Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
You guys realise this means there's a evil dominant too, right?
Quote from: Janissary on June 30, 2009, 11:56:18 AMYou guys realise this means there's a evil dominant too, right?Where in Bryon's article did it say that there's an evil dominant too?
I don't get to see the mockups before those go out to print, so I have no idea. I think Doug put those Coopersmith cards together. He was contemplating buying a Cooper at the time, and, well, it slipped.But back to the cards this set, I think that David's Copper Field is a fairly nice site, but I think jaws will be on the floor when people see The Return of the King.
Quote from: BrianGabe on June 30, 2009, 04:17:26 PMQuote from: Janissary on June 30, 2009, 11:56:18 AMYou guys realise this means there's a evil dominant too, right?Where in Bryon's article did it say that there's an evil dominant too?Redemption Sets have been very good at balancing.
5. Are we seeing a new dominant card?
The set is not quite done. At least not for a few days.5. not presently
question, if both players are tied in lost soul count, would that mean they both have the 'most' lost souls?
Huh, I wonder how this factors in...Quote from: TimMierz on April 24, 2009, 03:24:54 PM5. Are we seeing a new dominant card?Quote from: Bryon on April 24, 2009, 04:32:16 PMThe set is not quite done. At least not for a few days.5. not presently
Quote from: Master KChief on June 30, 2009, 05:33:12 PMquestion, if both players are tied in lost soul count, would that mean they both have the 'most' lost souls?Based on the way Eli the Priest et al are played, the answer should be no.
Quote from: BrianGabe on June 30, 2009, 05:51:57 PMHuh, I wonder how this factors in...Quote from: TimMierz on April 24, 2009, 03:24:54 PM5. Are we seeing a new dominant card?Quote from: Bryon on April 24, 2009, 04:32:16 PMThe set is not quite done. At least not for a few days.5. not presentlyAt the time, I wasn't looking at a dominant card. I don't know if HE was looking at a dominant, but it takes both of us looking at one to be "we seeing."