Interesting. I like that kind of trade off. I wonder how it plays out most often in practice.
I wonder if it could be changed so they sacrifice that creature, so they have a choice but it bypasses other forms of protection. I don't know if that's better, not every kill spell should get rid of resilient creatures, but some should.
I also wonder, if they don't have two other creatures, should they be forced to sacrifice one? I think that's probably fair but it's probably not unusual. Come to think of it, that might make my first suggestion too much.
Finally, "I'm going to kill you, but toy with you first" feels pure black. It certainly could be R, R does sadism and choices, but does it need to be?
Interesting. I like that kind of trade off. I wonder how it plays out most often in practice.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it could be changed so they sacrifice that creature, so they have a choice but it bypasses other forms of protection. I don't know if that's better, not every kill spell should get rid of resilient creatures, but some should.
I also wonder, if they don't have two other creatures, should they be forced to sacrifice one? I think that's probably fair but it's probably not unusual. Come to think of it, that might make my first suggestion too much.
Finally, "I'm going to kill you, but toy with you first" feels pure black. It certainly could be R, R does sadism and choices, but does it need to be?
It would be rare in NWO, no?
ReplyDeleteI love the design, very clean.