Author |
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 8:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
L7 Malfunction
- Play against an opponent card. The opponent card may not use any of its special abilities for a number of turns equal to its strength.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RobPro IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 835
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 8:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Interesting, but I think something more like this is what I mean:
C5 Psychic Engineer -Once per turn, may negate a card action as a reaction.
"OMG me no feel good." -The Reactionary World
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Tarquon Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007 Posts: 197
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 9:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Geko, Not reactionary? I may playtest this one.
RobPro, that ability's stronger that the RW - no thanks. Just because a C is easier to destroy than a T doesn't mean any uberpower should be allowed on it. I personally think that unless stated otherwise crew should only be able to affect their location stack. That's why shuttles were invented. I also think that crew should be able to move between locations (or to lower locations) in the same stack during alloc phase without requiring other transport cards. but there I go again, off topic.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RobPro IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 835
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 9:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Alright, make it an R/M5 that's destroyed by research equal to twice it's strength. The type's not what I'm getting at.
My point is how the ability would need to be worded for it to be useful, using a C5 was an example.
Edited by RobPro on 19 October 2007 at 9:46am
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Aramax Exalted
Joined: 14 July 2004 Location: United States Posts: 390
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 10:16am | IP Logged
|
|
|
RobPro wrote:
Interesting, but I think something more like this is what I mean:
C5 Psychic Engineer -Once per turn, may negate a card action as a reaction.
"OMG me no feel good." -The Reactionary World
|
|
|
what about tying this into a there-and-back?
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 10:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
No, your whole point was not to make it an ability which can be used every turn, for eternity.
I would never publish it as a crew.
this way, it lasts a couple of rounds depending on the card it is affecting and then it goes away.
Come to think of it, I would probably drop its strength down to an L3. allows you to put more in your deck, and that is a fairly week spot in the Ls anyway.
And, yes, it should be reactionary. Good call Tarquon.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RobPro IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 835
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 11:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Interesting.
So if you're reacting to a C5/5 Time Knight's ability with this R/L3, the Time Knight wouldn't be able to use its ability for 5 turns? Or 3 turns?
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Tarquon Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007 Posts: 197
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 12:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm picturing an alliance treaty lying inoperable on the table for 9 turns and smiling. But then I'm sad picturing a poor crewman unable to fulfill his one and only purpose. I suspect waaaayyyy too many things would be malfunctioning as an R/L3 and we'd have another overworked timeskip class card.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RobPro IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 835
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 12:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't think this card would work for an alliance treaty... Drawing cards is the function of the treaty, not a special ability of the card.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 12:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
he wouldn't be able to use it for 5 turns.
I don't think I would make it reactionary after all. I don't want it to effect the one shot cards, only the permanent effect cards. It shouldn't be able to cancel a Discard Equiv. (although I know you guys might like that).
The Alliance Treaty would be discarded before 9 turns. Its function is either instant (and therefore not being able to be effected by this card), or it is a temporary truce (robpro - A.T. does have TWO functions, not just the card drawing ability).
The one difference between this and a time skip/warp, is that the card remains in play.
But, I do see the point of being able to place too many in your deck. That makes me want to put it back at the L7 that I started it with. Besides there are a LOT of good cards at that strength.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
RobPro IRC
Joined: 10 May 2004 Location: United States Posts: 835
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 1:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wouldn't this card be replay-able with a Tactical Officer in play?
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 2:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
yes, but you could say that about just about any card.
Time Warp, etc.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Lobo IRC
Joined: 04 July 2007 Location: United States Posts: 533
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 3:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
"The Alliance Treaty would be discarded before 9 turns. Its function is either instant (and therefore not being able to be effected by this card), or it is a temporary truce (robpro - A.T. does have TWO functions, not just the card drawing ability). "
-Emphasis mine. I have nothing to add to this conversation other than to say the term "truce" is being used lightly there. Kind of one-sided, if you ask me.
And no, i'm not bitter about Galaktische using that particular card against me numerous times the last week or two. Not at all.....Lobo
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 19 October 2007 at 5:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lol, funny Lobo. :)
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|