Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I've been flipping through my cards for other TCGs lately looking for possible ideas for Redemption cards and I kept coming back to the idea of tokens (as generic characters/creatures). It's harder to do in Redemption because of the lack of a cost system but I feel like it could be an interesting mechanic to use. Here are some ideas that use this mechanic, focusing on the synergy between demons and magicians.

Illusion token = 0/1 Orange Evil Character -Demon, Genderless, Generic, neither OT nor NT, does not have a reference-

Table of Demons
Artifact
"On activation, if you control a magician, you may put an Illusion token into play under your control. Illusion tokens are protected from capture and decrease but cannot block alone. Cannot be negated during the battle phase."
~I Corinthians 10:21

Workers with Spirits
6/7 Pale Green Evil Character | -Magician, generic, X=Toughness of the removed character-
"You may remove from the game a character from your discard pile to put X Illusion tokens into play under your control. May band to a demon or any number of Illusion tokens. Cannot be interrupted."
~II Kings 23:24

Witch of Endor
1/5 Pale Green Evil Character | -Magician-
"May band to an Illusion token to convert that token into a copy of a Hero in battle. Its special ability does not function and it is still an orange demon but all other characteristics match the Hero. Cannot be negated."
~I Samuel 28:7

Mediums
 (Wizards reprint, the NASB calls them mediums instead, lol)
6/7 Pale Green Evil Character | -Magician, generic. X=# of Illusion tokens in opponent's territory-
"You may put an Illusion token into play under any player's control. The first X enhancements you play this battle cannot be negated."
~Isaiah 8:19

Why not just say 'token' and have the ability clarify what that token can be used for does?

I thought about that, and you could certainly do that with other types of tokens, I just didn't want to use up card space on every single one with that by default (though in order for people to know what they are you'd almost need something like that, I guess; or else an insert like TexP had for TC enhancements) especially since some of them are longer even without that.

Regarding the CBI, Mediums is the only one that isn't at least CBI and since enhancements can't retroactively gain/lose CBN I don't think it would be the worst if his was negated. I totally get what you mean though.

Demons was just the first I thought of for little swarming guys but I see your point. I hadn't realized demons had so much recursion and the protected part on Table of Demons was just an idea to give it a bit more use, I'm not heart-set on that. I'll remove that clause.

*EDIT - Gave Table of Demons a slightly different effect.

Table updated once more, third time's the charm?

Why not just say 'token' and have the ability clarify what that token can be used for does?

Naming the tokens is a Magic thing... but if tokens were ever to become a thing I agree with you.

How about:

Table of Demon's
"On activation you may place a token into your territory. Treat token as a */1 generic, genderless, orange demon for the remainder of game. Cannot be Negated"

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 21, 2014, 10:59:33 AM

How about:

Table of Demon's
"On activation you may place a token into your territory. Treat token as a */1 generic, genderless, orange demon for the remainder of game. Cannot be Negated"

Yeah that's one way but it cut out the other abilities that are currently on Table of Demons and I just feel like it looks a bit sloppy. I think if token wording is going to be in the special abilities we'd want to narrow down a specific format for it.

Something like "...put a <name> token into play (0/1; orange demon; genderless, generic) [under <opponent's> control]."

I guess it doesn't have to be in special abilities, it could be in the identifier of the card making tokens. Because you have room for more text you could add what you wanted, however, from a game play perspective I don't like the spotting requirement of a magician as its only a niche card then or the protection because it is too broad so I took both out to balance. I am not much of a fan of creating keywords that players have to memorize now. It's a cool idea to fantasize about (I have made cards in the past with keywords more for fun than anything) but this isn't MTG or LOTR. Keywords would be something to think about if the game started from scratch.  So when I am saying I don't like the concept of an illusion token I am more saying that out of practicality. I wouldn't mind having tokens but realistically, if the playtesters ever decided to go that route, I doubt they would be supportive of keywords AND tokens.