MArcomage

Implementable?

Arbnos wrote:
Implementable?

Yes it is implementable.
and it's also a nice card. I'm not sure about the bricks +2, maybe it should give 2 or 3 random resources as first effect

I got the feeling, that it is too strong... but that depends... comparing to clay pit, merchant, gleansers, magic sanctuary its cost/use ratio is much too big... of course it makes only sense for "(almost)-non-keyword-decks"... so a comparison with the cards above seems not fair...
comparing it with other "strategic-donators": hidden lagoon (gives less, therefore wall+), frozen flame (needs to be played in a row), crypt sentry, benedictation (also gives opponent) or draft (depends on luck) it seems more fair... but still belonging to the "high donators"... on the other hand, all the stated cards can trigger keyword-effects (or raise tokens - draft only passively)... so maybe it is "okay" that way...

I also agree to Fithz, that 2 random ressources as "basic" seems more thematic.

I'm not sure that this card too strong. At least among all present cards.

let us consider a few examples. If one have holy deck, then there is Benediction in this deck, and it gives mostly Stock:+4. For undead deck we have Crypt sentry. Maybe it cost 10 resources, but it can gives you Stock:+7. Unliving deck have Titan's left arm.

You see, this cards are all common, and they give on average > then Stock:+3. Yes, they request many the same keyword in hand, but Strawberry fields also have this restriction and even more: all your cards have to be non keyword.

About "basic", maybe it was right.

If anything, I would say this card is underpowered rather than overpowered. A net of +6 resources isn't all that impressive compared to other commons, and meeting the restriction is extremely difficult.

I'll be happy, if it would be Stock: +5. But someone thought that +3 is so many.

dindon wrote:
If anything, I would say this card is underpowered rather than overpowered. A net of +6 resources isn't all that impressive compared to other commons, and meeting the restriction is extremely difficult.

First of all: the net is +9 ressources at the moment...
Of course, the restriction is "difficult" in normal decks... as Crypt Sentry won't work in a non-undead deck...
That's why I compare it (later on) with "strategic-donators" and not wheat farm or merchant...

gruin wrote:
let us consider a few examples. If one have holy deck, then there is Benediction in this deck, and it gives mostly Stock:+4. For undead deck we have Crypt sentry. Maybe it cost 10 resources, but it can gives you Stock:+7. Unliving deck have Titan's left arm.

Benedictation can also give ressources to the opponent. Crypt Sentry is very powerful, yes... but most undead cards are more expensive than others... IMO Crypt Sentry could become more expensive, too ;-)
The left arm costs seven of your "main-ressource", so the stock-income is not that useful IMO.

Another comparison: Haste:
In normal circumstances: net Income: 3. With keyword triggered it is 13 (if not fac-restored). So at the moment that's just 4 more ress although triggered keyword.

My proposal:
Cost: 2 R
"basic-income" 3 random ressources
"non-keyword-income": stock +2

Don't get me wrong: This card would be a great addition in one of my decks... I just try to keep the balance ;-) (if thats possible at all in this game ;-))

It's not just difficult in "normal decks". Even in keywordless-style decks, you're still going to probably have some keyword cards in your deck if you're playing intelligently. Even in the best of circumstances, I think it's less reliable than cards like Benediction or Crypt Sentry (especially because this one is all or nothing).

I have a deck that is mostly without keywords, and yet it's rare to not have at least one in my hand. Playing this card optimally may require that you discard the Uncommon or Rare for which you were hoping to gain stock.

Maybe we could change the effect:

If all cards in hand no keyword
Stock: +3

to

Stock: +3
Player loses 1 random resource for each keyword card in hand

Mojko wrote:
Maybe we could change the effect:

If all cards in hand no keyword
Stock: +3

to

Stock: +3
Player loses 1 random resource for each keyword card in hand

that's an interesting solution, but the funny thing of this card is the "all or nothing" situation.
Mojko's idea could be used for another card maybe based on a keyword.
e.g:
Stock: +3
Player loses 1 random resource for each non-alliance card in hand

Fithz wrote:

that's an interesting solution, but the funny thing of this card is the "all or nothing" situation.
hand

You are right. It's the general point.

Very interesting. It would certainly make my, long forgotten, no-keywords deck more interesting in playing.
I don't think it's overpowered at all. It's immediately comparable to Dwarven warriors, and it's less powerful than that.

The comparison with dwarven warriors seems not fitting to me... the costs and the "basic-ressource-gain" and the rarity are same... but how to compare att.4, alliance with (potential) stock+3?
Playing an (almost) "non-keyword-deck" myself (including banish, destruction, but just few keywords at all... and moon castle of course), so I know, how "difficult" it is, to get the bonus. The "easy way" to get it, is, that you just keep playing the keyword cards.
To tell you further "deck-secrets": I even have 5 commons (and uncommons) in my deck with keywords (thats a third!). However, the chance to get a non-keyword-non-rare after playing a keyword card is (in my deck) (0.65+0.29)*0.66~ 0.6x...

So the "replacement-tactic" should work... as you don't need to accumulate cards for keyword-side-effects, you can simply keep this card on hand (even several instances) and wait for an "keywordless" hand.

I don't think, this card is a "killer-card" or a "crusher"... therefore it is much too passive... but compared to others, it is quite strong... imo... and definitly stronger, then dwarven warrior.

Oh, come on. What are you talking about? Stock +3 for non-keyword decks with 3r cost? How about Supply units that can give you +3 stock, cost 1r and discard cheapest (that means most useless) Soldier from your hand? How about White lady - zero-cost +2 stock if your tower is higher than enemy's? How about Wheat farm - the most powerful stock+ card in game? 3 Wheat farms is pure +5 stock, 5 - +9?
I don't think that 3r cost card that gives +3 bricks and +3 stock for pure keywordless deck is something that worth so intensive discussion. If cards I mentioned aren't overpowered then moreover this one isn't. Yes, it can be a decent support for keywordless building deck - but nothing more.

HivedOne wrote:
The comparison with dwarven warriors seems not fitting to me... the costs and the "basic-ressource-gain" and the rarity are same... but how to compare att.4, alliance with (potential) stock+3?
[.....]
but compared to others, it is quite strong... imo... and definitly stronger, then dwarven warrior.

Strawberry fields:
- Always -> bricks +3
- Potential -> stock +3

Dwarven warriors:
- Always -> bricks +3, Attack 4
- Potential -> Production X2 (alliance trigger), with normal (3) facilities this is equal to stock +3

Both cost 3r... which is stronger?

I don't say that it will be difficult to achieve the "keywordless hand" condition, but this is something that is strictly applicable to only one type of deck. On the other hand, you can trigger Alliance keyword with Dwarven warriors, even in a non-hardcore Alliance deck.

NG_Beholder wrote:
Oh, come on. What are you talking about? Stock +3 for non-keyword decks with 3r cost? How about Supply units that can give you +3 stock, cost 1r and discard cheapest (that means most useless) Soldier from your hand? How about White lady - zero-cost +2 stock if your tower is higher than enemy's? How about Wheat farm - the most powerful stock+ card in game? 3 Wheat farms is pure +5 stock, 5 - +9?

Supply units gives you +2 of your "needed" ressource (normally you play with soldiers in this deck -> need recruits). Also it "steals" one of your keyword cards... maybe the most useless... but probably one, that would have given you +10 side-effect for each played soldier.
White lady gives "only" stock +2 (what I have proposed for this card)... and only "when in condition". This "condition" can only be influenced worse, then the one of this card (my opinion).
Wheat farm should normally be only twice (or maybe 3 times) on your hand: If you already have 2 wheat farms on hand, the third is drawn with a chance of 0.65*0.25/15=1%... thats nothing... but possible ;-)(so right, to get a second farm without using the fairy is about 2% per round). To be honest, without harvest fairy, you have almost "no chance" to get several wf-instances on your hand. Playing the fairy first, we have to consider, that you need 2 turns to play a first "fruitful" wf.
Considering the "best (normal) case": one wf and the fairy on hand, you get:
1. round fairy: -1r
2. round wf 1: net +5 stock
3. round wf 2: net +3 stock
thats +7,66 stock totally or ~+2,55 stock per turn... assuming, you had 1wf AND the fairy on hand... and you keep your third wf on hand.

dimitris wrote:

Dwarven warriors:
- Always -> bricks +3, Attack 4
- Potential -> Production X2 (alliance trigger), with normal (3) facilities this is equal to stock +3

Both cost 3r... which is stronger?

Now I understand what you mean... But first you have to play some alliance-cards to trigger the keyword. At a rate of 17+3 keyword gain it happens after 3-6 alliance cards have been played. This way you can say, the card gives you on average +0,33stock up to +1stock. That would be a "fair" comparison.

Maybe I still don't have the game mechanics: Some people say, it is "all or nothing"... as I understand it, the next card drawn after play is not relevant to get the bonus... is it?? If it does, I take back all my criticism and "believe you", that this card is rather "average-weak" ;-)

NG_Beholder wrote:
I don't think that 3r cost card that gives +3 bricks and +3 stock for pure keywordless deck is something that worth so intensive discussion. If cards I mentioned aren't overpowered then moreover this one isn't. Yes, it can be a decent support for keywordless building deck - but nothing more.

I agree... it wasn't my intention, to discuss that "heavy" on such a passive card... I never mentioned, that this card is "overpowered". It is not "the old Byakko" and also not reunion of the tribes ;-) ...but for a common it is a very strong "non-keyword-deck"-card, that I would put at once in my non-keyword-deck, although I don't need that much bricks ;-)

Still proposing:
Cost: 2 R
"basic-income" 3 random ressources
"non-keyword-income": stock +2

thats a net-income of +7ressources so it is comparable to other "strategic-donators".

btw: I like the new pic much more ;-)

[quote=HivedOneWheat farm should normally be only twice (or maybe 3 times) on your hand: If you already have 2 wheat farms on hand, the third is drawn with a chance of 0.65*0.25/15=1%... thats nothing... but possible ;-)(so right, to get a second farm without using the fairy is about 2% per round). To be honest, without harvest fairy, you have almost "no chance" to get several wf-instances on your hand.[/quote]
Why do you think that card drawing isn't an independent random event? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it doesn't matter what cards you have in hand - there's always the same probability to draw any card considering its rarity.

NG_Beholder wrote:
[quote=HivedOneWheat farm should normally be only twice (or maybe 3 times) on your hand: If you already have 2 wheat farms on hand, the third is drawn with a chance of 0.65*0.25/15=1%... thats nothing... but possible ;-)(so right, to get a second farm without using the fairy is about 2% per round). To be honest, without harvest fairy, you have almost "no chance" to get several wf-instances on your hand.

Why do you think that card drawing isn't an independent random event? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it doesn't matter what cards you have in hand - there's always the same probability to draw any card considering its rarity.[/quote]

Actually there is an antiflood system in arcomage that lowers the probability to draw a card already in your hand

Edit: this is the link

NG_Beholder wrote:

Why do you think that card drawing isn't an independent random event?

It is... but however it follows the law of large numbers. So if you want to use a tactic several times and not only because you were lucky, you should "believe" the numbers.
Thanks for the link Fithz... that's in short, what I meant ;-)