|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:32 pm
Clitical Hit! Red Kutai Clitical Hit! J 4 C K Clitical Hit!
His profile says '03. smile And I don't think we'll be doing sets by years. It was just an example. I'm not exactly sure how sets will be released, so I used year, since that's an easy way to illustrate things.
Yushyush. I was thinking we could do a lot of 30 card sets. Some themes I've thought of, Halloween, Angelic, Demonic, Cosplays, all the other holidays. razz Considering the rate this is going at, we should be able to come up with a 30-card set in a few minutes; especially with practice... wink
^^ But first, we'll need to be doing this 90 card set, and even before that, iron out how gameplay will work n' such. razz =Is too distracted thinking into the obscure distant future= Awwww, man... sweatdrop
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:32 pm
Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
Should it say pick an enemy User?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:32 pm
Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
What's the point of that? xD
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:35 pm
Clitical Hit! Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
What's the point of that? xD If I understand it.. If the enemy has 1 user, and you pick that user as the one you can't attack, your only option is to attack the enemy directly.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:35 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
Should it say pick an enemy User? That's the point of it, yes; Magic cards tend to like doing stuff like that, though, and it shortens the text... xd
Clitical: Yea, I figured it might not be too clear. The idea is that he can't block. If he's all that's left, and you can't attack him, you get to go through. I was assuming the game checked only people you were able to attack before letting you attack the player. In Magic terms it's just "Target creature can't block this turn"... sweatdrop
EDIT: Just for fun, who wants to guess which user gets that effect?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:36 pm
J 4 C K Clitical Hit! Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
What's the point of that? xD If I understand it.. If the enemy has 1 user, and you pick that user as the one you can't attack, your only option is to attack the enemy directly.
Not sure if the rules would allow that with that wording. Perhaps, "At the beginning of your turn, pick a User. Act as if that User is not there for this turn."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:38 pm
Clitical Hit! J 4 C K Clitical Hit! Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
What's the point of that? xD If I understand it.. If the enemy has 1 user, and you pick that user as the one you can't attack, your only option is to attack the enemy directly.
Not sure if the rules would allow that with that wording. Perhaps, "At the beginning of your turn, pick a User. Act as if that User is not there for this turn." Yea, I wasn't sure if it would work as worded at first either; then I remembered the rules weren't concrete yet, so we have room to tweak them around some... xp
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:40 pm
Clitical Hit! J 4 C K Clitical Hit! Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
What's the point of that? xD If I understand it.. If the enemy has 1 user, and you pick that user as the one you can't attack, your only option is to attack the enemy directly.
Not sure if the rules would allow that with that wording. Perhaps, "At the beginning of your turn, pick a User. Act as if that User is not there for this turn." Well with that wording, you can't screw them over as good. nIf they just can't block, then you could still use certain Posts on them. If you pretend they aren't there, then you're really limited in options.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:44 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
Should it say pick an enemy User? Just for fun, who wants to guess which user gets that effect?
I have no idea..
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Hmm. For those who don't know, we'll most likely have 3 starter decks to choose from, each of which will come with a special card- Lanzer, L0cke, or VO. smile Dunno why I felt like bringing this up, but this was just for those who were wondering why they weren't on the main list. They'll most likely be something like this... (Stats are random.)
SD1001: Lanzer' G: 60 Lit- 3 Int- 4 Wit- 3 Spam- 2
SD2001: L0cke G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 3 Wit- 4 Spam- 1
SD3001: VO G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 4 Wit- 2 Spam- 2
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:49 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai Just wondering if it would be easy enough for people to figure out what this is trying to say: "At the beginning of your turn, pick a user. Your users can't attack that user this turn."
Should it say pick an enemy User? Just for fun, who wants to guess which user gets that effect?
I have no idea.. It was the card Thread Mod; since he's not a real Moderator, he can't ban (destroy) users permanently; rather, he blacklists them, which just kind of keeps them away from him...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:52 pm
Clitical Hit! Hmm. For those who don't know, we'll most likely have 3 starter decks to choose from, each of which will come with a special card- Lanzer, L0cke, or VO. smile Dunno why I felt like bringing this up, but this was just for those who were wondering why they weren't on the main list. They'll most likely be something like this... (Stats are random.)
SD1001: Lanzer' G: 60 Lit- 3 Int- 4 Wit- 3 Spam- 2
SD2001: L0cke G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 3 Wit- 4 Spam- 1
SD3001: VO G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 4 Wit- 2 Spam- 2 60 Gold's quite a lot; but I understand, you said stats are random. Just remember that 60(G) means you can't play anything for 6 turns, so when something's that expensive it better turn the game around... (Especially since doing nothing for 6 turns likely means you're losing... gonk )
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:54 pm
Clitical Hit! Hmm. For those who don't know, we'll most likely have 3 starter decks to choose from, each of which will come with a special card- Lanzer, L0cke, or VO. smile Dunno why I felt like bringing this up, but this was just for those who were wondering why they weren't on the main list. They'll most likely be something like this... (Stats are random.)
SD1001: Lanzer' G: 60 Lit- 3 Int- 4 Wit- 3 Spam- 2
SD2001: L0cke G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 3 Wit- 4 Spam- 1
SD3001: VO G: 60 Lit- 4 Int- 4 Wit- 2 Spam- 2 The costs are probably high, but your "Lanzer" is only one stat off of what I suggested. 3nodding
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:57 pm
Yeh, dunno why I brought that up. Anywho, what were we talking about? razz
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:05 pm
=Is distracted making users= I'm two away from finishing my goal of 25; and I've got another effect for you all to enjoy:
"When this user would be banned (destroyed), you may sacrifice a user instead."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|