BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

“must discard all cards that other Wizards have in hand” can be heavily misinterpreted

ah thanks, fixed the wording

Wait, how does “must also discard at least half of the hand they unidled with” work? If an admin unidles a player, the player has to choose and discard as part of that unidling (even if they’re offline at that point)?

X Guards is an odd rider on a bunch of fixes.

The down effect is a little too powerful for my taste. It increases the legacy of a wizard by an average of 2.5 per day, and you don’t have to spend any extra thaum on it. In fact, you could spend 0 Thaum, and the “Unattach 0 Guards” clause won’t trigger, because that’s only on the up state.

Either that or it does nothing because its not attached to a wizard, and communities don’t have attitudes towards each other. 

Please shred, and then I will vote for this.

[derrick] “It increases the legacy of a wizard by an average of 2.5 per day” you can’t attach it in its down state but I suppose I should change the “becomes” to “is”

[Kevan] I don’t believe the rule makes it part of the unidling rule, as in if you don’t do this step they aren’t unidled, but it’s simply the first action they must do after being unidled. even if they’re offline when unidled it’s something they could do later.

oh yeah SHRED Guard

SHRED X Guards

[card] I don’t think there’s any rule saying that a “must” clause means “player cannot take other actions until doing this”, is there? We’ve certainly talked about versions of that, but never enacted anything.

But this will never trigger anyway - if someone unidles with a duplicate card, their hand is illegal (“No more than one Wizard may have a given card in their hand at a time”) and will be set to the default, blank value by the unidling rule.

(Well, the duplicate-catch won’t trigger, the “must also discard at least half of the hand they unidled with” will. I’ll propose a fix.)