Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Topic started by: RoykoAmeshi on November 09, 2009, 12:29:58 AM
-
I personally believe that they need to come out with a dominant that gets rid of a fortress or a site. we have dominants to get rid of everything but that now, so I think that it's over due. what does everyone else thing?
-
definately. fortresses are artifacts on steroids. we definately need a way to stop them more easily.
-
I think the fact that TxP introduced so many fort killers means we aren't going to see one.
-
Would it be good or evil?
-
Both ;)
-
High Places Destroyed
Type: Lamb/Reaper • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate and discard one fortress in play or set-aside. This card's alignment is opposite the alignment of the discarded fortress.• Identifiers: Counts as neutral for deck-building purposes • Verse: Leviticus 26:30
Leviticus 26:30:
And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.
I thought the verse fitting considering the newest expansion :P
-
I like it, I like it a lot.
-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=568753&id=1333804539 (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=568753&id=1333804539)
-
some of us dont have facebook. cant see the link.
i like the proposed dom fort killer alot. don should have been the fort killer (as forts are far more spammable than arts), while art killers should be delegated towards enhancements.
-
don was made long b4 forts were really a key strategy in the game
-
I say: No more dominants, period, unless they are very theme specific. I was surprised they even made the last two dominants that they did, because they have pretty much become deck staples.
-
I think the two new Dominants are probably the best two they've ever made because of the amount of strategy involved in playing them. They're both very diverse. By comparison, the older Dominants are pretty straight forward, most only having one or two applications. Provided they keep making Dominants like Grapes and Mayhem I hope they continue to make them for years to come. I think it would be good to restrict the number of Dominants a person can use in a deck though because 11 staples is kinda silly.
That being said, a Dominant that simply discards a Fortress is too simple and probably won't see print any time soon. The cards we saw in Treasures were an attempt to weaken Fortresses without using Dominants to do it. If they were to print a Dominant that could discard a Fortress it would probably be more complex and diverse than just "discard a Fortress".
-
I think the two new Dominants are probably the best two they've ever made because of the amount of strategy involved in playing them. They're both very diverse. By comparison, the older Dominants are pretty straight forward, most only having one or two applications. Provided they keep making Dominants like Grapes and Mayhem I hope they continue to make them for years to come. I think it would be good to restrict the number of Dominants a person can use in a deck though because 11 staples is kinda silly.
That being said, a Dominant that simply discards a Fortress is too simple and probably won't see print any time soon. The cards we saw in Treasures were an attempt to weaken Fortresses without using Dominants to do it. If they were to print a Dominant that could discard a Fortress it would probably be more complex and diverse than just "discard a Fortress".
+1
-
mayhem and grapes arent staples. they just depend greatly on your deck. obviously, if you use a site deck you wont be using mayhem. speed decks are also rarely dependent on grapes.
im just a big fan of the two new dominants because they're leaps and bounds more balanced than previous dominants.
-
I have been a proponent of a fortress discarding dominant for years, and I think that now is an even better time than before to have one. There are more powerful fortresses now (TGT, High Places, Z-temple, etc.) than there used to be (KotW, Goshen, Storehouse, etc.) Having a dom like this would prevent decks from being one dimensional depending on a fortress like this. At the same time, there are so many good fortresses now that it could be hard to decide which one to discard. Do you kill their protection of their ECs or their priests? Do you stop them from playing "place" enhs out of battle, or their ability to ignore you with TGT? It is these strategic choices that I think would make this dominant a great addition to the game at this point.
On the other hand, I also agree with Gabe that it should be more interesting than just "discard a fortress". Perhaps something like, "Discard a character in your territory to discard a fortress in opponent's territory." This would add 2 kinds of strategy to the card. The first is that it adds a cost to the player using it (in that they have to lose a character). The second is that it opens up the possibility of a new aspect to the game. We already have the ability to place enhancements in opponent's territories to do bad stuff to them. What if we started having characters who did something similar.
Imagine something like the following (based on the story in the Bible of Achan who caused the Israelite army to be unable to gain victory again after participating in the successful conquering of Jericho):
Achan - 5/6 Blue Hero - "If Achan is involved in a successful rescue attempt, then place him in opponent's territory. That player cannot successfully rescue a LS with a human until Achan is discarded."
-
If there is going to be a dominant that discards a fortress, it needs to have some serious cost.
"Discard a fortress in holder's territory to discard a fortress in opponent's territory." It would encourage Type-1 decks to not be so dependent on fortresses, and Type-2 players to use more than one fortress.
-
i like it. thats pretty balanced.