PROPHECIES OF CHRIST (Spoiler thread)

[Bobbert]

I love Chairot so much.

Or at least the idea of it. Notably, it can't add Elisha from hand or territory, and it deprives you of another hero. That said, you can bet I'm going to build a prophet deck that runs it. Can't wait to see Elisha (and Elijah, for that matter)!


EDIT: Never mind, forgot the order.

[Watchman]

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.

Lost souls they may be, but if they’re unrepentant people who don’t have faith in God they don’t get redeemed, they get judged. And by the way Elijah was translated, in line with how Enoch was translated, these were faithful, God-fearing prophets. To rescue an evil human without any sense of repentance and faith in God is the antithesis of God’s plan of salvation.

[Watchman]

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?

Well I’m thinking of the older Moses and some other OT prophets in which the on-going ability will remain. It might get messy. It could also serve as a cost-benefit to undo their ability as part of their being rescued, particularly if you’re going to add Elisha to battle, you’ll now have his ability activate to take the place of the other ability.

[Red Dragon Thorn]

You didn't think we were going to make you use the old Elisha did you?

Spoiler (hover to show)

[TheHobbit13]

Reserve is so cringy as a verb.

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.

Lost souls they may be, but if they’re unrepentant people who don’t have faith in God they don’t get redeemed, they get judged. And by the way Elijah was translated, in line with how Enoch was translated, these were faithful, God-fearing prophets. To rescue an evil human without any sense of repentance and faith in God is the antithesis of God’s plan of salvation.

Thematically I agree with you but all the ECs in Redemption were not necessarily unrepentant for their whole lives, nor do we know that the prophets actually prophesied every single time they thought they did.

[Kor]

You didn't think we were going to make you use the old Elisha did you?

Spoiler (hover to show)

Now that is a good prophet!

[Watchman]

You didn't think we were going to make you use the old Elisha did you?

Spoiler (hover to show)

Finally, a playable Elisha! Good job, guys.

I’m thinking the wording should be “you may reveal a hand: shuffle revealed evil dominants.” It could be argued that it can target all evil dominants in play (such as Doubt or evil Three Woes) based upon the wording. But maybe with the : it is specifying the evil dominants in the revealed hand (which, obviously, is the intent). Just a thought.

[RedemptionAggie]

You didn't think we were going to make you use the old Elisha did you?

Spoiler (hover to show)

Finally, a playable Elisha! Good job, guys.

I’m thinking the wording should be “you may reveal a hand: shuffle revealed evil dominants.” It could be argued that it can target all evil dominants in play (such as Doubt or evil Three Woes) based upon the wording. But maybe with the : it is specifying the evil dominants in the revealed hand (which, obviously, is the intent). Just a thought.

The : does override the default targeting to the revealed (or looked) location.

[sepjazzwarrior]

So it works like this? You reveal a hand and shuffle the dome, if you dont shuffle any dims, you can discard the evil card, right?

[Gabe]

So it works like this? You reveal a hand and shuffle the dome, if you dont shuffle any dims, you can discard the evil card, right?

Correct. All other actions are reliant upon the hand reveal. It’s worded so that you can reveal your own if you really want to.

[ChristianSoldier]

So it works like this? You reveal a hand and shuffle the dome, if you dont shuffle any dims, you can discard the evil card, right?

Correct. All other actions are reliant upon the hand reveal. It’s worded so that you can reveal your own if you really want to.

Sometimes you just need CBN enhancements and I can know when my hand has an Evil Dominant, especially one that's not terribly relevant at the moment, but my opponent might not have one, or might do a silly thing like protect their hand.

[Gabe]

So it works like this? You reveal a hand and shuffle the dome, if you dont shuffle any dims, you can discard the evil card, right?

Correct. All other actions are reliant upon the hand reveal. It’s worded so that you can reveal your own if you really want to.

Sometimes you just need CBN enhancements and I can know when my hand has an Evil Dominant, especially one that's not terribly relevant at the moment, but my opponent might not have one, or might do a silly thing like protect their hand.

That’s exactly why we made him this way.   

[Reth]

That’s exactly why we made him this way.   

Of cause you did!     Never expected you to do it differently! 

[SignoftheStar]

What if 400 Years of Silence/Lacking Prophecy took its name from the quote itself- The Fullness of Time?
There's something about that title that calls to mind the sheer length of time and the agony of waiting for the Messiah that the card is meant to convey.
It also makes it sound more like a conceptual object, like 400 Years did, which helps justify its being an Artifact.

[jesse]

I like it! Great idea!

[Watchman]

I’m in support of TTB without Unity.

Why? It's a no-cost battlewinning ability. Why would that not have some restriction?

It does have a restriction, more of an option for the other player. The player can instead the underdecking, and most of the time the player will have enough matching cards in hand to instead it. Alexander the Great doesn’t have such an option but is a straight up CBN, battle-winning discard (so long as it’s a multi-brigade target), which definitely needs Unity.

TTB is pretty terrifying, but not that terrifying. 

[Watchman]

Will there be any legacy rares spoiled anytime soon? Speaking from a business perspective, I definitely need to know soon what those are for a particular reason. From a player side, it would just be cool to know what they will be. 

[Gabe]

Will there be any legacy rares spoiled anytime soon? Speaking from a business perspective, I definitely need to know soon what those are for a particular reason. From a player side, it would just be cool to know what they will be. 

There are no plans to spoil LRs prior to the phase 1 completion.

[Watchman]

Verifying you mean they won’t be spoiled until all of the 129 phase 1 cards have been spoiled?

[Gabe]

Verifying you mean they won’t be spoiled until all of the 129 phase 1 cards have been spoiled?

There are not plans to spoil LRs at this point, they simply are not our focus. At the earliest they won't be spoiled until all phase 1 cards have been sent to print. Depending on how Rob decides to distribute them (for example if he doesn't add them until both phases are combined**) we may wait to spoil them until phase 2 is released.

**I'm not saying that is his plan. I don't know what his plan is.

[Watchman]

Good to know. Thanks.

[Gabe]

In case you haven't noticed, Travis his this morning's spoilers in another thread on the forum... sneaky!

**EDIT** Chariot of Fire (and the spoiler image) have been updated to include "good".

[goalieking87]

**EDIT** Chariot of Fire (and the spoiler image) have been updated to include "good".

I am wondering if there is an issue with the wording in Chariot. How can you be attacking and control no heroes?  The REG definition (stated below) seems to make this impossible.

Attack  When the active player begins a battle against another player, the active player attacks that player. The player they are attacking is being attacked, the defender, and their opponent. See Defend. Only the characters that begin the battle attack, but all characters in battle controlled by the attacking player are also attacking, in addition to rescuing or taunting, if applicable. No characters are attacking in a side battle. A player may only be attacked once per Battle Phase.

[Watchman]

**EDIT** Chariot of Fire (and the spoiler image) have been updated to include "good".

I am wondering if there is an issue with the wording in Chariot. How can you be attacking and control no heroes?  The REG definition (stated below) seems to make this impossible.

Attack  When the active player begins a battle against another player, the active player attacks that player. The player they are attacking is being attacked, the defender, and their opponent. See Defend. Only the characters that begin the battle attack, but all characters in battle controlled by the attacking player are also attacking, in addition to rescuing or taunting, if applicable. No characters are attacking in a side battle. A player may only be attacked once per Battle Phase.

If you attack with your lone OT green prophet, then rescue the prophet with Chariot, you are still in the process of attacking even if you don’t have a hero in battle at the moment. Add to that the “add to battle” ability and you’re simply adding to battle a different hero. It’s no different than AUTO, Watchman, or any other hero exchanging for another hero. The attack is still happening, and the add a hero to battle ability is still in the process of resolving while you’re searching for the hero you want to add to battle, namely Elisha, in this case.

[RedemptionAggie]

To add on to what Watchman said, you don't even have to rescue the Hero in battle to still be attacking. "Attacking" and "defending" are terms for the players involved in battle regardless of whether they have characters in battle. "Rescuing" and "blocking" (as on The Fall of Man) require characters to be in battle doing those things.

That will be added to "attack" and "defend" in the next REG update - it slipped through the cracks because it's not something we've really used before.