Author Topic: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now! (Read 10524 times)

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!

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:03:02 PM »

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).

Red · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:03:15 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:06:39 PM »

Quote from: Red on September 15, 2011, 10:03:15 PM

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?

Bryon · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:07:48 PM »

I think t1 means turn 1

lp670sv · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:09:00 PM »

Fail on my part, but you can see how that mistake could easily be made

Red · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »

Bryon is correct.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:12:50 PM »

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....

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:25:37 PM »

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?

Bryon · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:28:54 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on September 15, 2011, 10:25:37 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:32:41 PM »

I fully support this rule change.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:34:25 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on September 15, 2011, 10:25:37 PM

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.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:35:03 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:35:07 PM »

Not getting a hair cut from now until this is decided

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:35:59 PM »

LOVE Dominant Caps.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:36:46 PM »

Hah, I haven't had a haircut for like 9 months. eZ'd

stefferweffer · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:44:29 PM »

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?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:46:38 PM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2011, 10:54:56 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 15, 2011, 10:46:38 PM

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...

Red Warrior · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2011, 11:02:07 PM »

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."

SomeKittens · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2011, 11:04:39 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on September 15, 2011, 10:32:41 PM

I fully support this rule change.

Irony! Pol's complaining about polls.

Master Q · « **Reply #21 on:** September 15, 2011, 11:39:30 PM »

Quote from: Red on September 15, 2011, 10:03:15 PM

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!

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:07:34 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:25:48 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on September 15, 2011, 10:03:02 PM

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

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 16, 2011, 12:07:34 AM

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

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:29:20 AM »

That's actually an interesting point. This change would ban Doubt and Glory of the Lord for all practical purposes.

News:

Poll

Do you favor a dominant cap equal to the number of lost souls in the deck?

Author Topic: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now! (Read 10524 times)

Chronic Apathy

lp670sv

lp670sv

Rawrlolsauce!

Chronic Apathy

lp670sv

Rawrlolsauce!