MArcomage

I like the idea of this card but since it already costs gems, why don't we remove the -7 gems from its effects or alter it a bit? You already spent 1 magic, which is a pretty huge hit for undead decks, unless you have Vampire Countess and fulfill the conditions to gain 1 magic, and you only deal 25 damage. Not slightly impressive for an Uncommon. Plus you have to gather 17 gems before playing it, at which cost I would much prefer to play Undead Cavalry.

In short, I suggest make this card deal 25 damage, -1 magic, -10 gems and lower its cost to 7 gems. That way it would be easier to play

OR

make it deal 40 damage, give -2 magic and to cost 20 gems. It deals as much damage as a minor killer rare with the same price, but it hits you pretty hard on gem production (which is crucial for undead). We could add the effect that it can not lower the enemy tower below 5, so the enemy will have one chance to stand back on his feet and if he/she manages to do that, then the player who played Vampire will not be able to hit again seriously, unless he has recruit-costing attack cards, or lots of gems.

For some reason, rush decks have gone out of vogue (overpower nerf probably had something to do with it). But back when everyone was using them, vampire was quite a popular card. It's true that its punishment is fairly harsh, but the vast majority of the time, it's played as a finisher, or to set up for a finisher in one or two turns. I think both of the changes you suggested would be considered too powerful. It would be kind of funny if it caused everyone to go back to rushing though...

I like it as it is now. The gem reduction is there to cause you to want to play it when you have 17 gems exactly, or at most 1 or 2 more. This optimal window makes the card a lot more fun to use.

Lowering its cost (with or without increasing the added gem reduction) would make it far too easy to play.

Trying to balance it with the expectation that it's being played only in an Undead deck is ill-advised. I have this in a few decks that don't rely on gems much if at all, and as such the Magic reduction is practically negligible.

hmm I see your points. I used to use it in my rush deck as well. What I suggest is to enhance its ability as a finisher card. 25 damage is not much compared to other cards.

I dislike that triggering the Undead counter with this card and with few gems left over wastes the effect. Assuming it's played with 17 gems exactly, the order of operations has it spend the cost (gems=0), reduce gems as per card effect (gems= -7), restore 6 gems via keyword effect (gems= -1), check for negative values (gems=0), and then add production (gems= #Magic).

In simpler terms, if you play the card at a time when your gems are optimal or near optimal, triggering the Undead keyword does absolutely nothing. You would have been better off playing anything else.

I always forget that the negativity check occurs after keyword effect. I always assume that gems will be reduced to 0+ before the keywrod effect occurs. What I wonder is whether anything would be thrown off if the keyword effect were shifted to after the negative check. Destruction won't touch a facility that is less than three, so that isn't an issue. Aqua and Brigand could give negative stock values, so there's one issue right there. Barbarian and Siege could leave the opponent with negative wall. Yeah, that wouldn't work very well.

I just wish I could remember that using Vampire to trigger the keyword, which looks like a good idea, often is not. Grr. Would it be possible/feasible to have it check for negative values both before and after the keyword effect? Also, does anyone know another card that has a similar effect as this that strangely impacts a keyword trigger?

DPsycho wrote:
Also, does anyone know another card that has a similar effect as this that strangely impacts a keyword trigger?

Well, lots of illusion cards. All-elemental-attack is pretty self-defeating since after playing it you probably won't have enough resources to trigger the nature or destruction keyword on the next turn. Ogre used to be kind of quirky in this respect until the charge buff.

That's not what I meant, though. I'm talking about cases where a keyword effect that restores a value such as resources (Undead, Soldier) is impacted by having negative stock when it's calculated. the Illusion keyword doesn't refund stock. I don't think Unliving or Alliance has this issue since these affect production, setting their bonuses to occur after the negative check.

I thought of another one. Using Waterfall to trigger the Aqua effect. If you play it with wall < 5, you don't receive the full effect of the Aqua trigger wall gain.

I don't know what kind of examples you're asking for then, since the Waterfall example doesn't fit your previous definition involving bonus resources and negative stock >.>

Anyways, as regards the larger issue, I don't really see it as a problem that vampire is a poor choice for triggering the keyword effect. The order of operations may not be intuitive in this case, but I think it's better than any obvious alternatives, and at least it's documented.

I'm looking for examples where the check for negative (or in facilities' case, N<1) values occurring after the keyword effect causes the result to be less than the value the keyword effect would grant were the check performed first. This applies to Gens with Vampire(Undead) and Wall with Waterfall(Aqua), and there may be more examples. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you think Illusion applies as Illusion as an effect doesn't change any numeric values.

And yes, it is documented, but that it's not intuitive is an issue. If negative values functionally don't exist, then we shouldn't be applying further operations to them. I propose that the check for negative values be made to occur twice, both before and after the keyword effect is applied.

DPsycho wrote:
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you think Illusion applies as Illusion as an effect doesn't change any numeric values.

I was just talking about cards that nullify or work in opposition with their keyword effect. When played for their keyword effect, cards like Doppelganger, Mask of the phantasm, Baku, etc. fail to have their primary effect take place because one effect overrides the other. Before the change to charge, the effect on ogre was such that, if you were taking advantage of its charge, you probably couldn't get anything out of its primary effect and vice versa. I think these are pretty similar to how Vampire's effect works in opposition with the undead keyword.

I kinda dismiss the doppelganger, because it moves to another spot now. So you can summon enemy rare and one of his cards later on.

Right, that's true, but you can substitute mirror strike or eternal dream instead :)

I agree with DPsycho. If we present that game limits are always applied we shouldn't allow the card actions to ignore these limits until the keyword effect is executed. Changed turn actions execution in r1608 (changes will be applied soon)

from

1 - Cost of a card is substracted
2 - Effect of the card takes place
3 - Keywords with side-effects apply
4 - Game limits apply (resources cannot be lower than 0, wall below 0, facitlies below 1...)
5 - Resource production
6 - End game condition is checked

to

1 - card cost is subtracted
2 - card effect is executed
3 - game limits are applied
4 - token counters (if present) are updated based on card keywords
5 - keyword(s) effect is executed
6 - game limits are applied
7 - resource production is added to player's stock based on player's facilities
8 - end game condition is checked

Game limits

- facilities can't be lower than 1
- resources can't be lower than 0
- tower can't be lower than 0 or greater than 100 (150 in long mode)
- wall can't be lower than 0 or greater than 150 (225 in long mode)
- token counters can't be lower than 0 or greater than 100
- attack can't have a negative value

Thanks, Mojko. I'm confident that this is a positive change.

And I see what you mean now about Illusion, dindon. You're entirely right about the Illusion effect being in conflict with individual card effects. I just wasn't thinking in those terms but purely in numbers, and it's apparent I didn't make that clear at first.