Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: stefferweffer on July 23, 2010, 03:42:18 PM
-
Purple Territory Class Enhancement
Place in the territory of your choice. Protect all cards in ALL territories from being shuffled.
"That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."
Eccles.1:9
Something tells me this would be popular for Type 2 right now :)
-
Purple Territory Class Enhancement
Protect all cards in all territories from being shuffled.
"That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."
Eccles.1:9
Something tells me this would be popular for Type 2 right now :)
This + Abom = OP'd suckyness
-
I would use a card like this in a Magicians and/or demons deck to make it harder for my opponant to mess up my deck, if only it were the right brigade.
Does it place or is it just for the phase?
-
I modified the description. It gets placed, like other territory class enhancements.
I chose Purple because 1) The author of Ecclesiates was a son of David and king in Jerusalem, and 2) Because Purple needs a boost in my opinion anyway.
But I also thought of Gray Evil, in the sense that the authro's frustration at that point is "under the sun", only thinking about life her on earth rather than spiritual matters.
-
The color makes sense, and I would like a card something like this to come out, because when you are running deck manipulation its a real pain if your opponent can just captured ark you to not only get rid of an artifact but mess up your deck.
Its a good card, I like it, it also hurts the prophets a little (who are very powerful right now)
-
Purple Territory Class Enhancement
Place in the territory of your choice. Protect all cards in ALL territories from being shuffled.
"That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."
Eccles.1:9
Something tells me this would be popular for Type 2 right now :)
This makes ANB sad.
Seriously though, shutting down a whole brigade (green) with one card is not cool. Maybe I'm over-reacting but I like to use david's music, blessings for ob, two bears, etc.
-
It only protects territory, so the Green shuffles still work as battle-winners.
-
Yeah, but you couldn't do awesome tricks with them like I did at NC regionals :)
Hidden Treasures+Miriam+Two Bears to shuffle in his king to deactivate Pharoah's Throne Room.
-
Yeah, but you couldn't do awesome tricks with them like I did at NC regionals :)
Hidden Treasures+Miriam+Two Bears to shuffle in his king to deactivate Pharoah's Throne Room.
Does that un-negate it since the fort wasn't interrupted?
-
The fortress is no longer negating since theres not a king.
We didn't really ask about it, but Gabe was at the table when I did it, and he didn't argue the play at all, even though I won with the play and he would have won on the next turn.
-
The fortress is no longer negating since theres not a king.
We didn't really ask about it, but Gabe was at the table when I did it, and he didn't argue the play at all, even though I won with the play and he would have won on the next turn.
To my knowledge you can't un-negate/undo an ability without an interrupt. If it works that is awesome but it just doesn't seem to sit well with me.
-
Purple Territory Class Enhancement
Place in the territory of your choice. Protect all cards in ALL territories from being shuffled.
"That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So, there is nothing new under the sun."
Eccles.1:9
Something tells me this would be popular for Type 2 right now :)
This makes ANB sad.
Seriously though, shutting down a whole brigade (green) with one card is not cool. Maybe I'm over-reacting but I like to use david's music, blessings for ob, two bears, etc.
I looked through my card list, and I couldn't find many cards that protect from shuffling. You are right that green relies on this a bunch, but if there is no way to stop it, then it needs a counter doesn't it? (Thinking about Garden Tomb)
-
The fortress is no longer negating since theres not a king.
We didn't really ask about it, but Gabe was at the table when I did it, and he didn't argue the play at all, even though I won with the play and he would have won on the next turn.
To my knowledge you can't un-negate/undo an ability without an interrupt. If it works that is awesome but it just doesn't seem to sit well with me.
The fortress said "While an Egyptian king or pharaoh is in play," so I didn't even bring it up when that happened. I shouldn't have played Mayhem in that game when I did, but either way, RDT (I mean GDS ;)) played that game very well.
-
As of now, its too op imo. Maybe if you had it as "until your next turn, protect all characters in territory from shuffling" This way, it will still stop the shuffling of your characters in your territory without having it shut down the shuffling tactic completely.
-
I like it as is. I think the fact that it doesn't affect battle makes it balanced. Maybe I would reword it so that it protected only one player at a time, but other than that, I think it's pretty good.
-
What? Since when was Solomon backslidden when he wrote Ecclesiastes? That's an unfounded assertion. Why would a book written by a backslidden Jew have been recognized as scripture?
*This post has been edited in order to more accurately portray the original intent without sounding personal.
-
What? Since when was Solomon backslidden when he wrote Ecclesiastes? That's a ridiculous assertion considering that it is canonical scripture- pretty sure that wouldn't be typical of literature written by a backslidden or pagan person.
Friend, you know what's more ridiculous? Your ignorance which you're trying to put off as fact and is simply & plainly an opinion which is contrary to the Irrefutable Word of God. Bro, this isn't some argument or debate which I'm not going to get into with you because its condemned by scripture; God is the God of the Bible - not the god of your assumptions, opinions or beliefs about the bible.
Same goes for you bro.
The very first verse of the very first chapter in the Book says plainly, "The words of the preacher..." nothing like inspired by the Holy Spirit or called to be an apostle because there was no Holy Spirit and The Messiah hadn't come yet.
So because he didn't use the right opening, you assume he is backslidden? How exactly did it get into canonical Hebraic scripture then, if he was a backslidden Jew? Why would the Jews accept it?
There's at least 10 things that prove he was backslidden.
1. his attitude
2. his reasonings, "under the sun"
3. his general dissatisfaction with life
4. what he gave his heart over to
5. his self-exaltation
6. being surprised that his wisdom still remained in him
7. his hatred of life
8. his selfishness
9. his wrong advice
10. he taught wrong doctrines
1. Opinion.
2. His reasonings are correct. Everything under the sun is meaningless. This world is a vapor of reality that we have been charged to uphold and protect. We have been called to witness to the world so that God's elect may be brought to salvation. However, Everything under the Sun, everything of world, is meaningless in the end.
3. His dissatisfaction with material life is not biblical? Interesting.
4. He is recalling his past, not describing his present.
5. It is wrong from him to say he is the wisest king or the richest ruler? Apparently statements of truth (especially when made in light of the meaninglessness of these things) don't belong in Scripture.
6. Most people are surprised that God does not forsake them in their sin. I don't see how this says anything.
7. You don't hate your life on the earth? You don't eternally yearn that you did not have to live this life, but rather have been made into perfection? Seems like a fine enough desire to me.
8. He always talks about his selfishness in light of how meaningless it was, so again, he is reflecting on his folly.
9. Proof?
10. Proof?
Solomon was also quite the sinner.
So was Saul. You know, the guy who wrote about 60% of the New Testament?
8 Sins of Solomon
1. Gave his heart to know madness & folly
2. Gave his heart to mirth & pleasure
3. Gave his heart to wine & drunkenness
4. Gave his heart to lay hold on folly
5. Set his heart on riches, treasures, singing and music
6. Give himself over to unbridled lusts & passions
7. Applied his heart to know the wickedness of folly & the foolishness of madness
8. Had bitter experiences with women
Go read 1 Kings 11 and tell me why did God raise up adversaries against Solomon? You read scripture in light of other scripture, in context of other scripture.
The fact that he was backslidden doesn't mean God can't use him. Back in the O.T. God only anointed three offices, the King (and he was the anointed King), the Prophet and the Priest and Romans 11:29 says that God's gifts & callings are irrevocable. If perfection was a prerequisite to ministry then we'd have no ministers, you might as well go to your church march right up to the pulpit and tell your pastor to go home because he's not qualified to preach; however, that's not the case.
This entire point is irrelevant to the idea that Ecclesiastes is inspired Scripture. I agree with it. Cleary perfection is not required to serve. Clearly Solomon sinned. How does any of this make his writings that have been included in scripture non-inspired? Do you not accept Proverbs or Song of Solomon either?
-
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books, but it's dense, dense, dense and requires a lot of knowledge to understand properly. Translating the word used most often in the book as "vanity" rather than "temporary" is one of the main reasons it's confusing to "at face-value only" Christians. Solomon is one of the most human characters in the Bible (like David) and looking at his body of work as a whole, it is safe to say he repented near the end of his life. But the fact remains that attributing Ecclesiastes to an apostate King is a result of lack of understanding.
-
Well vanity = emptiness which means in the end it doesn't matter.
-
But that's an improper understanding of what Solomon is talking about. The things of this earth do matter (God created it, after all, and said it was good), but they are also temporary compared with the eternal kingdom...which, interestingly enough, will be on a restored earth. The point of this book isn't to be defeatist about life, only to ridicule the amount of import people place on it while ignoring the eternal.
-
But that's an improper understanding of what Solomon is talking about. The things of this earth do matter (God created it, after all, and said it was good), but they are also temporary compared with the eternal kingdom...which, interestingly enough, will be on a restored earth. The point of this book isn't to be defeatist about life, only to ridicule the amount of import people place on it while ignoring the eternal.
Exactly, I phrased that poorly.
-
+1
-
delarosajon, there is no need for the cursing. i suggest you remove it before it gets reported and removed.
-
If this offends you, your problem is not with me, its with God's Word because I'm simply quoting scripture.
This is not accurate. You have a lot of your own words and thoughts in there too, and some of them are insulting. Some of them are curse words. Regardless of the content of your message, the way you are communicating it is offensive.
Friend, you know what's more ridiculous? Your ignorance which you're trying to put off as fact and is simply & plainly an opinion which is contrary to the Irrefutable Word of God.
[quote containing cursing removed due to it being edited out of original post]
-
If I'm remembering Ecclesiastes right, it sounds like a man who had everything but it didn't satisfy him, and I think that is the main point in the book. He seemed to go through at the very least a "wilderness experience" where he wasn't close to God, and that, in combination with Foreign Wives caused him too fall. He almost seems to be saying all of his Failures at happiness to try to tell others that there is a better way. But I really can't remember anything specific about it so I could be very wrong
-
I'm only responding to a couple things (and I tried to avoid anything that could be viewed as a liberty or personal issue) in hopes of reconcilation. If you are going to take some of my comments so personally, I will simply not respond to them.
When you say that Solomon didn't use the right opening do you realize what you are doing? Woe woe woe, who the hell do you think you are? Do you think you're the Judge of Right & Wrong? You basically just said God is wrong, you shrunk God down to your level and you are judging His Word, setting yourself up as the Judge of Right & Wrong and it all comes from pride. I never said that Solomon being a sinner disqualified him from being used by God, in fact I defended him and I do accept his books as scripture, quit trying to turn this into an argument.
If you were not trying to slight Solomon, why bother mention the obvious fact that he is a sinner, followed by a list of some of his egregious sins, all preceded by comments that he was not in a proper relationship with God when he wrote Ecclesiastes.
I am not judging anything other than you. You are clearly well versed biblically, do you not also know that Paul called us to judge those who claim to be teachers and to hold their words accountable that we might not be led astray? I am not attempting to judge God. I am attempting to judge the message you are bringing which I have found to be lacking. You appear to have assumed that I am judging God by judging you. I fear you have attached your personal message and doctrines that are "second level" doctrines (the exact nature of the eucharist, predestinaton, etc) to what I call "first level" doctrines (Christ's Divinity, Christ's Death for Salvation is sufficient, etc), which are the basis of Christianity. First level doctrines can not be altered if you wish to retain salvation. I imagine we are both in agreement on these doctrines. However, we clearly disagree on a second level doctrine (namely Solomon's message in Ecclesiastes). This does not make either of us pagan, evil, unchristian, or anything of the like. We simply disagree because we imperfectly know. There will be a time when we will more perfectly know, just as we are perfectly known, and somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever is wrong will not care.
As for your response to point one, I am not sure what your trying to suggest. You are going to have to expand on why using the word "vanity" means he has a terrible attitude. That sounds like a classic case of not understanding context or ignoring context in order to line up your preconcieved notions with things that simply aren't in the book. Perhaps this is not the case, but you are going to have to expand your thoughts, not list the different times he uses vanities. Thank you.
I want to respond specifically to point 9 also. You say I am supposed to be quick to believe because I am a believer. Nay, I would say I should be even slower to believe! I have a firm foundation in Christ that is unshakeable. Paul constantly warned against false teachers, as did John. Christians have been called to keep their minds pure and to judge words of teachers with the Bible to find their truth. I see and have seen nothing in scripture that encourages quick belief. My mind is not to be chaff blown in the wind.
Finally, your use of what many consider to be profanity saddens me. While I personally am not offending by it (I feel the issue is one of Christian liberty and interpretation of certain passages), I am certainly you know that there are those here who do not appreciate terms used in such a way. I would encourage you not to use such terms here in the future, as it will most certainly cloud your points to many here. If you are condemned by your conscience and the Spirit for it, so be it. But I would encourage you not to exercise your liberties in a place where it will offend others, as that is not what Christian liberties are about.
delarosajon, there is no need for the cursing. i suggest you remove it before it gets reported and removed.
hell is a biblical word.
While this is true, not in the context in which it was used. Also, in our culture, in that context, it is not a biblical word.
-
Go read The Bait of Satan by John Bervere to better understand offense. If you had a better idea, you'd realize it's the enemy that sows it into the hearts of believers. A good example of is in the parable of the sower within the gospels. The devil sows seeds of offense to cause division amongst the body of Christ. But it's also the Word that divides (Heb. 4:12).
-
Many curse words are in the bible. A fatherless' child(Deut 23:2), the place of the damned, and many others. Just because they are used does NOT make them right, especially used against your Christian brothers. I've read all the arguments. Truthfully, I have my own opinions but I will not post them here because Alex has already won the argument. Not through fact, nor through proof, but for the fact he kept his cool. I really do not care if the word is biblical. In this culture it is a known swear. Culture needs to be taken into account before things are said. If I bow as a sign of respect, it is not the same as bowing to worship. Your post is reported. Please think of how you should treat your brothers before posting again, I implore you. I understand your rage at feeling someone is twisting God's word but it doesn't justify what you did. God doesn't need us to defend him. He wants us to love each other and rebuke in that love. If a little child said what Alex did would you say what you said? Or would you calmly have talked to him?
Proper way to handle this:
Steps:
1: Check with your pastor to make sure you are in the right. Pray during this whole process.
2: If your brother offends you, take it to a PM, come to him 1-1
3: If he does not listen then take it to him via a group pm with you and another.
4: Then take it to the congregation, or in this case the boards to see what is to be done.
I posted this rather than PMs because of the amount of people involved. How can we witness to the world when we can't even treat each other with respect?
Lovingly,
Joshua
-
How about you go read the forum rules about curseing. And in that context by the rules of this forum it is a curse word so please refrain from useing hell in that context. Also I reported his post and I'm about to report another post.
-
This isn't winning Josh, this is about simply trying to elucidate passages of Scripture that are unclear and understanding viewpoints opposing your own. I edited my first post in this topic, FWIW, because it came across as personal and aggressive. I noted this in the post.
How about you go read the forum rules about curseing. And in that context by the rules of this forum it is a curse word so please refrain from useing hell in that context. Also I reported his post and I'm about to report another post.
I actually did not, and would not encourage reporting him if you wish to post in this thread. I am sorry to hear you have done as such. It is clear others have reported him. If you wish to report, then there is no need to add this message, as you have done your duty. As Josh astutely pointed out, the best way to handle things is privately (when personal issues are involved). I don't see a need for you to add a message simply to say "I reported you." (essentially). So, in the future, keep that in mind. :)
-
This isn't winning Josh, this is about simply trying to elucidate passages of Scripture that are unclear and understanding viewpoints opposing your own
Quite correct but if you lose your temper then your argument is hurt a considerable amount. Thats the point I was going for.
-
I reported his brother first and then him. Honsetly(No spellcheck) I'm done in this thread.(Btw neato card)
-
Congratulations, an entire post of Scriptural defense undone because you had to curse another person in the name of Hell. It may be a biblical word but there is a reason that certain contexts are unacceptable. Words have power and there is no cause to visit that kind of power on your brethren.
-
No body wins in an arguement, we're commanded not to.
-
Congratulations, an entire post of Scriptural defense undone because you had to curse another person in the name of Hell. It may be a biblical word but there is a reason that certain contexts are unacceptable. Words have power and there is no cause to visit that kind of power on your brethren.
Pretty shoddy scriptural defense, fortunately.
-
Not really the point here, Daniel.
-
i personally think he had pretty good scriptural backing, but im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
-
im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
Neither was Jesus. ;)
-
hell is a biblical word.
Yes, it is a place. And there is a biblical way to use the word. For instance it would make sense to say that those who never repent of their sins will eventually end up in Hell. However the context you used it in was cursing. To say "who the ____ are you" is not speaking of it as a place. To say "____ yeah!" is not using it as a place. It is not using the word in a biblical way. I would encourage you to think more carefully about how you communicate in the future, and to also not make excuses for when you misspeak...particularly excuses like the one above that are clearly in error.
-
im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
Neither was Jesus. ;)
I would be VERY wary of comparing cursing and Jesus. Though both were not appreciated, one was not appreciated because it was right and one because it is just not needed.
-
im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
Neither was Jesus. ;)
I would be VERY wary of comparing cursing and Jesus.
He means people not appreciating Jesus silly, haha
-
im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
Neither was Jesus. ;)
I would be VERY wary of comparing cursing and Jesus.
In all honesty, I hadn't read the whole thread at the time I posted that, but I thought that I had and knew what was going on, so I posted what may possibly have been funny in that situation (which now I can't even remember what I thought was). Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a troll. :-[
-
im sure the cursing wasnt appreciated by most.
Neither was Jesus. ;)
I would be VERY wary of comparing cursing and Jesus.
In all honesty, I hadn't read the whole thread at the time I posted that, but I thought that I had and knew what was going on, so I posted what may possibly have been funny in that situation (which now I can't even remember what I thought was). Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a troll. :-[
It's ok, trolls are fun to poke.
-
Thanks, I feel better now...:-\
-
hell is a biblical word.
Yes, it is a place. And there is a biblical way to use the word. For instance it would make sense to say that those who never repent of their sins will eventually end up in Hell. However the context you used it in was cursing. To say "who the ____ are you" is not speaking of it as a place. To say "____ yeah!" is not using it as a place. It is not using the word in a biblical way. I would encourage you to think more carefully about how you communicate in the future, and to also not make excuses for when you misspeak...particularly excuses like the one above that are clearly in error.
Yes Prof, you're right. I am in the wrong on how I used the word; forgive me.
-
Yes Prof, you're right. I am in the wrong on how I used the word; forgive me.
I appreciate your willingness to apologize and I gladly forgive you :)
-
Assuming that was genuine (assuming is never safe on a forum, and all too often srcsm is the MO online), I'm quite impressed. Accepting correction with humility is as rare on the internet as straight, single, attractive females.