Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Crashfach2002 on November 18, 2009, 03:55:10 PM
-
I saw on the boards in the last couple of days where someone stated that Crimson Babylonian defense was good a site lock out. Is that more, well the Babylonian sites are good for site lock out or is crimson actually a decent site lock out defense? I thinking more the sites than brigade.
-
The bab baniunt hall wit bab sites is a strong site lock out theme. The carecters and enhansments them selves foucous on capture wich does nit work with site lockout!
-
They have Saphira who negates which is useful. The enhancement midianites attack does the same thing, negates. Mask of Vanity takes a site. Set Fire kills either a site or a fortress every turn. There are a few cards that make your opponent have to discard a card from hand or give you a site. Overall, it's pretty useful, not to mention Nergalsharezzer and his horses, making cards that steal your sites cbn. They also just got a new weapon class enhancement that helps to get rid of sites but I don't remember the ability. I think it's something like they have to discard a fortress or discard a site.
-
OK, so I knew it was a great def. against site lock out, but not a good site lock def. Just wanted to see what others thought!
-
They have Saphira who negates which is useful. The enhancement midianites attack does the same thing, negates. Mask of Vanity takes a site. Set Fire kills either a site or a fortress every turn. There are a few cards that make your opponent have to discard a card from hand or give you a site. Overall, it's pretty useful, not to mention Nergalsharezzer and his horses, making cards that steal your sites cbn. They also just got a new weapon class enhancement that helps to get rid of sites but I don't remember the ability. I think it's something like they have to discard a fortress or discard a site.
Axe- discard a fortress in opponent's territory. Opponent may discard a site instead
-
If they don't have a fortress, then they have to discard a site, right?
-
If they don't have a fortress, then they have to discard a site, right?
They only discard a Site if they choose to instead of a Fortress. They aren't required to discard a Site if they don't have a Fortress (I don't think).
-
If they don't have a fortress, then they have to discard a site, right?
They only discard a Site if they choose to instead of a Fortress. They aren't required to discard a Site if they don't have a Fortress (I don't think).
I agree. The word "instead" infers that a valid fortress target must exist. The site discard is only an option if they choose to not discard a fort.