Author Topic: MAJOR RULE CHANGES - In effect NOW. Tell everyone! (Read 36820 times)

Master KChief · « **Reply #25 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:32:23 PM »

That avatar is so awesome.

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:42:30 PM »

To quote the host for a tournament I am attending Saturday when I texted about this thread's existence a mere 36 hours before deck-check:

Quote

WHAT?!

The subsequent conversation was a lot of worry and wondering how to even think to run a tournament on Saturday with the new rules, since everyone will have to update their decks there, if the message didn't get to them. And how can we blame or penalize players for the crime of not checking the forums for one day or not having a friend with their phone number who has?

Please let us rule as normal for a set amount of time and put this into effect on a specific future date. Education will take time, as well as adjustment.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #27 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:46:55 PM »

A quick note to all the tournament hosts and playgroup leaders who are hosting games in the next couple weeks: Rob isn't going to take away your ability to host tournaments, nor is God going to strike you down if you don't implement these new rules this weekend.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #28 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:51:16 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 15, 2012, 08:46:55 PM

A quick note to all the tournament hosts and playgroup leaders who are hosting games in the next couple weeks: Rob isn't going to take away your ability to host tournaments, nor is God going to strike you down if you don't implement these new rules this weekend.

Well said. I'm pretty certain that tourneys this weekend will become "host's discretion".

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #29 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:52:12 PM »

First of all, I am thrilled that these rules are going into effect now, well before States and Regionals begin, while we can warm them up a little before things get major.

Second of all, I HATE rule 3. I would like to be able to have a deck that is legal no matter where I take it. Optional rules that don't involve deck building (like name on name (if that were actually optional)) might be acceptable, though not preferable. But such a dramatic deck building rule difference between tournaments is not okay.

CactusRob · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:52:53 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 15, 2012, 07:43:14 PM

WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?

Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best.

I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:55:38 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on March 15, 2012, 08:52:53 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 15, 2012, 07:43:14 PM
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?

Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best. I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.

Do you mind giving a quick summary of why you opted to go with rule change #3, and if there's any chance of changing it, considering the pretty large group of people that hate it?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #32 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:00:30 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on March 15, 2012, 08:52:53 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 15, 2012, 07:43:14 PM
WHAT?!?! We're hosting a tournament in 36 hours. Can we get more warning than 10 min that major rule changes are in the pipe?

Yes! Hosts may run their tournaments this coming weekend without implementing these changes; or may adopt for this weekend if they prefer. You know your local players best. I realize it is somewhat of a shock. There is certainly a grace period of 2 to 3 weeks. I will communicate directly with every tournament host informing them of the changes. The first State level tournament is April 14th and I want all changes abopted not later than April 14th. Again, you may adopt sooner if you choose. I was at the point of these changes getting made before state events of after nationals. I decided to try them now.

*phew!* Thanks. I didn't want to make the hard decision between breaking the rules of hosting or doing what (I think) is best for our players. (In the past, it's turned out that when I do what "I think" is better than the authorities placed over me, things don't turn out well).

Soundman2 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:08:03 PM »

Can I just say host discretion for deck building is dumb and make deck check in take longer and be kind of frustrating, because now my deck may or may not be legal depending on how the host feels. Do any other TCG do this? I think for the most part deck building should be left up to the player.

Lampy 2.0 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:25:57 PM »

In the words of Marvin the Martin: "You make me very angry!"

I can live the "ya can't have more dominants that lost souls" idea, and the "no first turn dominants" idea, but I seriously dislike the other two. The two dominate rules for T1 are outrageous. So, if I may ask, where did the idea of this ruling come from anyway?

Korunks · « **Reply #35 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:28:43 PM »

As I was quoted saying earlier, WHAT?! I mean seriously, what is going on here?! I understand the need for some of these rules but 2 of them seem crazy and I don't like them(I am looking at you 2 and 3). How Am I suppose to let players coming to my tournaments know what Dominant configuration we are using? Not all of them come on the boards. That being said I am going to attempt to use these rules for my tournament this Saturday, with the caveat that no one shows unable to play by these (by not bringing sufficient cards to edit their decks). If that occurs I will revert to the old rules. I am not pleased about this, however I am willing to try to work with this. For the good of the game.

In my opinion though rule 3 needs to be revised or removed until there is a way for host to advertise what Dominant configuration they are using. I still fail to see how rule two will do anything but hurt defense and help speed. I actually Like 1 and 4. Just my

JSB23 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:30:08 PM »

Because dominants are (pardon the pun) dominating the meta, the entire point of Sam decks is to draw all your dominants as fast as possible because very few decks can survive a dominant rush.

JonathanW · « **Reply #37 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:35:43 PM »

Can we have a poll to decide which rules we like and don't like?

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #38 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:38:46 PM »

I will be implementing these rules (except #3) this Saturday in WI. I don't see that 1, 2, and 4 will make very big changes to our group. I'd love to implement #3, but I'm not going to do it last minute, and I think if it's going to be done it should be everywhere or nowhere. I just looked through my deck and realized that even I would have to remove one good and one evil dominant from my deck, and I play with many less dominants than most people.

Is there any chance that #3 will be implemented as a permanent rule change in the future if it goes well in the next few months? If so, I will use it in my other Local and District tournaments in June and July. If not, I don't see a point in using it for those if it won't be for higher levels.

By the way, if #3 was permanent, #1 & #4 wouldn't really be necessary...

Ken

Ryupeco11 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:40:16 PM »

rule 1 i'm cool with
Rule 2 i'm not so happy about but i think i'll come around to it eventually
rule 3 i very much dislike
rule 4 i disagree with the fact that its only evil dominants. if you are going to restrict evil Doms first round why not just restrict ALL Doms first round? in my opinion that would be better anyway thats my thought on the new rules ^_^

JSB23 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on March 15, 2012, 09:38:46 PM

By the way, if #3 was permanent, #1 & #4 wouldn't really be necessary...

Great idea...

Smokey · « **Reply #41 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:46:20 PM »

Rule #3 is amazing.

Master KChief · « **Reply #42 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:46:59 PM »

I agree, I think #3 should be a permanent rule.

Bryon · « **Reply #43 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:47:53 PM »

Ryupeco11, I think you are right about rule 2.

It took quite a while for players to get used to the idea of Son of God not rescuing the NT soul. It took quite a while for players to get used to not being able to play NJ with an opponent's Son of God. Neither were popular when announced. Both were good for the game. Being able to rescue your own lost souls with Son of God and NJ just turns SoG and NJ into defense cards, reducing the need to use actual defense. It will feel wierd not being able to drop them for a chump stop. But it will be good for the game.

But if I am wrong and the change is not for the better, it will be changed back after Nationals.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:51:09 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 15, 2012, 09:46:59 PM

I agree, I think #3 should be a permanent rule.

I dont think so....

Ryupeco11 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:54:17 PM »

yes i remember when NJ not being played with an opponents SOG went into affect I wasn't thrilled about it but i do think it helped. rule 2 will probably help it's just going to take some time to get use to it.

JSB23 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:56:12 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 15, 2012, 09:47:53 PM

But it will be good for the game.

How? It just seems to hurt defense and it makes you even more dependent on your opponent drawing souls...

Korunks · « **Reply #47 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:57:45 PM »

I think 4 should include ALL dominants, not just Evil. Angel of the Lord is Free LS first turn now more than ever.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:58:13 PM »

Quote from: Ryupeco11 on March 15, 2012, 09:54:17 PM

yes i remember when NJ not being played with an opponents SOG went into affect I wasn't thrilled about it but i do think it helped. rule 2 will probably help it's just going to take some time to get use to it.

The only thing I do like about it is that now you can't be merciful and end a game when you are wining/losing a game handily.

robm · « **Reply #49 on:** March 15, 2012, 10:00:00 PM »

i will be sticking with the max on the dominate cap for my tournaments (7). It would be interesting to try to host with 2 and 2 only but i dont think i will have the funds to do local like that until the fall.

News:

Author Topic: MAJOR RULE CHANGES - In effect NOW. Tell everyone! (Read 36820 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy