phasertech Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 well, i've spent the last week or so making new cards of different varieties, and i've decided to begin releasing some of these cards on the forums to see what people think of them. so, without further ado, here's the first card: This is from my fictional set, "Knightess' Sword", which includes a series of low-level monsters called knightesses. this card is meant to work alongside of them. the image is one of yaden's from DeviantArt. This is a card from my fictional set, Dragon's Rage. i found the picture on google, so not sure who the artist is, but he/she did a great job. the picture really fits with the card. these are just a taste! more coming soon, i will post them here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 For the first one: I don't know what the Knightesses are and what support they have, so I can't rate. For the second one: Unplayably underpowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawlyn Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 I the effects on the first one aren't cumulative, shouldn't it read "If there is a "Knightness" on your side of the field, this card gains one of the following effects..."? If you can have a different effect for each "Knightess" on your side of the field, then surely the effects are cumulative...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevalier Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 As Crab Helmet said, we cannot rate the first unless you post some "Knightess" cards. They could, for example, be lightning fast recruiters which, in turn, would change how over or underpowered it is. On the other hand, "Knightess" monsters could slow cards which seldom come up out. Making the card's playability change ratically. The second card, unfortunately, has no playability whatsoever. It's basically worse than a "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" that can only get a 200 ATK boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawlyn Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 The second card' date=' unfortunately, has no playability whatsoever. It's basically worse than a "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" that can only get a 200 ATK boost.[/quote'] The only thing I can possibly see is that's it a fire monster, and from what I know of fire decks, they're all about effect damage (although I've never really used one). Perhaps there's some reason that hasn't been explained that would mean paying 500 LP per turn could be a good thing in a fire deck. I have to agree that it's worse than a Blue-Eyes in as much as it needs one too many tributes - if it only required 2 tributes then it wouldn't be so bad. Also, although you can pay the 500 LP once per turn, I think the ATK increase lasts beyond the end of the turn (it doesn't state otherwise), so you can theoretically keep increasing it every turn, albeit slowly. After five turns it could have 4000 ATK though, which isn't so bad... p.s. Forced Simplicity seems an ironic name for someone that uses a scrawny little font in their posts, that is quite unreadable to people with visual impairments. Perhaps you should consider a name change to "Forced Inaccessibility" - or consider changing your font for the sake of accessibility... please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomix Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 overpowered but meh... 7/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodrun Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 well for onework on your grammarand twotry not to go to over board on the effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Kaiba™ Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 7/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasertech Posted April 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 thanks for the input! more cards are coming soon, i swear! i'm just in scool right now, so i can't upload my other cards right now. to clear a few things up: yes, goldheart's icreases to his attack are permanant, the "cumulative" phrase on sargon is used in other cards of similar varieties, simply means that you cannot have one effect several times (i.e., increase ATK by 500 twice). also, most knightess cards are level 4 or lower, there are only ywo in the set that are of level 5 up. more cards coming soon! i'll try to get them up this afternoon. (no rhyme intended.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawlyn Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 the "cumulative" phrase on sargon is used in other cards of similar varieties' date=' simply means that you cannot have one effect several times (i.e., increase ATK by 500 twice).[/quote'] Even though you cannot use the same effect twice, you can use more than one effect at a time - which is cumulative, but in a different way. This ambiguity could lead to an awful lot of confusion... Although I don't know a perfect way to fix this, might I suggest rephrasing the effect so you don't use the word "cumulative" at all? For instance: For every "Knightess" monster on your side of the field, this card gains one of the following effects (each effect can only be applied once): ... I don't know if this would make it any more clear though! Just a suggestion :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasertech Posted May 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2008 ok, finally i got some more ready. these are from the "sandstorm" set i'm currently working on. the pictures are from the D&D website. in addition, here's a card from my red vs blue series, really meant as a balanced play card. whaddaya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.