Author Topic: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now! (Read 10447 times)

CountFount · « **Reply #50 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:04:35 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on September 16, 2011, 12:01:22 PM

I vote yes.

Thanks for your support that's 2 for me as Redemption Dictator.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #51 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:06:08 PM »

Maybe we should have a cost to start playing dominants... Example: (Game Rule) Pay your opponet $1 for each dominant you play.

CountFount · « **Reply #52 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:07:23 PM »

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on September 16, 2011, 12:06:08 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #53 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:09:52 PM »

This is not a terrible rule change.

STAMP · « **Reply #54 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:32:07 PM »

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!

soul seeker · « **Reply #55 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:41:11 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith 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?

I think the world is still held together because it wasn't over a biblical issue.

Quote

Stamp's proposed chart.

boo.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #56 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:00:21 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith 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.

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.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #57 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:16:37 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on September 16, 2011, 01:00:21 PM

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.

joezim007 · « **Reply #58 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:27:13 PM »

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?

Gabe · « **Reply #59 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:22:45 PM »

Quote from: CountFount

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 · « **Reply #60 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:31:56 PM »

Quote from: soul seeker on September 16, 2011, 12:41:11 PM

Quote
Stamp's proposed chart.
boo.

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.

)

CountFount · « **Reply #61 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:33:29 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on September 16, 2011, 04:22:45 PM

Quote from: CountFount
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.

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.

Faithraider now you know who job one is for your department.

soul seeker · « **Reply #62 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:42:37 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on September 16, 2011, 04:31:56 PM

Quote from: soul seeker on September 16, 2011, 12:41:11 PM
Quote
Stamp's proposed chart.
boo.

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. )

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!*

(*This has mostly to do with college basketball considering the Reds have struggled as of late.)

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:33:58 PM »

yeah so this means your a phillie/eagles fan right john lol (waits to be smacked later)

soul seeker · « **Reply #64 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:35:54 PM »

Seeing the overwhelming response...when would this change likely take place. Soon or next year's rule book?

JSB23 · « **Reply #65 on:** September 17, 2011, 12:05:58 AM »

Now.
It's the only hope we have of curbing the new set's damage.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #66 on:** September 17, 2011, 01:46:11 AM »

Quote from: STAMP on September 16, 2011, 12:32:07 PM

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.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #67 on:** September 17, 2011, 04:49:17 AM »

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.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #68 on:** September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM »

So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...

CountFount · « **Reply #69 on:** September 17, 2011, 09:18:28 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM

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!

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 17, 2011, 10:58:56 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM

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.

CountFount · « **Reply #71 on:** September 17, 2011, 11:18:00 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 17, 2011, 10:58:56 AM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM
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!

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 17, 2011, 11:57:39 AM »

Quote from: CountFount on September 17, 2011, 11:18:00 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 17, 2011, 10:58:56 AM
Quote from: Ring Wraith on September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM
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.)

CountFount · « **Reply #73 on:** September 17, 2011, 01:05:54 PM »

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

JSB23 · « **Reply #74 on:** September 17, 2011, 06:19:59 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on September 17, 2011, 01:05:54 PM

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

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 10447 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk