[playtest] Elvish archer

[snowdrop]

[pennomi]

I like this one a lot better than what I was envisioning. The keyword "ranged" is going to be popular, I suppose? Are we going to use the keyword "flying"? If we do, we are seriously at risk of sounding like we are copying MtG. (And I'm not sure if there's legal issues we may run into with that). There's three solutions: 1) use the MtG flying keyword anyway, 2) name it something else, 3) change the particular function of flying.

I've downloaded this image and put it into the new LackeyCCG patch.

[snowdrop]

No, most Gaian units won't have Ranged if this is what we'll mean with Ranged. So it's not an equivalent of the Ranged in BfW in any sense. It doesn't matter much to me if the ability is called ranged or something else. However, ranged did seem like a logical choice. I guess "Reach" could also be an option, even if it has less flavour than ranged.

I think we should have flying. If it should be called flying or something else I wouldn't know. I have had a very hard time coming up with something else. Doing so would compensate for the fact that we only have 2-3 creatures depicted as flying, but that's not an issue really: Flying creatures would be minority anyway and new could be created in later expansions.

I don't believe any court of law would deem us using the word "flying" a copyright issue. It's an English word. It can't be copyrighted to begin with. Even if we use it for the same concept (only creatures with x can block this creature) it isn't really a legal problem since it's not patented. And even if it was, it would only be in the US and not the rest of the world, where the servers etc would be located anyhow due to reasons like these + costs.

I don't think a game copies more or less depending on it's wording. It would shine through even if we called Flying for "Specialist" instead - it would still work identically. Besides, what has MtG NOT used somewhere? It's like they have already used up most of the common and logical choices of names and words... but here maybe we could start consulting Simons for input....

[Q_x]

2/1 ? Would it make more sense?

[snowdrop]

2/1 ? Would it make more sense?

It could. Probably at same price. An probably if we remove First Strike then. Think that could work.

[TorbenBeta]

2/1 seems better and more logical than first strike.

[pennomi]

2/1 seems better and more logical than first strike.

I agree.

And about Flying: Yeah, I think it's hard to not copy MtG in some way. They've made so many abilities and cards it's nearly impossible to be completely original. Besides, I can't think of an alternate way to do flying. (But I have to admit, that means that Vampire Bats are going to be buggers in the future )

[Q_x]

We may two cards if so:
2/1 ranged
and lets say its bigger brother
3/2 ranged, first strike cost: 4