Author Topic: New Set Card Previews!!!! (Read 59386 times)

Arrthoa · « **Reply #150 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:36:37 AM »

Is GC, in a way, a reprint of the Ark of the Covenant? Because in the picture it depicts the Ark. I'm just curious about this.

Gabe · « **Reply #151 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:07:13 AM »

No, it's not supposed to represent the Ark. In the verse on the card and surrounding verses in the Bible it talks about golden cherubim designed for Solomon's Temple. They resided in the inner sanctuary where the Ark was also kept. They were different than the cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant. Good luck finding a picture for them though. I guess that's why Rob chose the picture he did.

Quote from: 1 Kings 6:23-28

23 Also in the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. 24 Five cubits was the one wing of the cherub and five cubits the other wing of the cherub; from the end of one wing to the end of the other wing were ten cubits. 25 The other cherub was ten cubits; both the cherubim were of the same measure and the same form. 26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was the other cherub. 27 He placed the cherubim in the midst of the inner house, and the wings of the cherubim were spread out, so that the wing of the one was touching the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub was touching the other wall. So their wings were touching each other in the center of the house. 28 He also overlaid the cherubim with gold.

So in answer to Kirks question earlier, I was wrong, this will not go in the Tabernacle which is why that identifier was omitted. This is strictly a Temple Artifact. I assume it will be for all Temples since there's no evidence that I know which indicates these were not present in Z's and Herod's Temples.

Arrthoa · « **Reply #152 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:12:39 AM »

Okay thanks

Bryon · « **Reply #153 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:23:20 AM »

Are the Golden Cherubim depicted in the art Doug drew for Holy of Holies?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #154 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:45:33 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on April 29, 2013, 10:23:20 AM

Are the Golden Cherubim depicted in the art Doug drew for Holy of Holies?

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #155 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:27:36 AM »

That makes sense. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Kirk

Locutus · « **Reply #156 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:34:36 AM »

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on April 27, 2013, 03:24:01 PM

Quote from: jbeers285 on April 27, 2013, 01:12:47 PM
The soul is better in T1 for sure. Vain philosophy is interesting. I can see defense is getting a legitimized boost in these cards which I absolutely love.

Now the question is in T2 are people gonna start play 10-12 dom's?

While I agree on the 1st point that it is better in T1, it is still awesome for T2. From my experience most T2 players are not going to carry more than 2 unique characters due to the potential clog in your hand, so being able to have 2 of that lost soul basically kills Samuel, Isaiah, Red Banding offenses in just two turns. I love the defense seen so far, my decks might become more of a trick (for lack of better term) defense but will be super strong!

On the 2nd point, is there a problem with finally having close to the max of dominants in T2?

As an exclusive T2-player I'd thought I would weigh in on the dominants question. In our play group, everyone plays with the "core 5" dominants - SOG/NJ, CM, Burial, and FA - after that, most will play with GoYS, Mayhem, and DofN - though there is some variability there. That puts your typical total around 8. I know at that point you already start to wrestle with card slots at that number, so I think that as more dominants come into play T2 players will make more choices on what to cut - and that is not a bad thing. I enjoy the strategic challenge of what stays in and what has to leave. I don't think a dominant cap will have too much relevance to most T2 players unless the cards got silly.

Overall, I am extremely greatful for the hard work everyone put into the new starter deck and redesign. Job well done. I am most appreciative of the ability coming off the graphic. A new starter deck will be an excellent opportunity for me to re-boot the game in our community and I welcome it's arrival!

Locutus · « **Reply #157 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:36:50 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 27, 2013, 09:43:39 AM

Quote from: Arrthoa on April 27, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
Has anybody thought of an answer to Gabe hint about the tin: How the evil defense will be Foreign to most of us.

I guess we can confirm Americans are not in this set.

Probably not. But how about Canadians?

Locutus · « **Reply #158 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:41:23 AM »

Quote from: Locutus on April 29, 2013, 11:34:36 AM

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on April 27, 2013, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: jbeers285 on April 27, 2013, 01:12:47 PM
The soul is better in T1 for sure. Vain philosophy is interesting. I can see defense is getting a legitimized boost in these cards which I absolutely love.

Now the question is in T2 are people gonna start play 10-12 dom's?

While I agree on the 1st point that it is better in T1, it is still awesome for T2. From my experience most T2 players are not going to carry more than 2 unique characters due to the potential clog in your hand, so being able to have 2 of that lost soul basically kills Samuel, Isaiah, Red Banding offenses in just two turns. I love the defense seen so far, my decks might become more of a trick (for lack of better term) defense but will be super strong!

On the 2nd point, is there a problem with finally having close to the max of dominants in T2?

As an exclusive T2-player I'd thought I would weigh in on the dominants question. In our play group, everyone plays with the "core 5" dominants - SOG/NJ, CM, Burial, and FA - after that, most will play with GoYS, Mayhem, and DofN - though there is some variability there. That puts your typical total around 8. I know at that point you already start to wrestle with card slots at that number, so I think that as more dominants come into play T2 players will make more choices on what to cut - and that is not a bad thing. I enjoy the strategic challenge of what stays in and what has to leave. I don't think a dominant cap will have too much relevance to most T2 players unless the cards got silly.

Woops - how could I leave out Grapes from the list?

Arrthoa · « **Reply #159 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:43:40 AM »

Next time you can just modify your post, instead of posting again

.

Locutus · « **Reply #160 on:** April 29, 2013, 11:53:56 AM »

Quote from: Arrthoa on April 29, 2013, 11:43:40 AM

Next time you can just modify your post, instead of posting again .

Thanks for that ... I realized that right after I hit send ... I just don't post that often ...

Arrthoa · « **Reply #161 on:** April 29, 2013, 12:02:56 PM »

Going off of how we were told the tin's defense would be "Foreign", If that refers to Foreign Sword from the previous set than it would have to be Philistines or Canaanites. That is just a assumption on my part.

My other assumption, as many others have stated too, is that it will be Syrians. I base this off of the fact that Scattered is in the tin and gray in one of the 4 brigades on it. Although it could be Persians due to the Brown, but I find this very unlikely since brown got a big boost in the last set.

I do think Persians will appear in the Starter Deck though

Redoubter · « **Reply #162 on:** April 29, 2013, 12:13:42 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 29, 2013, 10:07:13 AM

I assume it will be for all Temples since there's no evidence that I know which indicates these were not present in Z's and Herod's Temples.

I agree that it is a Solomon's Temple Artifact for sure, and not in the Tabernacle, but this part has me a little puzzled. I will review the actual verses when I get back this afternoon, but the research I have done briefly tells me that there was neither a Holy of Holies nor Golden Cherubim in Zerubbabel's Temple. I don't know about Herod's Temple, which may have been built more like Solomon's, but shouldn't we only include artifacts that are stated to be in the Temple, rather than allowing any that has no mention they weren't there?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #163 on:** April 29, 2013, 03:44:46 PM »

Herod's temple is the same building as Z's temple, just upgraded.

Mageduckey · « **Reply #164 on:** April 29, 2013, 05:47:06 PM »

But were all of the artifacts still there, or had some of them been removed/destroyed/etc.?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #165 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Locutus on April 29, 2013, 11:53:56 AM

I just don't post that often ...

Anyone who is a fan of ST:TNG (as your username indicates) should clearly post more often

Locutus · « **Reply #166 on:** April 30, 2013, 12:35:06 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 29, 2013, 09:41:59 PM

Quote from: Locutus on April 29, 2013, 11:53:56 AM
I just don't post that often ...
Anyone who is a fan of ST:TNG (as your username indicates) should clearly post more often

I am impressed you caught the reference.

Sadness · « **Reply #167 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:12:28 PM »

I don't know who keeps giving negatives to those of us that aren't liking the Scripture change,but please quit. Post your reasons why you like the change. Redemption,not negativity

Professoralstad · « **Reply #168 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:35:44 PM »

Quote from: Sadness on April 30, 2013, 02:12:28 PM

I don't know who keeps giving negatives to those of us that aren't liking the Scripture change,but please quit. Post your reasons why you like the change. Redemption,not negativity

I haven't been giving negatives to anyone, but I do disagree with those who don't like the change. It's also worth pointing out that most of the people who have posted opposition to the change haven't given any substantive reason either, but have just said that they don't like the change (or providing faulty analogies to express their displeasure). I don't view that as any more or less helpful to the discussion than clicking the "-" sign (and it saves a potential poster time). It just means that there is disagreement (as there obviously will be, given people's preference for scripture versions).

I don't want to get into a major debate on scripture versions or anything, but I would certainly encourage people to really look into the history of the various versions of scripture, and find out which are better for reading, study, preaching, and evangelism. I assure you that a majority of people who study the Bible would say that the answer is not the same for all four.

drb1200 · « **Reply #169 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:40:14 PM »

Quote from: Sadness on April 30, 2013, 02:12:28 PM

I don't know who keeps giving negatives to those of us that aren't liking the Scripture change,but please quit. Post your reasons why you like the change. Redemption,not negativity

That would be me, and I did post my reason for liking the change.

soul seeker · « **Reply #170 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:44:08 PM »

I read Sadness post. Left the boards, came back to post something near identical to what Prof Alstad posted. Therefore, I gave him a 1+.

Sometimes a -1 is nothing more than someone disagrees with your opinion, and maybe their opinion has already been shared by someone else like ProfA or Kirk.

FTR: Like Prof A, I have not given any -1s out either though I've thought Redemption should have moved from KJV a long time ago thus I've supported their current Scripture change.

Since I'm in this thread, I will give a general consensus of my thoughts on the new card design:
1. Scripture change: as already stated..I like it.
2. New font: frankly, I didn't even noticed until someone said something, and it's fine with me. If it is easily read, then it serves it's purpose.
3. Art off picture: This popped out to me and I love it. This alone has won me over to the new card design.
4. Roundness of box: Didn't notice until mentioned and it didn't bother me.
5. Removal of scroll with Bible: Didn't notice until Alex mentioned it in video..I agree with him. I'm a little sad, but I will be okay with it in the long run.

Red · « **Reply #171 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:45:42 PM »

It's funny how people down vote anything they disagree with, while the most disagreeable of us(myself) never uses the feature any longer. Can a mod please cleanse the thread of the scripture change debate?

JSB23 · « **Reply #172 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:53:00 PM »

In order to make Sadness not feel singled out, I have -1'd everyone on this page.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

lp670sv · « **Reply #173 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:59:44 PM »

Quote from: Red on April 30, 2013, 02:45:42 PM

It's funny how people down vote anything they disagree with, while the most disagreeable of us(myself) never uses the feature any longer. Can a mod please cleanse the thread of the scripture change debate?

Why? it's relevant to the new cards

Arrthoa · « **Reply #174 on:** April 30, 2013, 03:08:15 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on April 30, 2013, 02:53:00 PM

In order to make Sadness not feel singled out, I have -1'd everyone on this page.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

In my defense, I never even touched the topic of the scripture change. I really don't mind the translation of it as long as I can read it and understand it. The only thing I have mainly talked about are the actual cards themselves and not any of the nitpicking.

News:

Author Topic: New Set Card Previews!!!! (Read 59386 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

drb1200