|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:51 pm
Hmm. These effects are by far the longest effects that exist so far; I think I may've failed at making them "fairly simple"...
EDIT: And it's annoying the hell out of me, trying to find a way to word it without using "his/her"; I think that Gaia cards, since they affect both players, should count both player's as "you" for ease of card writing... gonk
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:53 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K I'm sure that we'll eventually have a "Cash" Item type. We can word it in a way that will leave future expansions excluded as well.
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:56 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K I'm sure that we'll eventually have a "Cash" Item type. We can word it in a way that will leave future expansions excluded as well.
Well, excluding future sets would also exclude items of the Jack'd subtype, which would be completely nonsensical. I don't know exactly which ones to exclude...
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:14 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K True, but there will be unique ways of obtaining those items. Like other games, some cards become obsolete, as time goes on. It is unavoidable. We too will have that pattern.
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:16 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K True, but there will be unique ways of obtaining those items. Like other games, some cards become obsolete, as time goes on. It is unavoidable. We too will have that pattern.
Hmm. It may not become entirely obsolete, but I guess since the Jack'd subtype will be an in-set sub-type, we shouldn't worry about it much right now. So, it should find an "Item with no Item types", y'think?
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:18 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K I think that these subtypes and all that should just be changed to the name "attribute". With "attribute", it will be easier to add on. Also, it shrinks our main card types, and allows wording of cards to be simplified.
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:22 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K I think that these subtypes and all that should just be changed to the name "attribute". With "attribute", it will be easier to add on. Also, it shrinks our main card types, and allows wording of cards to be simplified.
"Item with no attributes"
I can deal with making it "attribute"; it would simplify things, and that's always a plus...
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:24 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Indeed. "attribute" definitely makes things easier. Even easier are cards with multiple attributes, like Lanzer.
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:32 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Indeed. "attribute" definitely makes things easier. Even easier are cards with multiple attributes, like Lanzer.
Calling this change "attribute" makes it seem like some brand new game system, or a secret agent 'weapon'. sweatdrop
I'm still having problems; I don't like the fact that each of these cards is like twice as long as any other card we've made so far. It's insane...
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:36 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Show me? I'm not sure what the effect is.
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:38 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Show me? I'm not sure what the effect is.
Well, the last thing I had (which I don't like the sound of) was this: "At the beginning of each player's turn, that player may discard a [card type] card. If he or she does, that player searches his or her deck for an item card with no attributes and puts it into his or her hand. Then, that player shuffles his or her deck."
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:43 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Hmm.. There's no way to shorten it, that's for sure. We may just have to deal with some cards having ridiculously long effects.
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
Yea; I'd rather have them with smaller, simpler effects anyway. This is the first set, and I think the cards should be fairly simple...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:50 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Hmm.. There's no way to shorten it, that's for sure. We may just have to deal with some cards having ridiculously long effects.
Well, there's also the fact that once one of those comes out, they easiest way to get rid of an Event is with another Event. But, if all the Events do the same basic thing, there's no point in getting rid of one with another. Eventually, people will abandon them completely, since they can just wait for their opponent to play one (any of them, since they're all the same). I think we might need to rethink these effects a bit... neutral
EDIT: Also, I hate the fact that the phrases "that player", "he or she" and "his or her" show up a total of 6 times in that one effect. That's probably why it takes up so much room...
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
Yea; I'd rather have them with smaller, simpler effects anyway. This is the first set, and I think the cards should be fairly simple...
On to something different. I've been reading Death Note for the last couple of days. It's really boring. There have only been 2-3 parts that I've found interesting. And this is over a span of 60 chapters. Regardless, it makes you feel smarter. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:55 pm
J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K We could vary them slightly, in a way that would change the end product. Each of them would work better in a certain type of deck. That would give people more reason to put them back in their deck. The only problem, is that it's still ridiculously easy to replace them. Perhaps we can give them 2 costs? One for being played, and the second cost pays to get rid of the card already out. So if you are playing to get rid of theirs, it'll cost more.
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
Yea; I'd rather have them with smaller, simpler effects anyway. This is the first set, and I think the cards should be fairly simple...
On to something different. I've been reading Death Note for the last couple of days. It's really boring. There have only been 2-3 parts that I've found interesting. And this is over a span of 60 chapters. Regardless, it makes you feel smarter. sweatdrop
I understand the occasional need for complex cards, but with so few Events in this set, making them complex would seem like a rule, rather than an exception. I want cards to be simple in general, and complex only when necessary...
What exactly is Death Note?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:00 pm
Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K Red Kutai J 4 C K We could vary them slightly, in a way that would change the end product. Each of them would work better in a certain type of deck. That would give people more reason to put them back in their deck. The only problem, is that it's still ridiculously easy to replace them. Perhaps we can give them 2 costs? One for being played, and the second cost pays to get rid of the card already out. So if you are playing to get rid of theirs, it'll cost more.
Hmm; I don't mind them being easy to replace, so long as there is actually a reason to replace them. Rather than having two costs, I could see some Gaia cards having something that says, for instance, "Events cost 10(G) more to play", so that they can't be replaced s easily. But, if we're going to add that extra text we'll have to come up with simpler effects... 3nodding
Yea; I'd rather have them with smaller, simpler effects anyway. This is the first set, and I think the cards should be fairly simple...
On to something different. I've been reading Death Note for the last couple of days. It's really boring. There have only been 2-3 parts that I've found interesting. And this is over a span of 60 chapters. Regardless, it makes you feel smarter. sweatdrop
I understand the occasional need for complex cards, but with so few Events in this set, making them complex would seem like a rule, rather than an exception. I want cards to be simple in general, and complex only when necessary...
What exactly is Death Note?
Just another anime/manga. And in this case.. a live action movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
