Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red Dragon Thorn on January 02, 2010, 10:56:27 AM
-
Hey all,
It is now January,
In Rob's post here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17095.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17095.0)
He said that the rules were experimental for August to December, are we still going to use them now?
Thanks,
All from Arden Hills Tourney.
-
6) After the initial draw the player with the most Lost Soul cards in his/her Land of Bondage decides who will go first. That's not really an experiment. That will be the rule from here forward.
7) In 2 Player games, the player who goes second draws 3 cards to start his first turn.
8 There is a new Hand Limit. The limit is that at no time may the cards in your hand exceed 16. This rule will take precendence over any instruction on a card. If you play a card that instructs you to draw cards you must stop at 16. During Discard Phase you must still reduce your hand to 8 or less.
9) Deck Limits: no T1 Deck may contain more than 154 cards. No T2 Deck may contain more than 252 cards.
I know 6 is going to stay. I hope 7 stays and 8 also...IDK about 9. hmmmm....
-
I really hope rule 7 stays. That change seriously helped balance out bad draws. Also, it gives you a reason to NOT go first. I often give my opponent the first turn so I can draw first.
-
I hope 7 stays but I hate 8 and think it should die.
but that is just MHO
-
I hope 7 & 8 stay, but I'm not sure about 9. If someone wants to PM me the combo(s) that forced this rule, that would be awesome. If it was simply out of concern for deck checkers, I get it.
-
I hope 7 & 8 stay, but I'm not sure about 9. If someone wants to PM me the combo(s) that forced this rule, that would be awesome. If it was simply out of concern for deck checkers, I get it.
I think it is for time out purposes. Can you imagine a 150 card defense?
-
Hey,
Can you imagine a 150 card defense?
Yes, yes I can.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
You will NOT draw cards on your first turn if you go second. You WILL have an intro prep phase. That's at least what they said at nationals. The other rules stay I believe. Then, after four more months, you will both draw on your first turn if you go second AND have an intro prep phase. Then the peoples with power will decide what rules stay and which rules go.
-
...what? the 'go-first-or-draw-first' is probably the absolute best rule change redemption has ever seen. intro prep will also be a big change for the better.
-
...what? the 'go-first-or-draw-first' is probably the absolute best rule change redemption has ever seen. intro prep will also be a big change for the better.
That's what they're trying to decide. I doubt either of those rules will be denied but they still want a trial process. I wouldn't worry too much about keeping these I'm sure they'll stay... although I'm not the biggest fan of intro prep phase.
-
...what? the 'go-first-or-draw-first' is probably the absolute best rule change redemption has ever seen.
I agree with this first part.
-
intro prep is also great for bad opening draws...you draw into no evil characters or enhancements to stave off an opponents first rescue, but an unholy writ, philly outpost, or dropping a lost soul in a site could potentially save you. since redemption doesnt do mulligans, this would be an easy remedy to bad draws.
-
I don't disagree with this, but I agree with the other being one of the best rule changes ever. ;)
-
Hey,
Rob said in the quoted thread, "Unless we see problems we will adopt these are permanent rules." I would say that unless we hear otherwise, no problems were seen and these should be treated as permanent rules from here on.
I can find nothing official saying we'll be testing intro-prep this spring, and I found several posts saying Rob doesn't like intro-prep phase, so I imagine the intro-prep idea has been shelved.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
To SirNobody and others: I do not doubt that you are correct, but since we are dealing with an official Rob post could we get an official clarification from Rob as to what he wants us to do going forward?
On a second note could one of the moderators move the discussion above as to how well the rules changes are working, whether further changes are needed, etc. to the Official Tournament board? This discussion is a much better fit on that board.
Thanks.
I hope 7 & 8 stay, but I'm not sure about 9. If someone wants to PM me the combo(s) that forced this rule, that would be awesome. If it was simply out of concern for deck checkers, I get it.
Gates of Hell was the most obvious combo forcing the change.
I build a 1000 card deck with 20 copies of the Lost Souls card. You are about to win a rescue attempt. I play Gates of Hell to discard cards until I find one of the Lost Souls cards. I put it in my territory and give you half. I now repeat this for twenty rescues. I need no other defense. Wouldn't that be a fun game?
-
Yeah, it would.
-
what is an intro-prep phase? :-[
-
what is an intro-prep phase? :-[
It's a prep-phase that all players share prior to the first turn. You can do anything in that prep-phase that you would do in a normal prep phase.
-
Hey,
To SirNobody and others: I do not doubt that you are correct, but since we are dealing with an official Rob post could we get an official clarification from Rob as to what he wants us to do going forward?
I agree that Rob will need to comment. I was just trying to give people something to go on until he gets a chance to respond. He doesn't spend nearly as much time on these boards as some of us do.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
He doesn't spend nearly as much time on these boards as some of us do.
Is that why you don't want Rob voted into the Redemption Hall of Fame? ;)
Seriously though, thanks, Tim. Sorry you missed Arden Hills today. It was smallish and fun.
-
Hey,
I can find nothing official saying we'll be testing intro-prep this spring, and I found several posts saying Rob doesn't like intro-prep phase, so I imagine the intro-prep idea has been shelved.
Correct. Only the rule changes that I listed in August have been abopted including #6, #7, #8 & #9 as cited in this thread.
-
What a shame. Many players have been advocating intro-prep since Patriarchs, and there's been little-to-no objection. At least we got play-first/draw-first (a HUGE step forward).
-
the rule changes that I listed in August have been abopted
This is GREAT! I think that these changes have been really healthy for the game.
Many players have been advocating intro-prep
I also think that this would be really healthy for the game. But I understand not wanting to make too many changes in the same year. Maybe next year... :)
-
Hey,
What a shame. Many players have been advocating intro-prep since Patriarchs, and there's been little-to-no objection. At least we got play-first/draw-first (a HUGE step forward).
There has been little-to-no objection that you are aware of. While the people that post in the Game Play Variations forum may like the idea, most of the playtesters do not like the idea.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Immaterial. I've heard no magic playtester wizard come forward and say anything about why an idea vigorously advocated all over the board isn't good. I've heard two references to them "not liking it," but no reason as to why, or even if there is a reason other than personal preference.
-
Immaterial. I've heard no magic playtester wizard come forward and say anything about why an idea vigorously advocated all over the board isn't good. I've heard two references to them "not liking it," but no reason as to why, or even if there is a reason other than personal preference.
If memory serves me well (which it usually doesn't :P), timing issues on artifacts was one reason (how the second player can wait until the first player choses an artifact to be active before activating their artifact that would make the first artifact void (or visa versa)).
-
Yeah, the artifact thing is why I don't care for it. Anything v Captured Ark, Unholy Writ v Blue Tassels or Covenant of Palestine, Gifts v Rain Becomes Dust, etc. Additionally, lost souls with a discard ability would be subject to timing. There was also the remark that discarding one's deck w/ GoH before the game even starts seems wrong.
-
There was also the remark that discarding one's deck w/ GoH before the game even starts seems wrong.
Now THAT would be funny.
-
There was also the remark that discarding one's deck w/ GoH before the game even starts seems wrong.
Now THAT would be funny.
It's been done. ;)
-
How? We don't have a pre-prep phase, so how can you discard your whole deck before the game starts? ;)
-
To me, it seems the idea of an intro-prep phase is to allow the second player a chance to have a bit of defense set up for the first attack. This could be accomplished by placing down a Warrior and his weapon, activating a defensive artifact like Unholy Writ, placing a Lost Soul in a site or putting down a Fortress that might help with blocking (GoH, Philistine Outpost, etc.). So if we were to have an intro-prep phase, I would propose that it would be something like this:
After the initial draw 8, the player with the most LS's in territory chooses who goes first. The player who was not chosen can put down any cards that can normally be put on the table, but no abilities may activate during this time. Following this "intro-prep" phase, the chosen player takes his turn. After that player's prep phase, the abilities on the Lost Souls, Sites, Fortresses, Artifacts, and TC/Placed enhancements put down by the second player during the intro-prep phase activate in the order chosen by that player, except for non-triggered/non-delayed instant abilities.
I'm sure there are cards now or in the future that would cause problems with this suggestion, but it's the best I could come up with. This way, if you're second, you can choose to "activate" an artifact or not, or play a fortress or not, not knowing if your opponent will do something to them before he attacks. Also, it gets around slap-jacking while still allowing both players to set up their territories before anyone attacks. The lack of activating abilities still lets the person who is first have the advantage of going first, as they get to activate their stuff before the second player. But I always hate having some way to block a first rescue in my hand but be unable to use it (like Unknown Nation, Outpost, etc.) and hand over a free soul, just because I either drew fewer LS's, or lost a Rock, Paper, Scissors contest.
-
I always hate having some way to block a first rescue in my hand but be unable to use it (like Unknown Nation, Outpost, etc.) and hand over a free soul, just because I either drew fewer LS's, or lost a Rock, Paper, Scissors contest.
This is the key for me as well. I like the "other Professor's" suggestion :)
-
i despise the no more than 16 in hand. But enjoy the fact that speed is like AI and needs rule changes to stop it lol
-
i feel intro-prep is also a positive step forward for redemption.
-
Only the rule changes that I listed in August have been abopted including #6, #7, #8 & #9 as cited in this thread.
Well I guess we play with the old rules because I'm not sure what "abopted" is or what to do when you abopt something. But seriously I really like rule/game changes 1-7 and think they help the game. I like the idea of intro-prep in theory but see problems with the timing and activation of abilities.
For 8 &9 I hope they extend the trial period before permanently deciding. Initially, I really don't like either. I think there are other ways to deal with the potential issues.
-
Why are people so against not being able to have more than 16 cards in hand? I have never hit that limit, nor have I needed/wanted to. Is it breaking some combo near and dear to someone? I am trying to understand the issue with it, and as a tournament host I strongly endorse #9. Why should I spend half an hour checking in some 300+ card deck just because someone wants a megalithic combo deck? I think that those rules are balanced and am curious as to why out of all 9 rules changes made those are the most commented on.
-
Speed decks. 8 + 3 (normal draw) + 3 (Pentecost) + 3 (1st Fruits) + 7 Hur/Gifts = 24. And I can think of ways to do a lot more.
FTR, I don't like the hand limit. If you set up a large combo like that, face my RbD. :D
-
To me, it seems the idea of an intro-prep phase is to allow the second player a chance to have a bit of defense set up for the first attack.
If this is true then eliminating the battle phase for the first round would be more efficient.
-
Why are people so against not being able to have more than 16 cards in hand?
I dislike it mostly because the decision was made to change the underlying game mechanics (and hit a lot of innocent decks in the process) to go after one seldom-used archetype. X years ago FBN was all-powerful and all-prevalent (much more so than the T2 combo deck), and no one suggested changing game mechanics to resolve the issue.
-
Why are people so against not being able to have more than 16 cards in hand?
My biggest problem was having 6th graders with more than 16 cards in their hand throughout the whole game. ;)
-
I dislike it mostly because the decision was made to change the underlying game mechanics (and hit a lot of innocent decks in the process) to go after one seldom-used archetype. X years ago FBN was all-powerful and all-prevalent (much more so than the T2 combo deck), and no one suggested changing game mechanics to resolve the issue.
I don't disagree with your premise but I have to question how many innocent decks are impacted by a 16-card hand limit.
Also, there have been mechanical changes in the past, e.g. completely nerfing side battles, T2 deck building rules, unique Forts and Arts, which I believe to be more impactful.
-
I dislike it mostly because the decision was made to change the underlying game mechanics (and hit a lot of innocent decks in the process) to go after one seldom-used archetype.
I don't disagree with your premise but I have to question how many innocent decks are impacted by a 16-card hand limit.
Pretty much all of the archetypical pure speed decks, the draw-a-bunch-and-bury-all-the-lost-soul-under-a-pile-of-cards decks, anyone who plays Hur + Gifts, etc. are effected. If in battle recursion really is such a problem that immediate relief was needed (something I also disagree with), it could have been simply ruled that the default play of Highway and cards like it are that they can never be returned to hand. Boom--the combo decks that were the problem are done and everything else would be left untouched.
I guess I'm just opposed to collateral strategy nerfing.
Also, there have been mechanical changes in the past, e.g. completely nerfing side battles, T2 deck building rules, unique Forts and Arts, which I believe to be more impactful.
But those changes were made after other things were attempted to counter the decks that led to them (Pot O'Manna anyone?). Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any attempts at creating cards to counter in battle recursion. The approach taken in this case strikes me as akin to having made a deck building rule a few years back that said "No deck may contain more than three multi-color enhancements" as a means to stop FBN.
And yes, I know both of my objections are more philosophical than pragmatic.
-
For the record, I still play with Pot O'Manna, it's quite effective ;)
-
To me, it seems the idea of an intro-prep phase is to allow the second player a chance to have a bit of defense set up for the first attack.
If this is true then eliminating the battle phase for the first round would be more efficient.
That is actually quite a simple and elegant solution to the problem. Just have a rule that there's no battles on the first turn of each player (and no draw phase on the 2nd turn of each player).
For the record, I still play with Pot O'Manna, it's quite effective ;)
Riiiiiight. I've played you 50 times and NEVER seen that art :)
-
Well, we've only played T1, I use it in almost every T2 Mutli deck, because a common way of getting off false peace chains is using side battles.
-
Pretty much all of the archetypical pure speed decks, the draw-a-bunch-and-bury-all-the-lost-soul-under-a-pile-of-cards decks, anyone who plays Hur + Gifts, etc. are effected.
Since the rule specifically targets decks that are designed around speed and single-turn deck draws, I don't consider those decks to be "innocents" or "collateral damage". Depending on factors like if you have Tables active and if the character or weapon allows you to draw on entry, you still get to play two or three draw cards in a battle before the hand limit becomes a concern.
And yes, I know both of my objections are more philosophical than pragmatic.
And as I've said, I don't disagree with you in principle. I just don't think a hand limit this high really hurts anybody not playing with heavy speed. I actually play with a deck that strives to empty my hand. And it's not a Zeb deck.
-
Pretty much all of the archetypical pure speed decks, the draw-a-bunch-and-bury-all-the-lost-soul-under-a-pile-of-cards decks, anyone who plays Hur + Gifts, etc. are effected.
Since the rule specifically targets decks that are designed around speed and single-turn deck draws, I don't consider those decks to be "innocents" or "collateral damage".
While I agree that this is the end effect of the ruling change, my understanding was that the rule was supposed to specifically target the kind of T2 combo decks that Rob was talking about here...
There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.
This is the first time I have heard that the reason behind the ruling was to stop traditional speed decks.
-
Skimming that thread, I do not see a hand limit as any of the proposals given by Rob, I am not certain that a hand limit came into the discussion, and the final result of the discussion was to do nothing until after the new set was released.
I am having difficulty making the connection between that conversation and this ruling based on the information you have given me, or understanding how a hand limit by itself would target hand recursion as opposed to anything else. You can still play and retain a lot of cards while still staying under that limit, and the only time you wouldn't is if you are playing with a heavy speed deck anyway, which brings us full circle to the obvious and immediate impact of a hand limit.
-
I made the connection because my understanding was that ruling was issued in light of Gabe's winning T2-2P at Nats with the SitC deck utilizing a twenty-minute-turn combo. My understanding is based on Gabe's recapitulation of the discussion (one he was a part of) that can be found at http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17122.msg269337#msg269337 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17122.msg269337#msg269337) . In that post he explicitly tied the hand cap ruling to twenty-minute-turn combo decks to the post from Rob I quoted earlier.
Until your post previous, I had not heard anyone suggest that the motivating factor for issuing the hand-size ruling was to nerf the traditional speed strategy. (Although everyone acknowledges that is the result.) I missed that discussion.
-
The? Or A? The only thing I said - the ONLY THING - was that in my opinion, the impact on heavy speed decks is not collateral because I do not deem them as innocents.
And not that I doubt Gabe's word, but that's the first hard connection I've seen made and it still takes him at his word.
-
It seems i heard Rob say something about trying to put a dent in type1 multi with all the speed running the event as well as trying to calm down type 2 combos that involve sidebattles and putting down cards and picking them back up and putting them back down again like the ol school devastator combos
-
I sincerely hope that the next card set(s) will have counters to the issues that have required special rule changes. Specifically, I hope in the near future we can do away with the hand-limit and side battle-limit rules (there may be others not on the tip of my tongue).
Why? Because part of the fun of the game is to be able to pull off the combos in the first place. If they are abused, then make effective counters.
FBTN was abused. Effective counters were made.
Side battles were abused. New game rule.
Speed and SitC were abused. New game rule.
New game rules?!?! Please, no, if at all possible. And, please, repeal them when possible.
-
It seems i heard Rob say something about trying to put a dent in type1 multi with all the speed running the event
The best way to un-ruin T1-MP, IMO, would be to stop using the new sets in Booster Draft at Nats. Prof Underwood and crew were on the right track a couple of years back, but when we got to the last day at Nats in Columbus the vast majority of MASK players abandoned T1-MP for Booster to get to use the new cards.
-
If you don't have a counter to a FBN character, you might draw one on a later turn. Most you lose is a battle or few.
If you don't have a counter to a certain combo, involving side battles and enormous hand sizes, drawing one on a later turn won't even be possible. You will lose your hand, deck, a couple key cards from your territory, and have absolutely no chance to get them back.
Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.
If a combo has a way to remove 99% of all counters to the combo, then something is wrong with the structure of the game. These require rule tweaks, not more cards that will just get removed before they can counter the combo.
-
The best way to un-ruin T1-MP, IMO, would be to stop using the new sets in Booster Draft at Nats.
I agree that as long as T1-mp and Booster are paired at Nats, T1-mp will stay broken. If you put T1-mp up against either one of the T2 categories on the other hand...
-
Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.
I do! ;D
-
Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.
<soapbox>
I do understand that. My personal preference would be, however, that such rule changes would be tailored as narrowly as possible to effect only the change desired. In this case if twenty-minute-turn combos were the issue, I would have liked to have seen a rule change targeted to taking those combos down while leaving traditional speed decks and the others alone.
If the problem really was with traditional speed decks and others in addition to combos (as Stephen says), I wish that would have been better communicated, and players given a chance to respond. Rob's thread on twenty-minute-turn combos is truly an excellent example of how to approach these issues. While one can choose to disagree with the view that twenty-minute-turn combos needed to be dealt with, I can't see how a reasonable person can claim that their arguments weren't respectfully listened to by the PTB prior to their decision to act.
</soapbox>
-
You had me until "reasonable person". Then the entire theory falls apart. ;D
-
I, on the other hand, am completely unreasonable. I see no good reason for any player to have that many cards in their hand.
Long Live Hand Limits!
-
I, on the other hand, am completely unreasonable. I see no good reason for any player to have that many cards in their hand.
Long Live Hand Limits!
ANB+hur+gifts ;) 16 right there.
-
That's not a good reason, though. I didn't say "How?" or "Why?" I just say "Yuck!"
-
If you don't have a counter to a FBN character, you might draw one on a later turn. Most you lose is a battle or few.
If you don't have a counter to a certain combo, involving side battles and enormous hand sizes, drawing one on a later turn won't even be possible. You will lose your hand, deck, a couple key cards from your territory, and have absolutely no chance to get them back.
Do you see why sometimes we have to make rule changes, while at other times we can simply add a another counter or two.
If a combo has a way to remove 99% of all counters to the combo, then something is wrong with the structure of the game. These require rule tweaks, not more cards that will just get removed before they can counter the combo.
These are good points, and I understand that side of the argument.
But what happens when I have several counters to FBTN but I never draw them because my opponent wins in three turns? What if I wanted a rule that prevented 3-turn games?
What happens if I get my counters out for the side battle and enormous hand size combos, totally debilitating my opponent in the process? Isn't it unfair that my opponent must sit and watch while his combo deck can do nothing?
<grabs MJB's soapbox>
I believe there should always be a chance for a player to pull off a combo that removes 99% of all counters to the combo. I don't believe it should be easy (i.e. create plenty of counters). That's why we have so many great players and deck-builders out there in the first place. If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.
It also creates that "what if" excitement. CA Nats will be remembered for a lot of things but primarily for what Gabe did with his T2 combo deck. Yeah, there were some opponents who sat back and watched it unfold. But some of these same opponents also knew afterwards there were plenty of counters to the combo. They were just caught off-guard. I did not see one of Gabe's opponents toss their cards in the trash and stomp out of the church never to return. (I have seen a player toss their cards in the trash never to return after losing in a 3-turn game.) That's what most good players dream about doing at Nationals. TimMierz won T1 with his hand-discard deck by catching several people off-guard.
Before going on, I will admit that some rules are needed in the interim when counters have not been made yet, e.g side battle rule. I will also commend the way Rob handled the recent proposed changes by having a testing period in actual tournaments. But I would hope that all options are exhausted before making permanent rule changes. Let the players adapt rather than throw out quick fix rules.
As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done. Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2. Believe me, I have tried to come up with a good T2 side battle deck but they just can't compete. Also, because of the rule no more counters were needed so none have been created. Pot of Manna was made but is hardly used because the rule crippled the strategy.
</soapbox>
-
I know lots of people who play side battles. But mostly with the judges offense :-\
-
But what happens when I have several counters to FBTN but I never draw them because my opponent wins in three turns?
This is why there shouldn't be any battle phase in the first turn. To give more time for a defense to set up in a race to 3LSs.
If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.
This is simply a question of numbers. How many players are you talking about here? A mere handful. How many young new players quit the game after their first couple experiences playing against super combo decks in a tournament and coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance? A whole bunch more, that's for sure.
-
Personal story that rocks because it didn't happen to me...
After my son learned enough to get beyond the n00b stage, he played Britta Alstad and her legendary pink speed deck in a tournament. During either the first or second turn of the game, my son made a rather inopportune decision to block an RA with Red Dragon. Long story short, he came out of the game shell-shocked and unable to do anything more that murmur over and over "She drew her entire deck in one turn." I think it took him a year to get over his fear of Britta. Ah, good times, good times.
How many young new players quit the game after their first couple experiences playing against super combo decks in a tournament and coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance? A whole bunch more, that's for sure.
Prof, if you are really concerned about the feelings of young new players you should be seeking rule changes that eliminate site decks. I have seen more players burst into tears after getting site locked than I have seen for all other reasons combined.
-
Prof, if you are really concerned about the feelings of young new players you should be seeking rule changes that eliminate site decks. I have seen more players burst into tears after getting site locked than I have seen for all other reasons combined.
But... I loves me some site lock! Im not using my sitelock currently, but that's still my #1 favorite defense, with my current one in an extremely close second.
-
And I would argue that we've included cards in the last one or two sets that make Site decks more fun, and also give people new ways to attack Site decks, both in good and evil cards. Especially red; if you're playing a red offense and you get sitelocked, you've got problems.
I think sitelock nabs people who don't play with Sites or are involved in groupthink that avoids Sites in deckbuilding, much like people still seem to get pwnd by FBN decks today. In some cases, we'll put out cards year after year to balance something like that, but it won't matter if we do a hundred counters until people start building specifically to shut down the dominant strategies. I think in the closing year or two of FBN dominance, the problem was not a lack of cards or poor rules but people just not building around them.
It's not always easy to grasp the metagame, especially when we have a relatively small player base with locations scattered pretty far around the country, but man you gotta be on top of that stuff if you want to compete at top levels. I think that's why Gabe is so successful year after year; his decks seem to take exactly the cards that work the best for him and exactly the cards that work the best against the big strategies, and cut out all the fat.
-
Hey,
If you take away all the possible ultimate combos with rules, then the good players/deck-builders will get bored and leave the game in my opinion.
While some of the "good players" like combos and would get bored without them, not all good players like combo decks. I consider myself a "good player" and I quit playing Type 2 for two years because I didn't like all of the combo decks that were running rampant.
As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done. Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2.
I believe the side battle rule change was a good one. Not because it stopped the combo decks, because the previous side battle rule was a bad rule. When one player controls both sides of a side battle they are their own opponent. That's contrary to the nature of what the rules should be.
This is why there shouldn't be any battle phase in the first turn. To give more time for a defense to set up in a race to 3LSs.
I expect we'll see more timeouts this year than we've seen in a long time. The "race to 3" has never been slower, I don't think slowing it down even more is a good idea.
How many young new players quit the game after their first couple experiences playing against super combo decks in a tournament and coming to the conclusion that they don't have a chance? A whole bunch more, that's for sure.
Prof, if you are really concerned about the feelings of young new players you should be seeking rule changes that eliminate site decks. I have seen more players burst into tears after getting site locked than I have seen for all other reasons combined.
I agree with MJB on this one. Combo decks are by and large a type 2 phenomenon. New players generally shouldn't be playing Type 2. Also, once a player pulls off a combo, the game usually ends fairly soon putting the "victim" out of their misery. On the other hand, once a site deck locks you out the game may go on for a while with you having to sit there and watch knowing there's nothing you can do.
if you're playing a red offense and you get sitelocked, you've got problems.
If you're playing a red offense at all you've got problems. :) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Before Thesaurus I might have agreed with you. Now I love it. For one thing, it dismantled Tom's ridiculous Babylonian defense.
-
Hey,
As a final example, look what the side battle rule has done. Almost no one uses side battles in T1 anymore, and they're generally only used as a splash strategy in T2.
I believe the side battle rule change was a good one. Not because it stopped the combo decks, because the previous side battle rule was a bad rule. When one player controls both sides of a side battle they are their own opponent. That's contrary to the nature of what the rules should be.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That brings up a very good point: there were actually two parts to the side battle rule. One, only one side battle per turn. Two, a player could not control both sides of a side battle. I support repealing the former, not the latter.
-
The problem with repealing the former, though, is that all a player needs to do is set up a combo where he begins a side battle with two people of his choosing, gives himself initiative, recurs his cards and withdraws or stalemates, and then repeats the side battle process, he can time out a game just by repeating the same combo over and over a hundred billion times. It's not a terribly difficult combo to achieve and it has been possible since at least 2005.
I'm not sure that's a situation that can only be corrected by counters since the opponent never has a chance to play a card in response, unless he happens to have a Dominant in hand and the player can't just do the same combo with another character of choice.
-
Part of the recursion was due to the player being able to control both sides of the battle.
-
If we're going to make rules to keep little kids from crying we should ban Moses. The only time I've ever made a little kid cry* during a Redemption game it was because I made a rescue attempt with Moses.
*Note - this does not include grown men.
-
The only time I've ever made a little kid cry* during a Redemption game it was because I made a rescue attempt with Moses.
That doesn't count because the kid's name was Ramses.
-
I have also seen Garden Tomb make a kid cry. Even though I didn't do it, I didn't know what to do!
-
An Aocp made my lil bro cry.
-
I have also seen Garden Tomb make a kid cry. Even though I didn't do it, I didn't know what to do!
Yea that was my little nephew, who's still trying to learn the game. I just told him not to let it upset him too bad b/c it happens to all of us.
Needless to say, during teams he really didnt mind usiing his cheribum to band to my John for a free ls. ;D
-
That is true! Luckly for my bro and I, he only got 1 with it!