PROPHECIES OF CHRIST (Spoiler thread)

[Red Dragon Thorn]

The wording "OT enhancement of matching brigade" combined with the Assyrian identifier makes me wonder if maybe there's some conversion synergy among the Jonah cards in this set.

There just might be!

Spoiler (hover to show)

This guy is all bad though:

Spoiler (hover to show)

[Ironisaac]

Super cool! Shouldn't Laborers be territory class though?

[Red Dragon Thorn]

He is supposed to be.... Looks like our graphics department is slipping 

P.S. I did the graphics on that one.....

[Bobbert]

I assume that using "reserve" as a verb means "place a card from hand into reserve" (making Laborers effectively an exchange and activate)?

I like. The green/white synergies just keep building. Wonder when we'll see the inevitable Nineveh city... and since Confusion of Mind is the only playable PG curse I can think of right now, maybe we're getting a couple of those, too!

[Gabe]

Laborers has been fixed. It's funny now we can see things that aren't there when we know they are supposed to be there (aka that TC symbol).

This year you'll see terms like "You may reserve a card" used to describe the action to moving a card to its owner's Reserve. As we continue to build upon and expand the use of the Reserve this is going to be a fun step forward!

[Kor]

Question about Laborers:  It can hold 'a single brigade pale green curse'.  I thought when played as curses they have no brigade color?

[Gabe]

Question about Laborers:  It can hold 'a single brigade pale green curse'.  I thought when played as curses they have no brigade color?

Artifacts have no brigade color. Curses do.

[Kor]

Question about Laborers:  It can hold 'a single brigade pale green curse'.  I thought when played as curses they have no brigade color?

Artifacts have no brigade color. Curses do.

Sure, but I have to believe that it would be activated as an artifact on Laborers?  At which point it would lose it's brigade color and Laborers would no longer be able to hold it?  I mean just using its ability I could see it working, but if that works why the line in the identifier?  And if the identifier doesn't cause it to remove a curse after activation, you could presumably activate a multi-brigade pale green curse with the ability also.

Relevant REG section:

Curse
A Curse is both an evil Enhancement and an Artifact, and can be targeted as either (in hand,
deck, Reserve or discard pile) until it is played, held, activated, or put in Artifact pile as one
or the other. A Curse that is played or held as an Enhancement can no longer be targeted as
an Artifact. A Curse that is activated or put in the Artifact pile can no longer be targeted as an
Enhancement, and it is a neutral card with no brigade. A Curse can always be targeted as a
Curse, which may be modified by a brigade or being active as an Artifact.

[Bobbert]

I asked the same question after Regionals this year.

The brigade of the Curse allows it to be activated on those locations. Once they are activated, they lose the brigade but that does not result in them being inactivated.

[RedemptionAggie]

If you target a card as a dual icon card (or Curse, Covenant, City, or any other names we come up with in the future), you can see both identities.

If you target something as a card, you only see the currently active identity.

Currently, this mostly this matters for cards holding Curses, but we could do something like "discard an evil City" in the future. That's me theorizing, not a spoiler hint.

[Kor]

Thanks for all the explanations.  If that’s the rule I will live with it and try to remember and explain it to others, but it still seems like a contradiction to me for an evil pale green curse to not also be an evil pale green card at the same time.

[redemption collector 777]

Babylonian Merchants:

If an opponent uses a search ability , you may capture their human to a LOB. While in battle , if opponent plays an enhancement , you  may take a crimson Enhancement from Reserve.



Here are my thoughts on the Babylonian Merchants card:

- I think this ability should be "If an opponent uses a good search ability"

-Also thinking this ability  should be limited to capture humans in their territory only.

-Being able to capture any opponent's human (if blocking or rescuing) as a auto block or rescue if they use a search ability (even mandatory) seems a little too strong to me. 

This is similar to Master Q's opinion on this.


-Being able to have 4 copies out in play for Type 2  so far might be a little crazy but I could be wrong.
 

Instead the card could be another brigade so it will be limited to 2 copies in play.
 

For example: crimson for Babylonian and Gold ( like gold coins , money or something since the card referring to a merchant)

or

can keep it crimson but have an identifier stating (limit 2 per territory)



But maybe the Unity identifier justifies the ability and being able to have 4 copies in type 2 in territory?? 

[Kevinthedude]

I think the card is very powerful but given the unity it's definitely not overpowered in T1. I see the concern for T2 but I would be very sad to see a strong hate card neutered because of T2 or given another brigade since having extra brigades is starting to be a high cost (Which is a good thing). Would it be possible to find a unique character that could have this ability so that it's mechanics remain the same while still preventing T2 decks from having several out at once?

Edit: Or just add "The" to the name and say it's unique.

[redemption collector 777]

I think the card is very powerful but given the unity it's definitely not overpowered in T1. I see the concern for T2 but I would be very sad to see a strong hate card neutered because of T2 or given another brigade since having extra brigades is starting to be a high cost (Which is a good thing). Would it be possible to find a unique character that could have this ability so that it's mechanics remain the same while still preventing T2 decks from having several out at once?

Edit: Or just add "The" to the name and say it's unique.

It could be made a unique character , but then it would limit it to 1 copy in play for Type 2.   That's why I was thinking adding another brigade to it or an identifier that says (Limit 2 per territory) so at least the Type 2 players can have 2 copies in play.

I guess we will wait and see what the play testers will do with the card.

This is mostly coming from a type 2 player perspective.

[Gabe]

I expect that we will make Babylonian Merchants unique by adding “The” to its title. Having 4 in T2 doesn’t seem healthy. While we do test T2 and other formats to some degree, time doesn’t allow us to test them extensively so we have to make some judgment calls at times.

On a different note, he’s a sneak peak at a card from the evil prophets mini-theme we will see this year.

Spoiler (hover to show)

[goalieking87]

I think the card is very powerful but given the unity it's definitely not overpowered in T1. I see the concern for T2 but I would be very sad to see a strong hate card neutered because of T2 or given another brigade since having extra brigades is starting to be a high cost (Which is a good thing). Would it be possible to find a unique character that could have this ability so that it's mechanics remain the same while still preventing T2 decks from having several out at once?

Edit: Or just add "The" to the name and say it's unique.

It could be made a unique character , but then it would limit it to 1 copy in play for Type 2.   That's why I was thinking adding another brigade to it or an identifier that says (Limit 2 per territory) so at least the Type 2 players can have 2 copies in play.

I guess we will wait and see what the play testers will do with the card.

This is mostly coming from a type 2 player perspective.

Just weighing in a little...

I like the idea of two brigades on this character for T2 purposes, but the unity raises the question of whether it makes sense. For instance, if gold is added, would it ever see play in a gold deck or use gold enhancements? It seems like there should be more application or use of adding a brigade rather than just limiting T2 copies.

I personally am not in favor of throwing “The” at the beginning of cards to make them unique (in a “just because” sort of way). For a character or group (such as The Entrapping Pharisees) to be unique, it should require some sort of significance.  An example of this is Widow being changed to unique...it becomes confusing since it could be any Widow. However, clarification can be brought to the title like “The Generous Widow” who is specific and therefore unique. I am not sure Babylonian Merchants fall into that category.

Could unity be matching brigade if made dual brigade?

[Bobbert]

I expect that we will make Babylonian Merchants unique by adding “The” to its title. Having 4 in T2 doesn’t seem healthy. While we do test T2 and other formats to some degree, time doesn’t allow us to test them extensively so we have to make some judgment calls at times.

On a different note, he’s a sneak peak at a card from the evil prophets mini-theme we will see this year.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Hmm... less powerful Divination that can be used by a wider array of characters. Interesting.

[Watchman]

I expect that we will make Babylonian Merchants unique by adding “The” to its title. Having 4 in T2 doesn’t seem healthy. While we do test T2 and other formats to some degree, time doesn’t allow us to test them extensively so we have to make some judgment calls at times.

On a different note, he’s a sneak peak at a card from the evil prophets mini-theme we will see this year.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Shouldn’t this be CBP so it can be played on Balaam in battle? It would also make the draw stronger after the rearranging of cards.

[Gabe]

@Waychman - You’re not wrong. But as you can see there is no space for that. The ability would need to be altered to make room.

To elaborate on the evil priests, they have the ability to falsify the future, such as this deck stacking mechanic. If anyone has a suggestion that keeps it in them I imagine the PT team is willing to consider alterations.

[ChristianSoldier]

While we do test T2 and other formats to some degree, time doesn’t allow us to test them extensively so we have to make some judgment calls at times.

If you need more testers, me and my playgroup (the Manitoba group in case you're wondering) would love to test cards for T2, as that is almost exclusively what we play, and I'd love to help out.

[Kor]

@Waychman - You’re not wrong. But as you can see there is no space for that. The ability would need to be altered to make room.

To elaborate on the evil priests, they have the ability to falsify the future, such as this deck stacking mechanic. If anyone has a suggestion that keeps it in them I imagine the PT team is willing to consider alterations.

This wouldn’t get it all the way there, but using ‘unpreventable’ as a shorter ‘cannot be prevented’ might help a little.  I will think about this more later.

[ChristianSoldier]

@Waychman - You’re not wrong. But as you can see there is no space for that. The ability would need to be altered to make room.

To elaborate on the evil priests, they have the ability to falsify the future, such as this deck stacking mechanic. If anyone has a suggestion that keeps it in them I imagine the PT team is willing to consider alterations.

This wouldn’t get it all the way there, but using ‘unpreventable’ as a shorter ‘cannot be prevented’ might help a little.  I will think about this more later.

I'm not sure if this would be enough, but it could be a decent way to make some abilities shorter, instead of saying "If played in battle" or even "If rescuing " or "If blocking" we could just use "Battle:", "Rescue:" or "Block:" to indicate the following abilities only activate under those conditions. We could even use this for general phases, like "Upkeep:" for when an ability triggers in the upkeep. You could even bold the word to make it stand out, so the EE ability on Balaam's Prophesy would say (I bolded "Battle:", but that's not necessary":

"Look at the top 6 cards of a deck: Topdeck the cards in any order. Battle: That deck's owner may draw 1."

[Red]

@Waychman - You’re not wrong. But as you can see there is no space for that. The ability would need to be altered to make room.

To elaborate on the evil priests, they have the ability to falsify the future, such as this deck stacking mechanic. If anyone has a suggestion that keeps it in them I imagine the PT team is willing to consider alterations.

Eliminate the line break between the star ability and normal one? I know it's ugly, but it would free up just enough space.

[Watchman]

@Waychman - You’re not wrong. But as you can see there is no space for that. The ability would need to be altered to make room.

I’d suggest removing the star ability and add that ability to the EE ability since functionally a player most likely will be using the abilities the same turn he draws the card. If the intent is to make the hand/reserve look harder to use then perhaps add a clause, such as “if used by a magician or false prophet/teacher” to that portion of the ability, similar to Divination.

UPDATE: I was thinking that since Balaam is prophesying (from God) for Israel’s benefit in the quoted scripture/scenario, I think this card would be great as a dual-alignment enhancement.

[Kor]

Upon further thought, I believe we should continue with the ‘Unity’ precedent and create key words for modifiers and place them in the identifier line, at least for enhancements.

For example:

Cannot be prevented: Fated
Cannot be negated: Eternal
Cannot be interrupted: Endless
Regardless of Protection: Shatter?

These could then be modified with brackets.  For example, ‘Cannot be prevented if used by Balaam’ could simply be ‘Fated (Balaam)’ in the identifier line.

These keywords could obviously be changed, just wanted to get something out there.