Multiverse: Your Feeble Struggles Are For Naught

Mockup
Plain

CardName: Your Feeble Struggles Are For Naught Cost: Type: Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Scheme Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Whenever an opponent casts a spell, that player loses 3 life. At the beginning of the end step, if four or more spells were cast this turn, abandon this scheme. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Archenemy Schemes Common

Your Feeble Struggles Are For Naught

Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Scheme

Whenever an opponent casts a spell, that player loses 3 life.
At the beginning of the end step, if four or more spells were cast this turn, abandon this scheme.

Updated on 14 May 2021 by jmgariepy

History: [-]

2012-01-29 06:49:21: jmgariepy created the card Your Feeble Struggles Are For Naught

by jmgariepy:

Originally submitted to Challenge # 026 by GreenOpal.

2012-05-26 07:31:49: jmgariepy edited Your Feeble Struggles Are For Naught

by Link:

Wow, that scheme really... ongoes.

by Rater x:

If this was 1 life it would be a nasty scheme. At 3 it's just too good. Combined with the one that limits enemies to 1 spell per round and you have a tough situation for any group.

by Jack V:

I must have seen this before but I don't remember. I love the name! :)

by Vitenka:

The name is indeed fantastic. The power level is a touch on the high side - at last 12 damage, unless you can win first seems kind of strong.

by jmgariepy:

Mind you, the power level to compare this card to is I Delight In Your Convulsions. When playing against three players, the usual life lost there is 9 (plus 9 life gained.) This deals 3 more (in theory), the players (kind of) get to choose who takes the damage, there's no life gain, and the players can even just choose to not cast spells and continue the attack if that's the best option.

But, yeah. If the players can't get four spells to go off on one round, this one is gonna hurt.

by dude1818:

Unless the type line implies that you have to abandon this scheme 5 times, i.e. there needs to be 5 turns with 4+ spells

by Alex:

Ha! Noo, I think that supertype line is just an accident. Probably a bug in the card creation logic: someone entered the type line as "Ongoing Scheme", my algorithm tried to move "Ongoing" into the supertypes instead, but it managed to add it to the supertypes but not remove it from the types. Iterate a few times maybe on the preview screen or something and it ends up looking rather silly :)

by zzo38:

Anyways, duplicate supertypes (as well as duplicate types and duplicate subtypes) are redundant as far as I know.

(Although, nevertheless it would be better to fix it anyways.)

Add your comments: