I assume some will ask about the distribution of these. I don't know yet that anything official has been decided. They may be included in phase 2 or Rob may choose to wait to include them when both phases are combined.
Why is the middle word in the #1 card title not capitalized?
Why is the middle word in the #1 card title not capitalized?That's how the original is...we are discussing if it would be better to change that or leave as is.
i agree that having them take the place of a common would be much better
i agree that having them take the place of a common would be much better
I very strongly agree , I think it would be much better to have the legacy rare replace a common card spot instead of the Rare spot in booster packs.
i agree that having them take the place of a common would be much better
I very strongly agree , I think it would be much better to have the legacy rare replace a common card spot instead of the Rare spot in booster packs.
+1
My bets for #19 are on A New Beginning (Pa) except it'll be Blue and have a different image. The ability needs to be redone anyway and it's been in the wrong color since FooF so clearly this is a good choice. ;D
But I wanna be able to have 9 in T2...My bets for #19 are on A New Beginning (Pa) except it'll be Blue and have a different image. The ability needs to be redone anyway and it's been in the wrong color since FooF so clearly this is a good choice. ;D
This was redone as a dominant in FoM so I highly doubt, and IMHO shouldn’t be, updated as an LR.
Hmmm, with the ruling change that affected Besieging the City and their "Restrict opponents from drawing" ilk, I wonder if BtC will be a LR. Seems a prime candidate.
An afterthought...
Could there be an alternative to “Deck Discard” for the identifier? The standard for the naming of Lost Souls has recently been related to the verse rather than a description of what it does.
I am not strongly recommending this, but curious what thoughts others would have. Since it is commonly referred to as the Deck Discard LS now, I could also see keeping its Legacy name.
An afterthought...
Could there be an alternative to “Deck Discard” for the identifier? The standard for the naming of Lost Souls has recently been related to the verse rather than a description of what it does.
I am not strongly recommending this, but curious what thoughts others would have. Since it is commonly referred to as the Deck Discard LS now, I could also see keeping its Legacy name.
Hmmm, with the ruling change that affected Besieging the City and their "Restrict opponents from drawing" ilk, I wonder if BtC will be a LR. Seems a prime candidate.
Since they reprinted Mayhem with the errata wording, this is a very good choice. Great card as well!
Now entering the ring:
#ANDIWILLHAVEMYVENGEANCE :laugh:
Gladiator is a super powerful movie...not unlike that Naaman LR!
Now entering the ring:
The next spoiler for today is...
Can we please move away from the whole “Limit once” wording? This generates a lot of ambiguity and questions as it does not specify WHEN it is being limited. Better options are pre-existing wording such as “limit once per game,” “limit once per round,” or “limit once per turn.” It’s more intuitive to specify when it is being limited, thus preventing any confusion.
Justin meant well, but those are not the 2 Bears that will be making a reappearance.
Now entering the ring:
Now entering the ring:
Looking into the definition of "dual-icon" to make the Hero icon into a reminder than an actual icon...
Would this mean in the future certain cards like The Roman jailer , King of Nineveh will no longer be considered dual icon cards???
For cards like Covenant of Eden that "negate other dual icon cards"??
For deck building requirements for type 2 I guess the legacy rare Naaman would be considered a "Neutral card".
Guess we now have an evil card Naaman (tin sets) and a Neutral card Naaman (legacy rare) for type 2 deck building purposes.
I’m pretty sure both Naamans are evil for T2 deck building purposes.Correct. Just as is the case for Saul/Paul.
Just a reminder to everyone that the PoC related cards (ph 1 and 2 and LRs) are being updated on the original PoC spoiler page if you want to see a list of the most recent spoiled cards.
http://www.cactusforums.com/card-information/prophecies-of-christ-(spoiler-thread)/msg589494/#msg589494 (http://www.cactusforums.com/card-information/prophecies-of-christ-(spoiler-thread)/msg589494/#msg589494)
Now entering the ring:
Looking into the definition of "dual-icon" to make the Hero icon into a reminder than an actual icon...
Would this mean in the future certain cards like The Roman jailer , King of Nineveh will no longer be considered dual icon cards???
For cards like Covenant of Eden that "negate other dual icon cards"??
For deck building requirements for type 2 I guess the legacy rare Naaman would be considered a "Neutral card".
Guess we now have an evil card Naaman (tin sets) and a Neutral card Naaman (legacy rare) for type 2 deck building purposes.
I’m pretty sure both Naamans are evil for T2 deck building purposes.
I'm very excited about this classic card getting brand new art that looks amazing!
Seems like a variety of brigades.
With a good amount of Daniel support, I have to expect a Great Image for crimson. Possibly the Daniel Gabriel or Michael for silver?
Seems like a variety of brigades.
With a good amount of Daniel support, I have to expect a Great Image for crimson. Possibly the Daniel Gabriel or Michael for silver?
623 cards. That’s good info.
While that number will surely decrease with the amount of cards that are remade vs reprinted, that is a good supply of LRs to last quite a few sets.
I definitely enjoy the LR concept.
623 cards. That’s good info.
While that number will surely decrease with the amount of cards that are remade vs reprinted, that is a good supply of LRs to last quite a few sets.
I definitely enjoy the LR concept.
As we saw from Moses last year, reprints don't really keep an older card from being reprinted, but I did remove several cards that got reprinted in a "similar fashion." I felt the old Eve's Descendant was a probable LR card, but the reprint is close enough and an upgrade so it is no longer on the list.
Here's a LR whose original version hasn't seen a ton of play (at least from my experience), but probably will after the release of PoC Phase 2... 8)
Here's a LR whose original version hasn't seen a ton of play (at least from my experience), but probably will after the release of PoC Phase 2... 8)
I checked the old version (https://redemption.fandom.com/wiki/Cherubim_(FF2)), and clearly the art is different between these two. Being borderless shows like 40% more of the original art! QED, different cards!
#8CherubimT2Deck #DistractTheDeckChecker #JustinWillProllyRuinMyFun
Today's next LR preview is...
If you come to this year's T2 Only, I will let you use an 8 Cherubim T2 deck for that tournament and that tournament only. 8)
If you come to this year's T2 Only, I will let you use an 8 Cherubim T2 deck for that tournament and that tournament only. 8)
Everything about this sounds great except for the part where I have to play T2
If you come to this year's T2 Only, I will let you use an 8 Cherubim T2 deck for that tournament and that tournament only. 8)
Everything about this sounds great except for the part where I have to play T2
Ouch! Honestly, ever since I started playing Type 2, I have little to no desire to play T1.
Hmm. That’s a disappointing start to a Saturday. Almost 8am (here) and no new spoils yet...
:o
^ That's actually a card whose original artwork I really like- one of the few from the oldest sets at all. Is it not conducive to the newer format?
Cactus is all out of this awesome promo. Seems like a great time to bring it back with the new look!
Well, I suppose if you guys want some weekend spoilers we can start with this Great card
I don't know if it was copied or not, but there's a typo/grammatical mistake in Great Image's reference. "It's" is "it is", so currently the last part of the verse says "and it is appearance was awesome"
I don't know if it was copied or not, but there's a typo/grammatical mistake in Great Image's reference. "It's" is "it is", so currently the last part of the verse says "and it is appearance was awesome"
Did anyone contact Michael Carroll?.... He's still alive.^ That's actually a card whose original artwork I really like- one of the few from the oldest sets at all. Is it not conducive to the newer format?
We really like the original piece as well. Unfortunately, despite multiple searches by our art experts and Rob himself we cannot find the original piece
Interesting idea--I found an artist by that name through a Google search, but can't really confirm if it's the same guy. He seems to be more known for space related illustrations. If anyone can figure out if that's him we could give it a shot.Seems I got Mark Poole and Michael Carroll mixed up in my memory. Poole is a prolific MTG and fantasy artist. He did the art for OG Samson, Red Dragon and a number of other cards from the Blue packs and Prophets. I know Poole isn't super hard to get in contact with... but that's beside the point I guess.
Interesting idea--I found an artist by that name through a Google search, but can't really confirm if it's the same guy. He seems to be more known for space related illustrations. If anyone can figure out if that's him we could give it a shot.
Good detective work to try to track down the original Great Image artwork, guys! Thanks for reaching out to him, Derek!
These dudes have long been one of my favorite ECs... really looking forward to having a new look for them. 8)
These dudes have long been one of my favorite ECs... really looking forward to having a new look for them. 8)
I like the new Astrologers. My only hiccup is the ability wording "and opponent must discard their card in territory" feels a little wonky. Maybe something like "and opponent must discard a card in their territory" or "and opponent must discard a card from their territory". It is just a feeling and I know it will go away. Otherwise, beautiful full art Legacy Rare.
Godspeed,
Mike
These dudes have long been one of my favorite ECs... really looking forward to having a new look for them. 8)
I like the new Astrologers. My only hiccup is the ability wording "and opponent must discard their card in territory" feels a little wonky. Maybe something like "and opponent must discard a card in their territory" or "and opponent must discard a card from their territory". It is just a feeling and I know it will go away. Otherwise, beautiful full art Legacy Rare.
Godspeed,
Mike
Good point, Mike. As it reads I could see it meaning that the opponent has to discard their card from your territory which is either confusing language or very different than the original Astrologers. I'll update the wording provided the other guys on the team agree.
Update to the Great Image artwork:Wow, I can't believe contacting him worked hahaha. I love the internet. I thought we were going to have to track down Rob or Doug's old Rolodex in a box, in some storage unit or attic, to find this guy.
I received a reply and he is the same Michael Carroll who did the GI artwork. Unfortunately, he no longer has the original image. He stated, however, that perhaps he could do an updated one and requested Rob Anderson’s contact info, which I provided him with.
So we're down to one last Legacy Rare to be revealed!
Let's play a little guessing game and see if we can figure out what it is!
We should probably offer clues so I'll begin with one...
The last will be the first... ::)
We should probably offer clues so I'll begin with one...
The last will be the first... ::)
I know what it is and it too me a while to figure out how that clue applied. No Secrets... I can be pretty dense.
If it's not Grapes I'll be disappointed...
Liner is OT though. Also I doubt they would reprint a banned card.
If it's not Grapes I'll be disappointed...
It's not Grapes
We might need a new clue giving philosophy here, seems like we're not getting very far
We might need a new clue giving philosophy here, seems like we're not getting very far
So, Philosophy is technically an N.T. enhancement on good. I doubt that's it, and I'm probably grasping at straws, but...
We might need a new clue giving philosophy here, seems like we're not getting very far
So, Philosophy is technically an N.T. enhancement on good. I doubt that's it, and I'm probably grasping at straws, but...
It could also be Vain Philosophy.
We should probably offer clues so I'll begin with one...
The last will be the first... ::)
Well it wouldn't have been as much fun if we had starter off with an easy clue now would it... ::)
We should probably offer clues so I'll begin with one...
The last will be the first... ::)
This will be the first Legacy Rare from a card that's already on the new card face. 8)
Well it wouldn't have been as much fun if we had starter off with an easy clue now would it... ::)
Why was VP chosen to be a legacy rare? Seems too contemporary to take up a LR slot when there are older cards that could use updating.
You can’t fully understand until you see how Vain we’ve become in phase 2. Even then you still might not approve, but at least it’ll make more sense. ;D
You can’t fully understand until you see how Vain we’ve become in phase 2. Even then you still might not approve, but at least it’ll make more sense. ;D
These dudes have long been one of my favorite ECs... really looking forward to having a new look for them. 8)
I like the new Astrologers. My only hiccup is the ability wording "and opponent must discard their card in territory" feels a little wonky. Maybe something like "and opponent must discard a card in their territory" or "and opponent must discard a card from their territory". It is just a feeling and I know it will go away. Otherwise, beautiful full art Legacy Rare.
Godspeed,
Mike
Good point, Mike. As it reads I could see it meaning that the opponent has to discard their card from your territory which is either confusing language or very different than the original Astrologers. I'll update the wording provided the other guys on the team agree.
Doing that will change the ability from the original, ever so slightly. As it is now, the opponent must own the card they discard (their card). Were it to be changed (a card in their territory), it could mean they discard something like Destructive Sin or another card they don't necessarily own, but have on their playing side.
Might not make much of a difference, but it would be different from the original.
If a site with a soul in it was targeted for discard would the soul follow? I don't have the REG handy at the moment.
Godspeed,
Mike
Ahhhh, one of my all-time favorite cards is getting a sweet new look...now I just gotta get Doug Gray to sign one of these for me since I have a signed version of the original. 8)
Ya know since there is already a Balaam LR and now showing for a CoM LR a Covenant with Death LR would make A Covenant with Death deck wayyy cooler.
I am hoping for a Covenant with Death LR if you couldn't tell, or a Rams Horn LR now THAT would be awesome.
Yeah.... understandable am I the only one that misses coney??? Yo I loved playing it and against it. it was so fun. any ways heres hoping for CoD?
(I just realized Covenant of Death has the same initials as Call of Duty :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: )
(I just realized Covenant of Death has the same initials as Call of Duty :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: )
Update to the Great Image artwork:
I received a reply and he is the same Michael Carroll who did the GI artwork. Unfortunately, he no longer has the original image. He stated, however, that perhaps he could do an updated one and requested Rob Anderson’s contact info, which I provided him with.
I'm a little torn. On one hand I don't think it's that much of a problem. Assyrians have so many good generic characters that it's unlikely you'll want to fit in eight Archers when you could run Survivors and a couple Siege Armies instead. Maybe like six, but I don't think eight will be common.
On the other hand, the old Archer+2kH+FH combo is even better when you're discarding eight heroes in opponent's territory.
Love the art, though.
or just sit there stuck.Might you say they would be pinned down? Like with an arrow? 8)
If it has to be toned down maybe limit the number per deck with an identifier? Or maybe alter the special ability in some way to limit the strength? The scripture is a prophesy against Assyria so there could be a tie in there either with Isaiah, King Hezekiah, or something along those lines?
We found and obtained the rights to use a new piece of art for Assyrian Archers LR. Since it is a generic character this will allow 2 in T1 and 8 in T2. We're especially looking for feedback from T2 players as to whether or not they feel that is a problem.
Coming from someone who is admittedly a bit concerned, I think you make a lot of great points..
There are a few counter points to your arguments though. The Archers of Kedar example is definitely worth noting, but you still need to have at least 1 Pale Green EC to play the Horses/FH on therefore the consistency will be somewhat less than just a straight 8 pale green Archers.
With Great Image, yes it does all the discarding with 1 card, but that's all it does. It does not give you the opportunity to win the current battle. If all the Archers could do was band and use weapons, they'd still be worth playing (at least a couple) but it's the addition of the free discard potential that really makes them strong. There's also multi-player to consider...shooting 8 Heroes every time you're attacked is actually kind of feasible in a 4 player multi-player game--especially if one player has protected Heroes and just wants to let you shoot everyone else on the table. :P
We found and obtained the rights to use a new piece of art for Assyrian Archers LR. Since it is a generic character this will allow 2 in T1 and 8 in T2. We're especially looking for feedback from T2 players as to whether or not they feel that is a problem.