Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 01:37:02 PM

Title: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 01:37:02 PM

Peter
Purple 10/10
Once per game, you may band to any number of disciples from Fishing Boat and/or territory.

Andrew
Purple 9/9
Search deck for Fishing Boat or a disciple. May band to Peter. Cannot be negated.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: browarod on December 29, 2010, 01:47:36 PM

Fishing Boat plays to set-aside, so I don't think Peter's "put it in play" clause would actually work. I like the idea, though.

If it's a once per game ability, shouldn't it be optional? Also, I would make it "and/or territory" to make it more awesome. :2cents:

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Cpt.Jaeger on December 29, 2010, 01:51:16 PM

just swap out "play" for "set-aside"  :thumbup:

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 01:56:06 PM

Fixed. Those were my original intentions anyway, I just didn't get the wording right, haha.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: browarod on December 29, 2010, 04:35:48 PM

I like them. :D

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 29, 2010, 07:15:32 PM

Andrew's good, but Peter was a pretty important guy to just be searching for a boat and chilling with his bro.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: The M on December 29, 2010, 08:55:35 PM

I like the Andrew reprint more for the sole reason that we already have an OK Peter, but a useless Andrew.
(No offense Wraith!)

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: BubbleBoy on December 29, 2010, 09:02:00 PM

I agree with Pol. I would switch the abilities and then give Pete a little more juice.

Also, "play it" would be better than "put it in set-aside," wouldn't it?

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 29, 2010, 09:36:05 PM

Andrew would, in fact, work. There's a game rule that when a card refers to a card that can only ever exist in set-aside, it doesn't need to specify (that's how PotA works).

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: TheJaylor on December 29, 2010, 10:21:50 PM

Peter more juice
Andrew more specific

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Alex_Olijar on December 30, 2010, 12:49:57 AM

Peter:

May band to Gabriel to write Biko

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 30, 2010, 11:46:47 AM

Ah, I missed the condition at the beginning of the SA. Andrew should say "Once per game, you may band to any number of Disciples in your Fishing Boat."

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 30, 2010, 06:48:54 PM

Updated.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 30, 2010, 11:16:59 PM

Peter's too weak. He needs at least one other tool.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 30, 2010, 11:30:08 PM

Such as...?

"All Disciples' special abilities cannot be negated."

That'd basically be an automatic soul though, depending on how many are out...

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 30, 2010, 11:40:20 PM

Not that, but something.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: The M on December 31, 2010, 11:32:50 AM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on December 30, 2010, 11:30:08 PM

Such as...?

"All Disciples' special abilities cannot be negated."

That'd basically be an automatic soul though, depending on how many are out...

Mad with Thad.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: megamanlan on January 02, 2011, 09:37:14 PM

Like them, if these guys are made then that makes 11/12 Disciples done.

Title: Re: Peter and Andrew
Post by: BubbleBoy on January 02, 2011, 11:05:00 PM

Those two already exist--they're just not purple.