Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Strategies and Combos => Topic started by: jtay on July 18, 2009, 04:38:22 PM
-
I just got the card Sword of Punishment in a pack today, and it got me thinking: what do you think about the idea of making a poison offense? Off the top of my head these are the cards that I came up with that could help:
Sowing the Seed (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Sowing%20the%20Seed%20(Ap).gif)
Crown of Thorns (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Crown%20of%20Thorns%20(Wa).gif)
Eaten by Worms (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Eaten%20by%20Worms%20(Ki).gif)
Hailstones (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Hailstones%20(Ki).gif)
Sword of Punishment (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Sword%20of%20Punishment%20(Ki).gif)
A cool combo with this strategy would be to convert Ahimaaz to white with Gold Shield and have him use Sword of Punishment. Then he could discard an EC and withdraw repeatedly. Three Nails, Priests of Christ, and good cards that discard cards from your opponent's hand (I am Holy + Chamber, Confused) would be useful too. I might just try this out, since weird strategies are my kind of thing.
-
This is basically the same line of reasoning that lead to the creation of Stonewall.
-
what's stonewall?
-
A decktype I pioneered a few years back. I've only told like three people about it and it's taken a few hits the past few sets, but I may dust it off now that High Places is coming out.
-
The terrible thing about stonewall is that Polarius says that he invented it and is very clear on what it isn't, but rarely says what it is.... ;)
-
well, what is it?
-
well, what is it?
It is What it is ;)
-
well, what is it?
Though I don't know myself, Pol did give a hint in his first post. Apply similar reasoning to a defensive strategy. The reasoning that I used (though not necessarily his) was to make your opponent not want to defend you (or put characters in play), since after battle their character would likely be discarded. Perhaps a stonewall defense is one that either prevents or discourages your opponent from making rescue attempts.
Am I in the ballpark, Pol? I like a good guessing game.
-
Whatever Stonewall is, I don't think we need too many more defense types. :P
-
Stonewall is an offense? Are you sure? It's just not a very offensive name. How would a wall made out of stone possibly do any attacking?
Whatever. Anyways, when I can get my hands on High Places, I'll definitely be trying out making a pale green paralysis defense.
-
A warrior class enhancement on Ahimaaz won't work like you want it to. They ruled a couple years back that Ahimaaz's ability activates and must complete before the WC enhancement can activate. Therefore, if you withdraw, the enhancement never activates. The best possible card to play on Ahimaaz was Sword (gray WC). I pioneered that combo to great success in T1 and T2 for a few weeks before they made a ruling on it. I did not lose a single game with those decks.... I am Holy + Ahimaaz + Sword.... your opponent lost 2 cards each turn from his hand.
Kirk
-
A warrior class enhancement on Ahimaaz won't work like you want it to. They ruled a couple years back that Ahimaaz's ability activates and must complete before the WC enhancement can activate. Therefore, if you withdraw, the enhancement never activates. The best possible card to play on Ahimaaz was Sword (gray WC). I pioneered that combo to great success in T1 and T2 for a few weeks before they made a ruling on it. I did not lose a single game with those decks.... I am Holy + Ahimaaz + Sword.... your opponent lost 2 cards each turn from his hand.
Kirk
Oh well. It would have been awkward trying to set up that combo anyways. Thanks for the info.
-
Stonewall is an offense? Are you sure? It's just not a very offensive name. How would a wall made out of stone possibly do any attacking?
Rolling stone.
-
Stonewall is an offense? Are you sure? It's just not a very offensive name. How would a wall made out of stone possibly do any attacking?
Rolling stonewall.
LOL. Fixed.
-
The only way a stone wall could be offensive is if there were people on it...or it fell over. :P
-
The name stonewall is derived from the defense, but describes an entire deck.
-
well, what is it?
That's the million dollar question.
Seriously though Stone wall is awesome I don't play something like it just because of my play style but it's so cool
-
Seriously though Stone wall is awesome I don't play something like it just because of my play style but it's so cool
You hated having to play against my Stonewall deck. Or at least I think it is a Stonewall deck.
-
Pol has kept it shrouded in mystery unlike heroless which is obvious ;)
-
Pol has kept it shrouded in mystery unlike heroless which is obvious ;)
HeroLESS?!?!?!?! How can you win without heroes? This is a complete mystery to me. ;)
-
I think it's a mystery to RR too. :)
At some point a thread was created on the order of "Why does heroless work?" All the people who played heroless basically gave the same answer: "I don't know." ;)
-
answer: "I don't know." ;)
I don't remember that thread, but as a former Heroless player, I would have to say that it was good because it was a perfect counter to Speed decks...which were quite popular in Heroless's heyday. I can't tell you how many times I played someone who drew out their whole deck in a few turns, only to have their huge offense run into a wall time and time again, before they just ran out of cards to play. Then I would convert an EC, play an AoC on their pitifully small defense, and walk in a few more times for the win.
I don't remember the record of my Heroless, except that I know I won at least two locals, a district, and took second at a regional, all while only losing one game (and it was a 3-2 loss, because my opponent activated Altar of Dagon and Lampstand and never attacked again for me to use my fort killer *grumble JSB grumble*).
Also, my least favorite card during that span was Chamber of Angels. It made me put a PotA in my black crimson deck. It's hard to decimate an offense when heroes with 10 or 12 strength just won't die.
-
I think it's a mystery to RR too. :)
At some point a thread was created on the order of "Why does heroless work?" All the people who played heroless basically gave the same answer: "I don't know." ;)
If it was there, I missed it. I know quite well. How I figured out how to get it to work, THAT IS what I'm clueless on. If you wanna know PM me.
-
Side battles, thats how heroless wins.
-
Side battles, thats how heroless wins.
Oddly enough, My first incarnation of heroless didn't have a side battle card.
-
Really? Not even a King Rehoboam?
-
Nope, Not even King Rehoboam. Wop usually stopped him for me and when it was made the only anti fort cards were Siegeworks, battering Ram and Breaking Through.
-
Ah the good old days, I still play with Breaking Through in a few of my decks.
-
Side battles, thats how heroless wins.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I never had a side battle card in any version of Heroless I played...I'm trying to think of why it would help?
-
I am blanking as well. Besides making them kill one of their heroes in territory with another, I don't know much good it actually does.
Kirk
-
Allows you to control a hero, thus playing territory nukers/art nukers/whatever, Without worrying about having to keep the hero safe.
-
I am blanking as well. Besides making them kill one of their heroes in territory with another, I don't know much good it actually does.
Kirk
Only cuz you mind wiped yourself.
Allows you to control a hero, thus playing territory nukers/art nukers/whatever, Without worrying about having to keep the hero safe.
I play GOLD, so I use troops discharged so I can unload all mai nastehs.