Author Topic: Dominants (Read 18254 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #75 on:** February 18, 2010, 12:43:09 PM »

Quote from: browarod on February 18, 2010, 12:01:44 PM

I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.

Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #76 on:** February 18, 2010, 12:45:53 PM »

False - we've played four turners before

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #77 on:** February 18, 2010, 01:00:17 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on February 18, 2010, 12:45:53 PM

False - we've played four turners before

I should restate. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes ... unless I lose

Korunks · « **Reply #78 on:** February 18, 2010, 01:27:49 PM »

Quote

I should restate. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes ... unless I lose Smiley

Thats kind of the point, trying to reduce the number of 4 turn wins by making it a just a touch harder. Playing a short race to the dominants game takes some of the fun out of redemtpion.

browarod · « **Reply #79 on:** February 18, 2010, 03:49:24 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 18, 2010, 12:43:09 PM

Quote from: browarod on February 18, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.
Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes

Games with you were usually some of those ones I enjoyed the most

D-man · « **Reply #80 on:** February 18, 2010, 04:10:54 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 18, 2010, 12:43:09 PM

Quote from: browarod on February 18, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
I gave up on ROOT mostly because of the fact that it was usually 4 turn games. I play card games for the fun and excitement of playing, not to be completely and utterly whooped in 20 minutes or less.
Those sure weren't our games. My games are never over in 4 turns or 20 minutes

Yeah..our game last night was almost 2 hours and my deck has a 7 card defense.

SirNobody · « **Reply #81 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:20:29 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Korunks on February 18, 2010, 01:27:49 PM

Playing a short race to the dominants game takes some of the fun out of redemption.

There's an easy solution to that, don't play a "race to the dominants" deck.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Korunks · « **Reply #82 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:24:53 PM »

Quote

There's an easy solution to that, don't play a "race to the dominants" deck.

Well I have no control over what deck my opponent plays, so what I play is sometime irrelevant.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #83 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:26:37 PM »

One person can make a difference.

Korunks · « **Reply #84 on:** February 19, 2010, 03:43:45 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on February 19, 2010, 03:26:37 PM

One person can make a difference.

I am unsure of what you are saying.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #85 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:15:20 PM »

Would the 60 card limit even be needed if they made it a 6 lost souls victory requirement? I know that people drawing out their decks is so common now, but I don't mind that so much if they have to make a minimum of 2 or 3 dominant-free rescues for the win. Keep in mind that there are a lot of 50 card starter decks out there on store shelves, whereas an addendum saying 6 lost souls for the win would be easy to make. We'd also I assume need to increase tournament round times by 5-15 minutes?

And I would just like to chime in with others, as I have said ever since I started playing seriously about a year ago, that when 15-20 cards of every tournament deck are exactly the same, this is not a good thing. Most of us use 7 of about 10 particular lost souls, and most of use at least 9 dominants in our decks. Throw in cards like Am Slave, Hopper, Unholy Writ, Captured Ark, Uzzah, KOT, etc, and you are near 20 identical cards in 50 card decks. That's 40% people!

Regarding lost souls (which I know this thread is not about), I wish there had been some way to link them to particular brigades/themes. Oh well

Korunks · « **Reply #86 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:18:41 PM »

problem with not upping the deck count, is that it makes it easier to lock some one out, 7 lost souls, SOG+NJ+Burial only leaves 4 for rescue. Not a good idea IMHO.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #87 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:22:08 PM »

Thinking about it more, to make it so some people can still use "faster" decks if they want, how about a 57/6 rule? 8 ls would still be the minimum in the deck, but they should be allowed to have the minimum amount of cards per ls if they want. Its their choice if they want to draw LS faster.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #88 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on February 19, 2010, 04:18:41 PM

problem with not upping the deck count, is that it makes it easier to lock some one out, 7 lost souls, SOG+NJ+Burial only leaves 4 for rescue. Not a good idea IMHO.

That is an excellent point I had not thought of. Yes, you would need a minimum of 8 lost souls in a deck. Thanks!

On the other hand, once they made the female only and NT only lost souls, many decks got "locked out" anyway, especially if someone removes their opponent's SOG via Confusion

Fortunately the Wanderer LS and I am Salvation mitigate this somewhat.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #89 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:42:48 PM »

^ That fact is kind of a sad truth. The only heros typically used are O.T. men... I think that needs to change. White has a good start on making women and N.T. more useful, but I'd like to see most of the brigades except teal have a strong O.T. and N.T. offering.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #90 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:47:21 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 19, 2010, 04:42:48 PM

^ That fact is kind of a sad truth. The only heros typically used are O.T. men... I think that needs to change. White has a good start on making women and N.T. more useful, but I'd like to see most of the brigades except teal have a strong O.T. and N.T. offering.

Yeah, even Sarah and Rebekkah are only in my casual Genesis deck just for Simeon and the female-only LS

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #91 on:** February 19, 2010, 07:46:36 PM »

I have to say, I completely overlooked the issue of starter decks. It's true that if we upped the minimum deck requirement, there would be a bunch of starter decks out there that would no longer be usable outside of a starter game (and thus playing with those starter decks would not help a new player learn the game very well). So the only thing we could change if we didn't bumb up card minimum is the Redeemed Soul requirement, a problem with which, as others have stated, would be lockout. So...

Option 1: We don't change any rules and we fix the Dominant problem with cards, or...

Option 2: We bump up the Redeemed Soul requirement and focus our energy on combating lockout.

Or...we could leave it alone and keep games short and Dominant-dominated?

Ironica · « **Reply #92 on:** February 19, 2010, 07:51:18 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on February 19, 2010, 07:46:36 PM

I have to say, I completely overlooked the issue of starter decks. It's true that if we upped the minimum deck requirement, there would be a bunch of starter decks out there that would no longer be usable outside of a starter game (and thus playing with those starter decks would not help a new player learn the game very well). So the only thing we could change if we didn't bumb up card minimum is the Redeemed Soul requirement, a problem with which, as others have stated, would be lockout. So...

Option 1: We don't change any rules and we fix the Dominant problem with cards, or...

Option 2: We bump up the Redeemed Soul requirement and focus our energy on combating lockout.

Or...we could leave it alone and keep games short and Dominant-dominated?

The last time this issue was brought up, I brought up the fact that starter decks would become illegal if we bumped the deck minimum. The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.

Shofarblower · « **Reply #93 on:** February 19, 2010, 10:39:22 PM »

Another solution is to create starter expansions or new starters. The idea is a 20 card expansion for E/F and a 20 card expansion for G/H. 10 cards for each deck that you add to your current starters. They could add to the themes already in the decks or bring some of the newer themes in.

New Starters is just as easy, I very rarely see people retropurchasing Starters. If a new 60 card per deck starter came out (maybe with the expansions for the older starters as a Deluxe Starter) then I doubt anyone would use the older ones very much.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #94 on:** February 19, 2010, 10:56:19 PM »

Quote from: Shofarblower on February 19, 2010, 10:39:22 PM

Another solution is to create starter expansions or new starters. The idea is a 20 card expansion for E/F and a 20 card expansion for G/H. 10 cards for each deck that you add to your current starters. They could add to the themes already in the decks or bring some of the newer themes in.

New Starters is just as easy, I very rarely see people retropurchasing Starters. If a new 60 card per deck starter came out (maybe with the expansions for the older starters as a Deluxe Starter) then I doubt anyone would use the older ones very much.

I don't like the idea of making "starter expansions." I don't know why exactly... Maybe I just like I buy it, I can use it as is, kaput kind of things, rather than so, I just bought this, but it's useless unless I buy more for it? Lame.

A plus for starter expansions though would be that all the previous starter decks could be made equally playable.

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #95 on:** February 19, 2010, 11:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on February 19, 2010, 07:51:18 PM

The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.

The only problem with this though, is people are constantly trying to tweak a new deck for tournaments, so most people won’t ever play “casual” games anymore, because perfecting those decks would be useless.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #96 on:** February 19, 2010, 11:12:25 PM »

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on February 19, 2010, 11:08:57 PM

Quote from: Ironica on February 19, 2010, 07:51:18 PM
The suggestion was that the 60 card minimum becomes a requirement only in a tournament and not for casual games.

The only problem with this though, is people are constantly trying to tweak a new deck for tournaments, so most people won’t ever play “casual” games anymore, because perfecting those decks would be useless.

People build tons of "useless" (fun) decks though. So while I agree changing it would be bad, I don't think it'd be any deterant.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #97 on:** February 20, 2010, 04:19:08 PM »

Just release a new starter with it. When C/D came out, there was no reason to use A/B. When E/F came out, there was no reason to use C/D. When G/H came out, there was no reason to use E/F. Just up it to 60/6 and release I/J at 60 cards.

Ironica · « **Reply #98 on:** February 20, 2010, 09:41:41 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 20, 2010, 04:19:08 PM

Just release a new starter with it. When C/D came out, there was no reason to use A/B. When E/F came out, there was no reason to use C/D. When G/H came out, there was no reason to use E/F. Just up it to 60/6 and release I/J at 60 cards.

I actually still use the e/f decks. I find them easier to teach others to play than the g/h started decks.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #99 on:** February 20, 2010, 10:53:22 PM »

Yeah, but now you're moving the goalposts. You're not using E/F as a new player, you're using E/F as an experienced player to teach new players. Just like in any card game, if you're a new player, you buy the newest starter. Nobody starts YuGiOh today by buying a Yugi deck.

News:

Author Topic: Dominants (Read 18254 times)

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Ironica

Ironica