*scratches head* this seems a bit ambiguous and advanced.

It just has a lot of stubs.

I think this card’s type should be person, not magical object.

We currently don’t have a way to attach people and monsters to communities. I absolutely think that’s a good idea, but I don’t know that I like the phrasing “Make a warring ruler there”.

I like the card, and its not even too early for it, but its a bit rough.

Also, the constraint fails to specify if it applies to ANY wizard using this card before or just the wizard playing.

I’m reading the “warring ruler” stuff as flavour text rather than stub. “Rulers” aren’t tracked anywhere so don’t exist.

“Can’t have used this card at the same community before.” is a bit fiddly as it requires players to check the game history to see if it’s already happened for a particular opponent or not.

[Kevan] maybe there should be a wikipage that collects that information? either that or not write cards that have conditions like this.

[derrick] that part was written like flavor text but we could include ruler. I just fear if we have too many pieces like rulers, factions, communities etc. then they might become too divergent and them game becomes watered down. I didn’t write it ambiguously on purpose; originally I meant the wizard playing a card but I suppose having only one sword per community might be better. I suppose it should be a person but magical objects should defiantly still be a card type.

Seems better to just avoid the need for that kind of paperwork. I think any slightly-tricky-to-meet condition would be fine here - if the one-offness is particularly important, a card can have a precondition that gets invalidated by its effects (eg. “can only play somewhere that’s Indifferent to you”, and both effects alter their Attitude towards you).

I like the theme but as written there’s too many holes or ambiguous things in this card