Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Deck Concepts => Topic started by: turtlegamer81 on July 25, 2016, 10:54:07 AM

Title: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: turtlegamer81 on July 25, 2016, 10:54:07 AM
Hi fellow Redemption Players

I want to make a deck that is legal for type 1 and type 2 games

I need some ideas for a good deck for this type of deck

Thanks

Turtle gamer 81 
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: turtlegamer81 on July 25, 2016, 11:47:33 AM
I really want some advice I just learn how to play type 2 and want to try to make a deck I can used in both type 1 and type 2
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: Gabe on July 25, 2016, 11:59:45 AM
While the concept of making a deck in both format is cute (and technically possible) it's ill advised. You dramatically limit yourself in both formats by doing so.

For T2 you can use 2 copies of special ability Lost Souls and 2 brigade cards, but in T1 you cannot. In T2 you can have 4 copies of single brigade Enhancements and characters but in a 100 card T1 deck you can only have 2. You lose consistency for T2.

For T1 you also lose consistency with your dominants, the most powerful cards in the game. They are drawn slower in a large deck so all of the 50-56 card decks will have an advantage over you by getting to the best cards faster. The best reason to play a large deck in T1 is because you can load up on tons of defense and win the war of attrition against the 50-56 card decks. But by making the deck T2 legal you must have equal good and evil cards, meaning you won't have that style defense, eliminating the only reason to build a big T1 deck.
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: Xonathan on July 25, 2016, 01:36:27 PM
I had this idea a awhile back. I made a type 2 deck and had a t1 deck kind of built in so I could take out cards in the t2 deck to make a functional t1 deck if I wanted to be flexible.
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: The Guardian on July 25, 2016, 01:43:11 PM
I had this idea a awhile back. I made a type 2 deck and had a t1 deck kind of built in so I could take out cards in the t2 deck to make a functional t1 deck if I wanted to be flexible.

This is probably a better way to go about doing something like this.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: Redoubter on July 25, 2016, 02:23:53 PM
I did that with marked sleeves ( on the front ;)) for quick T1, T2, and even T3 transformations. Would agree that building one legal in both that worked would be difficult.
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: Ironisaac on July 25, 2016, 02:25:23 PM
One idea that isn't terribly good now, because of Joshua and colesium, is to make a 105 card armor of God deck that utilizes two fortress of Antonia, and your choice of defense, although, Romans is probably the best, seeing as there are no warrior class demons. The way this works is you have two angel of warning, two angelic guidance, and two FoA. Get your FoA out as fast as possible, to get your Spiritual warriors out, who get your aog out, and from there it's pretty much walk in and take souls. If you can get all your aog down while Rams horn is up, it could work, but you need to make sure your FoA don't get discarded/ taken by Joshua. For defense, you have a pretty straight forward Roman defense. Anyways, that's my two cents, anyone else have any ideas?
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: Mr.Hiatus on August 18, 2016, 11:39:45 PM
A BoM deck would work, as all the good enhancements are dual color, limiting you to only two in type 2 anyway.
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: RedemptionAggie on August 19, 2016, 01:21:23 AM
Except that dual color distinction is just for T2 - they're treated as multicolor in T1, limiting them to 1 per deck.
Title: Re: Type 1 and type 2 leagl deck
Post by: TheJaylor on August 19, 2016, 10:20:12 PM
Except that dual color distinction is just for T2 - they're treated as multicolor in T1, limiting them to 1 per deck.
This is correct. Although, does anyone have a good reason for why this is? I feel like streamlining this rule for both types would be a reasonable idea.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal