Author Topic: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment  (Read 6183 times)

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« on: November 09, 2013, 01:09:59 AM »
0
Each player may only control one good fortress and one evil fortress at a time.

Discuss.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2013, 01:12:27 AM »
+1
You discuss first.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2013, 01:25:06 AM »
0
I think certain cards have become too much of a staple in every deck. The obvious example of this is any of the Temples. These would still be used in many decks, but you would see less Herod's Temple/The Garden Tomb, which leads to extremely powerful decks. Some fortresses become less powerful, sure, but such a rule would make deck building more strategic overall. This could also allow the card creators to create more powerful fortresses (like we need them), and not worry about people abusing it with other fortresses, like TGT.

On the evil side of things, well, there's generally only one fortress you want anyway (the protect fortress), but in Type 2 this becomes more difficult, particularly in multiplayer, where you want to have both The Darkness and a protect fortress.

Fortresses are already extremely powerful cards that are very difficult to get rid of. This lessens their power considerably by disallowing them to be used with each other.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2013, 01:26:55 AM »
+2
Seems like it weakens future "tech" fortress (think Trap of the Devil), which would force those types of abilities onto sites, which are fundamentally bad for the game in my opinion.

Has potential though.

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2013, 01:34:42 AM »
0
i agree with alex on this one
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2013, 06:12:17 AM »
0
I believe this rule would weaken genegyptians considerably and that's already a tier 2 deck
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2013, 06:58:41 AM »
+1
This would also hurt demon decks that HAVE to use GoH and may want to use KotW so that they can have at least a little protection.

This would also hurt split defenses like demon/assyrian that want to have GoH and also the protect fortress for their culture.

This would also hurt trick offenses like WS or Zeb or Job decks that need to have Storehouse to hold all the enhs that build up in your hand as well as a temple to hold LotS.

I'm all for hurting TGT (I still hate that card), but I think that this rule would have too much collateral damage to make it worth it.  On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2013, 09:17:08 AM »
+3
The key to weakening TGT is improving defensive cards. Not limiting fortresses.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2013, 09:48:15 AM »
+1
Weakening decks isn't necessarily a bad thing, guys. Most decks don't use an evil fortress, or if they do it's only 1. Good, on the other hand, is everywhere.

As for T2, the rule could be adjusted there.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2013, 10:00:36 AM »
0
I simply don't agree. Limiting things you can do in game is almost always a bad thing unless it's a major balance tipping point, and quite frankly this isn't.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2013, 11:33:17 AM »
+1
On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

An idea just popped in my head regarding this:

Evil Dominant: "Negate and discard a card in your territory to negate and discard one of the same type and alignment from your opponent's territory."

It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.

Offline DJWeb

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 101
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2013, 12:38:47 PM »
0
I thing a lot more of the newer cards have made a rule like this not as necessary as it would have been several years ago. If you are really depending on your fortresses and I have Siege Army, advantage me. Iron Pan is a great card against all the protection too; I'm just surprised I haven't seen it used much. So I guess now it's really not as big a deal. Just my thoughts.

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2013, 01:00:59 PM »
0
On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

An idea just popped in my head regarding this:

Evil Dominant: "Negate and discard a card in your territory to negate and discard one of the same type and alignment from your opponent's territory."

It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.

I would play this with TGT. Who is going to play a Dom and a good fort just to ensure they canhit TGT?
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline Nameless

  • Trade Count: (+39)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • THIS IS AWESOME!
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2013, 01:12:08 PM »
0
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2013, 05:53:18 PM »
0
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.

Offline Nameless

  • Trade Count: (+39)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • THIS IS AWESOME!
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2013, 06:24:34 PM »
+1
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.
I disagree about how you said that evil hardly suffers. Most balanced/defensive/turtle deck I likely use more than one evil fort.

Offline Isildur

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Mr. Deacon
    • -
    • Southwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2013, 08:13:02 PM »
0
Great idea! Problem is... this should have been implemented around the time Priests came out.
3 Prophets Packs ftw

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2013, 10:23:26 PM »
-2
ok this rule idea [please watch your language] would kill t2 decks which is stupid just learn to deal with forts i mean we have asa we have cards like forest fire etc its not that hard
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 11:35:17 PM by Prof Underwood »
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2013, 10:41:11 PM »
0
So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.
Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.
I disagree about how you said that evil hardly suffers. Most balanced/defensive/turtle deck I likely use more than one evil fort.
Most balanced? Really. Reeeeallly. Other than Egyptians and maybe GoS, I can't think of a deck that'd use two.

Defensive and Turtle are basically synonymous and I could care less about what makes them less viable. The time limit makes them less viable, doesn't mean we should increase it.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2013, 11:36:47 PM »
0
The time limit makes them less viable, doesn't mean we should increase it.
Yes it does.  But that's a whole other discussion :)

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2013, 01:26:37 PM »
+1
This rule would really hurt Speed decks, and destroy turtles from viability. I think we can all agree that's a positive.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2013, 03:06:07 PM »
0
I can't support this. More viability of archtypes is better.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline christiangamer25

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • In brightest day, in blackest night...
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2013, 03:16:50 PM »
-4
this rule is stupid
No evil shall escape my sight, Let those who worship evil beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM »
0
I can't support this. More viability of archtypes is better.
Weakening some strategies levels the playing field, ultimately making more things viable.

this rule is stupid
You play T2. This is more for T1, although I could see an adjusted rule for T2 being acceptable.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Fortress of Each Alignment
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2013, 08:06:27 PM »
0
All this majorly hurts is defense. TGT doesn't need three forts to be insanely good.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal