Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => Topic started by: Claude on August 15, 2008, 04:43:51 AM
-
If you were to choose which one to put in your deck, would you choose Falling Away or Guardian?regardless of what type of deck it is
-
Usually I prefer Falling Away, largely for getting more out of the Lost Souls card.
-
I agree, especially in 2p. The decision would be harder in multi, but I still think I would do FA instead.
-
I think almost everyone would say FA.
-
Not necessarily, bubbleman (even though I'm about to prove you are right). People build differently. However, in this case, there are two cards (i.e. lampstand & guardian) that can do the same thing whereas nothing can replicate Falling Away. My ultimate choice: Lampstand....trumps both. (Fact: Falling Away sees more playing time in my decks.)
-
First of all, I said almost everyone. Second, as nice as LotS may be, it still takes up an artifact slot.
-
Temple it.
FA can't be replicated and therefore is the better card in my opinion.
-
You can't put LotS in a temple; it's a temple item, not a temple artifact. And even if you could, you will probably want to use FA or Burial some time during the game.
-
Lampstand is an artifact. It is a temple item. That makes it a temple artifact. If you want more proof, the REG list of temple artifacts:
Altar of Burnt Offering, Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Holy of Holies, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Pot of Manna, Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
-
I thought "temple veil" couldn't go in the temples because it was found in herod's temple. at least, that is what I was told.
-
That got changed. Don't ask why.
-
While the card and verse depict Herod's Temple's veil, there was an equivalent veil in OT temples.
-
That's what I argued in a tournament and got shot down...don't get me wrong, I'm glad it got changed back. I think it is only right to have the temple veil in the temple.
-
If ur using speed i would say falling away, but for other deck types...... i might still use FA
-
Lampstand is an artifact. It is a temple item. That makes it a temple artifact. If you want more proof, the REG list of temple artifacts:
Altar of Burnt Offering, Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Holy of Holies, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Pot of Manna, Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
Altar of Burnt Offering, Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Holy of Holies, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Pot of Manna, Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
Windows of Narrow Light
:o
**edit**
Windows of Narrow Light
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect your Heroes with no special ability from capture, conversion and removal from the game. • Identifiers: OT, Temple Item • Verse: I Kings 6:4 • Availability: Promotional cards (2008 Local Tournament)
new Promo ^_^ I hadn't seen that one before.
-
Hmm true.. Although GOYS has some perks like discarding confusion of mind, especially in an enhancementless deck, your pretty much right bout FA. thanks
-
Although... if you have a slower offense... GoyS's works very well.
-
Altar of Burnt Offering, Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Holy of Holies, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Pot of Manna, Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
What about Asherah Pole? I'm almost positive that's a temple artifact, because of the special ability on Glory of the Lord.
-
Altar of Burnt Offering, Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Holy of Holies, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Pot of Manna, Table of Showbread, Tables of the Law, Temple Veil, The Bronze Laver, The Silver Trumpets, Windows of Narrow Light
What about Asherah Pole? I'm almost positive that's a temple artifact, because of the special ability on Glory of the Lord.
I agree this is confusing but... the REG entry has an additional section that says something like "some arts have been found in the temple, but are not considered temple arts." A Pole is included in that list.
WHY? Idk, but Glory of the Lord is bound to confuse many people now.
-
A Pole isn't a Temple art because it wasn't a "permanent" fixture in the temple, I believe.
-
I would use GoyS 100% over Falling Away.
-
A Pole isn't a Temple art because it wasn't a "permanent" fixture in the temple, I believe.
Is any temple artifact a "permanent fixture"? Ark of the Covenant, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Tables of the Law; why is AP any different?
-
Is any temple artifact a "permanent fixture"? Ark of the Covenant, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Tables of the Law; why is AP any different?
Why wouldn't those be permanent inhabitants of the temple?
And Ben, why Guardian over Falling Away?
-
As I was typing out a response to why I use Guardian over FA, I realized that it doesn't make logical sense. However, in my experience having a card to safe-guard my score has been better than having a card that can take away from my opponents.
Also, Guardian can't be stopped (except by Confusion or HPP). It can be useless, if FA is played before it, but nothing stops me from playing it.
Falling Away is stopped by Guardian and Lampstand and your opponent not having LS rescued.
-
What's the difference between getting to play a useless card and not getting to play a card? I can only think of two things: Presented before the Lord and the Speed Bump LS. Sometimes it can be beneficial to hold useless cards in your hand, like against Simeon or other hand discarders.
-
Why wouldn't those be permanent inhabitants of the temple?
Ark of the Covenant, Lampstand of the Sanctuary, Tables of the Law; how is AP any different?
-
Read some of the books covering that time period. Some wicked kings would set up false idols/altars like the Asherah Pole or the Altar of Ahaz, but they were not something found on a normal basis in the temple, nor were they what God prescribed to be in the temple.
-
Asherah Pole was not supposed to be there and was taken out. If you do your homework, the other were supposed to be there and not supposed to be taken out. They were only taken after the Babs invaded and pwned up the temple.
-
Maybe they were meant to be there, but they weren't "permanent fixtures."
-
What's the difference between getting to play a useless card and not getting to play a card? I can only think of two things: Presented before the Lord and the Speed Bump LS. Sometimes it can be beneficial to hold useless cards in your hand, like against Simeon or other hand discarders.
GoyS is also useful post-FA if your opponent is using Confusion of Mind.
-
They were consistently placed in the temple during the time of the temple's use. The idols/altars, as well as articles of clothing (which were in and out due to the people wearing them being in and out) like Blue Tassels were not. That is the difference.
-
GoyS is also useful post-FA if your opponent is using Confusion of Mind.
I agree with that, but you were saying that you like to be able to play the card. That is all.
-
Guardian all the way.
-
Maybe they were meant to be there, but they weren't "permanent fixtures."
That's why "permanent" was in quotes. I didn't have a better term at the time.
-
Personally I don't like either. Whichever one I have in my deck, my opponent pulls out the other before I get mine.. But I would go with Guardian.
-
Maybe they were meant to be there, but they weren't "permanent fixtures."
That's why "permanent" was in quotes. I didn't have a better term at the time.
I'm just saying that evil temple artifacts are still temple artifacts, whether or not they're supposed to be there.
-
FA
-
Maybe they were meant to be there, but they weren't "permanent fixtures."
That's why "permanent" was in quotes. I didn't have a better term at the time.
I'm just saying that evil temple artifacts are still temple artifacts, whether or not they're supposed to be there.
Well, your just wrong. Beleive me, most of us have had your argument before, so we are just saying what we have been told. But you can't say the position of the current Redemption rules is in fallacy in any way. Rob and others just had to make a decision about it, and this is what they came up with. There is absolutely no repurcussions to it as far as the legitamacy of the game, so, we shouldn't get hung up on it.
-
I did not realize Temple Veil was reclassified as a Temple art. That's a rather important change that was made with no fanfare whatsoever... when did that change take place??
Now all we need to do is get Blue Tassels and Priestly Crown back into the Temple somehow... :P
-
I did not realize Temple Veil was reclassified as a Temple art. That's a rather important change that was made with no fanfare whatsoever... when did that change take place??
Quite a while ago. It was probably mid-2006, when Asherah Pole and others were removed from the list.
-
Thinking a little more about it, I might see a little more of what Ben was saying. Falling Away could potentially clog up your hand if he isn't rescuing anything, whereas Guardian is playable at any time and will not clog it up.
-
Well, your just wrong. Beleive me, most of us have had your argument before, so we are just saying what we have been told. But you can't say the position of the current Redemption rules is in fallacy in any way. Rob and others just had to make a decision about it, and this is what they came up with. There is absolutely no repurcussions to it as far as the legitamacy of the game, so, we shouldn't get hung up on it.
Look, I already know that I'm wrong, okay? Obviously I am; I'm saying that don't agree with the rules.
I'm just saying that evil temple artifacts are still temple artifacts, whether or not they're supposed to be there.
-
Well, your just wrong. Beleive me, most of us have had your argument before, so we are just saying what we have been told. But you can't say the position of the current Redemption rules is in fallacy in any way. Rob and others just had to make a decision about it, and this is what they came up with. There is absolutely no repurcussions to it as far as the legitamacy of the game, so, we shouldn't get hung up on it.
Look, I already know that I'm wrong, okay? Obviously I am; I'm saying that don't agree with the rules.
I'm just saying that evil temple artifacts are still temple artifacts, whether or not they're supposed to be there.
Wow, you seem to find away to miss the parts where I say "Most of us have had this argument before", which would imply "most of us" probably agree at least partially with you, seeing as we have argued about it.
-
So, what's the point you're trying to make?
-
That there is no point to just repeating the same sentence over and over again.
-
This thread is provocative.
-
This thread is provocative.
Hmm... that's my quotation. Dont borrow it. Thankyou :) Find your own :)
-
You applauded the other guy.... but I just get a slap on the wrist..... :'(
-
He just likes me more then you. ;)
-
But..... My post count is higher then yours... that should mean people love me and think im cooler. :'(
;)
-
Well i'm the Monkey King so i should get more respect. :thumbup:
-
But I'm the Joker... So why are we being so serious about all this?
-
I have a banana gun.
-
You applauded the other guy.... but I just get a slap on the wrist..... :'(
lol. I just dont want others to use it alot hahaha. anyway, yea, we've diverged from the topic already :P
-
This thread is provocative.
-
Hey,
In multiplayer I'd go with Guardian hands down.
In 2-player I'd probably go with Falling Away despite the fact that it works for me far less often than Guardian does. The reasons being (1) I'm a defensive player, so in general I'd rather have a defensive card at my disposal than an offensive one, (2) when I do need and use Falling Away it always makes a big difference in the game because it's one of the few way to try to get back into a game after a bad start, and (3) I'm more worried about my opponent getting three lost souls from me than I am about my opponent stopping me from getting four lost souls from them.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
That depend upon your deck type, little defense but large offense I would go F.A. because it stalls the opponent for 1 extra turn and if you have a large offense chances are you can get through one more time, on the other side if you play a med- lg defense you should have guardian because it puts less strain on your offense and if you play hero less you need both. The exception is in multi player you have to have guardian for that. Hope this was helpful
-
I never use falling away anymore for a couple reasons.
1. I use larger defenses, so i'm usually not as worried about giving up lost souls
2. I never draw it. I played my brother for like 3 weeks with it in my deck, and every game he would draw gaurdian first, so it would be a wasted card, Unlike gaurdian which has a few other limited uses (discarding confusion of mind)
-
I like Guardian because there are some abilities that activate by discarding a good dominant.
If you only have Falling Away and opponent gets his Guardian first then Falling Away is useless (except perhaps as a discard for the hand-discard lost soul).
On the other hand if my opponent plays Falling Away before I get my Guardian out, Guardian can still get rid of confusion of mind.
Most of the time it is a 50%-50% chance as to which is better. If I had to choose, I would pick Falling Away for more defensive decks and Guardian for more offensive decks.
But I don't think that Falling Away AND Guardian in the same deck are "twice as good" as either card by itself.
The problem with Lampstand is that you're taking up an artifact slot. You can "temple it" but it's still an artifact slot.
-
A big problem with Lampstand is that...well...you can't use your evil doms either. Personally, I'll always put Falling Away in my deck, but there are very few deck configurations in which I will find that Guardian would be useful (like maybe if I'm serious with PoC or something).
-
If I had to choose, I would pick Falling Away for more defensive decks and Guardian for more offensive decks.
I think this is good advice.
I also think that there are times when neither FA or Guardian belong in a deck. They are both the least likely dominants to actually "work" as intended in a deck that is built with them (based on this thread.) (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=8478.msg128522#msg128522)
And in most decks there are battle winners that have a high probability of winning a LS, or stopping an opponent. And these will work whenever they are drawn. They don't turn useless if drawn late in the game.
-
Imo Guardian And Falling away are staples for every deck, and every deck should use them. The mere fact that you have a chance to take an opponents rescued lost soul away or protect your own lost soul makes falling away and Guardian to powerful to leave out of your deck.
If I had to choose, I would pick Falling Away for more defensive decks and Guardian for more offensive decks.
I think this is good advice.
I also think that there are times when neither FA or Guardian belong in a deck.
Only when you dont get to use them in your match.
-
Imo Guardian And Falling away are staples for every deck...
Let's take a look at the top three decks from Nationals T1-2P published on on Tim Maly's Wildcard site.
11 out of 13 agree with you on GoYS. 13 out of 13 agree with you on Falling Away. We can toss around theory and statistics but results say speak for themselves.
-
There you go bringing facts and hard data in and raining on my theoretical and nearly meaningless parade of opinion :)
Seriously, thanks for digging through all those decks and sharing your findings. I had hoped that perhaps we were getting to the point where we could drop the "staple doms" to 5 (SoG, NJ, AotL, CM, DoN), and yet national success indicates that most likely I was wrong.
-
I had hoped that perhaps we were getting to the point where we could drop the "staple doms" to 5
That require a major change in how people build decks. People are too used to relying on their dominants, and I don't see that changing very much.
Sean
-
I had hoped that perhaps we were getting to the point where we could drop the "staple doms" to 5 (SoG, NJ, AotL, CM, DoN), ...
If it makes you feel any better, I don't use any of those "staples."
Then again, I only play Booster Draft. ;D
-
I had hoped that perhaps we were getting to the point where we could drop the "staple doms" to 5 (SoG, NJ, AotL, CM, DoN), ...
If it makes you feel any better, I don't use any of those "staples."
Then again, I only play Booster Draft. ;D
Some day I'm going to wrap four SoG and four NJ in a blue wrapper, and pretend to open it in a Booster draft. I figure the look on the other players' faces will be worth the eight dominants. :)
-
I followed Gabe's example and checked out the top 3 Nats decks on Wildcard since 2006 (the game changes enough that I didn't think going further was necessary). It turns out that every single deck used Burial, CM, DoN, FA, AotL, SoG, and NJ. I think that this seems pretty conclusive that all 7 of those must be necessary to succeed at the top level. GoYS was in all but Mierz' deck, and HT was missing in only the 1st and 2nd place decks of 2008.
This means that I have to go back and find a spots for cards like Burial and FA that I had pretty much decided I wasn't going to use in my decks anymore. I've been playing without them for several months, and felt like I wasn't missing them. But I also keep losing to Gabe online, so perhaps that is why :)
-
Shoot, my secret is out. Now Prof is going to start beating me all the time... ;)
-
I just don't see how anyone could think that Falling Away isn't necessary. :-\
-
If I have to choose one or the other, I go with GoyS though I do try to squeeze in both if I can. I tend to play with decks that are weighted towards defense so I don't give up early free LS very often. Usually by the time my opponent can get past me, they have already drawn their GoyS. Because of my stronger defense, I can usually afford to be patient and if I think I'm going to have trouble recovering from losing a LS, I simply wait to attack until I have GoYS (or sometimes I draw U&T and realize I can get a free one by attacking a certain way.) As others have mentioned, GoyS can still be useful after they play FA since it can get rid of CoM.
-
HT was missing in only the 1st and 2nd place decks of 2008.
Hmmm I thought used Ht? Maybe I forgot to tell Tim.
-
How should you know what the second place winner had in his deck? ;)
-
They usually post their decks, don't they?
-
I have a feeling he didn't look
-
I have a feeling he didn't look
He was the 2nd place winner at Nationals 2008. He probably knows his deck better than most. ;)
-
...Who is he referring to now?
-
In mulitplayer Guardian is a must. Falling away is nice but the chance of getting hit 2 or 3 times with FA is to great a risk to not have Guardian in.
In 2 player I always play with a strong defense so if my opponent is getting by me easily then having FA is only going to prolong my defeat where as Guardian can keep me in the leed if my offense is working well.
With those being said I always put both in my decks unless I'm trying something radical, which if you know me doesn't happen very often.
-
...Who is he referring to now?
Hobbit
-
Ah. Well, Tim Mierz did post his deck, and the Genesis/Rome deck did not have HT in it.