Name: Inconnu Meddling
Cardtype: Master
Put another Edge into play, uncontrolled. When a Methuselah gains the Edge anew, he or she takes either Edge. There cannot be more than two Edges into play.
I read quite a long time ago the interview of Garfield on Lasombra and he was talking about a "double edge" idea. That's how this card was born.
I don't know what Garfield had in mind, it was maybe more elaborated but here it is.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
It's an interesting idea, not sure if it's a good one though.
If this card was to be printed, I'd suggest that it should be an event rather than a master.
Name: Inconnu Meddling
Cardtype: Event
Inconnu.
Not usable if there is more than one edge in play.
Put a second Edge into play, uncontrolled. When a Methuselah gains the Edge anew, he or she may take either Edge. A Methuselah may not control more than one edge, if a Methuselah would gain control of a second edge that edge is instead uncontrolled.
Also, tweaked the wording slightly so you can have two people benefiting from having an edge, but cannot have one person benefiting from two edges at once. Not sure whether that makes the card too weak.
definitely not as crazy as it seems at first glance. i actually like this idea as it makes the edge a more important factor, but it would make madness network (and or enkil) so much more powerful, not to mention using multiple copies of using the advantage.
i'm not sure how to fix this card as i don't like very specific restrictions too much. perhaps the card could be burnable with a D-action (with some minor backfiring-effect for whomever put it into play)?
You could also add: Burn this second Edge when there are only two Methuselahs in the game.
You could also have this card become the second Edge, and it becomes uncontrolled when the possessing Methuselah becomes ousted.
Prince of Puyallup
> Ankha wrote:
> Name: Inconnu Meddling
> Cardtype: Master
> Put another Edge into play, uncontrolled. When a Methuselah gains the Edge anew, he or she takes either Edge. There cannot be more than two Edges into play.
>
> I read quite a long time ago the interview of Garfield on Lasombra and he was talking about a "double edge" idea. That's how this card was born.
> I don't know what Garfield had in mind, it was maybe more elaborated but here it is.
>
I don't know if that's what you want to achieve but this would be a *great* (possibly too great) card for any bleed deck and a liability for any other deck. To make it more versatile I might add something like "You may burn an Edge and tap this card to give a minion you control +1 intercept against an action directed (or undirected?) at you." First of all this would reward you for playing the card instead of just helping everybody equally with you paying the costs. Secondly, it would promote a more active play style for wall decks without making the card significantly better for bleed decks.
By "anew" a player isn't supposed to get 2 Edges when bleeding twice (see Form of Corruption).
It could have been interesting though for Free States Rant and Enticement decks.
@Boris The Blade: it doesn't require to change card texts. If a card mentions "the edge", it can be either edge. this can be calrified on the card itself.
> porphyrion wrote:
> definitely not as crazy as it seems at first glance. i actually like this idea as it makes the edge a more important factor, but it would make madness network (and or enkil) so much more powerful, not to mention using multiple copies of using the advantage.
>
Not if you consider that one Methuselah can't have 2 Edges at the same time, and that anyone getting the edge anew may chose to take the edge from the player playing Using the Advantage.
> porphyrion wrote:
> i'm not sure how to fix this card as i don't like very specific restrictions too much. perhaps the card could be burnable with a D-action (with some minor backfiring-effect for whomever put it into play)?
>
Maybe a referendum (in which the Edge is worth 2 votes), with no backfire (you already spent a MPA)
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Suoli wrote:
> First of all this would reward you for playing the card instead of just helping everybody equally with you paying the costs. Secondly, it would promote a more active play style for wall decks without making the card significantly better for bleed decks.
>
No need to reward the player. If he plays this card, it means it gives him an avantage to have two edges in play.
Eg. Free State Rants, Amenophobis, Form of Corruption etc. (lots of Follower of Set cards btw )
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
There should be something that gets rid of the second edge. If it's an event, it could burn when someone gets a VP.
If it's a master that doesn't go into play, it's tricky (you're creating a rule (that part about getting the edge anew) that exists because the card was played, though it's in an ash heap now. Not great (see Vampiric Disease and stuff).
If it's a master that goes into play, burnable as a vote / d action / .. for some cost (such as, for instance, forfeiting the edge you have to burn the card).
> Pascal wrote:
> If it's a master that doesn't go into play, it's tricky (you're creating a rule (that part about getting the edge anew) that exists because the card was played, though it's in an ash heap now. Not great (see Vampiric Disease and stuff).
>
Not trickier than having the regular Edge into play. Usually players have something representing the edge, they'll need a second one. An once the second one is in play, there's nothing else to remember.
If you add a condition to get rid of the second edge though, putting the card in play can be a good idea.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Suoli wrote:
> > First of all this would reward you for playing the card instead of just helping everybody equally with you paying the costs. Secondly, it would promote a more active play style for wall decks without making the card significantly better for bleed decks.
> >
> No need to reward the player. If he plays this card, it means it gives him an avantage to have two edges in play.
> Eg. Free State Rants, Amenophobis, Form of Corruption etc. (lots of Follower of Set cards btw )
>
What I'd like to see is a reason for non-bleed focused decks to play it (although your examples are a nice list of decks that would benefit from the card, now that I think about it).
Name: Inconnu Meddling
Cardtype: Master
Put this card into play, and put another Edge into play, uncontrolled. When a Methuselah gains the Edge anew, he or she takes either Edge. Any minion may call a referendum to burn this card and remove one of the two Edges in play as a +1 stealth action; in that referendum, burning the Edge is worth an additional vote. Cannot be played if there's already two Edges in play.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Suoli wrote:
> What I'd like to see is a reason for non-bleed focused decks to play it (although your examples are a nice list of decks that would benefit from the card, now that I think about it).
>
There are quite a list of vampires (mainly) that interacts with the Edge, and I think more cards could interact with it too (if ever more cards were printed).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Suoli wrote:
> > What I'd like to see is a reason for non-bleed focused decks to play it (although your examples are a nice list of decks that would benefit from the card, now that I think about it).
> >
> There are quite a list of vampires (mainly) that interacts with the Edge, and I think more cards could interact with it too (if ever more cards were printed).
>
It just occurred to me that letting someone else keep one edge while you take the other doesn't actually help Enticement etc. any more than it helps regular decks. The card is only advantageous to any one deck builder if
a) you can simultaneously control both edges,
b) you want the table to bloat more or
c) you're using that crappy action modifier that lets you steal the edge from the target of a d-action.
Option b has problems similar to Montreal, option c is too narrow. Option a may or may not be too advantageous for s&b decks but that's a fixable problem.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > If it's a master that doesn't go into play, it's tricky (you're creating a rule (that part about getting the edge anew) that exists because the card was played, though it's in an ash heap now. Not great (see Vampiric Disease and stuff).
> >
> Not trickier than having the regular Edge into play. Usually players have something representing the edge, they'll need a second one. An once the second one is in play, there's nothing else to remember.
>
With 2 players left and 2 edges, the odds of having the game timeout are quite higher than with just 1 edge.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > If it's a master that doesn't go into play, it's tricky (you're creating a rule (that part about getting the edge anew) that exists because the card was played, though it's in an ash heap now. Not great (see Vampiric Disease and stuff).
> > >
> > Not trickier than having the regular Edge into play. Usually players have something representing the edge, they'll need a second one. An once the second one is in play, there's nothing else to remember.
> >
> With 2 players left and 2 edges, the odds of having the game timeout are quite higher than with just 1 edge.
>
That would mean noone calls the vote to burn the other methuselah's edge, which is stupid.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director