Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Chronic Apathy on February 18, 2012, 10:57:45 PM
-
This is something I've had on my mind for a while, and I'd like to throw it out there and see what people have to say about it. There are currently two rules in place (three decks per player and no editing decks after they've been checked) that benefit players with more money and more cards. While both of these rules are certainly necessary in some form or another, I think that the latter should have a very slight modification to benefit those with less resources; I would like to see an exception allowed to let players add a Haman's Plot if they rip one during regular tournament play, in between rounds. Realistically, anyone could get away with this to begin with, and I think it would lessen the gap between players who can afford to check three identical decks in and the players who can only afford one deck, especially at big tournaments like nationals. I recognize there's a level of fairness there, but like I said, if someone wants to add a Plot to their deck in between rounds, it would extremely hard for them to get caught anyway.
-
I would like that since I play with a Plot myself. That's why I always restrict myself to using it only in the Last Round. Like When I was versing you in NY it was 2nd Round, so I prevented myself from using Plot so then maybe I could get more use in the final round.
-
I like the sound of that. It's not a huge or difficult rule change but it does raise questions for other game types like booster. Say a player uses a plot is he then allowed to replace the missing card next game to keep a legal deck of 50 cards or should they just keep using 51-56 card decks?
-
I like the sound of that. It's not a huge or difficult rule change but it does raise questions for other game types like booster. Say a player uses a plot is he then allowed to replace the missing card next game to keep a legal deck of 50 cards or should they just keep using 51-56 card decks?
I'd say this would only apply in open deck categories.
-
I would like it to go the other way. I think only one deck should be allowed to be checked in with a Plot in it. The idea of ripping a Plot is so that a person can't use it in future rounds.
-
I like were you are going but I think a rule like that would actually help the top players more as they use plot the most.
-
That's true Hobbit, I like Bill's idea then.
-
I like were you are going but I think a rule like that would actually help the top players more as they use plot the most.
I would have used Plot last year, but I didn't have the money to build three identical decks for Plot use. Thus, I stuck with my Phillies and only one deck. I'd be in support of this rule. I don't see how it helps top players, as they're going to Plot anyway.
-
That's true Hobbit, I like Bill's idea then.
So you went from let's have plot's every round to 1 a tournament... That's quite a change of heart. And it only took 5 posts!! ;D
-
That's true Hobbit, I like Bill's idea then.
So you went from let's have plot's every round to 1 a tournament... That's quite a change of heart. And it only took 5 posts!! ;D
It fixes the problem of severe inequality either way. :D
-
or you could combine them, you can switch in plots, limit 3 per tourney.
-
Pshhhhhh the middle ground is for the week hearted and politicians, (one in the same... I know)
-
lol politicians compromising, now THAT is good joke
-
I like were you are going but I think a rule like that would actually help the top players more as they use plot the most.
I would have used Plot last year, but I didn't have the money to build three identical decks for Plot use. Thus, I stuck with my Phillies and only one deck. I'd be in support of this rule. I don't see how it helps top players, as they're going to Plot anyway.
I was more referring to newer playes then top players like yourself. I see it helping top players more because now they can rip plots against opponent's they would not normally plot.
That's true Hobbit, I like Bill's idea then.
I agree as it effectively evens out part of the playing field and doesn't hurt your wallet. This also goes along well with the intention of the card, as wb said. Although I would modify his rule slightly. You can have multiple decks with plot but can only use plot(s) in one sitting. That way you can check in different decks in case you don't uses it by the time you want to switch. I don't know what we would do about the extra plots, probably just make people take them out of their other decks.
-
I would like it to go the other way. I think only one deck should be allowed to be checked in with a Plot in it. The idea of ripping a Plot is so that a person can't use it in future rounds.
A very wise man. :)
-
I think that gets more complicated, Hobbit, which is what we're trying to avoid. I'd just say that in any given category, a player may not check in more than one deck with a Haman's Plot in it.
-
Fair enough.
-
I do kind of like the idea of being allowed to switch you plot three times per tourney because I am a poor player and can't afford enough cards to make three identical decks, so I just don't use plot. but if we were allowed three plots per tourney then all players could use plot more then ounce instead of only the players with more money being able to have this opportunity.
We could make it so that you could check in you three plots with you deck to avoid some players using three per deck, instead of three per tourney. ::)
-
I do kind of like the idea of being allowed to switch you plot three times per tourney because I am a poor player and can't afford enough cards to make three identical decks, so I just don't use plot. but if we were allowed three plots per tourney then all players could use plot more then ounce instead of only the players with more money being able to have this opportunity.
We could make it so that you could check in you three plots with you deck to avoid some players using three per deck, instead of three per tourney. ::)
This is a pretty smart idea. It'd also stop players from rufflng around in their collections, pulling a random card, and sticking it in their deck.
-
Why are indentical decks an issue? Plot is the issue.
-
One of the benefits to potentially changing the rule to one Plot per tournament would be forcing people to maybe use more expansive standalone (or not standalone at all) in decks.
-
One of the benefits to potentially changing the rule to one Plot per tournament would be forcing people to maybe use more expansive standalone (or not standalone at all) in decks.
What do you mean by "more expensive standalone (or no stand alone at all) in decks."?
-
Hey,
I'm one of the players that builds three identical decks so that I can tear multiple plots, so my comments might be disregarded as biased, but I'll share them anyway.
If we allowed proxies to be used at tournaments it would benefit players with less resources (especially in Type 2), should we allow that too? No, because if we did, players wouldn't have to buy any cards. One of the reasons that Cactus sanctions tournaments is because it encourages sales. Requiring multiple decks for multiple plots just further encourages sales.
The release of Haman's Gallows and recent influx of counters to CBN discard I think has done a very effective job of leveling the playing field.
For a completely different reason - to prevent players from choosing their deck based on their opponent, which is not allowed but is virtually unenforceable - I'd actually like to see players only allowed to check in one deck at a tournament.
I would have used Plot last year, but I didn't have the money to build three identical decks for Plot use. Thus, I stuck with my Phillies and only one deck. I'd be in support of this rule. I don't see how it helps top players, as they're going to Plot anyway.
Depending on how you build defenses, you don't necessarily need three decks. Two is often enough, and in most tournament (5 or less rounds) is all you're allowed. I've been using plot in all of my tournament decks for 6(?) years now, and I've only torn all of my plots in two or three tournaments.
if someone wants to add a Plot to their deck in between rounds, it would extremely hard for them to get caught anyway.
Have you tried? I highly doubt someone could pull it off. When a plot is torn it's noteworthy enough that it gets talked about between rounds. People would catch on if a player that only checked in one deck tore multiple plots in the tournament.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I would have used Plot last year, but I didn't have the money to build three identical decks for Plot use. Thus, I stuck with my Phillies and only one deck. I'd be in support of this rule. I don't see how it helps top players, as they're going to Plot anyway.
Depending on how you build defenses, you don't necessarily need three decks. Two is often enough, and in most tournament (5 or less rounds) is all you're allowed. I've been using plot in all of my tournament decks for 6(?) years now, and I've only torn all of my plots in two or three tournaments.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That would be a 10 round nats. I didn't have the dom loadout for 2 decks, much less three.
-
One of the benefits to potentially changing the rule to one Plot per tournament would be forcing people to maybe use more expansive standalone (or not standalone at all) in decks.
What do you mean by "more expensive standalone (or no stand alone at all) in decks."?
Expansive, not expensive. :)
Tim, using proxies and allowing the exchange of Plots are entirely different, and frankly, I doubt this rule would hurt sales. If someone decides they need multiple Plots for their Nats deck, they aren't going to go open a bunch of Patriarch packs, they're going to trade for individual Plots.
-
All cards come from some pack somewhere. (yes, there's exceptions, but roll with it)
Therefore, increasing demand for cards increases demand for packs.
-
Totally against this rule (although I don't mind Bill's version).
First off, it further helps standalone defenses. Lame.
Secondly, it's a tournament. If you want more resources, play ROOT, or buy more cards. Or, you know, do it how many of us did and play for 5 more years, gradually growing your collection so you can check in three decks. Or play Haman's Gallows.
I like the idea of only checking in two decks. One for the first few rounds and one to compete at the top tables.
Tim, using proxies and allowing the exchange of Plots are entirely different, and frankly, I doubt this rule would hurt sales. If someone decides they need multiple Plots for their Nats deck, they aren't going to go open a bunch of Patriarch packs, they're going to trade for individual Plots.
False. I would never play Booster if it wasn't for being able to check in multiple decks. As much fun as booster is, there's just no point in playing for me seeing as I already have one of everything and I don't play much T2. What's the point of Buying TexP if you already have Grapes and Mayhem? Trading value?
-
Tim, using proxies and allowing the exchange of Plots are entirely different, and frankly, I doubt this rule would hurt sales. If someone decides they need multiple Plots for their Nats deck, they aren't going to go open a bunch of Patriarch packs, they're going to trade for individual Plots.
False. I would never play Booster if it wasn't for being able to check in multiple decks. As much fun as booster is, there's just no point in playing for me seeing as I already have one of everything and I don't play much T2. What's the point of Buying TexP if you already have Grapes and Mayhem? Trading value?
What do these have to do with each other?
-
Tim, using proxies and allowing the exchange of Plots are entirely different, and frankly, I doubt this rule would hurt sales. If someone decides they need multiple Plots for their Nats deck, they aren't going to go open a bunch of Patriarch packs, they're going to trade for individual Plots.
False. I would never play Booster if it wasn't for being able to check in multiple decks. As much fun as booster is, there's just no point in playing for me seeing as I already have one of everything and I don't play much T2. What's the point of Buying TexP if you already have Grapes and Mayhem? Trading value?
What do these have to do with each other?
I play booster in part to get more cards (it's the reason I'm willing to pay for booster). If we eliminated the multiple deck rule, then I wouldn't need to play booster anymore because what's the point of buying stuff if you already have them?
-
How about because you can do things like use divisions in the church to stop unity in christ?
-
Hey,
How about because you can do things like use divisions in the church to stop unity in christ?
That's what background color decks are for ;-)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
How about because you can do things like use divisions in the church to stop unity in christ?
That's what background color decks are for ;-)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That was pretty classic when my mom was the first one to figure out the theme of those decks while the rest of us were like "those cards don't work well together at all...".
-
Hey,
How about because you can do things like use divisions in the church to stop unity in christ?
That's what background color decks are for ;-)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
What is a background color deck?
-
All the cards have the same background color, but that's their only relation to each other.
-
2001 - Buy starter deck and five booster packs (3 Warriors)
2001 Day 2 - Think background color = border color :P
-
if someone wants to add a Plot to their deck in between rounds, it would extremely hard for them to get caught anyway.
Have you tried? I highly doubt someone could pull it off. When a plot is torn it's noteworthy enough that it gets talked about between rounds. People would catch on if a player that only checked in one deck tore multiple plots in the tournament.
I got away once with a few Plot replacements at a tourney. I think it was even MN state a few years ago. I didn't do it on purpose, mind you, I just didn't know the rule.
However, I have never been considered by anyone a top player, and few people were paying attention to those games; I'm sure if Gabe tried a trick like that he would be beaten by the fists of his enemies and cast into a pit of vipers.
If we allowed proxies to be used at tournaments it would benefit players with less resources (especially in Type 2), should we allow that too? No, because if we did, players wouldn't have to buy any cards. One of the reasons that Cactus sanctions tournaments is because it encourages sales. Requiring multiple decks for multiple plots just further encourages sales.
Yes, I agree that proxies are a bad idea, and for more reasons than that. However, in addition to encouraging sales to people who are already in the game, shouldn't Cactus be striving to attract new players to the game? If we have rules that require players to have 3x as many cards for decks in order to be competitive, that seems quite daunting. "Let's just play Dominion instead." True, Haman's Plot is not necessarily required for success, but it sure does help (and most top players use it, which increases demand significantly).
I agree that the 3-deck and no-edit rules benefit those with more cash, and I hate that, but I also hate Haman's Plot and the decks it usually goes in, and I do not want to promote that either (unless possibly Gallows is promoted just as much). That's why I support a rule allowing only one deck with Plots per event. I think that would be a fantastic encouragement for less wealthy players, and would also reduce the popularity of Plot.
-
BubbleBoy summed up my thoughts perfectly.
-
BubbleBoy summed up my thoughts perfectly.
You do realize if you can replace Haman's Plot after the round, that's a potential 10 ripped in one tournament for just one person? The demand would skyrocket. If you're going with Bill's idea (like BB did), you may want to edit the OP.
-
I like BB's idea for the most part, but does he mean that the one deck with plot can have that plot replaced? And if so how many times can you replace them?
-
I was thinking nonreplaceability.