MArcomage

Comboing this with Reuse the Rubble... amazing!

ah, I forgot reuse the rubble existence...

Ancient golem, Uncommon, 80b
Unliving.
Attack: 40 + 10N
N = #Unliving in hand

Yes, at a cost of 80 bricks, it wouldn't matter WHAT this card did or how difficult it would be to pull off. I'd take it for Reuse the rubble, at it would throw everything off balance. Heck, I'd put both cards in other decks in hope of drawing both, particularly building or 0-cost decks.

This can be solved by removing Unliving from the card, but then I wouldn't choose it for my deck, nor would it be summoned by cards that summon Unliving. Unliving requires 7 on hand to hit the keyword every other turn (or 7 on one play and 6 on the other), so there isn't room for keywordless cards that will sit on hand for a long time, at least not Rare ones.

An alternate solution would be to leave it as an Unliving card but have it cost something other than bricks as Reuse the rubble only factors brick cost in its benefits.

Then we'll just have another Undead host, but with Unliving keyword.
An uncommon like this shouldn't exist. Now I wouldn't even bother to PLAY it, I'd just discard it in round 1 and play Reuse the rubble for 27 tower and 40 wall in round 3. I suggest to make it rare, maybe with some additional effects or raised attack.

How about to make this high cost conditional by halving the cost:

Ancient golem, Uncommon, 40b
Unliving.
If #bricks > 39:
Attack: 40 + 10N
Brick: -40
else:
Attack: 20 + 5N
N = #Unliving in hand

This could make the card more flexible for the cost of more space for the card... don't know by the way if halving the numbers is the right way, they seem quite low now...

I think it's great idea. And up to 60 attack for an 40B Unliving uncommon is not low by any means.

Lord_Earthfire wrote:
How about to make this high cost conditional by halving the cost:

Ancient golem, Uncommon, 40b
Unliving.
If #bricks > 39:
Attack: 40 + 10N
Brick: -40
else:
Attack: 20 + 5N
N = #Unliving in hand

This could make the card more flexible for the cost of more space for the card... don't know by the way if halving the numbers is the right way, they seem quite low now...

nice!
anyway it's pretty strange how a single common put limits on a whole set of cards. because of reuse the rubble we can't create an unliving with high brick cost. wouldn't it be simpler putting a limitation on RTR? like:

If last card was Unliving
Tower: +N / 3
Wall: +N / 2
N = bricks cost of last card
(max 30)

I agree.

I like the way Reuse the Rubble works currently. It's amazing with a few Rare choices. I would say that changing Reuse the rubble just to benefit a concept card is just as bad as, if not worse than, having to take it and other existing cards into account when designing new ones.

I like the suggestion to make Ancient golem's cost and effect conditional.

DPsycho wrote:
I like the way Reuse the Rubble works currently. It's amazing with a few Rare choices. I would say that changing Reuse the rubble just to benefit a concept card is just as bad as, if not worse than, having to take it and other existing cards into account when designing new ones.

I like the suggestion to make Ancient golem's cost and effect conditional.

come on, the max30 limitation I proposed is not that harsh, also max40 should be fine. the only cards affected by this limitation are dragon golem and colossus of kran. I don't mind if this concept is changed as Lord_Earthfire suggested, but it doesn't feel right that unliving has this hidden limitation that other keywords don't have

Lord_Earthfire wrote:
How about to make this high cost conditional by halving the cost:

Ancient golem, Uncommon, 40b
Unliving.
If #bricks > 39:
Attack: 40 + 10N
Brick: -40
else:
Attack: 20 + 5N
N = #Unliving in hand

This could make the card more flexible for the cost of more space for the card... don't know by the way if halving the numbers is the right way, they seem quite low now...

I like that. Solves the issue quite nicely. As one more alternative, we could also have:

Ancient golem, Uncommon, 40b
Unliving.
Attack: 20 + 5M + N
Bricks -N
M = #Unliving in hand
N = #bricks (max 40)

Essentially the same, but I prefer scaling over an amount of bricks to a yes/no limit. But that's just a matter of taste.