Author Topic: Library at Alexandria (Read 7685 times)

Egyptian · « **on:** July 13, 2009, 10:07:19 AM »

Library at Alexandria

Egyptian Site (Gold Pyramids)

"If Egypt is in play and an opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, holder may search deck for one card and add it to hand."

Verse: Acts 28:11 - "And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux."

metalpsalm · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:13:05 AM »

Oh, 1000 points! I wish I had thought of it

Gabe · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:33:16 AM »

Nice card! I was inspired so I mocked up a copy for you. Hope to see you at NC Regionals! Enjoy!!!

Egyptian · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:43:59 AM »

Thank you !! I hope this makes it as a card in the future.

Just one minor thing. Can you change it to read "Library at Alexandria." Thanks...

-EgYpTiAn

Gabe · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:45:27 AM »

Quote from: Egyptian on July 13, 2009, 11:43:59 AM

Thank you !! I hope this makes it as a card in the future.

Just one minor thing. Can you change it to read "Library at Alexandria." Thanks...

-EgYpTiAn

Doh! My bad. I used to play MTG...

Egyptian · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:47:20 AM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 13, 2009, 11:45:27 AM

Quote from: Egyptian on July 13, 2009, 11:43:59 AM
Thank you !! I hope this makes it as a card in the future.

Just one minor thing. Can you change it to read "Library at Alexandria." Thanks...

-EgYpTiAn

Doh! My bad. I used to play MTG...

As did I. The MTG card was "Library OF Alexandria" wasn't it? But actually if you look at the wiki entry it says that there several large libraries in the ancient world. So that's why I want this to read "Library at Alexandria". Thanks again. I like the mock-up a lot. The green background is perfect.

Gabe · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2009, 11:59:53 AM »

It's fixed now.

Your correct that Library at Alexandria makes more sense. My brain just reverted back to what it knew and put of instead of at, thus my mistake.

Egyptian · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:02:27 PM »

Thanks again! Now, how can we get it printed as a card? :-D

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:06:47 PM »

Quote from: Egyptian on July 13, 2009, 12:02:27 PM

Thanks again! Now, how can we get it printed as a card? :-D

Will you be at Regionals this Saturday? If you will I'll bring you a real copy of this.

Egyptian · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:19:43 PM »

Quote

Will you be at Regionals this Saturday? If you will I'll bring you a real copy of this.

Wow. What an honor. And I seriously mean that.

Yes, I will be there.

Egyptian · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:46:53 PM »

Brian,

Could you please make one more modification to the mock-up, so that the ability reads:

"If holder has Egypt in play, and an opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, holder may search deck for one card and add it to hand."

The reason is, if it just reads "Egypt in play," then people will use it as a splash card against Egypt decks (which does not jive with the theme). The modification above would not prevent this, but would make it somewhat less desirable to do so, especially in T1, since you'd have to use at least two slots instead of one (one for an Egypt, one for this card).

Actually you know what, I like it just the way it is. My bad. Please disregard.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:48:29 PM »

Only suggestion would be except a dom.

Egyptian · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:52:01 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on July 13, 2009, 12:48:29 PM

Only suggestion would be except a dom.

Reason?

(Search, False Peace, and similar cards do not have this restriction.)

I don't want to restrict the search because

(1) Holder's "library" (deck) includes ALL the cards in that deck.
(2) The card already is quite conditional, as follows:

(a) A lost soul has to be in the site.
(b) The lost soul must be rescued by an opponent (e.g. holder can't play Son of God and then go search).
(c) An Egypt must be in play.

With all these conditions I do not want to put the "except a dominant" limitation.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:25:37 PM »

Search/FP need to be played in battle, sure it isn't a huge limitation but it is a limitation.
A getting a ls in the site is a minor limitation
B giving up a ls to get sog to play with the nj you've drawn to win seems pretty easy.
C Any egyptian deck uses 2-3 copies of egypt.

I love Egyptians but I just don't like the idea of pulling out sog/nj/aotl to win a game because someone won a rescue attempt is a good card. I could be wrong though.

Gabe · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:53:30 PM »

I think the part of this card that isn't balanced is that it can be used over and over by any brigade. If it was a one time use or only worked with Egyptians, I think it would be balanced enough.

It still takes a 2 card combo (not counting the LS) to pull it off and it involves giving the opponent a LS. For this very reason I've found Banks of the Nile to be a lot less useful than I originally expected it to be. It's a pretty rare situation that you're going to be in the possition to give a free LS and need exactly one card (SoG/NJ/Aotl w/e) to win.

I'd be ok with allowing multiple searches if it's changed to use with an Egyptian defense so that it cannot be splashed into any site deck that wants to use LaA and Egypt. Possibly by tweaking the requirement "If Egypt is in play and you control an Egyptian, when an opponent rescues a lost soul from this site..."

Egyptian · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:11:48 PM »

Quote

I'd be ok with allowing multiple searches if it's changed to use with an Egyptian defense so that it cannot be splashed into any site deck that wants to use LaA and Egypt.

"If holder plays an Egyptian defense...."

LOL. In other words, you're suggesting

"If opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, Egypt is in play and holder controls an Egyptian evil character, then holder may search deck for one card and add it to hand."

That's quite a mouthful. Would it even fit on the card? The problem is that then someone could put in an Egyptian, LaA, Egypt and splash those three cards, etc. ("Hey, I've got an Egyptian in play!")

How do you restrict a card to work only when a certain defense is played?

I understand the concern with pulling SoG to match NJ already in hand, but you can do the same thing with search and false peace.

~~In type 1, you don't HAVE to give them a lost soul in the Library if you have others out~~. In T2, the opponent doesn't have to attempt to rescue a lost soul in the Library.

Sorry, that didn't make sense. If you have to give up a LS, you give one up from the Library. Nix the first comment above. I agree in type 1 it would be pretty powerful. Interestingly enough, here is a case where you would perhaps NOT want to RA with site access!

I (still) like the card as you picture it above.

Egyptian · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:27:22 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on July 13, 2009, 01:25:37 PM

I love Egyptians but I just don't like the idea of pulling out sog/nj/aotl to win a game because someone won a rescue attempt is a good card. I could be wrong though.

I love green prophets but I just don't like the idea of using Hidden Treasures and non-negatably pulling out sog/nj/aotl to win a game before I even have a chance to block.

I love gray brigade but I just don't like the idea of using False Peace with Sabbath Breakers and pulling out sog/nj/aotl to win a game before I can make the rescue.

Actually, I don't really love green prophets or gray brigade (though some of the new Roman Emperors are decent). But I'm just sayin'... :-)

Colin Michael · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:41:13 PM »

I always thought that the Muslims destroyed the library; however, according to Plutarch, Julius Caesar accidentally destroyed it. Got to love Wikipedia.

Smokey · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:46:31 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 13, 2009, 03:41:13 PM

I always thought that the Muslims destroyed the library; however, according to Plutarch, Julius Caesar accidentally destroyed it. Got to love Wikipedia.

I belive a Caesar (reprint?) is in order that discards this card

Colin Michael · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:48:50 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on July 13, 2009, 03:46:31 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 13, 2009, 03:41:13 PM
I always thought that the Muslims destroyed the library; however, according to Plutarch, Julius Caesar accidentally destroyed it. Got to love Wikipedia.

I belive a Caesar (reprint?) is in order that discards this card

We could add Brutus and Alexander while we're at it. We already do have some of the Ptolemies, I believe, but we could also pulls some more of them out of the Apocrypha.

The possibilities are endless!

Egyptian · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2009, 04:00:04 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 13, 2009, 03:48:50 PM

Quote from: Smokey on July 13, 2009, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Colin Michael on July 13, 2009, 03:41:13 PM
I always thought that the Muslims destroyed the library; however, according to Plutarch, Julius Caesar accidentally destroyed it. Got to love Wikipedia.

I belive a Caesar (reprint?) is in order that discards this card
We could add Brutus and Alexander while we're at it. We already do have some of the Ptolemies, I believe, but we could also pulls some more of them out of the Apocrypha.

The possibilities are endless!

Yep, Judas Maccabeus from the Maccabees, et. al.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:26:54 AM »

"They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, in which case they are superfluous."
-the caliph Umar, when asked what to do with the library (according to the Muslim account of events).

A perfect example of fundamentalism taken too far.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:36:26 AM »

"If you have

Quote from: Egyptian on July 13, 2009, 03:11:48 PM

Quote
I'd be ok with allowing multiple searches if it's changed to use with an Egyptian defense so that it cannot be splashed into any site deck that wants to use LaA and Egypt.

"If holder plays an Egyptian defense...."

LOL. In other words, you're suggesting

"If opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, Egypt is in play and holder controls an Egyptian evil character, then holder may search deck for one card and add it to hand."

That's quite a mouthful. Would it even fit on the card? The problem is that then someone could put in an Egyptian, LaA, Egypt and splash those three cards, etc. ("Hey, I've got an Egyptian in play!")

How do you restrict a card to work only when a certain defense is played?

I understand the concern with pulling SoG to match NJ already in hand, but you can do the same thing with search and false peace.

~~In type 1, you don't HAVE to give them a lost soul in the Library if you have others out~~. In T2, the opponent doesn't have to attempt to rescue a lost soul in the Library.

Sorry, that didn't make sense. If you have to give up a LS, you give one up from the Library. Nix the first comment above. I agree in type 1 it would be pretty powerful. Interestingly enough, here is a case where you would perhaps NOT want to RA with site access!

I (still) like the card as you picture it above.

If Egypt is in play, and opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, you may search draw pile for a card. Discard this card if you control a non-Egyptian"

That is how I would word it so that it cannot be splashed.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:39:55 AM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 14, 2009, 01:26:54 AM

"They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, in which case they are superfluous."
-the caliph Umar, when asked what to do with the library (according to the Muslim account of events).

Actually, the passage above is from Western European accounts that date about 1000 years after the fact and are widely regarded as false.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on July 14, 2009, 01:36:26 AM

If Egypt is in play, and opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, you may search draw pile for a card. Discard this card if you control a non-Egyptian"

That is how I would word it so that it cannot be splashed.

I would probably mix things up and go with,

SA: If the holder only has only one evil brigade in play, you may search the draw pile for a card. After X searches discard this card.

Identifier: X = The number of Pharoahs in play.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:40:21 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 14, 2009, 01:39:55 AM

Quote from: Colin Michael on July 14, 2009, 01:26:54 AM
"They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, in which case they are superfluous."
-the caliph Umar, when asked what to do with the library (according to the Muslim account of events).

Actually, the passage above is from Western European accounts that date about 1000 years after the fact and are widely regarded as false.

Regarded as false unless you go to FCS, that is.

It was nice of the Muslims to allow us to let Julius off the hook for a while though.

Master KChief · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:45:18 AM »

isnt this a mtg card?

kind of similiar effect too, because it involves adding more cards to your hand...

i like this card ALOT. truly one of the most original ideas to grace redemption. however, i think i would limit it to once per game to further balance it.

crustpope · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2009, 10:54:07 AM »

I hate to be the the one to rain on everyone "Egyptian" parade, but ALexandria was founded by a Greek and the Library was built during the reign of the Ptolomies who were also greek so if anything I think it belongs in some sort of Hybrid Greek/Egyptian Theme. It definitely should not have an "Egyptian" Identifier. probably a "Greek" or 'Ptolemaic' Identifier. The Egyptian characters and cards are all from a time before the exile and definitely before the time of Alexander the Great who basically "reset" the entire Middle East. Trying to mix the two is abit like playing anachronism with Redemption cards.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2009, 10:55:30 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 14, 2009, 10:54:07 AM

I hate to be the the one to rain on everyone "Egyptian" parade, but ALexandria was founded by a Greek and the Library was built during the reign of the Ptolomies who were also greek so if anything I think it belongs in some sort of Hybrid Greek/Egyptian Theme. It definitely should not have an "Egyptian" Identifier. probably a "Greek" or 'Ptolemaic' Identifier. The Egyptian characters and cards are all from a time before the exile and definitely before the time of Alexander the Great who basically "reset" the entire Middle East. Trying to mix the two is abit like playing anachronism with Redemption cards.

This is true, however, for some reason I thought that we had already printed a Ptolemy as an Egyptian.

crustpope · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:08:45 AM »

I dont think we have reprinted any ptolemys so far. We have printed an Antiochus Epiphanes but he was a Selucid (and a greek as an identifier) so that would set the same precedent for the Ptolemys

Egyptian · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:27:56 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 14, 2009, 10:54:07 AM

I hate to be the the one to rain on everyone "Egyptian" parade, but ALexandria was founded by a Greek and the Library was built during the reign of the Ptolomies who were also greek so if anything I think it belongs in some sort of Hybrid Greek/Egyptian Theme. It definitely should not have an "Egyptian" Identifier. probably a "Greek" or 'Ptolemaic' Identifier. The Egyptian characters and cards are all from a time before the exile and definitely before the time of Alexander the Great who basically "reset" the entire Middle East. Trying to mix the two is abit like playing anachronism with Redemption cards.

When an NT hero is blocked by an OT villain isn't that in some sense anachronistic?

Redemption is full of situations and battles which could never historically have taken place.

crustpope · « **Reply #30 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Egyptian on July 14, 2009, 01:27:56 PM

When an NT hero is blocked by an OT villain isn't that in some sense anachronistic?

Redemption is full of situations and battles which could never historically have taken place.

Yes There are anachronisims in the game mechanic but not within the civilizations themselves. You are talking about making the Egyptian civilization span from Patriarichal times until almost NT times without acknowledging the fact that the Egyptian Civilization basically ceased to end as a separate entity after the Persian Conquest in 525. (there was a brief stint of self rule from 404-362 but the three dynasties that ruled during this time could hardly be called stable due to near constant civil war). What came after Persian rule was not Egyptian in Government, only in location and name. The ruling class were all Greek in culture and language.

Egyptian · « **Reply #31 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:51:20 PM »

Quote

If Egypt is in play, and opponent rescues a lost soul from this site, you may search draw pile for a card. Discard this card if you control a non-Egyptian"
That is how I would word it so that it cannot be splashed.

I would re-word it as "Negate this ability if you control a non-Egyptian." I don't want the site to discard itself. But most Egyptian defenses will have 1-2 non-Egyptians because of Journey to Egypt.

Quote

If the holder only has only one evil brigade in play, you may search the draw pile for a card. After X searches discard this card. Identifier: X = The number of Pharaohs in play.

Interesting idea. Again I would say, "after X searches negate this ability" instead of "discard this card." Also, I would say "Egyptian Pharaohs and Kings." (Kings Shishak and So should count). But what if you put the site down when you don't have any Pharaohs/Kings out? Or, what if you put the site down when you have 1 Pharaoh out and you put one down on your next turn? Is X determined when the card is played?

Not too keen on the "only one evil brigade in play." Seems like we've overdone it in recent sets on restricting number of brigades, and most Egyptian defenses are going to have 1-2 non-Egyptians because of Journey to Egypt. The requirement to have Egypt in play, this card out, and a Pharaoh in play in order to do the search pretty much restricts this to an Egyptian defense.

If someone wants put in Egypt, Library, and a Pharaoh so that they can potential search ONCE, well more power to them - they should just use False Peace or Search. If they are going to put multiple Pharaohs in, they are pretty much going to play an Egyptian defense, especially in T1...

I'm going to playtest the card exactly as Brian Gabe has it in his post here. I will follow up with a post once I've done that. I will try to keep these and other questions in mind as I'm playtesting it.

Egyptian · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:57:04 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 14, 2009, 01:44:19 PM

Yes There are anachronisims in the game mechanic but not within the civilizations themselves. You are talking about making the Egyptian civilization span from Patriarichal times until almost NT times without acknowledging the fact that the Egyptian Civilization basically ceased to end as a separate entity after the Persian Conquest in 525. (there was a brief stint of self rule from 404-362 but the three dynasties that ruled during this time could hardly be called stable due to near constant civil war). What came after Persian rule was not Egyptian in Government, only in location and name. The ruling class were all Greek in culture and language.

Look, uh, I'm not a history professor. :-) Perhaps you make some valid points, but the fact remains Alexandria is a city in Egypt, and therefore Library at Alexandria existed in Egypt.

Whether the Library is actually "Egyptian" or not is of minor gameplay importance except in one situation - playing "Building Egypt." I would like it to be "Egyptian" so that it can be brought out with Building Egypt. If you believe this is too powerful or doesn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint, please educate me :-) I'm more than willing to hear the arguments.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:43:54 PM »

The person who allegedly put together the library (Demetrius Phalereus) was Athenian (a student of Aristotle, in fact).

News:

Author Topic: Library at Alexandria (Read 7685 times)