Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: Destroyha on July 27, 2010, 10:24:20 PM
-
(I have not thought a name for the card but here is the idea) Decrease all animal/beast evil characters by 2/5 or can be played as an enhancment 4/4 (Brigade color doesn't matter here) special ability is if used by an old test.hero return card to hand
-
This card is not even as good as Cross Beams of the Cross, which itself is not even as good as Three Nails. So few people even use any animals or beasts, and when they do, it's probably only one - maybe two in a crimson deck. An ability like this is something that might just be tacked onto the end of a card for kicks, but it's not a great ability on its own. Try adding a little more stuff, probably pre-block ignore, since we need more of that. ;)
-
but we need more fluff in expansions, or else we dont know the good stuff. hats off to your animal-hate sir. just expect a call from peta soon.
-
This card is not even as good as Cross Beams of the Cross, which itself is not even as good as Three Nails. So few people even use any animals or beasts, and when they do, it's probably only one - maybe two in a crimson deck. An ability like this is something that might just be tacked onto the end of a card for kicks, but it's not a great ability on its own. Try adding a little more stuff, probably pre-block ignore, since we need more of that. ;)
Ya true i barely ever see a animal/beast unless its locust from the pit thats just about it probably should just go and restock my minifridge with pop but not pepsi im i coke man all the way now it feels like im ranting and going off subject o speaking of subject how do you do feel about THE MOST AMAZING BATTLE EVER ONLY ONE WILL SURVIVE NOW I MUST ASK YOU?? coke or pepsi (he better not say pepsi or he is just as bad as that beverly drink they serve at disney parks) o crap is this thing still ooooooooo crao ok gotta go
-
This is an excellent card for fbtn. You would definitely see this card used. Because it would negate the "return to hand" clause. ;D
-
but we need more fluff in expansions, or else we dont know the good stuff.
I strongly dissagree with this. I think TEP was probably the best expansion yet simply because it had NO fluff. There is no need to print a card that will never (or rarely) see play. it makes no business sense and it just clutters the game. Cactus is having to go out of their way to see some of these older cards see play. Who would play with John the baptist without Spirit as a Dove being in print?
-
Erm, Who plays with John the Baptist even with Spirit as a Dove being in print?
But don't worry, I've heard from a good source that there may be even more reason to play John the Baptist next year.
-
But don't worry, I've heard from a good source that there may be even more reason to play John the Baptist next year.
Like he's getting a reprint.....
-
No fluff? There's a Teal card and a Silver card on the phone for you, they're very offended at being forgotten.
-
there is plenty of fluff. when is the last time you saw anyone use axe that isnt a noob?
-
Not sure which teal card you're referring too, I think all of them are useful,
I'll give you Consuming Fire though....
-
Something about Zadook. It's Priests uncommon at best, pure fluff at worst.
Axe isn't the best, but it isn't fluff either. Look at Inspection from Priests and then look at Axe and you can clearly see the difference. It's unfortunate that they over-balanced it, but it's still useful and I have it in a few of my Babylonian defenses. What other examples from the "plenty" can you show?
-
fluff:
asa's good reign
axe
joseph of arimathea
pretension
to name a few.
-
Alan Rice is a respectable player who has been using Joseph of Arimathea all year long.
Asa's is pretty much fluff. Pretension has some usage, Axe is very useful to a babylonian defence.
My fluff list:
Judah
Well Reopened
Consuming Fire
Martha - Useful to ABom though, so not pure fluff.
-
salome is far better than joseph on pretty much every scale. thats fluff in my book.
-
Asa's Good Reign: Ok, yeah. Still, it's just not that good, rather than almost useless.
Axe: Addressed. Not fluff at all.
Joseph of Arimathea: I thought that was a promo for some reason. Would be good, but dwarfed by Salome.
Pretension: I always thought it was a pretty good card. Given that Pharisees have almost nothing, that may be skewing my opinion.
Judah: Situational, but idk about fluff. He's the only card in the game that can permanently steal a Hero.
Well Reopened: O_o totally not fluff. Only useful in a sitelock deck, but VERY useful in a sitelock deck.
Consuming Fire: Yep.
Martha: Not fluff at all. D2 with Gifts, search for the Luke fort and put in play, and useful for Abom. Just not as good as some.
My fluff list:
Asa's Good Reign
Joseph of Arimathea
Consuming Fire
Zadook Anoints Solomon
1:15 fluff ratio isn't bad. Especially considering how fluffy Kings, AW, Priests, Patriarchs, RoA, FoOF, Warriors, WotB, and Prophets were. Wait...that's every other expansion. TxP is by far the least fluffy, and even on it's own, 4 fluff cards in 60 is an amazing ratio.
-
Asa has saved me against Assyrians more times than I can count in Type 2...Axe has tore up multiple fortresses with my wife's Babylonians. Consuming Fire..I still don't think I quite understand how that card works...its seems stronger than it is...
-
I have actually used Consuming Fire in a deck. It was a FBTN Warrior-class banding deck. I wanted to have a way to negate WC characters in an emergency. I don't think I ever actually used that deck, but there's one use I can think of for that card, just so we don't think it's totally worthless. :P
-
I have actually used Consuming Fire in a deck. It was a FBTN Warrior-class banding deck. I wanted to have a way to negate WC characters in an emergency. I don't think I ever actually used that deck, but there's one use I can think of for that card, just so we don't think it's totally worthless. :P
Exactly. You have a big angel, like gabe, they have a wc with horsies. You play consuming fire and they cannot play their horsies because you prevent them This could enable you to have a chance to play an enhancement, especially with Angels sword.
Same thing with Asa's good reign, a little bit of CBN immunity never hurt anyone...except your opponent.
Jospeh of Aramithea searches for TGT or Burial shroud. If you want to ignore go and get TGT, if you want to hold off Your Opponent, then get BS. Either way, he searches, thins your deck and has great #'s for initiative. I am not seeing the problem here...
Zadok annoints solomo works really well in my prophets and priest deck..especially since I have two priests who can play green (three if z temple is up)
Sure there are cards better than other cards but I honeslty dont see any "fluff" in the set.
-
Consuming Fire is actually rather useful IMO. I used it twice in a T2 Multi game to get around my opponent's Uzzah (which he had in hand and I saw with Urim and Thummim). Also, like Crustpope said, it's a nice way to get around Horses. I would never use it in a T1 deck, but it's T2 potential makes it rather un-fluffy IMO.
-
Humn, I wasn't really considering T2. That cuts the fluff down to 1 or 2 cards (I will fight you on Zadook no matter what type, it's not a good card).
-
it loves speed decks. I get to seach for a good card with a brigade other than teal...and all those set asides have a brigade other than teal...so I can territory class search for them and then play them.
fight away!
I will admit it has limited uses, but it is not useless. I consider fluff to be anything useless (0/2 buckler comes to mind)
nothing is useless in tep
-
I think the key to a successfully designed set is to give the players the cards they want, I can't stand buying Apostles when the commons are useless and much of the time my rare is 4 Squads of 4 or Casting Lots. So I say cut down on the fluff in expansions, even though TexP was a good set, I wasn't fond of only getting 2 new cards (However I will say some of the rares I got were good).
As for TexP Fluff, I can't see myself ever using consuming fire, but the other cards I think all have their use. I would much rather had consuming fire do something like "Discard all evil enhancements in play" or something somewhat useful, But my Strong Angels do a much better job or negating characters and weapons.
But Judah can recur your 1/1 Genesis enhancements can't be negated character, Joseph of Arimathea can search out the best stall card in the game. Asa's good reign makes it much more difficult for your opponent to get around Throne of David, because if they block with a character holding a weapon you will be immune. Martha is good in combo with Abom, Gifts of the Magi, and its good if you can make sure your draw 1 is better than your opponents draw 1, and she generates lost souls. Axe is ok. And Well Reopened is good because it can recur a site, or it can replace itself (draw one without any cost associated with it, like having initiative or even being in battle)
-
Humn, I wasn't really considering T2. That cuts the fluff down to 1 or 2 cards (I will fight you on Zadook no matter what type, it's not a good card).
There is a certain card in Disciples that I predict will make Zadok Anoints Solomon unbelievably useful. So while I may agree it has limited uses currently, because of the Tabernacle Priest requirement (the only one anyone currently uses in a multicolor offense is Phinehas), it will help to find the other half of one of what is sure to be one of the more popular combos in the near future.
As to Asa's Good Reign: My Fallen Warrior + Bringing Fear + Wrath of Satan combo says hi. Asa's Good Reign is like Miraculous Handkerchiefs/Josiah's Covenant, but doesn't take up an Art slot. But I agree that it is highly situational. Probably the fluffiest TxP that I can think of, but it's not complete fluff.
-
Asa's reign is pretty good if you run it with 3 nails. That means no annoying horsies hurting you cept with wonders/forgotten his/end the battle cards. I really can't think of any fluff in TEXP, Zadok is the closest but thats just due to lack of tabby priests. I am SURE that will be rectified soon.
-
Let's show Abiathar some love, Professor.
-
I've gotta voice my opinion here. I absolutely LOVE fluff. I personally enjoy making decks that use certain fluff cards in cornerstone positions. What's great is that no one expects it, and you can surprise your opponent if you successfully use a "useless" fluff card. Fluff has a kind of "diamond in the rough" thing going on for it. Everyone is too focused on the obvious good cards in each set, that they don't ever get to think outside the box. Plus, fluff is easy to come by. I don't have to pay or trade an arm and a leg to get any of the fluff cards that I think are great. I look forward to the next full-size expansion set we get with regular packs that have all of that fluffy goodness in them.
-
I've gotta voice my opinion here. I absolutely LOVE fluff. I personally enjoy making decks that use certain fluff cards in cornerstone positions. What's great is that no one expects it, and you can surprise your opponent if you successfully use a "useless" fluff card. Fluff has a kind of "diamond in the rough" thing going on for it. Everyone is too focused on the obvious good cards in each set, that they don't ever get to think outside the box. Plus, fluff is easy to come by. I don't have to pay or trade an arm and a leg to get any of the fluff cards that I think are great. I look forward to the next full-size expansion set we get with regular packs that have all of that fluffy goodness in them.
Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks, and also lowers the costs and requirements for a competitive deck, making the game just all-around more fun. I mean, yeah, some "fluff" cards are actually kind of useful, just because no one uses them, and so no one is prepared for them, but they are still tough to use well.
And either way, you shouldn't worry about running out of fluff cards to use in decks for a while. The ones we already have are not going anywhere. :)
-
Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks...
In my opinion, equally powerful/popular => 95% theme cards => no variety outside of cactus defined themes.
...making the game just all-around more fun.
"Fun" is a relative term. If winning tournaments is your definition of "fun," then sure, root for the equally powerful card sets. As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament. Therefore I root for fluff.
-
As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.
-
As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.
-
Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks...
In my opinion, equally powerful/popular => 95% theme cards => no variety outside of cactus defined themes.
...making the game just all-around more fun.
"Fun" is a relative term. If winning tournaments is your definition of "fun," then sure, root for the equally powerful card sets. As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament. Therefore I root for fluff.
Actually, I'm a fluff user as well and would LOVE to see all cards in a set become equally powerful so you could have some that just become straight out popular and some don't and become "Fluffy". That'd be really nice to see, rather than seeing some cards never be used again (Buckler (pr) anyone?)
-
Fluff > Non-fluff. Redemption is broken enough as is, if you don't introduce good cards it can't become more broken. I'd never suggest cards that aren't fluff (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=22056.0).
-
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.
I'm well aware. I just like to put my opinion out there for other people to read. Thanks for reading. :)
Fluff > Non-fluff. Redemption is broken enough as is...
Sadly that's probably true. It doesn't change my motives, though. Maybe someday I'll find some awesome fluff-only combo that knocks the socks off everybody (and subsequently gets some rule changed to nullify it). I suppose that is my ultimate aspiration, as far as this game is concerned.
-
Ah good ol' Doubt.
-
Ah good ol' Doubt.
but that used Plague of Frogs which is anything but fluff
-
I think you're confusing fluff with underused. Fluff is useless. There's almost literally no reason to ever use it. Either another card does everything it does, only better, or there's a good reason no other card does what it does. Inspection is pointless no matter what way you slice it.
You can use a "fluff" deck if you really want, but it's just stupid. I suspect what you are using is, in fact, a UU deck if you manage to even win 1:10.
-
Mreh, that depends on how you're going to define "fluff." I really doubt that Cactus made any cards knowing full well that no one (pro or amateur) would want to use them. It's just that over time certain cards became defunct. The way I define it, all useless common cards are fluff, but not all fluff is useless common cards.
I've actually got an idea for using the genuinely useless cards too, but I haven't gotten around to working on it yet.
-
In the past, a lot of cards had been useless right when they were made. Apostles came out after Warriors, yet the power level of the characters was decidedly below that of those in Warriors, with little upside. Angel Wars was pretty much a set of fluff by default, with a few exceptions, rather than the other way around. Priests was the last set to be quite the fluffball, but since it was so large and had so much good stuff too, it avoided being panned for its fluff. Since then, there has tended to be little fluff.
So yes, Cactus did used to print fluff. In fact, I would argue that fewer cards have gone defunct than were fluff when printed but made usable later. I'm not sure that any once-good card is no longer good after Warriors. It may just be because it's late and I'm not trying to hard, but I can't think of any non-used card that came out after Warriors that was ever used, even when it was in the latest block.
-
I've actually got an idea for using the genuinely useless cards too, but I haven't gotten around to working on it yet.
Well, then they're not useless anymore!
-
You know the best fluff card, Buckler! I mean if you put that in your deck you will surely be able to win... :D
-
but we need more fluff in expansions, or else we dont know the good stuff. hats off to your animal-hate sir. just expect a call from peta soon.
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.
(http://865033263_e9cf383bd5)
-
Fluff card of the day!
Warriors Helmet of Salvation:
Hero is immune to Confusion.
Good for him!
-
People Expecting The Animal:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drummerworld.com%2Fpics%2Fdrum46%2Fanimal19.jpg&hash=87f204c9bfc009d760c2fcdcd9bece8e09efadd1)
-
Well, I suppose a Beastly Beast Defense would be totally unexpected at Nationals then... Get me some amazing 10/10 Super Beasts going without worrying about anti-beast cards coming into play... Hm, reprint ideas.
-
Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.
-
Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.
Not really.....
-
Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.
Maybe where you play, but artifact destruction is quite simple, so one artifact won't ruin a Beast Def...
-
Why not just use Demons? They're much better than Beasts.
-
Why not just use Demons? They're much better than Beasts.
Because they're unexpectedly different. Besides, I think the Beasts of the Earth, Sea, etc... all need reprints. Don't know if it's in the works, but it sure would be nice seeing as there are plenty of cards that deal with them. I'm only having some fun, so don't take my beast idea too literally because I won't be at Nationals and I probably wouldn't build a beast deck.
-
All the beasts you mentioned are demons.
-
am i right in saying that the bear and leviathan are the only 2 nondemonic beasts?
-
am i right in saying that the bear and leviathan are the only 2 nondemonic beasts?
No you are not, bear is a demon. Both beasts that are not also demon are crimson, they are leviathan and the serpent.
-
k thanks
-
am i right in saying that the bear and leviathan are the only 2 nondemonic beasts?
No you are not, bear is a demon. Both beasts that are not also demon are crimson, they are leviathan and the serpent.
Those are animals, not beasts.
-
gosh. leviathan is a pretty big animal...
-
You wouldn't expect a gnat to be named Leviathan, would you?
-
There are no non-Demon beasts. Beast is a subset of Demon.
-
why cross beams and 3 nails in the same set then?
just wondering
The M
-
why cross beams--
DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!!
-
whoa, I missed the fluff conversation. COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO AFRICA! uses two fluff cards. and another card or two with limited use.
-
whoa, I missed the fluff conversation. COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO AFRICA! uses two fluff cards. and another card or two with limited use.
I am not sure that I understood any of that.... :-\
-
why cross beams--
DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!!
Joseph of Aramathea can cross the beams! We've got someone in our playgroup using that, and with the prevalence of Red Dragon, it's pretty useful.
-
why cross beams--
DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!!
Joseph of Aramathea can cross the beams! We've got someone in our playgroup using that, and with the prevalence of Red Dragon, it's pretty useful.
Yeah, Joseph of Arimathea is probably the only reason to ever choose Cross Beams over Three Nails.
-
whoa, I missed the fluff conversation. COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO AFRICA! uses two fluff cards. and another card or two with limited use.
I am not sure that I understood any of that.... :-\
COMBO COMBO COMBO is a combo that Ring Wraith and I came up with. COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO CONGO and COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO AFRICA are decks that we built to abuse the combo.
-
Thats why I use C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
-
Zaire: C-C-C-CONGO BREAKER!
(Geography joke)
-
Simon of Cyrene, not Joseph of Aramathea.
-
Simon of Cyrene, not Joseph of Aramathea.
Heh, I knew what he was talking about it, and I just went with it without thinking. ;D
-
I'll get those straight eventually.
-
i was curious why you were referring to JoA and you got me all confused then Polarius came and saved the day!