Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => New Card Ideas => Topic started by: Arch Angel on August 03, 2010, 06:14:35 PM
-
Type: Evil Dominant
Name: Eye for an Eye
Special Ability: Discard a card in your Territory or Set-Aside area to discard a card of the same type in opponent's Territory or Set-Aside area.
Verse: Matthew 5:38
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:"
Below is a tl;dr because I felt like it. :D
The card is based off of a tradition from the Talmud. It's a twisting of a part of the Torah because the leadership of the Pharisees felt they could know right and wrong better than Yahweh's commands. The doctrine is all about vengeance, while the Torah is all about mercy. The card mimics the doctrine in that you can only destroy what was already destroyed. An "eye for an eye" as it were. It can, however, target any type of card, so it is far more versatile than previous dominants that target one type.
-
Russ and I were discussing a way to make a dominant that could discard forts, but still have a cost. I loved this idea when he suggested it.
-
What about:
Eye for an Eye
Good Dominant
"Place in territory. If Opponent discards one of your cards in battle, discard one of Opponent's cards in battle."
-
for the original idea you need to insert "except a Lost Soul" or else it is on my OP'dometer. otherwise i like it a lot!
~Jayden
-
What about:
Eye for an Eye
Good Dominant
"Place in territory. If Opponent discards one of your cards in battle, discard one of Opponent's cards in battle."
um, no. it shouldn't be good. and that doesn't get rid of fortresses. and is waay OP'd.
-
What about:
Eye for an Eye
Good Dominant
"Place in territory. If Opponent discards one of your cards in battle, discard one of Opponent's cards in battle."
um, no. it shouldn't be good. and that doesn't get rid of fortresses. and is waay OP'd.
It shouldn't be good? It is in the law of Moses.
-
We definitely don't need a new dominant. I'd rather see this as a multi-color territory class with some type of stipulation (i.e. "If opponent has card sleeves with a picture on it,...").
-
It shouldn't be good? It is in the law of Moses.
Actually, the quote I'm using is in refferrence to the way the Pharisees twisted the law, not the law itself. Thus, it's evil.
We definitely don't need a new dominant. I'd rather see this as a multi-color territory class with some type of stipulation (i.e. "If opponent has card sleeves with a picture on it,...").
The title was sarcasm. xP Sorry. You're right, a Territory class enhancement would also work. Lambo and I were just running ideas for a dominant to kill (or hamper) fortresses.
for the original idea you need to insert "except a Lost Soul" or else it is on my OP'dometer. otherwise i like it a lot!
~Jayden
I agree it could be powerful to snipe Lost Souls, but it I kind of like how it can also discard a soul in your opponents territory.
-
Lambo and I were just running ideas for a dominant to kill (or hamper) fortresses.
I agree with the need. ;D
-
We definitely don't need a new dominant.
I think more dominants would be cool, provided they are niche-dominants that assist themes or something like that. Kind of like Glory of the Lord and Doubt. Only perhaps a little more useful :)
We definitely don't need another dominant that is a deck staple though.