Author Topic: New Defense Theme-Thieves (Read 7134 times)

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2011, 11:09:36 AM »

Quote from: Drrek on December 06, 2011, 06:59:51 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on December 05, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on December 05, 2011, 11:10:48 PM
then you could say the same thing about any charachter. What if my charachter's ability was "rescue 5 lost souls"? but could be negated.. would it not still be OP? exactly. I could see how this charachter in itself could be used to win entire games. Heck, even tournaments.

I really do like to hear criticism of these cards with some examples of problems, but hyperbole on either side gets testing nowhere. This character, by himself, cannot win blocks, he cannot discard dominants that are still in decks (where they usually live, especially turn 1), he has no protection on his card to stop even the easiest anti-EC card, he is prevented by many cards, he has no recursion, and he cripples your hand unless you happen to be playing what your opponent is playing.

I was not mean in my response, and I gave specific examples to back up my claims. Can we keep emotion and hyperbole out (on both sides), please? I really think this is a great idea for a theme and want to find ways it could work. Not having cards that can do good things (especially when they're restrictive to the holder like this one) does not help anyone.

I'm just wondering how I didn't see your first post, you made a lot of the points I was trying to make and I probably wouldn't have posted again if I had seen you had.

Quote from: browarod on December 06, 2011, 12:41:23 AM
I think if it required another Thief in play it would be a great card. As it is, I think it might be just a tad into the OP range.

This might be a good way to limit the card, I have no problem with it.

Price: give 2 cards, but also have to have another thief in play... I think that will work. will need playtesting. T1 and T2.

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2011, 06:45:33 PM »

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on December 06, 2011, 11:09:36 AM

Price: give 2 cards, but also have to have another thief in play... I think that will work. will need playtesting. T1 and T2.

I think that does make perfect sense, as everyone pointed out. I also agree we won't know anything without playtesting. Perhaps even require YOU have an EVIL thief IN TERRITORY for it to work?

I did think of a truly troublesome problem, however. I do not know how many themes could use him, but if someone converted him to a theme they use with some battlewinners, he could be less able to be controlled on offense (even with Tower and CwD, CBI heroes are harder to deal with; just ask Thad). Plus, I really don't think his ability is a very virtuous one. If he is truly redeemed he is a new creation in Christ, and therefore should not be caught stealing anymore

What does everyone think about this? My brother knows my long-standing hatred of EC keeping very evil or nasty abilities when they convert when it makes no sense for this to happen, so I may be biased a bit

katedid · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2011, 08:59:51 PM »

maybe he becomes Robin Hood

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:21:55 PM »

I don't think it's OP. 2 cards is a pretty big price and dominants need to be nerfed anyway. The one qualm I have about it is it isn't a "to" ability. I'd like for it to say "give opponent two cards from your hand (except a dominant) to look at opponent's hand and blah blah blah". Otherwise if I get 4 of them up and band them into battle in t2 and only have a few cards in my hand (which isn't uncommon), I can take/discard 4 of your cards and only give you a couple.

Drrek · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:25:24 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on December 06, 2011, 09:21:55 PM

I don't think it's OP. 2 cards is a pretty big price and dominants need to be nerfed anyway. The one qualm I have about it is it isn't a to ability. I'd like for it to say "give opponent two cards from your hand (except a dominant) to look at opponent's hand and blah blah blah". Otherwise if I get 4 of them up and band them into battle in t2 and only have a few cards in my hand (which isn't uncommon), I can take/discard 4 of your cards and only give you a couple.

The problem is the giving 2 to take one doesn't make sense from a scriptural perspective, since he has to steal something before he's forced to repay it double. I am wondering how you plan to band four of them into battle, considering they don't have a banding ability, is there some banding card I don't know about? I'm not be sarcastic that's a serious question (if you already were able to tell that, I'm only saying this because inflection doesn't pass across the internet), I've only just gotten back into the game last year, and I never really played competitively before, so there are probably lots of cards I don't know about.

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:30:48 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on December 06, 2011, 09:21:55 PM

I don't think it's OP. 2 cards is a pretty big price and dominants need to be nerfed anyway. The one qualm I have about it is it isn't a "to" ability. I'd like for it to say "give opponent two cards from your hand (except a dominant) to look at opponent's hand and blah blah blah". Otherwise if I get 4 of them up and band them into battle in t2 and only have a few cards in my hand (which isn't uncommon), I can take/discard 4 of your cards and only give you a couple.

There actually IS no problem. You give AFTER you take, so if you don't have enough cards, you have to give back what you took.

Example: I block with him with 0 cards in hand, take one, have to give 2, so I give it back. Or I have 1 card, take his, and give back that card PLUS the one in hand (as long as it is not a dominant).

If you made it a 'to' ability you might actually MAKE it OP

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #31 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:37:00 PM »

Yeah, there are ways to band in many evil characters and you can recur those methods. I'm not saying that it's too strong, I'm just saying that it is abuseable and will likely lead to problems in the future, at least for t2 multi if more than one player is using them.

Quote from: Redoubter on December 06, 2011, 09:30:48 PM

There actually IS no problem. You give AFTER you take, so if you don't have enough cards, you have to give back what you took.

Example: I block with him with 0 cards in hand, take one, have to give 2, so I give it back. Or I have 1 card, take his, and give back that card PLUS the one in hand (as long as it is not a dominant).

If you made it a 'to' ability you might actually MAKE it OP

You can discard, too. The problem isn't just one, it's when you band multiple in through the various means. Making it a to ability does not make it op in the slightest and I fail to see how it can.

Drrek · « **Reply #32 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:40:15 PM »

Quote from: browarod on December 05, 2011, 01:34:05 PM

The image you have for Stealing the Sheep is already used on Just a Hireling.

You know what, I cannot not find a good image for this card, so unless someone else can, you're just getting a picture of a sheep for now.

Redoubter · « **Reply #33 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:43:49 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! link=topic=28980.msg453219#msg453219

Making it a to ability does not make it op in the slightest and I fail to see how it can.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily make it OP, but it would make it so that if you have too few eligible cards, you wouldn't be forced to give it back with your only eligible card. If that makes sense.

Besides, it makes no sense with the verse. You give after it is found in your possession. Which makes me rethink the 'discarding' thing...the verse is that the livestock is found ALIVE, so maybe it should be a take any (not a dom) and then give 2 (not a dom)?

Drrek · « **Reply #34 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on December 06, 2011, 09:43:49 PM

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! link=topic=28980.msg453219#msg453219
Making it a to ability does not make it op in the slightest and I fail to see how it can.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily make it OP, but it would make it so that if you have too few eligible cards, you wouldn't be forced to give it back with your only eligible card. If that makes sense.

Besides, it makes no sense with the verse. You give after it is found in your possession. Which makes me rethink the 'discarding' thing...the verse is that the livestock is found ALIVE, so maybe it should be a take any (not a dom) and then give 2 (not a dom)?

Yeah I was actually thinking about suggesting that very change since it would fix most everyone's problems with the card, and it actually fits the verse better. I think the rational at the time was we wanted to weaken doms a little bit, but I don't remember that's just a guess.

Also Dayne, you might want to fix that quote.

Edit: Requoted you Dayne with the fixed quote

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #35 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:48:10 PM »

And Son of God can only rescue one soul (and only certain ones) in Redemption

. Removing the discard part would probably be a better fix though.

Redoubter · « **Reply #36 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:48:24 PM »

Ha! My broken quote broke yours!

And yeah, that may be best.

Quote from: Drrek on December 06, 2011, 09:46:41 PM

I think the rational at the time was we wanted to weaken doms a little bit, but I don't remember that's just a guess.

It was 2am. There WAS no rationale.

Drrek · « **Reply #37 on:** December 07, 2011, 07:12:19 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on December 06, 2011, 09:48:24 PM

Ha! My broken quote broke yours!

And yeah, that may be best.
Quote from: Drrek on December 06, 2011, 09:46:41 PM
I think the rational at the time was we wanted to weaken doms a little bit, but I don't remember that's just a guess.

It was 2am. There WAS no rationale.

but... but it was probably still around 1 when we made this character.

Drrek · « **Reply #38 on:** December 09, 2011, 02:07:16 PM »

So what's the final verdict everyone? Are we putting on the requirement of having another thief in play in addition to removing the discard a card, or are we just removing the discard a card? Once I have it fixed up, I could submit the theme to the player made expansion.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #39 on:** December 09, 2011, 04:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on December 09, 2011, 02:07:16 PM

So what's the final verdict everyone? Are we putting on the requirement of having another thief in play in addition to removing the discard a card, or are we just removing the discard a card? Once I have it fixed up, I could submit the theme to the player made expansion.

Yes, another thief must be in play.

Officially Official.

Drrek · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2012, 12:16:00 AM »

Finally got around to updating Possessing Thief, and I'm planning on posting the images to the submission gallery sometime tomorrow. If anyone has any more suggestions, comments or has found a better picture for stealing the sheep, it would be appreciated.

Master KChief · « **Reply #41 on:** January 18, 2012, 12:54:46 PM »

Love the theme. CGD needs to take note.

Drrek · « **Reply #42 on:** January 18, 2012, 06:21:05 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on January 18, 2012, 12:54:46 PM

Love the theme. CGD needs to take note.

Thanks for the compliment, its always nice to hear people enjoy our work.

Arrthoa · « **Reply #43 on:** January 19, 2012, 01:46:09 PM »

all I have to say is that you forgot to make a wicked thief card image.

Drrek · « **Reply #44 on:** January 19, 2012, 01:47:38 PM »

Quote from: Arrthoa on January 19, 2012, 01:46:09 PM

all I have to say is that you forgot to make a wicked thief card image.

I didn't forget, the cards that are reprints, I didn't make images for, but I'll probably get around to doing that eventually.

News:

Author Topic: New Defense Theme-Thieves (Read 7134 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!