Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Bryon on June 30, 2011, 04:33:28 PM

Title: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Bryon on June 30, 2011, 04:33:28 PM
Check the Cactus website for the new article.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on June 30, 2011, 04:41:21 PM
Yikes!

And to think, half of my playgroup uses Babylonians. It's time to build that Daniel Hero/Persian defense deck...

I am indeed curious about the green/crimson enhancement.....  :o
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: browarod on June 30, 2011, 04:43:12 PM
This is just the thing I need to start using Babs again.

Also "looks shopped" would seem to aptly apply to this.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: ChristianSoldier on June 30, 2011, 04:49:26 PM
I like this card, its powerful, limited to a theme and deals with some issues.  Its making me consider using Babylonians.

This is just a well built card that is powerful but not overpowered.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: The M on June 30, 2011, 06:10:00 PM
Quote
Now, a word from our sponsor:
Do you have a headache caused by your opponents' pre-block ignore, super-protection, speed-drawing, and play abilities?  Ask your deck doctor if this Iron (Pan) supplement is right for you.  Combined with a diet of Babylonians, Iron Pan has been proven in laboratory tests to reduce the risk of losing due to common strategies such as ignore and protection.
Warning: Iron Pan may cause an unsafe drop in protection for your own cards.  You should not use Iron Pan if you use are a Thaddeus user or may become a Thaddeus user.  Do not use ignore cards in excess while Iron Pan is active, as Iron Pan may reduce the effectiveness of those cards.

Nice.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Ironica on June 30, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
My T2 deck is rejoicing right now :)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Master KChief on June 30, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
wierd how the text doesnt cover up the iron pan.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: drb1200 on June 30, 2011, 07:05:49 PM
wierd how the text doesnt cover up the iron pan.
Made my day.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Bryon on June 30, 2011, 07:29:18 PM
wierd how the text doesnt cover up the iron pan.
It used to.  I suggested to Rob that he move the special ability up above the pan and he agreed.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Minister Polarius on June 30, 2011, 07:56:46 PM
http://cactusgamedesign.com/red_game_articles_2011-2.php (http://cactusgamedesign.com/red_game_articles_2011-2.php)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on June 30, 2011, 08:52:49 PM
I lol'd at the end bit.

Also, I see the discard clause changed a bit. I like this version better.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: crustpope on June 30, 2011, 10:19:40 PM
Funny thing is, this card will actually make babylonian characters MORE likely to be played.  I dont think it will make a Pure bablyonian defense more popular, but having babylonina characters in your OWN defense is a good way to ensure that this card activates.  Especially since a couple babylonian cards cannot be negated.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on June 30, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
Funny thing is, this card will actually make babylonian characters MORE likely to be played.  I dont think it will make a Pure bablyonian defense more popular, but having babylonina characters in your OWN defense is a good way to ensure that this card activates.  Especially since a couple babylonian cards cannot be negated.

Astrologers and Chaldeans anyone?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: crustpope on June 30, 2011, 10:29:46 PM
Nebby and Nergal anyone?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on June 30, 2011, 10:33:06 PM
Nebby and Nergal anyone?


Nebby I can buy, but Nerg doesn't make much sense. What enhancements is he playing when Crimson is splashed?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: TheHobbit13 on June 30, 2011, 10:34:28 PM
I like the idea of the card, I just wonder if it will be able to be used effectively considering its clause and apparently all the new nazereth killers allowing captured arks to run free again. Personally the card feels like Confusion of Mind on steriods but with more restrictions on what you can play on offense and defense.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Prof Underwood on June 30, 2011, 10:44:52 PM
I like the combination of Biblical story, spoilerification, and humor.  Keep 'em coming :)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: crustpope on June 30, 2011, 10:55:58 PM
Nebby and Nergal anyone?


Nebby I can buy, but Nerg doesn't make much sense. What enhancements is he playing when Crimson is splashed?

anything crimson you splash with him.  Put horses on him for the CBN draw and play first
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: ChristianSoldier on June 30, 2011, 11:02:39 PM
I like the idea of the card, I just wonder if it will be able to be used effectively considering its clause and apparently all the new nazereth killers allowing captured arks to run free again. Personally the card feels like Confusion of Mind on steriods but with more restrictions on what you can play on offense and defense.

This card makes Nazareth a normal green site.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Josh on June 30, 2011, 11:16:46 PM
Nebby I can buy, but Nerg doesn't make much sense. What enhancements is he playing when Crimson is splashed?

anything crimson you splash with him.  Put horses on him for the CBN draw and play first

Just don't forget you need another Bab in play for Nerg to be CBN.  If you only have Nebby and Nerg in your deck, then that greatly decreases the chances your OT crimson enhancements will be CBN on Nerg.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Bryon on June 30, 2011, 11:17:56 PM
I like the idea of the card, I just wonder if it will be able to be used effectively considering its clause and apparently all the new nazereth killers allowing captured arks to run free again. Personally the card feels like Confusion of Mind on steriods but with more restrictions on what you can play on offense and defense.

This card makes Nazareth a normal green site.
Yeah, protects are EVERYWHERE in the game right now.  Iron Pan (+1 Bab) shuts them all down.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 01, 2011, 02:13:29 AM
But, but, why'd ya have to encourage green prophets??  I was so happy in my own little world where very few people understand the power of a prophets deck...  Made me disband my Disciples deck months ago! ;)

And, of course a defense full of babies needs assistance... they can't do it by themselves.

Carry On,

-C_S

P.S. Great article, as always!
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Josh on July 01, 2011, 09:10:49 AM
I like the idea of the card, I just wonder if it will be able to be used effectively considering its clause and apparently all the new nazereth killers allowing captured arks to run free again. Personally the card feels like Confusion of Mind on steriods but with more restrictions on what you can play on offense and defense.

This card makes Nazareth a normal green site.

True!  But some staple-ish cards will be even more useless if Iron Pan is up, like Lampstand.  At least with Nazareth, you can put a LS in it that they might not have access to.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Ironica on July 01, 2011, 09:40:49 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)?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Warrior_Monk 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: 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!
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Professoralstad on July 01, 2011, 11:47:19 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...
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: crustpope on July 01, 2011, 12:45:26 PM
oh, how beautiful!  I had not yet realized that.  Oh Joy!
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Warrior_Monk on July 01, 2011, 01:00:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Bryon on July 01, 2011, 01:11:25 PM
You do realize that Goshen won't protect anything.  And neither will Lampstand, right?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Professoralstad on July 01, 2011, 01:21:12 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Warrior_Monk 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...
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Professoralstad on July 01, 2011, 01:58:21 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: BubbleBoy 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?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Warrior_Monk on July 01, 2011, 02:19:06 PM
I don't think so, but I think Daniel and his buds should be.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: BubbleBoy on July 01, 2011, 02:24:59 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: crustpope on July 01, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot Moses had every identifier known to redemption!
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 02:43:29 PM
No heroes are babylonian.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn 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....
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 06:09:28 PM
And yet Paul is a Roman.....  ???
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 06:16:20 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.  ;)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 07:57:23 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).
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 07:58:36 PM
Then perhaps the Romans think Saul was a Roman, but Paul was not....  ;)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 08:04:18 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher 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.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 08:18:48 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.

China has arguably saved America, or atleast helped in a time of need, is the Chinese government American?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 08:21:52 PM
China has arguably saved America, or atleast helped in a time of need, is the Chinese government American?

This is not even a close comparison, so I guess it is best to just agree to disagree before we get silly.  :P
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 01, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
Fair enough.
(The silly arguement trick always works)  :P.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 01, 2011, 08:47:41 PM
You would have to look at what defined citizenship during the time period of each person in question. It might be simply where they were born, where they paid taxes, what people their loyalties were with, etc...  no singular definition will necessarily work.  Being a slave does not typically mean that you see yourself as a citizen of the enslaving people group.  In fact, your considered property, not a citizen (usually).

Carry On,

-C_S
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 08:51:10 PM
So I must have my history mistaken. Was Paul not Jewish, or were there Jewish people that were not among the "conquered" people groups of Rome.

Also, I thought Roman was being defined as "from Rome," or was that just for sites?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Drrek on July 01, 2011, 10:03:12 PM
So I must have my history mistaken. Was Paul not Jewish, or were there Jewish people that were not among the "conquered" people groups of Rome.

Also, I thought Roman was being defined as "from Rome," or was that just for sites?

All Jewish people were among the "conquered" people groups of Rome, but a considerably smaller group were granted Roman citizenship.  It is because of his citizenship that he is considered roman.

As for the sites only being defined as "from Rome," that's because otherwise Nero would at the very least discard almost every N.T. site in the game and if the argument was accepted that if a place was ever under Roman control it would be "roman," he would discard near ever site that exists.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 01, 2011, 11:20:16 PM
All Jewish people were among the "conquered" people groups of Rome, but a considerably smaller group were granted Roman citizenship.  It is because of his citizenship that he is considered roman.

So bear with me here. As a host (or player), how will I know who was in the "smaller" group? Are all of the Pharisees Roman? How about the Sadducees? Is it only Paul?

As for the sites only being defined as "from Rome," that's because otherwise Nero would at the very least discard almost every N.T. site in the game and if the argument was accepted that if a place was ever under Roman control it would be "roman," he would discard near ever site that exists.

I understand the rationale, I just have a concern that defining Roman as being "from Rome" in one circumstance, but having it mean something else in another could become confusing. I realize that the decision has already been made and that my post will be perceived as a complaint, but I hope that there will be a realization of how this could be a potential contradiction.

Back on topic, the determination of a Babylonian identifier for a character should be at least discussed in the context that "citizen" is a word that was largely coined by the Romans, so there may be equivalent titles in older civilizations that could constitute similar significance.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Drrek on July 02, 2011, 01:37:20 AM

So bear with me here. As a host (or player), how will I know who was in the "smaller" group? Are all of the Pharisees Roman? How about the Sadducees? Is it only Paul?

Well my thoughts behind just Paul being a roman, and not the pharisees and Sadducees (at least to my knowledge none of the pharisees (except Paul) or sadducees are Romans), would be that Paul has biblical documentation of his roman citizenship (Acts 22:25-28) whereas the pharisees and sadducees don't. However the Herods are considered Romans because of their citizenship, and that comes from sources other than the bible.  However, I don't think all pharisees and sadducees were given roman citizenship, so I'd think you'd have a hard time arguing the generic ones should be given the roman identifier.

I would think if you could find evidence for roman citizenship on a character, you'd have a case for arguing they should be considered roman.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 02, 2011, 02:16:29 AM
I know for a fact atleast one other pharisee is roman, I'll go find the verse and edit this.
*Edit*
Seems I was wrong, he lives in the Roman Empire but there's no evidence he's a Roman Citizen.
Luke 7:36-50 Simon the Pharisee (not printed).

Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 02, 2011, 10:29:26 AM
Paul is stated to be a Roman citizen. In Roman times, this was a very exclusive right. Only certain cities had it. It is most likely Paul recieved it from his father.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 02, 2011, 12:11:02 PM
All Jewish people were among the "conquered" people groups of Rome, but a considerably smaller group were granted Roman citizenship.  It is because of his citizenship that he is considered roman.

So bear with me here. As a host (or player), how will I know who was in the "smaller" group? Are all of the Pharisees Roman? How about the Sadducees? Is it only Paul?
All free male occupants of Tarsus in 66 BC were granted Roman citizenship, a status which was passed down to their descendents.  So, as a host all you would need to do is check to see which other Pharisees and/or Sadducees had a father or patri-lineal grandfather from Tarsus.  ;)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2011, 12:15:09 PM
Paul is stated to be a Roman citizen.

This is the primary reason he is classified as a Roman. What exactly determines citizenship? The Bible states that Joseph was made ruler over all of Egypt. He had an Egyptian wife (who was from the upper class). He was embalmed and buried in a coffin in Egypt. The Egyptians of his household refused to dine with his brothers because "Egyptians loathed Hebrews." I think it is safe to say that they dined with their master.

All free male occupants of Tarsus in 66 BC were granted Roman citizenship, a status which was passed down to their descendents.  So, as a host all you would need to do is check to see which other Pharisees and/or Sadducees had a father or patri-lineal grandfather from Tarsus.  ;)

At last, something other than "Paul is a Roman because he said he was."  ;D
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 02, 2011, 01:26:51 PM
I wasn't talking about Joseph. I was talking about Paul. I stated that Roman citizenship was a very exclusive right given only to certain cities that was recieved from his father. I'm not sure why you talk about Joseph.

And FWIW, Joseph should be Egyptian.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 02, 2011, 01:31:29 PM
And FWIW, Joseph should be Egyptian.

That was why I was talking about Joseph. I was comparing the two.  ;D
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 05, 2011, 12:44:32 AM
Back on topic, regarding multiple art activations:
Split Altar might see play!

Also: Of course the new article would be released the day I leave for Creation and don't have internet for 4 days.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: JSB23 on July 09, 2011, 04:28:48 PM
Hey guys,
just got back from vacation and finally had a chance to examine the card in depth.
My first reaction was "Holy crap that's awesome, Babs will get some play again."

Then I thought about it a bit and realized something, this helps Disciples more then it hurts them because:

1. It allows AoCP to take out the opponent's entire defense (as mentioned in the article)

2. Without playing or searching Babylonians have no real way to get initiative (other then Ashpenaz and Nebushashban) so most characters can get initiative to play the aforementioned AoCP.

3. it doesn't hurt Disciples drawing, yes Matthew gets taken out, but Fishing boat and Pentecost are both unaffected (FB is in set aside and Pentecost is a set aside which means it can not be negated).



   
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 09, 2011, 05:15:12 PM
Hey guys,
just got back from vacation and finally had a chance to examine the card in depth.
My first reaction was "Holy crap that's awesome, Babs will get some play again."

Then I thought about it a bit and realized something, this helps Disciples more then it hurts them because:

1. It allows AoCP to take out the opponent's entire defense (as mentioned in the article)

2. Without playing or searching Babylonians have no real way to get initiative (other then Ashpenaz and Nebushashban) so most characters can get initiative to play the aforementioned AoCP.

3. it doesn't hurt Disciples drawing, yes Matthew gets taken out, but Fishing boat and Pentecost are both unaffected (FB is in set aside and Pentecost is a set aside which means it can not be negated).   

1. How do you know there isn't a low number bab in the new set?

2. There are confirmations of lots of new Disciples / Thadd counters in the new set.

3. Drawing is OP regardless, and that won't change.

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 09, 2011, 05:22:01 PM
I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.
Well, what else are we supposed to do?  Wildly speculate on the new set?  I already do that...
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Alex_Olijar on July 09, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
I predict that there is a broken deck in the next meta.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 09, 2011, 05:25:36 PM
I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.
Well, what else are we supposed to do?  Wildly speculate on the new set?  I already do that...

It's not wild speculation, he already knew Babs have a problem in that they have no low numbered characters, it's almost common knowledge. Why wouldn't there be a new one in the next set?

I predict that there is a broken deck in the next meta.

I lol'd
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: JSB23 on July 09, 2011, 05:37:22 PM
1. How do you know there isn't a low number bab in the new set?

2. There are confirmations of lots of new Disciples / Thadd counters in the new set.

3. Drawing is OP regardless, and that won't change.

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.
1. There's only one Bab, and he does jack squat with this card up

2. I know there are Thad counters, that's why I didn't mention him :P

3. That's exactly my point, giving Disciples the ability to nuke an opponents entire defense and shut down their (non-disciple) drawing at the cost of Thad is a very favorable trade

I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too  ;D 
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 09, 2011, 05:39:57 PM
I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too  ;D

I don't understand why so many people have the new set lists. If there are really that many people that know what all the new cards are going to be, why can't we all just have the list?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Master KChief on July 09, 2011, 05:58:21 PM
because there has to be some people that complain about not having it. ;)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 09, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
I predict that there is a broken deck in the next meta.
...and not the one the playtesters expect.

I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too  ;D

I don't understand why so many people have the new set lists. If there are really that many people that know what all the new cards are going to be, why can't we all just have the list?
+1'd.  The current system seems unfair.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: STAMP on July 09, 2011, 06:20:44 PM
Iron Pan can be placed on Ezekiel freeing up a space on your artifact pile.  Am I missing something here?  I thought I remembered a discussion in Rulings regarding Priestly Breastplate being placed on a priest didn't really free up the art pile based on the artifact activation rules.  Just curious...
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: browarod on July 09, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
Priestly Breastplate doesn't work like intended because its "may be activated on" is part of its ability which means it has to be activated normally on the artifact pile before that part even becomes active. Iron Pan is like Magic Charms in that it has an identifier allowing it to be activated elsewhere.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 09, 2011, 07:02:42 PM
because there has to be some people that complain about not having it. ;)

When I was 9 years old, my father told me the secret to being successful. He told me to pick one thing in life and try to do it better than anybody else.

I picked complaining.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 09, 2011, 07:15:19 PM
because there has to be some people that complain about not having it. ;)

When I was 9 years old, my father told me the secret to being successful. He told me to pick one thing in life and try to do it better than anybody else.

I picked complaining.

I thought you picked not being agreed with and I picked complaining?
(See what I did there?)

1. How do you know there isn't a low number bab in the new set?

2. There are confirmations of lots of new Disciples / Thadd counters in the new set.

3. Drawing is OP regardless, and that won't change.

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.
1. There's only one Bab, and he does jack squat with this card up

2. I know there are Thad counters, that's why I didn't mention him :P

3. That's exactly my point, giving Disciples the ability to nuke an opponents entire defense and shut down their (non-disciple) drawing at the cost of Thad is a very favorable trade

I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too  ;D 

1. So you knew there was an inish card, but still complained they don't have one.

2. But you mentioned disciples, which will be dead next set regardless.

3. It's not just disciples, ET + AoCp, and the person who plays that will have their defense nuked too.

4. No idea what you're talking about with drawing negation, but drawing will always be the best ability in the game while NJ is still around.

@ smug comment, see point 1.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 09, 2011, 07:28:49 PM
3. It's not just disciples, ET + AoCp, and the person who plays that will have their defense nuked too.
Just curious, Smokey, how exactly do you think ET+AoCP is going to work with Iron Pan up? Just kinda push ET out there and hope you get inish?

When I was 9 years old, my father told me the secret to being successful. He told me to pick one thing in life and try to do it better than anybody else.

I picked complaining.
Just quoting this to give other people something to agree with.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: JSB23 on July 09, 2011, 07:49:49 PM
1. So you knew there was an inish card, but still complained they don't have one.

2. But you mentioned disciples, which will be dead next set regardless.

3. It's not just disciples, ET + AoCp, and the person who plays that will have their defense nuked too.

4. No idea what you're talking about with drawing negation, but drawing will always be the best ability in the game while NJ is still around.

@ smug comment, see point 1.

Who says I have a set list?
1. I'll shut up if you can explain to me how this so called "inish" card counters James SoA, Granny Lois and Mephiboshem

2.(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.halolz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2Fhalolz-dot-com-teamfortress2-nope.avi-obama-poster.jpg&hash=1b317c3ebf1ad75d7940da2a7784f492544ccbb9)

3.
Just curious, Smokey, how exactly do you think ET+AoCP is going to work with Iron Pan up? Just kinda push ET out there and hope you get inish?

4. Lolwut?  Drawing is OP, so if I can draw but you can't that's even more OP. and that's what this card does for Disciples

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.

1. So you knew there was an inish card, but still complained they don't have one.
These two statements make it pretty obvious, unless you're just blowing smoke.  ::)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 09, 2011, 08:07:48 PM
When I was 9 years old, my father told me the secret to being successful. He told me to pick one thing in life and try to do it better than anybody else.

I picked complaining.
Just quoting this to give other people something to agree with.

Wait, is this where I'm supposed to say, "I see what you did there?"

I get so confused. :scratch:
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: ChristianSoldier on July 09, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
I have a question, Iron Pan stop Nebuchadnezzar's "add to battle" ability?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: The M on July 09, 2011, 08:35:21 PM
I have a question, Iron Pan stop Nebuchadnezzar's "add to battle" ability?
Nebuchadnezzar's ability is CBN if a Daniel Hero isn't in play.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: EmJayBee83 on July 09, 2011, 09:22:15 PM
When I was 9 years old, my father told me the secret to being successful. He told me to pick one thing in life and try to do it better than anybody else.

I picked complaining.
Just quoting this to give other people something to agree with.

Wait, is this where I'm supposed to say, "I see what you did there?"

I am not exactly sure, but I think this might be so.  I only hope the new REG includes a section on board etiquette and idioms and such because that would be soooooo helpful.
Quote
I get so confused. :scratch:

Me too.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Smokey on July 09, 2011, 09:52:30 PM
1. So you knew there was an inish card, but still complained they don't have one.

2. But you mentioned disciples, which will be dead next set regardless.

3. It's not just disciples, ET + AoCp, and the person who plays that will have their defense nuked too.

4. No idea what you're talking about with drawing negation, but drawing will always be the best ability in the game while NJ is still around.

@ smug comment, see point 1.

Who says I have a set list?
1. I'll shut up if you can explain to me how this so called "inish" card counters James SoA, Granny Lois and Mephiboshem

2.(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.halolz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2Fhalolz-dot-com-teamfortress2-nope.avi-obama-poster.jpg&hash=1b317c3ebf1ad75d7940da2a7784f492544ccbb9)

3.
Just curious, Smokey, how exactly do you think ET+AoCP is going to work with Iron Pan up? Just kinda push ET out there and hope you get inish?

4. Lolwut?  Drawing is OP, so if I can draw but you can't that's even more OP. and that's what this card does for Disciples

I think it's really funny when people try to place spoiled new cards into the current metagame and don't consider the possibility of what other new cards exsist.

1. So you knew there was an inish card, but still complained they don't have one.
These two statements make it pretty obvious, unless you're just blowing smoke.  ::)

The pic is ironic because I've been playing Tf2 since I posted that.

Forgetting what the card we're discussing accually does... priceless.

There will be no reason to run disciples next year because of power creep, unless you start doing it just because less people are playing it.

No idea what your last comment is supposed to mean.

So... you think people are going to play disciples, have no art slot, and proceed to boat their entire offense to get the 1/4 guy out and play AoCP for the win...

Cause boat can't be targeted...
(except by that one new card that targets it)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: BubbleBoy on July 09, 2011, 10:39:32 PM
I think it's really funny when people act all smug and don't consider the possibility that other people have set lists too  ;D

I don't understand why so many people have the new set lists. If there are really that many people that know what all the new cards are going to be, why can't we all just have the list?
If I could give a single post multiple + 1s, I'd be here all night.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Gabe on July 10, 2011, 12:11:45 AM
Then I thought about it a bit and realized something, this helps Disciples more then it hurts them because:

Dear Mr. JSB,

Despite numerous complains about how powerful the Disciples are this season, the play test team feels it is in the best interest of the game to continue to improve the Disciples theme by drastically increasing their power level. One way that we've done this is by creating cards that appear to hurt the theme but actually help it. By doing this we figured we could trick some players into using non-purple Heroes on occasion.

When considering the name for the 2011 set we almost settled on "More Disciples" but decided against it at the last minute. We're presently discussing the possibility of changing the name of the game from "Redemption" to "Disciples". Expect an update soon on that change.

Sincerely,

Honest Injun
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Gabe on July 10, 2011, 12:16:04 AM
On a more serious note, the concerns you bring up are legitimate and worth discussing. We looked at these things when we tested Iron Pan, which received quite a bit of scrutiny.

1. It allows AoCP to take out the opponent's entire defense (as mentioned in the article)

This is true, but I think it helps non-Disciples purple more than it helps Disciples. Only James the Lesser gets initiative easily from the Disciples so playing AoCp isn't all that easy in a Disciples offense. We purposefully designed Iron Pan to negate play abilities to avoid the ET+AoCp combo, and because play abilities needed to take a few hits this year.

2. Without playing or searching Babylonians have no real way to get initiative (other then Ashpenaz and Nebushashban) so most characters can get initiative to play the aforementioned AoCP.

In addition to the two characters you've mentioned there are also two 3/3 Babylonian Magicians that are good for initiative among other things. They gain a very nice card this year that I'm pretty sure will cause them to see more play in case Iron Pan isn't enough. Nebuchadnezzar and Nergalsharezer + Swift Horses get past Iron Pan's negate. Add to that another Babylonian that helps with initiative and you have several options  to avoid the dreaded AoCp. If a person using Babylonians loses because of AoCp it won't be because they don't have options.

3. it doesn't hurt Disciples drawing, yes Matthew gets taken out, but Fishing boat and Pentecost are both unaffected (FB is in set aside and Pentecost is a set aside which means it can not be negated).

If Pentecost is played while Iron Pan is active the draw is negated. It was ruled earlier this year (in relation to the Pigs LS) that the draw set-aside cards are not a gained ability but a trigger so they can be prevented or negated. You are correct though that it does not stop Fishing Boat. I've played Disciples quite a bit in T1 and T2 but I haven't found Fishing Boat to be all that amazing for drawing. By the time you have enough Disciples to make it abusive you're already well into your deck. It also leaves you vulnerable to Darius' Decree which has become a lot more popular this season. If you're really concerned about Fishing Boat there will be a way to discard it next season.

In summary I found Iron Pan to be a pretty effective tool against Disciples (and a few other) decks. It did not single handedly beat Disciples. It's not a card I wanted to have active every turn when I had it. But it is very effective, especially if you build your deck to take advantage of it.

I don't understand why so many people have the new set lists. If there are really that many people that know what all the new cards are going to be, why can't we all just have the list?

I've gathered that someone outside of the elder team gained access to a list of the new cards and shared it with others. I apologize to those of you who aren't part of that dishonest group and feel slighted that some people know things you don't. It was never our intention.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on July 10, 2011, 12:30:41 AM
I apologize to those of you who aren't part of that dishonest group and feel slighted that some people know things you don't.
ಠ_ಠ
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 12, 2011, 02:26:22 PM
It did seem like quite a few people knew a lot more about the new set...  I started to get the feeling that the majority knew, and the minority did not, when it should be the other way around o.O

Carry On,

-C_S
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Prof Underwood on July 12, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
It did seem like quite a few people knew a lot more about the new set...  I started to get the feeling that the majority knew, and the minority did not, when it should be the other way around o.O
Although it does seem like more people found out about the new set than should have, it certainly was not a majority thing.  Just a very vocal minority :)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: soul seeker on July 12, 2011, 03:58:49 PM
Then this has been 2 years in a row, because I voiced the same concern (as YMT and countersniper) last year.  I'm okay with people playtesting the set...having a vocal minority flaunting (from my perception maybe not true) knowledge of the set can be frustrating especially knowing that other playgroups can keep it a secret.  I don't know what can be done to close Pandora's box, but I would like to state that I still have faith in the current Elders, and I'm glad that they are aware (as evident by Gabe and Mark's response) of the problem.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: YourMathTeacher on July 12, 2011, 04:18:39 PM
My concern is more about reprints of cards, or cards that make use of other cards. There is a sudden flurry of trading or selling of these cards from people in the know, at the expense of those not in the know.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Prof Underwood on July 12, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
I don't know what can be done to close Pandora's box
It is harder for some of us to keep things secret than others.  My situation is pretty ideal in a way because I have an isolated playgroup of which I am the only person who is active on the boards.  And even here I don't playtest with everyone in my playgroup.

It would be a lot harder for elders who are regularly playing only with people who are very active on the boards, or who have a hard time keeping things to themselves.

My concern is more about reprints of cards, or cards that make use of other cards. There is a sudden flurry of trading or selling of these cards from people in the know, at the expense of those not in the know.
I hadn't observed this.  Can you list a couple cards that you've seen trading more?  It might have nothing to do with the new set at all.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on July 12, 2011, 04:50:46 PM
Demonic Mist, for one. It's pretty clear why.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: STAMP on July 12, 2011, 04:59:40 PM
My concern is more about reprints of cards, or cards that make use of other cards. There is a sudden flurry of trading or selling of these cards from people in the know, at the expense of those not in the know.

It happens every year.  I just pay attention to the trading activity.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Warrior_Monk on July 12, 2011, 09:32:15 PM
I hadn't observed any trading either, but there is one card that is going to be worth massively less after the new set due to one of the new cards.

I'm okay with people playtesting the set...having a vocal minority flaunting (from my perception maybe not true) knowledge of the set can be frustrating especially knowing that other playgroups can keep it a secret.
I think part of the problem is that it's entire playgroups know the set. It'd be much better if playtesters can keep the card knowledge within the playtester group by only playing other playtesters (and of course not showing lists). I understand this is difficult, but it's either that or select a few playgroups, not individuals that are extremely spread out everywhere except Arden Hills. If somebody would be able to put in the time to put each revisement up on RTS, that'd be fantastic, but it'd be a lot of work.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Gabe on July 12, 2011, 10:05:05 PM
If somebody would be able to put in the time to put each revisement up on RTS, that'd be fantastic, but it'd be a lot of work.

FWIW I already do this and test with some elders online. Many don't use RTS though and even the ones that do can't always get their schedules to line up frequently.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: BubbleBoy on July 12, 2011, 11:33:13 PM
If somebody would be able to put in the time to put each revisement revision up on RTS, that'd be fantastic, but it'd be a lot of work.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 12, 2011, 11:46:14 PM
It did seem like quite a few people knew a lot more about the new set...  I started to get the feeling that the majority knew, and the minority did not, when it should be the other way around o.O
Although it does seem like more people found out about the new set than should have, it certainly was not a majority thing.  Just a very vocal minority :)

I'm sure that's true, it just seemed like the majority of the consistently active board members knew more than the rest.  Albeit not that a lot was revealed (to me anyway), but with the amount of people hinting that they had "special knowledge," made it seem like very few didn't have a card list.  Again, I'm sure you are 100% right that it really is a minority, it just kind of felt the opposite. :)

Carry On,

-C_S
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Aelec Enitnel on July 13, 2011, 09:04:30 AM
Off the current topic, but Iron Pan "negates all protect immune, draw, ignore, and play abilities"
Aren't Immune and Ignore already protect abilities?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Bryon on July 13, 2011, 10:01:43 AM
Off the current topic, but Iron Pan "negates all protect immune, draw, ignore, and play abilities"
Aren't Immune and Ignore already protect abilities?
In a way, yes.  They are in the same extended family, but they have different last names.  Since we are targeting special abilities, we had to be specific.

This is different from "Cannot be negated" covering against the entire negate family (Negate, Interrupt, and Prevent).
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Arch Angel on July 13, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
I'm sure that's true, it just seemed like the majority of the consistently active board members knew more than the rest.  Albeit not that a lot was revealed (to me anyway), but with the amount of people hinting that they had "special knowledge," made it seem like very few didn't have a card list.  Again, I'm sure you are 100% right that it really is a minority, it just kind of felt the opposite. :)

Carry On,

-C_S
Just because someone hints that they know something, doesn't mean that they do. I'd bet that a good deal of the "edited by ROSES" jokes are just jokes, without any actual content to back them up. Also, it's really easy to talk smack once you've figured out what a few of the spoilers are either from playtester posts or the official articles.

For example, based on what I've seen leaked, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not a single NT card in this set. And if there are any, they're probably in the vast minority.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 14, 2011, 01:18:14 PM
I'm sure that's true, it just seemed like the majority of the consistently active board members knew more than the rest.  Albeit not that a lot was revealed (to me anyway), but with the amount of people hinting that they had "special knowledge," made it seem like very few didn't have a card list.  Again, I'm sure you are 100% right that it really is a minority, it just kind of felt the opposite. :)

Carry On,

-C_S
Just because someone hints that they know something, doesn't mean that they do. I'd bet that a good deal of the "edited by ROSES" jokes are just jokes, without any actual content to back them up. Also, it's really easy to talk smack once you've figured out what a few of the spoilers are either from playtester posts or the official articles.

For example, based on what I've seen leaked, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not a single NT card in this set. And if there are any, they're probably in the vast minority.

This I understand.  However, I wasn't referring to simple edited by roses jokes, but strong hints at specific knowledge which has already been addressed due to the unintentional leak.  I appreciate your explanation.  I'm just late with revealing my "concern" since it's already been covered and I didn't have enough reason to voice it sooner.  I'm glad the situation has been looked into.

Carry On,

-C_S
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: SomeKittens on July 15, 2011, 12:53:56 AM
I've made it seem like I know the new set, but I hope I've made it drastically clear that whatever I post here is out of complete ignorance.

I've always been worried about the trading thing, but I don't really trade much.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: STAMP on July 15, 2011, 09:42:24 AM
Sgt Schultz knows nothing, nothing! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzYpADZiv00#)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: RTSmaniac on August 07, 2011, 10:52:49 AM
I don't know what can be done to close Pandora's box
It is harder for some of us to keep things secret than others.  My situation is pretty ideal in a way because I have an isolated playgroup of which I am the only person who is active on the boards.  And even here I don't playtest with everyone in my playgroup.

It would be a lot harder for elders who are regularly playing only with people who are very active on the boards, or who have a hard time keeping things to themselves.

My concern is more about reprints of cards, or cards that make use of other cards. There is a sudden flurry of trading or selling of these cards from people in the know, at the expense of those not in the know.
I hadn't observed this.  Can you list a couple cards that you've seen trading more?  It might have nothing to do with the new set at all.

Spoiler (hover to show)
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Nameless on August 07, 2011, 11:06:12 AM
Why would they want to get rid of Iron Pan when it negates the opponents protection?
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: Gabe on August 07, 2011, 12:04:50 PM
Why would they want to get rid of Iron Pan when it negates the opponents protection?

It negates your protection too among other things.
Title: Re: Article #2 posted - Iron Pan
Post by: SomeKittens on August 07, 2011, 08:43:21 PM
It negates everything ever.  Including any arguments to the contrary.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal