Crusader | Crusader

[~Napalm]

Gasp! Don't make it Darkness! RoL Hope is so much more fun to play with this! Again, gameplay before theme, but still. I like it

In all seriousness though. If you thought Duoing this with blessing was ridiculous, how on earth is Monoing with Vampire Dagger and Eclipse NOT broken? Yes you can counter it in many ways, but the ease of access makes it a bit too ridiculous if you ask me, lol

[smuglapse]

I only partially agree with SG's comment about having Endow cost another quantum type. Yes, it might make some sense from a good/evil standpoint, but then you are effectively locking yourself into those two elements when you play Crusader. I wanted to keep it more open-ended, so I kept everything in the element.

I think that the theme should always come before gameplay. You cannot give a Pig | Huge Pig the ability to fly just because it would make more sense in some gameplay aspect of Elements. It's a pig, it shouldn't fly.

I apply the same logic here. For me, it doesn't make sense that a Crusader is put in the same category as a Guardian Angel. Latter is clearly a creature of light, and how most people define "good". Crusaders on the other hand did all kinds of nasty stuff like killing etc. Like really evil stuff.

I'm not a big fan of "Dark Crusader" either, because it's missing the whole "good but evil" theme that I like. But if I had to choose, I would probably go with Dark Crusader because I see Crusades as much more "dark" than "light".

I guess I kind of see mono- Crusader as some kind of insult to our understanding of human history.

Theme is all relative and completely wishy-washy.  Elves in this game are unlike any elves I have seen before.  Frogs in this game die from flooding.  According to christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html) Angels are immortal (EDIT: and can be evil).

According to Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crusader), a crusader is one engaged in a crusade, and a crusade is "A grand concerted effort toward some purportedly worthy cause."  Yes, there were major crusades in human history, but this is an alternate fantasy dimension and crusader has no link to "The Crusades".  Look at Chimera for another example.

[asymmetry]

Besides, SG... if Crusader is an insult to human history then "dragons" are an insult to biology, and "steal" an insult to moral.

Not that I dislike having more synergy with (on the contrary, it'd be hella fun)  but the whole historical excuse to make its ability cost dark quanta seems weak.

[jmdt]

I'm with Jmizzle, a light/dark card would be great.  However this isn't the card for it.

[Essence]

I think that the theme should always come before gameplay.

No offense, but I've played a few dozen games that followed that theory...and they all sucked.  Gameplay is the part of any game that allows the game to be fun.  With an amazing theme and crappy rules, a game will inevitably devolve into either huge arguments about the rules (in a tabletop game) or a very, very small set of 'winning' tactics being used and the rest of the game going untouched (in a computer game).   Either way, the people who like the theme just end up getting upset because either way, they don't get to enjoy the theme they like so much.

Gameplay absolutely must come first, because in a very real and literal sense, without it, the theme is just a giant game of Magic Tea Party, and people over the age of 4 don't do well at Magic Tea Party.  Especially the ones that want to play so that they can win.


All that said, theme-wise, Elements doesn't particularly pay attention to Earth's history when it makes its cards.  Maxwell's Demon, historically, has nothing to do with killing creatures of any kind.  Historically, very few mummies were Pharaohs.  Etc. etc.  Holding Crusader to a historical standard higher than any other Elements card actually violates, rather than supporting, the theme of the game as a whole.

[OldTrees]

Gameplay and theme should not be mutually exclusive in a theme based game. (When they do Gameplay is more important for the game aspect)

However I would think that this card fits best in Light. The reason why I say that is that the decks that use this card will supply their own weapons for Crusader to use so theft is not a likely occurrence.

Also Crusaders in our history fit the theme of Light is not always Good very well. So once again I think it belongs in Light.

Finally Darkness seems to focus on what the opponent has/is doing. Light seems to ignore what the opponent is doing and focus more on the pregame plan. Crusader is a prime example of focusing more on the pregame plan and less on what the opponent is doing.

Just my  .

[Scaredgirl]

I think that the theme should always come before gameplay.

No offense, but I've played a few dozen games that followed that theory...and they all sucked.  Gameplay is the part of any game that allows the game to be fun.  With an amazing theme and crappy rules, a game will inevitably devolve into either huge arguments about the rules (in a tabletop game) or a very, very small set of 'winning' tactics being used and the rest of the game going untouched (in a computer game).   Either way, the people who like the theme just end up getting upset because either way, they don't get to enjoy the theme they like so much.

Gameplay absolutely must come first, because in a very real and literal sense, without it, the theme is just a giant game of Magic Tea Party, and people over the age of 4 don't do well at Magic Tea Party.  Especially the ones that want to play so that they can win.


All that said, theme-wise, Elements doesn't particularly pay attention to Earth's history when it makes its cards.  Maxwell's Demon, historically, has nothing to do with killing creatures of any kind.  Historically, very few mummies were Pharaohs.  Etc. etc.  Holding Crusader to a historical standard higher than any other Elements card actually violates, rather than supporting, the theme of the game as a whole.

Ok you took my comment out of context and started talking about a totally different thing. This is not about which is more important, gameplay or theme.

What I mean is that you shouldn't take a theme and try to make it work in gameplay. For example you don't take a pig, and then try to figure out how to make that pig fly because you need a flying creature for gameplay purposes. What you do is you take a flying creature and make that creature fly. See? You don't knowingly make the theme suck just because you feel that gameplay is more important. Smart design is to make both work. In Elements that is super easy because the whole theme is just a name and one picture. For example I could call this "Crusader" a "Dwarwen Weaponsmith" or something, and it would still fit the mechanics of the card. But I don't call this card "Lollipop Factory" and rant how gameplay is more important than theme.

[Essence]

Ah, OK.  I honestly misunderstood what you were saying.  When you say "theme first", you sound to me like you're saying "I need a pig.  Let's make a card that's a pig, and then we'll just invent mechanics to fit."

What, in fact, you're saying is "I need a creature to use this new flying mechanic I made up.  Let's make a card that's a flying creature, and then call it some sort of bird."   That's mechanics first in my eyes. 




All of which is irrelevant to the point that your interpretation of the Crusader in a historical context isn't in keeping with the aesthetics of Elements as they currently stand.

[Essence]

This just got a whole lot awesomer.  See, Crusaders don't Endow themselves with the weapon's innate abilities -- they Endow themselves with a weapon's current abilities.  Observe...



It started like this...

(http://imageplay.net/)


But it ENDED like THIS:

(http://imageplay.net/)


Add an SoR to the mix...

(http://imageplay.net/)




And, just for fun, because I lol'd:

(http://imageplay.net/)




In short, it's a good thing that flying weapons can't be Mutated into, because it would be CHAOS.  As it is, you can manipulate your way into Crusaders with free-to-cast abilities, Destroy without using Pulvys, the 'light' ability, the completely useless 'dagger' ability, and I'm sure more will come as more cards get added.

Boo-yah!

[Malduk]

Its way cooler to Endow butterflied flown sor'd dagger, than to endow Pulvy. Thumbs up!  8)

[smuglapse]

...the completely useless 'dagger' ability...

Yeah, 'sword' and 'dagger' always kind of bugged me.

[Sir Valimont]

...the completely useless 'dagger' ability...

Yeah, 'sword' and 'dagger' always kind of bugged me.

So he's just really good at dagging ... or something ...