Author Topic: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now! (Read 10517 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:39:55 AM »

Doubt bans itself. GotL hasn't been good since Priests.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:48:34 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 16, 2011, 12:25:48 AM

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.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #27 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:50:24 AM »

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).

lightningninja · « **Reply #28 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:00:42 AM »

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.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:09:10 AM »

The elders could implement restrictions on all but those two.

Bryon · « **Reply #30 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:32:31 AM »

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).

egilkinc · « **Reply #31 on:** September 16, 2011, 07:37:39 AM »

Beast of Arrrggghhh Plush Hat - $39.95
Now, that's a dominant cap!

Korunks · « **Reply #32 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:11:40 AM »

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.

Red · « **Reply #33 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:17:29 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on September 16, 2011, 02:32:31 AM

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.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #34 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:26:30 AM »

Would this include Hopper LS as a LS for counting purposes? I personally wish that it wouldn't.

Korunks · « **Reply #35 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:44:10 AM »

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?

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #36 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:54:02 AM »

Is ther any way to create a poll like this for the ignore and rescue proposed rule changes as well?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #37 on:** September 16, 2011, 09:05:14 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on September 16, 2011, 12:39:55 AM

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.

Irish_Luck · « **Reply #38 on:** September 16, 2011, 09:43:50 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on September 16, 2011, 09:05:14 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on September 16, 2011, 12:39:55 AM
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

Gabe · « **Reply #39 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:02:23 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on September 16, 2011, 09:05:14 AM

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.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #40 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:12:16 AM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #41 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:14:52 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on September 16, 2011, 10:12:16 AM

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?

faithraider · « **Reply #42 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:19:44 AM »

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.

Carl deuty · « **Reply #43 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:20:24 AM »

I think this is the better solution than not allowing people to rescue their own souls.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #44 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on September 16, 2011, 10:02:23 AM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on September 16, 2011, 09:05:14 AM
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.

Quote from: SomeKittens on September 16, 2011, 10:12:16 AM

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.

CountFount · « **Reply #45 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:59:45 AM »

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.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #46 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 16, 2011, 12:48:34 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 16, 2011, 12:25:48 AM
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?

faithraider · « **Reply #47 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:45:57 AM »

I 'll vote for Count Fount for Redemption Dictator as long as I get to be in his Cabinet as Minister of Painful Punishments.

CountFount · « **Reply #48 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:59:31 AM »

Quote from: faithraider on September 16, 2011, 11:45:57 AM

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.

Josh · « **Reply #49 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:01:22 PM »

I vote yes.

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 10517 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk