Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Very fitting,considering Emerl's history. Thanks for the answers, Vorbis.
That being said, yes, the scaling damage was an intentional interaction; in his game of origin, Emerl began to self destruct from having too powerful of an attack copied. So the scaling cost of having a bunch of cards copied is meant to play into that.
2) Also in Emerl's game of origin, a lot of Emerl's inherent moves were made to be bad. Like, you can copy other people's things, so your own are much worse to encourage patching them with other moves. That's why Strange Teachers waits an entire round to do anything; it's made to be intentionally slower than most 'destroy a thing' powers.
Questions
1) I was going over Uncontainable Destruction and I'm now curious about the end of turn effect.
As written, "Emerl deals himself X+1 fixed Lightning damage. If no Damage is taken this way, destroy this card."
Fixed Damage means it cant' be redirected or reduced so the only way to trigger the "no damage taken" clause is with Damage prevention, given Damage Immunity cards can no longer be copied.
Self-Damage Prevention is pretty rare. So, unless you have ongoing destruction or consistent damage prevention available from one of your teammates, you are going be hit for damage every turn, with said damage increasing in scale the more you play into the deck's record mechanic.
Was this interaction intentional?