Author Topic: In Battle?  (Read 5027 times)

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2011, 04:23:35 PM »
0
Angry Mob never specifies when they flip face up. Therefore, they should stay face down until something causes them to flip face up. You can't just flip cards up and down. However, face down was just a clarifier.

It'd be pretty simple to practice with Angry Mob and get it to always face your opponent. Even if it hit you, it wouldn't matter unless your opponent was also using Bringing Fear/Wrath.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2011, 04:25:23 PM »
0
Angry Mob never specifies when they flip face up. Therefore, they should stay face down until something causes them to flip face up. You can't just flip cards up and down. However, face down was just a clarifier.

It'd be pretty simple to practice with Angry Mob and get it to always face your opponent. Even if it hit you, it wouldn't matter unless your opponent was also using Bringing Fear/Wrath.

IMO I consider Mayhem much stronger than Angry Mob.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2011, 04:26:47 PM »
0
It'd be pretty simple to practice with Angry Mob and get it to always face your opponent. Even if it hit you, it wouldn't matter unless your opponent was also using Bringing Fear/Wrath.

didnt you hit yourself with angry mob in super draft...? ;)
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2011, 04:41:24 PM »
0
I still think it would be easier and logical to have cards that say "not in battle" to default in play like every other card.
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2011, 04:46:09 PM »
0
I still think it would be easier and logical to have cards that say "not in battle" to default in play like every other card.

I assume you mean: "in play but not in the field of battle" I could work with that but still strengthens Mayhem and weakens Lampstand.

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2011, 04:51:14 PM »
0
I'm not a big fan of strengthening Mayhem but I think it would be more consistent to have cards like Lampstand default into play.  And for Mayhem we still have Nazareth and Simon the Zealot.
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2011, 04:58:48 PM »
0
I'm not a big fan of strengthening Mayhem but I think it would be more consistent to have cards like Lampstand default into play.  And for Mayhem we still have Nazareth and Simon the Zealot.

I would support this, but I think it to be fair to weaken Mayhem by making it so that Dominants may not be played during the first round. Thus, appeasing both sides.

Offline ChristianSoldier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1613
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2011, 05:05:08 PM »
+1
I also think that Lampstand weakens the dominants that have to be weakened less than some others, I don't see the evil dominants as being the problem, except maybe Mayhem, but that's really only on the first turn that its overpowered.  Really the dominants that are the problem are New Jerusalem, Grapes of Wrath (more because of its versatility than its power), and maybe Son of God, although on its own (without NJ) I don't think its bad.  I've always though of defensive ones as fine because they really help make the game more interesting while getting easy rescues makes it more simple and boring.
If you are reading this signature, thank a physicist.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2011, 05:09:51 PM »
0
I also think that Lampstand weakens the dominants that have to be weakened less than some others, I don't see the evil dominants as being the problem, except maybe Mayhem, but that's really only on the first turn that its overpowered.  Really the dominants that are the problem are New Jerusalem, Grapes of Wrath (more because of its versatility than its power), and maybe Son of God, although on its own (without NJ) I don't think its bad.  I've always though of defensive ones as fine because they really help make the game more interesting while getting easy rescues makes it more simple and boring.

I agree, but at the same time it seems the game has gotten a bit overly complicated to the point that older cards are all but useless in the game. Not that it should revert to my 3/3 is better than your 2/2 enhancement, but it would be nice to actually have a battle phase once in a while.

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2011, 02:03:44 PM »
0
The only reason there isn't a battle phase is because people don't play defense. I've had waay more fun with more battle phases by playing Trolololol, which survived at least one first turn Mayhem.

Offline theselfevident

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • The light is blinding to the naked eye
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2011, 05:59:10 PM »
0
The only reason there isn't a battle phase is because people don't play defense. I've had waay more fun with more battle phases by playing Trolololol, which survived at least one first turn Mayhem.

Trolololol?

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: In Battle?
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2011, 06:01:12 PM »
0
Watchful Servant stall deck.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal