Retards of the Bay: Recent Activity
| Retards of the Bay: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Retards of the Bay: (Generated at 2024-04-26 23:08:38)
| Retards of the Bay: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Retards of the Bay: (Generated at 2024-04-26 23:08:38)
So "Breed N for X" means "Dig N for X card, reveal it, put it into your hand, and tuck the rest randomly"?
Doesn't seem like you need a new keyword action, since you already have dig and "breeding" just seems much more limited flavor-wise - as your comment already points out.
breedable races
humanoid races (sentient , primate , bipedal) : dwarf, elf, human, orc, ape
Color wheel
non humanoid races : dog+hound, insect+spider, fish+snake, bird+dinosaur, dragon+griffin, Angel+demon
What makes this least appealing to me are two factors:
By double-tying this effect to die rolls, you just add a swingy effect onto a swingy effect.
You could easily go the other direction and have something like "Each opponent that rolls a lower result loses that much life, each player that rolls a higher result sacrifices a creature" (or vice versa, or allow an overlap - just raise the floor level a little and make an appropriately cost card)
Just looking at the chances to get something valuable out of this, the card is already unappealing, but you can't cost it more aggressively with your edge-cases being so extreme.
As another note: I actually feel like making each opponent choose a value and have the effect be worse the more they undershoot, but really bet if they overshoot might be a good representation of a gamble (more Blackjack though) that also is self-balancing e. g. Grixis Blackjack.
Conceptually being about competition of resources doesn't add anything to it mechanically.
It turns out I already took a stab on some split cards with such a pattern of names e. g. Knife in the Back // Back from the Grave and Abandon Reason // Reason Restored. Though those didn't use fuse. Randomly stumbled over those today. :)
Sure given enough time and effort, a better, more ideal cycle of names may be achieved. Perhaps you could take a stab at it.
This particular card is about competition of resources.
It took me a moment to realize the pattern. I like the idea, but I think, you are a bit too loose with it.
When WotC used the "Shared first letters" pattern for their split cards, they used "three letters in common" as their threshold - and that despite the fact that alliterations are far more easy to spot.
You probably want at least the same - or a full syllable - as your overlap between names.
Mechanically this fuse spell is not very interesting. These are two spells that have nothing really to do with each other, that you can pay at the same time... and that's it.
I suppose the left half targets due to the rules of fused spells. Usually that effect doesn't need to target.
A[x], [x]B Fuse
A[x], [x]B Fuse
A[x], [x]B Fuse