Poll

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

Yes
63 (75.9%)
No
15 (18.1%)
undecided/ ambivalent
5 (6%)

Total Members Voted: 74

Voting closed: September 22, 2011, 09:46:33 PM

Author Topic: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!  (Read 10448 times)

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2011, 12:04:35 PM »
+2
I vote yes.

Thanks for your support that's 2 for me as Redemption Dictator.  ;)
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline I am Knot a Blonde!

  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • You are now breathing manually.
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • www.google.com
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2011, 12:06:08 PM »
0
Maybe we should have a cost to start playing dominants... Example: (Game Rule) Pay your opponet $1 for each dominant you play.

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2011, 12:07:23 PM »
+3
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.
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2011, 12:09:52 PM »
0
This is not a terrible rule change.

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2011, 12:32:07 PM »
+3
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!

;)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 04:27:46 PM by STAMP »
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2011, 12:41:11 PM »
0
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.   :-X
noob with a medal

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2011, 01:00:21 PM »
0
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.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2011, 01:16:37 PM »
+1
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.

Offline joezim007

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62
    • Midwest Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2011, 01:27:13 PM »
0
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

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2011, 04:22:45 PM »
+3
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.  ::)
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #60 on: September 16, 2011, 04:31:56 PM »
0
Quote
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 )
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #61 on: September 16, 2011, 04:33:29 PM »
0
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.  ::)
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
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2011, 04:42:37 PM »
0
Quote
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.)
noob with a medal

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2011, 11:33:58 PM »
0
yeah so this means your a phillie/eagles fan right john lol (waits to be smacked later)
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline soul seeker

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2011, 11:35:54 PM »
0
Seeing the overwhelming response...when would this change likely take place.  Soon or next year's rule book?
noob with a medal

Offline JSB23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3197
  • Fun while it lasted.
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2011, 12:05:58 AM »
0
Now.
It's the only hope we have of curbing the new set's damage.
An unanswered question is infinitely better than an unquestioned answer.

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #66 on: September 17, 2011, 01:46:11 AM »
0
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.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline galadgawyn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #67 on: September 17, 2011, 04:49:17 AM »
0
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

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #68 on: September 17, 2011, 08:17:24 AM »
0
So...why are we putting in the dom cap? I thought we wanted to hit NJ hard, and this does nothing...

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #69 on: September 17, 2011, 09:18:28 AM »
+2
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!
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #70 on: September 17, 2011, 10:58:56 AM »
+1
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.

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #71 on: September 17, 2011, 11:18:00 AM »
0
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!
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #72 on: September 17, 2011, 11:57:39 AM »
+2
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.)

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #73 on: September 17, 2011, 01:05:54 PM »
0
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
Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Offline JSB23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3197
  • Fun while it lasted.
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Proposed Dominant Cap deck-building rule change - Vote Now!
« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2011, 06:19:59 PM »
0
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  ::)
An unanswered question is infinitely better than an unquestioned answer.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal