Cactus Game Design Message Boards

*puts on mod had* I'll be watching this thread closely.

How about you just quietly delete this thread before the inevitable flame war erupts?

I just thought of the concept being that Redemption is a game designed to represent spiritual warfare. This is a just representing a chapter in history and I don't see the difference in Egyptians being defensive characters or Muslims being defensive characters. Both still exist today...

I'd prefer not hearing a comment on this post.
Thanks for at least giving it a shot Polarius...

Two things-
First off, there's no evidence to suggest that the Crusaders were really good guys at all. For intents and purposes, they killed and pillaged, and there's no strong evidence to lend to the concept that they really had a good reason for doing so. I don't think there's enough evidence (especially with zero Biblical evidence) to suggest that they should at all be heroes. Doing things in the name of Christ does not mean they were truly doing Christ's will. Second off, I'm not even touching the Muslims idea with a 40 foot pole. Redemption should never, ever stray into that kind of territory, since it takes Redemption from "a fun Christian game" to "openly mocking another religion," and I'm pretty sure labeling Mohammed a "false prophet" is the sort of thing that incites death threats.

Regarding the actual cards, I think Alexios I is ridiculously overpowered. CBN protection from discard and capture on an 8/10 hero? Not a chance. He should also be warrior class himself. Calvary is a bit underpowered, and I don't see anyone using it. The other two are cookie-cutter WC characters Redemption has seen before. They clearly work and are worthwhile, and I like them in a theme like this. I actually really like the Muslim cards aside from Mecca, which seems a bit useless. Give it some sort of ability to help give more incentive to use Jerusalem and Damascus outside of placing an EC on them and you might have something there. In general, I like the card ideas, they just need more appropriate themes.

Muhammad should have blank card art, as Muslims consider it offensive for something to depict Muhammad.

Can I note that :
-The Byzantine infantry are equipped as varangian guards
- Byzantine Calvary are to lightly armored
-Why is there no mention of Constantine I?


Sorry, I'm a historian. It's what I do

-Why is there no mention of Constantine

Because Andrew McMahon is not in play //no one will understand

Apart from having gotten Byzantines (generally pretty heroic) confused with Crusaders (spotty-at-best), they're pretty bland and generic.

Muhammad's SA fits pretty well with Jezebel (the N.T. one, not the one that scared Elisha off). Muslim Pilgrim could easily be changed to False Jews and Mecca to Synagogue of Satan (leaving out Damascus and cleaning up the wording). The Demon could be retooled to Frog Demons. Other than Salahadin, the Muslims have solid makings of Heretic cards.

I hate to do this, but I really must join those vehemently opposed against the theme behind these cards. Chronic Apathy pretty much summed up my thoughts on the subject here. I also second Pol's suggested changes.

First, I'd like to say that I REALLY like your use of "and is protected from enhancements played on them".  I kind of wish that was used more with the current rules of protection, and would like to see more of that to be honest (Though, I agree with others that some of the protection is a bit OP on the Byzantine's side, could be tweaked a bit to be not as scary )

I think that there is a definite point in addressing whether we could apply the term 'heretic' to this theme, based on how it has been described to me in the past and the current definition I can find (this one from the Reg):

A heretic is a N.T. human evil character who publicly denied or misrepresented some teachings of the apostles and established doctrines of the Church, while still holding some teachings or doctrines to be true. Their object is to disturb the life of the church and those within it, shaking their confidence and spoiling the work of Christ. The gospels were written in great measure as a means to answer the words and teachings of the heretics in the early N.T. church.

Not quite what I see Islam, or the teachings thereof, being.  Could be an interesting discussion, though.

I'm honestly sorry for this mess. I am currently working on some Biblicaly based heretics. I don't mutch care if this is deleted or locked.

Sorry everybody 

I understand not many want to touch the issue, but I just wanted to say briefly that I think that if I do not (not cannot) say that the teachings of Muhammad are false, than I do little service to my faith or Christ.  Preaching the 'good news' also includes pointing out the false paths for the sake of others (and myself).  However, we should be mindful of the way in which we do this, so as not to giving anyone reason to fault us except for professing Christ's truth.  For instance, if I have a friend with a drinking problem, throwing his drink in his face probably won't do much but get him angry, and then he won't listen to me.  Showing kindness, compassion, and patience in a Christ-like manner would serve me better.  That said, I see nothing malicious in this thread (and I'm kind of proud to see that in an internet community), and I think you had all good intentions in posting this, I don't think you have to be sorry


Finally...good luck finding some heretics, that definition I showed you really doesn't help matters much   Let me know if you do, I've been interested in seeing more for a while now