Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
I agree that Mayhem simply needs an errata that it cannot be played in the first round. Of course, this would not be on the card, so new rulebooks should include one sentence about this as well.
Quote from: CactusRob on March 16, 2012, 09:48:51 AM(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed? I'm for this, and I'm pretty sure the general consensus agree Mayhem is the main culprit. On that notion, would it make more sense to just errata Mayhem with 'Cannot be played first round'? QuoteThis ^
(#4 rule) Regarding dominants in the first round: Are you okay with Mayhem not allowed first round but all others dominants allowed?
This ^
A restricted category sounds awesome because defense is fun and I'm guessing it would be mostly good cards that ended up on the "restricted" list.
I would be very excited to play a version of T1 with less dominant dominance and with a small but present ban list. As long as the addition of a new category doesn't slam Cactus with prize support costs, that is.
My only concern with the ban list is who will determine which cards are banned? The main reason I'm against banning in the first place is because once it starts, people will be wanting to ban multiple cards. If you don't believe me, go back a year or two to the huge discussion of banning NJ. A few pages in, some one else brought up another card to ban, then zone one else brought up another card. The ban list will grow big if we aren't careful about itAlso, instead of banning NJ, ban Guardian. NJ is balanced by FA. Guardian stops that balance. Without Guardian (and especially with rule #2) NJ is not all that scary.
I for one am very curious to see how many people voluntarily remove Mayhem from their decks if they know they cannot play it the first round.
It will remain in my deck.
If we used rule #3, we wouldn't have to ban any dominants...
I disagree with this notion about Guardian. I think Lampstand adds to this problem a lot, and Guardian is as much as banned with the new dom rules as it is.
postcount.add(1);
Quote from: Ironica on March 16, 2012, 12:15:20 PMMy only concern with the ban list is who will determine which cards are banned? The main reason I'm against banning in the first place is because once it starts, people will be wanting to ban multiple cards. If you don't believe me, go back a year or two to the huge discussion of banning NJ. A few pages in, some one else brought up another card to ban, then zone one else brought up another card. The ban list will grow big if we aren't careful about itAlso, instead of banning NJ, ban Guardian. NJ is balanced by FA. Guardian stops that balance. Without Guardian (and especially with rule #2) NJ is not all that scary.There are multiple ways around lampstand. There is no way around Guardian. As for the choices, I would choose SOG, AOTL (SOG = free LS and AOTL, though not 100% of the time, does get you another LS (and you don't have to wait for them both to play each of them)) and for evil, CM and FA (CM stops almost all heroes and FA is better than burial since it's a garuntee way to lengthen the game more (if they don't have Guardian out). I disagree with this notion about Guardian. I think Lampstand adds to this problem a lot, and Guardian is as much as banned with the new dom rules as it is.
Yugioh bans OP cards when they're about to release the next set so people will buy the new cards.
Pokemon bans cards when suburban moms complain.
1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.
