Author Topic: Psalms Ideas (Read 4254 times)

The M · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:05:46 PM »

I'm not sure how many Psalms characters there are but strong tower seems pretty OP.
And Strong Men is ridiculously OP.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:28:22 PM »

Strong Tower is indeed OP. Having one of those abilities would be a good card, all three makes it too powerful. Protecting characters is nothing new, but this protects from all effects on opponent cards, protects any type of character (as in not restricted to book or civilization or so on), and protects both Good and Evil characters. Very strong. Too strong. Then we add that to being unable to block from hand, which is not too powerful but it still ruins a lot of the meta defense and helps certain offenses too much. Finally, we have all Psalms heroes be CBN, which effectively stops us from being able to have good abilities on those heroes be balanced by a lack of CBN. I'm not a fan of that ability on any card, let alone added to everything else. I'd recommend picking either one ability and balancing it or two and adding more restrictions/requirements to use.

The Righteous is good. I like that one

But you have to specify whether it negates based on Strength or Toughness, and make sure you want both characters and enhancements with the current wording

Sons of Men is too OP. Protection from good cards is too much anyway, but then you restrict (which needs to be used sparingly) being able to play any "cannot be" cards. Both abilities are too powerful, especially together. I'd recommend a restricted protect, and ditching the second ability altogether.

megamanlan · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:36:51 PM »

Well, there are only 2 I can think of, but I thought I remember hearing there are 3 so Tower isn't too bad when you think about that.
Sons of Men is too strong, it is an Auto-Block period. At least cards like Nero or Claudius only affect certain kinds of Characters (Lone Heroes, NT Heroes, etc.) but it can win a battle without anything at any point, plus I can't use any CB-anything to stop it.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:46:18 PM »

but you can negate it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2012, 09:26:53 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 04, 2012, 08:46:18 PM

but you can negate it.

Being able to negate a good fortress is really not a good balancing force. Otherwise people wouldn't argue that TGT is the most powerful non-dominant in the game.

Also, you can't negate the third ability. It confers CBN status, and is by rule is CBN. (Only that part of the ability, mind you.)

Quote from: megamanlan on June 04, 2012, 08:36:51 PM

Well, there are only 2 I can think of, but I thought I remember hearing there are 3 so Tower isn't too bad when you think about that.

The point is we couldn't print any more and balance a good ability with the fact that it can be negated, because then you'd be able to use this card and grant it CBN. It would restrict future cards and that's not something we want to deal with.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2012, 09:55:14 PM »

not the fortress. the sons of men. it can be interupted and negated and prevented.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:12:43 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 04, 2012, 09:55:14 PM

not the fortress. the sons of men. it can be interupted and negated and prevented.

Almost every good enhancement used in competitive decks has some form of "Cannot be...", including a majority of the negates that actually see use. You cannot negate this card with one of those cards because of the restrict, and you can't play any other battle-winners either because they're all CB-.

It would seriously stop all of the major competitive offenses. That's too much.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:14:30 PM »

Then, you couldn't play Enoch!

TheJaylor · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:45:21 PM »

Quote from: Minion of Jesus on June 04, 2012, 10:14:30 PM

Then, you couldn't play Enoch!

It says enhancements... so yes, yes you could...

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:02:01 PM »

you can use burning bush, flaming sword, you can interupt then play a cant be negated battle winner, come in with cap. etc. etc.

Redoubter · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:14:30 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 04, 2012, 11:02:01 PM

you can use burning bush, flaming sword, you can interupt then play a cant be negated battle winner, come in with cap. etc. etc.

You just gave cards that are not in the competitive decks. Look at the true competitive battle-winners, like Samuel's Edict and Bravery of David. These are the cards used in decks that compete to win the high-level tournaments, and decks do not use enhancements that give their opponent a chance to respond, nor cards to just negate. Your cards need to win you the battle, you only have so many of them, so you use the best. That's the way the meta is, and the way of the cards that have been released. This ability is just too powerful, and is not balanced.

Drrek · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:18:26 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 04, 2012, 11:02:01 PM

you can use burning bush, flaming sword, you can interupt then play a cant be negated battle winner, come in with cap. etc. etc.

The problem isn't the lack of existence of cards that could negate it, just the lack of ones that are used. The only cards I can think of that see real play that would work would be MLMG, 'He is Risen', and Joseph before Pharoah. Maybe there are a few others, but the ability is way too strong.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2012, 01:03:39 AM »

there are things you can use in other offences. any interupt will do. you interupt then use the cannot be... and it works cause u interupted the effect. and since it was already played, they cant do anything about it cause it is a prevent.

Drrek · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2012, 01:14:44 AM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 05, 2012, 01:03:39 AM

there are things you can use in other offences. any interupt will do. you interupt then use the cannot be... and it works cause u interupted the effect. and since it was already played, they cant do anything about it cause it is a prevent.

I do not think you are correct, since its a restrict, so the player would be restricted from playing and card with cannot be, so they could not play any interrupt that had "cannot be" in the ability.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:46:33 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on June 05, 2012, 01:14:44 AM

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 05, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
there are things you can use in other offences. any interupt will do. you interupt then use the cannot be... and it works cause u interupted the effect. and since it was already played, they cant do anything about it cause it is a prevent.

I do not think you are correct, since its a restrict, so the player would be restricted from playing and card with cannot be, so they could not play any interrupt that had "cannot be" in the ability.

Drrek is correct. If the interrupt/negate has a "Cannot be..." on it, you cannot use it. A restrict stops you from even being able to use the card, no matter what, as long as it is active.

This is the same as trying to interrupt/negate something that is preventing you. If King of Tyrus is out, anything I play to interrupt/negate him must be "Cannot be Prevented" or "Cannot be Negated", otherwise the effect is already prevented and cannot undo his ability.

Quote from: Ten Commandments of Redemption

6. You Can't Interrupt a Prevent if Your Interrupt is Prevented
"I prevented you." "But I interrupted you after." "But my prevent stops your interrupt first."

In this same way, you cannot negate a restrict with a card that you are restricted from playing. That's the point of a restrict.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2012, 08:28:55 PM »

please understand that im just trying to understand the point your making and trying to get you to understand min. not trying to be rude or disrespectful or anything while im conversing like i am. this is how i debate stuff. please understand and dont get the wrong idea bout what im saying.
but your not using what is restricted. you interupt the restrict with something that doesnt say 'cannot be" in the special ability, stopping it for a short time, then negating it with a cannot be negated. correct me if i am wrong, i think this would work though.

Redoubter · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:41:07 PM »

First of all, don't worry about disagreeing, that's what the boards are for

It's supposed to be a place to hash this stuff out and come to a conclusion.

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 05, 2012, 08:28:55 PM

but your not using what is restricted. you interupt the restrict with something that doesnt say 'cannot be" in the special ability, stopping it for a short time, then negating it with a cannot be negated. correct me if i am wrong, i think this would work though.

The problem is that you are restricted from playing the CB- card, and like we pointed out, the cards you are referencing are not played in competitive decks. There is no room for them, the battle-winners are needed for each space available. Dedicated negates that only negate do not see use, because they aren't good enough.

As for the interrupts that let you play next (which is what you'd need, because you'd have to play during the interrupt off of that card), they are very, very limited for offense. Words of Encouragement and Reach of Desperation at least draw and then play, but Jordan Interrupted and Swift Beings only interrupt-play-next, and are essentially useless in high competition. And that's 4 different brigades, only 2 are useful. So you see what I mean about the counters not being there? There literally aren't the cards that you're saying can allow the playing of the vast majority of battle-winners.

All this card would end up doing is become a staple in the defenseless-meta, since he'd just plain stop all competitive battle winners only being stopped by FBTN (already meta's bane) and could play Plot off of small numbers. Splashable, OP single characters need to be avoided.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:44:26 PM »

ok. i see now.

Redoubter · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:52:03 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on June 05, 2012, 10:44:26 PM

ok. i see now.

I'm confused, someone agreeing that they see the other point of view?! You're obviously new here, that's now how it's done

You'll get the hang of it eventually, not agreeing with anybody*

Until then, keep making cards, it's the best way to think about abilities and learn what can work and what cannot.

*obviously not serious

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:18:05 PM »

Oddly enough, Sons of men is my fave card in this. Not due to the protect, that needs to leave honestly, but I would love a card that stops CB- cards.

Maybe reword it to "Protect evil characters from cards with "cannot be" ability except this one. Cannot be interrupted."

Just to stop all the cannot be negated at higher levels. It'd be a staple in my decks.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #21 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:00:24 AM »

i find seeing the other side of things more fun than being more stuborn than Balaam.

Drrek · « **Reply #22 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:22:15 AM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on June 05, 2012, 11:18:05 PM

Oddly enough, Sons of men is my fave card in this. Not due to the protect, that needs to leave honestly, but I would love a card that stops CB- cards.

Maybe reword it to "Protect evil characters from cards with "cannot be" ability except this one. Cannot be interrupted."

Just to stop all the cannot be negated at higher levels. It'd be a staple in my decks.

That might work, but I think it'd be still a little on the too powerful side (but hey, maybe defense needs a couple cards like that at this point).

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:56:19 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on June 06, 2012, 12:22:15 AM

That might work, but I think it'd be still a little on the too powerful side (but hey, maybe defense needs a couple cards like that at this point).

But what defense? All this would do is help the meta defense, that is, no defense. You just add a character like this, use plot, stop them from using their battle-winners, and it doesn't actually increase the use of defense at all.

And I do not like the idea of abilities referencing "Cannot be...", whether it be a 'regardless of' (least favorite), restrict, or protect. As I've pointed out, this card would not actually help defense as a whole, it would just let the meta decks keep doing their thing, and it would prevent any competitive enhancements from being played.

Drrek · « **Reply #24 on:** June 06, 2012, 12:59:19 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 06, 2012, 12:56:19 PM

Quote from: Drrek on June 06, 2012, 12:22:15 AM
That might work, but I think it'd be still a little on the too powerful side (but hey, maybe defense needs a couple cards like that at this point).

But what defense? All this would do is help the meta defense, that is, no defense. You just add a character like this, use plot, stop them from using their battle-winners, and it doesn't actually increase the use of defense at all.

And I do not like the idea of abilities referencing "Cannot be...", whether it be a 'regardless of' (least favorite), restrict, or protect. As I've pointed out, this card would not actually help defense as a whole, it would just let the meta decks keep doing their thing, and it would prevent any competitive enhancements from being played.

The only thing this character could use in the meta defense is plot, which the meta defense already has three characters to play on, all of which get better initiative in most cases, and that enhancement is already CBN, so its not like those CBN interrupts were going to help you anyway. If the only thing that a meta defense can use this card for is to play plot, then its redundant in the defense and would be cut anyway.

Josh · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2012, 12:15:25 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on June 04, 2012, 10:12:43 PM

Almost every good enhancement used in competitive decks has some form of "Cannot be...", including a majority of the negates that actually see use. You cannot negate this card with one of those cards because of the restrict, and you can't play any other battle-winners either because they're all CB-.

It would seriously stop all of the major competitive offenses. That's too much.

My biggest problem with Sons of Men (the old version, I see that Asahel updated it) is that it is Brown. A 5/1 character that restricts the opponent from playing meta GEs is not really a problem unless it has EE backup. Well, right now EEs have never been more unimportant in the game, save for Plot, maybe Confusion, and chump-blocking EEs. If Sons of Men was Grey instead, it would be perfectly fine, IMHO.

Now I don't remember what it used to say. If it was also protected from cards that have "Cannot be" in the title, and that protection was CBN or CBI, then yes, it would be too powerful, even in Grey.

News:

Author Topic: Psalms Ideas (Read 4254 times)