Author Topic: Best set vs Worst set (Read 7334 times)

SomeKittens · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2011, 04:30:47 PM »

Thad, via Gold Shield.

I think he means Simeon.

JSB23 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2011, 05:36:12 PM »

I think he means Daniel

Noah · « **Reply #27 on:** March 23, 2011, 06:31:34 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on March 23, 2011, 05:36:12 PM

I think he means Daniel

He said it was a card from DI. And actualy that's a posibility considering my brother got one out of a DI pack

.

CJSports · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2011, 08:38:40 PM »

Quote from: mjwaree5 on March 23, 2011, 08:23:57 AM

Quote from: Isildur on March 22, 2011, 06:47:03 PM
Best: Prophets (also my favorite set)
Most balanced set by far and outside of one or two cards almost all of the cards are still usable and all of the cards are really fun!

Unfortunately I believe him... He beat me in sealed at Nats in the last round with three prophets packs... I had a Nero and a 3-liner... and an undefeated record.

Best Set: Disciples

Worst Set: RoA (TGT enough said)

And yet you still pulled off second place.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2011, 10:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on March 23, 2011, 11:57:45 AM

You got to block?!

Yes.

-C_S

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2011, 10:14:33 PM »

Best Set: Kings, for it's timeframe. Followed up Warrior's and did not disappoint. Warrior's saved the game of Redemption, the only reason I did not choose Warrior's is because btn dominated for years.
Worst set: I don't include Limited, UL, or Prophets. So worst set: Patriarchs, it did introduce itb and remove, gave us ANB, but it had a lot of fluff and a lot of wasted UR's/rares. Some people open a Patriarch's pack and they are not even sure what the rare is in the pack.

Isildur · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:00:12 AM »

I agree to a certain extent with Pats except for the fact some of the fluff in that set is rather good while others like that crimson capture I cant remember the name of... are just pure junk. I mean Paladin is some pretty good fluff imo and most of the Rares are not wasted they are just not needed to the extent now vs when they were printed.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:18:22 AM »

Apostles had WAY more fluff than Pats. Pats is the set that introduced good common/uncommon cards. Yeah, there were some fluffy rares, but not near as bad as Apostles.

Kings was hardly better than Pats, and that's only because every card had a special ability. Most of those weren't useful.

Isildur · « **Reply #33 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:22:15 AM »

I think Kings has aged differently then Pats or Apostles. While Pats and Apostles both are all gradually getting reprinted or have cards that just stink and wont be used period. Compared to Kings which was a very fluffy set at first but while more and more WA Class characters and weapons ect. get printed cards like Tart Attack get more and more useful.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #34 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:26:54 AM »

IMO, Kings is getting more fluffy, wheras Apostles and below are getting less. Good Samaritan and Tartarus are somewhat useful now. BtNB is the only offense that is still around that Kings introduced. Royalty is basically dead. A few cards here and there for the defense, but I seldom use a Kings card in my offense.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #35 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:26:36 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on March 24, 2011, 12:26:54 AM

IMO, Kings is getting more fluffy, wheras Apostles and below are getting less. Good Samaritan and Tartarus are somewhat useful now. BtNB is the only offense that is still around that Kings introduced. Royalty is basically dead. A few cards here and there for the defense, but I seldom use a Kings card in my offense.

The problem I typically have with Kings is that the Warriors versions of some of the most used cards are better IMO.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #36 on:** March 24, 2011, 09:38:38 AM »

Still, that was a good point with Warrior class. Army of the Lord is useless if you're playing Warriors.

On a side note, am I the only one who's constantly stopping to untangle the two in my mind?

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:51:53 PM »

Quote

Apostles had WAY more fluff than Pats. Pats is the set that introduced good common/uncommon cards. Yeah, there were some fluffy rares, but not near as bad as Apostles

But Apostles had some great UR's. Some really great UR's.
I don't know why everyone is knocking on TGT, yeah it was annoying but it does not make the whole set bad. It dominated for a year or two, as compared to btn, or cbn decks, they dominated a whole lot longer than TGT.

CJSports · « **Reply #38 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:53:52 PM »

The problem is the rest of the set was very mediocre compared to TGT. I like Apostles except everything but the UR's is Fluff.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #39 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:55:11 PM »

RoA had some good stuff. Look at the prophets stuff.

CJSports · « **Reply #40 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:59:34 PM »

Prophets got most of their stuff from FooF.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #41 on:** March 24, 2011, 03:00:43 PM »

Two Bears, Obadiah's caves, Micah.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #42 on:** March 24, 2011, 03:52:27 PM »

I would argue that Warriors was both the best and worst set.

Best because it saved redemption as a whole

Worst because it made by the numbers ridiculous (which led to other brokenness later) and it introduced Silver as an angel brigade, I think adding new brigades (on top of the original 6 good and 6 evil) has been bad for redemption as a whole.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #43 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:09:25 PM »

Well, it's not like silver's any good now...

soul seeker · « **Reply #44 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:11:59 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 24, 2011, 03:52:27 PM

I would argue that Warriors was both the best and worst set.

Best because it saved redemption as a whole

Worst because it made by the numbers ridiculous (which led to other brokenness later) and it introduced Silver as an angel brigade, I think adding new brigades (on top of the original 6 good and 6 evil) has been bad for redemption as a whole.

The addition of angels/silver is what likely saved it. At least, the angels and their art is what attracted me to the game.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #45 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:14:10 PM »

Drat! If it weren't for shiny things, I might win at some of our tournaments.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #46 on:** March 24, 2011, 05:10:23 PM »

I like angels, just not silver as a brigade. I think angels should have been mixed into other brigades rather than given their own brigade

slugfencer · « **Reply #47 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:36:27 PM »

Best=disciples-No fluff.
least fav=unlimited. Reprinting the same exact vanilla cards except for a handful? That is the fluffiest set. There was plenty of limited to go around when unlimited was released.

The M · « **Reply #48 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:44:39 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 24, 2011, 05:10:23 PM

I like angels, just not silver as a brigade. I think angels should have been mixed into other brigades rather than given their own brigade

yeah. just like Warrior in Training*

*who is should be an angel but he isn't because he is the blue guy in the back of the church

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #49 on:** March 26, 2011, 11:22:50 AM »

I must hold Warriors being the best, and worst set. Adding abilities to most cards, many great cards, and FBTN, which negated the abilities on the other cards and still is a very strong strategy.

News:

Author Topic: Best set vs Worst set (Read 7334 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

slugfencer