Code Geass: Recent Activity
| Code Geass: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Introduction and General Invitation | Proxies for playtest | Design Challenge 2 | Colour-pair archetypes | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Code Geass: (Generated at 2025-06-21 16:27:48)
art
art
benefit before costs
benefit before costs
Directly bring back ninjitsu in red, possibly renamed to "infiltrate" or "saboteur"? That seems to fit the undercover revolutionaries, sabotage, slowly becoming an army flavour?
Or, now I read strike in more detail, maybe combine the two, "Unjitsu 3B (3B, return a blocked attacker to your hand: Put ~ OTB from your hand tapped and attacking.)"
Oh, I see. Hmm, yes.
Really? It would certainly get costly, but it would get more powerful as it scaled, too. If you had Decadence 5, you'd get up to 5 scaled points of Decadence effects each turn. So with the two examples, you'd get 5 life and a creature with CMC ≤ 5, and whatever other effects your other creatures provided, like destroying things or drawing cards or +1/+1 counters.
Many thanks for the suggestions!
Opulence is pretty similar to "
: [Do something]". The difference could be played up with support from other cards. I think the flavour connection might be a bit weak.
Entitlement is interesting. Like an optional Champion. Fits into the "fewer larger creatures" theme that I'd been wondering about.
Superiority is interesting too. Somewhat similar to the Hierarchy mechanic on my black-white nobles faction in Clockwork Wings, as on Nouveau Riche, Mindpoison Marquise, Lord of the Demesne. But caring about the opponents' stuff rather than your own. Which is harder to manipulate...
Conquer also has potential. That'd mesh nicely with the combat-tricks theme of the set, and also with white and black removal. I'll try throwing together a couple of Conqueror cards.
Decadence looks pretty curious. It actively discourages you from building a deck themed around it.
Not for not, but if the plan is to make it 'not-ninjitsu', wouldn't it be better if... ah... maybe it's better if I spelled out the mechanic:
> Strike
(
, Return a blocked creature you control to its owners hand. Put this creature on the battlefield, tapped, attacking and blocked by all creatures the returned creature was previously blocked by.)
I know red doesn't want to be blocked... but not blocking is exactly what this mechanic would end up encouraging. With this version, one good Striker in your deck would mean that every block was a liability.
Oh, and we should stop using Strike. What with First Strike and all.
"Put it onto the battlefield tapped, attacking and unblocked" would make it clear. A long time ago I made a card called Infiltration Raid that did something similar.
Strike is meant to be like Ninjutsu in that it puts the striking creature out unblocked. I wish I could think of how to clear up the wording... This sort of does it:
Strike [C] ([C], Control a blocked attacking creature: Put this onto the battlefield tapped and attacking. Return it to your hand at end of combat.)
But I don't think that costs can work like that. Maybe:
Strike [C] ([C], Remove a blocked creature you control from combat: Put this onto the battlefield tapped and attacking. Return it to your hand at end of combat.)
But now it starts to feel a lot less red.
Link's completely right that my Infiltrate proposal above is utterly unsuited to common.
Strike is pretty interesting, but also somewhat confusing. I think the rules for putting creatures OTB blocking allow the attacker to choose where in the order of blockers the new creature goes. (Or is the creature with strike meant to arrive unblocked? In which case, yowch, makes for painful decisions on the opponent's part if you're attacking with something small.)
jmg is right that morph-style traps actually make a really good fit for this set. It's a bit unfortunate that I'm designing this set while Khans of Tarkir is coming out, bringing morph back after years of absence :) I've done a fair bit of thinking about morph, and the big problem is that morphs are 2/2 creatures, rather reasonably sized, and on many battlefields just adding a few more morphs and keeping them face-down will greatly improve your board position. I haven't come up with a flavour for what that would mean or how that would fit the factions I've got.
Colour-pie-wise it'd be fine for red to get a lot of flash, indeed. I imagine I could give several Black Knights flash for that kind of reason.
V's ability is rather interesting too. Like Link's Infiltration, the problem is lack of interactivity. The set's looking like it'll have a lot of focus on the combat step with many combat-relevant Geasses and combat tricks, plus most mecha only do anything in combat; the direct damage bypasses that, in a way that's flavourful and powerful but rather anti-synergistic.
Heh. Well, yes, all the rare mechs are meant to be pretty potent and good at ending games; to deal with one will usually need a combination of multiple blockers and/or combat tricks.
I wonder if I should give unique mechs the Legendary supertype? There are mass-production versions of the Lancelot later in the series - there's no conceptual reason why someone couldn't build two Lancelots. But within the Code Geass world they're unique.
I also wonder whether it's a problem that this gives almost the same boost as Gloucester Royal RPI-00/SC. Those are probably too close to be allowed to both stay as they are.
Flavour-wise, Lancelot could give a lot greater boost. But then I'd have to crank the cost up quite a lot to make up for it...
It also means "Ok, you better block me, seriously, I'm gonna eat your FACE for at least 6 damage if you don't block me" Not sure whether or not that's intended...