Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: SomeKittens on October 24, 2011, 03:54:06 PM
-
<Some Biblical name>
1/1 EC
Protected from opponents. CBN if opponent has no cards in their deck.
-
<Some Biblical name> Generic Guy
1/1 EC
Protected from opponents. CBN if opponent has no cards in their deck.
FTFY
-
It's like the opposite of what I made, I like it. Though, CGD would probably give it some silly increase ability (like that Babylonian from the new tin) to "balance" it.
-
It wouldn't need balance, it's already passing inish.
-
Hence the quotes. :P
-
Crown of Thorns, umad bro?
-
Most broken card ever.
-
I don't think it's broken. Make sure it's a card without a protect fort of any form.
-
Make it a demon, or something, that would be cool.
-
Once they deck out, there is NOTHING they can do except dominants/discard in territory.
-
Which, if this is a way around speed, I fully support...:P.
-
Once they deck out, there is NOTHING they can do except dominants/discard in territory.
Gee, there's now a card out there that makes it a really bad idea to draw as many cards as possible. Hmm....
-
I still think you should make it a demon. :P
Prideful Spirit
1/1 Orange EC
-Demon, Generic-
"Protected from opponents. Cannot be negated if opponent has no cards in their deck."
~Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-
The only issue with demons is their recursion. Once this guy's dead, I'd like him to stay that way.
-
The only issue with demons is their recursion. Once this guy's dead, I'd like him to stay that way.
You'll have to wait N+1000 years. ;)
-
Demons have recursion, Philistines have recursion, I don't think you could make this a Canaanite, Babylonians don't really need/want this......Magician maybe?
-
Why does it need to fit into a theme? If anything, this'd be another Uzzah-style splash card. I'm also wondering if I should change it to "CBN by character" so Pan can still hit it.
-
Maybe this could be a new character all together, but how about one that gets stronger incrementally as the opponents deck gets lower?
Protected from opponents abilities. If X is less than 25, character is immune to heroes. If X = 0, this ability cannot be negated.
X = # of cards in opponents deck.
-
Maybe this could be a new character all together, but how about one that gets stronger incrementally as the opponents deck gets lower?
Protected from opponents abilities. If X is less than 25, character is immune to heroes. If X = 0, this ability cannot be negated.
X = # of cards in opponents deck.
Not everyone that plays redemption has passed Algebra. ::)
-
Or use some of my new ideas that remove them from the game.
Although, it immediately gets initiative, that's kinda bad can't u change it to be really big so it can't?
-
Or use some of my new ideas that remove them from the game.
Although, it immediately gets initiative, that's kinda bad can't u change it to be really big so it can't?
If I'm protected, that means I'm winning, therefore you get inish.
-
No ur not. Protection doesn't mean ur winning it means ur Opponent can't affect by a Card Effect. Insitive passes as usual + u can still die if u lose by the numbers, because it's not the opponent, its a game rule.
Protection & Immunity do not affect Initiative. You are still losing regardless. At that means is that ur Opponent can't target u for a Card Effect.
Also we can call this 'bureaucrat' ...lol
-
No ur not. Protection doesn't mean ur winning it means ur Opponent can't affect by a Card Effect. Insitive passes as usual + u can still die if u lose by the numbers, because it's not the opponent, its a game rule.
Protection & Immunity do not affect Initiative. You are still losing regardless. At that means is that ur Opponent can't target u for a Card Effect.
There's so much wrong with that I'm not even sure where to start. >_<
-
There are so many things wrong with that post. I'll have to address each individually.
No ur not.
It's spelled "your."
Protection doesn't mean ur winning it means ur Opponent can't affect by a Card Effect.
Again, the word is "your." The grammar in the second half of your sentence is deplorable. Card Effect and opponent don't need to be capitalized, and the term is special ability. The technical definition is Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities.
Now, I've heard REPs and Elders also define protect as "cannot be targeted by." It's also been noted that if a character is "protected by opponents" then it is the same as having infinite toughness. Therefore, a "protected from opponents" character would still be winning.
Insitive passes as usual + u can still die if u lose by the numbers, because it's not the opponent, its a game rule.
It's spelled "initiative," and "you." The + symbol should also be expanded out to "and." If a card is protected, it cannot be discarded. Protect can absolutely protect from game rule, see Uzzah, Bel's Banquet and this post. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-changesclarifications-for-2011-2012-tournament-season/msg434384/?topicseen#msg434384)
Protection & Immunity do not affect Initiative. You are still losing regardless. At that means is that ur Opponent can't target u for a Card Effect.
You should replace & with "and," immunity, initiative and opponent do not need to be capitalized, and the words are "your" and "you." Card effect should not be capitalized, and the actual term is special ability. Protection and immunity absolutely affect initiative. If you can't discard me, then you're not winning, and you have initiative.
Also we can call this 'bureaucrat' ...lol
There should be a comma or colon after "Also." Also, (see, there it is!) I doubt the prospect of naming this bureaucrat has you laughing out loud. Secondly, "we" will not be calling this anything, as this is my card. If anyone else gets author credit, it's Browarod.
To sum up, I'm a national RNRS champion, two-time regional champion, six-time state champion, a state level host (2011 PA states, cohosted with Marti) and a contender for 2010-2011 rookie of the year.
EDIT: Instaposted by browarod. Good thing I wrote this, so he'll know where to start.
-
EDIT: Instaposted by browarod. Good thing I wrote this, so he'll know where to start.
Couldn't have said it better myself. ;)
-
If anyone is interested, I found two errors in SomeKitten's posts. There may very well be more, as I did not look carefully. I'm not sure on the acceptability of using the term "REPs" without defining it beforehand, so I am not counting that.
-
Card Effect...don't need to be capitalized
Irony.
Insitive passes as usual + u can still die if u lose by the numbers, because it's not the opponent, its a game rule.
It's The words are spelled "initiative," and "you." The + symbol should also be expanded out to "and." If a card is protected, it cannot be discarded. Protect can absolutely protect from game rule; see Uzzah...
Protection & Immunity do not affect Initiative. You are still losing regardless. At that means is that ur Opponent can't target u for a Card Effect.
and the actual term is "special ability". Protection and immunity absolutely affect initiative. If you can't discard me, then you're not winning, and you have initiative.
Also we can call this 'bureaucrat' ...lol
There should be a comma or colon after "Also." Also, (see, there it is!) I doubt the prospect of naming this bureaucrat has you laughing out loud. Secondly, "we" will not be calling this anything, as this is my card. If anyone else gets author credit, it will be Browarod.
See how annoying that is? I'm all for correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, however, correcting someone's post with faulty mechanics is poor form. What Megamanlan posted was a popular belief up until recently, and he should not be faulted for being under that impression; I would think that someone of your sizable set of accomplishments in the past two years would seek to help those who had incorrect thinking in a less snarky way.
-
This is an Internet forum, there is no law that states that 'You must use proper Grammer when you post online.'
Next, Protection is NOT immunity. Immunity gives you infinite toughness and cannot be affected by opponents card effects. Protection only protects the character from a card effect. There was already a debate on here if 'Protect from Opponent's includes game rules and the ruling was no. You can be discarded if you lose the battle because your opponent is not actually discarding you. Opponent means Opponent's card effects. You are not 'winning' a battle. I know because I play all these cards, I may not have won any rookie of the year award, (most likely because I haven't been able to get to a tournament higher than my state tournament.) but I try to keep up w/ the effects as best as possible and this is the ruling that has been made and is upheld at our tournament.
-
This is an Internet forum, there is no law that states that 'You must use proper Grammer when you post online.'
Next, Protection is NOT immunity. Immunity gives you infinite toughness and cannot be affected by opponents card effects. Protection only protects the character from a card effect. There was already a debate on here if 'Protect from Opponent's includes game rules and the ruling was no. You can be discarded if you lose the battle because your opponent is not actually discarding you. Opponent means Opponent's card effects. You are not 'winning' a battle. I know because I play all these cards, I may not have won any rookie of the year award, (most likely because I haven't been able to get to a tournament higher than my state tournament.) but I try to keep up w/ the effects as best as possible and this is the ruling that has been made and is upheld at our tournament.
I guess to be fair, I should address a couple things: First, spelling and grammar are important, both so people can understand you better, and so they take your post seriously. Posts with tons of spelling/grammar errors are annoying, and if you can take a few minutes to review what you write, it really does help.
Second, protection from cards DOES now include protection from numbers, i.e. if you block Thaddeus with a 10/10 EC and X=11, then if the battle ended there, Thad would survive. The proposed card would be the same way. This hasn't always been a consistent ruling (some people played it that way, some didn't) but it was recently clarified that protection from cards basically functions like immunity.
-
Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).
This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.
-
Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).
This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.
Actually, Professoralstad is correct.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-changesclarifications-for-2011-2012-tournament-season/
-
Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).
This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.
And if something specifies an ability, then the protect only protects from that (such as Lydia, Di sites, etc.). However, if it doesn't specify an ability (Thaddeus) or specifies something that is a game rule and an ability (Joseph 2011) it protects from everything associated with that (in the case of Thad, anything that is related to an EC; in the case of Joseph, any discard whether special ability or game rule).
Instaposted - Red Wing is also correct.
-
The these 'clarifications' need to be put on REG since a lot of people (including me) use REG as the final source not the forums.
And REG still states that it's only Card Effects. I still don't like that... It makes it a better version of Immunity which is dumb and makes the game more confusing. Plus PoA states effects, so that puts the ruling in question to me.
-
The ruling is referring to the Priests version of PoA which says "evil cards."
Also, any of the REPs, and Ken as official judge, at our tournaments would have been ruling protection this way at least the last few months, so I don't know why you hadn't heard that this was the case.
-
It was ruled differently in one if my rounds.
And it says Special Abilities on Evil Cards.
-
That would be errata disguised as play-as, therefore we are to disregard it.
-
No, that's what the Card says, the errata didn't change it.
-
No, that's what the Card says, the errata didn't change it.
The card says exactly this: "Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn."
That is the printed special ability.
-
I play the card, I do know what it says.
-
I do know what it says.
Evidently not if you think it says "special abilities" anywhere on it....
-
It was ruled differently in one if my rounds.
And it says Special Abilities on Evil Cards.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FProtection%2520of%2520Angels%2520%28Pi%29.gif&hash=7d0f0a2eb56503be89ffd9f45f04e423297f1ff3)
-
Whatever, that's not how I've ever played it and I don't want to play it like that. Why don't we just make all the Protect cards just "Ignore Evil Cards"? It's the same difference.
-
It's not the same difference. Ignore means they get infinite initiative. With protection, as soon as they're not dying they don't get initiative anymore (because then it would be a stalemate). Protection is not a battle winning ability, ignore is.
Also, how you want to play it doesn't really matter, you have to follow the rules in official tournaments.
-
How it's put by the new rules makes it another version of ignore. Ur unaffected by Opponents number's so its like their always 0/0 to you. How does that pass initiative?
-
You're unaffected by their numbers, yes, but they're not unaffected by yours (which they are if you're ignoring them, hence why they're not the same thing). Therefore, if they can get their toughness higher than your strength they cease to be dying and the battle becomes a stalemate. In a stalemate, initiative passes to the person who did not play the last card.
-
Argh!
I almost want to start playing the 4th Seal & Burning Sensor again!
That makes sense for Immunity but not on Protection. It doesn't follow the definition of 'Protect' in the English language.
-
Argh!
I almost want to start playing the 4th Seal & Burning Sensor again!
That makes sense for Immunity but not on Protection. It doesn't follow the definition of 'Protect' in the English language.
Good thing we're based on Hebrew and Greek.
-
Hebrew and Greek don't have that either.
-
If you've got an issue with a ruling, post that in the "Ruling Questions" section. Otherwise, anyone have suggestions/opinions/thoughts on the card itself?
-
I still like it. I don't think I'll ever not like it. :P