Charon's Bribe | Charon's Bribe

[darkrobe]

NAME: Charon's Bribe ELEMENT: Death COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Opponent must repay creature cost upon its death.  A relic is placed in their hand if Charon's Bribe is not paid.	NAME: Charon's Bribe ELEMENT: Death COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Opponent must repay creature cost upon its death.  A relic is placed in their hand if Charon's Bribe is not paid.

ART: Darkrobe. although better art suggestions would be appreciated IDEA: Darkrobe (with input from Djhopper and FlareGlutox) NOTES: Charon is the ferryman of hades. you were supposed to pay him when you died. the idea of this card is a form of denial where opponents must repay the cost of their creatures if they die. If they cannot afford to repay the card cost, a relic (the remnants of that creatures soul) is placed in their hand using up card slots with a worthless card. SERIES:

[FlareGlutox]

Are you prefer on charon to be involved or do you prefer to have this "discarded creature comes into play instead"-mechanic?

If it is the first case, I would probably suggest a different ability for the card.

[Djhopper :)]

I would have thought he would make a good card to force the next person who's creature died to pay the amount of quanta the creature costed. (If it costed more than they had then they would just lose all the quanta in that pool)

What do you think?

[FlareGlutox]

I would have thought he would make a good card to force the next person who's creature died to pay the amount of quanta the creature costed. (If it costed more than they had then they would just lose all the quanta in that pool)

What do you think?

Or you have to pay the creature's cost when it dies and if you can't, a relic is added to your hand. This relic would symbolise the soul that can't go into the hades as a useless card in your hand.

[Djhopper :)]

I would have thought he would make a good card to force the next person who's creature died to pay the amount of quanta the creature costed. (If it costed more than they had then they would just lose all the quanta in that pool)

What do you think?

Or you have to pay the creature's cost when it dies and if you can't, a relic is added to your hand. This relic would symbolise the soul that can't go into the hades as a useless card in your hand.

Kewl idea!

[Naesala]

Agreed, it's a great idea. It could even be worked into darknesses quanta denial if the card was dark element (although death is slightly more fitting.) think about it, nightmare their hand full of something, and it eats up their quanta discarding cards.

[darkrobe]

Are you prefer on charon to be involved or do you prefer to have this "discarded creature comes into play instead"-mechanic?

If it is the first case, I would probably suggest a different ability for the card.

well, my original goal was the second idea. but looking at your posts i like exploring the first part better.

I would have thought he would make a good card to force the next person who's creature died to pay the amount of quanta the creature costed. (If it costed more than they had then they would just lose all the quanta in that pool)

What do you think?

Or you have to pay the creature's cost when it dies and if you can't, a relic is added to your hand. This relic would symbolise the soul that can't go into the hades as a useless card in your hand.

Do you think this is better as a spell or permanent?

Charons bribe  :  opponent must pay cost of creatures when they die, if they do not have enough quanta, a lost soul card is placed in their hand (cannot be played).

[xsindomanx]

I would say a permanent with pretty high  or  cost.

However, I remember somewhere that Zanzarino doesn't really like the idea of 'bringing creatures back to life' or having to code the 'discard pile' so that creatures can return.
Even so, this card might be okay, as it seems to be a card between parallel universe and mitosis.

So when a creature is killed, its original form (any additional skills are deleted, such as BE or overdrive) is returned onto the field for the cost of the original creature?
What happens to mutant creatures?

[FlareGlutox]

I would say a permanent with pretty high  or  cost.

However, I remember somewhere that Zanzarino doesn't really like the idea of 'bringing creatures back to life' or having to code the 'discard pile' so that creatures can return.
Even so, this card might be okay, as it seems to be a card between parallel universe and mitosis.

So when a creature is killed, its original form (any additional skills are deleted, such as BE or overdrive) is returned onto the field for the cost of the original creature?
What happens to mutant creatures?

I think the intention was to have your opponent pay the cost for his/her creatures twice: once they play them and again when they die, without gaining any benefits from this (creatures won't be revived). However, if the opponent cannot pay the creature's cost upon death, a lost soul is added to his/her hand, which will be useless in way similar to a relic.

[darkrobe]

I would say a permanent with pretty high  or  cost.

However, I remember somewhere that Zanzarino doesn't really like the idea of 'bringing creatures back to life' or having to code the 'discard pile' so that creatures can return.
Even so, this card might be okay, as it seems to be a card between parallel universe and mitosis.

So when a creature is killed, its original form (any additional skills are deleted, such as BE or overdrive) is returned onto the field for the cost of the original creature?
What happens to mutant creatures?

I think the intention was to have your opponent pay the cost for his/her creatures twice: once they play them and again when they die, without gaining any benefits from this (creatures won't be revived). However, if the opponent cannot pay the creature's cost upon death, a lost soul is added to his/her hand, which will be useless in way similar to a relic.

Yah, I think im going to concentrate this specific card name on the  forcing opponent to pay for creatures twice if their creature is killed. what about for no cost creatures? should they get out of this free? (and looking at relic, i think that actually fits fine)

what about cost of creature + 1, or cost of creature to a minimum of one?

Also, What about making this effect both players, but having death creatures be immune to the effect? (after all they are already death element creatures)

[darkrobe]

what do relics do if you put them in your deck? i usually just sell them.

[xsindomanx]

I think just the creature cost is fine.
A card does not have to be applicable to all situations, so that players could choose decks that avoid this situation (such as fractal sparks)

I remember from t50 that players would have relics in their decks, but I don't think they do anything. They are just useless cards that force the opponent to discard if this happens more than once.