1226
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Adventures Cards: Lost City
« on: March 01, 2016, 02:21:20 am »
Since I first saw lost city, I didn't (and still don't) think the on-buy drawback is enough to keep Lost City from being OP.
yeah, come look for me. I live in the stories I read and write.Hey, everyone's free to make their own season cards if they like. I'm sure Asper and Cookielord wouldn't mind, but OTOH, you don't need their permission anyway.
Careful there. We know where you live.
Are you taking suggestions?
And another thing you could do...
<cough>IGG<cough>Raid<cough>Would you ever consider getting around an issue like that by simply removing "attack" from the type? That would of course simply make the card stronger as it prevents reactions from working. And I'm sure plenty of people would complain about it as in "this card really should be an attack!"I don't think I want an attack that doesn't say "attack."
Another 0-3 trip to the arena (with a rogue). yuk. The good news is, I still got a pack of cards and 25 gold.
At least an Arena run always gives you a pack. Getting 25 gold on a 0-3 doesn't seem too bad actually. Plus, the experience is valuable too.
I'd rather it cost 50gp and not give a pack to be honest.
The runner-up from 2014 will automatically be included in the preliminary voting. The author of this card is allowed to submit a new card as well. (As is yuma, designer of the winning card.)QuoteObservatory
Types: Action
Cost: $2
+1 Action. Trash a card from your hand. Look at one card from your deck per $ in its cost. You may put one of them into your hand and discard any number of the others. Put the rest back in any order.
Other cards from 2014 may be resubmitted as is, tweaked, or discarded in favor of a new concept.
Isn't Observatory a Raze that can't trash itself?
Man, someone just rick-rolled the meme thread. I didn't think that was still a thing. I thought they'd given up on it and I wish they would. I mean, you can definitely say there's a loss of dignity there, but if you call it a joke, you're really letting me down. Next time someone does that, I'm gonna hurt them, no lie."sons raise meat"
Dude, I didn't get it at first either, but that's awesome. I love puns.
But how do you feel about jokes?
"sons raise meat"
I thought you never looked at fan cards??that would be the bombAnother nice trick with Bonfire is getting rid of your other trasher with it. Or another early game card you don't want anymore, e.g. Potion.
If only there was a Potion and a trasher that could get rid of themselves!
For me f.ds is like a silent haven, where you don't need to prove anything or pretend you are something.
Beautiful forest of grotesque procrastination mushrooms grows here.
Cool, does it last for the rest of the game? (5 mana on turn 4?)there's a druid card, Wild Growth, that gives an empty mana crystal. I don't get it. What does that do?
If I cast wild growth on turn 2, I gain a mana crystal. I can't use it turn 2, but my next turn, I'll have 4 mana.
What do you mean by 'don't let him have a board'?...an opponent just played a card that gave his minion +10/+10. Such a card should not exist.
That's one of the cards Arch-Thief Rafaam can make. That card costs 10 mana. If your opponent plays Rafaam, do not let him have a board. Just don't. And keep a board clear ready for the 3/3 mummies.
oops. I take back what I said then.Plague: I think this should have a set cost and not be cheap. If you win the curse split, you can make that difference even bigger. This is also really strong against Gardens, Goons, or Vineyard and probably others (unless you have good trashing with Goons). doesn't look fun.
I think you missed that it only works on actions, which should take care of some of the problems you mentioned. But yeah, a fixed price is simpler and maybe better anyway.
either way would be fine with me. I was just going by what I think the designer intended.Adding that clause seems like it would break the card. I trash down. Now Hoarder reads: "Reveal your deck. Take a lot of time reordering it to perfectly run your engine or set up for the next few turns". Even without this extreme case you may end up having to reorder a bunch of cards. It would get slow.
I added that line just as a clarification because I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the original card. Should I make it "Put cards costing more back on your deck in random order" to keep it from taking too long?
What's wrong with a card that can choose between being a Smithy for cheap cards and a risk-less terminal Lookout? Does the original say anything about putting back the expensive cards? I'd have you discard them.