New Redemption Grab Bag now includes an assortment of 500 cards from five (5) different expansion sets. Available at Cactus website.
Very disheartened by a ruling on WoNL, I decided to give non-SA heroes a boost. It's probably overpowered, but I think they deserve it.Divine Retribution[Multi Good Enhancement | 4/0 | Isaiah 35:4]If all your heroes in play and set aside have no special ability, remove all evil characters in play and set aside from the game, regardless of protection or immunity. Cannot be negated.Unrelated to the above card, had a random idea for this one last night. Not sure if I got the wording right and I couldn't think of a specific color to make it, so i defaulted to multi. Suggestions would be lovely.Covenant of Love[Multi Covenant | Deuteronomy 7:9 | Identifiers: May be activated on your Good Dominant in territory or Land of Redemption.]When a card from your hand or deck is discarded by an opponent, place it here, face-down, instead. During your draw phase, you can add 1 random card from here to your hand.
I have a deck that relies on WONL. What is the specific ruling you mention that hurt it? Thanks.
Love cov of love but I think you should add instead of drawing. The first one is Op'd to the max, honestly Ra gad, play that. GG.
I love Covenant of Love for any deck... that's a really cood idea.
I like Divine Retribution (although the name doesn't really have anything to do with no SA Heroes. I'd make it a Strength in Weakness reprint for the lulz),
but I LOVE Love Cov. One of the best card ideas I've seen in a while. It should specify what happens to the cards there when it's deactivated, though.
Good. Also, "less" needs to be "fewer," and it needs to be CBN to stop solve the problem of what happens if it's Negated and then deactivated.
One question: What about lost souls? Those should go to play but if the card is face down. Maybe"IF a card from hand or deck is d/c'd by an opp's s.a., reveal to opp. If it is a ls place in play. Otherwise place it FD here instead."Love is blind ya know
Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on September 01, 2010, 02:44:17 PMOne question: What about lost souls? Those should go to play but if the card is face down. Maybe"IF a card from hand or deck is d/c'd by an opp's s.a., reveal to opp. If it is a ls place in play. Otherwise place it FD here instead."Love is blind ya know I disagree. I think that if your opponent discards a Lost Soul from your deck, he should have to run the risk of not being able to rescue it because it is face-down and out of play, just like he would if he actually discarded it. And there is also a chance that the LS will end up in the draw pile anyway, so it is a better situation for your opponent than just having it be discarded.
I honestly think this card (or a card very similar) should be made. Very nice job.
It's still really long in this form, though. I can't think of any ways to shorten the SA.
I think that if your opponent discards a Lost Soul from your deck, he should have to run the risk of not being able to rescue it because it is face-down and out of play, just like he would if he actually discarded it
When deactivated, return contents to deck.
Samaritan Water Jar is the absolute longest Rob wants card SA's to be, preferable about 20 characters shorter.
Changed.
BUT most deck discard cards place the LS into play.Most, but not all. I just think it's fine because it would make people think twice about massive deck discard strategies as currently there isn't much reason not to use that sort of thing (other than it's kind of a slow strategy).I didn't notice the LOR clause, I don't like that part because that makes it un-killable.I wanted an alternate place to have this active. I thought of placing it on a good dominant but I didn't want Glory of the Lord (which the vast majority of players don't use) to be the only target so I added the LoR option in order that GoYS could be used as well.
Yeah, my rewrite is for length. If it were to be a real card, it'd have to be shortened. I love the concept and I wish the original intent would fit in the SA length restriction.
"Fewer" is grammatically correct there. The reason it sounds weird is that we're used to hearing "less" used incorrectly.