The 2018 Community Created Card: Ability update

[The Guardian]

After some preliminary testing and feedback from the community, the playtest team has agreed on two possible modifications to Rapha.

1) Remove Unity and leave the special ability as is

2) Keep Unity, but make him CBI/CBN and only protect “other Philistines” in territory from opponents

Instead of doing another vote, we want people to share their preference and a short explanation. It doesn't have to be an essay, (though if you want to do that, go for it), but a short sentence or two would be ideal. This will help give us a better understanding of people's reasoning/thought process as opposed to an anonymous vote. Giving your preference and saying "I agree with the reasons John gave" would also suffice.

Ready, set, go! 

**EDIT** (by Gabe)

Option 1
This is the same version we showed you last time without Unity. I believe it reflection option #1 as referenced above.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Option 2
This is option 2 referenced above. The condition is changed to a more thematic "if Gath" which is not being printed this year (sorry). If this version is chosen we will do all we can to get a Gath in one of the next two sets. Or if players don't like that option we can keep the condition seen in option 1 above.

Spoiler (hover to show)

[Kevinthedude]

I would prefer #1 because I believe that's the best chance of him seeing competitive play. However, I think this decision is really hard to make without knowing if there will be Philistine support in the set. If mono Philistines is strong enough to see competitive play, I'm down for giving it a reason not to splash and going with #2. If I have to pick with only current knowledge though, I'd pick #1.

[jesse]

To keep the character more thematic, I would prefer option 2.

[EmJayBee83]

Prefer #2 as it will strongly encourage new avenues to explore in deck building.

[TheHobbit13]

Option #1, its nonsensical to make a counter to x which is itself countered by x. Options #2 if it's a blanket cbn.

[redemption collector 777]

I would prefer option #1 because I think the SA should have more options to it (search more than Reverse pile etc) to be worth the Unity identifier in my opinion.

 I agree with Kevinthedude about best chance of him seeing competitive play.

Also agree with Reth about splashing and combining which makes deck building and playing far more interesting and exciting.

[Xonathan]

I like the second option

[Reth]

I' prefer #1 since I like splashing and combining - this makes deck building and playing far more interesting and exciting IMHO.

[The Guardian]

Option #1, its nonsensical to make a counter to x which is itself countered by x. Options #2 if it's a blanket cbn.

Thank you for the clarification--it would remain blanket protection ("from opponents") with either option.

[The Schaefer]

I'll say this.

Option 1: I would play. It fits into decks easier which is nice and still lets me be creative with 'meta' counters that Phils won't provide. Overall, even though it lacks unity it would provide more diverse defenses in my mind.

Option 2: I'm not certain I would play but I might. A lot of the issue is because of mixed feelings on unity. Unity helps eliminate splash defenses in theory but the unity cards have to be worth the cost in order to use them in my mind. The cost is pretty significant too. The big benefit of this one is things like Moses or 3 woes don't turn off the protection. however his protection is turned off if unity isn't fulfilled or he's gotten rid of. So when you compare to Option 1 I'd actually argue that Option 1 is more powerful because it is easier to use. But that's an opinion so for me it really comes down to if being able to have protection that 3 woes, Moses, etc doesn't stop is worth the cost of unity and being vulnerable himself?

When I look at the card I basically am weighing whether I would rather play phils without any other black characters for CBN protection or if I would rather splash a few black cards outside of phils and have negatable protection. Based on that I say Option 1. Im also hesitant to like unity because it basically gives you a card without a special ability if it gets turned off. Im not concerned with that in regards to my own choices in deck building and play but more so with what my opponent can do. If they give me a Canaanite is my unity turned off or is it not since im not the owner of the card they gave me? Not really relevant to this card but good unity abilities suffer a lot because of holy grail. It is already a great artifact that sees play but now it can potentially shut off my opponents abilities? There is a ton of risk with Unity in my mind and so if the benefit isn't substantial then I don't see the point. If unity didn't turn off all of the abilities I would probably like it more but I would also be difficult to design that.

In short, I prefer option 1. Almost entirely because of the flaws of the unity clause. I would like unity if it provided an extra ability or made an already existing ability better if you had unity but just not working if you don't is really lame unless there are some AMAZING benefits.

[The Guardian]

Regarding Unity -- your opponent giving you a Canaanite wouldn't turn it off because Unity will be your characters meaning "own and control." Holy Grail will be able to turn off some Unity abilities, but not all of them. (If the Unity is "Hero (O.T.)" and they convert your O.T. EC to a Hero, you're still fine for example).

[The Schaefer]

Regarding Unity -- your opponent giving you a Canaanite wouldn't turn it off because Unity will be your characters meaning "own and control." Holy Grail will be able to turn off some Unity abilities, but not all of them. (If the Unity is "Hero (O.T.)" and they convert your O.T. EC to a Hero, you're still fine for example).

That's what I thought but I figured some clarification may be need there. I overall still feel the benefit you get for option 2 isn't substantial enough for the cost of unity. I'm not trying to nitpick unity or anything and I think it's an interesting concept but it is the problem I have with option 2. If Unity granted an additional/better benefit to an already existing ability I'd be behind it more. Kind of like the Gold/Black outsiders has a condtionally better ability. But, I'm not a fan of having cards that potentially wont do anything unless the benefit is huge and it is unlikely that I won't get the benefit. I guess the best example I can give is Emperor Caius Caligula. I'm not a fan at all of him and I don't think I've ever seen him played competitively. So I don't have high hopes for most Unity cards. But I feel like if i keep going it will just sound like bashing the Unity clause rather than just a critique or explanation of my issues with it, which I don't want so i'll stop. I love the creativity that inspired the idea and whether or not something is competitive or not isn't really the biggest deal in the world.

[TheJaylor]

Can you put the current card in the OP?

[kariusvega]

#2 cbn protect philistines in terroritory is definitely the way to go.

Goes great with outpost and gives them some staying power

[Jeremystair]

 

[Gabe]

As requested I've added the card images to Justin's post. If I've made any errors Justin can correct me and I'll fix them.

[Watchman]

All of this could have been avoided if he was a FBTN character. 

[TheHobbit13]

I think saying Gath is great for either option as long as it is an auto include in a Philly defense.

[Gabe]

I think saying Gath is great for either option as long as it is an auto include in a Philly defense.

There are things about the new set that haven't been revealed, that if you knew would reveal that a future print of Gath could DEFINITELY be a great card for any Philly defense.

[Watchman]

I prefer option 1.

Didn’t I see a post on the forum that “search” is being phased out for “take?” His ability has “take” in it but there’s also “search” for the other part of his ability regarding if the opponent drew or searched.

[RedemptionAggie]

You can search without taking (exchange, mostly, but discarding a card from a deck or Reserve, etc.). A search is still something that happens, but it's not something the ability has to say do.

[Sadness]

Option 1. I can see myself using this version more in type 1 player. Option 2 seems more for type 2 decks. Your thoughts?

[Kor]

I like option 2 more.  Unity can be built for, and as more philistines are printed will feel like less of a restriction.  Being negated is worse than being targetable as it exposes your other characters, which presumably he is in your deck to protect.  Also if he gets converted by grail or such I think his protect ability keeps working?  And if discarded you can recur with outpost.

[GreatGray]

Option 2 looks better than option 1. I feel like Philistines is a kind of defense that works well with Unity already. I don't personally know much about Rapha (I should probably stop putting off reading that part), but with Philistine's site interactions already present, a new Gath site could probably be fun to play around with. I know little about Gath, but I trust that someone could make it a sweet card.

[TheJaylor]

What about taking away Unity and making the CBN conditional? For example, making it CBN if Gath is in play.