PROPHECIES OF CHRIST (Spoiler thread)

[Watchman]

I'm assuming you could have this and the no ability sites in the same deck?

Yep.

[Gabe]

There will be more than 3 URs between phase 1 and phase 2. I don’t think an exact number is certain yet. I expect it to be close to this: 3 (phase 1) and 2-3 (phase 2).

Our plan is to do LRs in 4 sets:

Fall of Man (the prequel)
Prophecies of Christ (2018/2019)
[edited by R.O.S.E.S] of Christ (2019/2020)
[edited by R.O.S.E.S] of Christ (2020/2021)

While we do LRs we do not plan to make any chase Doms as URs like 3W or TSC. Expect the URs to be more on par with cards like Michael, Red Dragon, Fall of Man, Babel and Wages.

[redemption collector 777]

Why did the new Egypt site not become a city?? But Samaria did??  (was it because the Egyptian theme already have Ramses as a city??) 

I would have assumed Egypt would become a city card eventually.


Seems like a lot of site cards and/or can be or will become cities at some point.

Here would be some possible cities (not 100% sure that all sites and fortress are cities historically though)

Assyria
Babyloin
Jerusalem
Rome
Pithom
Riblah
Damascus
Ashdod
The Promised Land
Kir
Media
Jericho
Canaan
Lystra
Lycaonia
Hormah

[Gabe]

Why did the new Egypt site not become a city?? But Samaria did??  (was it because the Egyptian theme already have Ramses as a city??)

We reserve making a city card for locations that were literally a city. AFAIK Egypt is a country which contains several cities, but not a city itself. Same can be said for places like Assyria and Canaan.

[redemption collector 777]

Why did the new Egypt site not become a city?? But Samaria did??  (was it because the Egyptian theme already have Ramses as a city??)

We reserve making a city card for locations that were literally a city. AFAIK Egypt is a country which contains several cities, but not a city itself. Same can be said for places like Assyria and Canaan.

That makes sense.

[SignoftheStar]

*sitting on hands patiently waiting for the reprint of The Destroyer*

[SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx]

If DoN is placed on Book of Covenant what happens?  Asking since BoC protects contents but not itself.

[Kor]

If DoN is placed on Book of Covenant what happens?  Asking since BoC protects contents but not itself.

If you are talking about DoN (patriarchs) I believe that the covenants are discarded.

If a card is held by another card and the underlying card is relocated, the held card is generally relocated
(regardless of protect effects) to the same location that the underlying card is relocated to and remains there.
The exception to this rule is:
1 Lost Souls held in Sites are returned to the general Land of Bondage and do not follow the underlying
Sites when the Sites are relocated.

[jesse]

Any Red Warriors goodies in PoC? 

[Bobbert]

Why did the new Egypt site not become a city?? But Samaria did??  (was it because the Egyptian theme already have Ramses as a city??)

We reserve making a city card for locations that were literally a city. AFAIK Egypt is a country which contains several cities, but not a city itself. Same can be said for places like Assyria and Canaan.

Building off this, Canaan already has a couple cities (Hebron and Sodom & Gamorrah). Cards like these and Ramses should be possible for most countries - given the Jonah cards we've seen I'd actually be a bit surprised if we don't see a Nineveh this year.

[Master Q]

I’m in support of TTB without Unity.

Why? It's a no-cost battlewinning ability. Why would that not have some restriction? At least something like Domitian or Entrapping has a "cost" (revealing). Domitian is far from this in that it gives you an out or you can negate it. Entrapping is CBN, but capture was readily protected from back in the day, and it still has an out (and it doesn't band). TTB both forces you to take the out if you have a lone character and is an ability that is potentially worse than CBN capture.

Not to mention it can clear defense too, so side battles are a factor. Don't forget the CBN band, which would likely win enough on its own.

If that TEC Emperor has a unity clause for an ability that is essentially ASA for Romans (if I'm remembering right), how much more so should this, in its current state. I'm not concerned about potentially losing this in a Daniel deck. It's clearly designed for Romans, and with Romans it should stay. It can keep the CBN. Romans need a boss character, and what better way to encourage civilization defenses than cards like Alex, BabyMerchants, and the like?

[Tayls]

If hand control Rome is still a thing I could see it being good there.

I was gonna say the same thing... here comes a new wave of hand control

[Gabe]

I'm not concerned about potentially losing this in a Daniel deck. It's clearly designed for Romans, and with Romans it should stay. It can keep the CBN. Romans need a boss character, and what better way to encourage civilization defenses than cards like Alex, BabyMerchants, and the like?

Part of the reason we're reprinting the Daniel beasts is so that they can function in a purely Daniel based defense. While I'm definitely open to changes, I'm not willing to sacrifice their functionality together in a Daniel deck. Apart from being unsynergistic, none of the old ones are bad and even still see play in their respective themes.

[Master Q]

Part of the reason we're reprinting the Daniel beasts is so that they can function in a purely Daniel based defense. While I'm definitely open to changes, I'm not willing to sacrifice their functionality together in a Daniel deck. Apart from being unsynergistic, none of the old ones are bad and even still see play in their respective themes.

I've never known anyone who's wanted to use all the beasts in the same deck. That's five brigades...

I thought it went without saying, but I was thinking of how gross TTB would be in Booster Draft as-is. Also, I thought we were trying to move away from splashing?

[Kevinthedude]

I thought it went without saying, but I was thinking of how gross TTB would be in Booster Draft as-is. Also, I thought we were trying to move away from splashing?

I assume (or at least I hope) that the intent isn't to move away from splashing completely, just to print counters to it so that splashing isn't automatically the best option. Right now deck diversity means discouraging splash and encouraging mono but if that goes too far and the only viable decks are all mono, that's the same problem just in the other direction. In an ideal world mono brigade decks are viable and some splash strategies are also viable. No reason not to support both kinds of strategies.

[Gabe]

IT'S PROPHETS WEEK!!!

I've never known anyone who's wanted to use all the beasts in the same deck. That's five brigades...

You're only thinking like a completive player. There are far more people that play Redemption for fun. Some of them will enjoy putting all the beasts into a deck (I happen to be one of them) without having them all discard one another. Rather than have all Daniel decks look the same, it will be possible to build at least 3 different defenses to use with Daniel Heroes (Babylonians, Persians and beasts/demons).

I thought it went without saying, but I was thinking of how gross TTB would be in Booster Draft as-is. Also, I thought we were trying to move away from splashing?

KtD summed the answer to this up rather nicely.


Sorry to be late getting started on spoilers today, but we have a really cool plan in place for you all this week... IT'S PROPHETS WEEK!!! You'll get to see some of the new prophets coming in phase 1, a City, some pretty scary evil cards and another Dominant! You can expect two cards per day from myself, Uthminister and Red Dragon Thorn!

While I'm really excited about what's to come, we're going to start off with an average EE. It's a solid card in the right build and pretty nice in booster draft.

Spoiler (hover to show)

[Bobbert]

Interesting. I like the design of the band and the CBN being mutually exclusive. Scary off the Ahab+Jez band/play.

[jesse]

Just a thought- perhaps it would be best to add "Queen" to Jezebel's name (and her reprint if she gets one) so that if/when the evil prophetess Jezebel mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (which Jezebel's teaching is based on) gets printed there will be a differentiation between the characters and which cards refer to which.

[uthminister [BR]]

The other Dominant that Gabe mentioned is next on the spoilers menu for this week. Will this card take one of your coveted Dominant slots?

Spoiler (hover to show)

[Watchman]

The other Dominant that Gabe mentioned is next on the spoilers menu for this week. Will this card take one of your coveted Dominant slots?

Spoiler (hover to show)

Wow that’s pretty cool. A twist on the SoG usage and can be more versatile if your opponent is soul droughted. Very creative.   

But as it stands it can target evil OT human prophets (such as Balaam). The wording would need to be changed to “your good OT human prophet.”

And something to throw out for discussion, would it be better or worse if “negate” is added to the rescue?

[Kevinthedude]

Spoiler (hover to show)

At first I was happy to see the band put before the discard so it would happen before SI but then I remembered the band will still come after the discard anyway because of the ordering rules for adding a character to battle. Perhaps it would be better to put the discard part before the band on the card itself to prevent people making the mistake I initially did?

[Ironisaac]

And something to throw out for discussion, would it be better or worse if “negate” is added to the rescue?

I don't see any harm in doing that, but what would be the point of adding that?

[Kevinthedude]

But as it stands it can target evil OT human prophets (such as Balaam). The wording would need to be changed to “your good OT human prophet.”

I'm not sure I see a problem with it rescuing evil prophets. They're lost souls who need rescuing just as much as the characters depicted in actual Lost Soul cards do.

As for the card itself, I think I can actually see myself playing this in a prophet deck. Question about the Elisha part, I believe the only time this could trigger would be if you attacked with a Hero and it was removed? You can't just play this at the start of the battle phase to get Elisha out if you didn't actually start a battle with another Hero first, right?

[RedemptionAggie]

Spoiler (hover to show)

At first I was happy to see the band put before the discard so it would happen before SI but then I remembered the band will still come after the discard anyway because of the ordering rules for adding a character to battle. Perhaps it would be better to put the discard part before the band on the card itself to prevent people making the mistake I initially did?

I'm pretty sure those rules only apply to characters, so this would be band then discard. I'm still not sure that's what we want.

[Kevinthedude]

Spoiler (hover to show)

At first I was happy to see the band put before the discard so it would happen before SI but then I remembered the band will still come after the discard anyway because of the ordering rules for adding a character to battle. Perhaps it would be better to put the discard part before the band on the card itself to prevent people making the mistake I initially did?

I'm pretty sure those rules only apply to characters, so this would be band then discard. I'm still not sure that's what we want.

If that's the case then I'm back to being excited that it happens before the discard and would love to see it stay this way. There are several cards out there that have a cool ability written after a character removing one that I almost never get to use since they're negated during SI most of the time.