MArcomage

Price of Thieves didn't do anything when I played it just now.
Also, I refreshed the game, without playing a card, and basically, my opponent's card was played again (damaging me a second time).

Was Prince of Thieves "New" when you played it? It's had a small change made to it with the Easter update.

As far as refreshing incurring more damage, I cannot offer an explanation. I've never tried refreshing while it's my turn.

Screenshots?

Oh yes, it was new, but...
WTF? Who's idea was it to take the only powerful card Brigand has and nerf it? Jesus...

Still don't know about the damage thing though.

Well, I can't help you much without screenshots, but using standard browser refresh may cause you to play a card that was not intended for play, but additional damage? Wow that's new O_O.

Prince of thieves is still quite powerfull, btw. it may be a good idea to see that new balance changes in the "modified cards" section after the update.

It's still powerful, but it no longer has the ability that EVERY other card has, in that it can cause a swing in one turn. If someone draws a Dragon Squadron in a turn, and they have the resources for it... they'll win, pretty much no matter what. Prince of Thieves will almost NEVER win a game, and now it can't even take an opponent by surprise. By taking away that ability, you've effectively castrated Brigands.

As to the error, it wasn't that a card was played when I didn't click on anything, it was that my opponent played a card, and it did like 20 damage or something, then I refreshed, and it did that 20 some damage again.

I'd hardly consider this a castration of the Brigand deck. Prince of thieves is useful with nearly every deck due to its low cost and the fact that its effect is independent of what else you have in your hand. Causing you to wait a turn does little to lower its efficacy, and if the alternatives are to raise its cost (or would lowering it make it worse?) or reduce its maximum/minimum effect, I'd rather just have to wait that turn. It gives you more time to broaden the gap in your relative stock levels.

I doubt anyone will stop using the card because of the change.

On the other hand, it's worth questioning whether this change is truly necessary. Does it break the card? With the aforementioned Dragon squadron, your opponent has one turn to prevent its fatal use, and that can be accomplished by discarding it, raising his defenses adequately (I have had an opponent survive its use before), immediately defeating you via any victory type, or decreasing your recruits. With Prince of Thieves, your opponent now has two turns to discard it, win the match via any victory type, or spend as many of his resources as possible to lessen (but never actually negate) its effect. Assuming the latter option, you are granted that same opportunity to deplete your stock, so the only true advantage is one additional card draw that might allow your opponent to force its discard.

It is also worth noting that it is currently impossible to draw Prince of Thieves, a rare card, after a Quick or Swift card, so the opportunity to draw it and play it before your opponent could react wouldn't exist even without this change.

Really, the only real effect I think the change is having is that it is catching people off guard and causing them to waste its use, resulting in understandable frustration. If the "No effect if New" addition is going to stay, I feel it should be the first line of text on the card rather than being hidden away at the bottom.

Really my qualm is this: If you want to 'not catch people off guard with this rare' you should make it so ALL rares have no effect when new.

Rares are powerful cards. Period. That's part of the game. Prince of Thieves, unless your opponent is about to lose anyway, WON'T win any matches simply by it's play.

However, MANY other rares will. The only difference is, when Price of Thieves catches someone off guard, it makes them frustrated and makes them change their plans. When a powerful attack card catches someone off guard, it makes them lose the game.

Which one should be nerfed? If you say Price of Thieves you are mentally handicapped.

Prince of Thieves is still very usefull for any deck type. You compare it with other rares? How about comparing it's cost? There are other powerfull rares without this drawback. But Prince of thieves cost only 1R. When played correctly it really can make the difference in the game.

Making all rares have this drawback is not smart, because cards like Lord of time would become useless.

I am aware it wouldn't be good to add to rares. I think it's a bad idea to add it at all.

Your argument is that it's a useful card to a lot of decks and that makes it powerful.

My argument is that it's useful to a lot of decks, but unlike 75% of rare cards, it CAN'T win a game. Most rare cards can make or break a game. Prince of Thieves is just nice to draw. If anything, it's a little weak as a rare.

There's nothing wrong with having a pan-useful card. I don't get why people are complaining about it. If you want to complain about a card, what about Death Pack or something. I've won on the third turn with that card, no one complains that it's overpowered. Some cards should be specific use, but they don't all have to be.

I agree that you usually cannot win the game by using Prince of thieves. However, that was not the idea behind this card. The rare cards shouldn't be "instant o'win". If you look carefully there are many rare cards, that usually cannot win the game like Shadow unicorn, New era, Magic rift, Invocation, Highlander, Genie, Elven reinforcements, Dark horde, Daemon. Such cards are usually much cheaper then rares that can do great deal of damage.

So the problem is not with Prince of thieves, but in definition of what is a rare card. You define rare card as a card that wins the game, but I don't. I think that rares that cannot win the game and are cheap can also be usefull.

So when you don't like the weak cheap rares, don't play them. We have plenty of high cost, high damage rare cards to choose from ;)

If you don't think Highlander or Dark Hoard wins games, you're kidding yourself. I lost a game today in 6 rounds because someone pulled Highlander from Gladiator, then drew it normally.


Anyway, you just made the point that lots of rares don't cause a win, and that's why they don't cost a lot...soooo you're making my point. Prince of Thieves doesn't, so it shouldn't cost much, nor should it be even weaker.

Well, yeah cards that can summon other cards, or can be summoned themselves can be usefull, that's why I said "usually don't win games" instead of "never win games".

Anyway, current card balancement will be in effect at least until next update, so better adjust your deck.

Any date for the new update?