file Submission - Breath of the Basilisk (SER/for combat card)

08 Oct 2012 07:33 #38555 by Ankha
Name: Breath of the Basilisk
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Serpentis/Fortitude
Cost: 1 blood
[ser][for] Strike: dodge, with an optional maneuver, only usable to go to long range.
[SER][for] Strike: 2 aggravated damage, only preventable by cards that require Fortitude [for], allocated among the opposing minion, his or her retainers and equipments. Any damage succesfully inflicted this way to an ally, retainer or an equipment burns it. Aims can't be played on this strike.


How does this card address a compelling game need? Serpentis combat lacks some interesting toolbox combat cards. Destroying equipments and allies could bring diversity to the annoyance a Setite brings. I tried to balance the card by adding a fortitude requirement. Inferior effect brings versatility to the card (because against real combat deck you'll probably use the venomous cloud to hide you while you flee). For balance, the "only preventable by cards that require Fortitude [for]" (though canonic) could be dropped.

WOD source: Vampire: The Dark Ages, pg. 163
Reference: Cobra Fangs, Revolutionary Council
Art notes: a scaled vampire in a cemetary by night exhales a green cloud of poison that envelops an opposing vampire that tries to protect himself with his forearms, burning his clothes and burning the flesh of an owl nearby caught in the cloud. The shadow of the Setite on a tombstone mimics the shadow of a huge cobra.
Created by: Ankha

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Oct 2012 07:52 #38557 by Ohlmann
I would remove the "burn ally" part, because canonically the chance the power burn non mortal ally can be slim (ok against mage, maybe against garou, but against wraith or demons ?)

I understand why it's not :FOR: :SER: by looking at existing :FOR: :SER: crypt.

Otherwise, the card is pretty ok. I would better :pot: :ser: card because there is already cards in this thematic, but why not.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Oct 2012 14:59 #38624 by Pullen
So I like the idea for the card and all the reasoning behind it, but the card as a whole seems odd. I'm with Ohlmann on the removing the burn ally text, just to strong to be able to torp vamps and burn anything else in combat. I think I might like it more if the inferior was just one discipline or if it had a third level like Elemental Stoicism. But all in all nice idea.

:OBT::MYT::PRO::val::obf:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Oct 2012 16:20 #38636 by Pendargon
it is a decent idea, but i think assigning damage to equipment is a bit odd part, and could lead to confusing rulings...

:QUI: :POT: :OBE: :CEL: :OBF: :tore: :assa:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Juggernaut1981

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Oct 2012 19:25 #38643 by Ankha

it is a decent idea, but i think assigning damage to equipment is a bit odd part, and could lead to confusing rulings...

I don't think there's any need for ruling, all is written on the card.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Oct 2012 20:23 #38649 by Squidalot

it is a decent idea, but i think assigning damage to equipment is a bit odd part, and could lead to confusing rulings...

I don't think there's any need for ruling, all is written on the card.


It's odd it'd be better to use the usual text if you want to destroy equipment - so just have [for] [ser]: Strike: destroy equipment

I'm inclined to think the ally burn is overpowered for ser as it has access to so many burn ally options anyway (which are actually playable). This card is very flexible which allows it to be 'too easily played' i.e. if there are no allies at the table you can still do 2 aggravated damage only preventable by for.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Juggernaut1981

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.062 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum