Author Topic: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan (Read 18173 times)

Ironica · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2011, 09:40:49 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 01, 2011, 06:31:12 AM

It's a very complicated card. Green/Babs is a match made in heaven, so at first glance it would seem that Iron Pan goes very well with them. However, it negates a lot of your own strategy: Horses (unless on Nerg), Headquarters, Obed's Caves, Hidden Treasures, Provisions, and Bel's Banquet. While that's not a particularly long list, there are some very important cards there.

Since Provisions is a set aside, wouldn't it still work (since you can't negate gained abilities)?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2011, 11:22:13 AM »

If Provisions is played when Iron Pan is already out, then it's negated. If you set them aside first, it won't be negated (you might have to activate it in a different phase though). This is similar to the Feast of Trumpets/Pigs Lost Soul ruling.

crustpope · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2011, 11:30:03 AM »

Only the draw 2 part is negated. The really important part of Provisions still works regardless!

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2011, 11:47:19 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 01, 2011, 11:30:03 AM

Only the draw 2 part is negated. The really important part of Provisions still works regardless!

In fact it works better, since Iron Pan negates KotW...

crustpope · « **Reply #29 on:** July 01, 2011, 12:45:26 PM »

oh, how beautiful! I had not yet realized that. Oh Joy!

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #30 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:00:29 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 09:13:02 AM

Let's keep in mind that this is just an artifact, so getting rid of it won't be that difficult.

Depends on how dedicated you are. Magic Charms (on a magician), Lampstand (in a temple), Iron Pan (on Ezekiel), Unholy Writ (in High Priest Palace), and another random artifact on the artifact pile.

This is all extremely easy to have in a T2 Pharisee defense (with Laban and/or Balaam for the magician). Captured Ark won't hurt too much, since you can shuffle the random artifact. DoN won't work. And you can have three copies of Iron Pan anyway.

T1 would be more difficult, but three artifacts active would be likely, so not a huge deal. Plus you'll redraw things again quickly because your deck is small.

And if you're really dedicated, you can throw in Priestly Breastplate (as if ignore wasn't dead enough) and Cross Beams of the Cross with Simon of Cyrene. Both of which also work in a green deck. Even more dedicated would be throwing in Temple of Dagon with Alter of Dagon. I'm sure there are others that I'm missing...there's also Chorazin, Pithom, etc.
Iron Pan is going to be out there a LONG time. Not to mention, I'm going to put Ezekiel in Goshen.

Bryon · « **Reply #31 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:11:25 PM »

You do realize that Goshen won't protect anything. And neither will Lampstand, right?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #32 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:21:12 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 01, 2011, 01:11:25 PM

You do realize that Goshen won't protect anything. And neither will Lampstand, right?

This is true. I was surprised in a playtest game when Gabe used DoN on my Iron Pan with his Lampstand active. I cried foul, until he pointed out that IP can't possibly be protected.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #33 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:31:11 PM »

Would Iron Pan still work if Ezekiel was put in Kerith Ravine? That's in set-aside, and thus is not targeted by Iron Pan...

crustpope · « **Reply #34 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:49:25 PM »

three words...out of play.

Kerith ravine says set asides work but eveything else abides by game rules. out of play is basically inactive.

I think he was thinking type 2. In type 2 where 3 copies of Iron pan can exist, once you DoN one, you will basically have to deal with captured ark ro negating any art negaters played in battle. that is easy to deal with when you can activate so many artifacts.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #35 on:** July 01, 2011, 01:58:21 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 01, 2011, 01:49:25 PM

three words...out of play.

Kerith ravine says set asides work but eveything else abides by game rules. out of play is basically inactive.

I think he was thinking type 2. In type 2 where 3 copies of Iron pan can exist, once you DoN one, you will basically have to deal with captured ark ro negating any art negaters played in battle. that is easy to deal with when you can activate so many artifacts.

I don't see it being a huge problem at all in T2, where you can (and most do) include multiple copies of important Fortresses, that would otherwise be dead cards. One of the reasons that line was added was so people could have a recourse for IP. It remains to be seen how much impact it has on the game, but with its inability to be protected, I don't see it being more than an annoyance for decks that rely on most of those abilities, but not something that's going to shut them down. I see that as a good thing.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #36 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:14:22 PM »

The one thing I really don't like about this card is that it negates Lampstand. Other than that, I love it. I think it has enough restrictions to keep it from being OP, yet it will certainly lower the number of Disciples decks and whatnot.

Just one question: Are there any Babylonian heroes other than Moses?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:19:06 PM »

I don't think so, but I think Daniel and his buds should be.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #38 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:24:59 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on July 01, 2011, 02:19:06 PM

I don't think so, but I think Daniel and his buds should be.

If so, I anticipate a few Daniel/Prophets offenses in the coming year.

crustpope · « **Reply #39 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:27:17 PM »

Oh yeah, I forgot Moses had every identifier known to redemption!

Smokey · « **Reply #40 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:43:29 PM »

No heroes are babylonian.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2011, 02:44:31 PM »

Daniel and them aren't as of last ruling. I argued about it. Don't remember when.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #42 on:** July 01, 2011, 05:35:53 PM »

Yes, that, and Moses not being an Egyptian are two (IMO) fairly silly rulings, but we've had them debated about 1000 times....

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:09:28 PM »

And yet Paul is a Roman.....

Smokey · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:12:27 PM »

Paul had Roman citizenship.
Daniel and such were slaves taken from ther homelands.
Moses was also a slave before his adoption.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #45 on:** July 01, 2011, 06:16:20 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 06:12:27 PM

Paul had Roman citizenship.
Daniel and such were slaves taken from ther homelands.
Moses was also a slave before his adoption.

So we are setting parameters for citizenship? Joseph was made second in command of all of Egypt, yet he is not Egyptian. How exactly do we define "citizen?" Is it based on birth? If so, then we have citizenship issues here in America.

Smokey · « **Reply #46 on:** July 01, 2011, 07:57:23 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 06:16:20 PM

Quote from: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 06:12:27 PM
Paul had Roman citizenship.
Daniel and such were slaves taken from ther homelands.
Moses was also a slave before his adoption.

So we are setting parameters for citizenship? Joseph was made second in command of all of Egypt, yet he is not Egyptian. How exactly do we define "citizen?" Is it based on birth? If so, then we have citizenship issues here in America.

He was second in command, but he was still considered a foreigner.
I think it should be based on wheather or not the native people would consider them of their (country / identifier / whatever you want to call it).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #47 on:** July 01, 2011, 07:58:36 PM »

Then perhaps the Romans think Saul was a Roman, but Paul was not....

Smokey · « **Reply #48 on:** July 01, 2011, 08:04:18 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 07:58:36 PM

Then perhaps the Romans think Saul was a Roman, but Paul was not....

He still had Roman citizenship, the governement at the time would have considered him a Roman even if he was an enemy of the state.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** July 01, 2011, 08:06:25 PM »

Then I would argue the Egyptians considered Joseph an Egyptian, even if he was not originally from Egypt. He saved the nation and helped it prosper in its time of greatest need.

News:

Author Topic: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan (Read 18173 times)

Ironica

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk