Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: Gabe on May 07, 2012, 05:22:01 PM
-
Thinking Outside the Box #1 - Lost Soul/Evil Character
I'm going to share some rough ideas that do things that have haven't been done before in Redemption. These are untested and probably need more work before they are could ever see print. Your feedback is appreciated!
Concept: The Lost Soul can become a blocker, even for itself, however it's not supposed to allow you to eliminate a Redeemable Soul from your deck (to avoid a Lost Soul lockout).
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi692.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv289%2Fbriangabe%2FOther%2FLS_EC.png&hash=44dfdf43a2fa3df7a184fc69f57108e6f90ee08b)
-
I think he needs a clause to convert back to a lost soul in the event that he wins the battle.
Or he needs a rule similar to Hopper that he doesn't count towards deckbuilding.
-
Would him being discarded by Grapes count as being defeated? Because if not, the blocking player could get rid of a soul that way. Also since it says instead of awarding a soul, would this just become an auto-block if you have no other souls out, since you wouldn't be awarding one at that point?
-
So, convert him and leave him in territory. I think a better way would be "...convert this card to an evil character and add it to battle.", while the evil characters would be "Regardless of battle outcome, this card is converted to a lost soul. Cannot be Negated." Or something along those lines. You have to force it to block to avoid the lost soul lock out.
Love the outside the box thinking though.
-
I love this card, but it needs a little work to be usable. It would be too easy to get rid of a lost soul if kept this way.
-
I agree with RW's idea on how to word the clause on when the battle ends and what happens to the soul. Also love the idea sooo much. stuff like this is what this game needs.
-
+1
This game does'n't need more speed bumps, but more of these cards to change the game in a good way without making new rules.
-
I really like the idea. But considering it's a multie colored evil character that isn't a human or demon, and it's genderless I'd want to see a hopper clause as well.
-
I came expecting Taco Bell.
-
I really like the idea. But considering it's a multie colored evil character that isn't a human or demon, and it's genderless I'd want to see a hopper clause as well.
Why? As long as the ability is ironed out to ensure that it can't be abused, there's no problem, and if it doesn't count as a Lost Soul, there's literally zero reason to ever use it, since it would be better to just add an evil character.
Gabe, I love the card, and honestly, other than the idea, I think the idea I like best is the numbers. Not big enough to beat out a FBTN hero, but not small enough to get an easy Plot.
-
Speed decks would still use it. It's an easy + 1. And of course Plot-enabler.
-
First, I should note that none of these cards were solely my idea. I'm just the one who can make them look pretty in photoshop. ;)
RDT, good catch. What if we were to add an identifier that said, "While in territory treat as a Lost Soul" and modified the ability to add the EC directly to battle?
Drrek, also great points. There are several ways (like Grapes, Joseph in Prison, Deluge of Rain, etc.) to abuse this version. Maybe instead of "if defeated" it should say "if removed from battle"?
Ring Wraith, that might be the best idea yet. Does anyone see any holes in his suggestion?
MKC, sorry to disappoint on the Taco Bell. ;)
Thanks for the feedback and questions. Keep it coming please. :)
-
What if it could only block if holder has no evil characters in play . . . This would limit its use in game and then it wouldn't need a hopper clause
-
Hummm I actually really like this idea.
-
also if someone plays AoCP and this lost soul is in the land of bondage would it be discarded or rescued, or would the EC part of the card be protected from opponent while in the land of bondage?
-
I like the idea, and aside from a modification of the ability, why make it multicolor? Why not 1 of each brigade (except maybe orange)? You can even give them unique abilities related to their brigade.
-
While its in a LoB it's a lost soul so you couldn't target it as an evil character.
-
makes sense i guess but its kind of an evil character still, even while in LoB
but i can see that being a pretty clear cut answer none the less
-
I actually think allowing a person to discard it and potentially achieve lost soul lockout would be good. I have wished this was a viable strategy. Imo, the more variety of viable strategies, the better. I think if there were a few more soul gen and soul recovery from discard, cards that it would be doable.
If you want to avoid that, then I agree with the other comments.
Ring Wraith, that might be the best idea yet. Does anyone see any holes in his suggestion?
I think a better way would be "...convert this card to an evil character and add it to battle.", while the evil characters would be "Regardless of battle outcome, this card is converted to a lost soul. Cannot be Negated." Or something along those lines. You have to force it to block to avoid the lost soul lock out.
Close. The main problem I see is that doesn't guarantee that the lost soul goes back to play if removed from battle somehow. You could add "Regardless of battle outcome, this card is placed in your territory and converted to a lost soul." I'm still not sure that would work if it was removed from game, though. You would probably have to add protection from being removed but the ability is starting to get pretty long for one card at that point.
-
Another option is to make his stats 0/X, where X is the number of cards in opponent's hand. Then the EC could get an ability like:
Restrict the playing of enhancements. If this character is defeated, opponent rescues it.
But maybe that is better used on another card. In fact, you could just put a similar abilty on a lost soul itself: Protected from rescue by heroes unless the strength of good cards in battle is greater than X (# of cards in opponent's hand).
Of course, that only protects itself. The Lost Soul/EC idea is better because it can defend all of your lost souls.
-
What's ironic is how awesome this card would be against Thad X 11. Thad would protect the evil character from adding itself to opponent's land of redemption. Would it also protect the evil character from converting back to a LS, if it is a special ability that does so? I think so.
-
Thad would protect the evil character from adding itself to opponent's land of redemption.
I think there's a general rule that a card can't be protected from itself, but I'm not 100% sure.
-
Thad would protect the evil character from adding itself to opponent's land of redemption.
I think there's a general rule that a card can't be protected from itself, but I'm not 100% sure.
Yes, if this REG quote is correct.
Ongoing Abilities > Protect
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
-
Thad would protect the evil character from adding itself to opponent's land of redemption.
I think there's a general rule that a card can't be protected from itself, but I'm not 100% sure.
Yes, if this REG quote is correct.
Ongoing Abilities > Protect
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
Then that means Thad cannot stop self-capture. Hmm.
-
Thad would protect the evil character from adding itself to opponent's land of redemption.
I think there's a general rule that a card can't be protected from itself, but I'm not 100% sure.
Yes, if this REG quote is correct.
Ongoing Abilities > Protect
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
Then that means Thad cannot stop self-capture. Hmm.
correct, I know I've used Am Slaves cap to generate a soul without being able to search because of Thad.
-
Humm, I was always told a character couldn't even enter battle if Thadd was protecting against it? Your telling me you can still put an evil character in battle? If so, you can the self capt if you play raiders camp?
-
Humm, I was always told a character couldn't even enter battle if Thadd was protecting against it? Your telling me you can still put an evil character in battle? If so, you can the self capt if you play raiders camp?
the EC can enter battle, however he can't effect any of the cards thad protects. I believe raiders camp specifies the ec captures a hero and since the heroes (even your own, the EC only can't be protected from himself) are protected by thad, raiders camp won't work. However there are other ways to stop Thad when you get that EC in battle, like Herod's dungeon or Grapes of Wrath.
-
I realized something. If in order to avoid the lost soul being discarded, you make it return to territory regardless of battle outcome then I think that could be abused more than the other. Especially since its multicolor.
I play Failed Objective and get my soul/character back. Then I play Bel's Banquet, Joseph in Prison, Achan's Sin, Korah's Rebellion, etc and keep getting my evil character back. If the defeated language is removed then I get back after AotL, AoC, Sam's Edict, etc. I'm not sure if it would work with Death of Unrighteous, depending on the order of battle resolution but regardless that could get pretty crazy.
With a speed deck that could be the only evil character you need.
So that leads me back to saying let it be discarded and just print it after you print a sufficient variety of soul gen cards.
-
Or you return it to territory after battle but give the soul a once per game clause or do 285's idea of only allowing them to block if holder has no other evil character in play
-
Or put down "if character is removed from battle treat as a lost soul, negate protection on evil cards"
Would this work?
-
The more I read this thread, the more I'm thinking that while this is a neat idea, it seems almost to hard to get the ability right for it to be worth it.
-
I disagree I think if we could come up with a balanced way to put it in play it could add a ton to strategy and game play I think we should get it hammered out so some version of the card could eventually end up in play
Besides this what forums are for haha
-
I disagree I think if we could come up with a balanced way to put it in play it could add a ton to strategy and game play I think we should get it hammered out so some version of the card could eventually end up in play
Besides this what forums are for haha
The problem is, I don't know that there is a balanced way to put it. I feel like with this concept its going to be very hard to make it in a way that is not exploitable.
-
"If this character is removed from battle, attacker redeems it as a Soul at the end of turn if he has not rescued a Soul that turn. Cannot be Negated." How about that?
-
"If this character is removed from battle, attacker redeems it as a Soul at the end of turn if he has not rescued a Soul that turn. Cannot be Negated." How about that?
That's better, but one could still convert it to a EC and let it be discarded/converted/removed from the game (or in fact, do that themselves with say grapes of wrath) and then give up the soul in order to essentially get rid of a soul from their deck, which can be quite stalling (or even make it impossible for your opponent to win if you get rid of enough souls from your deck) with the only rescuing souls from opponent's land of bondage rule, and create soul drought. Half the time your opponent will probably do it for you to win the battle, and I don't think I like that.
-
I was assuming the ID that makes it return to LoB as a Lost Soul following battle if not rescued would be used also.