Author Topic: MAJOR RULE CHANGES - In effect NOW. Tell everyone! (Read 40689 times)

CactusRob · « **Reply #100 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:47:34 AM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on March 16, 2012, 10:14:24 AM

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.

If it comes down to only Mayhem then yes, errata is the way to go.

slugfencer · « **Reply #101 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:56:58 AM »

Thanks Rob for considering player feedback!

Quote from: Master KChief on March 16, 2012, 10:11:05 AM

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'?
Quote

This ^

Jmbeers · « **Reply #102 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:01:37 AM »

I think that an errata would be the more popular choice and I would much prefer it my self to the current rule change.

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.

Korunks · « **Reply #103 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:25:27 AM »

For me It's either no Mayhem first round or no Dominants at all. I am not a fan of only allowing good Dominants first round. An errata would make me happy as well.

I like the change to the Host Application, thank you Rob for making that change so quickly! My main objection to the "restricted" option had been addressed.

I would also support a ban list for restricted. I think isolating the ban to a type category would allow us to explore the banning concept while still allowing all cards use in the standard categories.

Master Q · « **Reply #104 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:34:49 AM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on March 16, 2012, 11:01:37 AM

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.

Along with Uzzah, Haman's Plot, and the 2/3-liner LS. Hopefully

katedid · « **Reply #105 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:40:02 AM »

I have a distinct feeling that discussion on game play will now refer to BMRC and AMRC- Before Massive Rule Cahnge and After Massive Rule Change

TimMierz · « **Reply #106 on:** March 16, 2012, 11:45:50 AM »

I'm excited for these changes. I support everything, assuming the severe dominant restrictions are isolated to a new "Restricted" type of play. 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.

Korunks · « **Reply #107 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:02:52 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on March 16, 2012, 11:45:50 AM

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.

I hope is doesn't hurt cactus fiscally either. I am liking the idea more and more as I think about it.

Ironica · « **Reply #108 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:15:20 PM »

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 it

Also, 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.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #109 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:19:49 PM »

agreed ban gaurdian

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #110 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:22:08 PM »

If we used rule #3, we wouldn't have to ban any dominants...

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #111 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:30:57 PM »

Quote from: Ironica on March 16, 2012, 12:15:20 PM

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 it

Also, 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 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.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #112 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:33:51 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #113 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:36:00 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on March 16, 2012, 12:33:51 PM

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.

Korunks · « **Reply #114 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:50:56 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 16, 2012, 12:36:00 PM

It will remain in my deck.

Mine too, its too much fun not to use. FTM was something I never really enjoyed any way.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #115 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:53:41 PM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on March 16, 2012, 12:22:08 PM

If we used rule #3, we wouldn't have to ban any dominants...

I don't seen dominants being that an issue its more of an I can get an extra why to stop my opponent or as I have said end a game mercifully

Quote

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.

I think lampstand was add to make guardian less useful. Even than if its that big a problem you can stop it unlike Guardian.

STAMP · « **Reply #116 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:16:25 PM »

Maybe we'll have a big tournament in the NW this year after all!

SomeKittens · « **Reply #117 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:51:05 PM »

Wow, I leave for one poker night and I miss three pages of fun.

I'm still not sure about banning cards. We'd need some quantifiable definition of what qualifies a card for the banhammer before I'd be in support. I know MTG bans when a card is used in the vast majority (80%+) of top decks. For instance, all top 8 decks at a major MTG tournament had four copies of Jace right before they banned him. 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.

So yeah, I'd take a look at MTG's system.

Ironica · « **Reply #118 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:54:43 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 16, 2012, 12:30:57 PM

Quote from: Ironica on March 16, 2012, 12:15:20 PM
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 it

Also, 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #119 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:57:57 PM »

If we banned Mayhem and Guardian, Dominants would be as closed to balanced as they ever will be.

Master KChief · « **Reply #120 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:12:54 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 16, 2012, 01:51:05 PM

Yugioh bans OP cards when they're about to release the next set so people will buy the new cards.

Usually this is not the case as Konami is pretty fair about banning broken cards that overcentralize the meta regardless of what new cards come out (do we really think they are worried about people buying the new cards?). However, I would say your statement is actually true for the first time in a very long time. Our ban list (with a new one implemented twice a year) came out a mere 15 days ago, and it was fairly obvious by the bannings that they were trying to push interest of a new card type that just recently debuted late last year.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #121 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:18:28 PM »

What's the point of banning cards if you have a 2/2 (or 3/3 in t2) dom limit? A FTM would still be powerful, but not nearly as powerful without a dom rush. I don't think anything else warrants banning. Thad did last year in T2, but not this year. Maybe Angel Under the Oak?

I've played like 3 games with the new set (in t1 at least) this year, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #122 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:20:30 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 16, 2012, 01:51:05 PM

Pokemon bans cards when suburban moms complain.

Don't we do that any way? Or is just when the Angry Christen Mothers Association complains.

Red Warrior · « **Reply #123 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:22:42 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 15, 2012, 07:40:11 PM

1. Dominant cap is the same as the Site cap. You cannot include more dominants in a deck than you have lost souls.

+ 1 to reasons Type II rocks.

Craig and friends are coming to play T2 at my house next weekend so I'll be glad to enjoy playing without rebuilding my deck from the ground up as I will be with all my T1 decks...

MitchRobStew · « **Reply #124 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:50:16 PM »

T2 games will be shorter without the SoG block.

News:

Author Topic: MAJOR RULE CHANGES - In effect NOW. Tell everyone! (Read 40689 times)

slugfencer

Ironica

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Ironica

Rawrlolsauce!