Breaking the game?

[galadgawyn]

What qualifies as breaking the game?  What is so overpowered that we need to change game rules or errata some cards? 

Hypothetically speaking, let's say I have a type 2 deck that can win the game in 1 turn.  I'm not saying the first turn of the game; I'm saying that once I get the combo I play the cards to win the game in one turn.  In playtesting so far, I have been able to do this in as little as 5 turns (ok, so maybe it isn't just hypothetical).  I of course don't get the cards that fast in every game but I might average getting it in 8 turns.  Is this broken? 

I don't think so but I have seen many examples where people say something like this is.  Just recently I read a thread where they said Schaef ruled that Momentum Change couldn't return another copy of itself because that would be broken.  Apparently he came up with a logical reason to support the ruling but the motivation to rule that way was because of the supposed "brokenness".  I think the wording on the card would definitely allow the mutual return of Momentum Change and I can't think of any way that would be too abusive or break the game.  I would love to see any example that shows that it would.

I would like to know for clarities sake and for practical reasons.  In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament.  I REALLY don't want to repeat that experience.  I have heard people say that things have changed and they won't do that anymore but things I've read on here (like above) seem to indicate otherwise.  One argument was that it is not fun, fellowship, or fair to have one person sitting there for 20+ minutes while the other person plays their cards.  I have been on both sides of games like that and I understand and agree that it is not much fun to just sit and watch but there are some other factors which more than balance that out for me. 

1.  I really enjoy seeing what crazy, cool combos and strategies that other people come up with.  If they take the next 20 minutes to tear my deck apart then I congratulate them for a game well played.

2.  I really enjoy the strategy involved in deck building.  I don't get to go to many tournaments or play online but thinking up various ways to wipe out the opponent keeps the game fun and interesting inbetween tournaments.  But why should I invest a year's worth of thought, planning, effort, playtesting, etc. only to randomly have the rules changed so it won't work?  And if they break up most of the complex combos then what fun is there? 

3.  I really enjoy good, healthy competition.  I would like to keep my deck a secret for the strategic advantage and because it is fun to surprise friends at tournaments.  But how can I do that if there is no assurance that the rules won't be changed on me?

So it is worth it to me to sit and watch someone else play for 20 minutes if I can keep the enjoyment of deck building throughout the year.  I would like to hear what other people think!

[BubbleBoy]

In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament.

Wow, that would stink. I've never been to Nationals myself, and I didn't know they did that, but it sounds to me like it definitely isn't fair to change rulings mid-tourney.

BTW, what combo did you have that was out-ruled?

[YourMathTeacher]

Just recently I read a thread where they said Schaef ruled that Momentum Change couldn't return another copy of itself because that would be broken.  Apparently he came up with a logical reason to support the ruling but the motivation to rule that way was because of the supposed "brokenness".  I think the wording on the card would definitely allow the mutual return of Momentum Change and I can't think of any way that would be too abusive or break the game. 

I disagree with your conclusion of the Momentum Change ruling. The fact that Schaef referred to its "brokenness" is irrelevant. The wording on Momentum Change does not allow any copy to be kept. The "except this one" part of the special ability cannot be ignored because of perceived semantics. This is a special ability we are talking about. Unless the first one is negated, the "except this one" is still active which precludes it from being returned to hand. The second copy also has an active "except this one" that precludes its return. Neither one cancels that ability from the other. The only way to do that in Redemption is through special abilites, and "negate" is the only SA that would do that.

[BubbleBoy]

Momentum Change
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Play As: Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.

Unless you translate "except this one" to "except any copies of this card," I agree with galadgawyn that it is a rather poorly supported ruling.

[michael/michaelssword]

Momentum Change
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Grey • Play As: Return all Evil Enhancements in this battle that were used by this Evil Character except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle.

Unless you translate "except this one" to "except any copies of this card," I agree with galadgawyn that it is a rather poorly supported ruling.

[YourMathTeacher]

I would still disagree. I think that your opinion is poorly supported. The only basis for an alternate ruling is the word "one." Like I said, that is a semantic game. The SA says to return all enhancements. The "except this one" is an exclusionary statement that removes it from the "all." If this statement is not negated, then the exception applied to that copy is still active and must be completed. The same holds true for a second copy. It has an exclusion that is not negated.

[The Schaef]

You don't think the potential to use the same unstoppable combo every single turn because you always get to pick up your cards is an issue?  e.g. a pharisee/sadducee deck with Just a Hireling and one or two copies of Unleavened Bread?

[YourMathTeacher]

I meant that the "brokenness" was not the only reason the ruling should have been made. Several people have been harping on the fact that you said that and have missed the whole point of the ruling.

[captain btn]

In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament.


I don't think this should be aloud to happen because really if someone is smart enough to come up with a good combo that's unstoppable then they should be able to play it.

[galadgawyn]

BTW, what combo did you have that was out-ruled?

This was around 03, 04.  It was one of many side battle decks that prompted the change in side battle rulings.  Essentially you block a rescue with Reheboam and give yourself initiative in the side battle.  You play a couple searches and then play Visions of Iddo the Seer to retreat all heros including the rescuing heros.  The are multiple variations on that theme.  Incidentally it is still possible to do that combo; it is just a bit harder now.

YMT - I disagree with your conclusions.  I think the logic you lay out is one possible way to interpret the card but not the only or necessarily the right or best way.  I think it could be interpreted that the "except this one" phrase is clarifying its targets and is not a protect or exclusion ability.  In other words "except this one" could mean that Momentum change doesn't target itself but targets all other enhancements in battle; if another card (like another Momentum Change) targets the card and returns it, that is ok.  It still returned all evil enhancements "except this one" which follows the s.a.; it is just that something else returned it to hand.  If the exception is not a protect ability (or refers to all copies of the card) then there is no reason that you can't get it back.

The fact that Schaef referred to its "brokenness" is irrelevant.

No it is not.  You missed the point.  Apparently he started with the idea of it being broken and later arrived at the logic you decribed.  It is possible to end up with the correct answer but I'm concerned with the motivation.  What do we want Redemption to be or what are we trying to make it into?  I don't like the idea of thinking things are "broken" or "overpowered" and trying to find interpretations to make them illegal.  I like seeing different possibilities and would try to find interpretations or rules to keep it legal.  Of course in both cases having consistency and the correct ruling is important.  However, in many instances there is a lot of gray and your goals and outlook on Redemption can affect what conclusions you have.

[The Schaef]

"Apparently" you are totally misreading my thought process based on what you saw on the thread.

[YourMathTeacher]

Remember that there are always more sides to any story. I think the real issue is consistency in ruling, which these boards are attempting to accomplish. The reality, however, is that rulings are passed down locally and stick. There are jokes that say,"That's how we do it in MN," but that is indicative of a real pattern. If everyone in MN gathers for regular tournaments and the main hosts make rulings, then that whole group modifies their decks accordingly. If I make the same deck in CT, but the hosts in that area rule differently, then I continue with my unmodified deck ready to stomp. However, when I get to Natz and play the people from MN, they say, "Hey, you can't do that!" They say that because that is what they were told, and they are rightfully upset because they changed their deck.

I don't know galadgawan's specific situation, but I would say that if you (I use that in the general sense) are preparing a deck for Natz, you need to play it against people from different parts of the country. That will provide a more likely opportunity to find inconsistencies. I know most people don't want to reveal their secrets before Natz, but waiting until Natz is only asking for disaster.

[SirNobody]

Hey,

Redemption has decided not to create a general definition for "breaking the game" but rather address the subject on a case by case basis.  As a result, the only way to get a sure answer for your specific combo/deck is to e-mail it to Bryon, Mike, and/or Rob and ask them directly about the specific combo.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

[galadgawyn]

"Apparently" you are totally misreading my thought process based on what you saw on the thread.

OK. That is why I used the qualifying word "apparently".  I don't know what was actually going on; I can only comment on what it looked like.

You don't think the potential to use the same unstoppable combo every single turn because you always get to pick up your cards is an issue?  e.g. a pharisee/sadducee deck with Just a Hireling and one or two copies of Unleavened Bread?

Actually, No.  I have found that many "unstoppable combos" seem so at first but upon further investigation they aren't.  In this example: 

You first have to get the combination of cards which is not so easy in a 100+ card deck. 

Secondly you have to hold a minimum of 3 cards in your hand.  That cuts down on other options or combos you can use.  If you want to add other cards to recur and abuse with that combo (like search, discard, etc.) then that just adds to the problem of what you have in your hand. 

Third you still have the large potential of your opponent messing with your strategy: anti-shuffle lost soul, AoC discarding all your characters, discarding cards from your hand to get rid of your combo, removing your discard pile from the game, choose the blocker, etc.  Of course you can put cards in to protect/counter those but they can use cards to counter your protection.  This is far from a guarunteed block.  I'm pretty sure that my current type 2 deck would have a better than 50% of beating this.  Of course I would be happy to test this if you hold another tournament and I get to go (sorry I missed the last one).  You build a type 2 that abuses that combo and play mine.

Redemption has decided not to create a general definition for "breaking the game" but rather address the subject on a case by case basis.  As a result, the only way to get a sure answer for your specific combo/deck is to e-mail it to Bryon, Mike, and/or Rob and ask them directly about the specific combo.

Ok, I can try that.  Is there any assurance that the rule I'll get will be the official rule at Natz?  I'm not questioning the integrity of these guys, its just that I've seen "official rules" get changed multiple times in one year and I'm a bit wary because of past experience.

[The Schaef]

It was an example.  The point was not whether that combo, or any particular other, is too powerful, it's about the exponential increase in power of any one combo when you get to play it every single turn forever.

When players found a way to cause the game to time out with only one turn, things had to change.  When players found a way to exploit side-battles to give the opponent no opportunity to play anything ever, things had to change.  You were complaining about having a deck strategy blown up on site at Nationals; isn't it better, then, to avoid the creation of these combos through exploiting semantics than to have to put up with that frustration again?  If anyone would support the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" approach, I would think it would be someone who doesn't want a rude awakening at a tournament.

[CactusRob]

"In the past I have spent most of a year working on a strategy that was currently legal, only to show up at Nationals and have it ruled illegal in the middle of the tournament."

Can you meet us half way with this statement in that:

a)  you thought (in good faith) that the combo was legal when in fact it was not
or
b)  those us all that make rulings were not aware of the way the combo was used and had not in fact ruled on it until a tournament

I will be the first to admit that I have ruled on the spur of the moment contrary to the REG at more than one tournament.  Even so, some players approach a large tournament with a strategy or combo in mind but keep it secret in the hopes of surprising their opponents.  The trouble is that it usually surprises the judges too.  I think every National Tournament has had multiple instances of Chris, Bryon, Rob, Kevin, Stephen, and Mike all holding a caucus to reach a ruling on something that Tim, Gil, Gabe or Justin (I am not picking on them btw, I am bragging about them) have developed in their late night game contemplations.  Sometimes these players would get the combo "ruled and passed" by asking partial or cryptic questions without actually laying everything out in a clear, straight forward manner.   

Given that we don't want to ban cards the only other way to get your official ruling that will "stick" for nationals is to spell out the combo with the strategy and implications in plain view for those of us that rule to give you a solid answer.

Beyond that I suppose you could just pray that the Lord makes me smarter than I am right now.

Cheers,
Rob

[metalpsalm]

Hi Rob!
I look at this like cards that say "this can be done twice per game" ect.
Like Holy Grail " Holder may convert one human Evil Character per turn into a Hero in the brigade color of Holder's choice. Holder is limited to two such conversions per game.". Maybe I have a deck big enough for three copies, but I only get two uses out of the total of the three cards. (Why three then? I won't draw one, one will adsorb a DON strike, one I can search for and be unstoppable. So, I get 2 conversions instead of one or , as usual, zero)

Same deal with Momentum Change "Return all Evil Enhancements except this one to holder's hand if Evil Character loses in battle. •   "
except this one which one? Momentum Change. They are both Momentum Change, they both get discarded.

[galadgawyn]

Hey Rob!  I think it was close to B.  My friend Jacob was the one actually playing the deck and he used it at a few tournaments.  Initially the judges saw it and everything seemed to be fine.  I would agree that probably not all the judges were completely aware of what was going on though.  As I recall, it was one of the reasons that sparked one of the changes on side battle rulings. 

I'll send you as clear an explanation as I can without showing the deck played.

[TheHobbit13]

Momentum change shouldn't have been made period.problem. Did people see this comming or did they think it was funny ? lol  We have bigger hot dogs to roast here. It baffles my small mind to think that people think that the momentum change reccuring momentum change is Broken, but ignore the fact that monentum change is broken. Besides if momentum change could get back another momentum change that was played in battle I fail to see how that would benefit the player at all.

[The Schaef]

You fail to see how there's a benefit to having an awesome combo and being able to pick it up every time and replay it every time?

[Alex_Olijar]

I believe he is refering to the if you have 2 Momentum changes, why play them both to begin with?

[SirNobody]

Hey,

Ok, I can try that.  Is there any assurance that the rule I'll get will be the official rule at Natz?  I'm not questioning the integrity of these guys, its just that I've seen "official rules" get changed multiple times in one year and I'm a bit wary because of past experience.

Mike and Bryon are the "head" judges at nationals so if you get an e-mail from them saying your combo is okay, you should see rulings go your way on it especially at nationals where they are judging (although I would suggest printing out the e-mail and taking it with you to tournaments to show the judges because they might not remember the e-mail as well as you will).

Things have changed a lot since the 2003-2005 era of Type 2 (which is probably where all of your past experiences are from).  From my experience very few combos have been ruled "broken" since 2005 and rulings flip-flopping have become much less common in recent years.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

[The Schaef]

I believe he is refering to the if you have 2 Momentum changes, why play them both to begin with?

1 Momentum Change gets discarded after use, so you only get to re-use your Enhancements one time.
Under their theory, each Momentum Change would allow the other to be picked up, therefore you could pick up ALL your cards on EVERY block and play the exact same combination every time.

[Alex_Olijar]

That's rather cheap and I'm glad it has been ruled against.

[DaClock]

That's the issue being address Janisarry, what qualifies as "cheap" and "unsportsmanlike" as opposed to "good strategy" or "smart playing?"

I think the best way to avoid a "broken combo" situation is to ask the right questions. You don't necessarily have to reveal your whole strategy to see if it is legal. I know people who have played "combo" decks where you win in one turn, or set yourself up to win and prevent your opponent from doing anything. As long as no single part of that combo breaks the rules then the whole thing can't either. Recently, if a ruling is going to be changed it will happen AFTER nationals so that players won't have to change their decks mid-tournament season. This happened in NY when Widow was ruled Unique. Some T2 players had Widow in their T2 decks because she was generic so it was changed AFTER the tournament.