Talk:Infinite Dvorak deck

This deck is perpetually under construction. If you want to join in, just add some cards to the card list.

Neat idea

This is a neat idea! As I remember cards from my gaming group's old 1000 Blank White Cards game, I'll add the ones that make sense (and probably some that don't) here. Edit: And in case you're wondering, the original cards designed for use with Full Deck were: Diamonds Are Forever, Gone Clubbing, "Cover Your Heart, Indy!", and Have Your Pet Spade or Neutered. Jtwe 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well where are those other cards?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gill smoke (talk • contribs) 31st December 2007.

Tokens = Things

Wouldn't it be easier to define Tokens as created-on-the-spot Things? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaratustra (talk • contribs).

That plays heck with game balance. For example, "Hoard"...-Bucky 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling this deck is never going to be particularly "balanced".

Tokens being Things sounds like a good idea from the infinite deck perspective - if a game features one token generator card, but no cards that do anything with tokens, then there's less card interaction than there could be. Treating all "destroy a token to achieve X" cards as "destroy a token or Thing" won't hurt anyway - if the effect is tailored for an abundance of tokens, then using a non-token Thing is just an expensive alternative, which is better than the card being unusable. --Kevan 10:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]

My problem with that is if a card says "destroy a thing or things to achive X", tokens shouldn't count, as the point was the sacrifice of things. Should we just change all cards like this, or change the rule? --fanofphilosophy

I just realized that if a token is destroyed it would be placed in the discard pile. I assume that this isn't what was meant to happen. I'll change the rule to reflect this. --Ryan 1729 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cards by Bucky

[Hex:] It certainly has odd synergies with Magnitude Error. :D Zaratustra 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw. Zaratustra 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that it applied to itself. Its actual base could not be determined, since it claimed it was some base other than "10".-Bucky 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Land of the Immortals

Is there any way at all to destroy Land of the Immortals? It is a Thing, and thus can't be destroyed while it is in play. It would seem that only with the use of an erasing card it could be destroyed, and those are very rare.Corrigan 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is intentional. However, it can also be removed from the game or returned to someone's hand and discarded.-Bucky 20:13, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I'm glad to see your new Cards, are the corner values meant for collectors? -Gill smoke 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in collecting when you can just print out any card you want. I put in the cornervalues because some of the earlier cards deal with cornervalues in letter-number format, which there haven't been many of lately.-Bucky 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you going to make some new corner value manipulators?-Gill smoke 19:49, 14 April 2008 (BST)

What's with the "chained" cards, the ones that make a copy of an another card? Are you trying to nomicly get around the infinite nature of the deck? If this card exists then these supporting ones do too. It's a clever tactic. -Gill smoke 19:49, 14 April 2008 (BST)

I started by making tokens with text. Then I realized I'd run out of card space for anything complex, so I settled on using Things that make specific non-token Things. Also note that any card in the main five-card cycle will eventually let you fetch the other four.-Bucky 20:14, 14 April 2008 (BST)

French Riot

How is Frenchness or Frenchiness determined? At least the card is self referential. -Gill smoke 19:06, 7 April 2008 (BST)

To quote the rules, "If there's an ambiguity, vote on it." -Bucky 00:52, 8 April 2008 (BST)

Ultimate weapon

I'm not sure but I think your action ability is swapped with your in play effect. Tit for tat for free (who gets to use it?), Action ability to end the game? Shouldn't the in play effect be if you have no things you loose, and the 10 for 8 destroy effect be the action ability?

Cards by Fanofphilosophy

fanofphilosophy keeps adding cards at places other than the end of the deck. Although this is not forbidden, the order of the cards is quite useful for tracing the development of certain ideas. -Bucky 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Create a card with any number of spellin or grammer mistakes and play it under another players control." - I don't know if it was intentional (and I'm not sure how you're expecting players to be able to fix the typos), but this is an easy instant-win card. --Kevan 22:14, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Sorry. I'm working on making it fair. Ideally, this card would be printed, and thus the edits would be made with pencil and/or pen. And, yes, all the errors were intentional, except for one. --fanofphilosophy

All right, Rouf Draft is fixed. . .I think. --fanofphilosophy

Oh, okay, so "all the mistakes are fixed" means "all the mistakes are spotted by other players". That works.

Cards can be created mid-game while playing online, by the way (at least through DvorakMUSH); you don't need an exception for that. --Kevan 01:17, 28 March 2007 (BST)

With "Desperado", the player who plays it would win even if there are fewer than 50 Things to destroy, making it a straight "I Win" card.-Bucky 01:52, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Clarified. --fanofphilosophy

Gray cards

Fanofphilosophy has been making a lot of gray cards lately. However, some of them are Actions and some of them are Things, so it's getting hard to scan his cards by eye.-Bucky 23:36, 28 March 2007 (BST)

That's only because I have no idea how the bgcolor system works, or what's "normal" for a thing or action. So I made it easy and made it all grey.--fanofphilosphy

For quick reference bgcolor=600 is Action-Red and bgcolor=006 is Thing-Blue. Unless you're doing something special (like Locations and Enemies from the Mario Bros. deck), that should be enough. If you want to know how those number work, let me know and I can point you to lots of web resources. MagiMaster 02:10, 30 March 2007 (BST)

I like 709 for things and 907 for actions.Fanofphilosophy 00:46, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Good thing nobody here has daltonism. Zaratustra 01:47, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Here's a quick reference then (if this is a good place for it):

006

Color

600

Color

907

Color

709

Color

Electrician

"the text Action: now reads Once per turn, you may" isn't always going to make grammatical sense, such as with "Action: Target player may show you any number of Action cards from their hand." in Crystal Ball. It'd be easier just to say something like "you may invoke that Action for free, once per turn". (And I don't think I'd want to have to deal with the effects of a Cyborg-Electrician...) --Kevan 11:04, 2 April 2007 (BST)

It's fixed, as well as the card Person, which has a similar effect. --fanofphilosphy

Cards by Kazz

Card "Striptease" is unsuitable for online play. -Bucky 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it is. Should I be keeping that in mind? I'll delete it. For the record, it was an Action: "If you remove all of your clothing immediately, you win." Kazz 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that seems okay; the player would just have to somehow prove that they'd done this. --Kevan 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, many of the cards by Kazz, when played, instantly unbalance the game in favor of whoever played them. While other cards, such as Magnitude Error, are quite powerful, few give their owner/user the sheer power of Horde, Throne, Pet, or Customs Board.

What, if anything, should be done about this? Horde is the worst offender, because not only are 9 Tokens cheap, but its protection effect also makes it powerful even without the victory condition. Throne is overpowered because there is only one card (Antimatter) that can destroy it without permission. Customs Board basically lets you see everyone's hand. Pet is overpowered for obvious reasons.

Again, should we adjust these cards? Should we introduce counter-cards knowing that they will probably not be used in the same deck? Or should we just let it go?-Bucky 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, apologies. I was the one that informed Kazz (among others) of the existence of this page, knowing of his tendency to do this kind of thing. Zaratustra 06:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The cards themselves are cool, they just need to be weakened. For example "Throne" would be fine if limited to negating one action per round, Horde would be fine without a victory condition (since it has a side effect of not allowing you to spend tokens) etc.-Bucky 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that this project is public, these cards are probably quite mild. We're bound to get straight "I win" cards coming in eventually.

Maybe we should view the card set as infinite and inevitably containing broken cards, and let players decide what subset to actually play with; the export functionality could be tweaked to allow "all cards except by this user" or "only include cards by these users". --Kevan 10:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Win cards are broken. Filter choices should include filter out unMUSHable, maybe a random subset of XX cards.-gill_smoke

They're not broken, they're just boring. It's probably not worth adding a "mushable" field to all cards for the sake of a filter - a house rule that you can discard and redraw any cards that don't make any sense in your playing medium seems easy and obvious enough. --Kevan 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cards by Kevan

Instant Speed

Does Instant Speed imply that that you could play an Action, then play another in response, then another in response to that, etc.? What about if you played a card that allowed you to draw? Would you be able to play the newly drawn cards in response to drawing them? (I'm only asking out of curiosity.) MagiMaster 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it does. Which isn't too powerful, but is a bit of a boring way for it to be used. I'll reword it. --Kevan 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Brand Loyalty

It seems that Brand Loyalty forces people to only use cards by Kevan. Perhaps it should say "except this card", or something? --fanofphilosophy

Good point. --Kevan 00:07, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Terrible Secret of Space

That last part doesn't need to be there. Robots aren't living things. CashCrazed 08:27, 30 March 2007 (BST)

It's a matter of opinion, it doesn't hurt to clarify. --Kevan 10:28, 30 March 2007 (BST)

The Element of Surprise

What if the card drawn can't be played in the current situation? --Kyevan 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearing the Air has the same problem, really. --Kyevan 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point; fixed. --Kevan 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sodium Pentothal

This is possibly the most broken card in the game. It might as well read "Action:Flip a coin. If heads, target player loses the game." Except that it's more versatile than that. You can force a win in two turns. The relevant questions are: "Do I have (card X) in my hand?" (or any other question you know the answer to but they don't) and "Will you answer 'Yes' to the next question I ask you using Sodium Pentothal?" --Bucky 10:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: You can force another player to lose immediately with the question "Will I play another card this turn?" -Bucky 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good call. I've clarified what I was actually intending it to be used for. --Kevan 12:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Runaway Steamroller

Should be an action probably, not a thing. - Zt - 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it as a thing. It creates "food" for other cards, and threatens other power cards.--Gill smoke 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but probably as a thing it should not read: "Destroy a Thing and replace it with a Pancake token." but rather sth. like: "Each turn, destroy a thing..." or "When this comes into play..." That's all I wanted to say. - Zt - 20:00, 24. March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was a cut-and-paste error, it was meant to be an Action. --Kevan 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cards by KillSmiley

The cards "Free-For-All" and "The Dreaded Legal Department" are colored and written as Actions, but are of type Thing. This should be corrected. -Bucky 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, he corrected it.-Bucky 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cards by Ryan_1729

Zork Dork

For Zork Dork, the card type "Quiz" is meaningless. If it's an action, a type of "Action - Quiz" would at least tell players what to do with it. --Kevan 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

alright. --Ryan 1729 11:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Win conditions

I'm guessing you've not played any Nomic - all your "create a new card but it can't have a win condition" clauses are completely toothless; it's trivial to create a card saying "other players may never take any more turns" or "draw 1000 cards and play any number of them" or, indeed, "create another new card, and this one can say anything you like". --Kevan 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, small suggestion; each and every one of your cards has text coming out of the bottom. It's a card game, not a library. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaratustra (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 March 2007.

Your new "this card may not allow you to win this or the next turn" wording would still be broken by a card that said "Take two more turns after this one. You win at the start of the second turn." - any card that lets you create a new card with any wording is going to have loopholes. --Kevan 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Short of removing the cards, this seems like the best solution. It gives the other players time to draw a card like "Gotcha" or otherwise stop the player from winning. --Ryan 1729 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Any player may discard a card to remove the new card from the game"?-Bucky

Perfect. --Ryan 1729 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lock and Key

Don't forget the "cards shouldn't refer to other cards" rule - it's very unlikely that your "Lock" and "Key" cards will both be drawn in the course of the same game. (Even if you meant "a 'Key' card" to mean "any card that could be considered a key", we've yet to see any sort of key card appear in 250-odd cards, so it isn't going to be a card type that occurs very often.)

Also, you seem a bit confused about the distinction between "destroy" and "discard"; reading the glossary might help. --Kevan 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamming the deck with duplicate "Key" cards isn't a particularly interesting solution to this. --Kevan 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Office

"If five or more cards that count as office supplies are played on this card..." - I'm guessing we're going to get five "This card counts as an office supply." cards from you, now. Please try to think a little harder about the infinite nature of the deck, and the "cards shouldn't refer to other cards" guideline. I've just reworded it to add a useful rule of thumb - if you made a deck from a random subpage of 100 cards, and added your card to it, and your card would be completely useless, then you should think about rewording it. --Kevan 11:22, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Office is just as useless in a game with less than five office supply cards as Alphabet coup, Playing With a Full Deck, The Obliteration of All Other Life Forms, Anagrammaton, Top Trumps and Eight Men Down and a few others without the necessary cards. There are also many cards that only interact with living things and as of right now only one card exists that counts as a living thing! Although there are a few that can create them. Also it is currently possible to randomly choose a deck with no way to win or lose and with no way to end the game short of abandoning it. --Ryan 1729 23:38, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Alphabet Coup and Full Deck both have the same specificity problem, but the others all rely on card aspects that are at least fairly common. I think you've overlooked "If there's an ambiguity, vote on it." in the Special Rules for this game (which does in fact cite "living things" as an example). It's much easier to have a vague voting rule for this sort of thing, than to have to guess what sorts of qualities future cards are going to be looking for. So you could word your Office card as "If five or more Things that you would find in a normal office..." and it could include earlier and later cards (like Receipt Drawer) which weren't aware of there being an "office supply" card trait.

You're absolutely right about randomly choosing a deck with no victory condition; Zara and I tried a MUSH game with cards 201-300, and both ended up resigning when we realised how rare and difficult the victory conditions were. When I get around to writing a customised export script, I'll add something to make sure that any random selection of cards includes a good number of victory conditions. --Kevan 00:12, 28 March 2007 (BST)

I thought the idea, as far as 'counting as whatever', was that you didn't have to specify most of the time and people just voted on it if they were unsure. I wouldn't think you'd have to specify 'office supplies' on stuff like paper and staples. You might have to specify on stuff that you think should be office supplies, but not everyone might, like coffee. MagiMaster 00:11, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Obscurity pays off

This card is an "I Win" card online because everyone has access to dice of any number of sides.-Bucky 02:45, 28 March 2007 (BST)

The electronic dice rolling machine on the MUSH, you mean? It's a bit of an "I win" card regardless - the race condition of "first player to" is meaningless, as the player who's drawn the card can just look for their dice and make sure they have them ready immediately before playing the card. --Kevan 10:01, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Okay, would you rather I tapered the reward down to some amount of money or gold tokens? --Ryan 1729 00:14, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Elephant Stampede

In case anyone cares, I just looked at the Sci-Fi Fantasy deck for the first time today. The Elephant Stampede from this deck was independently thought up. --Ryan 1729 03:07, 4 April 2007 (BST)

Name Game

I don't get Name Game. How is that supposed to work? It's really confusing. --fanofphilosophy

Take the number of letters in your first name. Say... five. As long as Name Game is in play you aren't allowed to directly say that number. For example, you and some friends are playing with real cards, and there's a pile of coins to be used as tokens; you ask someone closer to the coins to pass you five of the same type. If you actually said "five" then you would have to discard a card. You wouldn't have had to discard a card if you had said "one less than six," or "two more than three" or something like that. If you have no cards then say the number you are then eliminated.

I hope this helps, it's hard to explain fully on a card. If you have any suggestions for better wording please mention it here. --Ryan 1729 02:33, 4 April 2007 (BST)

Blue Wizard

The Blue Wizard (NEEDS FOOD BADLY) is a good idea, I just don't like the time limit. I have seen very few, if any, food/food-related cards besides the one I just made. What if there are no food/food-related cards in the deck for a particular game?Fanofphilosophy 02:13, 7 April 2007 (BST)

Laundromat

This card forces each player to give you a Quarter token every turn, regardless of whether or not they use the Action, and even if they don't have any. This does not seem to be the intent of the card.-Bucky 21:23, 21 April 2007 (BST)

Cards by The T

Shovel says to draw the bottom of the deck. However, in an infinite deck such a card may not exist. Similarly, a few other cards say to search the entire deck, which we can't do since we have not defined all the cards in the deck.-Bucky 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the deck's theoretically infinite, any actual game of it will involve a finite subset. (I'll probably end up putting an "output just 100 random cards" option on the card export, so that this can be played on the Dvorak Engine without crashing it.) --Kevan 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cards by Zaratustra

"Spend 1 Energy to produce 1 Blood." - maybe I should reword "cards shouldn't refer to other cards" to stress the infinite thing more; even if there are other cards that refer to Energy and Blood in the deck, if they don't come up in the same game then this card is meaningless, and fairly useless. (Well, usable as a generic, effectively-blank Thing, but having a blank card in the set seems a bit of a waste, when it could have had a similar but game-affecting mechanic.) --Kevan 23:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Produce 1 Blood" is fine because other cards can read "Destroy/Spend 1 liquid Thing". likewise, "Spend 1 Energy" is fine because you can use many kinds of Energy, presumably including Heat, "Lightning Bolt" cards etc.-Bucky 23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that feels like it's straying into Blank White Card territory, where anything can mean anything if you argue it entertainingly enough; although that's fun, I think it's useful to keep the distinction that Dvorak has strict and consistent rules.

Maybe it'd be good to have a general rule about resolving arbitrary decisions - whenever anything is open to interpretation (like Katamari's "smallest Thing"), it goes to a straight vote, and if there's no majority verdict then it's resolved in some generic, automatic way. But Artificial Heart's "spend 1 Energy" puts far too much onus on the players to decide what "spend 1 Energy" counts as; whether a Lightning Bolt should generate more than 1 Energy, whether Springfield Nuclear Power Station should be able to "spend 1 Energy" every single turn without destroying itself, whether a player's sweeping Plasma Storm can power someone else's Heart, etc.

"Discard or destroy an electricity-related card you control, to put a Blood counter into play." would work better, I think, with players only having to vote on whether a particular card is "electricity-related" or not. --Kevan 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There, better? Zaratustra 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Argue this out with me if you think I've got the wrong idea about how this deck should work, though. --Kevan 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Only Winning Move" is badly worded; For example, it allows you to win if at any point earlier in the game three other players had each skipped a turn for unrelated reasons. A better wording would be "You win the game when 3 of your turns have been skipped in this manner."-Bucky 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About "The B": Are we meant to assume that if you use its Action twice, you may draw 1 card? Or are are we supposed to, say, cut the top card in the draw pile in half and put that in our hand?-Corrigan 12:21, 28 September, 2007 (UTC)

Yes. -- Zaratustra 01:50, 29 September 2007 (BST)

Does this mean that players are supposed to vote as to its meaning? -- Corrigan 10:18, 31 September 2007 (BST)

Cantor Set: This card's wording assumes a two-player game. It should be reworded to allow for a different number of players.-Bucky 06:24, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Cards by cashcrazed

Jihad

Would a player force his or her opponents to tell their religions? It would be unfair to let some tell and some not, and yet mean to force people to tell.--fanofphilosophy

I didn't figure a person's religion was any sort of personal secret. If they have a problem with revealing their religion, then I guess they just lose the Thing. CashCrazed 03:05, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Well, I agree that it probably wouldn't be a secret, but it's not something I would want brought up during a game either. MagiMaster 03:15, 30 March 2007 (BST)

The player who played it could reveal what their religion is, so the other players would just have to say whether their religion is the same or not. --Ryan 1729 04:23, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Cards by jtwe

The ironic theme is an interesting idea, but it seems that all the cards are dentrimental to the player who played them. This makes no sense from a competitve standpoint. Is this part of the joke?Fanofphilosophy 23:44, 3 May 2007 (BST)

Well, it's not really so much a "theme" as it is a handful of card titles / flavor texts from the same song. But... Ten Thousand Spoons cancels an opponent's Reaction, Rain on Your Wedding Day shuts down opponent's Actions for a turn, A Free Ride lets you play Russian Roulette or I'm Ending This risk-free, and Good Advice will give you an extra card every other turn or so. Which one is detrimental? Jtwe 01:11, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Whimsey, Turnabout Dvorak and Untap Phase

"Turnabout Dvorak" - 'tap' and 'untap' aren't defined anywhere (except possibly "Whimsey") and given that this deck is infinite, you shouldn't count on these three cards all coming up at once. -Bucky 05:44, 19 April 2008 (BST) I've played MTG so I know what tap and untap are, the average player might not. I think this is treading into Special rules category. As a matter of course while playing action abilities I tapped the card.

Tap and untap, are, in fact, not defined anywhere. This is a legitimate concern, but I was kind of assuming that enough people had played Magic the Gathering that someone at the table would know what it meant. (I should point out that at one point I wrote a card whose rules text stated "take first and advance each runner one base" and no one complained about that, so I figured I could get away with tap and untap. :) ) As for not having all three come up at once, I'm not worried about that; Untap Phase gives you an extra turn, Turnabout Dvorak is a draw two, and Whimsey, at worst, is a one-shot draw 1 or discard 1 if you control any other Thing, so they're each useful on their own, but they get better in tandem. Jtwe 02:13, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Archival

We've got 99 cards so far - maybe we should archive off every hundred into its own linked page, to stop the main page from getting too heavy. I suppose wait until we have 120 or so, so that the page doesn't look too blank when we archive it. --Kevan 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost 150 now. Zaratustra 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 220 at the time of this editing --Ryan 1729 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we might have to archive this talk page sometime soon. --Ryan 1729 03:10, 4 April 2007 (BST)

Perhaps we could split it into a section on the deck itself, and a section on specific cards. Personally, I dislike archived talk pages.Fanofphilosophy 23:44, 3 May 2007 (BST)

I've noticed that the Infinite Dvorak deck now has, in its unarchived page, over 200 cards in it. This should have been split a while ago. I would do it, but I don't know how. --Corrigan 04:20, September 8 2007 (UTC)

Infinity

Is the deck supposed to be one of each of an infinite number of cards, an infinite number of each of a finite number of cards, or an infinite number of infinitely many cards? This would effect the probability of things like getting two Annoyance cards on top of the library, etc. MagiMaster 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's an infinite number of different cards, one each. We think of the number as infinite because there's no limit to the number of cards we can create and we'll only be playing some of all the different cards at a time anyway due to physical or engine constraints. BiggerJ 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. --Kevan 12:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Backdoor Special Rules?

Maybe this is just me seeing things from a Nomic perspective, but cards like Rules Misunderstanding and There are 10 kinds of people in the world are Actions which create ongoing effects - effectively it's adding a special rule to the game. Is this good or bad?

It seems a bit untidy from the player memory perspective (most Dvorak decks and similar card games require that players only have to read the cards on the table to find out what's going on), and also a bit overpowered - if a Thing adds an ability or restriction to the game, there are all sorts of ways to destroy or remove or reword that Thing. But if an Action says "Until a winner ith declared all playerth mutht thpeak like thith.", there's nothing that any player can do to reverse that, unless there's a rare "terminate all background effects" card (which might never get drawn). We could spiral out into card mechanics that add and remove background effects, as we did with tokens, but should we nip it in the bud instead? --Kevan 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is currently no penalty for breaking or forgetting these rules players could slowly faze them out with no ill effects. Also if such a card is destroyed is it still binding? --Ryan 1729 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If these cards were Things, then their effects would immediately stop being binding upon destruction; Things only have an effect while they remain in play. The rules have no specific opinion about an Action that says "for the rest of the game, X", but given that the Action card doesn't say "until this card is somehow removed from the game, X", I think most players would interpret the effect as continuing. --Kevan 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules Misunderstanding has been changed. Zaratustra 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the "thpeech" card example a player could just say "I am the winner" and (depending on interpitaion) negate the effect.(Note: I did not see this possible loophole when creating this card.) We could reclassify these cards as things that are immediately moved to the discard pile after being played to achieve the same effect. (Interestingly no one has complained about my equally if not more indestructable "Catch 22" card.) --Ryan 1729 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Things that move immediately to the discard pile and leave a ghostly permanent effect would give exactly the same problem; you have ghostly permanent effects floating around that players have to remember the exact wording of, and which they can't do anything to destroy. It would be better to have these rules written on Things which stay in play.

(And for what it's worth, I'd say that the common-sense game rule interpretation of "all players must thpeak like thith" is "anyone who doesn't is therefore no longer a player".)--Kevan 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Catch 22" Is in fact destructable with any of {Wrath of Bucky, Brazen Buckyism, Wikipedia Says It's True} and probably others I'm not remembering.-Bucky 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet coup

As of addition of card "Fun Time!" it is now possible(though very unlikely) to win using card "Alphabet coup." --Ryan 1729 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was possible anyway with "Pocket Universe".-Bucky 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Is this card too obnoxious? It would grind the game to a halt if everyone simply spent their turn drawing Spam from the top of the pile, then using their Action to put it back there for the next person. CashCrazed 09:06, 28 March 2007 (BST)

Not necessarily. Remember, there are several cards that cause the drawing of multiple cards, and others that send cards from the draw pile to the discard pile. And anyway, I don't think that players would want to continue to play Spam over and over; that would get boring pretty quickly. Corrigan 18:18, 19 September 2007 (BST)

Export problems

The 'Print this deck' and 'Generate MUSHcode' pages for this deck seem to skip certain cards for some reason. Is this fixable? BiggerJ 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as it seems to skip my cards, perhaps The underscore in Ryan_1729 is the problem? I'll temporairily change one of the two Switcheroos to see if that fixes it. --Ryan 1729 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That didn't work. To be specific it seems to skip newer cards and all of my cards. What (if anything) is done to upgrade the 'Print this deck' and 'Generate MUSHcode' pages when new cards are created? --Ryan 1729 09:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was because you were the only person to capitalise "card" at the start of each template. I've updated the export functionality to cope with this (it's an external script that I wrote myself, so there's no public access to it). --Kevan 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be because I copied and pasted from the template each time. The price you pay for laziness I suppose. --Ryan 1729 12:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tried the print this deck page and noticed that "Fly on the wall" and "Action prism" had no text and type unknown. I removed some unnecessary spaces and they seem to work. --Ryan 1729 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Trip reports

Has anyone actually tried playing this yet? I would very much like to see descriptions of playthoughs of this game (and, if possible, transcripts of games of it played in the Dvorak MUSH engine). --BiggerJ 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I'd rather wait until I changed the deck export so that it could filter out cards by specific users, but maybe I'll find time to do that today. --Kevan 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Time found. You can now specify a comma-separated list of users whose cards you want to skip; they'll be crossed out, and listed as "skipcard", which the Dvorak Engine should just ignore as an illegal command.

We should be able to skip individual cards, too, without excluding other cards by the same author. See "loophole" for an example.-Bucky 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you're cutting and pasting the cards anyway, you can put them through a text editor first, and just delete any cards you don't want to use.--Kevan 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So would anybody be up for testing this in either the Dvorak MUSH Engine or Apprentice, over the next few days? --Kevan 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it. Since you usually show up on my early afternoon, Friday and weekends are good days for me. Zaratustra 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy tonight and out tomorrow, but could maybe manage Sunday. I've added an upcoming games page to attempt to coordinate this sort of thing, if anyone wants to call a specific time and date. --Kevan 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to leave out cards by specific people? --BiggerJ 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are some broken or annoying-to-process cards in the set (I remember there being a few), then they're likely to have been written by the same person. --Kevan 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Have just tried feeding the entire deck into the Dvorak Engine on the newly-created Dvorak MUSH, and it choked around the 250 mark. Not sure if it's hitting a configurable limit, or something intrinsic to the TinyMUSH software, but I suppose it doesn't really hurt to play with a subset of 200 or so cards. I'll throw together something to randomly select which 200 to use. --Kevan 17:48, 25 March 2007 (BST)

I just played two games with Zaratustra over MUSH with the first 100 cards. The first game ended on the first turn because of a slow reaction to "Leverage Scam"; the second game ended when I Hoarded 9 Tokens. Branch Statement proved to be impractical because we couldn't implement cutting the deck properly. I can imagine it would be difficult to keep track of tokens, because the Notes would get crowded fast.-Bucky 22:02, 25 March 2007 (BST)

I played a couple of games with Zaratustra as well, using the second hundred - he put a Triplicate onto Lightning Reflexes in the first one, but slipped up by playing Draw Two in response to Tarot Reading (which had given him a Thing) and lost the game. The second game ended with him getting Power Level Scouter and a Crowded Room. Can't remember any broken cards, but BZAAAAARG could use clearer wording as to how exactly a player's turn should be randomised. --Kevan 00:05, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Fixed BZAAAAARG, thanks for the critique. Just one clarification I couldn't fit in the card text that could be easily deduced anyway: if the player whose turn is randomized has only Actions or only Things in his/her hand, randomization of what kind or kinds of cards get played during that turn won't be necessary. --BiggerJ 09:41, 26 March 2007 (BST)

I'd go for tighter wording, even if it means sacrificing some of the card's possibilities (maybe "Choose a player. On their next turn, they must play one random Thing followed by one random Action, if possible. All decisions required by them shall be made randomly.", or something - "randomized by a random number generator" is a bit of a meaningless tautology anyway).

When you're actually playing with these cards, the ones with more than a few lines of text become quite heavy and wearying, a lot more so than reading them in isolation on the site. --Kevan 11:28, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Okay, I've used your suggested wording. Thanks for the help. --BiggerJ 12:42, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Deck status

The note in that box-thing at the top says that this deck is unfinished, and thus unplayable. But people have played it. Perhaps we should change the wording? --fanofphilosophy

Good point. Changed. --Kevan 12:40, 2 April 2007 (BST)

Cards by Jindra34

I would like to know at the very least what people think of my "tack on" cards.--Jindra34

It's good, it's a nice, fresh mechanic. There's some potential for it to interact weirdly with certain actions (such as Russian Roulette) where the extra sentence would get tacked onto a conditional, but I suppose that's part of the fun. --Kevan 13:58, 19 April 2007 (BST)

Wow i'm being mimicked i'm so flattered...--Jindra34

Ink Pen may be -slightly- overpowered, as you can just add 'Win.' to any Action card in your hand.

Does win make any sense as a sentence on its own, and would you be able to convince a majority of the players of that? I think not.

Cards by Corrigan

Last night, you seem to have violated several of the rules of the deck, namely
1)Don't add more than three cards at a time: You seem to have added 15 at once.
2)Don't change other people's cards:You edited Jindra34's "Swap meet" and Ryan_1729's "Role play," "Roll play" and "minimal".
3)Cards shouldn't refer to other cards:Your card "Reggae" uses a category far to precise; there is only one Musician in the entire deck so far. "Red Scare" does the same thing with "Right wing politician".
4)(Unwritten)Add all new cards to the end of the card list: 6 of these 15 cards were inserted into the middle of the pile.

Please follow the rules. -Bucky

Welcome to Dvorak, Corrigan - I've moved your excess cards out to a sub-page of your user page, if you want to add them back in again later. The multiple cards and the title corrections aren't too serious, but they're not a great precedent to set, either.

(And the thing about adding to the end is written, by the way, Bucky; it's part of the first rule.) --Kevan 12:41, 29 May 2007 (BST)

Kevan you also moved one of my cards that he hijacked to the list --Jindra34

Oops - sorry about that. --Kevan 10:47, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Bratva: This card is for all practical purposes the same as "Throne" on page 1. -Bucky 02:16, 4 June 2007 (BST)

We're getting a few repeats now. I think it's fine - we shouldn't expect people to have to read hundreds of previous cards before adding their own, and seeing the same mechanics crop up with different names and styles is fun. The deck is infinite, after all... --Kevan 13:39, 29 June 2007 (BST)

Showdown: In a normal game without a specific card there will only be one draw pile for everyone to use. Thus this card needs to be reworked.Jindra34 1:51 5 June 2007.

Clavin Ball: Is this card even remotely legal?-- Jindra34

The game of Dvorak has Special Rules, so it's fine to create new ones during the course of the game. It's no different to a card with text of "reword this to anything and it can't ever be destroyed". --Kevan 10:47, 8 June 2007 (BST)

What about the rule that there would be no special rules? --Jindra34

Oh, good point. Maybe this would be better written as just another "create a new card" card, for consistency's sake. --Kevan 00:20, 10 June 2007 (BST)

"Nomic" gets around this by allowing that rule to be changed. And cards take presidence over special rules anyway.-Bucky

"Don't make any special rules" is a card-design guideline, in the same sense as "don't add more than three cards at a time", rather than a special rule itself.

Normal Dvorak allows the creation and deletion of special rules - it just seemed a bad idea for this game, when every card was from a separate parallel universe, and any special rule created by a card would never be explicitly referenced by any other cards. --Kevan 10:01, 10 June 2007 (BST)

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle all break the "no special rules" guideline by introducing ongoing effects that players are required to remember. I think there's only one card that can actually end these effects (your own Bono card), so in a randomly infinite game, these are all going to be permanent, invisible effects. They might as well just be Thing cards. --Kevan 13:39, 29 June 2007 (BST)

Depressi's 'Blackboard cleaning' card also removes lingering Action effects. If it is against the rules to have long-lasting Actions, why is that aspect of 'Blackboard cleaning' still there? I know this is a little late. --Corrigan 16:52 8 September 2007 (BST)

He probably didn't notice the rule. There are plenty of old cards that do broken or pointless things. --Kevan 12:01, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Double-Sided Forcefield:This card needs rewording because it causes a paradox as soon as it is played (since its effect forbids itself).-Bucky 05:46, 8 August 2007 (BST)

Mercantilism: "A player can gain control of a Thing with a cornervalue by giving its controller an amount of Money tokens equal to its cornervalue" means that nothing can ever be actually stolen, as the seller can immediately buy it back for the same amount. --Kevan 10:45, 18 August 2007 (BST)

The Past-Seer and The Future-Seer: I know we're supposed to assume that there's an infinite amount of cards, but if you got these two cards you could given enough time search the deck for any card you wanted and it'd be pretty time consuming and kill the pace of the game. You'd also be able to make sure your opponents never got any useful cards. --Wikey 06:24, 22 August 2007 (BST)

I think any reasonable opponent would admire the combo and let it be played as "pick any card from the deck, shuffle it then put that card on top", to save time. --Kevan 10:12, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Zero, Zero and Zero. Don't forget the "cards shouldn't refer to other cards" rule. In an infinite deck, you're unlikely to draw two zeroes... --Kevan 10:05, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Having a single Zero is useful on its own, so I'd say it's forgivable. They also combo with anything that clones cards. Jtwe 16:42, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Energy Concept is a nice idea, but I imagine that "they must destroy 1 Energy token" is missing a "...they control." --Kevan 11:58, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Do you realize how powerful an "Action: Destroy target Thing" card is? It's been taboo up until recently, when you added several such cards. -Bucky 23:04, 19 September 2007 (BST)

You could also create cards with defensive effects. That would make those Things less powerful. -Corrigan 18:53, October 4, 2007 (BST)

This is an infinite deck, though, and most cards won't have those effects. --Kevan 13:40, 5 October 2007 (BST)

Closest to Mao as We Can Get... "Whenever a player's hand is empty, they win." is pretty powerful in itself, given that you just have to play this card when the rest of your hand is empty. --Kevan 09:29, 12 October 2007 (BST)

"Save", "Damn" - These cards need reworking if I'm reading them correctly, as they violate the "no special rules" rule due to their lasting effects.-Bucky 05:00, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Having text on tokens is a bit of a weird fix to this, since tokens don't normally have text, and it would still need to be tracked somewhere to work. If we want a token with text, I think we usually just say "make a new Thing card with the following text". But Damn and Save could just be Things that get played under an opponent's control, I think. --Kevan 00:18, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Communist Fashion

Cards 701-800. Violates "No Lasting Effects" (No Special Rules). --Pongo 09:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Corpse Jelly

Another one! It's a card whose effect appears to outlast its lifetime. "If the Thing ever refers to itself by name, replace its name with 'Corpse Jelly'." --Pongo 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorrow

Which way are you supposed to round? --Tweed Cap 15:09, 12 April 2008 (BST)

Suggestion: If you have an odd number when you have to divide, create another token to make an even number. --Tweed Cap 15:15, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Cards by GreenLiquid

I have a strong objection to the way you worded the last sentence card. First, there are several cards which could usually reverse such an effect (such as Wand of Cancellation in the 201-300 block), but cannot due to that clause. Second, with the way it's worded, playing it a second time will not reverse the effect; it will merely allow a Wand of Cancellation to do its work. A better wording would be "This effect ends when Greatest Ploy Ever is played a second time." --Bucky 06:08, 2 October 2007 (BST)

It's also in direct violation of the "No Special Rules" rule. -Bucky 05:03, 3 October 2007 (BST)

The Best Card Ever

Is this card too... awkward to keep? --Kyevan 03:15, 20 October 2007 (BST)

It's completely meaningless if you're playing online. It's also completely meaningless within the game. It also violates the "no lasting effects of actions" rule.-Bucky 09:31, 20 October 2007 (BST)

But it's fun! If you read El Goonish Shive, anyway. Hmm... I'll pull it from the deck and keep it on my user page. Sound good? --Kyevan 14:19, 20 October 2007 (BST) (Edited: Oops! Forgot to sign)

Cards by Eric F

Saruman's Icy Storm

I recently edited it for spelling and grammar... I hope that's allowed. "No one can destroy opponants[sic] things"...I'm not sure what that means. Surely it means, "during his extra turn, the player of this card cannot destroy opponents' things". Or does it mean "for the rest of this game, the no-one can destroy their opponents' things". The latter violates the "no lasting effects" rule. Maybe Eric forgot to change his Action to a Thing. --Pongo 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving spelling intact is sometimes useful for letting other users quickly judge the quality of a card (or a user's entire card output - there's an export filter that lets you ignore all cards by a given user); there's also the risk that you might "correct" someone's intentional misspelling. I don't really mind either way, though. --Kevan 10:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shower of Arrows

Who is "they"? Does the player choose who to target? Is the target picked at random? Is everyone except the player of the card targeted? It should be specified. --Pongo 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cards by Gill smoke

Is there any reason I couldn't use THING: instead of ACTION: I was thinking of a sacrifice card like "THING: remove a living token add a bad token. If you have 10 bad tokens remove those and eliminate another player." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gill smoke (talk • contribs) 31st December 2007.

It might be a bit weird in that the rest of the deck is very slightly geared to reacting to "Action abilities", but no, you can do whatever you like here. --Kevan 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of cards that use this. "Matter Synthesizer" on the first archived page was the first such card. It usually appears in combination with a complementary Action ability, as in "Flash Memory Card" on the second archived page. -Bucky 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Mountain intended to allow a player to gain an unlimited number of tokens each turn, or is this accidental? -Bucky 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

accidental, but I like it. Countably infinite. I was shooting for a certain famous theme. I've fixed it. -gill_smoke

I copied the unplayable mechanic from 'Red Hering' for 'Take your doll clothes and go home', but I couldn't call it a derp card, I think we still need 3 more for that non action non thing win condition. -gill_smoke

As per Kevan I added Sellout from Corrigan, It's off his user page, I modified it a little and added flavor text. -Gill smoke 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is "Action(global):" supposed to mean anything different to just "Action:", on the Rip It Out card? --Kevan 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant all players have the option of playing that Action ability. I thought I saw that used before. -Gill smoke 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never seen it. The usual wording it just to say "Any player may play this action ability." at the end, because it's such a rare mechanic. --Kevan 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. -Gill smoke 13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've used it before. It was in my card "Pawn Shop" (on Infinite Dvorak deck/Cards 1301-1400) --Pongo 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See I knew I saw it before. -Gill smoke 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You Drank the bong water -- I think you meant "Target player discards a card and skips their next turn" rather than "Target player discards a card and loses the game the next time someone takes a turn." Either way, the card needs rewording. -Bucky 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

fixed Gill smoke 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got more of my own cards to add, but some of the other decks are too good to pass up. -Gill smoke 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zombies

Don't forget the infinite nature of the deck. Even with a few dozen zombie-token-generating cards in there, a mechanic like "each Zombie token in play may be exchanged for a money token" isn't going to be playable alongside the 1,500 other cards in any given game. --Kevan 09:59, 3 April 2008 (BST)

I'm well aware, I'm also pacing my Zombies to be at least usable in each set of one hundred. which is how people are playing in your MUSH. Like the superpower and token set I see a zombie set coming. --Gill smoke 18:19, 7 April 2008 (BST)

It'd be nicer not to have the deck specifically tailored to how people were playing it on a MUSH in early 2008. Most of the cards are fine, it's just the ones that require zombie cards or tokens to be around to have any effect; it should be easy enough to reword these to still be of some use in other games, even if it's just "if there are no zombie tokens, put three into play" special cases. --Kevan 22:21, 7 April 2008 (BST)

I'll remember that. Is the 144 (or whatever) card limit going to be removed or boosted? -Gill smoke 21:06, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Hell

"or destroy a thing to play an action ablity." is maybe (just maybe) meant to be: "or destroy a thing THEY CONTROL to play..." - Zt - 13:48, 3. April 2008 (UTC)

Good call Fixed -Gill smoke 18:04, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Mafia run casino

What exactly is this card supposed to do? It seems confusing as to what it actually does. --Gimlear 03:48, 7 April 2008 (BST)

It changes a game mechanic. you can no longer discard any cards. if your hand is full you can't draw. If you have a nomicly safe way to put it I'd be glad to put it in. --Gill smoke 18:07, 7 April 2008 (BST)

How about "This card may be played onto any player. As long as this card is in play, you may not discard any cards and if your hand contains five or more cards, you may not draw any cards." or something like that. --Gimlear 02:33, 8 April 2008 (BST)

That limits hand size, there are plenty of cards that change the total number of cards in your hand. I don't want to change that. and I have some more coming -Gill smoke 21:16, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Unicorn

"As long as you control Unicorn you may not control any undead, if you do destroy Unicorn." Maybe it's me, but I don't understand this sentence. Is it meant to be: "...you may not control any undead, unless you destroy Unicorn." ? I like the "play a living thing from your hand" ability, though. - Zt - 15:00, 8. April 2008 (UTC)

I keep looking at it and I think it's ok the way it is. My intention is, if you gain control of an undead 'thing' you have to destroy Unicorn. Weather it is from playing a card from your hand or gaining control from another source, Unicorn has got to go.

Cards by Pongo

Summon Pink Elephant Seems quite powerful, I loose my turn because I can't destroy a token, what happens when I do? is it destroyed? The way it's worded makes it seem like it remains in play even after I "kill" it. If I kill it with an action card do I then get to play a Thing? How would I remove it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by gill_smoke (talk • contribs).

Yeah, the wording is a bit woozy on this one - it'd be clearer if worded as "may not play cards which do not destroy the token", as "may only play cards" potentially means that you can't draw or use action abilities or breathe. And "for as long as they control it" is an invisible pseudo-rule. This could just be simplified to a Thing that comes into play under an opponent's control... --Kevan 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

the bigger problem, I have it, how do I remove it? It's a hallucination. It's unclear if "remove a token" action removes it; because I may only play cards that remove unliving tokens. Does the effect happen? I also think the colored part should be pink -Gill smoke 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a token, so it's a Thing, so any "destroy a Thing" card will deal with it. I'm not sure why you're talking about removing unliving tokens. --Kevan 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Boot Disk probably needs to exclude itself from the "no Things in play" clause of its own ability... --Kevan 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Pongo 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cards by ZT

All Hallows' Eve

It's completely impratical. Who the hell takes notes of what exactly what each player discards? The card is practically unplayable. --Pongo 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, changed it. Something else: is it OK for cards to let you search the deck for another card? (E.g.: killer bees) The deck is theoretically infinite, so this could be tedious. On the other hand, it's not really infinite. Suggestions? --Zt 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, allowing searching of the deck is fine, but it is recommended the cards you can search for are not too specific, as that violates the "cards shouldn't refer to other cards" rule. I don't think impractical cards are forbidden as such, but they make the game tricky. Killer Bees is fine as a card. Pongo 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You bought this vacuum cleaner and...

The sentence that says "At the beginning of your turn you are eliminated." should either say "At the beginning of your next turn you are eliminated." or "At the end of your turn you are eliminated." -Gimlear 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"At the beginning of your next turn you are eliminated." is sth. else, as it triggers only once. "At the end of your turn" is sth. else, because you have less time to destroy "You bought this vacuum cleaner and". Maybe I should change it to: "At the beginning of each of your turns..."? Or does this sound strange? - Zt - 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need to be eliminated more than once? -Gimlear 01:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have, say, a Get Out of Jail Free (page 2) in your hand the first time.-Bucky 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed it to: "Whenever your turn ends you are eliminated." Sounds odd maybe, but it should make clear that it triggers every turn. - Zt - 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You Will Never Dance Alone

Is this card's ability meant to recurse infinitely and give you an infinite number of tokens? If not, it should be reworded. -Bucky 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the intention is pretty clear. Do you mean it should be worded more like "Whenever another card generates a Single Token This card generates one too."-Gill smoke 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just stupid and I totally didn't see the infinite recursion. Reworded it. Hope it's clear now. (You could still have an infinite recursion with two of these things in play now.) - Zt - 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Porn Movie Factory

I think it is common practice to put the come into play effects before the Action abilities, the way the card looks is it gets destroyed only when you play the action ability. I don't think that's what you intend. --Gill smoke 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. - Zt - 12:12, 26. March 2008 (UTC)

Gravity cannon

This card is way overpowered, in a two player game I win. In multi player after it hits the table, every other player can eliminate 2 other players (or or their proxies like extra lives). One for a Thing then one for the Action. To tone it down I'd make it only an action ability. I'd also consider adding a cost to play or use like destroy an energy token. I think there are other win conditions in this hundred. Otherwise it's a fine card. -Gill smoke 16:11, 2 April 2008 (BST)

There is no rule disallowing overpowered cards. They're not encouraged, but they're not disallowed because the deck is "infinite" anyway. You've made straight "I win" cards before. Check cards 1401-1500. --Pongo 16:15, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Actually, unless I'm reading it wrong, this is underpowered. You play it, and then you've played your Thing for the turn, so you can't use its ability instead of playing an Action and a Thing. Then your opponent goes, walks over to the cannon, turns it around, and blasts you with it. To fire it safely, you'd need to be able to play two Things and an Action in one turn, or somehow play it at the end of an opponent's turn, or something. What I want to know is, does this count as an "Action ability" for the purpose of Rickrolling it? Jtwe 20:04, 2 April 2008 (BST)

I concur. I'd say it does, because it seems to require one to use both their action and their thing ability for that turn. The Rickroll card effectively cancels a player's action, so I'm assuming in this case, since the thing ability relies on the action ability and vice versa, that the player effectively loses their thing ability as well. --Pongo 09:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)

"Action and Thing" = "instead of playing an action and instead of playing a thing". At least that's how I understand it. So jtwe is right, it's underpowered, unless you play in teams or you find a way to play more than one object per turn. As the thing ability doesn't work without the action ability, I'd also assume that all "counter an action" effects should eliminate it. - Zt - 13:40, 3. April 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I understood it's ability to be playable as either, not both an Action and a Thing --Gill smoke 18:10, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Gunpowder Factory

"Whenever another thing than this is destroyed, destroy all things." ... thing other than this card ... might be better wording? -Gill smoke 19:00, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Fixed. - Zt - 12:18, 8. April 2008 (UTC)

Cards by Gimlear

The Pointless Game The Sentence: "This action is called "calling cards". No player may call a card unless it was the last card played." is mostly fluff to describe getting tokens in the next sentence. Please revise to get the card to fit the Card size, as it is you are almost into the next card down. I like the concept though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gill smoke (talk • contribs).

fixed --Gimlear 03:44, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Gimlear, your card was not removed it got thrown into the archive. Your new card is still a mile long. If you need to use that much text try the longtext tag instead of the text tag. --Gill smoke 18:10, 7 April 2008 (BST)

It's not in the archive because I moved it down before the archive page was made, there are quite a few cards with a lot of text, and I did use the longtext tag. --Gimlear 02:30, 8 April 2008 (BST)

I very much like this card concept. It is still too long to not look awkward, which is a shame since there's no need for it to go on so long. For example, the text fits just fine in this rewording, which has the same effect as far as I can tell. --Tweed Cap 18:53, 10 April 2008 (BST)

The Pointless Game

Thing

Whenever anyone plays a Thing with a color in its title, any other player may say "Beetle <color>" (if the color is not "red") or "Beaver Cleaver" (if the color is "red"); the first to do this gains 1 Pointless token and destroys the Thing. If any player ever has at least 10 Pointless tokens, the player with the most Pointless tokens wins the game.

Card by Gimlear, reworded by Tweed Cap

I think this may be construed to violate the "No Special Rules" guideline, but I can change it just a little to satisfy it. Thanks. --Gimlear 00:39, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Much better. Though I feel compelled to mention that the "As long as this is in play," is still unnecessary. Things that have a continuing effect on gameplay behave like Enchantments in Magic: the Gathering and similar cards in most games' they automatically stop doing whatever is they do when they leave play. If in some Dvorak game you wanted a Thing to continue doing something even after it leaves play, you'd have to explicitly say so. But you shouldn't do that on an Infinite Dvorak card; that's what "no special rules" means. It means that the cards in play and not your memory of cards played in the past tell you everything that's going on. --Tweed Cap 00:55, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Well put Tweed Cap, you comment covers the essence of the game. --Gill smoke 12:18, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Dawn of War

As written, a player gains a morale token whenever he destroys one of his own things. Maybe this was your intention; if not, it should be changed. --Tweed Cap 16:22, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Additionally, care must be taken not to have a recursion here. When a player's Thing gets destroyed, Dawn of War destroys a morale token. But a morale token is a Thing, so if Dawn of War is controlled by someone else, it seems that this player has had a Thing destroyed by another player (using what seems to be the most natural definition of having a thing destroyed by another player, namely destroyed by a card controlled by another player), so he then loses another morale token. And so on until he is eliminated. There are lots of ways to fix this; here are three fixes off the top of my head.

1. Define what it means for a Thing to be destroyed "by a player" more narrowly, so that, for example, it only includes the effects of playing Things, playing Actions, and using Action abilities.
2. Have Dawn of War only apply to non-token Things.
3. Kludge. Do neither of those, but just legislate that losing a morale token doesn't trigger Dawn of War.

This card is long enough already, though, and it's probably safe to leave it to the vote of whoever plays with the card. Still, I for one am interested to know what your intention is. --Tweed Cap 16:34, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it. And, yes, I did intend a player to gain a morale token whenever he destroys one of his own things. --Gimlear 17:40, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Again, in the spirit of not overflowing the box, this is easily fixed here by removing "As long as this card is in play,", which is unnecessary in context. --Tweed Cap 21:47, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Cards by Tweed Cap

If you have a question to ask or an issue to raise about any of my cards, it's worth looking at my user page. There's a good chance it's addressed there. --Tweed Cap 20:20, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Oubliette

It's not clear, what happens to the removed things when Oubliette is destroyed? Do the return to play? Are they destroyed? -Gill smoke 12:10, 11 April 2008 (BST)

They're gone. Removed from game is forever in my book. --Tweed Cap 15:03, 11 April 2008 (BST)

Just asking, why not use the destroy effect? To avoid protection effects? -Gill smoke 13:42, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Not really. Certainly, there are days when I want to take down those darned protected cards (cf. Exploit Strange Vulnerability), but here the point is that the removed cards are gone. They can't be brought back from the discard pile. --Tweed Cap 13:57, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Cards by Anfo

Where did you get the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy bullet points?-Gill smoke 16:02, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Anfo added them to his(?) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy deck, but I thought they were neat so I rewrote three of them a bit and added them to the Infinite Dvorak deck, so I'll try to answer your question. (I didn't credit myself as the one who added them to the deck since the "card by" line was overlong as it is. Maybe I should change it to "Card by Anfo, added by jtwe?) Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by bullet points. The reference I used was the Wikipedia article on cognitive distortion, if that helps. Jtwe 18:34, 8 May 2008 (BST)

The cards I've added from other decks I did just that. Card by XX added by gill. That article is just what I meant. Thanks. I'm going to have to check out Anfo's deck -Gill smoke 17:22, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Mental Filtering

That's twisted, I think that bonus should work the other way. Like: May be played on another whenever they would draw a card you do instead and give them a card from your hand. Maybe with a token to mark the one who draws. As it is I wouldn't play it out of my hand. I'd wait and discard it. -Gill smoke 16:02, 8 May 2008 (BST)

That is how it works. You play it on an opponent, then whenever they would draw, you draw and give them a card. Jtwe 18:34, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I see it's intention now, the way I read it was Play on another when you(one who played the card) would draw, owner(of card) does ... perhaps I read it too quickly -Gill smoke 17:22, 9 May 2008 (BST)