Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Place it and force your opponent to use it.

It's really a pretty useless card, basically you're discarding your entire hand for a soul, and then they get 2-3 free souls in a row because you have no cards...

4-4 and you have defense in your territory, pre-block cheribum to ET, either he lets you win or discards his hand.

Unless of course they discard their hand and block 12FG/Goliath/KoT, giving them a huge advantage over you.

It is possible to get 7 souls in one turn in T2, and 5 in T1. I won't say anything more. Figuring it out is so much more fun.

Quote from: CJSports on May 06, 2011, 11:21:18 PM

4-4 and you have defense in your territory, pre-block cheribum to ET, either he lets you win or discards his hand.

Unless of course they discard their hand and block 12FG/Goliath/KoT, giving them a huge advantage over you.

It is possible to get 7 souls in one turn in T2, and 5 in T1. I won't say anything more. Figuring it out is so much more fun.

I agree. Thanks for explaining Matt's combo in depth to me at IA State, bud!

getting the 7 lost souls in one turn was always a difficult combo but for clarification I don't think that is possible any more.  They can discard 0 cards from hand instead of surrendering the soul so there is no way to force getting multiple souls and they now have the rule that you can only make 1 successful rescue attempt per turn.  There is no way around that.

No, I don't think it is.  I would have to see some proof to the contrary. 

Not counting half rescued 2 liners (since you have to make successful rescues on previous turns for those), the only cards in the game that let you get more than 1 soul in a turn are SoG, NJ, and Primary Objective.  The dominants are obvious and limited so how are you going to get past 3 in one turn?  I'm also discounting stealing their doms since it is very unlikely and still won't get past 5 unless it is multiplayer where it is even more unlikely. 

So that leaves me with PO which was the previous combo and what I'm assuming you are referring to.  But if you use that then I just discard my hand and don't give up a soul and do that every time you use the card.  The only thing I can see here is if the opponent cooperates and chooses to give you the soul but if you are counting on the opponent to actively help you do combos and win the game then I think all kinds of combos would work real well: wait until I get Nazareth and then play ANB, no need for placers!

It is possible, if your opponent's hand is protected from your cards they can't discard their hand.

You can't make an additional RA on the same turn as you've made a successful RA. Primary Objective leads to a successful RA if the opponent gives up the LS. So even if you had a way to draw enough cards to make another RA and play another PO, it's currently illegal. At least that's how I understand it...

My opponent didn't give it up, I (as in holder) rescued it.

If I make a RA with a hero and play SOG, is that RA successful?

When I think of a successful RA, I think a rescue by game rule. PO, like SoG, rescues the soul, it's not determined by game rule.

SoG is a dominant, you can't really compare it to an enhancement like that.

My understanding of the ruling is that you can only rescue 1 LS per turn from battle (i.e.: characters/enhancements). The fact that PO "fails" the rescue attempt doesn't seem to matter. If I make an RA and lose access, I lost the RA. If I play something to return my access, and win a Soul, it isn't affected by the fact that I lost an RA this battle/turn, and it doesn't mean I can rescue anymore during that battle (with characters/ enhancements).

So if my enhancement doesn't specify "if played during battle", I can play it anytime, right? If card type has no bearing on the ability, then I should be able to do that.

and how the types are defined to work.

That's exactly my point. Enhancements work differently than dominants. They require a battle (except for TC, heal, and set aside enhancements) and affect that battle (or cards outside of battle as specifically mentioned). There is nothing to suggest that PO is anything but an enhancement that makes you win the rescue attempt and then continues the battle as a battle challenge.

I think your understanding of the rule is wrong. The rule is you can only make one successful rescue attempt per turn, and your opponent must have another turn before you have another rescue attempt. A successful rescue attempt should be defined as getting a soul because of game rule. In this case, The Long Day wouldn't work, but if you somehow found a way to play Primary Objective, draw a bunch of cards, play another PO, etc. then it should work, IMO.

There is no way to play 2 PO's in the same battle for effect: PO says "if making an RA", and then says "the battle continues as a battle challenge." So by the time you play the second one, you are not making an RA.

Ok, I see how it would work if your opponent had their hand protected but that leads back to my opponent cooperating to make my combo successful.  I prefer not to hope for that in real games.  So I'll stand by my original assertion that the combo is not possible anymore with the addition "for all practical purposes".

Yeah, I didn't think of that one.  So I'll concede that moves it into the realm of possible but like many combo decks slow to set up and unreliable. Even if it is unlikely it is still fun to try.  I'm curious if others are just using draw and stacking to do this or if they use Storehouse and Musicians Chambers.

My angels deck uses primary objective a lot.  At best, I do Cherubim - ET if the opponent's defense in play is weak enough, and I save this for when I have 4 redeemed souls.  It can also be used in mid-game tactically if you know your opponent has a good hand, but as was mentioned before, you're left without much defense. 

Most of the time, it isn't a good idea to include primary objective in a deck because of its riskiness and its limited usefulness.  There are some exceptions, such as my angels deck, which make primary objective appropriate.  For instance, I might not mind discarding my hand as much since my angels will go into chamber.

The main Disadvantage for playing PO is that it's nearly impossible to get cards back from Discard Pile for Silver. Unless u plan on running Mini-silver w/ lots of splash it doesn't work well. + it's to easy to Negate (unless u play it on Mike) overall I don't like it. And literally, I do play main Angels (really really tiny blue splash) and I don't like it.

I personally haven't seen it played, but there is a way to play it if it's in the Isaiah theme Deck.

Quote from: goodfellow on January 23, 2012, 01:41:28 PM

My angels deck uses primary objective a lot.  At best, I do Cherubim - ET if the opponent's defense in play is weak enough, and I save this for when I have 4 redeemed souls.  It can also be used in mid-game tactically if you know your opponent has a good hand, but as was mentioned before, you're left without much defense. 

Most of the time, it isn't a good idea to include primary objective in a deck because of its riskiness and its limited usefulness.  There are some exceptions, such as my angels deck, which make primary objective appropriate.  For instance, I might not mind discarding my hand as much since my angels will go into chamber.

Actually, because of a highly controversial ruling about instead abilities, if you have angels in your hand and chamber out when you use Primary Objective, it doesn't work. Instead abilities (like Chamber) make it as though the first destination never happened. Thus, when Primary Objective discards angels, they go to Chamber, and it's as though they were never discarded, and you didn't discard you hand, so the rest of Primary Objective doesn't work.

Which is a total crock.  If I should be able to discard an empty hand (don't get me started) then I should be able to discard my 7+ card hand even if some are insteaded.

Quote from: Ring Wraith on January 23, 2012, 01:53:03 PM

Quote from: goodfellow on January 23, 2012, 01:41:28 PM

My angels deck uses primary objective a lot.  At best, I do Cherubim - ET if the opponent's defense in play is weak enough, and I save this for when I have 4 redeemed souls.  It can also be used in mid-game tactically if you know your opponent has a good hand, but as was mentioned before, you're left without much defense. 

Most of the time, it isn't a good idea to include primary objective in a deck because of its riskiness and its limited usefulness.  There are some exceptions, such as my angels deck, which make primary objective appropriate.  For instance, I might not mind discarding my hand as much since my angels will go into chamber.

Actually, because of a highly controversial ruling about instead abilities, if you have angels in your hand and chamber out when you use Primary Objective, it doesn't work. Instead abilities (like Chamber) make it as though the first destination never happened. Thus, when Primary Objective discards angels, they go to Chamber, and it's as though they were never discarded, and you didn't discard you hand, so the rest of Primary Objective doesn't work.

Which is a total crock.  If I should be able to discard an empty hand (don't get me started) then I should be able to discard my 7+ card hand even if some are insteaded.

I agree that this should be looked at again, specifically the way instead abilities interact with cards like PO.