Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Bryon on September 15, 2011, 09:46:33 PM
-
Rob has proposed a dominant cap based on the number of cards in your deck. The more cards in your deck, the more dominants you can include.
Playtesters have decided that, if there is such a dominant cap, it would be preferable to hosts to have the dominant cap match the site cap, which is equal to the number of lost souls in the deck.
Cards in deck: # of lost souls (and maximum amount of dominants)
50-56: 7
57-63: 8
64-70: 9
71-77: 10
and so on.
This is a simple yes, no, undecided/ambivalent vote. Feel free to make comments on the idea in this thread. We value your input!
-
I'm about 51/49 in favor of this. It's a big change in the game, but potentially a good one. My fear is that, instead of increasing the variety seen in different decks (which I'm sure is part of the reason for this suggestion), there will remain five or six staple Dominants and maybe one or two wild cards. (Son of God, New Jerusalem, Angel of the Lord, Christian Martyr, and Grapes of Wrath are all staples). Depending on how some of these other up-in-the-air rule changes go (how Mayhem is dealt with and the subject of Doms rescuing in your territory), the variety might change slightly (Mayhem will remain a staple depending on the change, and Harvest Time will become a staple if SoG/NJ can only rescue from opponents).
-
No. No. NO. No rule should restrict deck building as much as this does. I still don't understand why no doms t1 isn't considered. Other ccgs have different rules for t1.
-
No. No. NO. No rule should restrict deck building as much as this does. I still don't understand why no doms t1 isn't considered. Other ccgs have different rules for t1.
Wait so limiting the number of Doms is to restricting but cutting them from T1 entirely is okay?
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnarizdegelatina.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F08%2Fjackie-chan-meme.png%3Fw%3D320%26amp%3Bh%3D160&hash=4871fd38d4a8af0d5d0a76fff4f061e4bcc4e363)
-
I think t1 means turn 1
-
Fail on my part, but you can see how that mistake could easily be made
-
Bryon is correct.
-
I don't have strong feelings towards this, but I just hope this decision isn't rushed and 100+ games are playtested before a decision is made....
-
I fully support a rule change to allow Dominants in a players deck based on the length of their hair. The longer the hair the more Dominants they can have. The shorter the hair the less Dominants. What say ye?
-
I fully support a rule change to allow Dominants in a players deck based on the length of their hair. The longer the hair the more Dominants they can have. The shorter the hair the less Dominants. What say ye?
Uh... I'll get back to you after about a year of growth. :)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F10037349.jpg&hash=33616a3be7aec6ac93454bbc868671f8f265c481)
I fully support this rule change.
-
I fully support a rule change to allow Dominants in a players deck based on the length of their hair. The longer the hair the more Dominants they can have. The shorter the hair the less Dominants. What say ye?
This would certainly get girls more involved.
-
Since I play Type 2 I'm ambivalent to this ruling, but I like it better than SoG/NJ not being able to be used defensively.
-
Not getting a hair cut from now until this is decided
-
LOVE Dominant Caps.
-
Hah, I haven't had a haircut for like 9 months. eZ'd
-
And I further do not think that the Hopper Lost Soul should count. Otherwise I guarantee every deck will have one. Of course, every deck may ALREADY have one.
50 card deck, 8 lost souls including Hopper - what 8 Dominants do you put in? I'm assuming SOG, NJ, GOW, AOTL for good. (Maybe GOYS?). Then Burial, Martyr, DON, Falling Away for evil?
-
With your hair, Rawrlolsauce!, I'm not sure even a dominant cap would fit. heh.
Bryon, the poll thingy is broken. I am only able to vote in favor of this proposal once. There should be some way to judge how fervently you hold your position.
-
Bryon, the poll thingy is broken. I am only able to vote in favor of this proposal once. There should be some way to judge how fervently you hold your position.
Matt, you just need to sign into other people's account to vote for them too. If I were you I'd start with JSB's... ::)
-
Yay one more thing for disgruntled tournament hosts to check the deck for...
oh well, I'll get to that after explaining to registrant #1 which cherub/cheribim/seraphim/seraphim/seraph/seraph with live coal he needs to remove from his deck, lol.
iJoke, actually keeping it the same as lost souls would (all things considered) be pretty good damage control from the check-in process. "1,2,3,4,5,6,7 souls, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 dominants... that part's done."
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F10037349.jpg&hash=33616a3be7aec6ac93454bbc868671f8f265c481)
I fully support this rule change.
Irony! Pol's complaining about polls.
-
No. No. NO. No rule should restrict deck building as much as this does.
You'd rather have 9-11 spots in your deck already dedicated to doms before you even make the deck, just to be able to attempt to compete? I'd say that's more restricting than having a limit. This is probably one of the best changes that could happen for the game, and I think it should have been done years ago. Woot!
-
Ooooh, just a quick thought... Is Doubt going to count against the cap? Maybe Doubt should be the the Dominant equivalent of the Hopper for deck building purposes.
-
instead of increasing the variety seen in different decks (which I'm sure is part of the reason for this suggestion), there will remain five or six staple Dominants and maybe one or two wild cards
6 staple doms is preferable to the current 10 staple doms in top decks. That adds 4 more spots for variety :)
Ooooh, just a quick thought... Is Doubt going to count against the cap? Maybe Doubt should be the the Dominant equivalent of the Hopper for deck building purposes.
Good point. Maybe Doubt and Glory of the Lord could count as -1 dominants, therefore allowing you to actually add another dominant to cancel them out. Although even with that, I Doubt anyone would play GotL :)
-
That's actually an interesting point. This change would ban Doubt and Glory of the Lord for all practical purposes.
-
Doubt bans itself. GotL hasn't been good since Priests.
-
Maybe Doubt and Glory of the Lord could count as -1 dominants, therefore allowing you to actually add another dominant to cancel them out.
Heh. That is precisely young JSB23's position.
-
Every time I've played Doubt it's gotten a successful block. (Every time is twice. Once I also had to discard Gates and add in KOT).
-
Best ruling change ever. This isn't any more of a "deck building restriction" than cards in deck per ls. It's a great change and I can't wait to see it implemented.
-
The elders could implement restrictions on all but those two.
-
The deck-building rule would apply to all dominants, regardless of their usefulness. We can't make exceptions for weak ones without frustrating tournament hosts (myself included).
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.neatorama.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FBeast-of-Arrrggghhh-Plush-Hat_14358-l-500x333.jpg&hash=061e582268a96d9a19cea557ec9d5a824968543f)
Beast of Arrrggghhh Plush Hat (http://www.neatoshop.com/product/Beast-of-Arrrggghhh-Plush-Hat) - $39.95
Now, that's a dominant cap!
-
I fully support this decision. It is simple to remember, nice and effective. I was just talking to my brother about this and told him I thought it would be awesome if we limited Doms to (# of LS -2) to further encourage variety among dominants. Then he laughed at me and said that only 5 Dominants would make people crazy. I think he is right.
-
The deck-building rule would apply to all dominants, regardless of their usefulness. We can't make exceptions for weak ones without frustrating tournament hosts (myself included).
And this rule stops two cards that you should encourage people to use not effectivly ban.
-
Would this include Hopper LS as a LS for counting purposes? I personally wish that it wouldn't.
-
Hopper currently doesn't count for Deck building purposes. It certainly doesn't count for Sites, why would it count for Dominants when it has been said that they want to use the site rules for
Dominants?
-
Is ther any way to create a poll like this for the ignore and rescue proposed rule changes as well?
-
Doubt bans itself. GotL hasn't been good since Priests.
Doubt won me two games at Nationals.
One thing that would make this interesting is it would increase the strategy required for TEAMS deck-building.
-
Doubt bans itself. GotL hasn't been good since Priests.
Doubt won me two games at Nationals.
One thing that would make this interesting is it would increase the strategy required for TEAMS deck-building.
That was crazy, especially the FBTN battle
-
One thing that would make this interesting is it would increase the strategy required for TEAMS deck-building.
The best teams already don't duplicate their Dominants, so I'm not sure how this would change anything for Teams.
-
I've seen TEAMS decks piloted by top players that had all the dominants in one deck, and used the space in the other for some nasty tricks. This'll eliminate that type of deck.
-
I've seen TEAMS decks piloted by top players that had all the dominants in one deck, and used the space in the other for some nasty tricks. This'll eliminate that type of deck.
Oh, I see. But won't that eliminate strategy by making that plan less viable?
-
We have been talking about Dom deck building changes for years now. Our solution was to give each Dom a point value and then let players include whichever ones they wanted based on the points allowed for that Type. Real useful ones get 3 points ( SOG, NJ , CM) less useful ones get 1 or 2 points ( Doubt, Glory) . I like this system better, its easier and quicker to deck check. I vote in favor of this.
-
I think this is the better solution than not allowing people to rescue their own souls.
-
One thing that would make this interesting is it would increase the strategy required for TEAMS deck-building.
The best teams already don't duplicate their Dominants, so I'm not sure how this would change anything for Teams.
Duplicating SoG/NJ is always a good idea, IMO.
I've seen TEAMS decks piloted by top players that had all the dominants in one deck, and used the space in the other for some nasty tricks. This'll eliminate that type of deck.
Unfortunately, Sauce and I used this tactic, since I had a huge deck. I like the idea of a Dom Cap though.
-
Dominants should be based upon Age:
8-46- None
47+ As many as you want plus duplicates when playing someone with facial hair.
This rule would be revised each year.
No vote necessary. I running for Redemption Dictator.
-
Maybe Doubt and Glory of the Lord could count as -1 dominants, therefore allowing you to actually add another dominant to cancel them out.
Heh. That is precisely young JSB23's position.
Isn't JSB23 and Prof U having the same position on something similar to dividing by 0? Why hasn't the world exploded yet?
-
I 'll vote for Count Fount for Redemption Dictator as long as I get to be in his Cabinet as Minister of Painful Punishments.
-
I 'll vote for Count Fount for Redemption Dictator as long as I get to be in his Cabinet as Minister of Painful Punishments.
Just remember anyone with more facial hair than me...Especially from Iowa...Shave them with Duct Tape.
-
I vote yes.
-
I vote yes.
Thanks for your support that's 2 for me as Redemption Dictator. ;)
-
Maybe we should have a cost to start playing dominants... Example: (Game Rule) Pay your opponet $1 for each dominant you play.
-
Maybe we should have a cost to start playing dominants... Example: (Game Rule) Pay your opponet $1 for each dominant you play.
You can be my treasurer.
-
This is not a terrible rule change.
-
0 doms: more than 5 categories won at State, Regional or National level
1 doms: 5 categories won at State, Regional or National level
2 doms: 4 categories won at State, Regional or National level
3 doms: 3 categories won at State, Regional or National level
4 doms: 2 categories won at State, Regional or National level
5 doms: 1 category won at State, Regional or National level
unlimited doms: 0 categories won at State, Regional or National level
WHAT!
;)
-
Maybe Doubt and Glory of the Lord could count as -1 dominants, therefore allowing you to actually add another dominant to cancel them out.
Heh. That is precisely young JSB23's position.
Isn't JSB23 and Prof U having the same position on something similar to dividing by 0? Why hasn't the world exploded yet?
I think the world is still held together because it wasn't over a biblical issue. ::) :-*
Stamp's proposed chart.
>:( boo. :-X
-
One thing that would make this interesting is it would increase the strategy required for TEAMS deck-building.
The best teams already don't duplicate their Dominants, so I'm not sure how this would change anything for Teams.
Duplicating SoG/NJ is always a good idea, IMO.
I've seen TEAMS decks piloted by top players that had all the dominants in one deck, and used the space in the other for some nasty tricks. This'll eliminate that type of deck.
Unfortunately, Sauce and I used this tactic, since I had a huge deck. I like the idea of a Dom Cap though.
DON'T LISTEN TO WESTY ABOUT TEAMS. He was supposed to build a defense that hard counters disciples and then he gives away like 3 souls to disciples in the first two turns at nats.
-
DON'T LISTEN TO WESTY ABOUT TEAMS. He was supposed to build a defense that hard counters disciples and then he gives away like 3 souls to disciples in the first two turns at nats.
DON'T LISTEN TO SAUCE ABOUT ME. He was supposed to build the legal deck I sent him. Instead, he had two Son of Gods and two He is Risen!s.
-
I was actually just thinking about this this morning. I was realizing the increasing number of Dominants we have and thinking about the fact that it'll be difficult to make decks in the future by deciding whether we'd rather have a dominant or something else, and then the fact that Cactus feels very restricted on the number of dominants they can come up with because eventually there would be a ridiculous number of dominants in decks. In T1, this can seem a bit more restrictive than I'd like, but that's just because I've already gotten used to having 8+ Dominants in most decks, but I remember the days we only had 4-6 available.
I definitely think that a restriction should be put into play, and #Doms = #LSs seems very simple. I couldn't think of a better way to judge the number... maybe #LSs+2? :P
-
Just remember anyone with more facial hair than me...Especially from Iowa...Shave them with Duct Tape.
My new agenda when I get on the boards, search for any new post by Count and -1 them. ::)
-
Stamp's proposed chart.
>:( boo. :-X
Spoken like a typical Yankee/Steeler/Celtic/Laker/Canadian/SEC/UCLA fan. ;)
Gideons of the world, UNITE! (And I don't mean the Bible-distributing ones. :D )
-
Just remember anyone with more facial hair than me...Especially from Iowa...Shave them with Duct Tape.
My new agenda when I get on the boards, search for any new post by Count and -1 them. ::)
I 'll vote for Count Fount for Redemption Dictator as long as I get to be in his Cabinet as Minister of Painful Punishments.
Faithraider now you know who job one is for your department. :o
-
Stamp's proposed chart.
>:( boo. :-X
Spoken like a typical Yankee/Steeler/Celtic/Laker/Canadian/SEC/UCLA fan. ;)
Gideons of the world, UNITE! (And I don't mean the Bible-distributing ones. :D )
hahahahaha to the emphasis. You are WAAAYYYY off. I may live in the NE, but they are not my sports teams (you don't even have the right divisions. I follow winners!* :P 8)
(*This has mostly to do with college basketball considering the Reds have struggled as of late.)
-
yeah so this means your a phillie/eagles fan right john lol (waits to be smacked later)
-
Seeing the overwhelming response...when would this change likely take place. Soon or next year's rule book?
-
Now.
It's the only hope we have of curbing the new set's damage.
-
0 doms: more than 5 categories won at State, Regional or National level
1 doms: 5 categories won at State, Regional or National level
2 doms: 4 categories won at State, Regional or National level
3 doms: 3 categories won at State, Regional or National level
4 doms: 2 categories won at State, Regional or National level
5 doms: 1 category won at State, Regional or National level
unlimited doms: 0 categories won at State, Regional or National level
...this year.
Figures I'd go away and miss all the fun. I used to be a Phillies fan, but Reds are way too good this season.
-
I think this might largely get rid of FA/Guardian use. I doubt they'll make the cut for small decks with 7 Doms and in a 77+ card deck where I could include them, I probably wouldn't because it is a lot less likely that I'll get them in time.
I'm mostly in favor of this but I hope all rule changes will wait to come out at the same time with the new rule book.
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
Don't bring logic to this debate. Mindless change us fun!
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
Because a Dom cap is awesome and will make the game better.
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
Because a Dom cap is awesome and will make the game better.
This coming from a guy who built 'by the numbers' decks for Teams. What a goof!
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
Because a Dom cap is awesome and will make the game better.
This coming from a guy who built 'by the numbers' decks for Teams. What a goof!
Yeah, but that was entirely of my own choosing. I had to go with a strategy my TEAMS-mate could understand. I started with Garden Tomb, but pre-block ignore made my partner's eyes glaze over. Then I tried fight by the numbers banding, and he got all confused about who could band to whom and why banding would work but no other special abilities would and so on. So we ended up going with pure FBN. (Even with that we couldn't include Covenant With Moses in our decks to play on Moses because my bud didn't understand that you could use a covenant as an enhancement and the whole "name-on-name" thing left his head spinning.)
-
Matt if I would have been your team mate instead of Wild Bill we may have been able to dominate Nats Team. By the way how did your labotomy go? Wasn't that your reason for 'running' away from the tournament so quickly? Hmmmmm
-
Matt if I would have been your team mate instead of Wild Bill we may have been able to dominate Nats Team. By the way how did your labotomy go? Wasn't that your reason for 'running' away from the tournament so quickly? Hmmmmm
*lobotomy ::)
-
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...
Because a Dom cap is awesome and will make the game better.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a dominant cap, but NJ and FTM still need to be stopped.
-
On another note, 65 members have voted (I didn't even know we had that many that vote) and less than a majority are in favor.
-
On another note, 65 members have voted (I didn't even know we had that many that vote) and less than a majority are in favor.
74% is less then a majority? typo?
-
MJB got a number of votes equal to his age. Since that's over 40 it's safe to say that MJB is responsible for most of the votes in favor of this change. ::)
-
MJB got a number of votes equal to his age. Since that's over 40 it's safe to say that MJB is responsible for most of the votes in favor of this change. ::)
I just voted to further skew the numbers in favor of this change, since I am also over 40.
-
MJB got a number of votes equal to his age. Since that's over 40 it's safe to say that MJB is responsible for most of the votes in favor of this change. ::)
Turns out all I needed to do was ask Bryon. Who knew?
-
Matt if I would have been your team mate instead of Wild Bill we may have been able to dominate Nats Team. By the way how did your labotomy go? Wasn't that your reason for 'running' away from the tournament so quickly? Hmmmmm
*lobotomy ::)
No, labotomy is correct. Your dad had to have his lab removed, due to insufficient NSF grant funds (darn Republicans)... ;)
-
That's horrible, how they'll just take someone's dog away...
-
Thanks for the concern, Kittens, but it was better than the other option I was given which was to have a *lap*otomy.
-
another 40+ checking in and voting in favor of this change. I tend to build larger decks anyway soooo........no big dent in my play style.. :o
Godspeed,
Mike
-
This will also do more to curb speed then the new rescue rule. It will encourage bigger decks which are by definition not speed decks
-
This will also do more to curb speed then the new rescue rule. It will encourage bigger decks which are by definition not speed decks
Ha. The 4 cards you just took out of your deck are going to be more draw cards. I think it will increase the amount of speed decks... but I like the rule because it still adds more diversity within speedy decks.
Every deck of the same type has about 5-6 cards that differ. With this, now they'll have about 10 cards that differ, which adds more diversity. That's what I like.
-
Given the new draw heroes, every deck is a speed deck now. I can see more 57 card decks, but not too many. The meta was only solidified by the new set.
-
Ok the people have spoken. How long until the dictators bow to their demands?
-
We'll probably test it in ROOT soon.
-
After talking to the guys in my playgroup, this rule change will not affect them in the slightest because they had already been playing Lampstand and minimal evil dominants.
-
After talking to the guys in my playgroup, this rule change will not affect them in the slightest because they had already been playing Lampstand and minimal evil dominants.
If this rule is put into effect, people'll see a lot of meta like this.
-
We'll probably test it in ROOT soon.
Agreed. I'm planning on having a dominant cap = LS (NOT including Hopper) for the November ROOT.
-
I voteth yes.
-
Thanks for your support that's 2 for me as Redemption Dictator. ;)
SQF unite! Together we can defeat this menace! (cricket noise) oh snap. :o
My prediction if this rule is implemented: There will be a lot more 100+ card decks. There is the advantage of multiples of the very annoying cards, and also you can still have the full count of Doms.
-
Thanks for your support that's 2 for me as Redemption Dictator. ;)
SQF unite! Together we can defeat this menace! (cricket noise) oh snap. :o
Craig would make one of the best Redemption Dictators ever.
-
Amen to this rule change!
I was looking at some of the T1 decks in deck advice and came to the conclusion that without a dom cap it's like playing 5-card draw poker with 2's, 3's, and one-eyed Jacks wild.
Make dominants submit!! ;D