussed), then it's not the great evil you make it out to be.
See, that is another point we disagree on. I think the witch hunt is a great evil. It generally takes more innocents then it does witches.
-
Along with NJ, I think we should Ban Soul Seeker from all State level tournaments and higher.
But that is just my humble opinion ;)
-
All he did was suck in all the points at a 4 player state tournament, what an noob... ::)
Kirk
-
All he did was suck in all the points at a 4 player state tournament, what an noob... ::)
... with a medal. ::)
-
Dont forget he also took 2nd place from me at the MW Regionals in type 2 two player ...
and then CRIED about it due to people showing up late and their byes and such. If only HE had played Jonathan Pequinot, then maybe he could have had something to cry about like me... :'(
-
Yea, what a noob. ::)
Kirk
-
...sog/nj has no risk, but a huge reward. its broken. ban one, or both ideally.
Ban Jesus from a Christian card game. o_O Wow.
we're not banning jesus. we're banning a card. from a card game. wow. some people take this game considerably too seriously.
-
wow. some people take this game considerably too seriously.
It's all good. Some people take Halo considerably too seriously. ;)
-
Dont forget he also took 2nd place from me at the MW Regionals in type 2 two player ...
and then CRIED about it due to people showing up late and their byes and such. If only HE had played Jonathan Pequinot, then maybe he could have had something to cry about like me... :'(
I'd wanna play him just for that name.
Man! What a handle!
-
wow. some people take this game considerably too seriously.
It's all good. Some people take Halo considerably too seriously. ;)
theres a difference between being heavily involved in a video game, and thinking master chief is the next messiah.
-
theres a difference between being heavily involved in a video game, and thinking master chief is the next messiah.
Sooooo...... which one are you again? :P
-
theres a difference between being heavily involved in a video game, and thinking master chief is the next messiah.
I don't think Jonathan believes the Son of God card actually is Jesus. But taking Jesus out of a Christian game is kind of like taking Link out of a Zelda game. Even the multiplayer titles just had four Links :)
-
theres a difference between being heavily involved in a video game, and thinking master chief is the next messiah.
Sooooo...... which one are you again? :P
haha. touche :)
-
theres a difference between being heavily involved in a video game, and thinking master chief is the next messiah.
I don't think Jonathan believes the Son of God card actually is Jesus. But taking Jesus out of a Christian game is kind of like taking Link out of a Zelda game. Even the multiplayer titles just had four Links :)
yeah i didnt think so either...but i couldnt see his reasoning towards not banning a card except for the fact it relates to jesus...that seemed a bit myopic to me.
-
I don't get the impression that he was giving you a full dissertation on his reasoning. Just pointing out that making a Christian card game and then banning Jesus from tournament play seems to send a strange message.
-
I'm coming from a "don't ban anything" platform...so I will admit that I used a play on words for emphasis to not ban the card. However, as Schaef well illustrated; I think the SoG card should be the center and most powerful card of the game. I don't think keeping strong cards especially ones in which the game is centered around/founded on is myopic either.
Then again, I hate seeing things banned.
-
but my point is, isnt that a bit biased? giving special treatment (in this case, power, exemption from banning) to a card just because its related to jesus? in my opinion that doesnt fuel a balanced environment, which was my original point. i see yours as well though, and im sort of in agreement with that; the son of god card should be more powerful than other cards...but not at the level its currently at. perhaps a good multi-colored enhancement that read 'rescue any lost soul in play. cannot be negated' would help alleviate that power.
-
Plus, I think Jannissary is making some great points. I would highly recommend his posts to be read in this thread. Twice.
Someone gets a cookie at Regionals. :D
-
I think SoG is and always has been a necessary part of the game. Yes, it's overpowered, but everyone has it and it's not a guaranteed Lost Soul (Denying Blame, Confusion, etc.). A good chance at getting 20% of what you need to win, with the risk of FA counterbalancing it is ok. The problem started when with just one more card, you could get 40%, and then became worse with the advent of GoyS. I'm not advocating banning either one, just pointing out that when the 5 LS to win rule was made, there was no NJ, and soon after there was a FA. Now, there is both NJ and GoyS but the LS requirement is the same.
-
I still don't think the solution is to ban NJ. Cactus has recently been focused on balancing the game by introducing new cards that are useful both as counters to old cards and as new strategies; something like that is the solution to this problem, if anything. Justin's comment that "we want to see what effect TexP will have on the game before making such a drastic change" indicates, to me, that the next set probably has at least a few cards that may affect the way people use SoG/NJ.
-
I still don't think the solution is to ban NJ. Cactus has recently been focused on balancing the game by introducing new cards that are useful both as counters to old cards and as new strategies; something like that is the solution to this problem, if anything. Justin's comment that "we want to see what effect TexP will have on the game before making such a drastic change" indicates, to me, that the next set probably has at least a few cards that may affect the way people use SoG/NJ.
You can try to balance the game by making counters, but when you eliminate the option to ban cards the power curve only goes up. In short eventually counters and counters to counters won't be enough.
-
In short eventually counters and counters to counters won't be enough.
That's why we have counters to counters to counters (a.k.a. Cubic Counters). Since trilogies tend to make great movies, why not great counters? Of all people, a Hobbit should understand this. ;)
-
*cough cough* matrix trilogy...
-
*cough cough* matrix trilogy...
You didn't like the Matrix trilogy??? :o
-
i liked the matrix trilogy, but you said 'great'... :D
-
i liked the matrix trilogy, but you said 'great'... :D
I was talking about revenue. ;)
-
As has been previously stated, Rob is not against banning cards solely for the sake of having zero banned cards. It's a plus yes, but he's not "eliminating the option," instead rather viewing it as a very last resort option.
-
I say NJ is not the root of the problem its GoYS in that is the problem. If we did not have GoYS in T1-2p we'd all use falling away thus SoG/NJ would not guarantee +2 lost souls. If we do ban NJ where do stop? AoCp? Urim and thummin? Also if I'm getting my butt kicked 3-0 in a game I'd rather have SoG/NJ played and have it over than sit through to more RA.
-
GoYS is not a problem at all
-
Soundman, no significant Redemption population is talking about banning, so you're responding to an imaginary argument. You're confusing the fact that most people have a problem with NJ with the conjecture that most people want to ban NJ. Many more are in favor of increasing the number of Lost Souls required to win, or just trusting that the NJ problem will be taken care of organically by new cards.
-
As has been previously stated, Rob is not against banning cards solely for the sake of having zero banned cards. It's a plus yes, but he's not "eliminating the option," instead rather viewing it as a very last resort option.
All I know is Nathan Mashuda asked him straight up if he would ever ban cards, and he said no.
-
Hey,
I'm not advocating banning either one, just pointing out that when the 5 LS to win rule was made, there was no NJ, and soon after there was a FA. Now, there is both NJ and GoyS but the LS requirement is the same.
For the record, Falling Away and New Jerusalem were released at the same time.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I though Falling Away came out in Womens, before New Jerusalem in Warriors?
-
Falling Away did come out before New Jerusalem.
I don't think it should ever be banned. I have won and lost games with and with out NJ. There are some games that you just don't need to use it or other that you never draw so you lose 5 to 3 the next turn.
-
I'm not going to read all of the 7 pages in this thread, since I'm making the assumption that the same statements are solely being restated.
Just to put in my thoughts:
-I like the fact that there are no banned cards in Redemption, it gives more of a sense of freedom and a sort of flexibility when deck building. (Albeit not much, but it is still there)
-You have to take into account that New Jerusalem will ONLY work if used with your own Son of God. People are making it sound as if the second you draw it, you get a free Lost Soul.
-People say New Jerusalem cannot be countered, but that's not true. You can play Falling Away before they get GoYS/LotS and it becomes as if they never played New Jerusalem. You can play Confusion to discard Son of God which then makes the New Jerusalem completely useless. I don't see Altar of Ahaz as a card I would use in many decks, but it would in fact stop New Jerusalem. Even to be more simple, just play with a decently strong defense (doesn't have to be big, just strong) and be able to stop a few rescue attempts. Fact is, SoG+NJ only gets you 2 Lost Souls, they STILL have to make THREE successful rescue attempts. Sure AotL is an easy one, but Unknown Nation and several other cards can even stop that. There's also a chance that you only have one lost soul out that they have access to, which you can just drop Burial on it and their AotL was useless.
To sum up, New Jerusalem is by far not a game breaker. I've made competitive decks that had three dominants (CM, DoN, AotL) and it in fact did really well due to having all of that extra room for offense/defense.
-
I though Falling Away came out in Womens, before New Jerusalem in Warriors?
New Jerusalem was a special promo card during the Womens release. You had to buy some CD to get it. In Warriors it was re-released as a promo in other packages, mostly starter gift sets.
-
Thats right forgot about that.
-
And lets not forget that AotL is NOT a guaranteed rescue, if I had a nickle for each time I successfully defended against an AotL RA I could almoooost buy a box of TexP
-
I doubt that. You've blocked a total of $2,400 rescues when they use AOTL? Cause I haven't even made that many rescues... ;D
-
A box of TexP is $120 ::)
-
Yes, but you only get a nickel for every block. ;)
-
there I modified the original post, to a stretchy almost. better? I got confused cause you said $2400 worth of blocks not 2400 blocks ;)
-
And lets not forget that AotL is NOT a guaranteed rescue, if I had a nickle for each time I successfully defended against an AotL RA I could almoooost buy a box of TexP
It almost is a for sure ls, and if I know it won't be I don't play it.
-
Yeah but I can think of at least two ways to stop it off the top of my head, Banding EC's and Priests Judas Iscariot. I am sure there are more ways
-
Madness, Unknown Nation, cm, sog/nj, burial, unholy writ, and others.
-
thanks ninja I knew there were more
-
Having read many of the posts I favor the idea of going to 6 LS rescued and a 60-card deck. Weakens NJ, but wouldn't have to ban it, and makes for more strategy in my view. I do think 5 LS is too short. AoTL is usually (but not always) one rescue, SoG+NJ is two, and an early Captain or Strong Angel, and that's 4 already. You throw in all pre-block ignores that are prevalent nowadays and one can win a game pretty quick.
On the flip side I don't like having to hold SoG in my hand, and give the opponent a lost soul because I'm waiting for NJ. Would love to be able to play SoG defensively more often. I could just take out NJ, but that puts me at a significant disadvantage.
So all these factors considered, I like the idea of a slightly longer game (say 1 hour), 6 LS rescued, and bumping up to a 60-card / 7 LS deck.
-EgYPTIAn
-
So all these factors considered, I like the idea of a slightly longer game (say 1 hour), 6 LS rescued, and bumping up to a 60-card / 7 LS deck
I think we know what you meant, but it would be 8 LS, not 7. :)
-
Though I would like to see the LS count go up to six/60 card deck, there is a major downside that I haven't read yet. What will happen to all the starter boxes that have 50 card decks? It would be impossible to win against the ones that have burial (and also illegal because of the 10 less cards).
I'm actually hoping that in 2010, a new starter set comes out. If it does, then they can impliment the change and have starter decks for beginners that meet the new requirements.
-
I thought about that as well. First of all, for Sealed deck, we can keep the game to 5 LS. There's no need to worry about NJ unless a host actually has enough Warrior packs to let people use those...I don't see that happening. :P
Furthermore, realistically, no one should need to be using just a starter deck for a regular T1 2P tournament. It would be fairly simple for the host (or even better, a more advanced player) to give/lend 10 extra cards for a player to use in his deck if all he has is a starter deck. Not to mention the fact that if he has a full starter deck, he can move some of the cards over from the starter he isn't using like the evil dominant, a Lost Soul and the multi enhancements. That's like 4 cards right there, so he would just need a couple extras to get to 60.
Outside of regular tournament play, players can still play just to 5 if they wish for a shorter game. The "60/6" rule could become an "optional advanced rule" that simply becomes the norm like name on name bonus.
-
Outside of regular tournament play, players can still play just to 5 if they wish for a shorter game. The "60/6" rule could become an "optional advanced rule" that simply becomes the norm like name on name bonus.
+1 +1 +1
I like the Optional Advanced Rule option, that way If a tournament host wished not to they don't have to use it, its official if they do want to use it, and players can use or ignore it as they wish. I really like this idea better than changing the game's core rules.
-
Outside of regular tournament play, players can still play just to 5 if they wish for a shorter game. The "60/6" rule could become an "optional advanced rule" that simply becomes the norm like name on name bonus.
+1
-
Outside of regular tournament play, players can still play just to 5 if they wish for a shorter game. The "60/6" rule could become an "optional advanced rule" that simply becomes the norm like name on name bonus.
+1
To add even more strategy to the game, while balancing the dominant, there should be a good evil balance rule. That would help to clear up alot of issues and make for balanced gameplay, enhancimg the battle phase.
-
To add even more strategy to the game, while balancing the dominant, there should be a good evil balance rule. That would help to clear up alot of issues and make for balanced gameplay, enhancimg the battle phase.
Because right now, T2 has such an excellent battle phase. ::)
-
To add even more strategy to the game, while balancing the dominant, there should be a good evil balance rule. That would help to clear up alot of issues and make for balanced gameplay, enhancimg the battle phase.
Because right now, T2 has such an excellent battle phase. ::)
I think you need to calm down. Okay! . If it aint broke don't fix it. ;)
-
To add even more strategy to the game, while balancing the dominant, there should be a good evil balance rule. That would help to clear up alot of issues and make for balanced gameplay, enhancimg the battle phase.
Because right now, T2 has such an excellent battle phase. ::)
I think you need to calm down. Okay! . If it aint broke don't fix it. giggity giggity giggity
I'm not even sure you know what "giggity" means.
-
Outside of regular tournament play, players can still play just to 5 if they wish for a shorter game. The "60/6" rule could become an "optional advanced rule" that simply becomes the norm like name on name bonus.
Why do we have to change the game? I like being able to play with a 50 card deck. When the next starter deck comes out would they be 60 card decks then???
I have a nice 50 card deck. Going to 60 would just make the game take longer and have more time outs.
-
I cannot speak for Rob, but I seriously doubt the game is going to undergo any major rule changes.
Kevin Shride
-
I haven't read every page of the discussions but I have read a few and I thought I would give my opinion as a play group leader of a kind of new group.
1. Increasing the deck size to 60 would actually hurt my group in alot of ways. I make the decks for the kids when they start and the decks are 50 to 56 cards. If I had to increase there deck size the decks of the new players would get even weaker as I only have so many strong cards that I can give each player. Plus buying sleeves to cover the increase would be a bit harder for me. Plus starter decks are 50 so I like that number.
2. Increasing the time of games isn't a good idea. If the time limit was 55 minutes and you only gave 5 minutes in between rounds that wouldn't work well. If someone times out they need to have enough time to go to the bathroom, grab a snack and atleast stand up for a minute so what would happen is that T1-2p would just extend even longer. And since T1-2p is usually the largest number of players (atleast here in the NW) that would make that event a half hour to an hour longer and that really throws off schedules.
3. NJ is powerful but I think it isn't over powerful. There are alot of ways to stop it or slow it down enough. Using confusion to take out SoG effectively makes NJ nothing more then a place holder. Altar of Ahaz is nice. Honestly I really like the idea of have a no dominants category like Type NW. Then a player can choose which category and can either deal with having NJ played in games or avoid it all together.
-
in all honesty i REALLY dislike the idea of banning new jerusalem.
i mean it's well balanced and when son of God has been used it makes useful for other things. i mean if there are any cards that should be banned it's haman's plot cause banning new jerusalem is a bad idea.
but i doubt rob wants any cards banned from redemption cause that's what makes this game unique is it's biblical and it doesn't have banned cards
-
i love New Jerusalem!
-
i love New Jerusalem!
I love the card, and the thought that I'll live there one day
:]
-
in all honesty i REALLY dislike the idea of banning new jerusalem.
i mean it's well balanced and when son of God has been used it makes useful for other things. i mean if there are any cards that should be banned it's haman's plot cause banning new jerusalem is a bad idea.
but i doubt rob wants any cards banned from redemption cause that's what makes this game unique is it's biblical and it doesn't have banned cards
Will you nubs stop talking about banning NJ? Nobody wants to do that. We're talking about increasing deck size and play-to.
-
please ban nj. its op.
-
As much as I hate to get on Pol's bad side, I think that there is a relatively small number of extremists who would like to see every copy of NJ banned, burnt, and buried. Such as the person who posted before me. :) So saying that no one wants it banned isn't quite true (actually, nearly my entire playgroup would like to see it banned).
-
I say up the souls not the cards....six would work just great but please don't make us up our deck count!
-
I don't mind NJ at all but I also wouldn't care if it got banned. I have no problem with the card and it in no way ruins the game but if it gets banned it will equally effect EVERYONE so what is the big deal...if anything that opens up another slot in your deck for maybe Grapes of Wrath!! As for increasing deck size...I hope that never happens.
-
@ D-man, thanks for calling me out. I meant nobody with much credibility (MKC was being fascist).
@ EJB, would you like to elaborate on why? Tons of people have outlined very well thought-out and detailed arguments for why we should go up to 60 with 6 LS's. Is the best you can do, "I hope it never happens?"
-
There may have just been some confusion about the seemingly conflicting suggestions to increase the mimiumum deck size (while increasing lost soul rescues) and decreasing the maximum deck size.
-
@ D-man, thanks for calling me out. I meant nobody with much credibility (MKC was being fascist).
@ EJB, would you like to elaborate on why? Tons of people have outlined very well thought-out and detailed arguments for why we should go up to 60 with 6 LS's. Is the best you can do, "I hope it never happens?"
Just my opinion but, I don't see many of the current deck "themes" being viable because of numbers of strong cards / battle winners. (in type 1) (Samaritans / Red / Non TGT white / any blue theme that isn't genesis / Etc.) If we move the deck size up these themes will most likely never see play until they gain either overpowered or a large number of good cards, everyone will just play the "Strong" offenses like they have been the past few years (TgT, FBN, Speed, Teal, Prophets, Genesis) and there won't be any diversity in tournaments.
-
I think personally straight up FBN decks died with FooF
-
@ D-man, thanks for calling me out. I meant nobody with much credibility (MKC was being fascist).
@ EJB, would you like to elaborate on why? Tons of people have outlined very well thought-out and detailed arguments for why we should go up to 60 with 6 LS's. Is the best you can do, "I hope it never happens?"
No, that is not the best I can do...idk I just love smaller decks. The bigger the decks get the less likely you are of drawing your whole deck and I think that is what a lot of CCG miss...LotR for instance I never draw my whole deck. I put cards in my deck to use them and I won't always use them if I don't draw my whole deck...I don't know that is a really weak argument. I just don't see the sense in it...can you post a link to these arguments? I would love to see those and maybe I will be swayed! I would just rather the staple parts of the game stay how its been since its conception. But I guess like NJ getting banned, this rule will apply to and effect EVERYONE as well. But I would like to read these arguments if you could find that post.
-
I think personally straight up FBN decks died with FooF
No, they didn't sadly. I think its just that there are alot of counters to them, but no one prepares for a FBN deck. Either way, my points are still valid, I challenge any of you to play my Samaritan deck and lose.
-
ok ;D bring it
-
I'm coming in late (and kind of surprised) to this debate, but I still want to post my opinion. And, since this opinion comes from me, you can expect it to be long. ;D
I am adamantly opposed to the banning on NJ. Here are my reasons:
1) As stated several times previously, Cactus has never banned any Redemption card, and that has been one of the great aspects of the game. Whenever you open a pack of cards or get a promo, and find a card you think is great, you can play it. I have been busy working with another game company, and one of the things we want to do as we produce new dice (the game is called "Dragon Dice") is make sure all previously produced dice are still viable. I hate having to sift through banned lists to make a tournament deck, which is one reason I only play games like Magic in friendly settings. Plus, although a slippery slope is not a necessary followup to a single banning, it makes future ones more palatable, and becomes an easy way out to card issues. One of the greatly anticipated features of new sets is what cards Cactus produced to solve the unintended consequences of the last set.
2) The "fun factor" has been stated several times. Let's turn that around. Suppose you have a new player, who enters a tournament with many players above their level. As they continually get squashed 5-0 and 5-1, the fun starts to die. OK, maybe getting that 1 more LS isn't going to salvage much, but it might make them think they have a chance at this game someday. (And my impression is that some players are defining "fun" as "milking every last point I can from the clueless noobs, so NJ spoils my LS differentials." And don't tell me some players aren't thinking that!)
3) LS screw (borrowing from Magic's mana screw). In your first four turns, you pull 5 LSs, while your opponent pulls one (and promptly Buries it). Sound familiar? It happens sometimes. NJ gives you the possibility of using it defensively early in a situation like this, giving you a fighting chance to survive. (This happened to me TODAY in a game against my son. I eventually lost 5-4, but an early SoG/NJ kept him from getting a couple of early rescues that might have ended the game more quickly.) Again, there may be some players who are drooling at the thought of those quick high differential games, but there needs to be a balance to help you try to overcome the luck of the draw.
4) Site defense, from what I've read elsewhere, is a popular deck build. Obviously you want to put site access cards in your deck, but SoG/NJ also are a check on site defense. The banning of NJ would make site defense even more powerful.
5) Marketing. Yes, like it or not, Cactus makes Redemption primarily to make money on it. If they stop making money, we stop getting Redemption, and Rob's kids can't go to college. SO now you have a nice Gift Set with a NJ card in it. Your noob walks into the store, buys his Gift Set to start his collection, sees NJ, gets excited, and builds his first attempt at a deck. He goes to his local tournament, and is told, "Sorry, kid-can't use that card." His natural response is, "So why put it in the box for me to see and get excited about then?" Maybe he doesn't completely sour on the game, but now he's wary when he sees a new powerful card (especially if he comes from a CCG background). This is an unnecessary stumbling block for new players.
6) I haven't been to a tournament for a while, so maybe having games time out isn't as big an issue as it used to be. Still, I recall that a lot of games used to go long, and there would be quite a few time-outs. NJ helps to shorten games. There is a significant minority of Redemption players who prefer quicker games, as I found out when I proposed/ran Redemption Retro a few years ago. I'm in favor of keeping the strategic situation as it is. (For this reason, I also oppose having T1 go to 6 rescues. Why do we want to drag these games out?)
Finally, I would like to go on record as saying that IF NJ is banned, I think the SoG ruling needs to be revisited. IF you don't have the chance to get that 2nd LS among those you can rescue, then SoG should go back to rescuing EVERY LS in the game (except only getting 1/2 of the double LS card).
Aren't you all sorry I came back to the boards? (At least, until school starts again, and I have two jobs, plus marching band for my son...)
-
That's one of the perils of coming in late. We haven't been talking about banning NJ for a while (well, nobody has been for it, but a lot of people are still making cases for why it shouldn't be banned). The more pertinent question now is whether to increase deck size to 60 and Lost Souls to win to 6. That takes care of the problem of winning with five cards and doesn't require any banning.
-
@ D-man, thanks for calling me out. I meant nobody with much credibility (MKC was being fascist).
@ EJB, would you like to elaborate on why? Tons of people have outlined very well thought-out and detailed arguments for why we should go up to 60 with 6 LS's. Is the best you can do, "I hope it never happens?"
LotR for instance I never draw my whole deck. I put cards in my deck to use them and I won't always use them if I don't draw my whole deck...
That makes the deck building so much better than Redemption. I don't know if I will get to the cards I need when I am playing or not so I pack 4 of the cards I need for sure. I Iike it because it eliminates alot of the luck factor In a ccg and puts more of an ephasis on deck building. In redemption it is to easy to draw your deck making it more of a game of luck than a game of deck building. There is a deck building element in Redemption but I dont feel that players are reworded enough for building a good deck.
That's one of the perils of coming in late. We haven't been talking about banning NJ for a while (well, nobody has been for it, but a lot of people are still making cases for why it shouldn't be banned). The more pertinent question now is whether to increase deck size to 60 and Lost Souls to win to 6. That takes care of the problem of winning with five cards and doesn't require any banning.
What if we do both? I like that.