Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Type 2 Deck Advice => Topic started by: Mr.Hiatus on June 26, 2016, 05:51:05 PM
-
I haven't been able to playtest it yet, but having TSC in your type 2 could be risky. With Confusion, which I foresee to be running rampant, and Hezzy's Ring being, in my opinion, a staple, I could see TSC not working plenty of times, which is already a consideration to not add it over New Jerusalem. So I am asking for those of you who have play tested with it, do you see TSC working consistently, and is it worth having over NJ? I do know having 2 Grapes could be game changing, or back to back Angel of the Lord's could also be brutal. Just looking for some insight.
-
For me it really depends on the rest of my deck. Am I doing enough searching that I include several ways to deal with HSR? Am I doing enough drawing to make SoG/NJ more probable?
-
I know I'm definitely going to use it in T2 MP so that I can hopefully get GoyS quicker.
In 2P I believe it depends a bit on how much artifact destruction you are able to include to deal with potential Signet Rings. If your deck has limited artifact destruction, you may be better off with NJ.
-
I've used TSC in just about every Type 2 deck since I got it and I never seem to want New Jerusalem over it. If you aren't playing with very many ways of getting rid of HSR then you're not playing Type 2 right. In my opinion it's actually a better choice than NJ because of Confusion considering that if they get your SoG then NJ is useless whereas with TSC you can just get back Angel, Grapes, etc. For the reasons Justin mentioned, as well as the fact that it becomes two auto-blocks for a fellow opponent instead of just one as SoG+NJ is and it lets you get SoG out of deck before a timeout or something, it's definitely a T2-MP staple.
-
i feel you on this in t1 and t2. there is definitely a risk. i also am still somewhat looking for a definitive answer on timing and the way The Second Coming must be played out..
i am assuming i can play Son of God/The Second Coming simultaneously as a SoG/NJ, but are people really going to have the opportunity to complain or say something like since i didn't discard and re search my discard pile for Son of God i didn't technically play it or something? what motions are required here lol
in play testing with play testers it has always been played simultaneously, it's been played as a lone card where you don't even have to search you simply state which dom you are recurring as it is understood. but what are the technical requirements here? can someone really vain you if you only play Son of God/Second Coming with the intention to win if you don't do all of the motions?
-
I would think that the opponent would get to play Vain Philosophy in between because The Second Coming is not New Jerusalem...there is an in-between after Son of God and before The Second Coming during which the opponent is allowed to play (respond), isn't there?
That's a pretty big deal if so because you could hold on to Vain if your opponent hasn't played Son of God yet, just to underdeck TSC (unless they're playing NJ!! 8))
-
Nope.
A player always has the first chance to respond to his own action of searching by playing the card they searched for whether it's Search, False Peace or The Second Coming.
-
I don't think that's the question.
Do you have to delay playing TSC such that your opponent could play Vain Philosophy to underdeck it? Or do you get to respond to your own action of playing SoG, to play TSC to get it back and play it again?
-
If a player plays Son of God and says "Rescue that soul" and then in the next moment says "Playing TSC to recur Son of God" I would not allow another player to play Vain in between.
-
so basically outside of hezekiah's signet ring, there is no constraint to the motion of playing Sog/TSC for 2 souls simultaneously?
-
The only constraint would be if TSC triggered another ability (such as Music Leader), then the Music Leader would need to complete before Son of God could be played. However, because ML is completing there is still not a window for another player to play Vain.
-
Having now played in 3 T2 MP tournaments with TSC (MN State, North Central Regionals and Nationals), I think TSC is still the best option in most cases.
Holding on to Son of God waiting for New Jerusalem is risky. Even with the possibility of HSR showing up, you could end up losing your SoG to a Vain/Mayhem/etc and now you get nothing. At least with TSC, you can play SoG solo (ideally to rescue a LS that is hurting your offense or defense) and still have a shot at the guaranteed extra rescue if you get to TSC and it isn't being stopped by HSR. Essentially with TSC you can "hedge your bet" -- you're less likely to get 2 guaranteed LS, but you're also less likely to end up with 0 guaranteed LS. The most likely outcome is you get 1 guaranteed LS.
As myself and others have realized, the versatility of the new Falling Away is quite appealing for a MP format. You can block the leader, or block someone about to take the last LS available in order to save it for you to rescue. With this in mind, using TSC to grab GoYS is probably not an optimal play unless you are way out in front and would be guaranteed to be the target of old Falling Aways.
The one exception I can see is if you are using an extremely search heavy deck that has guaranteed ways to deal with HSR. A Blue-Silver/Gray deck with Birth Foretold, Stone Pillar at Bethel and False Peace for example might be a deck where I decide to run SoG/NJ since I can grab NJ with Stone Pillar. I have heard stories of players winning T1 MP games because they were running SoG/NJ and everyone else was running TSC that got stopped by HSR.
I misplayed TSC at Nationals at least once where I used it to recur AotL instead of SoG in hopes of saving my losing Hero and rescuing a LS, but another player ended up using Falling Away on my Hero anyway and I had nothing to show for my efforts. In the end, it did not cost me a chance at winning as I was still too far behind, but it was definitely the wrong play as I would have had one more LS and the FA would have been used on a different player.