Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Each player may only control one good fortress and one evil fortress at a time.

Discuss.

I think certain cards have become too much of a staple in every deck. The obvious example of this is any of the Temples. These would still be used in many decks, but you would see less Herod's Temple/The Garden Tomb, which leads to extremely powerful decks. Some fortresses become less powerful, sure, but such a rule would make deck building more strategic overall. This could also allow the card creators to create more powerful fortresses (like we need them), and not worry about people abusing it with other fortresses, like TGT.

On the evil side of things, well, there's generally only one fortress you want anyway (the protect fortress), but in Type 2 this becomes more difficult, particularly in multiplayer, where you want to have both The Darkness and a protect fortress.

Fortresses are already extremely powerful cards that are very difficult to get rid of. This lessens their power considerably by disallowing them to be used with each other.

i agree with alex on this one

This would also hurt demon decks that HAVE to use GoH and may want to use KotW so that they can have at least a little protection.

This would also hurt split defenses like demon/assyrian that want to have GoH and also the protect fortress for their culture.

This would also hurt trick offenses like WS or Zeb or Job decks that need to have Storehouse to hold all the enhs that build up in your hand as well as a temple to hold LotS.

I'm all for hurting TGT (I still hate that card), but I think that this rule would have too much collateral damage to make it worth it.  On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

Weakening decks isn't necessarily a bad thing, guys. Most decks don't use an evil fortress, or if they do it's only 1. Good, on the other hand, is everywhere.

As for T2, the rule could be adjusted there.

On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

An idea just popped in my head regarding this:

Evil Dominant: "Negate and discard a card in your territory to negate and discard one of the same type and alignment from your opponent's territory."

It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 09, 2013, 06:58:41 AM

On the other hand, having a dominant that can destroy 1 GOOD Fortress....THAT would be awesome!

An idea just popped in my head regarding this:

Evil Dominant: "Negate and discard a card in your territory to negate and discard one of the same type and alignment from your opponent's territory."

It cannot be used as another AotL in battle, you have to pay a cost to use it, but it can hit just about anything.

I would play this with TGT. Who is going to play a Dom and a good fort just to ensure they canhit TGT?

So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.

Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.

Great idea! Problem is... this should have been implemented around the time Priests came out.

Quote from: Westy on November 09, 2013, 05:53:18 PM

Quote from: Nameless on November 09, 2013, 01:12:08 PM

So all the good that it would do to stop speed would be to make it so you could not have Herod's Temple and TGT or Fishing boat.

Seems way better than making a dominant that can discard a fortress, automatically destroying strategies that revolve around fortresses, like TGT or Z's Temple priests. This just makes it more difficult to abuse a bunch of different fortresses, which is most often done with TGT. Evil hardly suffers, if at all. I'm quite sure the 2013 Top Cut had decks with multiple good fortresses, but not evil fortresses.

I disagree about how you said that evil hardly suffers. Most balanced/defensive/turtle deck I likely use more than one evil fort.

Most balanced? Really. Reeeeallly. Other than Egyptians and maybe GoS, I can't think of a deck that'd use two.

Defensive and Turtle are basically synonymous and I could care less about what makes them less viable. The time limit makes them less viable, doesn't mean we should increase it.

This rule would really hurt Speed decks, and destroy turtles from viability. I think we can all agree that's a positive.

this rule is stupid

All this majorly hurts is defense. TGT doesn't need three forts to be insanely good.