MArcomage

I think that cards like this one (i.e Elemental storm) should have the same "power" in distinct positions.
I mean then neighbouring (and not "neigbouring" as both cards have in the text, IMHO) for position 1 should be 2 and 8 (and for 8 should be 7 and 1)

ooh, an interesting dilemma. Does it wrap, or should the card carry the inherent risk of being not as valuable.

I say risk.

I like it the way it is. I've played Elemental Storm from position 1 in hopes of my opponent reducing my wall by exactly two, enabling the Shrine effect. (It worked, btw.)

DPsycho for that I would suggest that the cards have several modes (with distinct costs) for affecting 2 cards (left and opposite /right and opposite) and 3 cards

Of course this game has luck as an important element but I still think that the warping effect should be applied

This card is gimp and could/should be (Max 5) instead of (Max 4). Revealing five cards is a decent feat really and the card has one blue casting cost anyways.

But it does more than granting three gems after cost. It also has Far sight, meaning that you might gain some wall or tower or +1 stock, and in a non-hidden game, you're guaranteed the full effect. It's on par with other Commons as such.

DPsycho wrote:
But it does more than granting three gems after cost. It also has Far sight, meaning that you might gain some wall or tower or +1 stock, and in a non-hidden game, you're guaranteed the full effect. It's on par with other Commons as such.

I'm familiar with far-sight and stick with my original assertion.

So it's your desire to make it superior to other Common +resource cards rather than being on par as it is now? I mean, it's fine if that is your aim, but this card gets used a lot as it is.

DPsycho wrote:
So it's your desire to make it superior to other Common +resource cards rather than being on par as it is now? I mean, it's fine if that is your aim, but this card gets used a lot as it is.

My desire is that it is put on-par with other common resource cards. Compare it to Merchant or Hidden Treasure and there is a clear disparity to name only two. I never see this card used to be honest. What else you got mate.

Merchant gives 1 to 3 resources above its cost and nothing more, with the lower return offsetting the fact that you get to choose which resource to increase from a mixed cost.

Hidden treasure gives 3 resources, split between two rather than focusing on one, and has a condition where it could add just 1 more to each for a total of 5.

How is Oracle, which conditionally gives 6 resources after cost (or 3 in one category plus some wall or tower) worse? Numerically it's better, and by focusing on one resource, better to implement strategically. If you want a card that gives gems and maybe something extra, it is superior to both that you named. (Merchant costs more for the same effect (gems) without a chance of a bonus, Hidden treasure only gives the same gems when the condition is met with bonus recruits but doesn't exceed Oracle when its varying conditions are met.)

I'm not trying to pick a fight. The numbers just don't support your claim, and I don't see what you're getting at.

The only way I see it as being worse is if you're playing a Hidden game and Oracle is the only Far sight you have in your deck, which is simply poor design and like trying to rebalance Rock Elemental based on the possibility of it being in a deck without other Unliving cards.

Ayrton wrote:
My desire is that it is put on-par with other common resource cards. Compare it to Merchant or Hidden Treasure and there is a clear disparity to name only two. I never see this card used to be honest.

You should play more games with me then! I probably use it in 50% of my decks. For decks centred on keywords like mage, legend, illusion, restoration, dragon, or burning, gems are frequently a bottleneck. A guaranteed three gems plus a little bump from far sight is great in my eyes. I don't think there's any comparable common. Many common +gem cards give a net resource loss or break even (Acolyte, Phoenix feather, Magic well, Secret temple...).

Removed it from my deck. It was fun -- but it's too gimp. This card can give you -max- three gems after casting cost with a common far sight effect. Gimp.

Four gems max. Four gems minus one gem cost plus one stock from Far sight effect, in ideal circumstances of course.

DPsycho wrote:
Four gems max. Four gems minus one gem cost plus one stock from Far sight effect, in ideal circumstances of course.

In other words, exactly what I said:

"This card can give you -max- three gems after casting cost with a common far sight effect. Gimp."

Right, just like you said, except 4 rather than 3 because you're forgetting to add the bonus gem from +1 stock.

You can't claim that 3 is the max because, plainly and succinctly, it isn't.