MArcomage

Free multiplayer on-line fantasy card game

Please log in

dindon on 12:39, 15. Mar, 2010
I'm basically going to say the same thing that I (and I think a couple other people) said in the concepts thread for this card: it's overpowered. Period. I can't think of any reason in the world why you wouldn't take this card in every single deck you ever make. It basically just means that there's a chance whenever you draw a rare, that instead you get to delay drawing that rare by 1 turn in exchange for 6 stock - who wouldn't want to do that?

Ahem, sorry to get things off on a bitter note. Other than this card, I thought the update was really excellent.

jbryant3 on 13:07, 15. Mar, 2010
I agree with dindon, but I would like to point out that Prosperity is also a card that could arguably go in every deck. However, I wouldn't mind if Princess of elves was more like this:
Production x2.
Stock +6.
The next card will be a non-common from your deck.
Fithz Hood on 13:42, 15. Mar, 2010
how many bonus stock should it give? 1,2,3,4 or 5? what about giving her "if not new" condition?
jbryant3 on 14:00, 15. Mar, 2010
I vote make it production x2 or 3.
Fithz Hood on 14:04, 15. Mar, 2010
another option: stock +N, N=#of alliance in hand
DPsycho on 14:29, 15. Mar, 2010
Perhaps it would be better if both effects were conditional.

Stock +6 if stock < opponent's stock
If #Rare in hand = 1, next card will be a Rare from your deck
(or)
If there is a Rare card in opponent's hand, next card will be a Rare from your deck

This way, she wouldn't be an automatic choice for any deck.

I don't think basing its efficacy on Alliance cards is the right way to go. I don't think she was intended to mesh exclusively with Alliance decks.
marsrover21 on 20:42, 15. Mar, 2010
Curious: Would you all feel better about if it said "Rare card not from Player's deck?"
dindon on 22:09, 15. Mar, 2010
marsrover21 wrote:
Curious: Would you all feel better about if it said "Rare card not from Player's deck?"


Yes. I think DPsycho's idea is also sound.
ben on 22:32, 17. Mar, 2010
I like the idea of either putting the "if new" clause or making the first effect more powerful, but making the second weaker by making it non-common. I'd definitely want to still play both cards, but it wouldn't be quite so stupid that way.

Edit:If it was rare card not the player's deck, I think it would be a lot lot worse, to the point where I'd rather just have a different rare
dindon on 01:10, 18. Mar, 2010
I don't think the "if not new" clauses offer much of a deterrent really. It only makes a difference a tiny fraction of the time.