unwritten rules do not exist. especially one that would not be true- lobo for example is 
and respectively.
and as far as effects go, the coding will simply not be cut/paste. so things that require clicking can overlap with those which do not.
unwritten rules are rules borne out of how the card database is structured.
Is it your intent to be making such a radical suggestion?
PS I was referring to the casting cost. All costs are easiest to handle when converted into equivalent casting cost value. The +1 increased value form the activation cost decrease is offset by the -1 upgrade cost reduction for a net cost change of 0.
-I've always wondered why weapons never show changes in upped vs unupped cost. Is there a major balancing reason for this or is it just a case of people going with what is there for the sake of conformity?
Other than breaking the trend, what would be radical about having a change in casting cost for weapons?
-Reusing existing coding makes implementing a card easier. However, there is a more important concern here:
**vampirism, fiery, etc. overwriting active skills puts a balancing mechanism in place.
Having a card with both vampirism and fiery, for instance, can be a truly lethal combination.
Although neither is "clickable" and thus both could be made passive, keeping them strictly active is a means to prevent a possibly OP combo.
I'm all for suggesting cool new potential combos, but I also would say that when you do so, its important to be aware of how it will affect game balance...
Making certain "non-clicked" active skills into passive skills, therefore, warrants balance discussion (or at least careful consideration) in order to prevent introducing a possible game breaking combo.
...All that said, I do very much like this card idea.
