User talk:Gill smoke

Infinite Dvorak

Please remember the following rule for adding cards:

• Cards shouldn't refer to other cards. Remember that the deck is infinite! Cards should avoid making any specific references to other cards or mechanics, because they might never see those specific cards during play, particularly if you think of the deck as infinite. You should word your mechanics as generically as possible - a fishing rod card that said "gain control of a fish" would be useless in a game where no fish cards came up, whereas one that said "gain control of a living Thing" would probably see some use in any game that it got drawn in.

(A good test is to open a random archive page of the Infinite Dvorak Deck, and see how many of its cards your new card could apply to. If there are only one or two cards that you could play it on, then you should probably word it more generically.)

It's important that you follow it. Your Sacrificial Table and Zombie General cards are in violation of this rule. Pongo 10:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sacrificial Table is fine as a generic token generator, but yes, Zombie General is going to be unusable in pretty much every single game it gets drawn in. --Kevan 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For it's Action ability yes almost always useless. It would still count as a thing in play. What do you expect from a Zombie General, greatness? No they are usually useless. Now Vampire Generals are usually useful except in sunlight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gill smoke (talk • contribs).

You seem to be ingnoring the fact that the deck is absolutely enormous. If you play with the entire deck, the chances of Zombie General and Sacrificial Altar (the card which Zombie General relies on to use its action ability) coming up in the same game are extremely small. If one appears but not the other, that card will be useless. The action abilities of cards should have reasonable conditions for their use. Zombie General's action ability relies on Sacrificial Altar being in play for a reasonable amount of time. As I have said, it is extremely unlikely that Zombie General and Sacrificial Altar will both appear in the same game, therefore making Zombie General's action ability almost useless. --Pongo 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Exactly. "It's a Zombie." That's the point. I can keep making Zombie cards. might be better than the permission cards and physical performance cards. --gill_smoke

So are you saying the action ability is intentionally useless? I'm afraid I can't understand you terribly well. Are you a native speaker of English? --Pongo 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I created the intentionally useless action ability. Yes, I am a native speaker of English, College educated as well. Once again Zombies are in a general sense useless, that is the point. The card played with the other 1300 or so would be of use very infrequently, but would count as a Thing in play. --gill_smoke

Thanks. --Pongo 09:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Dumb American

This card needs to be more specific. So far in the deck we have cards with:

• non-standard English titles or text ("!Yad Sdrawkcab S'ti", "Moar!", "Txtng"),
• non-English titles and English text ("Klaatu barada nikto!", "Préemption de l'État"),
• dual-language text ("Русская передача", "Language In-Crowd: Spanish Edition!"), and
• no English at all ("あなたの輝かしい遺産を覚えていてください。", "Ilgeayidzed Jistogu").

Which does this card apply to? Binarius 16:49, 1 August 2008 (BST)

All of the above. --Gill smoke 17:29, 26 August 2008 (BST)

symbol

Is this far more powerful than intended, or did you really mean for it to read "Lock your opponent out of the game completely while you draw as many cards as you want" in a 2-player game?-Bucky

This is far more powerful than I intended, I'll make draw an action. --Gill smoke 17:31, 26 August 2008 (BST)

That doesn't help; You still get to draw your normal one card per turn. The problem is the "Lock your opponent out of the game completely" part.-Bucky 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

Is Cricket a living thing? If so, then as currently written it wouldn't be able to use its own Action ability. Binarius 19:20, 16 September 2008 (BST)

I was thinking the British sport or the Krikket wars. I'll add sport subtype

Broken Card

Does this card really let you create a card with whatever ruletext you want and play it immediately without giving any of your opponents any say in the matter? Like "Binarius wins", for example? Binarius 20:17, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Yep, it's a poke at Bucky who hates such win conditions. See also "I Win" "You Lose" cards I made a while back. That's the reason for the flavor text. You could just as easily make the card say "This card does nothing." Infinite Dvorak is not a competitive game it's playable and fun but you have to be careful of the cards you allow in your set. --Gill smoke 21:59, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Quarks

I think Bucky's Nodes intentionally still worked even if there were no other Nodes in play (the "number of Nodes you control" would always be at least one), but you're moving outside of that with cards like Meson Stream. Or was that supposed to be of type "Quark"? --Kevan 18:17, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I agree. Meson Stream could be quite powerful, but mainly under a very improbable best-case scenario. Another idea: I'd want to incorporate the other cards in this series into the quark mechanic as well (muons, tauons, etc. are made of quarks, but they are not themselves quarks). Like the Nodes, but with a distinct personality. "Thing - Particle", perhaps? Binarius 00:53, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I was deliberately went against it being a Quark, Like the Zombie General discussion above. In a random set Meson Stream could be useless. but it would still be a thing in play.--Gill smoke 14:03, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Proton

In order to keep search time reasonable, I normally restrict search cards in this deck to the top N cards of the deck, where N can be as high as 20 or even 100. Don't worry, Proton's power level is still over 9000 even with such a restriction.-Bucky 16:26, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I'll fix it. I've got a couple of nodes to add then I'll sit out for a while. I was banging out the cards because I had an inspired thought. --Gill smoke 14:03, 9 October 2008 (BST)

What is this "power level" of which you speak, Bucky? Some kind of metric for gauging cards' relative strengths? Binarius 19:03, 8 October 2008 (BST)

It's a reference to an episode of Dragonball Z. Just search Youtube for "over 9000" and you'll see.--ChippyYYZ 21:06, 8 October 2008 (BST)

In other words, it's over-the-top super-powerful. By definition, it's at least the second-best Thing in the entire deck.-Bucky 23:33, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Awesome. Educational and entertaining. Thanks for that, guys. Binarius 08:32, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Credit Market

"...Otherwise every turn everybody must destroy a money token, and destroy a money token for every card with action abilities." What if a player has no Money tokens? Goldenboots 20:45, 17 October 2008 (BST)

They are broke. I didn't envision this penalizing actions for having no money, I'll add "if able"--Gill smoke 12:26, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Just desserts

"Destroy all of the triggering opponents instead." Opponents are usually eliminated, not destroyed. Or did you mean: "Destroy all of the triggering opponents' Things instead." ? - Zt, 16:54, 21. October 2008

Fixed, It made sense to me. --Gill smoke 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The original version just needed an apostrophe; I suspect the intended meaning was "Destroy all of the triggering opponent's instead". Also, the card's title might be misspelled. If we're talking about something fun to eat after dinner, we need two "s"s in a row; with only one, it's the hot and dry place. Binarius 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I always screw that up. --Gill smoke 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So simple a caveman could do it

"There's a distinction between destroy and remove from game -Zt" Thanks for quoting me, but... did I really say that? Frankly, I can't remember... Zt, 16:57, 21 October 2008

No, but you had several flavortexts that sounded like that. --Gill smoke 12:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Zombie Knight

Cards_1701-1800. The way it is phrased, you may continue removing armour tokens after they have all gone, which makes no sense. You need to add something about the card becoming vulnerable after all its armour tokens have been removed. --Pongo 11:55, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Fixed, that was a little necromantic of you. Did you check the whole archive?--Gill smoke 12:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I just noticed it as I was skimming through. --Pongo 15:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing cards

They were in the spirit of NaNoWriMo. I hit 5K today. --Gill smoke 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better when you say it

"play in reaction to an action card. you preempt control." Preempt control? Control of what? What does this card do? - Zt, 10:24, 13. November 2008 (CET)

I'll reword it. I meant you act as though YOU played the target card. --Gill smoke 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Borg Collective

"When a card is assimilated Borg Collective may add the action or thing ability to thier rules text. All of your things must be assimilated before you can assimilate others Action: Assimilate thing. (Destroy)"

Picky, picky... (1) THEIR (2) You'll never get to assimilate anyone else's Thing, because until Borg Collective is assimilated (destroyed!) you still have a Thing left to assimilate (destroy). Goldenboots 04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

how about: "All of your things must be assimilated to the Borg Collective before you can assimilate other player's things." I realized the ownership clause was a little vague as well. --Gill smoke 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gibbering Mouther

Punctuation is critical to parsing this card and interpreting its meaning:

• Comes into play with one size token whenever this card destroys a thing. Add a size token to this card. Whenever this card would be destroyed, destroy a size token on this card first if there are no more size tokens. Destroy this card. Action: Destroy random thing.
• Comes into play with one size token. Whenever this card destroys a thing, add a size token to this card. Whenever this card would be destroyed, destroy a size token on this card. First, if there are no more size tokens, Destroy this card. Action: Destroy random thing.
• Comes into play with one size token, whenever. This card destroys a thing. Add a size token to this card. Whenever this card would be destroyed, destroy a size token on this card first. If there are no more size tokens, Destroy this card. Action: Destroy random thing.

And is "Destroy" capitalized because it's the beginning of the sentence "Destroy this card"? Binarius 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes total editing snafu. Intention is destroy the size counters before the Gibbering Mouther. I was hoping to avoid repeating the error that was on Zombie Knight.

Public Library

"Whenever you draw a card draw two, you hand size is unlimited." So when I draw those two, I'm drawing a card - so make that two twos... help! I'm crushed under an arbitrarily large pile of cards! Goldenboots 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Like being crushed by the books in the library, it's your own fault really. I'll fix it. --Gill smoke 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deck Still Not Finite

You seem to be on a bit of a food-card binge at the moment, which is fine, but remember that effects like "If this is ever sacrificed for food" and "Destroy a food item" are going to be useless for most infinite games. "If this is ever destroyed by a card you control" and "destroy an edible or living Thing" might be better ways to go. --Kevan 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And if the effect never triggers then it is a useless thing on the board, like say a hat card or a zombie token, or detrimental like flat tax (sacrifice money or die) or any other card with a sacrifice condition. I was going to add a bunch of food token generators but decided individual cards would be in better form. I'm almost done with my food related cards a pity they don't all fit on a set. --Gill smoke 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It helps the player to know how useful or useless a card is when they draw it; if it's blank, they can immediately see that and judge it accordingly. It's less fun to draw a "when sacrificed for food" card and to have no idea whether the deck as a whole contains hundreds of powerful "sacrifice a card for food" mechanics coming up, or whether it was just a one-off idea that nobody remembered to use again. (There might well be a deck idea in that, where cards can freely reference non-existence concepts to fox the players, but I don't think this is it.) --Kevan 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait I thought that was exactly what this was. There was food cards before, there was sacrifice food cards, I thought of 10 or so cards and made food to go with them. A themed set, like Bucky's Nodes and Bottles. Just how big is your infinite deck? Do you play in real life with a deck of 3000? online with a random sample of 100 from the 3000? or a set of 100 from the archive? My experience of playing other Dvorak games tells me that the game is dynamic enough to handle do nothings that act like pawns. Occasionally the effect will trigger, usually it won't. I like having food that does something when it is eaten. It is a little mare interesting than a bunch of food token generators. --Gill smoke 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein in my backlog I have a stack of blank things and a card that does something with cards without ability functions. --Gill smoke 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hermes

"Possesor determines the outcome of all random events. Action (global):Flip a coin if heads create a money token."

Obviously, this means: Action (global) Ask the possessor nicely if I can have a money token. Goldenboots 15:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the ability on a whim, but that is the net effect. --Gill smoke 14:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Soren Kirkegaard

"All of this is too absurd. When this comes into play from your hand Destroy all things in play. All players' things must have a unique action ability with new things destroying the old thing with the same ability. Things without action abilities are considered to have the rules text "Action: this does nothing." "

Doesn't this destroy itself on impact, since when it's in play we destroy all Things in play? If you changed it to read "Destroy all Things in play except this" the next Thing with no Action ability would destroy Soren anyway. For this to have an impact, it should have an unusual action ability (Action create a Sacrificial Ram token?) Goldenboots 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, I had a longer comment that got lost.--Gill smoke 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording fixes

"every player who questions what you said destroys a thing." - It works, but probably not in a way you intended. Perhaps you meant "destroys one of their Things"? -Bucky 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Doh! --Gill smoke 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Inventive Genius reads "Action: Destroy 4 things without action abilities to...". I think you meant "Destroy 4 of your things..." or similar?-Bucky 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fixed. --Gill smoke 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Misshapen Wiggle Machine - is this supposed to read "At the beginning of your turn, you may destroy X tokens you control, this card, and X other things." or "At the beginning of your turn you may destroy X tokens. You control this card and X other things."? And why do you keep leaving out critical punctuation?-Bucky 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

One of those make syntactical sense and the other is just overreaching. The listing commas don't seem required to me, when I say it out loud it is clear what is meant. Besides what else are those Grammar cards going to operate on?--Gill smoke 14:17, 2 April 2009 (BST)

So for you - "Draw 2 cards give one to another player" Give it from where? Your hand? The draw pile? In play? Any of the above?-Bucky 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets say it again slowly "Draw 2 give 1 away" it seems clear to me where the card is supposed to come from I'll add "of the drawn cards" to make it crystal clear. --Gill smoke 14:17, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Misquotes

"Ray guns are not magic -Bucky" - I don't know where you're getting that quote from, but I'm pretty sure I never said that around here. -Bucky 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it sounds better when you say it. If you find it offensive I'll attribute it to somebody else. But the rest of us Yahoos might be inclined to think ray guns are magic (they don't exist therefore magical). You are the voice of reason and restraint. --Gill smoke 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I object more to the fact that you make up a quote and attribute it to somebody than the content of the quote or the fact that you attribute it to me specifically. What I would do in this situation is just to leave it unattributed, as in Bottled Fairy (page 26)-Bucky 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. You know people have used Gill Smoke and Bub and Corrigan for quotes. It's all in good fun you know. --Gill smoke 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I always assumed they were picking existing quotes and putting them into weird new contexts. --Kevan 17:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dollhouse

"Action and Thing: Take control of target living thing whose rules text is now blank. Thing: add an ability from any card in the archive to a blank living thing you control. The ability lasts until the end of your next turn."

I have at least two cards in the Archive with Action: Win the Game. On THOSE cards the action doesn't work, but Dollhouse is an instant win, if you can play it and have it survive until your next turn. Goldenboots 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also some cards whose Action abilities don't make sense. Isochron Sceptre's "Action:This ability has an identical effect to the Action card attached to Isochron Sceptre", Switch's "Action:Flip that thing over" and Dagger of Time's "Destroy all Things that weren't noted down, and return to play any Things that were noted down and are now in the discard pile. Destroy Dagger of Time." all come to mind. -Bucky 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes insta wins could be a problem, but the mechanic has merit. As Goldenboots pointed out insta wins combos require some work. A nonsensical action ability would require a vote and would probably mean "Action: This action does nothing". --Gill smoke 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Driving Rain

"Until your next turn no action abilities my be used" is an Action creating a (somewhat) enduring effect. I know the following is uglier, but how about:

making Driving Rain a Thing (with destroy-this-at-the-start-of-your-(next)-turn). But that uses the player's Thing slot instead of Action slot.

having Driving Rain, as an action, create a short-lived (indestructible?) Thing with ruletext forbidding Actions and a self-destruct clause?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldenboots (talk • contribs) 14:25, 2 April 2009.

It's a subjective call, but I think sufficiently short-lived effects are okay; I don't think anyone would have a problem with an action that had an effect "until the end of your current turn". Pushing it forward to the start of your next turn isn't too much of a leap. --Kevan 15:52, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I've done a lot of delayed effect cards with the exact mechanic you describe. I was looking to touch the "NO LASTING EFFECTS" rule. In the early pages there were a lot of action cards that did something later or had a permanent effect, they were all asked to be changed. I won't be doing a lot of these "Until your next turn" cards. To touch on Kevan's point It shouldn't be a difficulty in a two player game, but in a larger game, say 6 or 8 players, having the game state on the table is pretty crucial. --Gill smoke 18:24, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Joseph Cotten

Haven't we already had a talk about what "Action:opponent skips a turn" does to two-player games? In that context, it really reads "Lock your opponent out of the game entirely while you draw as many cards and play as many Things as you wish." Is this what you had in mind for this card?-Bucky 19:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Not entirely my intent, I'll make it more expensive. --Gill smoke 15:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Okay, now it's just "Lock your opponent out of the game entirely while you draw as many cards as you wish."-Bucky 16:20, 7 April 2009 (BST)

And now it's horribly vague. How often do you need to let your opponent take a turn. Every 3 turns? 10? 1,000? I think you'd be better off restoring it to just Action: and making it cost a couple of tokens.-Bucky 21:41, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Action and Thing: Entertain another player so well they forget to take their turn. You may not use this ability every turn.

Is not a total lockout and requires a pretty high cost and if I was playing against it, it would be first on my removal list. I changed it as you suggested but almost made it "This space reserved for better rules text." --Gill smoke 14:59, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Kindle

(page 23) "When Kindle comes into play put all cards with more than 4 lines of rules text under Kindle." That is every card in play, the draw/discard pile, players' hands and the deck archive? Needs nerf badly.-Bucky 01:43, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I meant "All cards in Play" will fix --Gill smoke 18:24, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Poker Shootout And Upskirting

I'm calling Rule 2 on this. There are only a very few cards capable of moving cards Up Your Sleeve, and Poker Shootout is unplayable if no such card has come up. Upskirting has the same problem. All other Up Your Sleeve cards provide some way of getting cards Up Your Sleeve by themselves.-Bucky 20:45, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You mean rule 3? Anyway, given the power of Poker Shootout, I'd say the condition of things (not actions, just things, right?) already being up their sleeve is acceptable. Upskirting, however, needs some revision. "Take control of" means what? Put Up Your own Sleeve, or put into play? Some cards up their sleeve may be actions.--ChippyYYZ 21:19, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I was preoccupied when the UP YOU SLEEVE cards were being tossed around cavalierly. These would make more sense in that context. I will revise to balance play, seeing how my cards missed the next cut. --Gill smoke 12:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Sham Stakes

Before you even mention it Bucky, I wanted to make a horse race card and this was as brief as I could make it and still be clear. If you have editing suggestions I'd be glad to make them. --Gill smoke 12:57, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Gill's Boon

"Take as many turns as you like now but only exclusively play actions or things during the turns you take" looks like a very slow, boring version of "win the game".-Bucky 18:08, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Why yes Bucky you are right, it is the lockout condition you are always mentioning. I figured I might as well make an intentional card since I accidentally make them all the time. I was trying to hit the highlights of the kinds of cards I make. I wouldn't play with it, it's just too broken of a card. --Gill smoke 16:59, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Euler

Another long card, my aim was to add a meta game involving graphs. Originally clear, edited for brevity. --Gill smoke 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bucky's Other Boon

"Remove from the game all cards in the discard pile by one author." I strongly suggest that you change this to "one non-Bucky author" or "one author besides Bucky" to match a few other cards such as Censorship (page 1)-Bucky 05:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that enhances the flavor, consider it done. --Gill smoke 00:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Minion store

Perhaps you meant to restrict this card to destroying your *own* tokens?-Bucky 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be remiss as a store if I didn't require proof of payment. --Gill smoke 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hulk

This one falls into the 'obnoxiously powerful' category. "Action: Destroy a Thing" is very powerful by itself, to the point where it was taboo early in the Infinite deck's lifetime, but Zombie Hulk is also very difficult to get rid of. Whoever plays it takes immediate and permanent board control unless the opponent happens to have one of the <1% of cards which can get rid of a Thing without destroying it. -Bucky 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what does it mean?

What exactly does it mean when a card says Thing:? Does this ability happen when the Thing enters play? Can you use it instead of playing a Thing card on your turn? I assume that the latter is correct, but it's not quite clear.--Corrigan 21:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, "Thing:" means you spend your Thing play, like "Action:" means you spend your Action play. --AvzinElkein 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Signing your posts

Welcome to the wiki. If you click the squiggly signature button above the edit box when you've finished making a talk page comment, it'll add "--~~~~" to the post, which will be replaced with your name and the current timestamp when you submit the comment. --Kevan 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wondered how that was done. --Gill smoke 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)