Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
As a general rule, when a card references it's own name in the special ability it's referencing itself only, not all copies of a card by that name.
I know Destroyer probably isn't on the boards, but SitC should be. If someone could find me those links it would be much appreciated.
Numerous individuals have broken, or attempted to break A New Beginning over the years, leading to multiple errata's to it, until it reached it's current state. Even that may not be enough however, as we've even discussed limiting ANB in a similar way to SitC.
John, thanks for the history--but this brings up a number of questions that I am curious about...Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 09, 2011, 06:02:14 AMNumerous individuals have broken, or attempted to break A New Beginning over the years, leading to multiple errata's to it, until it reached it's current state. Even that may not be enough however, as we've even discussed limiting ANB in a similar way to SitC.As you noted earlier--numerous individuals also abused AoCP for years to get NPE. AoCP x5 had no counters for five years after it was released, and then we were given the Color Guard and some protect fortress. (Both of these counters were also given to stop AnB.) Unlike ANB, players even went so far as to abuse other cards (Chemosh anyone) in order to use AoCP. Have there ever been any discussions about limiting AoCP to one per deck or whatever? (Even today such a limit would help to increase the diversity of T2.)What cards were designed specifically to counter SitC? Why does AoCP warrant the creation of a whole category of counter cards while SitC gains a new game rule and two errata to stop it?Why is there this distinction between AoCP and other cards of a similar NPE potential level? Is it because AoCP is a National Promo? Is it because of when it was created (i.e., if it were created today it would be facing errata-nerfing rather than having counters created for it)?If folks are really concerned about NPE--how do we explain Thaddeus, TGT, and RTC?
BTW, this is all getting just a bit ridiculous. It's not certain cards that cause NPE. It's TYPE 2 that causes NPE! Get a clue!! You're letting a category drive all decisions on cards essentially changing them. How about changing Type 2 rules instead?
I know that I'm getting really tired of the questions about 'Thad the Mad' and his power level - I'm sure the rest of the playtest team is also - We've been over it about 30 times - Thaddeus was increased dramatically in power at a point in the playtest proccess that we really didn't have time to test it extensively or to revert the changes if they proved to powerful. It was probably a mistake, and we've admited as much numerous times - We are taking steps to insure that he isn't as awesome next year. Let it lie please?
What I want to know is, why is all this rule gimping going on but still no intro prep phase?
You don't recall reasons because there are none. Intro prep is needed.
What I want to know is, why is all this rule gimping going on but still no intro prep phase? That would solve so many problems Redemption still has, leaving only Dom imbalance (doms are still too powerful and every time a counter is made it's either over-
The idea of making ANB one per deck was mentioned by another elder in jest when we were discussing possible changes to T2 deck building rules.
Honestly, with Nazareth it seems like ANB is being kept in check this year.
5. There are probably other considerations to think of. In my few experiences with IPP for TEAMS, I haven't found it made too much of a difference, but I certainly wouldn't be against it.
Why is there this distinction between AoCP and other cards of a similar NPE potential level? Is it because AoCP is a National Promo? Is it because of when it was created (i.e., if it were created today it would be facing errata-nerfing rather than having counters created for it)?
I guess I just don't get the hate.
The idea of making ANB one per deck was mentioned by another elder in jest when we were discussing possible changes to T2 deck building rules. It was like this:1) Blah, blah blah (yes, that's really all we say on the elder boards) 2) More of the same3) Ditto4) Limit ANB to one per deck Honestly, with Nazareth it seems like ANB is being kept in check this year.Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 09, 2011, 02:05:33 PMWhat I want to know is, why is all this rule gimping going on but still no intro prep phase?Intro prep phase was brought up before and Rob quickly axed the idea. That happened on the public side of the boards because I wasn't an elder then. I don't recall his reasons, but I got the impression he is opposed to intro prep.
Yeah - Sorry, I should have included a smily or something - I don't think we've got any plans of the table to hurt ANB right now. In fact, I'd have to double check the card list, but I'm pretty sure we've got at least one card that helps ANB
postcount.add(1);
1) Blah, blah blah (yes, that's really all we say on the elder boards) 2) More of the same3) Ditto
Authority of Christ on the other hand is a very simple ability. There's not much room for errata on Authority of Christ because what it does is so simple.
Basically, you can't print a card that counters (responds) to A New Beginning or Sin in the Camp, because there'd never be an opportunity to play them, but you can print a counter to Authority of Christ.
Also I don't think Authority of Christ creates the same level of NPE as Sin in the Camp.
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 09, 2011, 03:33:15 PMI guess I just don't get the hate. Well if they had to pick on one specific theme the most, it would have to be prophets. It's Biblical after all.
Quote from: SirNobody on April 09, 2011, 04:29:50 PMAuthority of Christ on the other hand is a very simple ability. There's not much room for errata on Authority of Christ because what it does is so simple.I don't think the last errata for Sin in the Camp or the first errata on ANB had anything specifically to do with the complexity of their abilities. You could make AoCP one copy per deck or one use per game, which would be the equivalent of the SitC errata. Or you errata AoCP to say "cannot be prevented" or "cannot be interrupted" which would be similar to the first ANB tweak (i.e., during a rescue attempt).
...at least one card that helps ANB
The problem with making changing AoCP in a similar way to Sin in the Camp is that making AoCP one per deck creates a 'limited/banned' style list that hosts, players, and judges then have to keep up with.
Regarding Thadd the Mad's power level... if it comes down to it, the best way to power him down without ruining him would simply be to remove the "cannot be interrupted."
Do that, and I think all the complaining would stop. He'd be strong, but a little more stoppable.
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 09, 2011, 08:59:50 PMRegarding Thadd the Mad's power level... if it comes down to it, the best way to power him down without ruining him would simply be to remove the "cannot be interrupted."Or limit the protection to all cards not in battle.