Author Topic: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS (Read 1829 times)

Deck Metrics · « **on:** June 05, 2015, 11:49:05 AM »

In a deck with 8 LS because of Hopper, could you have 8 Dominates?

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2015, 12:10:33 PM »

No, because the Hopper doesn't count toward Lost Soul count in a deck.

Deck Metrics · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2015, 12:18:22 PM »

I tried to find the official ruling for Dominant Cap's but was unsuccessful. I'm curious as to it's wording. Can anyone paste the link?

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2015, 12:30:35 PM »

I don't know the exact wording, but the summary is this: You can only have as many dominants in a deck as you have Lost Souls (Hopper excepted, for the reason above). The Lost Soul count is, of course, tied to the number of cards in your deck. No other exceptions.

browarod · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2015, 12:59:25 PM »

I was also unable to find the exact wording, but it's been ruled this way for awhile. The easiest way to "cheat" into 8 dominants is to have a 57-card deck with the 57th card a Lost Soul so you can have 8 dominants in the other 56 cards.

Hopper doesn't count for dominants not because of the dominant cap rule but because it has its own special ability (identifier?) saying it doesn't count toward lost soul requirements for a deck.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2015, 01:08:27 PM »

Rulebook, Page 38:
The number of dominant cards (good dominants and evil dominants combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck.

And I agree with browarod for why it doesn't count.

Redoubter · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2015, 01:35:58 PM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 08, 2015, 01:08:27 PM

Rulebook, Page 38:
The number of dominant cards (good dominants and evil dominants combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2012, 01:58:48 PM

Lost Soul (II Chronicles 28_13 (Ki)--Hopper) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.

Combined, these two give you the reason this is the case, and you cannot count Hopper towards the number of dominants you include

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2015, 03:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 08, 2015, 01:35:58 PM

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 08, 2015, 01:08:27 PM
Rulebook, Page 38:
The number of dominant cards (good dominants and evil dominants combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2012, 01:58:48 PM
Lost Soul (II Chronicles 28_13 (Ki)--Hopper) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.

Combined, these two give you the reason this is the case, and you cannot count Hopper towards the number of dominants you include

Would it be possible to get a clarification added to the rule book to make it clear that with regard to the Dominant cap "number of Lost Souls in a deck" means precisely "the number of Lost Souls in a deck that count toward deck building requirements?" We understand that is what is meant, but that may be a case of everyone knowing so much that they skip over an obvious point of confusion.

Seriously, if you handed a new player 56-card deck with a copy of the Hopper and 7 other LS and asked him/her how many (the number of) Lost Souls were in the deck, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that he/she is wrong if he/she said 8.

Redoubter · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2015, 03:20:58 PM »

While I wouldn't rule out additional clarifying text in future publications, the current rules do encompass this situation, as the Hopper says it does not count toward Lost Soul deck-building requirements, so it does not count towards anything that refers to Lost Souls as part of deck-building (count required, Sites, Dominants in a deck).

I can see where it can be confusing to some, but it is still correctly demonstrated in the errata and rulebook. I'm not sure we want to add something to a rulebook about a single card, as the rulebook should give the overall rules and not rule on each individual card/situation that could arise from that rule.

browarod · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2015, 03:25:16 PM »

Given that the REG is meant to expand upon the rulebook, and is currently under revision, perhaps a note could be added to the dominant cap section there regarding the Hopper? I agree that it probably doesn't need to be in the rulebook, but I see no reason not to have the example in the REG since it is a unique and special case.

It could be as simple as- Note: Since the Hopper lost soul card doesn't count as a lost soul for deck-building purposes, it also doesn't count as a lost soul for site, dominant, etc. counts. You cannot have an extra dominant or site in your deck by including the Hopper.

Redoubter · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2015, 04:22:03 PM »

If anything, I think it is better to add that to the errata of the card itself rather than make a new entry in the REG (does not exist already) for a single card that is treated differently. When it is just one card, clarifications should probably stick to the card. Otherwise, I can list any number of cards of many different card types that would warrant their own entries and make the rulebook and/or REG too detailed or too long.

browarod · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2015, 04:25:37 PM »

Sorry, I assumed the REG already had an entry regarding dom cap (since it has other deck-building rules in it). Is there any reason it doesn't have that already? Just curious.

Redoubter · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2015, 05:48:05 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 08, 2015, 04:25:37 PM

Sorry, I assumed the REG already had an entry regarding dom cap (since it has other deck-building rules in it). Is there any reason it doesn't have that already? Just curious.

If it is already explicitly covered by a rulebook, it generally does not need to go in the REG. Deck-building rules are covered in the rulebooks themselves, so it does not need an entry in the REG.

The REG is not meant to be a one-stop for the game, it is meant to expand upon the rulebooks, since we could not possibly publish everything that goes out in a starter box and it would be too much for a player to read as they learn.

browarod · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2015, 05:56:40 PM »

I just meant that the last time I viewed the REG (which may have been the previous version, I had a saved copy that I would reference) it had general deck-building restrictions for Type 1 and Type 2 in it. If that's not in the current/new version then please disregard my suggestion.

Redoubter · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2015, 06:25:58 PM »

For reference, the current REG is here, if anyone wants the current one (it is also on the Cactus downloads page and in the FAQ of these boards).

Gabe · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2015, 06:30:12 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 08, 2015, 03:01:03 PM

Would it be possible to get a clarification added to the rule book to make it clear that with regard to the Dominant cap "number of Lost Souls in a deck" means precisely "the number of Lost Souls in a deck that count toward deck building requirements?" We understand that is what is meant, but that may be a case of everyone knowing so much that they skip over an obvious point of confusion.

I like your suggestion, Matt. When we update the rulebook we will use language that makes it more clear that the Hopper is not included.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS (Read 1829 times)

Deck Metrics

Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Minion of Jesus

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Deck Metrics

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Minion of Jesus

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

browarod

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

RedemptionAggie

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Redoubter

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

EmJayBee83

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Redoubter

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

browarod

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Redoubter

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

browarod

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Redoubter

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

browarod

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Redoubter

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS

Gabe

Re: Dominate Cap & Hopper LS