TheManaDrain.com
February 04, 2026, 07:34:53 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Oh no, now there are two.  (Read 4588 times)
Limbo
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 593



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2005, 04:01:24 pm »

Ok, how about for something completely different, and still somehow a little bit the same:

Dolly's Legacy
Legendary Enchantment
1UU
If you would draw a card, you draw two cards instead.
If you would discard a card, you discard two cards instead.
If a spell would deal damage to you, it deals twice that damage to you instead.
If you would gain life, you gain twice that life instead.

Solves the rule problems, while in effect still having covered most effects that I intended to reach in the first place. Makes it better in some cases, and worse in some cases. I intentionally left out doubling creature damage.
Logged

Without magic, life would be a mistake - Friedrich Nietzsche

Chuck would ask Chuck how a woodchuck would chuck wood...as fast as this.
PucktheCat
My interests include blue decks, arguing, and beer.
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 549


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2005, 04:39:59 pm »

Matt:  If you agree that the rules issues could most likely be overcome, either by an addendum or simply with careful wording, then the issue is whether the card is good for the game or not.  Yet this entire thread, with only a bare few exceptions, has skipped this question entirely and focused on the rules issues.

If an idea works intuitively the rules issues can nearly always be resolved.

Leo
Logged
Upinthe
Basic User
**
Posts: 282



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2005, 01:20:26 pm »

Split cards, Mindslaver, Serum Powder, gold cards, and a number of older cards all “don’t work in the rules� as they existed when these cards were first imagined.  Does that make them bad cards?  They all required changes or addenda to the games rules to work.  The new Ravinca mana requirements will need something similar.


Leo


This has nothing to do with any of that. Cards with all those mechanics still worked with old cards. This proposed card won't even if you add to the rulebook.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2005, 01:22:54 pm by Upinthe » Logged

I know this won't happen in a tournament, but if my opponent has Chaos Orb in his hand while I'm controlling his turn from a Mindslaver, who flips the card if I force him to play it and activate it?

"When I saw the announcement of Temple Garden on wizards.com, I knew that I was going to be out of Type 2 for the next two years" - JDizzle
PucktheCat
My interests include blue decks, arguing, and beer.
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 549


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2005, 01:31:44 pm »

Of course it would.  Now you're just being silly.

Leo
Logged
Nova442
Basic User
**
Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2005, 07:18:28 pm »

EDIT: my bad I missed some posts.
EDIT2: Apparently not, the circle of life continues.

Puck, we simply can't give feedback on the mechanic until you define what it can DO.  Right now it makes sense to you alone and only in some situations can everyone agree that this card "covers it".  Define the rules first, then we will be happy to go to step 2 which is "is this card good for the game, balanced, etc."  How could we tell if the card would be appropriately costed if we don't know what it will do? Razz
« Last Edit: September 29, 2005, 07:25:09 pm by Nova442 » Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.046 seconds with 18 queries.