PROPHECIES OF CHRIST (Spoiler thread)

[Asahel24601]

It's time for everybody's favorite thing...LATE NIGHT SPOILERS!!! 

Spoiler (hover to show)

Mmm, can't wait to add this guy to my "Red Spread Redemption" deck. 

Hmm. Teal-Red could be fun this year. Now I just need to figure out fun surprise tabernacle artifacts to pull from reserve. All in all, I like the card, though. Good for shenanigans, which is always good.

Sadly, Zadok can't band to red. Need Phineas to do a banding chain with him.

[Gabe]

We’ve found that protection and CBN/I isn’t typically a healthy thing for the game (see AutO).

Hi Gabe! Could you expand on this a bit? Just hoping to understand a little more about why this is, and how to understand it when the next two cards after Elijah in the post have Cannot Be Interrupted and Cannot Be Negated in them. I think I remember something about trying to put CBI on abilities that are harder/messier to undo, but that may fall into a different part of the design decisions than what you're saying here.

Great question!

My quote above might be better stated as "protection + CBI isn't healthy". Protection (immunity on old cards) limits your ability to do something to a card. It's balanced by the fact that you must first interrupt or negate it. Taking away that option by giving a protect ability CBN/I makes cards almost unstoppable.

We do like to give cards CBI when they can cause messy (or time consuming) situations when they are negated. The Widow@Z is an example of this. It's time consuming and potentially messy to put cards back in deck (which requires a shuffle) and reserve. But it's nearly impossible to negate her once exchanged so she probably doesn't need CBI (see Angel of the Winds for a similar example where CBI wasn't used or needed).

We also use CBN/I sparingly on abilities that can win the battle. We prefer that players have the opportunity to respond to battle winning abilities. However, we've found that CBN/I abilities that are conditional on something the opponent controls are fairly balanced (see David's Triumph for a classic example). They also reward patience and skillful play. Thus we used that on Tested by Fire.

I hope that cleared up some of our thinking on when we do and do not use the CBN/CBI modifiers.

[RedemptionAggie]

Should Zadok say "play an artifact" instead of "activate" or are we sticking with "activate" in cases where an artifact is the only target?

Just "playing" an artifact wouldn't imply that it gets to be activated though, right?

You play any other card type by putting it face up on the playing surface from hand, deck, Reserve, Artifact pile or discard pile due to your ability or game action, except when you discard a card from hand.

According to the REG definition of "play" that works and it's something we've done before (see Tubal-cain). Marcus is more of the authority on these things but I think we use "activate" when we can and play when it applies beyond artifacts (like on Tubal-cain).

Agree with Gabe - Tubal-Cain was the exception, not the norm. The entry in the REG is named "Activate an Artifact", and we prefer to use that wording when we can.

[Bobbert]

But Esther is fine despite full protection from evil and numerous ways to tutor/recur Joy?

[Master Q]

But Esther is fine despite full protection from evil and numerous ways to tutor/recur Joy?

I think so. You can get better value for fewer cards than you can by focusing on using Joy on a certain Hero for maybe a rescue. It's very easy to deal with Enhancements that aren't protected.

That said, maybe just protection from O.T. evil cards would be prudent. It's thematic without sacrificing a lot of power.

[Gabe]

But Esther is fine despite full protection from evil and numerous ways to tutor/recur Joy?

Esther is not the first card that offers a strong combo with Joy and probably won't be the last. None have proven to be OP.

[Kevinthedude]

But Esther is fine despite full protection from evil and numerous ways to tutor/recur Joy?

Huge difference between a Hero that is inherently CBI/N and a Hero that benefits greatly from an enhancement making them CBI/N. The two biggest being that no matter how easy it is to tutor for, it's still an extra card you need to draw/search for and then play so your opponent can interact with you by trying to set up counters like Moses, Signet Ring, and all the new speed bump characters. Then, once you finally do get the two card combo assembled, it's still much more interactable since you can just knock Joy off the Hero. There's no way to knock CBI/N off a character.

[Bobbert]

Obviously I haven't playtested her, so I'll take your word. I'm still concerned, as (IMO) there's still not enough "regardless of protection" in the game for the amount of protection that exists, and as there's no shortage of powerful white or purple enhancements she can play to require you to interrupt, then play something RoP. Not to mention that even if Joy is vulnerable, there's not a lot you can do the first turn it comes out unless you have an evil "negate and discard last" sitting in territory, since by the time you have a chance to play anything she'll be in battle and CBN for the rest of the phase.

I'm just saying, I think we can all agree that blanket CBN protection is unhealthy for the game (Gabe said as much earlier), so I'm a bit confused as to why there's more incoming, even if you have to work for it.

[Kevinthedude]

I'm just saying, I think we can all agree that blanket CBN protection is unhealthy for the game (Gabe said as much earlier), so I'm a bit confused as to why there's more incoming, even if you have to work for it.

Inherent blanket CBN protection is unhealthy, allowing a combo to exist that lets a player build deck around assembling a multi-card combo that results in CBN protection is IMO. This isn't the first time Joy has enabled CBN protection either. You could always slap it on Watchful Leaders to get a similar result but even during the metas where Colossi was competitive, I found myself only running Joy as an after thought in Reserve since it ends up being more powerful on paper than it is in practice.

[The Guardian]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Esther+Joy combo isn't going to win any battles by itself unless the opponent only has chump blocks or dominant blocks (in which case, Joy isn't even necessarily required), and which I think most would agree can use more countering. Unless she has enhancement support, any block that gets to 11 toughness will stalemate her as well as any KoT/PotW type block.

Don't get me wrong, it will be a strong play, but not really any stronger than Watchful Leaders+Joy or Chenaiah+Joy IMO.

[thecoolguy]

at what point are people going to add the new revealed cards to the PoC phase 2, to the beginning of this page so it is easier to find the cards that have been spoiled? just curious

[thecoolguy]

I didn't realize that they were already added sorry!!!!

[The Guardian]

Time for some more hints... 

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Hmm, that tree might be backwards...

[Bobbert]

No way! Penguin BackwardsTree is my favorite Bible character!

More seriously, that's an Emperor penguin if I'm not mistaken.... more Romans on the way?

[The Guardian]

Second hint...I wonder if we'll have to give this card the "Involves Music" identifier...

[Lampy 2.0]

Does this mean we'll actually get the cast of 321 Penguins in Redemption like I've always wanted?

[thecoolguy]

bruh it has been forever since I have seen that show

[goalieking87]

Second hint...I wonder if we'll have to give this card the "Involves Music" identifier...

Probably has more to do with brigades.

White/black DAC involving music?

Or

White/Green card that involves music?

[Lampy 2.0]

Second hint...I wonder if we'll have to give this card the "Involves Music" identifier...

"And the birds come flying at the speed of sound to show you how it all began..."

[Watchman]

Spoiler (hover to show)

Since this card was spoiled I felt it was a bit too OP since it not only ends the battle but it ends it in a stalemate, causing an automatic victory to the defender.

I was thinking that perhaps there could be a condition to this ability, like how Deceitful Sin requires a search ability to not have been used by the defender in order to end the battle. Maybe something like “If a draw or search ability was used this turn, end the battle in a stalemate” (or something to that effect). That way it’s restrictive but it also keeps the ability a bit broad (since draws and searches are used often, particularly since it can be a draw/search ability by either player).

I know there’s limited space but perhaps there can be a change to the art side to remove the “negate an enh” portion and make it just target the last enh played instead.

Thoughts?

[Sean]

Is the phrase in parenthesis on the artifact side needed at all?  That would save space.  I don't agree with your conclusion but that would help if others are in agreement with you.

[Kevinthedude]

Spoiler (hover to show)

Since this card was spoiled I felt it was a bit too OP since it not only ends the battle but it ends it in a stalemate, causing an automatic victory to the defender.

I was thinking that perhaps there could be a condition to this ability, like how Deceitful Sin requires a search ability to not have been used by the defender in order to end the battle. Maybe something like “If a draw or search ability was used this turn, end the battle in a stalemate” (or something to that effect). That way it’s restrictive but it also keeps the ability a bit broad (since draws and searches are used often, particularly since it can be a draw/search ability by either player).

I know there’s limited space but perhaps there can be a change to the art side to remove the “negate an enh” portion and make it just target the last enh played instead.

Thoughts?

CBI battle winners exist. A decent amount of them remove the opposing characters as well, not just push them back to territory. I'm not necessarily saying I hard disagree that it's too strong, because with the recur potential it has and the power of the curse side, it might deserve a power reduction, but I'm not sure a CBI battle winner that doesn't even kill the opposing characters and has a hard counter that exists in almost every deck (YWR) is something that I'm super worried about.

[The Guardian]

Is the phrase in parenthesis on the artifact side needed at all?  That would save space.  I don't agree with your conclusion but that would help if others are in agreement with you.

The past in the parentheses allows it to negate an enhancement (as long as it was the last enhancement played by the opponent) that was played and subsequently discarded/banished/somehow ended up out of play since negate abilities target cards in play by default.

[Gabe]

Spoiler (hover to show)

Since this card was spoiled I felt it was a bit too OP since it not only ends the battle but it ends it in a stalemate, causing an automatic victory to the defender.

I was thinking that perhaps there could be a condition to this ability, like how Deceitful Sin requires a search ability to not have been used by the defender in order to end the battle. Maybe something like “If a draw or search ability was used this turn, end the battle in a stalemate” (or something to that effect). That way it’s restrictive but it also keeps the ability a bit broad (since draws and searches are used often, particularly since it can be a draw/search ability by either player).

I know there’s limited space but perhaps there can be a change to the art side to remove the “negate an enh” portion and make it just target the last enh played instead.

Thoughts?

EtB abilities were extremely strong, possibly even OP a few years ago. The predominance of You Will Remain seems to have solved that quite nicely.  In it's "glory days" the best use of EtB wasn't just to get your toughness high enough to survive and cause the battle to stop, but to play an EtB card off of a play ability while your strength was high enough to defeat the opposing Hero(es) causing them to die with no ability to respond. Unsuccessful avoids that situation completely.

It's a common misconception for players that are new to EtB abilities to assume that the battle automatically ends in a stalemate. I've lost count of how many times I've had to teach players that it means to go to battle resolution and compare stats. Unsuccessful works the way an inexperienced player expects it too. Maybe that means we should consider changing the rules for EtB so they all work that way.

Unsuccessful has been tested a fair amount in its current form. My assessment is that it's weaker than EtB cards like Forgotten History, Wonders Forgotten and Gib Trick which makes it just fine in its current form.

[TheHobbit13]

I agree that Unsuccessful is a bit too much. End the battle automatically and Balaam can recur it? Not to mention the grey on this card makes it very meta. People aren't going to have to bend over backwards to fit this in every type 1 deck with their 2 Sabbath Breakers. I would change it to function like the other end the battle cards OR drop the curse/gray (which would mess with the theme) OR add Unity pale green, gray.

With that being said take the above with a grain of salt because I actually feel like the only spoilers that the PtB should consider changing are cards that have errors (e.g., typos in the title) or would literally break the game.