|
Post by zogfhyr on Sept 27, 2008 20:54:32 GMT -5
I'll give two examples that are kind of related. The change made in 2nd ed (a good one in my opinion) of making plots their own card type causes a lot of interesting issues with first edition cards. Several cards need to have rulings and errata in order to come into line with those changes. While is just a matter of bookkeeping (and I'd like all those issues to be dealt with because it advances the game) the problem that some decks can be made with powers that are unbalancing bothers me greatly. The issue of giving immortals more dodges than before causes some balance issues (generic Master Dodges are great for cheese decks). Since you're going to ask for an example, think about this Xavier with the Nexus Quickening and The Prize. First turn you use your Lean and Mean (discard a card) to get rid of all your attacks while continually drawing cards with Patience. Then when it comes time to play your special cards, you play them like this: Unholy Alliance part 1, The Master Plan, Unholy Alliance part 2, The Master Plan, Unholy Alliance Part 3, The Master Plan, Unholy Alliance Part 1, The Master Plan, Unholy Alliance Part 2, Schemer, Unholy Alliance Part 3 - end your first turn you have now caused your opponent to Lose 8 ability which cannot be prevented (ie cannot play foiled, as the plots are no longer in play). Next turn, Use your quickening, repeat of turn one. If you are stalled somehow (either bad draw or your opponent uses a rip card to stop one of your cards), on turn 3 use The Prize (having saved some card drawing) and repeat once again. What you have there is a deck that can (almost guaranteed) cause its opponent to lose 16 ability in the first 2 to 3 turns. I'm not saying this deck is unbeatable (not by a long shot) but it causes unpleasant game play situations and unbalancing issues. Very simply, in this case, The Master Plan can get errata stating that in First edition that its text has "You may only play 1 The Master Plan this turn", or add a happy marker. I sent several issues such as this to the 'Powers that Be' early on but was simply ignored (not even a response) so I decided that I will not be running mixed edition tournaments until I feel changes have been made. I spent a lot of time and money on first edition, and would love to see 2nd ed cards being added in to expand it, I just don't see it as being viable for enjoyable game play at this time.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Sept 29, 2008 18:59:05 GMT -5
Well, after this past saturday, maybe "The Powers That Be" will be more receptive to your plot concerns.
HWR made a deck using Plots that did 16 points of Ability Loss before he even got out of his May Do/Must Do phase. And like you point out, there isnt a whole lot you can do about it. What HWR did to make his deck has since been ruled illegal, but that was AFTER the tournament. I wont let the cat out of the bag, I will leave it to him if he wants to explain.
After talking with Tim about Type One, he made assurances that there IS an updated errata coming out, and I believe him. I understand your concerns regarding the unbalancing of certain immortals with the new cards. I hope that with an update, these concerns will be addressed and more old school players can return to Type One.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Sept 30, 2008 3:19:43 GMT -5
Sorry, secret tech is secret tech. The only discussing of the deck that I was willing to do happened after the tourney, which was rare for me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 1, 2008 0:16:17 GMT -5
Since it was ruled to not be legal (anymore), I'm sure it exploited one of the many things I was refering to when I said there were problems combining the editions that needed to be delt with.
Off the top of my head: The Gathering (search for Plot) go get Season Six and blast your opponent with a multitude of Unholy Alliances? - the reason I bring up this one is that you said the deck was ruled not to work any longer - this combo relies on the misconception that you could put a plot into play (rather than playing it) without abiding by its requirments (ie needing parts 1 and 2 in play). That type of a deck should never have worked in the first place.
I'm sure there are plenty of broken combos we could all rattle on about, but since you're all so concered about you 'secret tech' you would be unwilling to discuss them with the general public - which is detrimental to the growth of the game since multiple minds could point out the multitudes of issues (if discussed) that could be dealt with quickly before they cause headaches at tournaments.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Oct 1, 2008 4:08:15 GMT -5
Since it was ruled to not be legal (anymore), I'm sure it exploited one of the many things I was refering to when I said there were problems combining the editions that needed to be delt with. Off the top of my head: The Gathering (search for Plot) go get Season Six and blast your opponent with a multitude of Unholy Alliances? - the reason I bring up this one is that you said the deck was ruled not to work any longer - this combo relies on the misconception that you could put a plot into play (rather than playing it) without abiding by its requirments (ie needing parts 1 and 2 in play). That type of a deck should never have worked in the first place. I'm sure there are plenty of broken combos we could all rattle on about, but since you're all so concered about you 'secret tech' you would be unwilling to discuss them with the general public - which is detrimental to the growth of the game since multiple minds could point out the multitudes of issues (if discussed) that could be dealt with quickly before they cause headaches at tournaments. Nice try, but incorrect on the guess. The plots were completed fully. Everyone has there own strategies, and our "secret tech" strategy is a viable one. We just don't see the rhyme or reason in telling everyone what we plan to do like others on the boards. Hakashi learned this lesson the hard way. Our competition level around here is too high to go around spouting off our intentions as far as deck ideas. If you want to further guess, send me a PM instead of blasting it all over the boards. You may be okay with throwing all of your combos out here, but I am not, since we are talking about my deck, which was totally legal at the time, and was raked over the coals by eight other experienced players looking for a flaw.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 2, 2008 0:12:35 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about exposing your combos so that others could exploit them or use them against you, I was talking about rules and rulings that create situations that should not occur. When something like that is able to be created it needs to be discussed with those determining the rules as it was an unintended consequence. As far as your "Secret Tech" goes, the sheer arrogance of your spouting off in ways like that and the general attitudes of many of this game's players is why several people I know of quit reading these boards and even caused some of them to quit playing the game alltogether. If you have a deck that does well, congratulations, you've shown you have good deck building skills, now you should work on your sportsmanship so that you don't drive others from the game. [the above comment is not directed at any single individual]
Personally, I enjoy the creativity that card games offer. Sure, I like to win, but I like seeing what people are able to come up with more.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Oct 2, 2008 3:33:02 GMT -5
I can appreciate your position on things that need to be fixed in the game. I know the majority of the people here in the KC area either go to see the design team at an event or send them PMs and emails concerning these "tenuous" issues to show them where the problems are and keep there ideas somewhat secretive, so they can be used to their maximum ability in the tourney scene. I cannot say how many times I have seen people discussing deck strategy only to get burned by their supposed comrade. If it is bad sportsmanship to run "secret tech", than I am guilty and don't plan on changing. Our viewpoints on this subject are obviously different, and to coin a phrase " We agree to disagree ". As far as your issues with the Xavier scenario, I agree with you, it needs work. My version kills in two turns, and it looks like your does in two or three turns as well. As Prowler has stated, we were assured that there is an errata coming out to help reduce situations like this, and I believe Tim also. Even though it is a major task sifting through everything concerning the mix of 1ed and unbugged 2ed cards, the nice thing is that a lot of the 2ed cards that are Type One compatible help solve a lot of issues from the past as well as the majority of new issues as new sets come out. Hopefully, when this new Type One Rulebook comes out, we will all be satisfied with the results.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 5, 2008 22:42:37 GMT -5
These are the rules for the 'Shifting Sands' tournament that will be held at Ground Zero in Omaha on October 18th.
Players will follow all 2nd ed deck construction rules with the following changes. Players are not allowed to include any locations in their decks. During play, no player may remove a location from play (for example, if you play the card 'Get Away From it All' you will have played a special card, but it will not remove the current location from play). Cards that search your deck for locations can be played as normal but will fail to find any locations (examples include 'Master's Domain', 'Ciao Baby' and 'Poison Gas: Recon Work'). The following cards are not allowed to be played in this format: Corda and Reno: Flying Machine : Hoverboard Yung Dol Kim: Security Badge During play locations will periodically enter play and effect both players. Those location cannot be removed from play except when a new location comes into play. Neither player controls that location or is considered to have played it.
A format similar to this was quite enjoyable in 1st edition and we're hoping it will work as well in 2nd.
If there are any questions, please let me know
|
|
Reno
Neophyte
Posts: 9
|
Post by Reno on Oct 6, 2008 2:00:26 GMT -5
Sweet. Gabe and I should be able to make it to this one. I got all excited today. Gabe bought a few packs at the Con today and we pulled a pack with 5 rares in it one being Reno and Corda's premium, as well as a few other cards for them so, I might play then instead of my normal deck at the tourney, but not sure.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 7, 2008 0:15:07 GMT -5
Be careful when making your deck, remember that C&Rs Hoverboard will not be legal for that even. Hope to see you there though.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 9, 2008 0:10:19 GMT -5
If anyone is interested in the results of our State Championship.
The top 4 finishers were: Jordan playing Kurgan Chris #1 playing Martin Hyde Lee playing General Katana and Chris #2 playing Hugh
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Oct 9, 2008 3:14:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the results. Some of us were wondering what happened. Is there a possibility of Type One making an appearance next year?
|
|
Reno
Neophyte
Posts: 9
|
Post by Reno on Oct 9, 2008 11:48:26 GMT -5
yeah, I knew the hoverboard was not legal, but the wings are correct? Either way, I think I'm leaning more toward playing one of my other decks. Yeah we should be there. I'll make Gabe take me as a birthday present.
|
|
|
Post by zogfhyr on Oct 10, 2008 2:56:16 GMT -5
As far as things sit right now, I will not be running any events that mix first and second edition. Of course there's a lot of time between now and the next championships. If things get sorted out better I'd have no problems. We'll have to see what the future brings.
|
|
|
|