Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

Why is there this distinction between AoCP and other cards of a similar NPE potential level? Is it because AoCP is a National Promo?  Is it because of when it was created (i.e., if it were created today it would be facing errata-nerfing rather than having counters created for it)?

A New Beginning and Sin in the Camp both have complex abilities.  There are numerous things that you could tweak in their abilities.  Authority of Christ on the other hand is a very simple ability.  There's not much room for errata on Authority of Christ because what it does is so simple.

The scenarios that A New Beginning and Sin in the Camp create is very different from the scenario that Authority of Christ creates.  A New Beginning lets me take multiple turns in a row, effectively skipping my opponent's turn.  Sin in the Camp allows my opponent to have a turn, but eliminates their hand so there's almost nothing they can do during their turn.  Authority of Christ on the other hand just kills evil characters.  It doesn't limit the options on my turn.  And it doesn't limit what I can do the next time I block (unless all of my Evil Characters were in play in which case shame on me).  Basically, you can't print a card that counters (responds) to A New Beginning or Sin in the Camp, because there'd never be an opportunity to play them, but you can print a counter to Authority of Christ.

Also I don't think Authority of Christ creates the same level of NPE as Sin in the Camp.  I played a Type 2 game against a deck that was using five copies of Authority of Christ promo in late 2001 (very soon after it was released).  In that game all five Authority of Christs were played, and in those five rescue attempts only 1 soul was redeemed.  I think I ended up winning the game 7-2.  The counters have always been there for Authority of Christ.  It's more like The Strong Angel than it is like Sin in the Camp.  If you're not prepared for it, it's going to wipe you out, but if you know it's coming, and you prepare for it, you can fight your way through it.  (Which is much more the case now than it was in 2001, but was true at least a little bit in 2001).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

The idea of making ANB one per deck was mentioned by another elder in jest when we were discussing possible changes to T2 deck building rules.  It was like this:

1) Blah, blah blah (yes, that's really all we say on the elder boards)
2) More of the same
3) Ditto
4) Limit ANB to one per deck
 

Honestly, with Nazareth it seems like ANB is being kept in check this year.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 09, 2011, 02:05:33 PM

What I want to know is, why is all this rule gimping going on but still no intro prep phase?

Intro prep phase was brought up before and Rob quickly axed the idea.  That happened on the public side of the boards because I wasn't an elder then.  I don't recall his reasons, but I got the impression he is opposed to intro prep.

Yeah - Sorry, I should have included a smily or something - I don't think we've got any plans of the table to hurt ANB right now. In fact, I'd have to double check the card list, but I'm pretty sure we've got at least one card that helps ANB

Tim, Gabe, and John, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. For you (and any other playtesters who may have read this), I wasn't trying to blame you or denigrate the job you have done/are doing. I was just trying to get insight into what goes into these types of decisions because I find it interesting. I do have to admit that a number of recent rulings make more sense now that I understand the process to be...

1) Blah, blah blah (yes, that's really all we say on the elder boards)
2) More of the same
3) Ditto

4) Announce decision

Authority of Christ on the other hand is a very simple ability.  There's not much room for errata on Authority of Christ because what it does is so simple.

I don't think the last errata for Sin in the Camp or the first errata on ANB had anything specifically to do with the complexity of their abilities. You could make AoCP one copy per deck or one use per game, which would be the equivalent of the SitC errata. Or you errata AoCP to say "cannot be prevented" or "cannot be interrupted" which would be similar to the first ANB tweak (i.e., during a rescue attempt).

Basically, you can't print a card that counters (responds) to A New Beginning or Sin in the Camp, because there'd never be an opportunity to play them, but you can print a counter to Authority of Christ.

I think you are using counter in a different sense than I was. Nazareth (Simon the Zealot) is a counter to ANB (Sin in the Camp) in exactly the same way that Color Guard was touted as a counter to AoCP.

Also I don't think Authority of Christ creates the same level of NPE as Sin in the Camp.

This is a matter of opinion, especially back before Priests. But since I hold your opinions on topics like this in very high regard (and--worse luck--since you know that I do ), I guess you get the last word.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 09, 2011, 03:33:15 PM

I guess I just don't get the hate.

Well if they had to pick on one specific theme the most, it would have to be prophets.  It's Biblical after all.  

There is that.  

I am looking forward very much to Nationals and seeing your new deck that will make ANB the first card banned in Redemption history.

Quote from: SirNobody on April 09, 2011, 04:29:50 PM

Authority of Christ on the other hand is a very simple ability.  There's not much room for errata on Authority of Christ because what it does is so simple.

I don't think the last errata for Sin in the Camp or the first errata on ANB had anything specifically to do with the complexity of their abilities. You could make AoCP one copy per deck or one use per game, which would be the equivalent of the SitC errata. Or you errata AoCP to say "cannot be prevented" or "cannot be interrupted" which would be similar to the first ANB tweak (i.e., during a rescue attempt).

The problem with making changing AoCP in a similar way to Sin in the Camp is that making AoCP one per deck creates a 'limited/banned' style list that hosts, players, and judges then have to keep up with. This is something that Rob has never been in favor of. Sin in the Camp can safely be errata'd to 'One per territory' because it is a place enhancement, you're still more than welcome to put 5 in a deck.

In the future we may see cards with printed identifiers (ala Legion) that create exceptions to deck-building rules - But for now we're trying to stick with 'One per territory' and other similar methods for toning down power levels of cards.

The problem with making changing AoCP in a similar way to Sin in the Camp is that making AoCP one per deck creates a 'limited/banned' style list that hosts, players, and judges then have to keep up with.

Right--that is why I would prefer my second option--adding the phrase "May be used once per game." to AoCP's special ability. (If someone were to errata AoCP, which I know they are not.) That errata would effectively be the same as the one per territory of Sin in the Camp.

Regarding Thadd the Mad's power level... if it comes down to it, the best way to power him down without ruining him would simply be to remove the "cannot be interrupted."

Or limit the protection to all cards not in battle.

Do that, and I think all the complaining would stop. He'd be strong, but a little more stoppable.

Yes.