Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes

I would think that because since you can include Hopper in Reserve then being able to have one in both decks would also fall under not counting for deck building rules.

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

That's just crazy talk. 

Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 11:57:50 AM

Quote from: goalieking87 on June 27, 2019, 11:21:23 AM

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

While I see both sides, this is how I would rule as well if it were up to me.

I mean by this logic I can have 100 in my T2 deck as it isn’t restricted by anything other than ‘2 LS with SA’

That should be clarified under cards that don’t count as anything then.

 

I guess we should ban Hopper - then all of our problems will be solved. 

Quote from: Kor on June 27, 2019, 01:20:37 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 11:57:50 AM

Quote from: goalieking87 on June 27, 2019, 11:21:23 AM

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

While I see both sides, this is how I would rule as well if it were up to me.

I mean by this logic I can have 100 in my T2 deck as it isn’t restricted by anything other than ‘2 LS with SA’

What?  Why wouldn't it be covered under:

Type I : Maximum of 1 of each per 50 cards in a deck: Card that has a special ability (text over the picture).

Type II: A deck may contain no more than four (4) of any card.

Call me crazy, but the Hopper would still count as a "card" even if it is not counted as a "Lost Soul" for deck building purposes.

I don’t see that in my reg:

TYPE II Deck Building Rules

Your deck must contain a minimum of one hundred (100) cards. Fourteen of these must be Lost Soul cards. When you are building larger decks, one Lost Soul must accompany every six cards beyond one hundred five (105).

Maximum of 1 of each in a deck:

• Cards with 3 or more brigades at face value.

• Dominant (lamb icon or grim reaper icon card).

Maximum of 2 of each in a deck:

• Cards with 2 brigades at face value.

• Lost Souls with a special ability.

• Any single-brigade Site with a special ability.

Maximum of 3 of each in a deck:

• Any Artifact, Fortress, Covenant or Curse with one brigade at face value.

Maximum of 4 of each in a deck:

• Any character, Enhancement or non-special ability Site with one brigade at face value.

Other Rules:

• The number of your good cards and the number of your evil cards MUST be equal.

Dual-alignment cards count as evil/neutral/good based on their face-value alignment (I.E. Saul/Paul (Ap) is an evil card at face value and counts as evil for deck building purposes). If a dual-alignment card is different alignments at face-value it counts as all of those alignments for deck building purposes. If neutral is one of the alignments the card counts as good and/or evil based on the other alignment(s).

• The number of Sites may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck.

• The number of Dominants (good and evil combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck. (The Lost Souls card counts as 1 (one) Lost Soul and the “Hopper” Lost Soul does not count towards Lost Soul deck building requirements).

• The max size for a T2 deck is 252.

Is that not the current version?

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 27, 2019, 02:04:37 PM

Type II: A deck may contain no more than four (4) of any card.

I don’t see that in my reg:

Quote

TYPE II Deck Building Rules

Maximum of 4 of each in a deck:

• Any character, Enhancement or non-special ability Site with one brigade at face value.

Is that not the current version?

Yes, you are correct. I was going from a earlier version (I point to this to show I am not making it up). When did they change the wording? More importantly why did they change the wording?

Quote from: goalieking87 on June 27, 2019, 11:21:23 AM

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

If Hopper was protected from (see what I did there?) literally ALL deck-building requirements, then you could literally put any number of Hoppers in a deck.

It might not be subject to the deck-building rule specifically for LS, but it's still subject to Teams deck-building rules, which only allow 1 copy of each LS and Dom.

But allowing only 1 copy of each Lost Soul IS a deck building rule that applies specifically to lost souls.  And since Hopper ‘does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules’ that definitely sounds like a rule that doesn’t apply to it.  Any rules that apply to cards in general, or cards with a special ability would still apply to Hopper. 

If this is unintended or even unwanted that’s fine, but I think a bit more clarity in that section of the rules would be nice 

Quote from: goalieking87 on June 27, 2019, 11:21:23 AM

I would think that since the identifier on Hopper says “Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules” that it does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules.

Because the identifier is "Does not count as a Lost Soul for deck building rules" and not "Is not a Lost Soul for deck building rules", there's an argument the identifier only applies to rules that count LS (total cards, Doms, Sites), not all of the deck building rules. That interpretation does mean that Hopper can't start in the Reserve.

Since the TEAMs deck building rule isn't counting LS, there couldn't be a Hopper in both decks under that interpretation.

So are we ruling that Hopper cannot start in Reserve now?

We all get that the REG contradicts itself.  Interpretation is the key word in Aggie's post.

Still waiting on a 100% answer for this. Regionals is this weekend over here and I would like to know if both decks can have a Hopper or not.