Author Topic: should there be more dominants made (Read 11879 times)

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2008, 05:07:26 AM »

I'd do three, You d/c 8 to stop a ls rescue. I'm thinking a fort<a ls by quite a bit.

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2008, 10:45:11 AM »

If Cactus holds true to form, they'll print one new Dominant in each major (read: booster) expansion. My personal opinion is that they should not be game-changers, however, the problem is that if they're not the most awesome dominants in the history of ever, they are dismissed as crummy or useless by some/most players (see also: Doubt, Glory). Honestly, I end up using these Dominants as often or more than some of the "better" ones around (HT, Guardian, sometimes DoN).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** September 15, 2008, 02:19:40 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 15, 2008, 10:45:11 AM

If Cactus holds true to form, they'll print one new Dominant in each major (read: booster) expansion. My personal opinion is that they should not be game-changers, however, the problem is that if they're not the most awesome dominants in the history of ever, they are dismissed as crummy or useless by some/most players (see also: Doubt, Glory). Honestly, I end up using these Dominants as often or more than some of the "better" ones around (HT, Guardian, sometimes DoN).

DoN is probably in >90% of top decks. Doubt is probably in <10% of top decks. I think it would be good to make dominants cards that would be in about 40% of top decks.

So they need to be 4 times better than Doubt and half as good as DoN

Doubt would be in 40% of decks if it weren't limited to playing in the territory and playing only orange enhancements. If Doubt could EITHER be played into battle, OR could be of a brigade of your choice, then it would be great. If it were both of those things, then it would be in >90% of decks and would be bad in the opposite direction.

Gabe · « **Reply #28 on:** September 15, 2008, 02:27:34 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 15, 2008, 02:19:40 PM

So they need to be 4 times better than Doubt and half as good as DoN Doubt would be in 40% of decks if it weren't limited to playing in the territory and playing only orange enhancements. If Doubt could EITHER be played into battle, OR could be of a brigade of your choice, then it would be great. If it were both of those things, then it would be in >90% of decks and would be bad in the opposite direction.

Make this man a playtester!

TimMierz · « **Reply #29 on:** September 15, 2008, 02:27:40 PM »

I agree with your assessment of how Doubt might've been in more decks. I agree also that new dominants should be in that middle power level.

Now go ahead and propose ideas for them that don't involve discarding fortresses.

Gabe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 15, 2008, 02:48:58 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on September 15, 2008, 02:27:40 PM

Now go ahead and propose ideas for them that don't involve discarding fortresses.

Does this count?

Rebuild - Good Dominant
Discard a Fortress in your territory to search your deck or discard pile for a Fortress of the same alignment and put it in play.
Isaiah 9:10
"The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars."

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #31 on:** September 15, 2008, 02:55:35 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on September 15, 2008, 02:48:58 PM

Rebuild - Good Dominant
Discard a Fortress in your territory to search your deck or discard pile for a Fortress of the same alignment and put it in play.
Isaiah 9:10
"The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars."

I like this idea, but I suspect that it would be in <10% of top T1 decks. I don't think people would put a fortress in their T1 deck that they didn't really need, in which case they wouldn't want to discard it.

It might show up in T2 decks though which might have multiple copies of a few fortresses. You could discard one in play when you had the other in your hand, then put the one in your hand down with the new one that you got to search for in your deck.

Overall, I don't think this is good enough to be a dominant.

Gabe · « **Reply #32 on:** September 15, 2008, 03:12:03 PM »

It was more of a joke on Tim to make a dominant that "discarded a Fortress" but didn't discard a Fortress (if ya know what I mean) since he was asking for dominant ideas besides "Discard the Fortress of your choice".

TimMierz · « **Reply #33 on:** September 15, 2008, 03:15:17 PM »

It might be nice in conjunction with Nehemiah/Eliashib, but yes, I get the joke.

At least no one's brought up the Buckler dominant yet.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #34 on:** September 15, 2008, 03:20:32 PM »

:-p

Maybe a good dom could be
"Struck down by the Lord" place this card in your territory. After battle remove all heroes and evil characters in battle from the game regardless of protection. After two turns discard this card.

TimMierz · « **Reply #35 on:** September 15, 2008, 03:21:50 PM »

Why would the Lord strike down the righteous? And drop the "regardless" before Scott or Matt B see it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** September 15, 2008, 04:38:53 PM »

I kind of like the balance between good and evil dominants. AotL has it's CM. SoG has its FA.

One strategy that I've been thinking about lately is the LS stall strategy. Basically it would be a couple enhancements and perhaps a character in a brigade (perhaps Orange) which have the ability to place 1 LS from play on the bottom of owner's draw pile. It fits with the theme of Orange and would be another wrinkle in the game.

Along these lines, it might be nice to have an evil dominant that would be the opposite of Harvest Time. It would shuffle a LS back into owner's deck (weaker), or place it on the bottom (stronger) depending on how steep the cost was.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** September 15, 2008, 04:59:14 PM »

Execution
Evil Dominant
-X=number of cards chosen opponent has drawn since draw phase-
"Chose an opponent. Discard X cards from his hand to Discard up to X good cards not in battle."

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** September 15, 2008, 05:07:54 PM »

As much as I hate Speed, that would just be too powerful in multi-player.

Player 1 with typical speed deck draws 9 extra cards in a battle by playing three D3/play next cards.
Player 2 plays this dominant.
Player 1 has to discard the 9 cards.
Players 1, 3, and 4 get a total of 9 good cards discarded as well.

TimMierz · « **Reply #39 on:** September 15, 2008, 05:27:21 PM »

Perhaps if it were worded:
"Selected opponent must discard X cards from hand and X of his good cards in play."

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: should there be more dominants made (Read 11879 times)

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

Re: should there be more dominants made

The Schaef

Re: should there be more dominants made

Prof Underwood

Re: should there be more dominants made

Gabe

Re: should there be more dominants made

TimMierz

Re: should there be more dominants made

Gabe

Re: should there be more dominants made

Prof Underwood

Re: should there be more dominants made

Gabe

Re: should there be more dominants made

TimMierz

Re: should there be more dominants made

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

Re: should there be more dominants made

TimMierz

Re: should there be more dominants made

Prof Underwood

Re: should there be more dominants made

Minister Polarius

Re: should there be more dominants made

Prof Underwood

Re: should there be more dominants made

TimMierz

Re: should there be more dominants made