Author Topic: Zaccheus (Read 5410 times)

BubbleBoy · « **on:** January 23, 2011, 03:04:30 PM »

I was a little bored the other day, so I messed around with my old card-making kit. See what you think:

CJSports · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:18:22 PM »

How do you use/or get the card making kit???

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:33:21 PM »

Like. Much better suited for Luke/John than the old one.

goldencomet · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:34:22 PM »

looks nice!

great job

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2011, 07:03:16 PM »

Shouldn't opponent draw four, since Zaccheus promised four times as much as he taxed?

Great card though!

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2011, 08:56:27 PM »

on D4 rather than D3 but otherwise fantastic in all regards!

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2011, 10:30:40 PM »

Ah, that's right. The law said to repay 3x, but he did 4x, didn't he? Ah well. Glad you like it anyway...

Quote from: CJSports on January 23, 2011, 03:18:22 PM

How do you use/or get the card making kit???

My "kit" consists of Paint.NET (a free image editing tool), a probably outdated version of Gimp (a free PhotoShop), a font guide, a compilation of usable images from free online sources, and a combination of templates that are apparently from BrianGabe and Mosestaff. If I recall, there's a sticky thread somewhere containing information on how to obtain all these things.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:18:00 PM »

That's one of the most pro new card ideas I've ever seen, and you used GIMP? The only thing that looks anything but Cactus is the identifier.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:20:35 PM »

What about the artist? That's not Cactus.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:22:30 PM »

I didn't notice anything off, and looking again I still don't, but it's been a while since I held a card.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:24:47 PM »

The artist, identifier, and the abilities (5/2) are the wrong font, but everything else looks right.

browarod · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:35:38 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 23, 2011, 11:24:47 PM

The artist, identifier, and the abilities (5/2) are the wrong font, but everything else looks right.

I think the reference font is off, too. But all those nit-picky things aside, great card! Definitely helps with the Luke/John theme like RW said, and I like the symbolism behind the ability (it matching what he actually did). Nice job BB.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2011, 06:16:49 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 24, 2011, 10:35:38 AM

Definitely helps with the Luke/John theme like RW said, and I like the symbolism behind the ability (it matching what he actually did). Nice job BB.

Thank you. I aim for those goals with every card I make.

I know that some of these fonts are off, but they are the closest I can find, and they really look pretty good I think.

joeycauldron · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:02:31 PM »

In the SA, it should state "your opponent" not he because there are ladies that play redemption also.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:04:51 PM »

Masculine gender is acceptable when true gender is unknown.

Perri · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:28:47 PM »

Very nicely done card, way overpowered, but very nicely done!

TheJaylor · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2011, 11:28:57 PM »

Quote from: Perri on January 26, 2011, 08:28:47 PM

Very nicely done card, way overpowered, but very nicely done!

How is that OP'd?

I think the card is great, it fits the story well and looks decent.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:28:50 AM »

Care to explain how the card is OP? Everyone else on the thread has been saying it's balanced.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:05:50 PM »

Perri is probably thinking that my deck doesn't need another card like this...

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:29:36 PM »

I would love to abuse Zach in a side battle, especially if I had Simon the Zealot.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2011, 02:26:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 26, 2011, 08:04:51 PM

Masculine gender is acceptable when true gender is unknown.

Half my playgroup would be quite irritated at that statement.

As to the card, don't the other Luke/John cards say "must" when referencing drawing?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2011, 03:13:00 PM »

Must isn't needed. If it isn't a may, it's a must.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2011, 03:17:29 PM »

Makes sense. I just brought it up because all the other L/J stuff I have says "must"

Sean · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2011, 06:00:46 PM »

I think being able to take a card from your opponent, theoretically, every turn is OP.

NT_Female · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:11:42 PM »

Quote from: joeycauldron on January 26, 2011, 08:02:31 PM

In the SA, it should state "your opponent" not he because there are ladies that play redemption also.

Umm... yes! There are ladies that play, thank you very much!

And as to assuming masculine when gender is unknown, that's just sloppy. Why would it say "unknown", if it really meant "male"

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #25 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:17:35 PM »

Actually, this isn't referring to gender but sex. There is a difference.

And Pol is right, masculine does win whenever it is unknown (or both whilst in a group, I believe)

NT_Female · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:36:53 PM »

According to the english dictionary, Gender is: "the state of being male, or female"
And, sex is: "either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis"
Big honking difference. And regardless of my wording, whether "sex" or "gender", my point still stands. To assume that "gender unknown" means anything other than the obvious fact that the "gender" is (and I quote) "unknown" is sloppy and inconsiderate. And if it is the custom to assume that "unknown" is actually secret code for "masculine" than that assumption is faulty and should be changed.

TheMarti · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:44:15 PM »

Okay, wow. I play Redemption, I'm a chick. I'm really not offended when people use the masculine for someone of unknown gender. For sake of space (because a lot of cards are uber wordy anyway), it's logical. Most languages do the same: For example, "chico" is the word for boy, "chica" is for girl, but if you're referring to a mixed group, it's always "chicos" not "chico(a)s."

Please don't be freaking about over the whole male/female thing. Even though I'm a girl too, I find it petty. Just bein' honest.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #28 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:48:02 PM »

You should read the entire definition.

Here is what oxford dictionary says: 1 [mass noun] the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)

Here is the relevant definition from Merriam-Webster: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So yes, there is a difference. Sex is which group you physically belong to and gender is which group you affiliate with. Feel free to Google "difference between gender and sex", you'll get the same answer. That was originally intended to be a joke, no need to freak out on me

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2011, 01:10:47 AM »

If anyone wants to debate the use of the masculine pronoun when referring to a group or a person of unknown gender, I can and will split the thread.

What I'm waiting for is an explanation on why this card could be considered OP. I think it's lovely <3.

The Guardian · « **Reply #30 on:** January 29, 2011, 04:02:48 AM »

I like it, but I would be concerned with endgame scenarios in which the opponent is forced to give up a card but has no deck left from which to draw--that's where I could see this card being OP-ed. Not saying it is, but it has the potential.

Sean · « **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:12:07 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 29, 2011, 01:10:47 AM

If anyone wants to debate the use of the masculine pronoun when referring to a group or a person of unknown gender, I can and will split the thread.

What I'm waiting for is an explanation on why this card could be considered OP. I think it's lovely <3.

Wish granted.

Quote from: Sean on January 28, 2011, 06:00:46 PM

I think being able to take a card from your opponent, theoretically, every turn is OP.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:31:47 AM »

Any card that makes your opponent discard a card from hand has the same power.

Sean · « **Reply #33 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:47:08 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on January 29, 2011, 10:31:47 AM

Any card that makes your opponent discard a card from hand has the same power.

False, you could use the card. Not so with a discarded card.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #34 on:** January 29, 2011, 03:12:59 PM »

Visually, I find it looks better when the shadow goes down and to the right, or just down.

Perri · « **Reply #35 on:** January 29, 2011, 03:53:29 PM »

I agree entirely with Master Q, every turn I get a card from your hand, and if I have gifts out I get to draw 4 as well? This just has a lot of potential to be very dirty. Throw in a Storehouse, Self, and Saul/Paul and things could get ugly. Get something that prevents opponent from drawing and it gets even better.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2011, 10:13:39 AM »

Quote from: Sean on January 29, 2011, 10:47:08 AM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on January 29, 2011, 10:31:47 AM
Any card that makes your opponent discard a card from hand has the same power.
False, you could use the card. Not so with a discarded card.

If you want to nitpick, sure, there's a possibility that you will be able to use the card given to you. However, your opponent has control over that, as it's unlikely he will be using the same brigades as you (and if he is, he probably has a Zaccheus, too). Also, your opponent's doms are safe. That's something you can't say for hand discard.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 29, 2011, 03:12:59 PM

Visually, I find it looks better when the shadow goes down and to the right, or just down.

I wasn't sure what the trend was, so I made the shadow go in the same direction as the shadow in the image. I thought it looked fine.

Sean · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2011, 01:00:09 PM »

Quote

If you want to nitpick, sure

There are many other card types other than Dominants that could be given. Artifact, characters, fortresses, covenants/curses, and Sites could all be easily played. Gold has access to two Enhancements that allow any color Enhancements to be played and many decks have multiple brigades so I don't think it would be difficult to play Enhancements either.

News:

Author Topic: Zaccheus (Read 5410 times)

Warrior_Monk

browarod

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

TheMarti

Rawrlolsauce!

Lamborghini_diablo