Archenemy Schemes: Recent Activity
| Archenemy Schemes: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Archenemy Schemes: (Generated at 2024-04-25 17:30:47)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
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.)
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 :)
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
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.
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.
I must have seen this before but I don't remember. I love the name! :)
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.
Yeah, this should say "Your life total becomes [10/5/whatever]", but otherwise looks good.
Ditto. I made a "You don't lose the game" scheme myself, but I like this one's elegance.
Maybe it should set your life total to 10 (or a slightly lower number) rather than just gaining you 10 life to avoid e. g. gaining the life but still being below 0 and losing anyway.
Note replacement effects need to start with "if" rather than "when"/"whenever".
Nice and simple. I like it.
Feeback?
Wow, that scheme really... ongoes.
I'm sick, and can't bring myself to do any normal work. So I'm doing some housecleaning on my 'fake' work.
This set got a weird hiccup about half-way through. Originally, I was making a page for new schemes... something that could be printed and played with. At the time I made this, though, the new schemes wouldn't make sense when shuffled with normal schemes, since they'd be normal 6x9 Magic proxies. So I started transcribing all the archenemy schemes into the Multiverse database, so they could all be printed up and played together.
Then Alex did an excellent thing and made the Archenemy Scheme frame available on Multiverse. Neat. I went back and applied the frame to all the cards.
Except, now I got this weird problem... I transcribed about 2/5ths of the cards... but now the right frame exists. It doesn't make sense to transcribe the rest, since you can just proxy them the normal way. So maybe I should delete all the original schemes?
That, of course, brings us to problem #2: Having full sized Scheme proxies are nice and all, and I guess one can just buy 9x12 sleeves, but you'd still need to have a bunch of spare archenemy schemes, which I suppose you could buy at about 50 cents apiece, but most people don't exactly have spare schemes kicking around.
It just seems simpler to make everything 6x9 again, and keep plugging forward. But it certainly isn't cooler. Flip-flop, flip-flop. Well, if anyone was wondering why work on this project came to a full stop, this was the central conundrum that put me in a mindtrap. If pressed, though, I suppose cool should win out? Delete the original schemes and give the custom schemes some room to breathe? Because the other way - not using the correct frame - just sounds like a trap.
I think it assumes that the card art is the precisely right size. But even if this were, yeah, I don't think that's quite right. It's kinda fun though, as you say :)
Oh, hey, that's some interesting way for Multiverse to handle the card art on schemes. I assume this wasn't intentional, Alex. It's kind of nifty, though, in it's unintentionality...