Warlord - Cannot die during battle

[kallisti]

I believe this suggestion is probably best used on cards that have specific intentions like Adriel and Gideon. Thus I'd suggest we reword it to a less general conditional like "while this is part of an attacking party" or "~blocking party".

While you could definitely have variations, I don't see a problem with the more general version.

Also, do we want this to provide a delayed trigger for destroy effects or prevent them altogether (see Pettifogger)? I understand the intention that damage would stay on the card until EOT killing the character the instant combat ends.

The mechanic could work either way, but I'd prefer not setting up a delayed trigger as that will just make it more complicated.

...if you fatally wound him he'll die from it eventually, but he'll just shrug off any attempt at an Irresistible Bribe during battle.

[Hordak]

If one were to make this a keyword and one were open to suggestions, how does Bloodlust sound?

[tgrtrax]

something like this:

bloodlust
if this card is destroyed in battle as part of an attacking party it deals its strength to any number of opposing characters. (edit) if there are no opposing characters it deals damage to the target of the attack.


by making it on the attack only it shows beserker rage and will not let a defending character do damage to a faction or location.
________
2011 VAPORIZER

[Hordak]

But that rules out doing damage to a faction or location. I like the idea of a warrior so frenzied that they will shrug off any injury until the battle is over, at which point they collapse from their wounds.

Worded as a replacement of a delayed trigger, "If this card is destroyed and in a Battle Party, instead destroy it when the Battle ends", or simply being death proof during battle, "If this card is in a Battle party, it cannot be destroyed", I'm okay with it. Setting up a delayed trigger is a little more true to what I had in mind, but the that let's one do silly Mutineer's Hiatus tricks which I think is what folks wanted to avoid

[ANIMEniac]

Could add an exception for cost like Limited Liability. Of course Noble is still so damn good b/c destroying your character is the effect and not cost...very different from so many "sacrifice" cards (especially one so cost effective AND beneficial...kill+card).

EDIT:
Oh yea, keep forgetting, it was mentioned you need to actually destroy to pay the cost, so Haitus won't work.

This is something i would have thought to be similar to "berserkers". We already have "berserker" themed cards (Berserk Corps, Anxious Oaf, Bulldozer), would seem fitting to be a character like that.

[Hordak]

You could add an exception, Limited Liability style, but that might be complicating a keyword too much (assuming this would be keyword material).

[Lioge]

If this were worded as a delayed trigger then it would have to read something like:

"If this would be destroyed while in a battle party, instead destroy this when battle ends"

You have to word it as a delay (if this would be destroyed), else the card is destroyed and the trigger doesn't matter (if this card is destroyed).

[tgrtrax]

how about remove it from the game. this gets around LL and such.
________
Expert Insurance

[kallisti]

A keyword is unlikely, as Josh doesn't like them unless they're necessary. But there are other ways to bind a word to an effect. A character type makes sense; I agree that this sounds like a good berserker effect. You can also have a standard card name piece, like the Martial Artist effect.