| Cards With No Home: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Other non-themed cardsets | Skeleton |
|
CardName: Curse of Frailty Cost: {1}{B}{B} Type: Enchantment - Aura Curse Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Enchant player Enchanted player's life total is viewed as being 4 less than what it actually is for each Curse of Frailty enchanting that player. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Cards With No Home None |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
So if your life total is 20 it's treated as being 16. If that player gain 10 life, then their life total would be treated as 26.
Um, no? Just make it like Laquatus's Champion, but for enchanted player.
In other words, more like Delusions of Mediocrity.
I'm a little less rigid than dude, but I still got to admit that this is ambiguous. If, for example, I'm at 3 life and cursed by Frailty, have I lost the game? Or is my life total 'considered' to be -1, and we continue playing. If that's the case, then this card seems to be overcosted by
.
(There's also a logic argument here. If I'm at 20, I would be 'considered' to be at 16. That would mean my life is at 16, so I should be 'considered' to be at 12, etc., etc.. Obviously, I get the intent of the card. I'm just pointing at the holes.)
Oh, and also what happens when two of these curses are enchanting the same person? I get the impression that this card was better placed in the 'joke' set, where problems like this can be handwaved away with a brusk 'figure it out yourself'.
Attempting to address jmgariepy's second and third points. I would view a player being considered to have 0 or less life as having lost the game and that this would also work for cards that have abilities like Fateful Hour, barring circumstances that prevent game loss like Platinum Angel. i had no idea how to to include that as reminder text though.
For what it's worth, I don't think the reminder text would add anything. People have a tendency to believe their cards do something. So a card that effectively did nothing but pretended a life total was different would probably be rejected as a 'wrong thought'. The card would need a separate line in the rulebook anyway, so you could handle it there.
I think you may have made my third point worse, though. Right now, the curse could be seen as cumulative. I.e., If I'm cursed with two curses, my life is considered 4 life less for each curse that's enchanting me. And since there are two curses, my effective life total is a loss of four life twice across two cards for a total loss of 16. If it was at 20, it is now theoretically at 4.
Perhaps it would just be simpler to make the enchantment Legendary?
I'm really not getting this. Why not just "Sorcery - Target player loses 4 life"
I do like this sort of card, but only if we can figure out what it does. I wonder about the reverse, make them lose the game at 4 life? That would be "lose 4 life", but have a few minor other effects (it goes away if they destroy the card, but they don't get fateful-hour like effects or "when you lose life" effects).
I agree, sorcery - "Target player loses 4 life" is much more sensible for common.
For rare, I think Triskaidekaphobia is a sensible way to make people lose at a non-zero life total :)