Author Topic: A rule change proposal for Dominants  (Read 1100 times)

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Fearless #BanSam
    • -
    • Midwest Region
A rule change proposal for Dominants
« on: February 17, 2019, 01:19:20 PM »
+2
Something I see that still hasn't declined over the years is Dominant abuse. It's apparent to a good number of people that I've talked to even after the Dom limit was set years ago (an awesome change) that this is still a problem. However, I was more or less resigned to accept this conundrum as I couldn't think of an alternative to banning certain Doms, which I don't want to do, and I haven't thought on it again until recently.

Now, I know it might be taboo, but I'm going to bring up another card game, so bear with me.

I've been playing the Pokemon TCG Gameboy game recently, and, while that was more for a nostalgic kick than anything, the parallels in that game got me thinking about this one. Mainly, how they handled a similar "Dominant" problem years ago. Mind you, I don't follow the game now and am only passingly familiar with the game past the first sets. But they had cards that were essentially "Dominants" - Trainers. And they could be pretty ridiculous, as the Gameboy game has affirmed to me.

Long story short, the most powerful of these cards were reworked into things called "Support Trainers" (and some even given "Ace Spec" status), with the "cost" of playing only one per turn (one per deck for "Ace Spec" cards). I think you see where I'm going with this. While Redemption has different deck-building rules that don't allow for the duplicates like Pokemon does, unlike Pokemon, it does not have this limit on its most powerful cards. IMO, having the most powerful, splashable cards in the game be "costless" is something that we should move away from.

So, what would people think about amending the rules of the game to have all Dominants fall under a "one dominant per player per turn" rule? How would this change affect deck-building and gameplay? Would Dominants need to have a deck-building limit if this was a rule? Would the fast decks still reign supreme? Would you draw cards if you knew you couldn't drop Dominants to lower your hand count?

Very interested to hear your thoughts.
Absentmindedly glancing at this unimpressive signature fills you with determination.

Offline Crashfach2002

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2019, 01:27:25 PM »
0
This would ultimately ban New Jerusalem, but would add more strategy in the sense you couldn’t just drop SoG and 2nd Coming to simply end the game.  You would be a little hesitant to play one too early or even too late with the fear of the other one getting discarded or removed from the game.

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2019, 01:39:52 PM »
+1
I support this. Banding and YWR get strong since you can't Woes+Martyr or Martyr+FA but this would reward planning ahead with the Woes and CoW FA is getting harder and harder to fit in decks anyway.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2019, 02:51:56 PM »
+3
I don't think I would be a fan of such a change. That being said, I really like cards that make it more difficult to play doms or more painful to do so. I think more cards like Fall of Man and Pithom would be good for the game so that dominants become more of a "last resort" option as opposed to an automatic play.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Fearless #BanSam
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2019, 02:55:16 PM »
0
This would ultimately ban New Jerusalem, but would add more strategy in the sense you couldn’t just drop SoG and 2nd Coming to simply end the game.  You would be a little hesitant to play one too early or even too late with the fear of the other one getting discarded or removed from the game.

Exactly! Things become much more strategic and TSC becomes less powerful as a result.

As for NJ, there exists simple solutions. Either:

A. Wait for set rotation or a reprint that does something different (I'm not holding my breath)
B. Errata NJ as follows: "Reveal Son of God from hand to rescue a Lost Soul."

B. still forces you to have both SoG & NJ in hand to use it and is very effective.


What I want to know is, if this were a thing, would the Dom cap be needed anymore? Would you clog up your deck with cards that are essentially only playable occasionally? Even if Dom cap didn't disappear, would this curtail dom power enough that the way decks are built shifts entirely?
Absentmindedly glancing at this unimpressive signature fills you with determination.

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Fearless #BanSam
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2019, 03:02:16 PM »
+1
I don't think I would be a fan of such a change. That being said, I really like cards that make it more difficult to play doms or more painful to do so. I think more cards like Fall of Man and Pithom would be good for the game so that dominants become more of a "last resort" option as opposed to an automatic play.

Can you give any examples of why it would be a bad thing, other than it would be something else that people need to know? I'm curious because I haven't thought about this for more than a day or two- obviously I haven't thought of all the implications.

You can keep printing counters, but we all know how that goes. Too many counters is just as bad as not enough. I'd rather not need the counters altogether.
Absentmindedly glancing at this unimpressive signature fills you with determination.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 4620
  • Sometimes the water can get a bit... Scary
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2019, 03:11:23 PM »
0
I think dominants are strategic and no longer a problem. I don't want to play 75 minute long T1 games at all.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018.
I survived the Flood.
Most filmed player in history.

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10247
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2019, 03:16:11 PM »
+1
My first impression is that this seems like a really cool idea! It's a great topic for discussion and probably warrants some test games depending on how the conversation goes. I can't immediately come up with anything that I consider a drawback to limiting Dominants to 1 per player per round.

Yes, that nerfs NJ considerably. Josh has given reasonable solutions to that. TSC is easier to get than ever right now. We could also reprint NJ (with a new ability) or make TSC even more accessible if we feel that is necessary.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2019, 03:17:48 PM »
+1

Can you give any examples of why it would be a bad thing, other than it would be something else that people need to know? I'm curious because I haven't thought about this for more than a day or two- obviously I haven't thought of all the implications.

You can keep printing counters, but we all know how that goes. Too many counters is just as bad as not enough. I'd rather not need the counters altogether.

I prefer to enable the limiting of strategic play through what cards I choose to use rather than by game rules. While there are some cases where a game rule is simply the only feasible option (such as the hand limit), in most cases I prefer to keep as much strategy involved in the game as possible, which includes when and how to play one's dominants.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
  • Your Turn Games Owner
    • -
    • Southeast Region
    • Your Turn Games
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2019, 03:18:49 PM »
+2
I agree with Guardian and Red. I’m also intrigued by the idea of limited dominant play per turn and would like to see how that would play out/test. But as it stands I don’t see a problem with the current state of dominants. Yes, NJ and TSC are, IMO, a lot in regards to decreasing the win condition, but with the dominant initiative rule change and more cards being produced that restrict dominant play I think it helps balance this out. Redemption needs it’s own certain uniqueness from other CCGs, and dominants and how they are played are it.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 10:39:49 PM by Watchman »
Purchase Prophecies of Christ today!

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Fearless #BanSam
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2019, 07:17:08 PM »
+1
in most cases I prefer to keep as much strategy involved in the game as possible, which includes when and how to play one's dominants.

It seems like this change would be right up your alley, then. ;)

I'll be testing this whenever we get around to playing games, because I feel like with something like this you can probably drop the Dom limit entirely. After all, who wants to be stuck with a handful of cards they can only play one at a time, right? I bet this won't even factor in most games, save the ones where you start by emptying your hand (possibly with SoG with/without TSC, and/or 3 Woes), playing Mayhem, and then dropping AotL on a blocker. :P

The current state of Doms might not be as bad as it was back before the limit, but it's still a nuisance that doesn't need to exist. If the only thing (outside of a lower triple-digit playerbase) distinguishing Redemption from other CCGs is how unrestricted its most powerful cards are, that's not a good thing in my mind. Costless cards aren't healthy, and the game isn't moving away from SoG+NJ/TSC, AotL, CM, or 3W anytime soon.
Absentmindedly glancing at this unimpressive signature fills you with determination.

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2019, 07:32:05 PM »
0
You could also have New Jerusalem's "Simultaneous Play" with SoG as an exception to a 1 dominant/turn rule, possibly because you play it simultaneously (the rule acts something like: "Restrict a player from playing a dominant if they have already played one this turn.").
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2019, 07:38:37 PM »
0
Quote
It seems like this change would be right up your alley, then. ;)

No... I'd prefer to be able to use multiple dominants in one turn if that's what the game situation required (even though I'm not a fan of doing that).

It would also be incredibly frustrating to draw dominants on the last turn of the game and not be able to both of them (i.e. I'm holding TSC trying to get to SoG...on my last turn, which ends up being the last turn of the game due to time limits, I am finally able to get to SoG, but now I can't even use both of them). Now we're back to the luck factor, just on the other end of the game.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Kor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2019, 08:34:40 PM »
0
I like what you’re trying to do, but I think my preference would be to have a format with no Doms at all, with lower win required souls to compensate for time.

Pretty much any effect that is on a dominant that is wanted for the game could be reprinted as a territory class enhancement...without being overpowered just by the nature of the card type.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 08:37:21 PM by Kor »
Life is what you make of it.

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2019, 12:10:39 AM »
+1
I like what you’re trying to do, but I think my preference would be to have a format with no Doms at all, with lower win required souls to compensate for time.

I agree with this sentiment and specifically in a perfect world I would have neither NJ nor TSC exist and the soul count be lowered 4. However, I don't realistically see the status quo ever changing that heavily so this 1 per turn rule is something I see similar value in that has the upside being slightly less extreme than outright banning one of the most (if not the most) expensive card in the game.

For the people saying you like the strategic possibility of playing multiple dominants in one turn, I actually think the 1 per turn limit increases the number of decisions per game and thus the skill ceiling. It rewards thinking ahead and getting things like Woes into play earlier so you can negate something like a YWR and still dom block that turn, it enables the other player taking entirely new lines of play in an effort to bait the opponent into playing their single dominant and then knowing they're safe, forces you to plan your dominant use out more instead of just holding both SoG and TSC until the exact soul you want to remove comes down or you're ready to win, etc. Most importantly I think is the bait potential making dominants a more interactive part of the game instead of just a one sided power play where the only thought that goes into playing them is to hold them as a backup trump card until your only option to win a scenario is to dump them and then you do.

I also think the affect on game length is negligible if it even exists at all. The number of times you'll be at 3 souls and topdeck SoG and TSC in the same turn should be quite small and more than offset by the number of extra rescues you get by not having your band double dom blocked or getting your Hero insta-gibbed by Woes+Martyr.

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2019, 11:58:31 AM »
0
I like what you’re trying to do, but I think my preference would be to have a format with no Doms at all, with lower win required souls to compensate for time.

With the exception of a lower LS count to win, Type NW might be what you are looking for.

Godspeed,
Mike
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Covenant Games.

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2019, 12:43:34 PM »
0
I also play the pokemon tcg gameboy game and have been destroying the "elite" four recently. I keep switching decks though because I know their weaknesses... I am hoping to make one deck for the whole event. Maybe normal type?

As for dominants I actually think that there are so many other non-dominant "staples" and watered down dominants (shipwreck, destruction, rubble and dust, vain, THS, Glory) that we probably do not need dominant cap anymore. Basically I am saying that the opportunity cost of running dominants is higher now and the extra doms you may include are not game breaking  but help keep some other nasty stuff in check.

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2019, 12:58:28 PM »
0
(shipwreck, destruction, rubble and dust, vain, THS, Glory) that we probably do not need dominant cap anymore. Basically I am saying that the opportunity cost of running dominants is higher now and the extra doms you may include are not game breaking  but help keep some other nasty stuff in check.

New destruction and R&D certainly aren't watered down, I'd consider both to be competitively viable this year. If it weren't for the dom cap I know for sure I'd be running at least two and probably three more dominants in every deck than I do now and the power level of every deck would go up quite a bit.

Offline sepjazzwarrior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • The best defense is a fast offense
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2019, 01:03:12 PM »
+1
I am all for this as long an NJ gets a reprint as a common.  As a person who couldnt afford TSC for the longest time, there's needs to be a cheap card with a similar, but less powerful, ability in the game for younger/poorer players. 

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2019, 01:09:59 PM »
0
(shipwreck, destruction, rubble and dust, vain, THS, Glory) that we probably do not need dominant cap anymore. Basically I am saying that the opportunity cost of running dominants is higher now and the extra doms you may include are not game breaking  but help keep some other nasty stuff in check.

New destruction and R&D certainly aren't watered down, I'd consider both to be competitively viable this year. If it weren't for the dom cap I know for sure I'd be running at least two and probably three more dominants in every deck than I do now and the power level of every deck would go up quite a bit.

But what would you take out? Probably cards that directly win battles or equivalent support cards? Grapes is the only "extra" dominant that will win battles consistently so more often than not by adding other dominants there is a trade off.

As for power level you can't just say it increases power level when these two cards can sack incredibly powerful cards like YWR.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 01:16:19 PM by TheHobbit »

Offline Bobbert

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1621
  • The player formerly known as Thomas Hunter
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2019, 01:35:50 PM »
0
I am all for this as long an NJ gets a reprint as a common.  As a person who couldnt afford TSC for the longest time, there's needs to be a cheap card with a similar, but less powerful, ability in the game for younger/poorer players.

I'll second this. It wasn't until about two years ago that I had the funds to actually put money directly into the game, other than a few packs at tournaments and playing booster here and there. I didn't even consider paying $30 for a Grapes or Mayhem when they were the most expensive cards in the game. For as much as we like to talk about negative player experiences, there's a metagame aspect to that too; it feels really bad to play against someone with the full meta dominants when you've got the starters, NJ, and maybe a(n old) DoN. Removing NJ would only make this worse.
Unless, of course, we ban both NJ and TSC. I'd be all for that  ;)

That aside, I think the idea's worth testing. It certainly has potential, not least because it makes Mayhem shenanigans more difficult by making it harder to just drop cards.
The longer everything goes to plan, the bigger the impending disaster.

Offline Master Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Fearless #BanSam
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2019, 01:37:23 PM »
0
I also play the pokemon tcg gameboy game and have been destroying the "elite" four recently. I keep switching decks though because I know their weaknesses... I am hoping to make one deck for the whole event. Maybe normal type?

Lol yeah the "elite" four. Bunch of jokers. I had a full Rain dance deck I built up and abused for the last half of the main game (switching between my starter Fire and a Ghost deck here and there), but it struggled against electric stuff enough in the challenge machine that I made this monstrosity:

Spoiler (hover to show)

It's so broken. I'm at 160 wins in the challenge machine so far, but that could probably go on forever. But then again, the CPU in this game is super inept, so most decent decks feel broken against them most of the time. Mr Mime completely walls this but the CPU doesn't know that. ;) But I digress...

As for dominants I actually think that there are so many other non-dominant "staples" and watered down dominants (shipwreck, destruction, rubble and dust, vain, THS, Glory) that we probably do not need dominant cap anymore. Basically I am saying that the opportunity cost of running dominants is higher now and the extra doms you may include are not game breaking  but help keep some other nasty stuff in check.

If there were no per turn limit and no Dom cap, I would absolutely run at least 10 Dominants (SoG, TSC, AotL, GoYS, Grapes, 3 Woes, DoN, Mayhem, CM, and FA) and possibly SW and/or R&D on top of that. There's no drawback if your deck's fast enough and you can plop them all down whenever. I would have little qualm cutting other cards or even bumping up to above 50 to make room. However, with a per turn limit, all those potentially heavy cards in my deck might not be so enticing.

I am all for this as long an NJ gets a reprint as a common.  As a person who couldnt afford TSC for the longest time, there's needs to be a cheap card with a similar, but less powerful, ability in the game for younger/poorer players. 

An errata'd NJ would probably have the edge over TSC if the format was 1 Dom per turn, since you're just rescuing rather than spending a turn searching for SoG. Both would be tight, though.
Absentmindedly glancing at this unimpressive signature fills you with determination.

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • *****
  • Posts: 1762
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2019, 01:45:13 PM »
0
(shipwreck, destruction, rubble and dust, vain, THS, Glory) that we probably do not need dominant cap anymore. Basically I am saying that the opportunity cost of running dominants is higher now and the extra doms you may include are not game breaking  but help keep some other nasty stuff in check.

New destruction and R&D certainly aren't watered down, I'd consider both to be competitively viable this year. If it weren't for the dom cap I know for sure I'd be running at least two and probably three more dominants in every deck than I do now and the power level of every deck would go up quite a bit.

But what would you take out? Probably cards that directly win battles or equivalent support cards? Grapes is the only "extra" dominant that will win battles consistently so more often than not by adding other dominants there is a trade off.

As for power level you can't just say it increases power level when these two cards can sack incredibly powerful cards like YWR.

I can't tell you exactly how my decks would change since this would warp deck building beyond just swapping out a couple cards but I can definitely say I'd take FA and/or Grapes over my worst EE. As for doms that aren't just upgrades of enhancements, I'd be able to reform my deck in a way that doesn't have to account as much for the weaknesses that the new doms I'm running now cover. But there is absolutely no doubt at all that every single deck would run more than seven doms and be stronger because of it.

It objectively does increase the power level. What you're saying is that the opponent's deck is also increasing in power level, which is true, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a power increase across the board. This is especially an issue because of the inherent uninteractivity nature of dominants. By removing the dom cap you're letting everyone take potentially interactive cards out of their deck in exchange for strictly uninteractive ones.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 01:48:15 PM by Kevinthedude »

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2019, 05:33:30 PM »
0
Redemption is probably one of the least interactive CCGs out there so the difference in interactivity between dominants and cbn enhancements or your non-dominant power cards is marginal. Not to mention most of the evil "extra" dominants are counters and most of the good ones supplement various strategies much like the cards you have to cut in order to add more dominants. Don't get me wrong I would rather no dominants at all because staples cut down on deck variety. But there are plenty of non-dominant staples that do as well which, btw, you might have to cut to add extra dominants. FWIW I don't really like all of these "copy" cards either. Every civilization gets an army? Boring.

What I am saying is that if YWR increases the power level of decks counters like Destruction decrease that power level. Just because the counter is more "powerful" than say, treasures of war, doesn't mean it increases the power level. It actually decreases the power level by more because it can discard YWR easier. Of course DoN is still something you would want to race to get but then again so is YWR.


Back on the topic of a dominant per turn... The idea is growing on me. It really punishes decks that race to dominants with hand clog. And it is actually more strategic this way because you have to plan out the one dominant you want to use.

Offline Sean

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3637
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: A rule change proposal for Dominants
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2019, 06:16:13 PM »
+2
The best place for limits is in deck building rules.  Limiting game play rules, in my opinion, is counter intuitive and makes it more difficult for new players.  I think the current rule limiting dominants are more than enough and it also leaves room to add more if you want to by having a larger deck. 
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b