Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Crashfach2002 on September 20, 2010, 05:25:03 PM

Title: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 20, 2010, 05:25:03 PM
I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but I couldn't find it.  I was curious why did the BTB decided to make sites work while just being in play and not having to have access to the sites.  I'm not 100% on whether I like the idea or not.  I do like the fact it has made defense significantly stronger, and I love defense.  But at the same time it hurts site lock slightly, and may drive people to play the colors that hurt sites compared to use any strategy freely.  I was mostly just wondering what lead them to decide to do this they way they did!  Thanks!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 20, 2010, 07:41:32 PM
what do you mean by "hurts site lock"? If anything, one card that hurts site lock would be Fishing Boat! That card killed site lock, man...
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 20, 2010, 08:33:44 PM
Well yes, but only if you are playing Purple.  Almost every deck I play with now will have Caesarea Philippi in it.  It not only protects my N.T. evil characters from capture and conversion, but you will have to discard the site to even touch my Ends of the Earth & New Jerusalem outside of battle.  One of the main strategies of site lock it to attack sites before they ever enter battle.  So maybe I was sugar coating it, but someone has to REALLY try to make site lock work now.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 20, 2010, 08:49:59 PM
ok- i see, didnt think about that. Yea every site lock deck has to run benedictus, faith as a mustard seed, trumpet and sword, ect. before they can even think about locking someone out. ugh. so im seeing a teal/green(black) site lock...anybody wanna come up with a decklist for the new site lock? have to kill phillipi b4 u can touch access sites...ouch
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 20, 2010, 09:01:26 PM
And the biggest problem with that is that you HAVE to play a specific offensive color to make your defense work.  Now there is nothing wrong with that considering I love A-Bom & you almost have to match Gold with the Greeks to use it best.  So that isn't a big deal, but I know that the PTB like for people to mix and match anything they want to and this limits that.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 20, 2010, 09:07:31 PM
One way is to have play red, but Caesarea Philippi protect ends of the earth and itself in territory. Just have access peope. That is all you need.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on September 20, 2010, 09:13:26 PM
Sites are just plain yucky now. Caeskljafwioperuakl;jfasbu Philalwkerjpoiaduvakl;jdfkl;jwefr should have never been printed. Golgatha is win and Nazareth is ok though.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 20, 2010, 09:21:07 PM
One way is to have play red, but Caesarea Philippi protect ends of the earth and itself in territory. Just have access peope. That is all you need.

You don't really need access any more!  If I'm playing with N.T. evil characters I'm going to have all 4 of the new sites in my deck.  That way you can't touch any of my guys in territory and I can recur them with Marketplace.  So sites are going to be used to lock out people any more, they are going to be used to stop what strategies hurt your deck the most.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 20, 2010, 09:25:29 PM
That is why the new sites are so cool. Thanks.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Warrior_Monk on September 20, 2010, 09:27:22 PM
Sites are just plain yucky now. Caeskljafwioperuakl;jfasbu Philalwkerjpoiaduvakl;jdfkl;jwefr should have never been printed. Golgatha is win and Nazareth is ok though.
poor Chorazin...
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 22, 2010, 09:40:25 PM
So is there any PTB that wants to speak on the ruling?   :)
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 23, 2010, 03:20:37 AM
Ok, withe protection on the sites, to my understanding, Evil Character are very defenseless when they are in territory, although in priest set, we make up fortresses that protects certain evil character in territory from certain effects, however, there are no protection to the NT evil characters, therefore the sites in territory are like a fortress, I don't think the sites are meant to kill site lock out, but also helps with site lock out. It helps you very well, but when you go against it, it would be pain.

Now as you know all the new sites, states to protect NT evil character, then you just need to make sure that your defense is NT.

The New sites can do two things now: 1 is to protect evil character, 2 is to have site lock out. If you see the colors, the only common one is the white site, but because stops ignore. That mean it can stop garden tomb. The sites are to help the defense to work better that way, the game can go much longer than just ignore all day long. Seriously, having being ignore to loss 5-1 is not fun at all. This way the game can be much more excited. Thank you.

I hope I answer most of the question.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Minister Polarius on September 23, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
wut
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Warrior_Monk on September 23, 2010, 09:18:09 AM
the only common one is the white site, but because stops ignore.
no, it's because of recursion.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Prof Underwood on September 23, 2010, 10:36:52 AM
So is there any PTB that wants to speak on the [thought process]?   :)
I wish I could tell you, but the Di set was completed before I came on board.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Master_Chi on September 23, 2010, 10:46:04 AM
So is there any PTB that wants to speak on the [thought process]?   :)
I wish I could tell you, but the Di set was completed before I came on board.

I'm still not on board......  :-X
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: browarod on September 23, 2010, 02:21:51 PM
Ok, withe protection on the sites, to my understanding, Evil Character are very defenseless when they are in territory, although in priest set, we make up fortresses that protects certain evil character in territory from certain effects, however, there are no protection to the NT evil characters, therefore the sites in territory are like a fortress, I don't think the sites are meant to kill site lock out, but also helps with site lock out. It helps you very well, but when you go against it, it would be pain.

Now as you know all the new sites, states to protect NT evil character, then you just need to make sure that your defense is NT.

The New sites can do two things now: 1 is to protect evil character, 2 is to have site lock out. If you see the colors, the only common one is the white site, but because stops ignore. That mean it can stop garden tomb. The sites are to help the defense to work better that way, the game can go much longer than just ignore all day long. Seriously, having being ignore to loss 5-1 is not fun at all. This way the game can be much more excited. Thank you.

I hope I answer most of the question.
Who are you and why do you post with the finality of someone with any kind of authority? I'm so confused....
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Bryon on September 24, 2010, 12:10:51 AM
Michael is one of the players in my playgroup.  He helps me test cards, and has helped me create some interesting cards.  For example, Michael and I were discussing the weakness of good gold, and were wishing we could have a way for them to get better earlier in the game (get fewer than 10 cards in deck sooner), so we came up with Samaritan Water Jar while walking to lunch and back.  He is a fairly bright guy and extremely generous with new players (and poorer players), regularly giving away dozens of rares and ultra-rares so that new players can jump into playing at a respectable level right away.

As you can tell, English is not Michael's first language.  Please be patient with him.  :)
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Master KChief on September 24, 2010, 02:04:32 AM
whichever one of you created the new kindness gets a cookie and a gold star.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: browarod on September 24, 2010, 12:43:55 PM
Michael is one of the players in my playgroup.  He helps me test cards, and has helped me create some interesting cards.  For example, Michael and I were discussing the weakness of good gold, and were wishing we could have a way for them to get better earlier in the game (get fewer than 10 cards in deck sooner), so we came up with Samaritan Water Jar while walking to lunch and back.  He is a fairly bright guy and extremely generous with new players (and poorer players), regularly giving away dozens of rares and ultra-rares so that new players can jump into playing at a respectable level right away.

As you can tell, English is not Michael's first language.  Please be patient with him.  :)
Ah. My apologies if I was short, I was just really confused why this person I'd never seen before was posting about technical rulings :P
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 24, 2010, 12:47:31 PM
I reminded Bryon for the Pig's lost soul to include the "except on hero" part, or else Zebulen would be over power. Also came up with Herod's temple to be a Temple instead of a site, and he came up with the effect.

For Kindness, our play group have been commenting on that card already, we all think that ignore one evil brigade, however, I have never seen or heard it will be negating immunity and if use by Samaritan draw two cards. That is all I can say.

and if you are wondering what I give to new players, I give like Leviathan, Moses and elders and more. thank you.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 24, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
Ah. My apologies if I was short, I was just really confused why this person I'd never seen before was posting about technical rulings :P

It is ok, I did feel like this is a thread that is only for tournament host after your last comment, I gain my ruling experience from playing at Bryon's classes and define the rules to new player and other players so it can save Bryon a lot of time, and I thought I have grew more knowledge of redemption rulings, that is why I keep on comment. Sorry if my wording is going over the place. Thank you for your patience.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 29, 2010, 09:12:35 PM
So was there any playtester that wanted to address this new thought process?  I'm not upset with the ruling and am not going to argue it, I'm just wondering how it developed.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on September 30, 2010, 02:15:49 AM
I am sorry, but I didn't play test this card, because there were many cards changed during the play test time, therefore I have not play test this site in the new way. Thanks.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Professoralstad on September 30, 2010, 02:28:59 AM
If I recall correctly, the reason for Sites working as they do now is for the simplicity of the rule:

"Single-color Sites have active SA's in territory, multicolor (access) Sites have active SA's in battle." The biggest reason why it was changed was so that Herod's Dungeon made sense. A few of the PTB suggested that single-color Sites could only be active when occupied (as before) except when the SA of the Site says something happens when it is unoccupied (like HD). But the majority decision was for the simpler version.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 30, 2010, 01:38:22 PM
Good enough!  Simplicity is normally better!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Master_Chi on September 30, 2010, 06:56:31 PM
From Albert Einstein:
Quote
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 30, 2010, 07:08:14 PM
I still think this needs to be looked at. These sites are far to strong to just work in territory. If they have to be occupied then it would weaken them considerably. They kill meeting the messiah, habbakak stands watch, grail,jephthah, ET+ AoC, Judges Seat, ect. was this the intent?

Dont get me wrong, the strength of these sites have made players completely drop thier previous decks in search of cards that work better when facing these sites and playing with them. Some players are lost, others are finding new vigor for the game and are playing more than ever. I actually got sick to my stomach and took a week off.

I just want the PTB to make sure they know what thier doing with the increase in piower of these new sites. Game Changing!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Crashfach2002 on September 30, 2010, 07:51:41 PM
I will say that one concern I have, is that instead of searching for new and different ways to combat sites, most people will just use the couple of cards from the new set to stop them.  I can see most people just playing Disciples to use Faith as a Mustard Seed to get rid of the site that hurts them the most.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: lightningninja on September 30, 2010, 07:54:53 PM
what do you mean by "hurts site lock"? If anything, one card that hurts site lock would be Fishing Boat! That card killed site lock, man...
Most hilarious thing ever, I was playing a type II side battle deck, and when he'd try to load up his fishing boat, I'd side battle and bring in Emperor Augustus and bring their guys back to territory.  ;D
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on September 30, 2010, 07:57:49 PM
In my mind the sites aren't overly strong individually, each one is just pretty good - The problem becomes when you pair any of them with CP, that's when they become a problem.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Prof Underwood on September 30, 2010, 09:57:53 PM
I just want the PTB to make sure they know what thier doing
OK, then rest assured.  The PTB always know exactly what they are doing...except for when we are human and make a mistake, but we are working hard...and are trying their best to make this game the most fun and fellowshippy game it can be :)
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 30, 2010, 10:32:00 PM
nice! Emps for the win. and Nero kills Golgotha. Casting Lots Rock! Herods Temple only helps.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Warrior_Monk on September 30, 2010, 10:35:51 PM
nice! Emps for the win. and Nero kills Golgotha.
not with CP.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 30, 2010, 10:40:11 PM
I just want the PTB to make sure they know what thier doing
OK, then rest assured.  The PTB always know exactly what they are doing...except for when we are human and make a mistake, but we are working hard...and are trying their best to make this game the most fun and fellowshippy game it can be :)

I know sir and here is where i show you where i was working on my pic a little more...

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi930.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad141%2FRTSmaniac%2Fjumpthegun-2.jpg%3Ft%3D1285900642&hash=346f7429258073701afff7fd4863701579be268f)

Just Kidding! I know you guys have to take alot from us. Love ya man! Ive been working on that jacket BTW and a little bling for ya!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Prof Underwood on October 01, 2010, 12:10:41 AM
Love ya man! Ive been working on that jacket BTW and a little bling for ya!
I pity the foo, who tries to take my bling :)
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Minister Polarius on October 01, 2010, 12:30:22 AM
Nero doesn't kill Golgotha, yours or anyone else's. "Roman Site" was ruled to only be sites in Rome proper. If it were every Site in the Roman Empire, that would be every single N.T. Site.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Master_Chi on October 01, 2010, 09:06:01 AM
Nero doesn't kill Golgotha, yours or anyone else's. "Roman Site" was ruled to only be sites in Rome proper. If it were every Site in the Roman Empire, that would be every single N.T. Site.

That's the whole point....
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on October 01, 2010, 09:59:58 AM
Nero doesn't kill Golgotha, yours or anyone else's. "Roman Site" was ruled to only be sites in Rome proper. If it were every Site in the Roman Empire, that would be every single N.T. Site.

Can you direct me to that discussion please?
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: galadgawyn on October 02, 2010, 02:08:48 PM
I like the new sites and I definitely like the new rule for simplicity sake however I do think that the CP was overpowered.  There were plenty of ways to deal with the other sites until CP came out. 

I just hope that the next set will have a few more ways to negate opponent's site but not make them useless.  Like negating opponent's (or just single color) sites if they are not occupied.  That keeps the simplicity of the new rule but allows some of the old strategy to be present. 
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on October 02, 2010, 04:33:18 PM
But CP only work on sites that are in territory. You can still deal with sites in battle. and now I am currently figuring out ways to deal with a deck with CP. LOL

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: lightningninja on October 02, 2010, 04:49:14 PM
Isn't Benedictus like the only way to negate sites?

Confusion on CP for the win!
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: The Warrior on October 02, 2010, 04:55:35 PM
Isn't Benedictus like the only way to negate sites?

Confusion on CP for the win!
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FThe%2520Centurion%2520at%2520Capernaum%2520%28TP%29.gif&hash=0e8fc5f336491bd57ddb24220403c8530cae6151)
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: lightningninja on October 02, 2010, 04:57:31 PM
Nice! I'm using red now!*

*No I'm not.

That is pretty useful though.... then there is a red enhancement that discards a site, right? Or you can make a battle challenge with Praises or whatever that card is called.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on October 02, 2010, 05:02:57 PM
A few days ago I was reading Caleb and I was all liek "sw33t! I can steal their CP and then spam Land Dipute during my discard phase!". Then I thought about it and I said "sw33t! I can steal their site and put a LS in it during discard phase* and give it back to them!"

Then I realized CP protects itself so Caleb fails.


*Possible, yet ineffective.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on October 03, 2010, 12:35:30 AM
But CP is already red, there are a lot of brigade that can't help with red sites. How would other help, I think Benedictus is the only card for teal and white.

ML.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Minister Polarius on October 03, 2010, 06:21:39 AM
Step One: Use Benedictus or Shiny Centurion
Step Two: cause a side-battle
Step Three: control Locust from the Pit
Step Four: ???
Step Five: Profit.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: browarod on October 03, 2010, 07:28:22 AM
Step One: Use Benedictus or Shiny Centurion
Step Two: cause a side-battle
Step Three: control Locust from the Pit
Step Four: ???
Step Five: Profit.
The step before Profit is always a tricky one. :P
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: RTSmaniac on October 03, 2010, 09:56:48 PM
benedictus and consider the lillies should be enough i would think
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on October 04, 2010, 02:15:45 PM
benedictus and consider the lillies should be enough i would think

That is a fantastic idea.
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: lightningninja on October 05, 2010, 02:41:32 AM
Haha.... It's so obvious... read the cards people. There's a pretty easy counter to this. :D
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: Michael_of_the_Star on October 05, 2010, 02:53:48 AM
Haha.... It's so obvious... read the cards people. There's a pretty easy counter to this. :D

I'll put it into my white deck if you know what I mean. LOL
Title: Re: Site Question
Post by: lightningninja on October 05, 2010, 03:01:27 AM
Ugh... no I don't. I'm not thinking of Benedictus.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal