MArcomage

Call the one here Submersible, to sound less modern and more steampunk:3
Also, keywords are ended with dots, not colons, even the last one, and they are in alphabetical order. 'Aqua. Technic.', instead of 'Technic, Aqua'.

...and what on earth have submarines to do with brigand cards?o.o

Zaton wrote:
Call the one here Submersible, to sound less modern and more steampunk:3

Accepted.

Zaton wrote:
Also, keywords are ended with dots, not colons, even the last one, and they are in alphabetical order. 'Aqua. Technic.', instead of 'Technic, Aqua'.

As i can see both variants are used in Concepts. And i don't see any demands in Help.

Zaton wrote:
...and what on earth have submarines to do with brigand cards?o.o

I cognized than Brigand card set contains many ship cards.

strafer wrote:
Accepted.

Many thanks to you <3

As i can see both variants are used in Concepts. And i don't see any demands in Help.

Please do not mistake their inability to follow the standard format for another standard. They are supposed to be as I described, some people just cannot be bothered. Think, why would you put the card format as anything else but how they appear in the game? Of course, the format does not matter per say, but, you shouldn't write the cards up wrong on purpose. They look like a mess.

There doesn't need to be a FAQ section for what was supposed to be obvious, but again, people do not care to post cards proper, and you could be forgiven to mistake their laziness for a suppository.

strafer wrote:
I cognized than Brigand card set contains many ship cards.

Three.
Which doesn't make them counter every one.-. It's a silly premise.

In any case, cards where even part of the price tag goes to counter a specific deck type would be underused to a horrendous degree(as for the exceptions, The holy keyword costs near nothing, has another purpose, and Elementalist is stuffed into decks for the sake of more mages).

Zaton wrote:
Think, why would you put the card format as anything else but how they appear in the game?

I think it will be some fields in database and format of my strings doesn't matter.

Zaton wrote:
There doesn't need to be a FAQ section for what was supposed to be obvious.

No offence but it isn't obvious. Because of absence of demands in documentation i don't see gross difference between both formats until format is intelligible.

Zaton wrote:
Which doesn't make them counter every one.-. It's a silly premise.

Suggest your idea, it's discussible.

Hm

Okay, okay~ I thought of variations today. Here:3

Submersible. Uncommon.
Aqua. Technic.
Enemy Wall:-30
If enemy wall = 0
Enemy Stock:-5
Replace a card in hand in self

The idea behind the stats assumes the submersible attacks through torpedoes or short-range ballistics. They can attack enemy walls - devastate them, even. And unlike a, say, common sea serpent, they pack their bigger punch in a smaller area, able to hide deep underwater, and come back another day. They cannot destroy the opponent's tower, but sure keep them on their toes~

You would also do best to increase the priced to an all around mixed cost of bricks/gems/recruits, as to represent the metals, rare materials, and maintenance crew all in one.
I figure the resource cost to be around a whale's, give or take a couple.

Ok.

Who the hell would ever pay 11 resources each for -30 Wall or -5 Stock i know i wouldnt.I suggest you cut the cost down to 6/6/6 it sounds like a big buff but if you do the math thats less then 2 Wall per resource or less then 1 stock per 1 stock which is no way OP for a uncommon card

MeCho wrote:
Who the hell would ever pay 11 resources each for -30 Wall or -5 Stock i know i wouldnt.

By the same logic, you wouldn't pay 40 resources for 30 damage and a facility on a Rare, but guess who the most popular card is. And guess who argued the card was too strong? You!:D

Submersible is
1. an Uncommon, the prices need to be worse by definition the more grandiose the card effect is. Have you seen Forgotten Castle?

2. Fair priced due to optional effect. Play a Whale. Does the enemy have no wall? 10 Recruits out the drain, dear. Less than ten stock? Even worse. And the stock reduction triggers if you damaged the wall down in the same turn. Whenever the opponent has 30 wall or less, you trigger both. They try to build the wall back up? You trigger both again.

3. Spammable and 11-22 of the resources might not be one you use much otherwise. That is what makes current mixed-cost card prices viable. When you do use everything? Don't put mixed cost cards in your deck, they are always priced awful. Blind guardian costs 3 extra compared to Parapet for the same effect, and they are down in the 10s, not big hitters(see point 1.).

4. The would-be-highest Wall- uncommon in the game, and we have to be careful to price, therefore. We do not know what Submersible would do in a Charge deck on the long run until we try, for the simple reason nothing does anything similar right now. Don't pretend you do. No one will unless they run high-end simulations. We have no precedent.

You have no case for 6/6/6. 10/10/10 is what I recommended, and 9/9/9 is already a push.

I would say we should crunch some numbers:

I would take hungry dead as a comparison:

Cost to reduction value: (Reduction/cost)

Hungry dead: 0,63 (always)
Submersible: 0,46 (When wall = 0)

Cost to Damage value: (Damage/cost)

Hungry dead: 0,75 (Persistant damage)
Submersible: 0,9 (Wall damage)

Real Cost to damage value: [Damage / (cost - Reduction) ]

Hungry dead: 12 / ( 16 - 10)= 2
Submersible: 30 /( 33 - 15) = 1,7

The last variable is build to show the advantage of damage coupled with stock reduction has. As you reduce your opponent stock, you have in fact virtually your opponent recources.

We know now that Hunry dead is stronger from the pure damage/stock ration because of the unconditional stock reduction. But Submersible has unconditional damage and higher numbers, which makes it more aggressive (I peronally thing that hungry dead is too powerfull and can lock people out of games too easy.)
Its damage is also conditional as submersible. The main differences are that the numbers on submersible are higher (almost as high that i would rate it as a rare) and that submersible need 3 recources in comparison to hungry dead. This makes the card far more easier to play.
This is why i think that the cards are compareable in power, sine you need to play hungry dead more often to have the same effect as submersible but hungry dead is better for pure stock reduction.

I think you've just doubled my comprehension of MArcomage's numeral aspects~

In conclusion, one understands you'd give Submersible a chance at the current price.

You dont get both effects with Submersible because it clearly states that if Wall =0 not Wall <30 you get stock -5 if you could trigger both effects at the same time then i think it would be ok with 10/10/10 or 9/9/9

As for the comparison to Hungry dead ... Hungry dead always trigger both effects after the first turn where Submersible triggers only 1 at the same time therefore Submersible is inferior

In fact, yes. I just wanted to feed the argumentatjon with some numbers and give an already existing card as a referrence

Edit:
@Mecho: the effects are consecutive. First, it reduces the wall and then it checks whenever the wall equals 0. So you have a range in wbich both effects trigger.
Above this, hungry dead is conditionsl either. In case you are chainubg hungry dead, its definitely better, but submersibles one-shot effect is far stronger.

MeCho wrote:
You dont get both effects with Submersible because it clearly states that if Wall =0 not Wall <30 you get stock -5 if you could trigger both effects at the same time then i think it would be ok with 10/10/10 or 9/9/9

^^ MeCho doesn't know what he's talking about and embrassases everyone^^

Now, alright, a fair mistake, not obvious at first sight. But when people tell you how something first, try and see before you say they are wrong, okay?

Submersible, Uncommon, 11/11/11
Technic, Aqua
Enemy Wall:-30
If enemy wall = 0
Enemy Stock:-5
Replace a card in hand with self



Simply put, if we want the card to check whether wall=0 before the -30 happens, it needs to have the "if wall=0..." part listed FIRST. As the card is currently presented, it will reduce the wall by 30, and THEN it will do the additional effect if wall=0.

This is why people are correctly saying you will get both effects if wall is 30 or less at the start of the turn.