Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: BubbleBoy on September 16, 2010, 01:17:39 PM

Title: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: BubbleBoy on September 16, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Okay, not really. But anyway, now there's a card or two that can kill The Gates of Hell. But what about Chamber of Angels, The Name of the Lord, and now Dust and Ashes? I can't find any Disciples cards that affect good set-aside cards. Not that I'm complaining or anything, since I love Dust and Ashes dearly, and I think TNotL is underplayed, but are these fortresses all still untargetable (except for CoA with Prince of the Air)?
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Professoralstad on September 16, 2010, 01:34:29 PM
Set Fire can discard Dust and Ashes and Kerith Ravine (yep. It says in play or set-aside). D&A used to protect itself from harm during playtesting, but that was removed, much to my dismay. TNotL protects itself from discard and is CBN, so I'm fairly certain there will never be a card that can target it (which is good, because, cmon. It's The Name of the Lord). Chamber of Angels is untargetable except by PotA, but let's be honest. Silver needs it to stay afloat in the viability race against other brigades/themes. and Fishing Boat is annoying, but even though you can't sink the boat, you can still use Darius' Decree to discard all of the Disciples.

So while I don't oppose the idea of more targeting cards for good set-aside Fortresses, I don't think it's all that necessary either.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: BubbleBoy on September 16, 2010, 01:38:55 PM
Set Fire can discard Dust and Ashes ...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! *death*

D&A used to protect itself from harm during playtesting, but that was removed ...
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?! *death*
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Master KChief on September 16, 2010, 01:45:22 PM
traded protection.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: SirNobody on September 16, 2010, 02:13:25 PM
Hey,

D&A used to protect itself from harm during playtesting, but that was removed ...
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?! *death*

Because cards/combos that are protected from EVERYTHING are not good for the game.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: BubbleBoy on September 16, 2010, 02:16:00 PM
Because cards/combos that are protected from EVERYTHING are not good for the game.
Most of the time I would agree, but c'mon, we're talking about Job here.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: SirNobody on September 16, 2010, 02:18:16 PM
Hey,

Because cards/combos that are protected from EVERYTHING are not good for the game.
Most of the time I would agree, but c'mon, we're talking about Job here.

Last I checked Job did eventually die.

Of course there's that other counter to the Job/Dust and Ashes offense that makes me not concerned about it at all.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Master_Chi on September 16, 2010, 07:34:33 PM
Because cards/combos that are protected from EVERYTHING are not good for the game.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Ummmm...... What about TGT? I'm sure that being protected from blocks is not good for the game either...
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: stefferweffer on September 20, 2010, 12:44:01 PM
Sorry to just now see this, but I was wondering something.  I know its hard to affect the fortresses themselves, but are the characters inside them also protected from cards like Darius' Decree? 

Thanks!
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Professoralstad on September 20, 2010, 12:54:27 PM
Sorry to just now see this, but I was wondering something.  I know its hard to affect the fortresses themselves, but are the characters inside them also protected from cards like Darius' Decree? 

Thanks!

The Name of the Lord, and Kerith Ravine protect the Heroes there from effect, so DD couldn't hurt them.
Dust and Ashes doesn't protect Job, but if you use your DD while he is there, he would be harmed, and is sent back there.
Fishing Boat leaves the Disciples there completely unprotected. DD would discard them all.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 20, 2010, 01:27:13 PM
Am I the only one who noticed the irony here?

Dust and Ashes can only be killed by Set Fire.... think about the names for a second.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: stefferweffer on September 20, 2010, 02:18:47 PM
Sorry to just now see this, but I was wondering something.  I know its hard to affect the fortresses themselves, but are the characters inside them also protected from cards like Darius' Decree? 

Thanks!

The Name of the Lord, and Kerith Ravine protect the Heroes there from effect, so DD couldn't hurt them.
Dust and Ashes doesn't protect Job, but if you use your DD while he is there, he would be harmed, and is sent back there.
Fishing Boat leaves the Disciples there completely unprotected. DD would discard them all.
Thanks.  Would cards like DD discard the angels in Chamber of Angels also?
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 20, 2010, 02:25:50 PM
I've been told yes. So, you can use DD to stall an angel offense, by forcing their angels to sit another 3 turns
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: The Schaef on September 20, 2010, 03:52:56 PM
Apart from Prince of the Air hitting Chamber by name, New Testament set-aside Fortresses are currently unable to be targeted by any card in the game, as far as I know.
Old Testament set-aside Fortresses can only be targeted by Set Fire, a card that allows the player to choose what card he discards, and he can go through a lot of other options before potentially having to hit Dust and Ashes.  I don't see any more meaningful protection you can have than that: only one card that can hit you and that gives you lots of options to delay it and thwart it before it hits D&A.

I'm curious to know what cards are supposed to hit The Gates.  I think I'm missing something in this discussion.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: RTSmaniac on September 20, 2010, 03:55:59 PM

My Lord and My God (Di)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a disciple, negate and discard an evil card in play or set-aside area.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on September 20, 2010, 03:59:22 PM
Quote
My Lord and My God (Di)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a disciple, negate and discard an evil card in play or set-aside area. • Identifiers: None • Verse: John 20:28 • Availability: Disciples booster packs

That would be what hits gates.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: The Schaef on September 20, 2010, 04:07:51 PM
Okay, so there's one card that can hit a NT evil Fort, if used by a small handful of Heroes, and unless negated.

One card each sounds fair to me, for targeting set-aside Fortresses.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Warrior_Monk on September 20, 2010, 04:33:07 PM
Okay, so there's one card that can hit a NT evil Fort, if used by a small handful of Heroes, and unless negated.

One card each sounds fair to me, for targeting set-aside Fortresses.
if used by the offense that will be most used this year. and unless not played on Thomas.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: The Schaef on September 20, 2010, 04:58:07 PM
Most only suggests plurality, not majority.  If disciples are used in 10% of decks, and there are 10 or 12 other offenses with no more than say 8% of the share, disciples are used most, but 90% of decks still wouldn't have them.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: Warrior_Monk on September 20, 2010, 05:03:47 PM
Most only suggests plurality, not majority.  If disciples are used in 10% of decks, and there are 10 or 12 other offenses with no more than say 8% of the share, disciples are used most, but 90% of decks still wouldn't have them.
99% of decks in MN won't use Gates. the other 1% will be combo decks.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: The Schaef on September 20, 2010, 06:31:19 PM
In other words, a low-percentage stop against a low-precentage card means that the fact that this card is nearly indestructible isn't all that big of a deal.
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: SirNobody on September 21, 2010, 01:30:38 PM
Hey,

In other words, a low-percentage stop against a low-precentage card means that the fact that this card is nearly indestructible isn't all that big of a deal.

It's a big deal in theory/principle.  It's not necessarily a big deal in practice.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: A Discourse on the Invulnerability of Good Set-Aside Fortresses, by BubbleBoy
Post by: The Schaef on September 21, 2010, 04:42:56 PM
I'm curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion, since the opinions in this thread seem to be split between opinions that - even as a set-aside - the cards should be given absolute protection from everything, or that there should be more cards made that can target them.  What exactly makes it a big deal in theory?  For me, the only "big deal" in question is that there should not be any cards that are explicitly written to be bulletproof.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal