Dominance

[Arashi]

I personally think that the dominance rule should be erratad(sp?). with the rule the way it currently is, i think that it is too much of a race to see who can get out the card first.

My proposed errata would be to say that EACH player may only have one of the card with the same name with dominance on their side of the field at a time. if for any reason a second card of the same name is placed on a player's field who already has a card of the same name then the newly played/received card is automatically destroyed.

sorry if that was confusing...


Anyway i think that would be a better ruling for the dominance rule because it lets both players enjoy ALL the cards in their decks without having to race to get it out.

So what does everyone think. post your opinion and answer the poll please.

[spiller]

I don't see a real reason to change the rule on dominance. I haven't seen that it has a huge negative effect on the game. If you want to play your dominance creature, destroy the one in play. After you play yours, your opponent needs to remove yours before he can play another one.

[Arashi]

Yes it is true that you can remove the creature with dominance...however that can sometimes be quite a chore especially with a card such as Jared fire monger. it is a fast dominance card that can kill your removal creature or kill part of the casters of a removal spell before it goes off.
My friend and i play a lot with each other. we both use many of the same cards with dominance. It just always seems to be a race to see who can get out their vorex first or who can get out their Jared fire monger first. when one gets them out first the other is usually toast.

anyway thats just my two cents...

[Keith Katsikas]

The real purpose for the rule being as it is now is for card like "Dark Union" How would it work if two (or more in a group game) players had a copy of this card in play. They would all gain control of all undead creatures in play. Wow... that's pretty messed up.

[Arashi]

i covered that in my first post. sorry it was confusing. I'll try and explain that part better. i took this into consideration because of cards like trade agreement that would let you obtain another without actually playing another.
okay here goes. if for any reason a second card of the same name as the card with dominance would be played or received in any way, then the newly played or received card(s) are automatically destroyed.

I'm not trying to argue against the rule or anything. I'm just posting my thoughts and observations after playing this game frequently.

[Keith Katsikas]

I don't think you understand how cards like Dar Union work. If two players each control a Dark Union, one copy on each side, then both players would controll all undead creatures in play. How would that work? There are cards now and certainly many more in the future that require there to be ONLY ONE copy in play.

[Arashi]

Oh ok...I see what you mean now, sorry. I just thought you meant what would happen if a second dominance creature was brought to one side of the field through something like dark union.

I see your point. I guess it wouldn't really work, sorry. I didn't take into account the effects that had dominance, i was only thinking creatures.