Author Topic: Proposed Deck building T1 rule change: multiple Generics (Read 12847 times)

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #25 on:** May 07, 2012, 02:45:10 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 07, 2012, 02:33:27 PM

Quote from: Wings of Music on May 07, 2012, 02:31:52 PM
I don't really expect people would add extra Sabbath Breakers.

I would expect more trembling demons, more Proud Pharisees and more Generic Assyrians.
Why wouldn't they?

megamanlan · « **Reply #26 on:** May 07, 2012, 04:19:23 PM »

I agree, it gives some more stuff to Defense and also gives some actual use to Generics in T1.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #27 on:** May 07, 2012, 04:53:40 PM »

I love this idea and it makes a lot of sense. I mean why not since you can have up to four on the field at once in type 2 why can't we have atleast two in type 1 builds? My question is what about dual colored genetics in type one if this rule was applied? If this was applied would they be limited to one?

megamanlan · « **Reply #28 on:** May 07, 2012, 05:55:45 PM »

I wouldn't know, I believe the thought was for it to be only for Single-Color Generic Characters.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #29 on:** May 07, 2012, 06:16:06 PM »

Honestly if this rule ever took off and got interest I'd leave a technicality like this up to the play testers.

Praeceps · « **Reply #30 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:15:50 PM »

Quote from: EYES_on_ZION on May 07, 2012, 04:53:40 PM

I love this idea and it makes a lot of sense. I mean why not since you can have up to four on the field at once in type 2 why can't we have atleast two in type 1 builds? My question is what about dual colored genetics in type one if this rule was applied? If this was applied would they be limited to one?

I'd say single color only, less rules messed with, the easier it would be to test and explain.

megamanlan · « **Reply #31 on:** May 07, 2012, 10:51:25 PM »

I wouldn't mind too much.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #32 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:02:57 AM »

Your actually limited to 2 multi colored characters per deck. I think that would be fine. So you could have let's say 2 Astorlogers in a 50 card deck but still only 2 in a 100 card deck or 150 card deck.

SirNobody · « **Reply #33 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:59:33 AM »

Hey,

This thread belongs in the Game Play Variations forum not the ruling questions forum.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Red · « **Reply #34 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:14:35 PM »

Redemption rules would be more appropriate than game play variations. This is a proposal for a rule change not a variation.

Chris · « **Reply #35 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:57:51 PM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on May 08, 2012, 12:02:57 AM

Your actually limited to 2 multi colored characters per deck. I think that would be fine. So you could have let's say 2 Astorlogers in a 50 card deck but still only 2 in a 100 card deck or 150 card deck.

This is incorrect. T1 rules state that only one multi-colored character is allowed per deck, regardless of deck size. T2 allows for multiple multi-brigade cards.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #36 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:11:46 PM »

At first I was like, "that would make some stuff OP!" and then I remembered that defense can never be OP in T1.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #37 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:16:18 PM »

This rule would help Watchful Servant decks too, which is probably a good thing.

Are there any other generic Heroes that this would be a boost to?

Red Wing · « **Reply #38 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:18:39 PM »

x2 Israelite Archer would be fun.

Oh yeah and PoC is generic.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #39 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:31:04 PM »

2x PoC would be real fun.

Fortunately 2x PoC isn't game-breaking, and neither is 2x Israelite Archer for that matter.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #40 on:** May 09, 2012, 03:09:31 PM »

There are a few offense this rule would help but as a whole it is leaning far in the favor of defense.

megamanlan · « **Reply #41 on:** May 09, 2012, 03:39:05 PM »

I'd still like to see it enacted.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #42 on:** May 09, 2012, 03:51:53 PM »

It seems like almost everyone looking at this post has really liked the idea. I'd be happy to see an elder run a poll on the topic if this continues to pick up traction. (and in the odd chance that the rule really was taken seriously the 2 month delay for the new set could give play testers some time to try it out and possibly implement the rule for next season)

SirNobody · « **Reply #43 on:** May 12, 2012, 05:19:53 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Jmbeers on May 09, 2012, 03:51:53 PM

It seems like almost everyone looking at this post has really liked the idea. I'd be happy to see an elder run a poll on the topic if this continues to pick up traction. (and in the odd chance that the rule really was taken seriously the 2 month delay for the new set could give play testers some time to try it out and possibly implement the rule for next season)

As an elder, speaking only for myself, if you want two copies of a card per 50 cards in your deck, play type 2. I'm 95% sure this will never be officially supported. It pushes Type 1 too much towards Type 2.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Jmbeers · « **Reply #44 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:13:16 PM »

I can hear that, (and am working on gathering enough cards to play T2) but I simply put this concept on the table because Something has to be done about the extreamly defensive light state of T1.

I don't care what the change is, I don't care how it happens, and I don't care who comes up with the plan. I just want to see something change. The SoG/NJ targeting rules and Dom cap were a step in the right direction but I'm still looking for more. (Call me greedy

)

megamanlan · « **Reply #45 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:37:12 PM »

The difference is that most players already like this rule. It's not going to harm the game that much to do anything that was harmful to the integrity of the game.

joezim007 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 13, 2012, 01:43:21 AM »

I'm all for this rule. It'd make the Heretics nearly viable. I love the idea of seeing more balanced decks more often.

megamanlan · « **Reply #47 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:32:42 AM »

I agree.

Chris · « **Reply #48 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:00:34 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on May 12, 2012, 05:19:53 PM

Hey,

Quote from: Jmbeers on May 09, 2012, 03:51:53 PM
It seems like almost everyone looking at this post has really liked the idea. I'd be happy to see an elder run a poll on the topic if this continues to pick up traction. (and in the odd chance that the rule really was taken seriously the 2 month delay for the new set could give play testers some time to try it out and possibly implement the rule for next season)

As an elder, speaking only for myself, if you want two copies of a card per 50 cards in your deck, play type 2. I'm 95% sure this will never be officially supported. It pushes Type 1 too much towards Type 2.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

This is actually a reasonable way to possibly encourage more defense in T1, since it gives defenses a huge push without really doing the same for offenses (for the most part). I would rather see this at least playtested than risk the playtesters putting out a broken card in one of the many attempts to compensate for broken cards in the past.

EYES_on_ZION · « **Reply #49 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:34:53 PM »

Quote from: joezim007 on May 13, 2012, 01:43:21 AM

I'm all for this rule. It'd make the Heretics nearly viable. I love the idea of seeing more balanced decks more often.

amen to that

News:

Author Topic: Proposed Deck building T1 rule change: multiple Generics (Read 12847 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

EYES_on_ZION

Chris

Chris

EYES_on_ZION