Best Weapon Idea Contest Entry - Boomerang

[acelink]

Boomerang is meant to be a "lightning ball" version of a weapon.  It is inexpensive and hits REALLY hard.  But at a cost... the weapon only lasts for one turn and occupies a weapon slot.  Meaning that it is a burden-- it prevents you from running other weapons and cannot be spammed.

Boomerang's creature rival, Spark/Lightning Ball, has multiple applications: staying alive (Momentum, Blessing or Chaos power) or serving another purpose (being Cremated, powering up a Bonewall or being a fast Aflatoxin).  Boomerang is a one trick pony.  It deals 10 damage then returns back to the deck. 

[Antagon]

a deck like

12 x time factory
6x precognition
2x procrastination
4x hourglasses
6 x links boomerang

would be great at unuped pvp. real fun!

[acelink]

a deck like

12 x time factory
6x precognition
2x procrastination
4x hourglasses
6 x links boomerang

would be great at unuped pvp. real fun!

Yeah. Boomerang would make pvp a bit more fun. haha... I already had a deck idea in mind too.

6x Link's Boomerang
6x Precognition
6x Lightning Balls
5x Nova
4x Sundails
3x Animate Weapon
with Time Mark

The goal would be to save up Lightning Balls when using Sundials for drawing/stalling and keep using Link's Boomerang.  Novas are in there to help pay for Boomerang & Sundails.

[TheMadEvil]

The biggest problem with this card is the amount of wording needed. As it is, there is quite a bit of wording. If you want to add in the 'Any targeted spell kills this card' wording, it would make it almost impossible to read. So far, 4 lines is the most on a card, yours uses 4 as is. Like adrenaline, this card would seem to require extra rules not posted on the card itself.

[Scaredgirl]

The biggest problem with this card is the amount of wording needed. As it is, there is quite a bit of wording. If you want to add in the 'Any targeted spell kills this card' wording, it would make it almost impossible to read. So far, 4 lines is the most on a card, yours uses 4 as is. Like adrenaline, this card would seem to require extra rules not posted on the card itself.

I don't see how this requires that much wording. All the card needs to say is:

"Weapon: deal 7 damage at the end of turn and return the card to a random place in your deck."

Something like that would explain everything and would be a bit better than the original description because it's more in line with what the current cards have.

[TheMadEvil]

I don't see how this requires that much wording. All the card needs to say is:

"Weapon: deal 7 damage at the end of turn and return the card to a random place in your deck."

Something like that would explain everything and would be a bit better than the original description because it's more in line with what the current cards have.

I was referring to the "Any targeted spell other than steal will kill this card" ability. What you just said is, say, 2 lines of text, plus this 2-3 lines, makes it really wordy at the least, very confusing and requiring a good long look at the wiki at the worst. I have some friends who refuse to play Lunchmoney not because it's a bad game (it is actually a really good game), but because the cards do not have any rules listed on them - you just have to know which card does what (they have only damage values listed, no rulings). I would think that with the way Elements is, this would be a thing to be avoided. I am not the designer, though, so these are just recommendations and critiques.

[Scaredgirl]

I don't see how this requires that much wording. All the card needs to say is:

"Weapon: deal 7 damage at the end of turn and return the card to a random place in your deck."

Something like that would explain everything and would be a bit better than the original description because it's more in line with what the current cards have.

I was referring to the "Any targeted spell other than steal will kill this card" ability. What you just said is, say, 2 lines of text, plus this 2-3 lines, makes it really wordy at the least, very confusing and requiring a good long look at the wiki at the worst. I have some friends who refuse to play Lunchmoney not because it's a bad game (it is actually a really good game), but because the cards do not have any rules listed on them - you just have to know which card does what (they have only damage values listed, no rulings). I would think that with the way Elements is, this would be a thing to be avoided. I am not the designer, though, so these are just recommendations and critiques.

Oh, ok. After actually reading the first post I understand what you were saying.

What is the reason for this "Any targeted spell other than steal will kill this card"? Seems totally pointless to me. And yeah, if the weapon has this really weird weakness, it should be mentioned on the card.

[jmizzle7]

No offense to the OP, but I would just keep it in its original state for simplicity's sake. All of these weird, quirky rules that have been added to the card only make it more complicated and less desirable in a card idea contest. If you really want to win, keep it simple and don't flip-flop every time you hear a complaint about it. It's your card.

SG, the reason there is practically a short story that describes this card is because people complained about the original version of the card, which reshuffled into your deck immediately after dealing damage. This made it the perfect card to prevent decking out because it is 100% failproof. After that, it went through a kind of tug war between Acelink and others to try to balance it, leaving us with a bunch of errata text looking for a home.

[casthegamer]

The next time the card is drawn, it is a CREATURE not a weapon.

on top of the 'any targeted spell other than steal kills this card' clause you would have to mention the fact that it returns as a creature after it's been flown as this is not how all the other weapons work. like jmizz said, stick to simplicity. your original idea was interesting while still being straight forward and easy to understand.

[TheMadEvil]

lol...i didn't realize that administrators use the tl;dr excuse

[Bloodshadow]

lol...i didn't realize that administrators use the tl;dr excuse

I've seen SG use the tl;dr excuse a couple of times, including one in one of my own threads

[TheMadEvil]

lol...i didn't realize that administrators use the tl;dr excuse

I've seen SG use the tl;dr excuse a couple of times, including one in one of my own threads

bah, tl;dr. Your post sucks anyways