Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on October 27, 2014, 12:07:22 AM

Title: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on October 27, 2014, 12:07:22 AM
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152597944169900.1073741828.21471064899&type=1 (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152597944169900.1073741828.21471064899&type=1)

Rob has revealed the entirety of Phase 2 prior to printing for the purpose of allowing us to give feedback and proof them. Let's condense all the discussion into a single thread so he doesn't have to jump around to read what we have to say.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jesse on October 27, 2014, 12:15:35 AM
Just saw this, so will re-post my (and some from FB) suggested corrections here:

Letters to the Thessalonians —> change “Thessalonian” to “Thessalonica” (see Jason)
Shrine to Artemus —> Shrine to Artemis
Missionary Ship —> by-line should have a hyphen in-between “Set” and “Aside"
Silas —> “topdeck up to X cards from bottom of YOUR deck", perhaps?
Timothy —> art should be updated (blurry/old-looking when Timothy should look awesome! :))
Barsabbas —> there is no Letter to Gentile Believers
Fortunatus —> special ability is unfinished
Noblewomen —> should it be “Noble Women”?
Faithfulness —> does “withdraw” include underdeck?
Self Control —> should have a hyphen between the words in the Card Name/Title
Stand Firm —> should “heretic” be capitalized?
Demetrius the Silversmith —> “characters” should be capitalized
Seized by Rioters —> should be 2/2, 2 heroes and 2 turns, if basing it off of the verse, because only 2 men were dragged along (Gaius and Aristarchus)
Worldly Wisdom —> should “scholar” and “philosopher” be capitalized?
Antonius Felix —> there is no Drusilla
The god of this World —> draws 1 fewer, not less
Spirit of Fear --> change art (inappropriate/immodest, imo)
Shipwreck —> capitalize “site”
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on October 27, 2014, 12:46:56 AM
WOW

Angry Mob made me laugh so hard. I adore those 3 cards.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on October 27, 2014, 01:34:00 AM
My notes:

Areopagus:
It says it holds an Artifact that Depicts an Idol, which is fine, but it might make sense to just say "Holds an Idol", it would lose out on a couple of curses (Captured Ark and Unknown Nation come to mind) but makes the ability a little nicer and less reliant on the card art.
It's ability also says "... each player must draw 1" you could reword that section to "...each player draws 1" and it would mean the same thing.

Mark: the word "enhancement" is in his ability twice, once it is capitalized and the other time it isn't (neither time is it the first word in a sentence)

Crispus: Why is he a priest? From what I can tell he is just a leader of a Synagogue, which I don't believe is the same as being a priest.

Phoebe: The ability works, but as it is worded you are discarding enhancements in play to draw cards, so if it was intended to discard from hand to draw you'd have to reword it.

Spirit of Fear: While not technically incorrect, it says "Withdraw all heroes. Rescuing..." While every other similar ability says "Withdraw all heroes in battle..."
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 07:12:31 AM
Letters to the Thessalonians —> change “Thessalonian” to “Thessalonica” (see Jason)
It doesn't actually matter since they both mean the same thing, though it should be consistent.
Shrine to Artemus —> Shrine to Artemis
Yeah, should be changed based on the verse, possibly a spelling from a different version.
Missionary Ship —> by-line should have a hyphen in-between “Set” and “Aside"
Set-aside is an ability and Set Aside is a location, to my knowledge.
Silas —> “topdeck up to X cards from bottom of YOUR deck", perhaps?
Default is your location when it does not specify.
Timothy —> art should be updated (blurry/old-looking when Timothy should look awesome! :))
I like that art, and think it isn't blurry but just the period/style, but I can understand that.
Barsabbas —> there is no Letter to Gentile Believers
Well then, right now, he can't search for it is all :)
Fortunatus —> special ability is unfinished
I had commented on that one, the last word is 'interrupted' for reference.
Noblewomen —> should it be “Noble Women”?
Either should be acceptable.
Faithfulness —> does “withdraw” include underdeck?
It does not.
Self Control —> should have a hyphen between the words in the Card Name/Title
Probably based on the verse.
Stand Firm —> should “heretic” be capitalized?
That would be consistent yes.
Demetrius the Silversmith —> “characters” should be capitalized
I don't think just the word "characters" gets capitalized normally, could be wrong.
Seized by Rioters —> should be 2/2, 2 heroes and 2 turns, if basing it off of the verse, because only 2 men were dragged along (Gaius and Aristarchus)
Paul was also involved and 'taken out of action' due to fear of the disciples per later verses, but I can see that point too.
Worldly Wisdom —> should “scholar” and “philosopher” be capitalized?
Not sure it it has to be for that one, good question.
Antonius Felix —> there is no Drusilla
Well then, right now, he can't band is all :)
The god of this World —> draws 1 fewer, not less
English is silly.  This could be either.
Spirit of Fear --> change art (inappropriate/immodest, imo)
I'm going to bring this up, as there is cause to discuss it based on the history of the piece.
Shipwreck —> capitalize “site”
I think that is right, but I can't keep track of capitalizations myself...

My notes:

Areopagus:
It says it holds an Artifact that Depicts an Idol, which is fine, but it might make sense to just say "Holds an Idol", it would lose out on a couple of curses (Captured Ark and Unknown Nation come to mind) but makes the ability a little nicer and less reliant on the card art.
It's ability also says "... each player must draw 1" you could reword that section to "...each player draws 1" and it would mean the same thing.
I think the first part is fine as-is, but the second uses 'must' to indicate that it is mandatory and avoid confusion.

Mark: the word "enhancement" is in his ability twice, once it is capitalized and the other time it isn't (neither time is it the first word in a sentence)
Good point.

Crispus: Why is he a priest? From what I can tell he is just a leader of a Synagogue, which I don't believe is the same as being a priest.
You cannot lead a Jewish synagogue without being a priest, to my knowledge.

Phoebe: The ability works, but as it is worded you are discarding enhancements in play to draw cards, so if it was intended to discard from hand to draw you'd have to reword it.
Based on discussions, that is the intent (to discard ones in play).

Spirit of Fear: While not technically incorrect, it says "Withdraw all heroes. Rescuing..." While every other similar ability says "Withdraw all heroes in battle..."
It is acceptable as it is because Withdraw has an interesting default condition that "in battle" actually restricts.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: _JM_ on October 27, 2014, 08:31:43 AM
The card frame on Mark combined with the artwork is pretty painful to look at.  Any way to get the frame changed, maybe to blue?

Also, what definition of Apostle are we using to hand out identifiers?  I wouldn't have thought Silas to be an Apostle.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Minion of Jesus on October 27, 2014, 09:04:27 AM
Apostle seems to be used rather loosely, it appears.

What is strange, however, is that there are only two rare cards. That strikes me as unusual.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: RTSmaniac on October 27, 2014, 10:11:41 AM
Should Love only target a NT human you control?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: LukeChips on October 27, 2014, 11:04:57 AM
No saul/paul...
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Daniel on October 27, 2014, 11:16:54 AM
May I make an aesthetic proofread?  :)

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jesse on October 27, 2014, 12:01:57 PM
 +1

for Timothy, you're right it's hard to find a good image. Perhaps this one could be considered too? http://paulburkhart.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/paul-and-timothy.jpg (http://paulburkhart.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/paul-and-timothy.jpg)
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on October 27, 2014, 12:04:26 PM
Areopagus - Unless the idea is to only provide protection during battle, it should be "from opponents' good cards" not "opponent's".

Silas - In the identifier, most previous cards don't have identifiers capitalized like titles (first letter of "important" words capitalized) so I think it's more consistent to have it say "X = # of your missionaries" (same could be said for Areopagus, actually, and Noblewomen). If the convention is changed starting with this set I guess it's better to be consistent, but I think the old capitalization (or really, lack thereof) looks better. :2cents:

Luke - Current wording allows you to underdeck the card you just used to pay his cost (if it's a Luke or Acts card), is that the intention? Doesn't seem like as much of a cost if you're able to immediately put the paid card back in your deck. Admittedly this has less impact until later in the game when you might be decked out.

Mark - Doesn't need a comma before "regardless of brigade." It's a clause on the same phrase, not a separate idea, so it doesn't need a comma. Agree with Christian Soldier that the 2 instances of "enhancement" should be the same capitalization.

Timothy - I actually agree with jesse that the art looks a bit pixelated. Might look better on the actual cards (since I think they're a bit smaller than the pics on Facebook are) but could probably be zoomed out slightly to clear some of it up (depending on the availability of the original art).

Barsabbas - Seems to fit with the missionary theme but isn't a missionary himself? Not sure if that's an oversight or if he's just actually not a missionary. Also, as long as there's going to be a card called "Letter to Gentile Believers" then his ability is fine, just not sure if it's an oversight and is referencing a card that received a name change lol.

Fortunatus - Enhancement should be capitalized to be consistent with other cards in the set.

Achaicus - The semicolon isn't grammatically correct. It should either be a colon (which has other connotations in Redemption) or the "put Lost Souls in play..." phrase should be a separate sentence. I'd vote for separate sentence based on older cards with similar abilities. It could also be replaced with "and" and I'd be fine with that option as well (to make the ability "reveal ... and put Lost Souls ...."

Noblewomen - Same semicolon issue as Achaicus. Unless they're creating new "Redemption grammar"?

Burning of Magic Books - "Magician(s)" in card text, much like prophet or angel or disciple, is not usually capitalized.

Sowing Bountifully - See Achaicus/Noblewomen.

Elymas Struck Blind - The first part of the verse reference is a quote and has the ending quotation marks, but there should be opening quotation marks at the beginning as well.

Eye On It - Kind of an odd card name, but may just take getting used to. Same colon issue as Achaicus/Noblewomen/Sowing Bountifully.

Miracle at Troas - I believe "artifacts" is usually capitalized in card texts because it's a card type (like Enhancement is always capitalized).

Prayer and Fasting/Work With Your Hands - I brought this up with Silas above but I don't think every word in an identifier (when it's a phrase) should be capitalized. These 2 cards are examples of the same exact phrase done both ways. Whichever way is chosen, the cards should be consistent so one of these should be changed.

Drunkenness - The identifier spells out the word "number" when all other cards use "#" instead. Consistency should be kept here.

Angry Mob cards - Each has the identifier that you can have up to 4 per 50. They have different art and different brigades so are they considered different cards for deck building? As such, would you actually be able to have 12 total Angry Mobs (4 of each brigade) per 50 cards in your deck?

Antonius Felix - Similarly to Barsabbas, if "Drusilla" is a card that WILL exist then he's fine.

The god of This World - I think it might need to be "1 fewer" rather than "1 less" but I'm not sure.

Messenger of Satan - Not an issue, but I just wanted to point out that I'm SO EXCITED we finally have demon support that draws from bottom of deck. I've been waiting for that kind of ability! :D

Elymas the Sorcerer - I find it interesting that they'd reprint something they just reprinted in Disciples and literally make it a straight-up improvement. There's no reason to use the Disciples version once this is released (unless for some reason you want demons in your discard pile).



Overall, yay more new cards! Yay for community feedback before printing! :D
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Master Q on October 27, 2014, 12:10:31 PM
May I make an aesthetic proofread?  :)
Yes. Please.

  • Using the same artwork and card frame for both Secundus (https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11361_10152597948159900_4837730106674015595_n.jpg?oh=715cb123e8e3860eee5a9904e88cf426&oe=54E24550) and Aristarchus (https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10696242_10152597948054900_505977123838132382_n.jpg?oh=6f801e9c84a8f3f1dc3e67da4756ea8e&oe=54F029EE&__gda__=1420928983_09ab7ecd0fc4f61d0e9e2a4ab2859f38) looks confusing, either change one of the frames or one of the art choices (I'm not gonna just say "change the art" without offering an alternative, so for Secundus I recommend this piece (http://www.wga.hu/art/d/dujardin/2healing.jpg).
Actually, that art was just used on a previous card:
Spoiler (hover to show)

I like all of the other suggestions, except I'd prefer old Timothy to that new Timothy picture you've found, pixels and all. The best bet would be to look up pictures of Apostles, Disciples, or famous Saints and select one and rename him 'Timothy'.
I really don't like cartoony pictures on Redemption cards when there are far better pictures, which Daniel has shown. Disagreement Over Mark and Preaching in the Synagogue are other cards where the art comes off as a bit low quality.
On the other hand, the art on Miracle at Troas and Phoebe is great, but it makes me sad to see it on such bad cards.

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Drrek on October 27, 2014, 12:26:20 PM
  • For Barsabbas (https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10363398_10152597946839900_7367655964950341445_n.jpg?oh=4b0f853df53dd1cbccc6f586b574fa05&oe=54A9F5DB&__gda__=1425157796_ab853d4eba58650ef258a74cb572f051), this classic image of Saint Joseph Justus Barsabbas (http://myisrael.at.ua/_ph/20/426201514.jpg) is not as brutal on the eye  ;)

The Barsabbas mentioned on this card is Judas Barsabbas, who traveled with Silas, and is different from Joseph Justus Barsabbas who was the person who Matthias was selected over to take Judas' place among the apostle.  They are two different people.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on October 27, 2014, 12:48:07 PM
No saul/paul...

1. Where is Saul/Paul? I would like to see that one as soon as possible.   

2. Drunkenness is a great enhancement card if the SA stays the same :) 

3. Where is Drusilla??

4. Should there be more Lost Soul cards 1 or 2 more in the Phase 2 set???

5. Agreed that the Spirit of Fear and Elymas the Sorcerer pictures should be a different than the current ones.

6. Reprint of Elymas the Sorcerer is interesting thing for Cactus to do. If it stays like that , the disciples one would probably not be useful anymore.

      maybe this new TEC version could bring back the older gray version with the SA like"you may discard a demon from your territory to discard a hero in an opponent's territory CBI" and have two versions instead.




 

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 01:10:10 PM
Areopagus - Unless the idea is to only provide protection during battle, it should be "from opponents' good cards" not "opponent's".
This is not necessarily needed, as pointed out in other threads.  Outside of battle, 'opponent's' refers to any other opponent, and is used on a lot of other cards already.

Silas - In the identifier, most previous cards don't have identifiers capitalized like titles (first letter of "important" words capitalized) so I think it's more consistent to have it say "X = # of your missionaries" (same could be said for Areopagus, actually, and Noblewomen). If the convention is changed starting with this set I guess it's better to be consistent, but I think the old capitalization (or really, lack thereof) looks better. :2cents:
I've never really cared as much about the capitalization, as I feel it is less of an issue, but I agree it should be consistent where able.

Luke - Current wording allows you to underdeck the card you just used to pay his cost (if it's a Luke or Acts card), is that the intention? Doesn't seem like as much of a cost if you're able to immediately put the paid card back in your deck. Admittedly this has less impact until later in the game when you might be decked out.
That was intentional, though I agree that it is a concern and have suggested alternatives as well.

...

Barsabbas - Seems to fit with the missionary theme but isn't a missionary himself? Not sure if that's an oversight or if he's just actually not a missionary. Also, as long as there's going to be a card called "Letter to Gentile Believers" then his ability is fine, just not sure if it's an oversight and is referencing a card that received a name change lol.
Yeah, he SHOULD be a missionary by any definition I can see, that should be added.  And, not an oversight :)

...

Achaicus - The semicolon isn't grammatically correct. It should either be a colon (which has other connotations in Redemption) or the "put Lost Souls in play..." phrase should be a separate sentence. I'd vote for separate sentence based on older cards with similar abilities. It could also be replaced with "and" and I'd be fine with that option as well (to make the ability "reveal ... and put Lost Souls ...."
I'm not a fan of the old wording, and while it may not be 'grammatically' correct the use of punctuation on shortened-wording cards is not going to be precise as if you were writing a paper.  Still, I would prefer a colon instead there and leaving it the way it is otherwise.

...

Burning of Magic Books - "Magician(s)" in card text, much like prophet or angel or disciple, is not usually capitalized.
Agreed.

...

Eye On It - Kind of an odd card name, but may just take getting used to. Same colon issue as Achaicus/Noblewomen/Sowing Bountifully.
Refers to keeping your eye on the prize (as a runner intending to win the race).  Otherwise, I actually prefer semicolon here, since there is already a colon, but that's me.

Miracle at Troas - I believe "artifacts" is usually capitalized in card texts because it's a card type (like Enhancement is always capitalized).
I think you're right on that one too.

...

Drunkenness - The identifier spells out the word "number" when all other cards use "#" instead. Consistency should be kept here.
Not as concerned about that part as I am about the ability...

Angry Mob cards - Each has the identifier that you can have up to 4 per 50. They have different art and different brigades so are they considered different cards for deck building? As such, would you actually be able to have 12 total Angry Mobs (4 of each brigade) per 50 cards in your deck?
No.  They say you may have 4 Angry Mob cards in your deck per 50 cards.  That overrides all deckbuilding rules and establishes new ones just for this card name.

...

The god of This World - I think it might need to be "1 fewer" rather than "1 less" but I'm not sure.
English is silly.  This could be either and be fine at getting the point across.

Messenger of Satan - Not an issue, but I just wanted to point out that I'm SO EXCITED we finally have demon support that draws from bottom of deck. I've been waiting for that kind of ability! :D
Staple for sure.  He also is CBP and bands to humans, something demons desperately wanted...

...
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 01:11:43 PM
In general, I think I'm finding I'm one of the few who likes all the new art ;)  I don't think anything left needs changing, but that's just me.

No saul/paul...
We really don't need a new Saul/Paul, the old one is perfect as-is.  I'm not sure how you would improve on the old one, and if you didn't improve, I don't see why you would use a new one.

Should Love only target a NT human you control?
If you want to bestow love's increase to another player's character, why not?  Though I'm hoping to see an update to that card myself to a different ability.

No saul/paul...

1. Where is Saul/Paul? I would like to see that one as soon as possible.
As stated above, absolutely no need for a new one, it wouldn't make sense no matter what you printed.  Old one is already so powerful, and you'd have to make a 'better' one.

2. Drunkenness is a great enhancement card if the SA stays the same :) 
I would very much disagree.  This is one I am advocating changes, because it also includes your initial 3, includes cards your opponent causes you to draw, and can be played off of Mayhem (no matter whose it is) to get rid of an entire hand.  Losing your hand is the same as losing the game in most games.  Even a few cards randomly lost (and shuffled CBI, no less) is far more powerful than anything we have now for a good reason.

3. Where is Drusilla??
Not an oversight, but if you were to print him now, why not add the band so you can print her later and have it mean something?  Forward thinking is good here.

4. Should there be more Lost Soul cards 1 or 2 more in the Phase 2 set???
The set focuses on establishing new themes and bolstering Clay, not to add more Souls (though more would be fun to me.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on October 27, 2014, 01:19:10 PM
That is a good point for Drunkenness enhancement that redoubter makes.

Maybe there should be a limit of 3 instead. Like words of discouragement.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
That is a good point for Drunkenness enhancement that redoubter makes.

Maybe there should be a limit of 3 instead. Like words of discouragement.

The problem there is that it will always be 3, instead of actually focusing on the issue of drawing.  It should be limited to drawing cards that they actually play themselves, IMO.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Alex_Olijar on October 27, 2014, 03:50:17 PM
Angry Mob shouldn't be printed.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 04:18:31 PM
Angry Mob shouldn't be printed.

What is your reasoning?  I'm not saying that your point is not valid, but with the feedback it's good to understand why a card is not recommended.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on October 27, 2014, 04:36:58 PM
I like the new Angry Mob(s) over the old one because with this new one at least I can discard characters from opponents, too, rather than just discarding my own character when the spinning would inevitably point at me. >_>

I also think the Mobs could benefit from something like my Multicultural identifier idea. I know that's probably the point of having them in 3 brigades, but letting them also somewhat support civilization themes would make them more useful, imo.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Red Warrior on October 27, 2014, 04:56:42 PM
I think Angry Mobs adds some spice to the game! Just like a real riot, they could accidentally destroy each other before they all get to band... but not before costing every player a good number of characters! And that's assuming you don't provide some character protection, which you could easily do. Lystra makes them competitive, and being able to cross several brigades will open up some great options.

How will the original Angry Mob (Ap) interact with these cards? Does the new identifier carry over, or will a player only be able to have 1 copy of Angry Mob (Ap) in their deck?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on October 27, 2014, 05:01:23 PM
I like the new Angry Mob(s) over the old one because with this new one at least I can discard characters from opponents, too, rather than just discarding my own character when the spinning would inevitably point at me. >_>


Angry Mob is pretty good.  I have thought of some options that maybe others may or may not think is a good idea.

To make it balanced and or fair to all players maybe the following could be added.

 Also not really sure how discarding a "random character" would work as all players can see all characters in their territories.

1. " Regardless of Protection discard a random character from each territory" (Regardless of protection for any fortress or artifact protecting any characters in a territory."

 2.  Or some kind of requirement that if the player controlling angry mob cannot discard any character in another opponent's (s) territory and their own territory then the effect does not work.

3. or if the player with angry mob can not target a card in someone else's territory then do not block with it....
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 27, 2014, 05:09:55 PM
Rare is the protection that stops your own characters from being discarded by your abilities.  Most things will stop opponent's abilities from discarding them.

Even if you have something the protects your other themes from discard (like High Priest's Palace), those characters are not legitimate targets for the random discard, and thus something that is able to be targeted (like, say, your other Mobs laid-down or played in previous turns) would bite the dust.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on October 27, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
Rare is the protection that stops your own characters from being discarded by your abilities.  Most things will stop opponent's abilities from discarding them.

Even if you have something the protects your other themes from discard (like High Priest's Palace), those characters are not legitimate targets for the random discard, and thus something that is able to be targeted (like, say, your other Mobs laid-down or played in previous turns) would bite the dust.


Oh okay I see.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on October 27, 2014, 11:12:45 PM
Timothy and Barsabbus both protect heroes from yourself which being that Barsabbus is a green prophet and clay will have a few other green prophets, I can see ANB getting a bit ridiculous when you shuffle everything but your protected Heroes...

Edit: Also would it be possible to get the cards with images loaded onto the OP for immediate reference? It seems inefficient to have to go back and forth between Facebook and the boards, especially with a mobile device.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on October 27, 2014, 11:21:21 PM
Timothy and Barsabbus both protect heroes from yourself which being that Barsabbus is a green prophet and clay will have a few other green prophets, I can see ANB getting a bit ridiculous when you shuffle everything but your protected Heroes...

Neither of those characters will protect from ANB, since they protect from harm, which, if I'm remembering correctly, protects from other alignments (so a hero protected from harm can't be targeted by an evil or neutral card)
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on October 27, 2014, 11:23:37 PM
Timothy and Barsabbus both protect heroes from yourself which being that Barsabbus is a green prophet and clay will have a few other green prophets, I can see ANB getting a bit ridiculous when you shuffle everything but your protected Heroes...

Neither of those characters will protect from ANB, since they protect from harm, which, if I'm remembering correctly, protects from other alignments (so a hero protected from harm can't be targeted by an evil or neutral card)
Ah, I guess now that you say it I remember hearing something along those lines before. Is that the same with effect or is that protection from both alignments?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on October 27, 2014, 11:28:32 PM
Timothy and Barsabbus both protect heroes from yourself which being that Barsabbus is a green prophet and clay will have a few other green prophets, I can see ANB getting a bit ridiculous when you shuffle everything but your protected Heroes...

Neither of those characters will protect from ANB, since they protect from harm, which, if I'm remembering correctly, protects from other alignments (so a hero protected from harm can't be targeted by an evil or neutral card)
Ah, I guess now that you say it I remember hearing something along those lines before. Is that the same with effect or is that protection from both alignments?

If a card is protected from effect is is protected from all effects, or something like that. At least that's what makes sense to me.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 28, 2014, 07:22:52 AM
ChristianSoldier is correct on all counts about the protection.  "Harm" has to come from the opposing alignment per rulings we have had.

HOWEVER, that is not in the REG or other 'rulebook' I can find.  That should probably be added for clarity, otherwise what Koala is suggesting would make sense to those who do not come on the boards or have not seen that ruled before.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on October 28, 2014, 09:37:08 AM
Isn't there also a clause that you can't be protected from/immune to yourself? Like Uzzah can still discard himself with Thaddeus' protection active, he just can't also discard an Artifact to pay the cost.

I'm pretty sure even if they didn't specify "harm" they wouldn't protect themselves from ANB if you played it on them in battle.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on October 28, 2014, 11:04:21 AM
Isn't there also a clause that you can't be protected from/immune to yourself? Like Uzzah can still discard himself with Thaddeus' protection active, he just can't also discard an Artifact to pay the cost.

I'm pretty sure even if they didn't specify "harm" they wouldn't protect themselves from ANB if you played it on them in battle.

Characters cannot be protected from themselves, but the real issue was whether the territories would be shuffled or you could keep your heroes around.  That is handled by the "harm" wording.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheMarti on October 28, 2014, 05:58:27 PM
Not sure if this should stay here (if there's a suggestion for somewhere else it should go, I will move it there), but I at least stickied it so it can be seen. :)
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Noah on October 28, 2014, 09:56:47 PM
If you could consistently make side battles with Abigail, Angry Mobs would be really fun.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: yirgogo on October 28, 2014, 10:00:21 PM
Abigail + David + Hidden Treasures + Visions or other Side battle cards.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on October 28, 2014, 10:06:57 PM
Abigail + David + Hidden Treasures + Visions or other Side battle cards.

Hidden Treasures only works for Lone Green Brigade Prophets, if you have both Abigail and David in battle it won't work.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Kor on October 29, 2014, 12:44:33 AM
'The god of this World' - Should probably be called 'The God of this World' instead as that would make it consistent with all other card titles in terms of capitalization.  I understand why you would want to keep the word 'god' lowercase in this instance because of the implications of uppercase 'God', but the precedent has actually already been set with 'Men as Gods'.  If this is unacceptable please change the card name to something else.

'Missionary Ship' - Any reason this card plays to set aside?  Would make sense for it to be in play with the characters 'using' it to gain site access.

'Drunkenness' - As Redoubter stated this card is way too strong.  Even at the usual minimum of 3 cards at random it is probably too good.

'Shipwreck' - This card is also too strong.   Negating and underdecking a Fortress OR site in play or set aside area as a dominant (therefore CBN and can be played at pretty much any time) seems like it might be too good on its own because of the almost unstoppable hole you can make with it to play an AoCP.  I see absolutely no reason for the secondary ability of deck or hand discard to be added on to this card.

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on October 29, 2014, 12:52:12 AM
'Shipwreck' - This card is also too strong.   Negating and underdecking a Fortress OR site in play or set aside area as a dominant (therefore CBN and can be played at pretty much any time) seems like it might be too good on its own because of the almost unstoppable hole you can make with it to play an AoCP.  I see absolutely no reason for the secondary ability of deck or hand discard to be added on to this card.

I thought about this too, I suggested in a different thread to make it only Negate and Underdeck a good fortress or site in play or set aside.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on October 29, 2014, 10:01:50 AM
'The god of this World' - Should probably be called 'The God of this World' instead as that would make it consistent with all other card titles in terms of capitalization.  I understand why you would want to keep the word 'god' lowercase in this instance because of the implications of uppercase 'God', but the precedent has actually already been set with 'Men as Gods'.  If this is unacceptable please change the card name to something else.
Men as Gods came out in Apostles. Later, The gods of Egypt came out in Patriarchs. So there is actually precedent for either capitalization of "god" when not referring to Jesus' father. If they want to leave "god" lowercase to signify a false god they have the right to. :P

I will admit the grammarian in me cringes every time I see it, but I understand the sentiment. And there are other things with worse grammar rule breaking in this game, haha.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Red Warrior on October 29, 2014, 12:16:16 PM
As I tried to imagine "Love" as a special ability, I kept coming back around to the idea of self sacrifice. Here are two different ways to approach that theme.



Love - Multi TC Enhancement
Place on your human Hero: Each upkeep, you may decrease this hero 3/3 to increase a human of the same testament 3/3. Each opponent may draw 1.

Concept: Loves means giving of yourself to offer the encouragement and strength that others need.
Game: Imagine characters like Paul or Peter as a 4/4 while making their Creeping Deceiver a 7/11 that you can interrupt.



Love - Clay TC Enhancement
Place on your Clay Hero: when hero enters battle, select a Lost Soul. If it is targeted by your opponent, you may discard this hero instead and add your NT hero to battle.

Concept: Love led these followers and missionaries to give their lives to see the gospel carried to the lost.
Game: Cards like DoU would shuffle all other souls, and Uzzah would protect all other souls. But the soul selected by Love would remain untargetted if the player chooses to discard the hero instead (and then add another hero to battle).

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Minion of Jesus on October 29, 2014, 01:42:16 PM
'The god of this World' - Should probably be called 'The God of this World' instead as that would make it consistent with all other card titles in terms of capitalization.  I understand why you would want to keep the word 'god' lowercase in this instance because of the implications of uppercase 'God', but the precedent has actually already been set with 'Men as Gods'.  If this is unacceptable please change the card name to something else.
Men as Gods came out in Apostles. Later, The gods of Egypt came out in Patriarchs. So there is actually precedent for either capitalization of "god" when not referring to Jesus' father. If they want to leave "god" lowercase to signify a false god they have the right to. :P

I will admit the grammarian in me cringes every time I see it, but I understand the sentiment. And there are other things with worse grammar rule breaking in this game, haha.

YOU FORGOT TO CAPITALIZE "FATHER"!

Seriously, if doesn't matter much, since no one will think that we are making god of This World into "God."
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on October 29, 2014, 02:04:45 PM
'Shipwreck' - This card is also too strong.   Negating and underdecking a Fortress OR site in play or set aside area as a dominant (therefore CBN and can be played at pretty much any time) seems like it might be too good on its own because of the almost unstoppable hole you can make with it to play an AoCP.  I see absolutely no reason for the secondary ability of deck or hand discard to be added on to this card.

I thought about this too, I suggested in a different thread to make it only Negate and Underdeck a good fortress or site in play or set aside.
 


I think this is also a good point that Kor and Christian soldier make. It should only just target a good fortress or site in play or set aside area and nothing else after that. No more secondary effects needed.

Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jesse on October 29, 2014, 03:48:21 PM
As I tried to imagine "Love" as a special ability, I kept coming back around to the idea of self sacrifice. Here are two different ways to approach that theme.



Love - Multi TC Enhancement
Place on your human Hero: Each upkeep, you may decrease this hero 3/3 to increase a human of the same testament 3/3. Each opponent may draw 1.

Concept: Loves means giving of yourself to offer the encouragement and strength that others need.
Game: Imagine characters like Paul or Peter as a 4/4 while making their Creeping Deceiver a 7/11 that you can interrupt.



Love - Clay TC Enhancement
Place on your Clay Hero: when hero enters battle, select a Lost Soul. If it is targeted by your opponent, you may discard this hero instead and add your NT hero to battle.

Concept: Love led these followers and missionaries to give their lives to see the gospel carried to the lost.
Game: Cards like DoU would shuffle all other souls, and Uzzah would protect all other souls. But the soul selected by Love would remain untargetted if the player chooses to discard the hero instead (and then add another hero to battle).

I love both of these ideas! Way to go in seeking for the Biblical application  :preach: :thumbup:

Of the two, I would vote for the first one although I like both!
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Master Q on October 30, 2014, 12:12:25 AM
If X= # of opponent's good brigades on Drunkenness I feel it would make it more balanced.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jbeers285 on October 30, 2014, 12:44:00 AM
Red Warrior what happens if I place love on King David and get Moses jacked up to 17/17 by himself?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on October 30, 2014, 09:28:16 AM
Red Warrior what happens if I place love on King David and get Moses jacked up to 17/17 by himself?
You've got a really big Moses. :P People would probably deal with him mostly the same as they did at 8/8, Christian Martyr.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Red Warrior on October 30, 2014, 02:20:25 PM
Red Warrior what happens if I place love on King David and get Moses jacked up to 17/17 by himself?

Josiah,
Christian Martyr, Grapes of Wrath, CBP Lost Soul, Balaam's Disobedience, Confusion of Mind, Unholy Writ, Magic Charms, Tenants Kill The Son and all the CBP evil enhancements that we've been getting since angel wars lol (especially in Disciples and The Early Church).

In fairness though, adding "an opponent's character" might not be a bad idea. Not so much to restrict the power as to bolster the theme of "giving". I'd probably drop the "same testament" bit to make it more useful.

Love - Multi TC Enhancement

Place on your human Hero: Each upkeep, you may decrease this hero 3/3 to increase an opponent's human 3/3. Each opponent may draw 1.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 01, 2014, 02:16:06 AM
A comment my friend made... over and over... while looking at the set. He noticed all the City Heroes have the identifier of the city Corinth for example but it would make more sense if they Corinthian. If there is a mechanical reason for this then it's no big deal, but it does seem a bit odd to have "Corinth" as an identifier instead of "Corinthian".
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on November 01, 2014, 02:26:09 AM
I think it's because they aren't necessarily from Corinth, they just helped start the church there, so they're not technically Corinthians.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 01, 2014, 02:35:22 AM
I think it's because they aren't necessarily from Corinth, they just helped start the church there, so they're not technically Corinthians.

If that is the case, then I don't think it's an issue (hence the Mechanical Difference, as in differentiating between Corinth Heroes (setting up church) and Corinthians (people from Corinth) even if nothing actually refers to Corinthians) it still seems odd, but it's a necessary oddity.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Daniel on November 01, 2014, 01:41:28 PM
Some of my suggestions have already been used on cards so here are some replacements and a couple new switches.

Timothy (https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10696242_10152597946444900_1144999181559227764_n.jpg?oh=fb2c3a7a6e5650ab0d53b4cd5a7ac973&oe=54F3E9DE)
Artist Unknown (http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/paul8l.jpg)

Examining the Scriptures (https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10153757_10152597950144900_8547268234213198760_n.jpg?oh=4a07a7996b3a409a53fb65b86dcecc56&oe=54EF5C9F) (Found a much higher quality version)
Art by Rembrandt (http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1172712/thumbs/o-APOSTLE-PAUL-facebook.jpg)

Unity in Christ (https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/9747_10152597950884900_8638467159759333410_n.jpg?oh=49adee9e92133cf8e9d4c4a66f8f4a39&oe=54ADC65B) (Current art is pretty pixelated, my suggestion is this unique work by american artist Benjamin West)
Art by Benjamin West (http://wallpaperswiki.com/wallpapers/2012/10/The-Ascension-Benjamin-West-2048x2560.jpg)

Aristarchus (https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10696242_10152597948054900_505977123838132382_n.jpg?oh=6f801e9c84a8f3f1dc3e67da4756ea8e&oe=54F029EE&__gda__=1423520983_79a1eb7f2f3367477e141602a3174a9a)/Secundus (https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11361_10152597948159900_4837730106674015595_n.jpg?oh=715cb123e8e3860eee5a9904e88cf426&oe=54E24550)
Art by El Greco (http://pedemacarrao.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/las_lagrimas_de_san_pedro_el_greco_1580.jpg)
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: redemption collector 777 on November 01, 2014, 04:49:39 PM
Rob just posted another feed about the Phase 2 TEC cards.

 I noticed that the Spirit of Fear card has the word "may" in it twice.

 
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: CactusRob on November 01, 2014, 06:39:22 PM
Rob just posted another feed about the Phase 2 TEC cards.

 I noticed that the Spirit of Fear card has the word "may" in it twice.

Good catch.  I fixed it.  Thank you.
Rob
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 01, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
List of the major changes from this update (as far as I know them):

Letters to the Corinthians
Now sets aside any number of Corinth Heroes, and ties the X to that (you have to set aside more for more of a benefit now).

Missionary Ship
No longer lets you get around your own sites.

Silas
Protection is now limited to territories.

Luke
Heal/recur is limited to once per round now.

Timothy
No longer Territory-Class.

Barsabbas
Lost the search and can only band to Silas.

Love
Major changes, now a Multi-Good with the ability:
"Heal and convert your character to a Hero of any brigade.  Place on that Hero: While this Hero is in battle, protect characters not in battle from special abilities on evil cards, except banding."

Faithfulness
Along with Love and Self Control, the Fruits were finished out with a theme started in Phase 1, where they are shared with a brigade that makes sense for the concept.  Purple was added to Faithfulness, and it now also protects against side battles and underdeck.  However, this is all balanced by it no longer negating neutral cards.

Self Control
See previous comment on brigades for fruits, as this is now also Teal.

Generous Giving
Now gives generously to all (not a standard ITB-D3-Play, as ALL players may D3 at that step).

Sowing Bountifully
No longer underdecks good cards (returns them to the top of deck).

Miracle at Troas
No longer has a cost, is a straight heal.

Work with Your Hands
Balancing done by no longer working in discard phase (has to be played before or during battle to work).

Drunkenness
X = Number of draw abilities used on opponent's cards this turn instead of just the number of cards drawn as a limiter.

Stoic Philosophers
No longer protects generic Greeks.

Demetrius the Silversmith
No longer draws.

Antonius Felix
CBP instead of CBI.

Fearfulness
Now withdraws X and paralyzes for X turns, where X is the number of good brigades in battle.

Shipwreck
Now discards instead of underdecks, and no longer has the second ability.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 01, 2014, 11:17:05 PM
I still think Shipwreck should be limited to Good Fortresses and Sites, instead of any Fortress or Site, but I'm glad the random discard from hand is gone.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Red Warrior on November 03, 2014, 10:27:06 AM
I still think Shipwreck should be limited to Good Fortresses and Sites, instead of any Fortress or Site, but I'm glad the random discard from hand is gone.

I echo your sentiment on the second ability being removed, it gives the primary ability focus.

As far as the second part, I can honestly say I rarely run into any decks that use the evil protect fortresses. I see the occasional High Priest's Palace (mostly used for Writ) and Gates of Jerusalem (mostly used for CBN Kings). My Assyrian players have dropped Assyrian Camp to make the most of their Protection of Jerusalem and Seraph With Live Coal. Outside of that, most protection I see comes from Caesarea Philippi (Pharisees).   

The part I'm not looking forward to is occupying Tower of Thebez with this card looming around... oh, and the Disciples in Fishing Boat now have to deal with Assyrian Seige Army, Darius' Decree AND Shipwreck...

Should it read "characters and lost souls remain it play"? The character exception would be a change in the ability, the lost soul portion would merely be clarification.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 03, 2014, 12:18:18 PM
Should it read "characters and lost souls remain it play"? The character exception would be a change in the ability, the lost soul portion would merely be clarification.

On the second part, no clarification is needed.  Anything that discards a site leaves the soul in play by game rule, and the things that can do so (like ASA) don't clarify now.

On the first part, it is an interesting point, it will definitely hurt some forts more than others (though you don't need to put EVERYONE in Tower, for instance).  I think it should stay as-is (you go down with the ship ;)), but I have this tidbit to add:  KotW and Tower would still have all characters discarded.  Why?  Because they are protected from the effect of putting them in play instead of following their place card.  So for the ones where it might matter more, it will still discard those EC.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Knoxyouthpastor on November 03, 2014, 01:09:59 PM
I like Shipwrecks new ability. Yeah, it'll be a pain for Disciples, & pretty much be in every deck now, but it's a good add in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 03, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
I still think Shipwreck should be limited to Good Fortresses and Sites, instead of any Fortress or Site, but I'm glad the random discard from hand is gone.
As far as the second part, I can honestly say I rarely run into any decks that use the evil protect fortresses. I see the occasional High Priest's Palace (mostly used for Writ) and Gates of Jerusalem (mostly used for CBN Kings). My Assyrian players have dropped Assyrian Camp to make the most of their Protection of Jerusalem and Seraph With Live Coal. Outside of that, most protection I see comes from Caesarea Philippi (Pharisees).   

Do you play T1 or T2, because this is coming from a T2 player where I can run into multiple Authority of Christ Promos or various other things. I have been playing a deck without Protecting my territory for a while now, and it can be very vulnerable at times. But everyone in my playgroup uses Protect Forts when we can (and at least one of my group uses what we call "Layers of Protection").
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on November 03, 2014, 04:16:59 PM
I play Type 2 and I have definitely seen a decline in the use of protect forts, especially since the emergence of CwD and Decree to stop a pre-block AoC. In my opinion it's better to have another good EC part the protect fort because I rarely put down all the available ECs I have anyway.

Either way, whether or not to use a protect fort is definitely a matter of opinion, however I don't think that being able to take out a protect fort is necessarily all that bad.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 03, 2014, 07:54:57 PM
I play Type 2 and I have definitely seen a decline in the use of protect forts, especially since the emergence of CwD and Decree to stop a pre-block AoC. In my opinion it's better to have another good EC part the protect fort because I rarely put down all the available ECs I have anyway.

Either way, whether or not to use a protect fort is definitely a matter of opinion, however I don't think that being able to take out a protect fort is necessarily all that bad.

I still think Shipwreck should only hit good fortresses (and of course sites). CwD and Darius's Decree are very useful, but they don't stop AoC during battle (which can be just as devastating) and both take up the Artifact Slot, not to mention CwD hitting both players equally and knocking out character abilities. There probably has been a decline in Protect Forts, probably due to a combination of the artifacts mentioned, the addition of new testament themes that can be protected under the slightly more versatile, neutral and harder to target Cesarea Philipi and just a lack of protect forts for some new(ish) themes (like Demons and/or Magicians and Philistines). But that doesn't mean that they don't have a place.

Of course the power of the Evil Fortresses has less to do with Shipwreck as the impact of Shipwreck on the game. I can't say for sure whether or not it will have the impact I'm fearing, but I'm also trying to err on the side of caution on a new dominant, especially when offense is already significantly stronger than defense (offense should be stronger than defense, otherwise games wouldn't end, but it shouldn't be significantly stronger, in my opinion anyway). Dominants are already very powerful, just by the fact that they can be played essentially any time nothing else is going on, and they can't be negated, does a dominant that seems to be designed for taking out good fortresses (Fishing Boat, Garden Tomb and so on) and is an evil dominant need to be able to hit evil fortresses as well? I don't think saying that protect forts are being played less is a good reason to let Shipwreck discard them.

Maybe it won't be so bad. In fact at one per deck it probably won't be. But I think Shipwreck will be in most T2 decks whether or not it can hit Evil Forts, do we really need it to be more powerful than that?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Knoxyouthpastor on November 05, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
I play T2 & actually like Shipwreck hitting both good and evil forts. I think it gives it balance and more opportunity. Yes, it is an Evil Dominant, but that doesn't mean it just has to target good cards. Grapes is another one that goes both ways in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on November 05, 2014, 04:44:25 PM
There are plenty of evil cards that harm other evil cards (several ECs that discard ECs of other nationalities, for example) so I see no reason why Shipwreck can't do the same. I definitely like the new version over the old.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Master Q on November 05, 2014, 08:06:53 PM
Miracle at Troas
No longer has a cost, is a straight heal.

Couldn't they give it numbers to at least make it playable in booster? It's depressing to think that this far in the game they would print a card that just healed a single hero and did nothing else, since Brass Serpent made all other healing enhancements redundant and unnecessary a long time ago.

I definitely like the new version over the old.

Yes, the only thing I won't like is having to make room for two more staple cards (Lampstand and Shipwreck).
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: TheJaylor on November 06, 2014, 12:03:29 AM
I don't know that Shipwreck will necessarily be a staple unless your deck is search-heavy or big on territory destruction. I feel like a lot of times it's artifacts rather than sites and forts that are giving me trouble the most and yet I haven't used DoN in a Type 1 deck for quite awhile it seems. Granted there are more ways to deal with arts than forts and sites but being a staple? Probably not in Type 1.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Master Q on November 06, 2014, 01:33:32 PM
I don't know that Shipwreck will necessarily be a staple unless your deck is search-heavy or big on territory destruction. I feel like a lot of times it's artifacts rather than sites and forts that are giving me trouble the most and yet I haven't used DoN in a Type 1 deck for quite awhile it seems. Granted there are more ways to deal with arts than forts and sites but being a staple? Probably not in Type 1.

With Herod's Temple being as good as it is, Shipwreck will be a staple for me.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Knoxyouthpastor on November 07, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
I don't know that Shipwreck will necessarily be a staple unless your deck is search-heavy or big on territory destruction. I feel like a lot of times it's artifacts rather than sites and forts that are giving me trouble the most and yet I haven't used DoN in a Type 1 deck for quite awhile it seems. Granted there are more ways to deal with arts than forts and sites but being a staple? Probably not in Type 1.

With Herod's Temple being as good as it is, Shipwreck will be a staple for me.

With the Dom limit low in T1, I say it'll be used in half the decks. However, it will be in every T2 deck. Being able to get rid of that annoying site or fort in T2 can be the key to a W or a TimeOut.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: RTSmaniac on November 10, 2014, 09:48:16 AM
so is generous giving changed again?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 10, 2014, 09:54:30 AM
so is generous giving changed again?

On my list of changes, I tried to get as many of the major ones as I could.  This one is now ITB, ALL players may D3, and then you may play.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: RTSmaniac on November 10, 2014, 10:00:07 AM
"Eye on It"
I think the card looking at X cards and returning on top or bottom is a bit strong for the card and should be consistant with the rest of phase 2 and place on bottom only.

Andrew Harrington This is more an aesthetic thing than anything else, but I would sooner have called this card "Run to Win" than "Eye On It".
October 26 at 2:47pm

Steve Kamke "Eye on the Prize" sounds better to me....I like the art as a fellow jogger.
October 2

I agree with both remarks.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152609227744900.1073741829.21471064899&type=1 (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152609227744900.1073741829.21471064899&type=1)
the updated link would be nice posted somewhere
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: RTSmaniac on November 10, 2014, 11:42:59 AM
Spirit of Fear has may twice in the ability.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 10, 2014, 11:46:07 AM
The updated FB post is not the 'final version' that will be released.  Spirit of Fear got corrected, and Generous Giving is how it is in the 'updated' post on FB (be sure to look at that one instead of the older version).
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: AJ on November 10, 2014, 07:03:08 PM
Spirit of Fear's artwork looks inappropriate.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Daniel on November 10, 2014, 07:04:53 PM
Spirit of Fear's artwork looks inappropriate.
You've got to be kidding
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jesse on November 10, 2014, 07:22:48 PM
Spirit of Fear's artwork looks inappropriate.
That's what I said too...I agree! Especially for kids, but not only for them, in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Minion of Jesus on November 10, 2014, 07:46:12 PM
Spirit of Fear's artwork looks inappropriate.
You've got to be kidding

Well, the artwork originally depicted an incubus.

That being said, while it looks weird, it isn't THAT innapropriate.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 10, 2014, 08:25:24 PM
At the time the artwork was originally created, it would have been more sensational than now, to be sure.  To me, it is not sensual at all, more of a depiction of a demonic presence taking over.  But I can see the other side, too.  I don't believe it will change, however.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on November 10, 2014, 08:34:22 PM
It's tame compared to Woman in the Ephah.... ::)

I honestly don't even see what's wrong with it. The person is fully clothed, there just happens to be a demon sitting on her.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 10, 2014, 11:39:28 PM
It's not an incubus, it's a nightmare. There is no sexual reference in it. That being said, I don't care much for the art, but I'm not opposed to it.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jbeers285 on November 11, 2014, 12:29:01 AM
To me I think this comes back to Paul discussing the convictions of one person compared to another. It's true that scripture gives us some clear cut lines but other lines are determined by our own walks.  Some people are free to drink alcohol on occasions while others refrain. Both can do this and honor God in their actions.  However, if someone drinks alcohol and it causes a brother or sister to stumble and the person could have refrained that creates an issue.

I believe many people have no issue with the artwork but clearly some do.  I think by following Paul's teaching we can come to the agreement that the artwork should be changed for the benefit of the individuals who may be offended, tempted or disturbed by the image.

Just my 2cents
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Kor on November 11, 2014, 01:29:41 AM
To me I think this comes back to Paul discussing the convictions of one person compared to another. It's true that scripture gives us some clear cut lines but other lines are determined by our own walks.  Some people are free to drink alcohol on occasions while others refrain. Both can do this and honor God in their actions.  However, if someone drinks alcohol and it causes a brother or sister to stumble and the person could have refrained that creates an issue.

I believe many people have no issue with the artwork but clearly some do.  I think by following Paul's teaching we can come to the agreement that the artwork should be changed for the benefit of the individuals who may be offended, tempted or disturbed by the image.

Just my 2cents

I think that when you start applying this passage to 'individuals' who may be 'offended, tempted or disturbed' instead of actively causing someone to stumble you are walking down a very slippery slope. 

For Example:

I find many of the depictions of demons on redemption cards disturbing. 
I find the concept of using demons to stop someone from rescuing a soul offensive.
I am tempted to rip up my opponents' Haman's Plots up so they can't be used against me.

The art of Spirit of Fear isn't any worse than of demons we have so far.  It shows a demon tormenting a person in their sleep.  Is that disturbing?  I should hope so, demons ARE disturbing and since Cactus has decided to put them in redemption I don't think they should be trying to make demons cute like pokemon either.  That being said, if this particular picture bothers a lot of people it might be worth the effort to change it.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: AJ on November 11, 2014, 08:47:49 AM
Looked like the person wasn't clothed when I posted, but then again it was late at night so maybe not. But as far as convictions go, I agree with jbeers285. Some Christians are offended by alcohol and some aren't, some are offended by tobacco and some aren't. Its a meat offered to idols thing. There are some things that Christians disagree about with other Christians. But when it comes down to it, as far as what people think are sins and different doctrines, all that really matters is that we all agree that Jesus Christ is the son of God that shed his blood for us. Just my  :2cents:
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Daniel on November 11, 2014, 08:48:22 AM
Or the offended duo could choose not to buy the card.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 11, 2014, 09:43:47 AM
Or the offended duo could choose not to buy the card.

Do you suggest then that they just do not buy the new set?  That's the only way to be sure not to get one.

I don't see a problem with the image personally, but if I try to convince someone it is not an issue and their conscience tells them it is, then I have become a stumbling block.  We don't want to take that attitude and become an obstacle.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on November 11, 2014, 09:55:55 AM
At the same time, if Cactus' goal is to not offend anyone then they really can't print anything because everything will always be found offensive by someone, that's just how it works. Minimizing offense should be a goal, yes, but it's impossible to please everyone.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Redoubter on November 11, 2014, 10:01:02 AM
At the same time, if Cactus' goal is to not offend anyone then they really can't print anything because everything will always be found offensive by someone, that's just how it works. Minimizing offense should be a goal, yes, but it's impossible to please everyone.

I agree (and said much the same about Judaizers), I was more responding that we should avoid an attitude that isn't understanding the problems others have from the Spirit (their conscience) and pointing out how we should be treating others that feel different convictions than us.  I don't think this card will change, but we should understand why others may have a problem with it, that's my point.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on November 11, 2014, 10:10:46 AM
I was more responding that we should avoid an attitude that isn't understanding the problems others have from the Spirit (their conscience) and pointing out how we should be treating others that feel different convictions than us.  I don't think this card will change, but we should understand why others may have a problem with it, that's my point.
That is a fair point.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: AJ on November 11, 2014, 10:16:41 AM
Or the offended duo could choose not to buy the card.

Lol, like I can open a pack and be guaranteed not to get one?
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: YourMathTeacher on November 11, 2014, 10:29:00 AM
The lack of grace and unity among believers is more disturbing than the artwork of specific cards.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: Daniel on November 11, 2014, 10:42:53 AM
The artwork isn't really appealing to me in the least, I am only defending it on priniciple and on Rob's behalf. However I stumbled upon this piece of artwork which might fit the whole "Spirit of Fear" thing even better.

My suggestion for Spirit of Fear (http://frankzumbach.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ccf06062010_000072.jpg)*

*not trying to offend arachnophobes
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jesse on November 11, 2014, 12:37:00 PM
Just to clarify, for me, I am not offended or tempted by the image (a bit disturbed, yes) but I believe that it is inappropriate for a Redemption card because even though the woman's style of dress is outdated and not directly revealing, nevertheless her position is outstretched and open, her clothing is tight, she is lying on a bed, and the demon is directly sitting on top of her. I just think that whatever the intent of the artist was, those factors cause the image to be sexually suggestive and therefore it would be wise and considerate of all audiences, especially in light of this being a Christian game that we would like kids/youth to participate in, to use one that clearly and only emphasizes the factor of fear - as is the intent of the card.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: jbeers285 on November 11, 2014, 12:41:48 PM
Just to be clear I don't have an issue with the artwork. 

1. We do have cards that have been printed that contain more sensualized artwork then Spirit of Fear portays.  However, I dont  believe that should not be the precedent we set for allowing more sensualized artwork into the game.

2. I understand that displaying demons is a necessary part of this game however if we printed a card called lust I wouldn't want it to display a scantily clad human being or spirit.

3. If this issue with the card is that it is making some people feel awkward or even tempted then we should adjust it. (Refer to 1, existing cards should not be evidence to support more sensualized cards)

4.  My thought is that we can find an alternate artwork that will be less contravesial and benefit the community.

5. Others>self
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: browarod on November 19, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
Quote from: Redemption's Facebook Page
Phase 2 of the Early Church set is now available. We are shipping orders this week.

Related to this, we sold out of Phase 1 this week. At present Cactus only has Phase 2 available for sale. When more cards are printed you may buy packs from Cactus that pull from the full set (Phase 1 and 2 combined). We will not offer Phase 1 by itself again. We will offer Phase 2 by itself through the end of this year.

Finally, a bit of a milestone today. We sold the last Redemption factory set.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: LukeChips on November 19, 2014, 03:46:37 PM
Wow the LAST FACTORY SET?!
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: ChristianSoldier on November 19, 2014, 04:00:57 PM
It's kinda sad, I still wanted to get one, but never got around to it. I guess singles it is.
Title: Re: The Early Church Phase 2 -- Feedback Megathread
Post by: dermo4christ on November 19, 2014, 10:23:04 PM
Can I just say that Shipwreck is flippin awesome! Finally a dominant that takes out a Fort or site!
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal