Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: adotson85 on December 19, 2011, 09:18:18 PM
-
I have seen several new ruling ideas floating around this season, such as the dom cap and not being able to rescue your own lost souls. It seems to me that most of these rulings are trying to shift the game away from speed and more toward balanced decks which I am all for. In fact, I now focus more attention on T2 becasue T1 is so centralized around speed. I know I have heard this mentioned before, but has a decking rule ever been seriously considered? In alot of other card games if you deck out your lose. I think this would be a much better way to slow down speed decks and bring more balance/variety to the meta. Thoughts?
-
That's too extreme. It would rapidly shift the game from speed to nothing but defense virtually overnight. Cards like Hormah and Threatened Lives would likely become staples, and I don't even want to think of a world with ANB in every deck. There should be some penalty for decking out, but that is not it.
-
That's too extreme. It would rapidly shift the game from speed to nothing but defense virtually overnight. Cards like Hormah and Threatened Lives would likely become staples, and I don't even want to think of a world with ANB in every deck. There should be some penalty for decking out, but that is not it.
I don't see it as too extreme. I mean how many T1 games actually end up with someone decking out? Speed decks would still be around, but it would actually require skill to use them. As it stands, anyone can pilot a sam or genesis deck and have success.
-
If a rule like that DOES come about I will quit. I have other hobbies now but I still like Redemption but if a rule like this DOES happen I quit. It's a rule in Pokemon and I hated it. I still hate it.
-
The thing is other games don't have a d3 per turn rule. Decking out is significantly more likely to happen in Redemption, and thus, this rule can't happen.
-
If a rule like that DOES come about I will quit. I have other hobbies now but I still like Redemption but if a rule like this DOES happen I quit. It's a rule in Pokemon and I hated it. I still hate it.
Why do you not like the ruling? Saying you don't like it and will quit doesn't seem very constructive without any reasoning.
The thing is other games don't have a d3 per turn rule. Decking out is significantly more likely to happen in Redemption, and thus, this rule can't happen.
That is true about the drawing, but even the smallest decks will have 14 turns to win if they draw 3 cards each turn. If a 50 card deck can't win in 14 turns then it probably won't win at all. If they choose to add drawing cards to speed up the deck that is their decision. The reason decking out in Redemption is more likely is because this isn't a rule. People know that their is no penalty for decking out so they just speed through their deck. If a rule like this was implemented I would venture to say that decking out would be very rare.
-
Forced draw and water jar could be a problem.
-
Forced draw and water jar could be a problem.
I call that a strategy ;) I did think about that, sadly the cards come back with water jar though.
-
Yeah, that rule is way too extreme. Having to rescue an additional soul if you're decked seems better, but that might be too confusing for some.
-
Yeah, that rule is way too extreme. Having to rescue an additional soul if you're decked seems better, but that might be too confusing for some.
I agree that an auto-lose due to decking out is too extreme. However, I also think it would be interesting if a player had to give back 1 LS if they decked out.
I also suspect that if this actually became a rule, that it would almost never happen.
-
...and I don't even want to think of a world with ANB in every deck. .
It's a beautiful place. :)
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi180.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx83%2Fjamesmargaret3rd%2Ffebruary%25202010%2FManGaveNames-interiorart1sm2.jpg&hash=2857f104617e26d32ddfe8240fa02a30014f8b36)
-
Perhaps being forced to give your opponent a LS if you deck out? Something like that.
-
Yeah, that rule is way too extreme. Having to rescue an additional soul if you're decked seems better, but that might be too confusing for some.
I agree that an auto-lose due to decking out is too extreme. However, I also think it would be interesting if a player had to give back 1 LS if they decked out.
I also suspect that if this actually became a rule, that it would almost never happen.
Make this a territory-class card, something like Abomb.
-
Perhaps a T3? I know this sounds crazy, but think about it. A type where players would make many of the rules. A player made type basically. For instance:
T3 Rules: All the same as T1 except:
You lose if you deck out
you can only have as many dominants as you have LS's
etc etc etc
It would be completely player made, and rules could only be changed/added/removed by the players.
Let's Start a Riot!
-
If a rule like that DOES come about I will quit. I have other hobbies now but I still like Redemption but if a rule like this DOES happen I quit. It's a rule in Pokemon and I hated it. I still hate it.
Why do you not like the ruling? Saying you don't like it and will quit doesn't seem very constructive without any reasoning.
The thing is other games don't have a d3 per turn rule. Decking out is significantly more likely to happen in Redemption, and thus, this rule can't happen.
That is true about the drawing, but even the smallest decks will have 14 turns to win if they draw 3 cards each turn. If a 50 card deck can't win in 14 turns then it probably won't win at all. If they choose to add drawing cards to speed up the deck that is their decision. The reason decking out in Redemption is more likely is because this isn't a rule. People know that their is no penalty for decking out so they just speed through their deck. If a rule like this was implemented I would venture to say that decking out would be very rare.
I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.
-
I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.
And erratas/banning are less complicated?
Kirk
-
I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.
And erratas/banning are less complicated?
Kirk
Regarding banning cards, I'd argue that in some instances, it can be less complicated. For instance, we're exploring different options on how to nerf Mayhem so that it's no longer a game breaker in the games it gets pulled early. A few months ago, the most talked about option was the intro-prep phase, which still might come to fruition. While I, personally, am in full support of the idea, it only began to be seriously talked about in T12P after it was evident that first round Mayhems were a problem. Instead of seriously discussing banning the card, one of the first solutions that was discussed was adding a massive rule change. Erratas can be better, but not when they're overused. For instance, especially with the wording on many old cards, erratas are required to clarify what the cards do in regards to the current rules and definitions. The way erratas become complicated and worthless is when things like ANB happen (to anyone who was at the Maryland tournament, I just violated one of Godwin's Redemption Laws). It's worth noting that, because Rob refuses to ban cards, Cactus is forced to do the most complicated thing of all and devote entire sets to attempting to balance the previous set out.
-
Redemption has Godwin's laws? What, you compare someone to a Sadducee?
-
I don't want new rules. Fixing things with rules results in over-complication.
And erratas/banning are less complicated?
Kirk
Yep.
-
I would rather see a rule change than a ban. I don't see how you can single out cards to ban. That is why we have erratas. If we ban Mayhem, then everyone will start screaming for bans on Falling Away or GoYS. That would just start a chain reaction. I think an into-prep phase is a good rule and would be the best way to combat first turn Mayhems. However, stopping speed in t1 is much more complicated. I truely believe that a decking rule would be the only solution that would have a significant impact. I'm not saying we have to implement a decking rule, but I did want to see everyone's opinion on it seeing as all the other card games I have played implement such a rule. Without the rule we will just have to deal with speed ruling t1, which is the most likely scenario.
-
I would rather see a rule change than a ban. I don't see how you can single out cards to ban. That is why we have erratas. If we ban Mayhem, then everyone will start screaming for bans on Falling Away or GoYS. That would just start a chain reaction.
The PTB are not camels and I don't even own a tent.
-
I think the best way to stop decking out is to have the next OP card only work like Luke/John. (Or some other activation through decking out)
-
Another issue with this rule is that is essentially renders the conditional CBN granted by >10 cards in deck on some cards useless and WS might as well not exist. So really, this rule change is a ban.
-
Another issue with this rule is that is essentially renders the conditional CBN granted by >10 cards in deck on some cards useless and WS might as well not exist. So really, this rule change is a ban.
"I agree, but any rule change is going to hurt a few cards effectiveness"
-The card formally known as Sin in the Camp
-
We thought a possible rule for decking out might be that if you have no cards in your draw pile, you must discard one character you own from your territory. Since speed decks usually end up with a lot of characters out, this wouldn't be crippling, but would be a significant loss. You'd have to balance out the price of getting your cards out vs. the possible loss of a character every turn before you start your turn.
-
We thought a possible rule for decking out might be that if you have no cards in your draw pile, you must discard one character you own from your territory. Since speed decks usually end up with a lot of characters out, this wouldn't be crippling, but would be a significant loss. You'd have to balance out the price of getting your cards out vs. the possible loss of a character every turn before you start your turn.
Seems interesting, but too watered down. Maybe something like: If you have no more cards in deck your opponent may discard a card from your territory during your upkeep.
-
Redemption has Godwin's laws? What, you compare someone to a Sadducee?
No, it's when you bring up ANB or Split Altar.
-
I like the idea that you have to give your opponent a redeemed soul from your land of bondage, which would kill speed vs. speed. Having to rescue another lost soul would make getting rid of all your lost souls viable, so that would be cool, I guess, but wouldn't really slow down speed too much, it would just hurt speed vs. speed matches. Losing as a result of decking is ridiculous. I will remind you of CTB + Damsel + RBD. And that can be done multiple times. In the same turn...I may have to build a deck around that...
-
Or here's some options: 1. For each turn you are decked-out, increase the number of redeemed souls required for you to win the game until your opponent has decked out. or 2. If you have decked out and your opponent still has cards in their draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt against that opponent until that opponent decks out. or 3. if you have decked out, set-aside a card from your territory until your opponent has decked out. or 4. Opponent may shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck for each turn you have decked out until they have decked out. or 5. If you deck out before your opponent, you may not redeem any additional lost souls, once both players deck out game ends immediately.
-
Or here's some options: 1. For each turn you are decked-out, increase the number of redeemed souls required for you to win the game until your opponent has decked out. or 2. If you have decked out and your opponent still has cards in their draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt against that opponent until that opponent decks out. or 3. if you have decked out, set-aside a card from your territory until your opponent has decked out. or 4. Opponent may shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck for each turn you have decked out until they have decked out. or 5. If you deck out before your opponent, you may not redeem any additional lost souls, once both players deck out game ends immediately.
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
-
Or here's some options: 1. For each turn you are decked-out, increase the number of redeemed souls required for you to win the game until your opponent has decked out. or 2. If you have decked out and your opponent still has cards in their draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt against that opponent until that opponent decks out. or 3. if you have decked out, set-aside a card from your territory until your opponent has decked out. or 4. Opponent may shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck for each turn you have decked out until they have decked out. or 5. If you deck out before your opponent, you may not redeem any additional lost souls, once both players deck out game ends immediately.
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
So a mix between 2 & 5: If you began your turn with no cards in your draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt. If all draw piles have been exhausted at end of current turn, game ends immediately...
This would cause people to be less speedy, but not completely kill speed decks.
-
Or here's some options: 1. For each turn you are decked-out, increase the number of redeemed souls required for you to win the game until your opponent has decked out. or 2. If you have decked out and your opponent still has cards in their draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt against that opponent until that opponent decks out. or 3. if you have decked out, set-aside a card from your territory until your opponent has decked out. or 4. Opponent may shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck for each turn you have decked out until they have decked out. or 5. If you deck out before your opponent, you may not redeem any additional lost souls, once both players deck out game ends immediately.
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
You could also add to #5 that for tournament purposes, a game that ends "decked out" with neither player at 5 LSs counts as a timed-out win, which means fewer points in the standings. Speed vs. speed might end as a tie or 2-1 instead of 3-0 in that scenario.
-
Number 5 would make ANB a staple. FTW.
-
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
I love this idea. This should be tested in ROOT immediately, IMHO. You don't necessarily lose by decking, but it could still punish the person that speeds through their deck too fast.
A few reservations: This will cause speed deck players to adapt strategies to add cards to deck at end game. Invoking Terror would become even more of a staple in decks. Any TC enhancements that cause a card to go to your deck will become very valuable to a speed deck, since they will allow the deck to make RAs once the deck is exhausted. Also, Chariot/David's Harp would get used to "add" to the deck. Imagine a Samuel deck that throws in Uriah and uses his ability to discard himself (and an EC) and thus go to deck after battle via Chariot or David's Harp. You might even see decks use Pigs LS/Bronze Laver to implement strategies that allow you to have cards in deck by the end of your prep phase.
-
Do you guys want another ANB errata?
-
How would this be that much different from the initial idea?
-
Number 5 would make ANB a staple. FTW.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Z8qcLaceTI4%2FTPpd4-JsHVI%2FAAAAAAAAAb4%2Fetwcd5JUVMU%2Fs1600%2FHallelujah.jpg&hash=6b8a58759f94dac6f0a0a47d36c574ca2a5b746e)
Do you guys want another ANB errata?
Shhhhh!
-
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
I love this idea. This should be tested in ROOT immediately, IMHO. You don't necessarily lose by decking, but it could still punish the person that speeds through their deck too fast.
A few reservations: This will cause speed deck players to adapt strategies to add cards to deck at end game. Invoking Terror would become even more of a staple in decks. Any TC enhancements that cause a card to go to your deck will become very valuable to a speed deck, since they will allow the deck to make RAs once the deck is exhausted. Also, Chariot/David's Harp would get used to "add" to the deck. Imagine a Samuel deck that throws in Uriah and uses his ability to discard himself (and an EC) and thus go to deck after battle via Chariot or David's Harp. You might even see decks use Pigs LS/Bronze Laver to implement strategies that allow you to have cards in deck by the end of your prep phase.
I do agree that cards like the ones you mentioned would be more common, but isn't that the point. By adding in these cards they will have less room for speed or will need to put more cards in their deck. I don't see Chariot/David's Harp being a big issue, as you have to be able to make a RA for both to work. If you have no deck you can not make an RA if such a rule existed.
-
I don't buy the "if we make a rule change, these cards will become staples, and then they will be used instead of speed" argument. There are plenty of rule changes that would slightly modify decks, but they're still speed decks. The one ROOT tournament I actually finished, we were playing "Only rescue Opp's LS," and I didn't even modify my deck. The decks I did play were still mostly speed decks, just with some extra soul generation.
-
I don't buy the "if we make a rule change, these cards will become staples, and then they will be used instead of speed" argument. There are plenty of rule changes that would slightly modify decks, but they're still speed decks. The one ROOT tournament I actually finished, we were playing "Only rescue Opp's LS," and I didn't even modify my deck. The decks I did play were still mostly speed decks, just with some extra soul generation.
Soul generation has always been a big part of speed decks. Sticking more cards in your deck is definitely not. And while most cards won't become staples, they will definitely see more play. Of course, it would only take two card (Damsel and Invoking Terror) to make this ruling pointless.
-
Everyone said the "opp's LS only" rule would slow down speed because they'd have to put more cards in their decks. Naturally, they didn't. They took other cards out.
-
Everyone said the "opp's LS only" rule would slow down speed because they'd have to put more cards in their decks. Naturally, they didn't. They took other cards out.
I wasn't clear...I meant recycling cards back into the deck. The "opp's LS only" rule would hurt speed in some capacity if it caused them to change their decks. They were forced into a less idea situation. The less ideal we make speed, the better.
-
I think this rule would cause people to use deck discard strategies or make your opponent draw cards strategies more
-
If this rule came into place, more people would want Recuring Cards, which I'd rather not have.
-
If this rule came into place, more people would want Recuring Cards, which I'd rather not have.
Great reason to have Burning Up the Chaff & Hezzy's Ring in your deck
-
Im all about alternate win conditions
-
Or here's some options: 1. For each turn you are decked-out, increase the number of redeemed souls required for you to win the game until your opponent has decked out. or 2. If you have decked out and your opponent still has cards in their draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt against that opponent until that opponent decks out. or 3. if you have decked out, set-aside a card from your territory until your opponent has decked out. or 4. Opponent may shuffle a card from their discard pile into their deck for each turn you have decked out until they have decked out. or 5. If you deck out before your opponent, you may not redeem any additional lost souls, once both players deck out game ends immediately.
What's the chances of this getting tested in ROOT?
I like #5, but would maybe modify it to something like you may not make a rescue attempt if you have no cards in your draw pile. That seems balanced and less extreme. I probably like this idea the best so far.
So a mix between 2 & 5: If you began your turn with no cards in your draw pile, you may not make a rescue attempt. If all draw piles have been exhausted at end of current turn, game ends immediately...
This would cause people to be less speedy, but not completely kill speed decks.
-
Let's all talk about how broken a Luke Offense and an Egyptian defense would be in this scenario.
lol at this rule idea.
-
Let's all talk about how broken a Luke Offense and an Egyptian defense would be in this scenario.
lol at this rule idea.
Only broken if you go with losing if you deck. A consequence like no longer being able to rescue (which can be countered), giving your opponent a free lost soul, or giving up a redeemed soul, is not broken in the least.
-
Let's all talk about how broken a Luke Offense and an Egyptian defense would be in this scenario.
lol at this rule idea.
Only broken if you go with losing if you deck. A consequence like no longer being able to rescue (which can be countered), giving your opponent a free lost soul, or giving up a redeemed soul, is not broken in the least.
No longer being able to rescue is incredibly bad. Let's say you use a Luke offense/Egpyptian defense and can discard 1 card and draw one card for the opponent per turn. That results in a 56 card deck decking in 9 (+4 cards) turns versus 15 turns.
That means that an average 56 deck now has to win in 9 or ten turns, which, if the discarding hit SoG, it incredibly challenging. Even if it doesn't hit SoG, that's a steep task. When you consider variables such as soul drought, etc, that means you might only get 5 or less turns to score at least 3 souls. No thanks.
-
Or you could just get your deck back by using Invoking Terror, Chariots, ANB, etc. Just because you can't rescue lost souls doesn't mean you can't battle.
-
Or you could just get your deck back by using Invoking Terror, Chariots, ANB, etc. Just because you can't rescue lost souls doesn't mean you can't battle.
Chariots needs an RA. The other two centralize the meta (which is exactly what this rule wants to stop). I don't get it.
Sidenote: The meta isn't even centralized. This is the most diverse meta I have ever seen.
-
Or you could just get your deck back by using Invoking Terror, Chariots, ANB, etc. Just because you can't rescue lost souls doesn't mean you can't battle.
Chariots needs an RA. The other two centralize the meta (which is exactly what this rule wants to stop). I don't get it.
Granted.
Sidenote: The meta isn't even centralized. This is the most diverse meta I have ever seen.
The meta is centralized around speed. It just comes in many forms.
-
It's not centralized around speed. It's centralized around offense. And the best offenses are the ones you actually get to use, which means they are the ones that draw faster.
These rules are trying to recentralize the game around defense, which is neither the intention of the game nor to the benefit of the game.
-
It's not centralized around speed. It's centralized around offense. And the best offenses are the ones you actually get to use, which means they are the ones that draw faster.
That's the Redemption definition of speed. It's the same thing.
These rules are trying to recentralize the game around defense, which is neither the intention of the game nor to the benefit of the game.
I think it's more trying to recentralize the game around balanced (with a slight offensive advantage because you need offense to win). Battles are to the benefit of the game. Additionally, penalizing decking brings more strategy into the game, since you want to deck, you just don't want to deck too soon. It even brings in more strategy with Luke/Egyptian, trying to kill your opponent's deck without losing in the process (I've played an Egyptian defense...it's difficult to dedicate yourself towards deck discard and still fend off a speed deck). Strategy is very much so to the benefit of the game.
I think the rule would have to be during the draw phase you have no deck left, do X, since too often SoG or NJ is the bottom card.
-
Think about offenses. Is TGT, Disciples, Genesis, or Samuel good because of drawing? Or are they really good, and are top teir because of drawing? This rule wouldn't change the decks we play. Good offenses are still good offenses. It would just result in more timeouts because people can't rescue.
-
Genesis and TGT are straight up good. Disciples and Samuel (what even constitutes a Samuel deck?) are only good because of drawing, and are B tier without it. Ahimilek decks (red/purple) would still be good, they'd just have to drop the Oaken Angel/Samuel, which may have been what you were referring to when you said Samuel, but let's face it, Samuel is only in there for the drawing.
Also, if you are referring to the "You cannot rescue if you have no deck" suggestion, I already conceeded that point. If you aren't, then I don't know how it would result in more timeouts. If the rule is you give your opponent a free lost soul, it would actually reduce timeouts.
As for it changing the decks, we would see a bit fewer speed cards (since Samuel decks hope to deck in 4 turns...) and more mono-offenses (which would result in some defense).
Granted, this may not be the best solution. But speed is a problem, and you said it best when I was going to play RDT at nats: "Do you really want to flip a coin for a national title?" That's what speed vs. speed matches are--a coin flip. What the best solution is, I'm not sure, but we won't find out unless we toss around ideas.
-
Genesis and TGT are straight up good. Disciples and Samuel (what even constitutes a Samuel deck?) are only good because of drawing, and are B tier without it. Ahimilek decks (red/purple) would still be good, they'd just have to drop the Oaken Angel/Samuel, which may have been what you were referring to when you said Samuel, but let's face it, Samuel is only in there for the drawing.
Also, if you are referring to the "You cannot rescue if you have no deck" suggestion, I already conceeded that point. If you aren't, then I don't know how it would result in more timeouts. If the rule is you give your opponent a free lost soul, it would actually reduce timeouts.
As for it changing the decks, we would see a bit fewer speed cards (since Samuel decks hope to deck in 4 turns...) and more mono-offenses (which would result in some defense).
Granted, this may not be the best solution. But speed is a problem, and you said it best when I was going to play RDT at nats: "Do you really want to flip a coin for a national title?" That's what speed vs. speed matches are--a coin flip. What the best solution is, I'm not sure, but we won't find out unless we toss around ideas.
I debate the point that discples are good on straight up drawing. Samuel too.
-
Genesis and TGT are straight up good. Disciples and Samuel (what even constitutes a Samuel deck?) are only good because of drawing, and are B tier without it. Ahimilek decks (red/purple) would still be good, they'd just have to drop the Oaken Angel/Samuel, which may have been what you were referring to when you said Samuel, but let's face it, Samuel is only in there for the drawing.
Disciples are straight up good without drawing. Banding, CBN hero, Thad, AoCp, and John will make any theme good. Samuel (I don't really know what it is but everyone keeps talking about) I probably agree though is good more because of drawing, but it is certainly also good still. A- Tier.
Granted, this may not be the best solution. But speed is a problem, and you said it best when I was going to play RDT at nats: "Do you really want to flip a coin for a national title?" That's what speed vs. speed matches are--a coin flip. What the best solution is, I'm not sure, but we won't find out unless we toss around ideas.
If we are flipping a coin for a National Title, why does Gabe have two and I have 0? He has only been to 2 extra Nats over me. Is he that lucky? If so, I should take a Nazarite vow too!
You get the point.
-
Nobody uses Samuel for his band ability or his negate play ability. They use him for Angel Under the Oak's draw ability as well as his draw ability. Usually Samuel's Edict is thrown in just because it's awesome, but nobody uses Samuel solely for Samuel's Edict. Judges decks are not Samuel decks and are also not that good, contrary to all that you've said (but most people will agree with me on that).
Disciples have a total of 3 battle winners at best (AoCP, MLAMG, and...Faith as a Mustard Seed?). Speed was all that carried them. It's no coincidence they didn't place at nats. They just aren't that good without Boat, Reach, and Matthew. They do have good characters, I'll give them that, but Thad doesn't do much good without the other disciples, and the best way to get them is through speed. John is only good because everybody uses standalone defenses and he completely shuts them down. Philip was the best character in my Disciples deck due to the CBN Banding, protection, and search.
If we are flipping a coin for a National Title, why does Gabe have two and I have 0? He has only been to 2 extra Nats over me. Is he that lucky? If so, I should take a Nazarite vow too!
You mean you made me lose on purpose by feeding me lies that you don't even believe? That hurts. I'm going to unfriend you on Facebook now.
Seriously though, if Gabe is so good, why hasn't he placed in T1 for the last couple of years? Why did an 11 year old place higher than him at a district tournament? Some people are just better at flipping the coin than others, but the point still stands that Gabe sometimes loses because the coin flip doesn't go his way. Speed decreased the bad luck element initially, but speed vs. speed just increases the luck element because whoever gets the better draw should win.
So to answer your question, Gabe has done well because his decks best (or close to) eliminate the chances of the coin flip going the other way and he (generally) doesn't mess that up with dumb plays.
-
If we are flipping a coin for a National Title, why does Gabe have two and I have 0? He has only been to 2 extra Nats over me. Is he that lucky? If so, I should take a Nazarite vow too!
Deck building plays a part, too. Keep in mind that his first nats victory was in 2007 when he played a faster and better deck than everyone else at that tournament*, so it wasn't speed vs speed. 2009 was in California.
*I believe that Tim and Kevin both played CBN 56 card decks.
-
Nobody uses Samuel for his band ability or his negate play ability. They use him for Angel Under the Oak's draw ability as well as his draw ability. Usually Samuel's Edict is thrown in just because it's awesome, but nobody uses Samuel solely for Samuel's Edict. Judges decks are not Samuel decks and are also not that good, contrary to all that you've said (but most people will agree with me on that).
Judges are the key component in the best deck I've seen played this year in Type 1. It's a 63 card deck by the way.
Disciples have a total of 3 battle winners at best (AoCP, MLAMG, and...Faith as a Mustard Seed?). Speed was all that carried them. It's no coincidence they didn't place at nats. They just aren't that good without Boat, Reach, and Matthew. They do have good characters, I'll give them that, but Thad doesn't do much good without the other disciples, and the best way to get them is through speed. John is only good because everybody uses standalone defenses and he completely shuts them down.
Fall like Lightning. Sons of Thunder. Even Two By Two has potential to be good if you want to avoid speed or add cards.
You mean you made me lose on purpose by feeding me lies that you don't even believe? That hurts. I'm going to unfriend you on Facebook now.
Seriously though, if Gabe is so good, why hasn't he placed in T1 for the last couple of years? Why did an 11 year old place higher than him at a district tournament? Some people are just better at flipping the coin than others, but the point still stands that Gabe sometimes loses because the coin flip doesn't go his way. Speed decreased the bad luck element initially, but speed vs. speed just increases the luck element because whoever gets the better draw should win.
So to answer your question, Gabe has done well because his decks best (or close to) eliminate the chances of the coin flip going the other way and he (generally) doesn't mess that up with dumb plays.
My point is that the coin flip analogy is oversimplification.
If we are flipping a coin for a National Title, why does Gabe have two and I have 0? He has only been to 2 extra Nats over me. Is he that lucky? If so, I should take a Nazarite vow too!
Deck building plays a part, too.
That was sort of my point.
-
You need to play more then. There's no way a 63 card deck is the best deck this year. James Roepke has the best deck and is going to win nats...Kirk has a shot too though.
Who seriously uses Two by Two or Fall like Lightening in a Disciples deck? Nobody. A New Commandment, David's Triumph, and Centurian's Proc you could make an argument for, but not those two. Sons of Thunder is in theory a good card, but can only be used by two heroes and is actually not that good. I guess if you were to sacrifice the drawing (namely Pentecost, you'd probably keep the others in just because of their extras), you might be able to fit a few more in, but Disciples decks pretty much relied on small defenses that relied on character abilities. They would interrupt/negate the few enhancements with Reach, MLAMG, Faith, Passover Hymn, and maybe Sons of Thunder.
Granted on the oversimplification, but it's not far off.
-
You need to play more than.
More than what?
Ok, I saw you changed it, but it's too late. I'm letting everyone know.
-
You need to play more then. There's no way a 63 card deck is the best deck this year. James Roepke has the best deck and is going to win nats...Kirk has a shot too though.
I thought Kirk's was 63. I might have just counted wrong because I was so mad about losing.
Who seriously uses Two by Two or Fall like Lightening in a Disciples deck? Nobody. A New Commandment, David's Triumph, and Centurian's Proc you could make an argument for, but not those two. Sons of Thunder is in theory a good card, but can only be used by two heroes and is actually not that good. I guess if you were to sacrifice the drawing (namely Pentecost, you'd probably keep the others in just because of their extras), you might be able to fit a few more in, but Disciples decks pretty much relied on small defenses that relied on character abilities. They would interrupt/negate the few enhancements with Reach, MLAMG, Faith, Passover Hymn, and maybe Sons of Thunder.
If there is less speed, Disciples would change. They would adapt. The enhancements I mentioned would be reconsidered. You are right, they suck right now. You named pretty much everything that might be considered. Or, you could draw a bunch, then just play Prosperity and profit.
Speed is no more of a coin flip than any other deck. If anything, it's less of a coin flip because you see a greater majority of your deck.
Also, Sauce, I lol'd.
-
Speed is no more of a coin flip than any other deck. If anything, it's less of a coin flip because you see a greater majority of your deck.
Speed is more prone to the snowball effect.
-
Speed is no more of a coin flip than any other deck. If anything, it's less of a coin flip because you see a greater majority of your deck.
Speed is more prone to the snowball effect.
That's a fair statement.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
What useful heroes does he band to? I'm not saying he's bad, but his useful bands are fairly convaluted.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
Angel + Oak = D4 + Edict.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
What useful heroes does he band to? I'm not saying he's bad, but his useful bands are fairly convaluted.
armorbearer+ismaiah+ashel+king saul drawing off of ttod. this does get out fast.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
What useful heroes does he band to? I'm not saying he's bad, but his useful bands are fairly convaluted.
armorbearer+ismaiah+ashel+king saul drawing off of ttod. this does get out fast.
King Hiram instead of Saul draws more.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
What useful heroes does he band to? I'm not saying he's bad, but his useful bands are fairly convaluted.
armorbearer+ismaiah+ashel+king saul drawing off of ttod. this does get out fast.
...that's drawing. Take away drawing (not just his) and there's no reason to use Samuel.
-
i'm going to say that is the only reason you play samuel is to draw two cards you don't play amuel right. His banding abiltiy makes him...
What useful heroes does he band to? I'm not saying he's bad, but his useful bands are fairly convaluted.
armorbearer+ismaiah+ashel+king saul drawing off of ttod. this does get out fast.
That's definately "fairly convaluted". And it's not even close to the best band Samuel is a part of.
-
And it's not even close to the best band Samuel is a part of.
That would be this. (http://www.myspace.com/samuelband)
-
That's much funnier to me than it really should be.
-
You're very welcome. I can't make a decent Sam band, so I have to live vicariously through these guys.
-
James Roepke has the best deck and is going to win nats
James is probably the guy at the top of my list for underrated players. No one ever hears about him since he's not on the boards, but I always see him up at the top at Nats. It is only a matter of time before he wins the big one :)
-
James Roepke has the best deck and is going to win nats
James is probably the guy at the top of my list for underrated players. No one ever hears about him since he's not on the boards, but I always see him up at the top at Nats. It is only a matter of time before he wins the big one :)
He is technically on the boards he just never posts.