(Rare) Double-edged Voodoo

[Grimrock Litless]

(10 Turns)

Both you and target player loses the same voodoo of your choosing.

Eg. You pick mindbar, both you and target player loses 1 quantity of Mindbar.

If anyone of you or the target don't have target voodoo, it wouldn't work.

[ben]

collateral damage could be a good name

[Admiral Nelson]

-1, to powerful.

[Grimrock Litless]

-1, to powerful.

I love the fact that you give the same reason on the past 3 voodoo suggestion from me and all of them miss spell too.

[PhoenixKnight]

-1

I don't think anyone would use it. May be if it becomes a chance of you losing the same card say 30%?

[Admiral Nelson]

-1

I don't think anyone would use it. May be if it becomes a chance of you losing the same card say 30%?

How about 0%? In fact, should we just make a card that can terminate a pirates account?

[Grimrock Litless]

-1

I don't think anyone would use it. May be if it becomes a chance of you losing the same card say 30%?

Suggestions are malleable, changes can always be made when seen fit. But it would be op to change it to chance based.

[Donald Trump]

Eh. Just seems for a way for rich players to completely trash an account even more. -1, we already have a thieving magpie.

[not a pirate]

-1. The streak continues!

On a serious note, this actually serves no useful purpose except wasting 3 voodoo. (Yours curse/Same curse on enemy/and the card.)

[Grimrock Litless]

-1. The streak continues!

On a serious note, this actually serves no useful purpose, except wasting 3 voodoo. (Yours curse/Same curse on enemy/and the card.)

Oh no, there is usefulness to this, if one player have less amount of voodoo then you you can stop someone from attacking you or defending himself.

On a side note, maybe it's about time you Pirates stop giving - 1 to suggestions that will hurt you. I suppose even mighty people can fall in the face of something godly.

Just saying, it wouldn't hurt.