Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Alex_Olijar on March 26, 2013, 11:59:49 AM
-
I propose that in future tournaments, we eliminate the current rule which bases the number of decks you can enter on the number of rounds being players. I propose the following rule be used instead:
"Each player may enter one deck."
I believe this rule has several main benefits:
-allows players with smaller collections to build on the same level as those of us with huge collections
-eliminates Haman's plot abuse in small 50ish card decks
-prevents players from entering "tech decks" designed to beat specific matchups (i.e. Shride vs Maly)
-forces more creative deck building - no more building one deck without certain counters and just switching decks if you learn the meta of the tournament
-faster deck checking
-
Could this include a 15 card sideboard that you could switch in and out of the deck between rounds?
-
Signed.
-
Could this include a 15 card sideboard that you could switch in and out of the deck between rounds?
It could. That's a more complex rule that I don't really want to tackle right now. I think that a One Deck rule would benefit Redemption (especially T1) without any other rulings being made, while also opening up the possibility for later, more complex, potentially beneficial rulings.
-
How many decks can you check at tournaments for other CCGs? I only play Magic casually and have not played in a tournament to know.
Kirk
-
Just saying that the 15 card side board would assuage the cries of being stuck with one deck the whole tournament, especially if what you thought would work in the local meta game isn't working. Not sure why this would be complex since the deck would still need to be legal (i.e. if a lost soul is sided out then a replacement lost soul would need to be sided back in).
Kirk: You can only check in one deck with a 15 card sideboard.
-
How many decks can you check at tournaments for other CCGs? I only play Magic casually and have not played in a tournament to know.
Kirk
Pokemon: 1
Yu-gi-oh: 1 (with sideboarding/extras)
I think Magic is one as well but I'm not totally sure.
-
MtG is one as well. I do not know of any other CCG that uses more than one main deck.
-
Okay that makes a lot more sense why secrecy is not a part of other games. You are stuck with the 1 deck you check no matter what. Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.
Would make players think twice about checking a defensive monster.
Kirk
-
Okay that makes a lot more sense why secrecy is not a part of other games. You are stuck with the 1 deck you check no matter what. Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.
True. But it also makes you think twice about building a deck without X counter and just hoping you don't see that deck.
Would make players think twice about checking a defensive monster.
Or that 51 card speed demon that can only block with HP.
Just saying that the 15 card side board would assuage the cries of being stuck with one deck the whole tournament, especially if what you thought would work in the local meta game isn't working. Not sure why this would be complex since the deck would still need to be legal (i.e. if a lost soul is sided out then a replacement lost soul would need to be sided back in).
Kirk: You can only check in one deck with a 15 card sideboard.
I don't really know if we should reward richer players who make bad meta calls with the ability to just change decks and suddenly be fine and dandy again.
-
This deck-checker gives a double :thumbup: :thumbup:
-
Signed.
-
Signed.
-
This deck-checker gives a double :thumbup: :thumbup:
This is a great plus as well.
-
Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.
Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't. It's why I favor traditional siding far more, as both players are allowed to see their opponents deck before having the opportunity to side for Game 2.
-
You are not rewarding anyone. You are simply allowing a little more flexibility. We are talking about going from three complete decks down to one with 15 extra cards.
Everyone: quit signing it; we are still discussing it ;)
MKC: I totally agree with you. If Redemption games were only a little quicker we could do a best two out of three. What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
-
You are not rewarding anyone. You are simply allowing a little more flexibility. We are talking about going from three complete decks down to one with 15 extra cards.
Everyone: quit signing it; we are still discussing it ;)
You are reward players who can build 3 complete decks. That's a huge gap. See below:
Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.
Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't.
-
Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't. It's why I favor traditional siding far more, as both players are allowed to see their opponents deck before having the opportunity to side for Game 2.
I would like to point out that the rules state players are supposed to pick decks before knowing their opponents but I have witnessed the opposite happen before and you can often have a pretty good guess at your opponent anyways. I think it would be good for the game to get rid of checking 3 decks.
Good point Travis - I just wanted to express I have interest in getting rid of 3 decks. :)
Kirk
-
We are saying the same thing. Current system rewards those with deep pockets. Proposed system with sideboard would reward those people with deep pockets considerably less and would still allow for the flexibility to modify your one deck if need be. Not everyone can make the right call in deck building the first time like you can Alex. :P
-
I am in favor of getting rid of multiple decks, and since we don't have 'best of 3' matches, I'm not sure where sideboarding would fit in...
-
I am in favor of getting rid of multiple decks, and since we don't have 'best of 3' matches, I'm not sure where sideboarding would fit in...
I think they're bringing that up as a possible future step AFTER reducing checked decks to 1.
I also would be in favor of this change.
-
We are saying the same thing. Current system rewards those with deep pockets. Proposed system with sideboard would reward those people with deep pockets considerably less and would still allow for the flexibility to modify your one deck if need be. Not everyone can make the right call in deck building the first time like you can Alex. :P
I agree with what you are saying about the sideboarding and would support it, but I would want to seperate it from this idea, which is great even without sideboarding in my opinion.
-
What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
At least this is what I proposed as a way to use the sideboard.
Alex: I don't like the idea apart from side boarding. That is why I am suggesting it. 8)
-
My only reservation is that it removes the appeal of checking in an experimental deck and a more standard meta deck. I know in 2011 Nats Prof U used an experimental deck that he used for a few rounds before switching to his more standard speed deck which allowed him to take 4th. Some/most may say that's a good thing, but as someone who likes to try out non-standard decks but also likes to win, it would be kind of sad to at least a few of us. A standard, reliable, speed deck is like Alex Smith. It's going to win more often than not. But an experimental deck could be Kaepernick, or it could be Joe Webb. The variety of decks would be restricted even more than it was last year.
I'll admit it does have advantages, but I will have to be convinced more before I could support the idea. Allowing a sideboard would definitely help convince me to support it, but I'm not sure if sideboards are really all that important without 2 out of 3 (which I think everyone agrees can't be done logistically in a Redemption tournament).
-
What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
At least this is what I proposed as a way to use the sideboard.
Alex: I don't like the idea apart from side boarding. That is why I am suggesting it. 8)
Sorry, I missed that. This will make things take longer, but I don't have a preference for or against it at first thought. :)
-
You can test outside of a tournament just as effectively.
-
You can test outside of a tournament just as effectively.
Not if you want to keep your deck secret... ::)
-
You can test outside of a tournament just as effectively.
Not if you want to keep your deck secret... ::)
You wouldn't test a deck at all? This is why you have close friends who won't spoil your secrets.
-
Unlike some other Robin Hoods my playgroup is not my main competition at tournaments. Therefore, I find that what works really well win our playgroup ends up being a dud in larger tournaments.
-
MKC: I totally agree with you. If Redemption games were only a little quicker we could do a best two out of three. What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
Part of the strategy of traditional siding is processing what you have seen your opponent play so far, making judgment calls, and implementing adjustments to your deck to hopefully give you a more favorable matchup against them in Game 2. I think essentially handing your opponent the blueprints to your entire deck takes the creative strategy out of that and knowing how to properly side. This is certainly a great starting point though...we just need to nail down the best way to implement it into Redemption.
My only reservation is that it removes the appeal of checking in an experimental deck and a more standard meta deck.
Actually, the biggest appeal of checking in an experimental (rogue) deck is the very fact its not meta. People do not know it. People will not be prepared against it. The risk a person banks on riding a rogue deck to the top (cut) is the same risk associated with pretty much any other deck building aspect: whether or not certain card/deck choices will pay off. I do not expect the deck limit reduction to repel creativity. I expect it to flourish creative minds bold enough to pilot decks many meta players would not be prepared for or possibly even have an answer to.
-
MKC: I totally agree with you. If Redemption games were only a little quicker we could do a best two out of three. What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
Part of the strategy of traditional siding is processing what you have seen your opponent play so far, making judgment calls, and implementing adjustments to your deck to hopefully give you a more favorable matchup against them in Game 2. I think essentially handing your opponent the blueprints to your entire deck takes the creative strategy out of that and knowing how to properly side. This is certainly a great starting point though...we just need to nail down the best way to implement it into Redemption.
I'm on the fence with sideboarding with only 1 deck.
My only reservation is that it removes the appeal of checking in an experimental deck and a more standard meta deck.
Actually, the biggest appeal of checking in an experimental (rogue) deck is the very fact its not meta. People do not know it. People will not be prepared against it. The risk a person banks on riding a rogue deck to the top (cut) is the same risk associated with pretty much any other deck building aspect: whether or not certain card/deck choices will pay off. I do not expect the deck limit reduction to repel creativity. I expect it to flourish creative minds bold enough to pilot decks many meta players would not be prepared for or possibly even have an answer to.
Agree fully on this. I am convinced we should move to one deck.
Kirk
-
Hey,
I can't imagine Redemption supporting a sideboard in the foreseeable future. I think it's far too confusing for RLKs to try to manage and it requires more time between rounds for re-checking decks.
And honestly, how much does your expectation about the decks you'll face change between the start of the tournament and a few rounds in that would cause you to use your sideboard anyway?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Just make a rule that you can only rip one Haman's Plot per tournament. That's the real issue with multiple decks.
-
I'm against sideboarding. I like having to take everything into consideration when I build the deck.
-
Just make a rule that you can only rip one Haman's Plot per tournament. That's the real issue with multiple decks.
Thats's the biggest issue but I don't think it's the only.
-
I've long been against the allowance of checking in more than one deck, for a few basic reasons. The first is simple: Haman's Plot. Second though, is for economical reasons. The fact of the matter is there are very few players who can afford to check in more than one deck, and most of those players are in the top 15 to begin with. While some level of financial investment is unavoidable, the jump from one deck to two decks is probably around $150 for a top-tier deck (experimental or no), and even larger if a player wants to check in more than two decks. I see no reason that, once you get past that first deck, a player should be penalized because they don't have as much money. Finally, I agree that having more than one deck encourages people to tech for specific players and more heavily analyze who they'll be playing so they can gain an advantage, which goes against the "fun and fellowship" aspect.
-
Is there any actual reason we need to stir the pot even more by adding the One Deck rule? Arent we already trying to test enough with Top Cut?
Now of course im assuming that once you get into top cut you are only going to allowed to use one deck but before that any particular reason we HAVE to limit to one deck? I really see no reason to limit people to One Deck when we are not going to be using Sideboards.
Im just playing devils advocate I am personally in favor of One Deck :p
-
I really see no reason to limit people to One Deck when we are not going to be using Sideboards.
It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)
-
It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)
This has been the norm for years im not entirely sure why people are up in arms about this now all of the sudden :o
-
It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)
This has been the norm for years im not entirely sure why people are up in arms about this now all of the sudden :o
Checking in 10 decks for a tournament was also the norm for a long time, until it was exploited by Keith Bartram. I'm more concerned about the unfair advantage gained between rounds by gathering intel on your next opponent however.
-
If I cant have sideboard with best 2 of 3, then I would rather have the next ability to check in multiple decks at least.
-
My players have always only ever used one deck. I definitely support a one-deck rule.
It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots. Which is simultaneously a huge advantage, and a very expensive one (a copy of a top tier deck isn't cheap.)
This has been the norm for years im not entirely sure why people are up in arms about this now all of the sudden :o
I agree with JSB that this would be unfair, and something that I have not yet encountered in my 13 years of Redemption. But I certainly would have been uncomfortable with it if it had happened.
-
I'm more concerned about the unfair advantage gained between rounds by gathering intel on your next opponent however.
Me too.
Kirk
-
I love playing multiple decks, and I have checked in a couple of T2 decks at past tournaments. I have never ripped a Plot. I don't even use it in my decks. For me, playing multiple decks just to have more Plots to rip is a waste and a problem for the game. However, I have played multiple decks at different times for a variety of reasons.
First, when I made a new deck with an interesting concept that I find fun but have no idea how it might fair against tournament-quality decks. If it fails to produce, I'll switch back to my main deck.
Second, when I'm playing outside of my normal meta. When I went to Regionals last year, I made sure to check in 2 decks because I had no idea what was the norm there, as the only other person I had ever played was my brother, and he was in the opposite category. If the meta was against the one deck I chose, I'd be in a lot of trouble just because I didn't have an advantage the other players already had.
Third, because everyone knows what I play in my area. By checking in multiple decks in a smaller category, they aren't sure what I'm going to be pulling out that particular tournament, or if I've added a new deck to my collection. I have people who tech specifically against chosen deck preferences of mine when they make a deck for the tournament for that reason, and it puts me at a disadvantage otherwise. This is particularly true when there are 4 or so people who play that day in the category, and the chances of hitting me are high.
I do understand the part about talking between rounds to get information on your opponents. I don't do that myself, but I know people do. However, that's actually more of a reason to allow multiple decks. If I can find out the one deck my likely opponent is going to play, I can adjust my play style appropriately from the get-go when I face him. If he has multiple options, that ability is not as strong.
I very much like the idea of being able to check in multiple decks. I do understand the detractors, but I see it as a good thing for the game in most cases, not a negative.
-
I would like to see this be a rule. I've never been to an official tournament, but from what I've read it would help level the playing field.
When I play with my friend, I always bring what I call a "side-deck" with me. It has fifteen cards total and consists of both Good, Evil and Neutral cards. I would say the side boarding thing could be used in this sort of manner. Players can switch out cards, as long as their card count in each stays the same. Just to prevent people from bring complete offenses or defenses, make it where the good/evil cards have to be the same.
-
I would like to see this be a rule. I've never been to an official tournament, but from what I've read it would help level the playing field.
When I play with my friend, I always bring what I call a "side-deck" with me. It has fifteen cards total and consists of both Good, Evil and Neutral cards. I would say the side boarding thing could be used in this sort of manner. Players can switch out cards, as long as their card count in each stays the same. Just to prevent people from bring complete offenses or defenses, make it where the good/evil cards have to be the same.
That's sideboarding.
-
I would like to see this be a rule. I've never been to an official tournament, but from what I've read it would help level the playing field.
When I play with my friend, I always bring what I call a "side-deck" with me. It has fifteen cards total and consists of both Good, Evil and Neutral cards. I would say the side boarding thing could be used in this sort of manner. Players can switch out cards, as long as their card count in each stays the same. Just to prevent people from bring complete offenses or defenses, make it where the good/evil cards have to be the same.
That's sideboarding.
I knew that. I was just stating how it could be done at tournaments if the one deck rule passed
-
Hey,
I want to clarify a few points concerning multiple decks with Haman's Plot since there are several posts in this thread with inaccurate information on the matter.
It's to stop the players with lots of cards from building 4 identical copies of a deck, just so that they can rip 4 plots.
You can never check in more than 3 decks at any tournament.
Checking in 10 decks for a tournament was also the norm for a long time, until it was exploited by Keith Bartram.
I'm guessing MKC is using a little hyperbole here, but I'll throw out the correct facts anyway. Patriarchs (and thus Haman's Plot) was released in early 2002. At Nationals in 2002 Keith checked in 7 decks, six of them were identical with a Haman's Plot in each, the seventh deck did not contain Haman's Plot. I don't think I ever saw anyone check in more than 2 decks prior to the release of Patriarchs and the cap of 3 decks was introduced following nationals that year so it was never the norm to check in more than 3 decks, and to my knowledge no one other than Keith ever did.
Or that 51 card speed demon that can only block with HP.
The rule that you can only check in two decks (or three for tournament of six or more rounds) makes it almost impossible for a deck that can "only block with HP" from winning. Haman's Plot is used to make a good defense great or a solid defense strong, it doesn't really work to make a non-existent defense viable.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I share the concern about players choosing their deck based on figuring out who their next opponent is. While this has been against the spirit of the rules since 2004 the letter of the law still allows it to happen frequently.
What if a player that checked in multiple decks was required to write down the condition(s) for switching decks? So I could say I'm switching decks after x rounds or after I tear the plot in this deck or after I lose one game (or two games) or after every round. Would this satisfy the people who want to play multiple decks for legitimate reasons?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I share the concern about players choosing their deck based on figuring out who their next opponent is. While this has been against the spirit of the rules since 2004 the letter of the law still allows it to happen frequently.
What if a player that checked in multiple decks was required to write down the condition(s) for switching decks? So I could say I'm switching decks after x rounds or after I tear the plot in this deck or after I lose one game (or two games) or after every round. Would this satisfy the people who want to play multiple decks for legitimate reasons?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
While I have (as I already admitted) changed decks based on who I determine I will be playing, I agree that it probably would be better for it not to be legal. However, I think that the proposed method would be way too complicated for hosts to keep track of, so it would still have to be the honor system; thus I don't know if it really fixes anything. The other problem is that if that method is implemented effectively, it still inhibits the use of experimental decks, if you don't have an idea of how it will do, so you don't know when you might want to switch.
I guess if it is seen as too big of a problem, such a rule would be ok, but I personally don't think it has been enough of a problem to merit the change.
-
I’m new to the Boards but have been playing for a while and was wondering why don’t they just modify the rule to only 2 decks but once you change your deck you can’t change back? You can still have your experimental deck that you start with and if it’s doing horrible you can change to your main deck yet if it’s doing great you don’t have to change it. It would stop people from picking decks based on who there playing because after you change decks you can’t go back.
Also limit how many plots you can rip to 1 for each category of a tournament. That way they can play it in both decks but if they rip it in the 1st deck it’s a dead card in the 2nd yet if the 1st deck is doing horrible and they don’t rip it they can still use it from the main deck if it happens to be in it. This would make it useless to enter the exact copy of a deck just so you can rip plots.
I only ever enter 1 deck but have thought about entering a 2nd just in case my 1 flops. I don’t mind people playing multiple decks but it does annoy me when they change based on who they are playing.
Just a thought.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if the rules about checking decks changes after we see how things go at Nats this year with Top Cut. Who knows how that will go though :)