Author Topic: Zaccheus (Read 6428 times)

BubbleBoy · « **on:** January 23, 2011, 03:04:30 PM »

I was a little bored the other day, so I messed around with my old card-making kit. See what you think:

CJSports · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:18:22 PM »

How do you use/or get the card making kit???

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:33:21 PM »

Like. Much better suited for Luke/John than the old one.

goldencomet · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2011, 03:34:22 PM »

looks nice!

great job

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2011, 07:03:16 PM »

Shouldn't opponent draw four, since Zaccheus promised four times as much as he taxed?

Great card though!

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2011, 08:56:27 PM »

on D4 rather than D3 but otherwise fantastic in all regards!

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2011, 10:30:40 PM »

Ah, that's right. The law said to repay 3x, but he did 4x, didn't he? Ah well. Glad you like it anyway...

Quote from: CJSports on January 23, 2011, 03:18:22 PM

How do you use/or get the card making kit???

My "kit" consists of Paint.NET (a free image editing tool), a probably outdated version of Gimp (a free PhotoShop), a font guide, a compilation of usable images from free online sources, and a combination of templates that are apparently from BrianGabe and Mosestaff. If I recall, there's a sticky thread somewhere containing information on how to obtain all these things.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:18:00 PM »

That's one of the most pro new card ideas I've ever seen, and you used GIMP? The only thing that looks anything but Cactus is the identifier.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:20:35 PM »

What about the artist? That's not Cactus.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:22:30 PM »

I didn't notice anything off, and looking again I still don't, but it's been a while since I held a card.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:24:47 PM »

The artist, identifier, and the abilities (5/2) are the wrong font, but everything else looks right.

browarod · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:35:38 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 23, 2011, 11:24:47 PM

The artist, identifier, and the abilities (5/2) are the wrong font, but everything else looks right.

I think the reference font is off, too. But all those nit-picky things aside, great card! Definitely helps with the Luke/John theme like RW said, and I like the symbolism behind the ability (it matching what he actually did). Nice job BB.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2011, 06:16:49 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 24, 2011, 10:35:38 AM

Definitely helps with the Luke/John theme like RW said, and I like the symbolism behind the ability (it matching what he actually did). Nice job BB.

Thank you. I aim for those goals with every card I make.

I know that some of these fonts are off, but they are the closest I can find, and they really look pretty good I think.

joeycauldron · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:02:31 PM »

In the SA, it should state "your opponent" not he because there are ladies that play redemption also.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:04:51 PM »

Masculine gender is acceptable when true gender is unknown.

Perri · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2011, 08:28:47 PM »

Very nicely done card, way overpowered, but very nicely done!

TheJaylor · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2011, 11:28:57 PM »

Quote from: Perri on January 26, 2011, 08:28:47 PM

Very nicely done card, way overpowered, but very nicely done!

How is that OP'd?

I think the card is great, it fits the story well and looks decent.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:28:50 AM »

Care to explain how the card is OP? Everyone else on the thread has been saying it's balanced.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:05:50 PM »

Perri is probably thinking that my deck doesn't need another card like this...

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2011, 12:29:36 PM »

I would love to abuse Zach in a side battle, especially if I had Simon the Zealot.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2011, 02:26:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 26, 2011, 08:04:51 PM

Masculine gender is acceptable when true gender is unknown.

Half my playgroup would be quite irritated at that statement.

As to the card, don't the other Luke/John cards say "must" when referencing drawing?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2011, 03:13:00 PM »

Must isn't needed. If it isn't a may, it's a must.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2011, 03:17:29 PM »

Makes sense. I just brought it up because all the other L/J stuff I have says "must"

Sean · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2011, 06:00:46 PM »

I think being able to take a card from your opponent, theoretically, every turn is OP.

NT_Female · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:11:42 PM »

Quote from: joeycauldron on January 26, 2011, 08:02:31 PM

In the SA, it should state "your opponent" not he because there are ladies that play redemption also.

Umm... yes! There are ladies that play, thank you very much!

And as to assuming masculine when gender is unknown, that's just sloppy. Why would it say "unknown", if it really meant "male"

News:

Author Topic: Zaccheus (Read 6428 times)

Warrior_Monk

browarod

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk