Cactus Game Design Message Boards

1) Does Innumerable act like a Hero while its in play?

Treat this card as a nameless copy of any angel in battle.  When this card leaves battle, discard it.

2) If a banding card says "may band to/in any..." is that only one character thats added, or all who qualify?

3) Whats the deal with No SA characters? Why is it a MAXIMUM of 3 per deck, no matter the size? If someone were to make a 200  card T1 deck, they can have more SA characters then they could non SA characters... shouldnt this be changed to consider larger decks?

Maximum of 1 of each per 50 cards in a deck:

•      Card that has a special ability (text over the picture).  Example: A fifty-six (56) card deck may contain only one Authority of Christ, one Repentance, etc. A one-hundred (100) card deck may contain no more than two Authority of Christ, two Repentance cards, etc. A one-hundred fifty (150) card deck may contain no more than three of any individual special ability card.

Maximum of 3 of each in a deck:

•      Single-colored Heroes, Evil Characters and enhance­ments that do not have a special ability.

Hey,

Yes Innumerable and one hero in battle would get arround an "immune to lone heroes" ability.

When determining the number of targets (in your case for a banding ability) the words that usually tell you that are "any" and "all."  If it says "any" then it only bands to one character.  If it says "all" it can band to more than one.

Since 200 card type 1 decks are completely and entirely not viable as it is, I don't think we need to worry about how deck building rules affect such decks.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

I have often said that the "effective" limit of Type 1 decks is 150-ish cards (154, technically), because the no-ability limit of 3 means that once you grow above 150, you're either diluting your cards or aiming for 200 with 4 copies of everything, meaning your no-ability cards are now getting left behind.

But honestly, by the time you get to 154, you have 21 Lost Souls and 5-9 Dominants, reducing your odds of drawing your power cards to 4 or 5%, while the Lost Soul odds continue to creep north of 13%.  That's already a huge disadvantage to decks, on top of having a lot of problems with too many cards in hand, thinned out strategies, etc... as Tim said, not viable at all.

Some people actually enjoy trying 100+ card decks, and who knows, if done right, it could be a powerhouse.

I'm not sure what a 100-card deck has to do with a 200-card deck.  Besides, 105s were quite common when numbers decks were more dominant, and there's not much reason that can't still happen today with some creative thought.

Im not trying to get cards play-as'd... im trying to figure out why no sa characters have a MAX ammount while the more useful cards do not. It makes no sense to me why I should be able to have more SA'd cards then non SA cards REGARDLESS of how "unusable" a deck may be.

shouldnt it say 3 per 50, or mabye even 3 per 100?

Why shouldnt I be allowed to have an absolute hoard of non-SA characters and enhancemtns in a 200+ card deck?

This is not a question of "its not practical", this is a question of why the rule works as it does now. What is the logic behind capping the amount of "useless" cards?

Hey,

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on September 30, 2008, 03:25:47 PM

This is not a question of "its not practical", this is a question of why the rule works as it does now. What is the logic behind capping the amount of "useless" cards?

I think originally there was a three copies of any card limit for level 1 decks with an additional rule that if the card had a special ability it had to be 1 per 50 too.  I think over time at some point the 1 per 50 rule became a replacement rule for the three per deck rather than an addition to it.  That is my understanding of how the deck building rule came to be what it is now.

The reason it remains as it is now (and why it will continue to remain how it is now for the foreseeable future) is because the powers that be have much bigger issues to deal with than what the deck building rules for "useless" cards should be in decks that never get used in tournaments.

If Mike and Bryon are ever sitting arround bored out of their minds I'm sure they'd be happy to look into changing this rule.  But Mike and Bryon sitting arround bored is about as likely as Cactus selling out of Prophets.

I guess what I'm really saying is you have a valid concern.  But at this point it is a purely theoretical concern, and as long as it remains purely theoretical it will never get addressed because TPTB don't have time to deal with purely theoretical problems.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Would it honestly take more then a few minutes to discuss the rule, mabye think about it a few days, then come to a conclusion? They dont have to spend  all of their time discussing the ruling.

I just feel its a rather inconsistant rule. Also, why shouldnt 100+ card decks get an advantage in the form of having oh... if its 3 per 50... 12 Temple Guards in their 200 card sadducee defense? There are ways to make the rule useful if you think about it.

This may not have been as big of an issue prior to the advent of Windows of Narrow Light.

I'm not really seeing how 12 Temple Guards is that much of an advantage.

If I were to draw even a single sadducee and 12 temple guards, I could band all 12 in at once.

But the more that I think about it, the more I don't want to improve big type 1 decks.  If you want to play a big deck, play Type 2.  If big decks become common in Type 1 then the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 becomes less distinct, which isn't good for either category.

Why is it bad to have some diversity in T1? Are my only options to make a sub 70 card Z Temple Speed deck, or go to T2 which is AoCPx5 out the wazoo? Is it so bad for people to experiment with larger decks? Besides, to make a t1 deck with as many of ANY card as you have in T2, you'd need a 250 card deck. THAT I agree may be a bit much.

I think BOTH categories could use a little more diversity. The reason I never play T2 is because so many great defense ideas are squashed by EVERYONE using AoCP like crazy.

Also theres the fact that I want the rules to be consistant. No other card other then the obvious ones (multicolor and doms) have a upper cap, why should SAless cards?

This may not have been as big of an issue prior to the advent of Windows of Narrow Light.

Well, a change in this type of ruling would have ZERO impact on standard decks. It'd only be for those who actually want to TRY new things, like huge decks. I can already shove 3x of a buncha no SA characters in a 50 card deck with Windows, at the momement, the larger the deck, the WORSE it is when using Windows.

Why not make it an exchange? sub 100 cards = better chance of drawing what you need, but less power in the form of duplicates, over 100 cards = the risk of bad draws, but increased power of cards like Windows.

I honestly dont see this as a bad thing.

That personal bias and should have nothing to do with why rules are made or not made.

Amen. Rules should be consistant, not biased. I'd love to have Elishama be able to place Obed of Noah and pick before i band to anyone else, but I am going with the rules because they are consistant.

Then why do we bother with most deck types? Honestly, what I am reading from you is quite upsetting, especially with you being a mod of the ruling boards.

I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Uhm, I'll let you in on a lil secret, when people ask even "theoretical" questions, there is a REASON. Usually a GOOD one. So it isn't a theoretical problem it is a real one.

The problem with such theoretical questions is that when one assumes there is a real question behind the theoretical one, they usually are dressed down for having the gall to suggest there's an ulterior motive.  And if they don't, then they're not really addressing the issue, they're just stabbing in the dark at something that may end up being completely unrelated when all is said and done.  Example: someone asking a "basic" question about Fortresses with the intention of then turning around and instituting a new form of Tartaros abuse, and then trying to do it and claiming "well he said this is legal" when the "real" question was never addressed and the person didn't have the chance to tell you that since Tartaros is set aside, the question doesn't apply to it.

This is more a personal rant than anything, but I would really really appreciate it if people would ask the question they REALLY want the answer to, or if they have some ultra-secret combo they don't want to broadcast, at least ask someone who has a good knowledge of the rules (Bryon, Tim and Justin spring quickly to mind) in private and try to work it out there.  I tend to find that these half-questions only slow down the discovery process, make it more difficult for TPTB to find areas that might be problematic as the meta changes, and half the time end up without really being resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

This is more a personal rant than anything, but I would really really appreciate it if people would ask the question they REALLY want the answer to, or if they have some ultra-secret combo they don't want to broadcast...

I'll be flat out honest with you. I want this to be fixed because its INCONSISTANT with the current rules. Why is there ANY reason to cap the number dudes who have no special ability?

I have no uber combos in store, I just want the rules to be consistant. If I wanted to build a 200 card deck, why am I LEGALLY not allowed to put even 4 of a no SA character?

Answer that question. That is an honest question, not a personal rant.

He just said if you can place in the top 10 at nationals with a deck it deserves the attention to get rulings, if it doesn't, why even bother because it "Isn't viable". That is what that has to do with anything.

Right, and that's his opinion, and he'll do what he can to get the ruling changed.  Since all rule changes go through Rob, that makes Rob the only one whose motivations really deserve your attention.  Point being, his moderator status empowers him to monitor this board and enforce policy as necessary.  It does not empower him to change the rules of the game.

Honestly I don't see how this is a theoretical at all. I have a 100+ deck I want to add 4+ temple guards to but the rule doesn't allow it.

You couldn't add that many Temple Guards to the deck anyway, if we made the no-SA cards equal to the SA cards.

I'll be flat out honest with you. I want this to be fixed because its INCONSISTANT with the current rules.

In what way is it inconsistent?

I just explained it.

Answer the following Question please, I have yet to hear an answer:

In a 200+ card deck, what is the logic behind me being legally unable to put four SA'less chars/enhs, while I can have 4 of them with SA's?

PLEASE do not bring opinions of "oh but those sized decks are not viable." That is not how game rules are made. I want to know why im legally not allowed to have more then three.

I just explained it.

You didn't "just explain" anything.  The only hint of inconsistency you mentioned was back on the first page, that the only other cards that have caps are Dominants and multicolor characters/Enhancements.

That makes the rules for no-SA cards different.  That is not the same thing as inconsistent.  Otherwise, the rules for multicolor cards are also "inconsistent" by the same logic.  Obviously that is not the case, because quite simply, different cards have different rules.  Different is not the same as inconsistent.

Your other "reason" is that you don't understand the logic behind the ruling, but that has nothing to do with consistency.

As the mod of the ruling section (Imo) he shouldn't dismiss issues based on personal bias.  If he does, he is just like the musicain yelling about book of jashar being musical because he feels it should be.

Why?  What does being the moderator have to do with anything?  That DOES make it just like "musicain" yelling about Book of Jashar, in that he thinks what he thinks, and I don't understand why a moderator having an opinion is more outrageous than a member having an opinion.

Ok mabye Inconsistant was the wrong word.

The ruling makes no sense then. It makes complete sense for doms and multis. Why must you cap the "least useful" cards in the game?

Also, you STILL ignored my question. PLEASE answer it?

In a 200+ card deck, what is the logic behind me being legally unable to put four SA'less chars/enhs, while I can have 4 of them with SA's?