What does this deck do: Knows what’s going on. Makes sacrifices and plays the long game.
by Roman and Geektopia
4 HP Each
Weak Ranged Deck
3x MASTER SPY
A4. If this attack does damage, the player controlling the target character must show you their hand and discard a card for each Spy you have on the board.
A8. If you have any spies, destroy one. If not, Luthen takes 1 damage, unless it would be enough to kill him.
2x ONE STEP AHEAD
D5. After the attack is resolved, Luthen may switch places with one of his spies.
Move Luthen up to 8 spaces. Then return a destroyed Spy to the game with full health, adjacent to Luthen.
Choose an opponent. Announce a card, and if they have that card they must discard all copies of it. If they don’t have that card, they may choose a card to discard and then show you their hand.
1x THE LONG GAME
A1*. *Add 3 to the attack value for every spy who has been destroyed, including ones that were brought back.
Maybe drop 1 CURATOR and add another dimension to his deck?
I’d just maybe suggest adding additional text to “Sacrifice” to avoid an inevitable rules debate. Either “if you have no spies remaining, you can’t play this card” or “If you have one or more spies on the board, destroy one”. Obviously the main difference being whether or not you can play the A8 if you don’t have any spies in the game, but currently it would come down to subjective interpretation which I could see being annoying for people.
IDK if this would be in character or not, but it might be interesting to do “If there are no spies on the board, Luthen takes 1 damage” after the second flavor text, so Luthen is always sacrificing *something* for the A8.
It does not require the sacrifice of a spy, making a better card later in the game when your spies might already be destroyed, because you already “sacrificed” them. Plus it would be really weak if you HAD to destroy a spy — that’s a big penalty, and the main reason why Luke Rebel Commando’s EXPLOSIVE CHARGE card doesn’t work very well.
I like the 1 damage idea, but once I clear up the wording, adding the part about “otherwise do 1 damage” gets too wordy.