Cactus Game Design Message Boards

What does it mean by "Alignment"?
Other then that confusion, I think it is a great card!!!!!

nice work on this one

I think he's interesting but why not just say discard an evil enhancement instead? Are you planing on converting him and still useing Him?

First, I should note that none of these cards were solely my idea. I'm just the one who can make them look pretty in photoshop.

Arrthoa is correct, "alignment" has to do with which side of the battle you are on.

Ring Wraith is correct, both players are restricted from playing enhancements and both get to discard to decrease when they have initiative.

Thanks for the feedback and questions. Keep it coming please.

I think if u have this EC in ur deck ur going to be aware of a potential AoL and not put him in battle till AoL has been used by ur opponent

Smart game play or being a little bit of a gambler is up to the holder

If that whole idea about allowing 2 same generics into a 50 card type 1 deck this could be another viable candidate for taking 2 slots in a defense

This is by far my favorite new idea as well.  We need new cards like this that can give initiative to the hero without guaranteeing that a CBN battlewinner will be dropped to win the battle. 

It also allows the "using" (if not necessarily "playing") of evil enhancements, which seem to be the most neglected card type in the game, due to causing hand clog and slowing down offense. 

My one problem with it is that if X = the offense of the enhancement, that favors the hero, since good enhancements usually have more offense and evil enhancements usually have more defense.

Totally agree with cookie monster

I really think these TOtB cards could add new dimensions to the game

I like the idea.  Decrease is definitely better conceptually for spearmen and gameplaywise not as abusive.  If it was increase, then every time they survived a block, they would just get bigger and become largely untouchable in battle. 


A couple thoughts: 

Since there is no restriction on hero banding then the ability favors the heros.  Did you want that? 

Is there a definition of opposing?  Could you snipe characters in territory with this?  Hopefully no.

The way I read it, the condition of lone blocker only applies to the restrict of enhancements.  So you could have a banding chain and still use the decrease ability.  If you do get initiative and decrease them to 0 then it is a CBI battlewinner.  This might all be ok; just checking if thats how it would work and thats what your intentions are.

Lastly and most importantly, this could be overpowered with or without a special ability because a multi-evil character that is weapon class could abuse various combos with a horses on it.  This would easily surpass in potential all the combos people try to do with Egyptian Magicians, Mannaseh, etc.  The only saving grace here is that it doesn't easily have protection. 

I would love to have a lot more generic characters though: the drunkard, the sluggard, the mocker, etc.  It'd be nice to have generics that can fit in various ethnic themes to fill them out.  What about some generics that their ethnic identifier matches a character you have in play?  I'm sure all the cultures had mockers, fools, thieves, etc.

If that whole idea about allowing 2 same generics into a 50 card type 1 deck this could be another viable candidate for taking 2 slots in a defense

I believe the rule that you may only have one copy of any card with more than two brigades would still apply here.

@ChristianSoldier - You're so correct that this guy doesn't need to be multi-colored. I imagine that a quick search of the Bible would reveal that many nations had spearmen, meaning if we figure out the proper wording of the ability and find it's not inherently weak or OP we could probably print several of these, kind of like the Archers that already exist.

I think cookie monster and galadgawyn are correct, that throwing a spear (which is what this ability represents) does not make you stronger but make the recipient of the spear weaker.

@galagawyn - You bring up a few other good points.

Although there is currently no definition of opposing in the REG we did use it on some cards last year. I take it to mean "a character opposite you in battle", but that probably needs to be ironed out before we move forward with it.

Hero banding was untouched intentionally.

It's probably OK if the restriction doesn't apply during an evil band. Can you think of situations where that's abusive?

The combos are my biggest concern. They require a band to lift the restriction but that's not too hard to pull off.

I would love to have a lot more generic characters though: the drunkard, the sluggard, the mocker, etc.  It'd be nice to have generics that can fit in various ethnic themes to fill them out.  What about some generics that their ethnic identifier matches a character you have in play?  I'm sure all the cultures had mockers, fools, thieves, etc.

That's a lot of interesting ideas that could create several posts of their own. Does anyone want to take a shot at creating some of those?

Pol, good catch. I think it does need to be CBN.

Maybe this ability is an improvement?

"While this character is blocking alone, if an Enhancement is played, discard it instead to decrease a character of opposite alignment by X/X. Cannot be negated."

This might be a little late in conversation, but I think that printing this card in more then one evil brigade would not work so well just because then this card would not be very good since it would only be able to use one brigade. So I think they should make it so that you can have more then one of these cards in your deck, but leave it multi-colored.