Sunday, June 30, 2019

Proposal: Armoured, but not Invincible

2 to 4 with 2 def after 48 hours. Failed by derrick.

Adminned at 02 Jul 2019 16:52:15 UTC

If the proposal “The Right to Bear Armour” does not pass, this proposal has no effect.

Add to the rule War:

After the text “it destroys the creature in the same slot number of each opposing force (excluding creatures which are Armoured)”, add “then if any of those creatures are Armoured, they lose the Quality Armoured”.

It seems to me that if being Armoured grants a creature invulnerability, all creatures will end up being Armoured. If their Armour gets destroyed after a deadly encounter while still allowing the creature to survive, then being Armoured would still be meaningful, but not overpowered.

posted by Farsight at 30 Jun 2019 16:51:00 UTC Comments (7)

Comments

card:

30-06-2019 22:25:29 UTC

I think we’ll eventually run into some problems with this since “A wizard may not add a creature to their stable if that creature is in another wizard’s stable.”

card:

30-06-2019 22:48:41 UTC

for we can fix that later if it ever becomes a nuisance though

Kevan: he/him

01-07-2019 00:00:46 UTC

Armouring up isn’t a cheap no-brainer, though: you’re using up a Quality slot that could have been a useful Strength boost, and (if “What else does upkeep mean?” enacts) you’ve got to keep feeding the thing 2 Food.

imperial

Kaia:

01-07-2019 17:00:29 UTC

against
I think card’s problem & w/ Upkeep, keeping your team Armored is a serious commitment (at least what, 6 Food a week for Armored Underlings?) which is heavy enough.

TyGuy6:

01-07-2019 20:19:16 UTC

for

derrick: he/him

01-07-2019 20:29:23 UTC

against

You’re not likely to loose any particular creature, and with upkeep counting every week, its fairly expensive.

TyGuy6:

01-07-2019 20:36:13 UTC

Change to imperial