Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: NathanW on March 09, 2018, 04:52:21 PM
-
Go take a look at the latest LoR article and see a preview of a new identifier coming with the next set!
http://landofredemption.com/?p=7165 (http://landofredemption.com/?p=7165)
-
My fave brigade is red, so I love that I now have a FTBN character (new Benaiah) to work with. 8)
-
Overall I think this is a good idea but I am almost certain there will be casual players coming to tournaments for the first time that will be surprised to learn why their character's ability doesn't work some of the time. Will the Unity rules be anywhere other than online documentation?
-
Benaiah is exactly what OT Red Warriors needed. Also the Unity identifier is a nice addition, although I'd probably prefer it in the ability line, but that would decrease the benefit for only a mild increase in clarity (it's easier to miss an identifier than a special ability).
-
Was the set symbol left off intentionally to avoid spoiling the theme?
-
My fave brigade is red, so I love that I now have a FTBN character (new Benaiah) to work with. 8)
Me too! :)
-
...buffing Red without buffing Throne? Never thought I'd see the day. I know someone who'll be happy about that.
I'm looking forward to the Unity cards that don't specify the same type of card they are - not only the inevitable themed enhancements, but things like a Unity Evil Characters (Egyptian) Moses, or a Unity Heroes (Priests) Temple Artifact.
I also really like how this stops just splashing all the best cards into a deck. Literally every deck runs Deceiver and Fire Foxes, and while I don't think this will change that it will at least help make it more of a decision.
-
...buffing Red without buffing Throne? Never thought I'd see the day. I know someone who'll be happy about that.
I'm looking forward to the Unity cards that don't specify the same type of card they are - not only the inevitable themed enhancements, but things like a Unity Evil Characters (Egyptian) Moses, or a Unity Heroes (Priests) Temple Artifact.
I also really like how this stops just splashing all the best cards into a deck. Literally every deck runs Deceiver and Fire Foxes, and while I don't think this will change that it will at least help make it more of a decision.
I'll fit him in Throne. :-) Nic's Teaching and David the Shepherd lets roll.
-
The only concern I have with Shamgar’s unity identifier is that it says Judges reference. I hope CoW Joshua will qualify by his “Judge” identifier because his scripture reference is from Hebrews, not Judges.
-
No, Shamgar only works if all your Heroes are from Judges (the book). And CW Joshua has a Joshua identifier, not Hebrews.
-
No, Shamgar only works if all your Heroes are from Judges (the book). And CW Joshua has a Joshua reference, not Hebrews.
reference not identifier to avoid confusion.
-
No, Shamgar only works if all your Heroes are from Judges (the book). And CW Joshua has a Joshua identifier, not Hebrews.
Yeah you're correct (except it's his reference, not identifier). I knew he had a non-Judges reference and was thinking it was from Hebrews since most of the other cards in CoW were from Hebrews.
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
Yeah I understand; it's cool. It's just CoW Joshua is a great hero to add to a judges offense.
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
Yeah I understand; it's cool. It's just CoW Joshua is a great hero to add to a judges offense.
He doesn't do much for a straight Judges offense though since he can only search for more Joshua Heroes.
-
All for this concept hoping it works as intended :thumbup:
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
Yeah I understand; it's cool. It's just CoW Joshua is a great hero to add to a judges offense.
He doesn't do much for a straight Judges offense though since he can only search for more Joshua Heroes.
True, but I've used him before in a Judges offense and he worked out quite well.
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
Yeah I understand; it's cool. It's just CoW Joshua is a great hero to add to a judges offense.
He doesn't do much for a straight Judges offense though since he can only search for more Joshua Heroes.
AWaSN - Josh - captain - Negate all their stuff, cbn your gold enh that you are using anyways because it's judges.
Sounds pretty solid to me!
-
The point of making him (like the article says) is to give players a different option for using Judges (instead of always building with Joshua & Moses). 8)
Yeah I understand; it's cool. It's just CoW Joshua is a great hero to add to a judges offense.
He doesn't do much for a straight Judges offense though since he can only search for more Joshua Heroes.
AWaSN - Josh - captain - Negate all their stuff, cbn your gold enh that you are using anyways because it's judges.
Sounds pretty solid to me!
Well yeah that's current judges. When I said straight judges I meant the "all your heroes have a judges reference" offense that this new guy supposedly enables. It won't be worth running Shamgar (IMO) if you're also running two Heroes that turn off his whole ability.
-
Judges decks with Moses & Joshua/Captain will still be very playable. Shamgar is about creating some variety in options you have for using Judges. Aside from Ehud's Dagger, the Judges enhancements aren't that stellar, but now you have a guy who can wreck with them. Yes plz 8)
-
I like the idea! Unity is a neat keyword! I do think it's kind of awkward that it's in the identifier part of the card... I didn't really understand the concept until I got to the end of the article.
Are you guys going to include a tip card or put something on the box so it is extremely clear what "Unity" is? I know if I picked up a pack of these and I hadn't read the article I wouldn't understand what "Unity" meant.
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
As the example with Emp. Caligula, if you banded him into battle from your opponent’s territory, and all of your ECs were not Roman then his ability wouldn’t work. However, if all of your ECs happened to be Roman then his ability would work, even though you temporarily control him.
-
...buffing Red without buffing Throne? Never thought I'd see the day. I know someone who'll be happy about that.
You know me all too well.
First and foremost, hooray for the ability to shorten special abilities. Having an identifier that can cover six words of special ability is always a plus in my book. More space means we can get more interesting (if not always strong) abilities, which means I can make more stupid decks that will never happen (One day, my Twelve Gates will go off.)
That said, I have a few hesitations about the new Benaiah, although most of it has to do with one card: Rahab. I will be the first to admit my favorite brigade's got a few problems right now, but having Rahab almost helps alleviate the Soul Gen one. But she's not a warrior, even though she basically only works in a warrior deck (Although I could see her in judges, now that I think about it, as long as you're already running Joshua). Unity kinda messes with that, but I honestly don't know if there's another way to make Red work without buffing Throne.
That said, slugging power is something Red has almost always had going for it. The big problem has always been that it needs a fast defense or some other help to make it work (Part of why it works so well with Throne). I'd love to see more ways for Red to gain and hold card advantage against other decks. It ain't gonna be as fast as Musician/Martyrs right out the gate, but it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be playable
-
I will be the first to admit my favorite brigade's got a few problems right now, but having Rahab almost helps alleviate the Soul Gen one.
I don't think that you'll have issues with soul gen after the new set releases. If you do it'll probably be because you're choosing not to use it. ;)
-
A few comments/spoilers Yay! Spoilers!
1) If you like Red Warriors, get excited, Benny is like the third best card they're getting this year.
2) I wouldn't worry too much about losing Rahab, you'll find a couple ways to generate souls next year.
3) No crazy speed for Red, but I've never considered them to be slow... David and Ishmiaih get me where I need to go usually
-
I will be the first to admit my favorite brigade's got a few problems right now, but having Rahab almost helps alleviate the Soul Gen one.
I don't think that you'll have issues with soul gen after the new set releases. If you do it'll probably be because you're choosing not to use it. ;)
A few comments/spoilers Yay! Spoilers!
1) If you like Red Warriors, get excited, Benny is like the third best card they're getting this year.
2) I wouldn't worry too much about losing Rahab, you'll find a couple ways to generate souls next year.
3) No crazy speed for Red, but I've never considered them to be slow... David and Ishmiaih get me where I need to go usually
Well, color me hyped even more now.
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
As the example with Emp. Caligula, if you banded him into battle from your opponent’s territory, and all of your ECs were not Roman then his ability wouldn’t work. However, if all of your ECs happened to be Roman then his ability would work, even though you temporarily control him.
I was more thinking along the lines of, if I use Stalk's of Flax to take JD's Children of Light, does my Shamgar still work?
-
So multi brigade O.T. heroes like Dave the Shepard and Joshua, Son of Nun won’t turn off new Benaiah?
-
So multi brigade O.T. heroes like Dave the Shepard and Joshua, Son of Nun won’t turn off new Benaiah?
Correct, the way we have the unity ruling worded, having brigades or identifiers in addition to the unified clause doesn't turn it off.
-
So multi brigade O.T. heroes like Dave the Shepard and Joshua, Son of Nun won’t turn off new Benaiah?
Correct, the way we have the unity ruling worded, having brigades or identifiers in addition to the unified clause doesn't turn it off.
How come he gets an answer to his question right away? So much for family first... :P
-
Love is a perfect way to get around a good brigade restriction on your Unity clauses. Now we just need to be able to add or change references, identifiers, and Warrior statuses. I got it! New Soul Idea!
Lost Soul
(Edit) X = # rolled on any # sided die
When put in territory convert a character to any brigade of matching alignment. You may have that character gain or lose warrior class, an identifier, name, artist, rarity, trade value, and/or a book reference. Redistribute ability points on the character as you choose. If the card has no ability Character gains the ability to search anywhere (including the internet) for a card with an errata and play it time as written regardless of erratas, restrictions, physically being present, and judges rulings. Copy these effects at any time up to X times at any point after this card has been played (including any future games). Must be rescued X times. If this lost soul would be fully rescued rip this card in half X times to begin a new game instead.
Note: I started this out as a legit ability in my mind but then I was like nah, lets go crazy.
-
Love is a perfect way to get around a good brigade restriction on your Unity clauses. Now we just need to be able to add or change references, identifiers, and Warrior statuses. I got it! New Soul Idea!
Lost Soul
(Edit) X = # rolled on any # sided die
When put in territory convert a character to any brigade of matching alignment. You may have that character gain or lose warrior class, an identifier, name, artist, rarity, trade value, and/or a book reference. Redistribute ability points on the character as you choose. If the card has no ability Character gains the ability to search anywhere (including the internet) for a card with an errata and play it time as written regardless of erratas, restrictions, physically being present, and judges rulings. Copy these effects at any time up to X times at any point after this card has been played (including any future games). Must be rescued X times. If this lost soul would be fully rescued rip this card in half X times to begin a new game instead.
Note: I started this out as a legit ability in my mind but then I was like nah, lets go crazy.
I guess as long as you don't roll Tim Maly's infamous D6 with -2 through 4 (I think it's missing 3?) on it. Not sure how you copy, rescue, or rip a card a negative number of times...
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
As the example with Emp. Caligula, if you banded him into battle from your opponent’s territory, and all of your ECs were not Roman then his ability wouldn’t work. However, if all of your ECs happened to be Roman then his ability would work, even though you temporarily control him.
I was more thinking along the lines of, if I use Stalk's of Flax to take JD's Children of Light, does my Shamgar still work?
His ability would turn off since CoL is a NT warrior. But why would it matter if his ability worked anyways? You’ve got your opponent’s CoL that you could use for a couple of turns! Hopefully she’ll be full loaded too.
-
Old themes revisited. Feel like we're going in circles.
-
Old themes revisited. Feel like we're going in circles.
The game cannot continue without revisitation of old themes. If every set produces something new without revisiting themes, then you go absolutely nowhere.
-
Old themes revisited. Feel like we're going in circles.
You've only seen two cards thus far that help boost two older themes. Regardless, almost every card in the future sets will always build on older themes (the game has been around for over 21 years so it's inevitable) as there's only one Bible to work from. It's not like MTG where you can just make up any kind of card; they have no reference to go by. I'm glad some of the older themes get a boost. It refreshes them again instead of them becoming stale offenses/defenses.
-
A few comments/spoilers Yay! Spoilers!
1) If you like Red Warriors, get excited, Benny is like the third best card they're getting this year.
Benny might be the third best Red card - I guess it depends on which one you Choose.
Personally, I know which one I'd Take, but I might be Alone in my opinion.
Either way, it's just an opinion - so not exactly a Giant decision.
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
As the example with Emp. Caligula, if you banded him into battle from your opponent’s territory, and all of your ECs were not Roman then his ability wouldn’t work. However, if all of your ECs happened to be Roman then his ability would work, even though you temporarily control him.
I was more thinking along the lines of, if I use Stalk's of Flax to take JD's Children of Light, does my Shamgar still work?
His ability would turn off since CoL is a NT warrior. But why would it matter if his ability worked anyways? You’ve got your opponent’s CoL that you could use for a couple of turns! Hopefully she’ll be full loaded too.
But it's not "my" N.T. Warrior. Like, if you give me your Canaanite with Canaan I can still discard your fortress with Caligula if all my other EC's are Roman. So shouldn't Unity work the same way?
-
Taking from the Emperor Caius Caligula example, does Unity imply that have to be "yours" as in, owned and controlled by you?
As the example with Emp. Caligula, if you banded him into battle from your opponent’s territory, and all of your ECs were not Roman then his ability wouldn’t work. However, if all of your ECs happened to be Roman then his ability would work, even though you temporarily control him.
I was more thinking along the lines of, if I use Stalk's of Flax to take JD's Children of Light, does my Shamgar still work?
His ability would turn off since CoL is a NT warrior. But why would it matter if his ability worked anyways? You’ve got your opponent’s CoL that you could use for a couple of turns! Hopefully she’ll be full loaded too.
But it's not "my" N.T. Warrior. Like, if you give me your Canaanite with Canaan I can still discard your fortress with Caligula if all my other EC's are Roman. So shouldn't Unity work the same way?
I'm not sure if an elder wants to confirm this or not but the way I understand Unity is that it is a direct replacement for the text "if all of your x are y"
-
I'm not sure if an elder wants to confirm this or not but the way I understand Unity is that it is a direct replacement for the text "if all of your x are y"
That is my understanding as well.
-
Two questions regarding Benaiah-
1) Can the first ability regarding the weapon be applied to a hero other than Benaiah?
2) If the weapon is applied to Benaiah in battle, will it activate right away or not until the next time he enters battle?
-
Yes and Yes. The second is stated in the entry for Equip in REG 5.0, the first is covered by nothing explicitly stating the equipped weapon goes on the equipping character. The weapon is converted to red, so the character being equipped must be able to use a red weapon.
-
Thanks! Also, would the converted weapon's ability be able to be used by Benaiah (so long as it didn't target another Hero)? Like if it was Namaan's Chariot & Horses, would he be able to do the D2 + play?
-
Thanks! Also, would the converted weapon's ability be able to be used by Benaiah (so long as it didn't target another Hero)? Like if it was Namaan's Chariot & Horses, would he be able to do the D2 + play?
Yes
-
So his ability is negate other characters and enhancements (except good weapons). I’m assuming this means all enhancements played on him and him alone aren’t negated, but why would the “except good weapons” clause be in there? Is that because of any heroes banded to Benaiah who use good weapons?
-
So his ability is negate other characters and enhancements (except good weapons). I’m assuming this means all enhancements played on him and him alone aren’t negated, but why would the “except good weapons” clause be in there? Is that because of any heroes banded to Benaiah who use good weapons?
Current characters with this same wording negate their own enhancements. Non-weapon enhancements would negated even if played only on him.
-
Thanks Gabe! One other question- if Benaiah had a weapon on him already, and there wasn't another hero to equip, with the "do as much as you can" principle could he just take an evil weapon to hand?
-
Late but still I want to repeat my comment from LoR here:
Good idea regarding that identifier.
Maybe its only me but even though currently all these always increasing abilities are making the game more interesting and interactive they are getting nearly unrulable!
Thus the game mechanics become more and more broken IMHO (just have a look into the ruling boards)!
For example: During past week we had several matches with starters and there was not one single match without a question regarding interaction of cards we could not answer (at least not without REG, ORDIR or the forum – some of them we could not solve).
So while enjoying more and more complex and interactive abilities I fear the game mechanics might be broken beyond repair some day! (Maybe I will start a new discussion about that ...)
-
Late but still I want to repeat my comment from LoR here:
Good idea regarding that identifier.
Maybe its only me but even though currently all these always increasing abilities are making the game more interesting and interactive they are getting nearly unrulable!
Thus the game mechanics become more and more broken IMHO (just have a look into the ruling boards)!
For example: During past week we had several matches with starters and there was not one single match without a question regarding interaction of cards we could not answer (at least not without REG, ORDIR or the forum – some of them we could not solve).
So while enjoying more and more complex and interactive abilities I fear the game mechanics might be broken beyond repair some day! (Maybe I will start a new discussion about that ...)
Now I'm curious to hear these reportedly unsolvable starter deck interactions.
-
Late but still I want to repeat my comment from LoR here:
Good idea regarding that identifier.
Maybe its only me but even though currently all these always increasing abilities are making the game more interesting and interactive they are getting nearly unrulable!
Thus the game mechanics become more and more broken IMHO (just have a look into the ruling boards)!
For example: During past week we had several matches with starters and there was not one single match without a question regarding interaction of cards we could not answer (at least not without REG, ORDIR or the forum – some of them we could not solve).
So while enjoying more and more complex and interactive abilities I fear the game mechanics might be broken beyond repair some day! (Maybe I will start a new discussion about that ...)
Now I'm curious to hear these reportedly unsolvable starter deck interactions.
I think I already answered these ;) the game being complex is part of what gives it depth of strategy, being by far my favorite strategy game.
Unity as well as banish is a wonderful way to simplify wording on cards while having the major bonus of pushing devotion to brigades and themes and hopefully discourage heavy splashing.
-
Now I'm curious to hear these reportedly unsolvable starter deck interactions.
They weren't unresolvably for more experienced players - but some of them have been for us at least. So considering you want become new and more people into the game (which we want, as for example described here (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-card-play/please-help-us-kick-start-redemption-in-germany!/)) this can be really annoying and rising hurdles too high in order to make newcomers overcome them!
At least I for myself am of the opinion the current game mechanics are getting more and more complicated even for more experienced players. So when you think about people who are completely new in the game just having some fun and great time while playing several rounds of Redemption is nearly impossible due to all the questions which arise and interrupting the game play. So it is nearly impossible to just play some quick games to get used to it - the learning curve is not very steep!
But as said: This discussion should be moved into its own thread!
-
So when you think about people who are completely new in the game just having some fun and great time while playing several rounds of Redemption is nearly impossible due to all the questions which arise and interrupting the game play.
[/quote]
I agree completely. And, it is difficult for us novices who have been around for years.
-
Is there some way to make Unity more noticeable as an identifier so that people will see it more? Can it be in a bolder font or a different color? All other identifiers to this point dont effect the ability of a card, or if they do you can't complete the ability until you find the info needed for it in the identifier (such as X= abilities). If you don't see the Unity identifier or don't know what it means, you will completely misplay the card.
-
Not to seem insensitive to those who are saying the game should be simpler, but while there are certainly a large number of interactions that can be confusing, a lot of the draw of competitive play is the diversity of abilities and "combos" that can surprise even the most experienced players. A week ago at the Type 2 Only, Justin used a mini-combo that worked surprisingly effectively against me that I thought was pretty neat. The rules are definitely harder to keep track of but that's why the players who have a wider understanding of them can be extremely competitive.
There are definitely a few things that could be simplified, and identifiers like Unity do that in the sense that it's simple enough where you only need to learn about it once and it saves space on the card to give it a shorter ability.
Is there some way to make Unity more noticeable as an identifier so that people will see it more? Can it be in a bolder font or a different color? All other identifiers to this point dont effect the ability of a card, or if they do you can't complete the ability until you find the info needed for it in the identifier (such as X= abilities). If you don't see the Unity identifier or don't know what it means, you will completely misplay the card.
I really don't think it will be that much of an issue. You're right in the sense that "Unity" is a new type of identifier that affects the playability of the card, but I would think most players who don't know what it means won't just use it without finding out. I think if there's a little description on the packs as there has been for new card components in the past and tournament hosts make an announcement at the first few tournaments, then anyone who's not in the loop at that point will find out before checking in their Joshua, Captain, Moses, Samuel, Shamgar deck.
-
In theory, you could put 'Unity' first on the identifier line. That might make it easier to spot, however, if this has already gone to the printers then this idea is moot.
-
In theory, you could put 'Unity' first on the identifier line. That might make it easier to spot, however, if this has already gone to the printers then this idea is moot.
We're about a month from sending the cards to the printers. Any cards we share or spoil might not be in their final form. A lot of things are still subject to change. But we do try to share ones that we feel are close to their final form.
I have requested permission to share some pertinent information, such as set name, size and distribution method, then begin spoiling things like crazy on Land of Redemption. I'm just waiting for confirmation. 8) 8) 8)
A fun point related to Shamgar is that we are getting a couple new Heroes with a Judges reference. One might even be a musician but it's not the person you might think.
-
In theory, you could put 'Unity' first on the identifier line. That might make it easier to spot, however, if this has already gone to the printers then this idea is moot.
We're about a month from sending the cards to the printers. Any cards we share or spoil might not be in their final form. A lot of things are still subject to change. But we do try to share ones that we feel are close to their final form.
I have requested permission to share some pertinent information, such as set name, size and distribution method, then begin spoiling things like crazy on Land of Redemption. I'm just waiting for confirmation. 8) 8) 8)
A fun point related to Shamgar is that we are getting a couple new Heroes with a Judges reference. One might even be a musician but it's not the person you might think.
It could be though. Whos to be the judge of that though?
-
Deborah reprint?
-
Deborah reprint?
Except that's the one you think... ::)
-
Oh, I thought Moses ;) Maybe Barak, Gabe didn't say it was a judge.
-
Oh, I thought Moses ;) Maybe Barak, Gabe didn't say it was a judge.
We got both of those in CoW, although I could see either of them getting reprinted. CoW Barak wasn't great, and Moses... Well, a Moses that's not FbtN would be interesting to see. May need to find some way to make him better than the old one.
-
What a pitty. Since Judges already had their epoch I would really enjoy the Ruth theme to become more/completely competitive. I really enjoy playing it in starters with its ability of searching and recurrence!
-
What a pitty. Since Judges already had their epoch I would really enjoy the Ruth theme to become more/completely competitive. I really enjoy playing it in starters with its ability of searching and recurrence!
Why do you assume the because we make a few Judges cards we won't do anything for Ruth too?
-
I did not really assume that - in fact, besides the information currently available I try to assume as less as possible and looking forward to the entire set as a new big surprise I will enjoy (still remembering RoJ, which was really great!).
But I tried to get maybe either some more information out of the responsibles or hoped to get this Ruth topic somehow making it into the new set - either in general or even in particular. ;D
-
Well it appears that playtesters have so far been pretty ruthless in their spoilers.
-
I gave a Ruth spoiler a while back on the spoiler thread. ::)
-
Oh, I thought Moses ;) Maybe Barak, Gabe didn't say it was a judge.
We got both of those in CoW, although I could see either of them getting reprinted. CoW Barak wasn't great, and Moses... Well, a Moses that's not FbtN would be interesting to see. May need to find some way to make him better than the old one.
A reprint of Moses would most likely end up like the reprint of Samuel :P
-
A reprint of Moses would most likely end up like the reprint of Samuel :P
You're not wrong. The fact Moses works for so many decks as is means that a new one will have to be either niche or just straight up stronger. The former means it'll almost never see play and the later means that it'll be ridiculous in some decks.
-
Maybe it's just me but is there a reason why the unity Heroes and evil characters have to say all of that? I thought the point was to cut down on wording. "Unity evil character (Rome)" maybe just to have Unity and we already know that it's a hero or an evil character. It just seems like a lot of words.
-
The only way I could really see to cut down is changing "evil character" to "villain" that's 14 characters down to 7.
-
Maybe it's just me but is there a reason why the unity Heroes and evil characters have to say all of that? I thought the point was to cut down on wording. "Unity evil character (Rome)" maybe just to have Unity and we already know that it's a hero or an evil character. It just seems like a lot of words.
But it might not always be characters. Maybe someday we'll want (as an extreme example) an artifact that only works when all your lost souls are N.T., it would have "Unity Lost Soul (N.T.)".
-
^^this. Basic examples were shown but unity can be applied many ways, not only to the cards personal attributes.
-
The beauty of Unity is that it can be used on literally any type of card: "Unity [insert card type] ([attribute of card that must be universally similar])".
-
^^this. Basic examples were shown but unity can be applied many ways, not only to the cards personal attributes.
Is "Unity Opponent's Evil Character (Multi-Briagde)" possible or does it only function with your own stuff?
Also, is the current Unity formatting final? It may be just me but it feels like the word Unity and the card type run together. Was anything such as
"Unity: Evil Character (Rome)" considered?
-
Also, is the current Unity formatting final? It may be just me but it feels like the word Unity and the card type run together. Was anything such as
"Unity: Evil Character (Rome)" considered?
This is originally how Unity was proposed. Actually, I can't remember if I proposed it with a colon or a hyphen. Either way, I personally like a punctuation division, but that doesn't mean the final format will be that way.
-
Also, is the current Unity formatting final? It may be just me but it feels like the word Unity and the card type run together. Was anything such as
"Unity: Evil Character (Rome)" considered?
This is originally how Unity was proposed. Actually, I can't remember if I proposed it with a colon or a hyphen. Either way, I personally like a punctuation division, but that doesn't mean the final format will be that way.
If my :2cents: matters I'd prefer it with either a colon or a hyphen over neither.
-
#TeamColon
-
For reference here are all of them written out:
Unity Evil Character (Rome)
Unity: Evil Character (Rome)
Unity - Evil Character (Rome)
I think I may be switching to team hyphen after seeing it written out but once again I'd gladly take either a colon or hyphen over nothing.
-
For reference here are all of them written out:
Unity Evil Character (Rome)
Unity: Evil Character (Rome)
Unity - Evil Character (Rome)
I think I may be switching to team hyphen after seeing it written out but once again I'd gladly take either a colon or hyphen over nothing.
I guess the main disadvantage of the hyphen is that it's wide.
-
Is there a problem with cutting Heroes or Evil Characters?
For example if there was an implied alignment to Unity you could just have
Unity - Roman
Unity - OT Red
Etc
-
The identifier is a very limited space but we can add a colon.
-
implied alignment
You of all people want to go down that path...? :scratch:
;)
-
Is there a problem with cutting Heroes or Evil Characters?
For example if there was an implied alignment to Unity you could just have
Unity - Roman
Unity - OT Red
Etc
What if I want a unity Hero that requires all Lost Souls to be O.T.? Unity theoretically works for card types other than just the card it's on.
-
What if I want a unity Hero that requires all Lost Souls to be O.T.? Unity theoretically works for card types other than just the card it's on.
You mean like [EDITED BY R.O.S.E.S]? Oh wait, that's an Evil Character... ::)
-
Unity (Evil Characters, Roman) could also work. That should be the same length as one with the colon.
-
Unity (Evil Characters, Roman) could also work. That should be the same length as one with the colon.
I think it would be better to separate the "group" from the "characteristic." In space weren't an issue, I like the hypen, but given that we occasionally have some cards with a lot on the identifier line, I'm on board with the colon.
-
Honestly, I don't think it's really that big of a deal to not have any punctuation aside from the parentheses around the characteristic. If someone doesn't know what the "Unity" keyword means then it wouldn't make a difference and then once they understand what it means then it's not very confusing since there's nothing else "Unity Evil Characters" could mean. As far as appearance is concerned, I think adding the colon is more clean and concise, but logistically not necessary since space on the identifier is very limited.
I also like Aggie's idea of doing "Unity (Evil Characters, Roman)." This fits more along the lines of Taunt, which in the case of Shimei is "Taunt (Opponent must skip their next battle phase. Limit once.)."
-
Is this unity type going to mean we'll be seeing some more single color only decks or will there still be a use for multi-colored decks? Or am I reading the unity option wrong?
-
Is this unity type going to mean we'll be seeing some more single color only decks or will there still be a use for multi-colored decks? Or am I reading the unity option wrong?
Hopefully Unity will provide incentive to build mono brigade decks but I'm sure that unless heavy punish cards are printed splash decks will still be quite viable.
-
I would love to see Unity only focus on single color options, and give them some awesome incentive! But at the same time, I want the splash to be punished but still viable. If we have very good options in both categories, we can finally come to a point where there are several different viable decks. I love that the Type 2 only had a multiple different decks/builds and strengthening mono and hurting splash (but not completely killing) will be the best option!
-
Is this unity type going to mean we'll be seeing some more single color only decks or will there still be a use for multi-colored decks? Or am I reading the unity option wrong?
To some degree yes there will likely be more single color decks, but also keep in mind that Unity isn't necessarily about the brigade. For example, there could be a Unity identifier for Heroes that is simply "O.T." which means you could splash a bunch of different brigades as long as they are all O.T. Likewise, a Unity for Philistines could still work with all the older Philistines ECs that aren't black.