Author Topic: The Fall of Man - Cards and Info (Read 80263 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2018, 11:54:59 AM »

I agree with CS's point about the confusing wording used on the original redirects (Treachery of Jezebel and Counsel of Abigail from Womens). Because those stated "redirected to the Hero/EC of your choice" it made it seem like you could redirect an ability that said "Discard a Hero" and redirect that to "discard an EC". That might have actually been the original intent (I wasn't on the playtest team that long ago), but we have since defined redirect to simply mean the redirecting player gets to carry out the ability instead of the player who actually played the card. In some cases, like KV's example with Overwhelming Presence, redirecting doesn't actually help because it doesn't change the ability.

kariusvega · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2018, 12:01:42 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on March 21, 2018, 11:54:59 AM

I agree with CS's point about the confusing wording used on the original redirects (Treachery of Jezebel and Counsel of Abigail from Womens). Because those stated "redirected to the Hero/EC of your choice" it made it seem like you could redirect an ability that said "Discard a Hero" and redirect that to "discard an EC". That might have actually been the original intent (I wasn't on the playtest team that long ago), but we have since defined redirect to simply mean the redirecting player gets to carry out the ability instead of the player who actually played the card. In some cases, like KV's example with Overwhelming Presence, redirecting doesn't actually help because it doesn't change the ability.

The wording on those two cards is precisely why I was confused about how redirect works.. (thinking the underdeck could be redirected to any characters in battle)

Gabe · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2018, 12:19:46 PM »

Redirect is a really cool ability once you understand it (also assuming the card is worded clearly)!

It's underused because 2 of the old redirect cards are confusing - Counsel of Abigail (Wo) and Treachery of Jezebel (Wo) and the third is in a brigade chocked full of interrupts and negates (black) so player pass it over because they aren't familiar with redirect.

We're bringing redirect back! There are two new dual alignment redirect cards this year and I expect them both to see a decent amount of play. I'm really excited for all the cool scenarios that will come up!

Reth · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2018, 12:10:38 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on March 21, 2018, 12:19:46 PM

It's underused because 2 of the old redirect cards are confusing - Counsel of Abigail (Wo) and Treachery of Jezebel (Wo) and the third is in a brigade chocked full of interrupts and negates (black) so player pass it over because they aren't familiar with redirect.

That's exactly the point. I tried to include Denying Blame into some decks quite a while ago but it did not work out. So as you said: I stepped back to the easier to be used interrupts and negates of that brigade. After reading the redirect part in REG I did not figure out how to use this in a helpfully way during battle when you're going to loose and only SI is left.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2018, 06:51:00 PM »

Since A New Beginning causes SI, can we change the errata to say: "During a rescue attempt, banish this card to shuffle all cards in play, hands, and set-aside areas. If no Heroes are in battle, end the battle, each player must draw 8, and end current turn. If you do, you may begin a new turn."?

This way I can redirect my opponents ANB and take the turn.

SignoftheStar · « **Reply #30 on:** March 24, 2018, 05:53:59 AM »

*completely fangirls over Magicians' Staves*

goalieking87 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2018, 07:47:20 AM »

Quote from: KoalaKing on March 23, 2018, 06:51:00 PM

Since A New Beginning causes SI, can we change the errata to say: "During a rescue attempt, banish this card to shuffle all cards in play, hands, and set-aside areas. If no Heroes are in battle, end the battle, each player must draw 8, and end current turn. If you do, you may begin a new turn."?

This way I can redirect my opponents ANB and take the turn.

Since ANB ends the battle, you cannot play an enhancement to interrupt it. Also, the ability would need to happen before you have any chance to interrupt. This is the same as if someone was blocking and plays Stormy Seas “Discard a random card from each opponent’s hand (or two if used by a Roman) [...]”. The discard happens first - even if you had the redirect card in your hand, if they discard it then you can’t play it to redirect. You have to carry out the ability as though it would 100% happen before any other cards are played. In the case of ANB, it brings you to a new phase, even a new turn, so would not be interruptable or negatable from that standpoint either.

Watchman · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2018, 08:24:34 AM »

Quote from: goalieking87 on March 24, 2018, 07:47:20 AM

Since ANB ends the battle, you cannot play an enhancement to interrupt it. Also, the ability would need to happen before you have any chance to interrupt. This is the same as if someone was blocking and plays Stormy Seas “Discard a random card from each opponent’s hand (or two if used by a Roman) [...]”. The discard happens first - even if you had the redirect card in your hand, if they discard it then you can’t play it to redirect. You have to carry out the ability as though it would 100% happen before any other cards are played. In the case of ANB, it brings you to a new phase, even a new turn, so would not be interruptable or negatable from that standpoint either.

This is not accurate. Once my last EC in battle is being targeted for shuffle (which is triggered by the wording “all cards in play,” which is the first ability in ANB’s SA that affects me, the opponent), I have SI to play an enh to negate/interrupt the removal from battle before anything else gets resolved. Stormy Seas is not an apples to apples comparison because it doesn’t trigger SI; it only targets my hand so the ability does complete.

SignoftheStar · « **Reply #33 on:** March 26, 2018, 03:22:34 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on March 24, 2018, 08:24:34 AM

Once my last EC in battle is being targeted for shuffle (which is triggered by the wording “all cards in play,” which is the first ability in ANB’s SA that affects me, the opponent), I have SI to play an enh to negate/interrupt the removal from battle before anything else gets resolved.

Firstly, as long as no Heroes remain in battle after the shuffle, A New Beginning ends the battle as per its errata. Under this consideration, the only time you would have a chance to interrupt it is if any Heroes remained in battle; in any other scenario, you don't have the opportunity to interrupt ANB because the battle is already over. The opportunity window, or battle step, in which special initiative usually occurs has been skipped.
Even were this not the case, ANB banishes itself to activate its special ability- again, as per its errata. Since it is no longer in play, you cannot interrupt it or negate it after it has been played, as targets for interrupts and negates have to be in play by default

On another note, I take great offense to Pharaoh's Daughter being an Evil Character, even if she's also a Hero. The only thing she ever did in Scripture was rescue a Hebrew child sentenced to death and raise him as her own son. Making her an Evil Character just because she was also an Egyptian would make as much sense as making Rahab an Evil Character just because she was a Canaanite.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #34 on:** March 26, 2018, 03:33:03 PM »

Quote from: SignoftheStar on March 26, 2018, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: Watchman492 on March 24, 2018, 08:24:34 AM
Once my last EC in battle is being targeted for shuffle (which is triggered by the wording “all cards in play,” which is the first ability in ANB’s SA that affects me, the opponent), I have SI to play an enh to negate/interrupt the removal from battle before anything else gets resolved.

Firstly, as long as no Heroes remain in battle after the shuffle, A New Beginning ends the battle as per its errata. Under this consideration, the only time you would have a chance to interrupt it is if any Heroes remained in battle; in any other scenario, you don't have the opportunity to interrupt ANB because the battle is already over. The opportunity window, or battle step, in which special initiative usually occurs has been skipped.
Even were this not the case, ANB banishes itself to activate its special ability- again, as per its errata. Since it is no longer in play, you cannot interrupt it or negate it after it has been played, as targets for interrupts and negates have to be in play by default

This would be correct if ANB didn't trigger SI, but it does since it would leave you with no characters in battle. SI allows you to both interrupt it before it ends the battle and target it before it leaves play because it is suspended before it actually resolves. Note that end the battle abilities don't actually have the CBI modifier, they are simply effectively the same as if they were CBI (except for the case of ANB because it triggers SI).

Quote from: SignoftheStar on March 26, 2018, 03:22:34 PM

On another note, I take great offense to Pharaoh's Daughter being an Evil Character, even if she's also a Hero. The only thing she ever did in Scripture was rescue a Hebrew child sentenced to death and raise him as her own son. Making her an Evil Character just because she was also an Egyptian would make as much sense as making Rahab an Evil Character just because she was a Canaanite.

Humans are innately sinful. Just because someone does the right thing sometimes or even often doesn't disqualify them from being Evil Characters in Redemption.

Watchman · « **Reply #35 on:** March 26, 2018, 04:00:50 PM »

Quote from: SignoftheStar on March 26, 2018, 03:22:34 PM

Even were this not the case, ANB banishes itself to activate its special ability- again, as per its errata. Since it is no longer in play, you cannot interrupt it or negate it after it has been played, as targets for interrupts and negates have to be in play by default

I was under the same impression until a recent thread made me the wiser. I was told that the REG (which they also quoted) states that if you have special inish you can play an interrupt or negate card that can stop the targeting, and that the target card doesn't have to be in play either. I always thought that if the card banished itself or was in the discard pile that it could only be targeted by an ITB or negate the last X. Apparently I was wrong.

Watchman · « **Reply #36 on:** March 26, 2018, 04:04:39 PM »

Quote from: SignoftheStar on March 26, 2018, 03:22:34 PM

On another note, I take great offense to Pharaoh's Daughter being an Evil Character, even if she's also a Hero. The only thing she ever did in Scripture was rescue a Hebrew child sentenced to death and raise him as her own son. Making her an Evil Character just because she was also an Egyptian would make as much sense as making Rahab an Evil Character just because she was a Canaanite.

I understand what you're saying but there are other characters in Redemption that are considered ECs that are questionably so, such as Uzzah (he probably reached out as a natural reaction to steady the Ark when it was about to fall. I understand why he died, but why be considered an EC when he was probably just reacting out of instinct and was trying to do a "good thing"?) and others. Thankfully, when it comes down to it, it's just a game.

The Guardian · « **Reply #37 on:** March 26, 2018, 04:22:09 PM »

If we based every character on one or two actions, then arguments could be made for the majority of characters (particularly OT) to be DA, which we believe is not what's best for the game.

As the designers of the cards, we have to make decisions and we know that not everyone will agree with every decision. In fact, we don't always agree as a team on certain cards--as you might imagine, this set has been particularly challenging in that regard. We appreciate feedback that is expressed respectfully (even if that feedback is negative in some way), and we do take community feedback into account (otherwise we wouldn't preview cards like we do), but imagine if the process for every card was as complicated as the Rapha community card...there would be a new set ready every five years or so...

Watchman · « **Reply #38 on:** March 26, 2018, 05:50:15 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on March 26, 2018, 04:22:09 PM

If we based every character on one or two actions, then arguments could be made for the majority of characters (particularly OT) to be DA, which we believe is not what's best for the game.

As the designers of the cards, we have to make decisions and we know that not everyone will agree with every decision. In fact, we don't always agree as a team on certain cards--as you might imagine, this set has been particularly challenging in that regard. We appreciate feedback that is expressed respectfully (even if that feedback is negative in some way), and we do take community feedback into account (otherwise we wouldn't preview cards like we do), but imagine if the process for every card was as complicated as the Rapha community card...there would be a new set ready every five years or so...

With that being said, I really, really feel strongly, and I know others do as well after hearing feedback on this forum and other related forums, that Nephilim should only be an EC. There's too much evidence indicating that they were ECs as opposed to them being treated as "heroes" as far as the Redemption definition of heroes goes (not to mention how the Bible and other historical sources viewed the Nephilim). At the very least perhaps a vote from the community on whether it should only be an EC or a DAC is warranted. I feel that leaving Nephilim as a DAC is a mistake that will be regretted later and is already leaving a bad taste in some people's mouths. If one looks at the Hebrew definition of Nephilim it's one of negative connotation, not anything good.

At any rate, please let this be discussed in the Redemption community instead of just making the decision without valid input from us.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #39 on:** March 26, 2018, 06:01:47 PM »

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** March 26, 2018, 06:39:28 PM »

The only person to give any kind of backing for their opinion on Nephilim is goalieking87. If you want to be heard I recommend following his lead in the post already started on the Nephilim topic.

YeshuaIsLord · « **Reply #41 on:** March 27, 2018, 07:35:18 PM »

I would suggest creating "Son's of God" cards (that are related to the Nephilim theme). That would seem to be natural since they are mentioned in the same text(s). But I guess you already did design some so I'm going to predict a little bit:

maybe something along the lines of "evil pact" (referring to Enoch's account of the story) - probably a covenant that empowers orange brigand demon cards maybe more specifically fallen angels
(evil) Sons of God - Generic EC's that affects (blue and red brigade) heroes in a negative way
(attractive) daughters of man - Generic EC's that convert silver brigade angels to orange
"My Spirit shall not abide (in man) forever" "for he is flesh" or "his days shall be 120 years" - EE that discards human heroes after X turns or maybe a card that does set aside
"Unholy offspring" or "mighty man of renown/old" - generic EC's probably equipped with some kind of synergy whn orange angels or "daughters of man" are in play
Verses 6 and 7 also make up for some good card names

I would like to see any one of the spoiled if I'm not quite on target yet you might give us a hint ;-)
Also if these card's don't exist yet take this as an recommendation ;-)

Blessings

dermo4christ · « **Reply #42 on:** March 27, 2018, 10:18:47 PM »

Loving this set so far! The giants are.....da bomb!!!!!

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #43 on:** March 28, 2018, 01:05:41 PM »

A Fall of Man card appeared on my spoof thread here: http://www.cactusforums.com/off-topic/what-cards-would-you-include-in-a-redemption-spoof-set/50/

Gabe · « **Reply #44 on:** March 30, 2018, 02:40:15 PM »

We've determined rarities for most cards. Of the cards spoiled thus far these are rare:

Did God Really Say?
Sodom & Gomorrah
Magician's Staves
Tables of the Law
Emim
Og, King of Bashan
Hebron
Corrupt Temple

And of course Babel and The Fall of Man are ultra rare.

No legacy rare cards have yet been revealed.

SignoftheStar · « **Reply #45 on:** April 03, 2018, 05:59:19 PM »

Lot's Daughters is interesting, but also a perfect example of why I'm against this latest use of the word take.

"Take a Human Hero to your territory."

She does not specify from where.

The old use of Take- gaining control of a card another player controls- would keep this clear: grab an opponent's Hero.
The new use of Take- gaining control of a card not in your control- means we must specify a location every time we use Take.
As it stands, "Take a Human Hero to your territory" sounds like you could Take it from your opponent's territory or one of your piles.
If you can't Take it from piles because the target defaults to in play, it honestly just makes the vocab change all the more unnecessary. Because we already have a word that means to grab a card from your piles.
Search.
You can say what you like about searching technically being part of an ability, but we have used it as a complete ability for a very long time.

With all that being said,
this set is very exciting.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2018, 06:17:35 PM »

Quote from: SignoftheStar on April 03, 2018, 05:59:19 PM

"Take a Human Hero to your territory."

She does not specify from where.

Yes it does, by not specifying where it is specifying from play.

The Guardian · « **Reply #47 on:** April 03, 2018, 07:33:25 PM »

Quote

The new use of Take- gaining control of a card not in your control- means we must specify a location every time we use Take.
As it stands, "Take a Human Hero to your territory" sounds like you could Take it from your opponent's territory or one of your piles.

By this logic, an ability that said "Discard an enhancement" could discard an enhancement from an opponent's deck...

SignoftheStar · « **Reply #48 on:** April 03, 2018, 10:01:39 PM »

I have been asked by a moderator to no longer speak of Take on this post.
My apologies to any and all I may have annoyed, irritated, or offended by speaking out against this latest ruling.

As a parting remark, I happily concede that the responses from Kevin and in particular The Guardian are fairly sound.

STAMP · « **Reply #49 on:** April 04, 2018, 10:57:03 PM »

Nimrod?

News:

Author Topic: The Fall of Man - Cards and Info (Read 80263 times)

kariusvega