|
CardName: Tree Line Cost: {2}{R}{R} Type: Snow Enchantment Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Each player exiles forests until the control fewer than the total number of mountains in play. Players cannot play a forest unless they control fewer forests than there are mountains in play. Flavour Text: The timberline marks the forests' end, giving way to the Peaks of Salkutun that circle the Great Flat Desert of the North. Set/Rarity: temporary storage Rare
Tree Line
  Each player exiles forests until the control fewer than the total number of mountains in play.
Players cannot play a forest unless they control fewer forests than there are mountains in play. The timberline marks the forests' end, giving way to the Peaks of Salkutun that circle the Great Flat Desert of the North.
|
History: [-] Add your comments: |
See Burning Kiss.
What does this card have to do with Burning Kiss?
I was just on a train of snow card ideas.
Sadly, probably needs to specify what happens if there are.
I mean; I'm all for this being a niche card that does "Something is checking whether there are more forests than mountains? There are 16 forests, and 2 mountains. There are NOT more forests than mountains." - but I don't think you'd find many other takers.
I was playing another tabletop game the other week, and someone played a card that said effectively "enchanted player can only control 5 creatures." No explanation of what that meant, nothing in the rule book or FAQ. Very useless. This is why Magic's rules being so precise is such a good thing
Holy heck, was there no easy way to explain what this card does!
The sentence "there can't be..." doesn't have any rules meaning and should just be removed from the card
I suggest looking at 'balance' for working wording for the effect. Maybe something like:
Each player exiles forests until the control fewer than the total number of mountains in play.
Players cannot play a forest unless they control fewer forests than there are mountains in play.
It's not quite identical; but it's close and hits the effect.
Personally I liked the fluffy rules from unlimited era. But they did cause arguments sometimes.
The flavor of this is really upside-down. Shouldn't a higher volume of mountain mean less trees?
Only if the mountains only start half-way up.
Which... I guess in mtg terms they might do?
Used Vitenka's wording