[H&V] Heroes & Villains: Recent Activity
[H&V] Heroes & Villains: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Heroic Decks | Archenemy Deck | Design Notes |
Recent updates to [H&V] Heroes & Villains: (Generated at 2024-05-09 00:19:27)
Scheme for the Greenskins!
Dwarf deck
Dwarf deck
Not at the time. I have been avoiding anything that crosses turn-boundaries.
> I suggest the reminder for install to just be "Play as an asset" then.
That might be where I end up. Currently getting a charge counter is part of installing, but it might become an inherent ability to assets.
I'll know more after playtest which will happen the soonest in a month. If I keep my current pace and dedication to this particular project. (Insert laugh track.)
Ok; I suggest the reminder for install to just be "Play as an asset" then. If we had custom card frames, doing that would also help a lot.
> done so easily.
Breaking the length of allowed reminder text even if replacing another phrase is indeed a way to make things easy on yourself.
> So... none at all?
Exactly. The amount of reminder text right there. Morph doesn't tell you that a "2/2 colorless creature" can attack and block.
If it helps: In the grander scheme of things assets might get a chance at a previous introduction and will defintely have a rules insert for those who start out on this custom set.
Okay, I would suggest then: "Assets can be attacked and are destroyed by being dealt any amount of damage." Seems like an crucial thing to cover, especially when it can be done so easily.
> "I am working under the assumption that assets get as much reminder text as planeswalkers"
So... none at all?
The above link ("assets") contains the provisory rules that say: "Any amount of damage is enough to destroy an asset."
This obviously is subject to change once I get the critical mass of cards to playtest this, but currently the correct answer.
The phrase "keeping the charge counters" is not my favorite part of the reminder text and its removal is a question of playtest feedback.
I am working under the assumption that assets get as much reminder text as planeswalkers - currently being a really stripped down version of them.
Is the "... keeping the charge counters" part necessary? I would image something like this would be more valuable: "Assets can be attacked and are destroyed by being dealt damage." The mechanics page doesn't mention the actual details of installing so I can't recall was it any amount of damage or was it somehow related to the number of charge counters.
They are assets - a simplified variant of scenes/structures. The opponent can attack them and blast them with direct damage that isn't restricted to players or only certain permanent types (i. e. the "any target" variety).
The secrecy is relevant because Troves are assets you want to protect and accumulate counters on, while Traps (at least the ones not following the old template) are the ones you want your opponent to "run into" (what this entails is explored currently: attacking it, targeting it etc.).
Cards with printed card type asset are also imaginable - those then would be face up.
While face down, are they 2/2? Can the opponent do anything about them?
If not, how is the secrecy about which one it is important? Why not just set aside face up?
or
Troves are complements to Traps that benefit the controller rather than hurt the opponent.
Did you also consider 'If an opponent didn't cast a spell during their last turn'?
see above
Since it's for an upcoming Trap-tribal deck and Trap is a spell type it can be an instant or sorcery...
was:
> typeline: Instant - Trap
mana cost:
If an active player (player whose turn it is) didn't attack or play a card this turn, you may pay rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
~ deals 4 damage to each active player if it's their end step.
There is always the option to go asset with this, but I'm not certain it solves this particular issue.
So I'm going from "trap that collapses if you stand still at the wrong moment" to "trap that collapses if you move at the wrong moment". Both encourage using your own turn.
Not matter how you slice it, this card at the moment is very hard to process. Attempting to use the design itself to justify the unusual terminology is only going to make things worse. I would reconsider the whole design from ground up. Could it be an enchantment for example?
or
I thought maybe going for cost reduction and 2 life loss per counter with a starting cost of . Balancing this will be tricky.
An asset is not a land, so playing it doesn't count against playing your one land per turn. Maybe I should go with the usual "sorcery" or just leave out the timing.
I'm working under the assumption that the reminder text will become more manageable over time as the wording gets improved.
We do now finally have precedent that face-down does not need to mean 2/2, but it was not necessarily the case before.
Does playing it use your land drop? Or is it just "as a sorcery"?
Honestly, I don't see the need for 'damageable permanent'. It's long, ugly to say, and in the end meaningless - since why would you want to deal damage anywhere else? And even if you did, it wouldn't do anything. I guess the wording might make sense for something like "Tap target damageable permanent" instead of, well, dealing it damage?
Anywho. This card has text enough for two text boxes. The first is all of the 'deploy' reminder text. This seems like more of a porblem.
The mechanic itself seems decent, modulo mixing face-down mneaning 2/2 with face-down meaning this. (Easily fixable by exiling or 'set aside' or something instead of in play face-down). But the amount of words needed to explain if even though it's really simple and obvious... yeuch.
Yep. Since it needs to include asset, creature and planeswalker the list otherwise would start to get rather long, so this is a good card to introduce a new rules term.
@Tahazzar: Which two wordings? You have not put forth an alternative wording and I'm not going to touch Vitenka's which mangles things the way Vitenka's wording is wont to do.
I don't see how touse Hardy Veteran's precedent to derive a wording for this either - since this card doesn't just refer to the controller.
Okay, c'mon now with that reminder xD I don't think you would want to use with Hardy Veteran the wording of
> As long as you're the active player, ~ gets +0/+2.
I know you get some slightly more stumpy texts with the use of 'active player', but certainly we have to be reasonable here. To me, it seems clear that "their turn" or whatever makes much more sense to the majority of people - and given the choice between the two wordings is obviously the more preferable.
Hmm - I guess it's to hit teams. Could it be simplified to:
Cast at the end of a players turn. If that player didn't attack or play a card, you may cast this for . ~ deals 4 damage to each player whose turn it is.
added reminder text
fixed typo