All of which is an analysis of the card itself - the OP was on rounding on the burn effect. Throughout the entire thread I've not been saying that the card is bad - what I have been saying is that of all the things on the card to complain about, burn rounding is the very bottom of the list. It's not touched on at all in your post, either, so I assume you're in agreement with me and just vociferously disagreeing with points I haven't made :P
Removing Fearsome doesn't make blocking interesting, it makes it obvious. If Ledros didn't have Fearsome, you'd always chump block him to ensure he takes very little damage over time. This would be the best play every time to delay the inevitable bounce back to your opponent's hand.
On a surface-level analysis, sure. The inverse (as is currently on live) is that you're shoved into an automatic lose-lose situation in which you either take eight to the dome or bounce him back in two turns max while losing a chunk of your board. It's hard to make something an interesting decision when either result is atrocious for you.
By contrast, removing restrictions opens up decision-making options. Entirely anecdotal example - I had a game last night in which I purposefully blocked a Ledros with a 6/5 spider rather than a 4/1spiderling, killing it intentionally. My reasoning was that my opponent had burned all mana for the turn and didn't have lethal, so I had the opportunity for counter-lethal if I could bait the Ledros play. Following round, he did indeed drop the Ledros - giving me 100% security that he couldn't then stop my play for lethal which would otherwise have been risky and depended on him not having counter-buffs.
Obviously, as I say, anecdotal (and something I was able to do with Ledros having Fearsome already, obviously). Point is, though, opening more options makes for a more involved decision.
I just thought of another one that's been mentioned in a different thread a while ago: It's extremely fiddly to view revealed cards in your opponent's hand, especially if there are several. You can mouse over and view one of the cards, but moving your mouse left or right to switch over to the next card simply doesn't work in my experience. You have to remove the mouse cursor from the area, then approach the card you want to see by going upwards.
My name comes from my WoW main (called Zwanezang) (which is now being ignored since I do not play WoW anymore). Back in the days I wanted a name with two ZZs in it and being easy to find your name in lists (its almost always the bottom one) and finally this name is dutch but also understood by a lot of other european languages.
Our user story is that one place in Canada is Ontario that provides car related services. We do heavy towing, flatbed towing, car lockout service, flat tire service, fuel delivery, battery boosting, radiator problem and jump start service.
I just created a thread on Shadowshift dealing with pretty much the same question. It's surprising to me that a targeted spell would still hit the swapped unit for Stand United, but not for Shadowshift. I think it's inconsistent, and I prefer Stand United in this regard as the units simply 'trade places,' which means the spell that was cast still has a valid target to hit.
So, I'm curious how you guys feel about this. When you Shadowshift a unit that's currently in battle, the Living Shadow will battle the enemy unit instead. However, if you Shadowshift one of your units that's currently targeted by a spell, e.g. Mystic Shot, the spell fizzles out after Shadowshift resolves.
I feel this is inconsistent and the spell should hit the Living Shadow. The phrasing "in its place" suggests to me that, for all intents and purposes, the shadow should completely replace the recalled unit.
This is also (sort of) backed by a somewhat similar question asked about Stand United in this thread. Stand United uses the term "swap," which has the same gist, and apparently in its case, the spell hits the swapped-in unit instead of fizzling (I haven't tested it, myself, but this seems be true based in the thread replies).
Very interesting. I could go either way on this: Either the Skitterer effect applies, reduces Braum's attack from 0 to 0, and then disappears (not affecting future buffs during the round), or the debuff lingers as OldManSanns suggests. But in the latter case, Riot should definitely work on communicating the debuff effect more clearly.
As YourPrivateNightmare pointed out, spells in this game - particularly removal spells - are crazy expensive compared to other CCGs. So I strongly disagree that spells in general are too strong. There may be some outliers, but on the whole, I think the balance between units and spells is very well done in Runeterra.
I just dm'ed Iioo, asking him to come back to us and see if someone got it right. I suggest if he doesn't do so within the next 24 hours, anyone with a good idea can post the next riddle.
Look, I could probably build a deck to get this done a lot faster. But isn't this just a LITTLE bit insane?
With how they recently reworked daily quests to be a lot easier, for the most part, why in the world sneak this one in?
I'm not saying it's impossible, far for it, but for only 50g, this is a REALLY tedious quest, and something you really have to go out of your way to build a deck around. I really think we could cut the number down on this one to something a lot more reasonable, like... even 30, I could accept.
Rimetusk Shaman in generally is pretty gross right now. I kinda wish they either made its target random or dropped it to 4 mana but it instead targets "weakest" enemy. It's getting a TON of play right now, especially contrasting it to Minotaur Reckoner which has a better body and stuns which is strictly better than frostbite but because its effect is constrained to "smallest" it usually ends up getting chumped.
please don't introduce more randomness into the game. If anything it just needs to be easier to remove or cost more.
No, I imagine it was as expected. Like: if I had taken the time to mouse-over my Braum, I expect I would have seen a "-1/-0 until end of turn" listed under his buffs, so when I add "+1/+1 until end of turn" the net result was +0/+1. I made the mistake of thinking the numbers in the bottom corners of Braum's card were the totality of his stats, but in actuality buffs act like auras that are attached to the card and those stats are just the live result of base stats + buffs.
Rimetusk Shaman in generally is pretty gross right now. I kinda wish they either made its target random or dropped it to 4 mana but it instead targets "weakest" enemy. It's getting a TON of play right now, especially contrasting it to Minotaur Reckoner which has a better body and stuns which is strictly better than frostbite but because its effect is constrained to "smallest" it usually ends up getting chumped.
In general, you want more third copies of the better cards instead of so many doubles.
I know. Extreme loss aversion: I HATE opening 4th copies from vaults/rewards when I'm still missing so much, which makes me really anxious about crafting a third copy of anything. And it doesn't help that, as you said, this isn't the best meta for a knockoff/budget Jinx deck to begin with. :-P
I'll probably take a more serious look at my options after this week's vault. And probably something around Braum, since he's been performing a lot better for me lately--either buffing my Braum/Garen control deck or taking a leap and experimenting with Braum/Vlad.
Commander Ledros ought to round down
All of which is an analysis of the card itself - the OP was on rounding on the burn effect. Throughout the entire thread I've not been saying that the card is bad - what I have been saying is that of all the things on the card to complain about, burn rounding is the very bottom of the list. It's not touched on at all in your post, either, so I assume you're in agreement with me and just vociferously disagreeing with points I haven't made :P
On a surface-level analysis, sure. The inverse (as is currently on live) is that you're shoved into an automatic lose-lose situation in which you either take eight to the dome or bounce him back in two turns max while losing a chunk of your board. It's hard to make something an interesting decision when either result is atrocious for you.
By contrast, removing restrictions opens up decision-making options. Entirely anecdotal example - I had a game last night in which I purposefully blocked a Ledros with a 6/5 spider rather than a 4/1spiderling, killing it intentionally. My reasoning was that my opponent had burned all mana for the turn and didn't have lethal, so I had the opportunity for counter-lethal if I could bait the Ledros play. Following round, he did indeed drop the Ledros - giving me 100% security that he couldn't then stop my play for lethal which would otherwise have been risky and depended on him not having counter-buffs.
Obviously, as I say, anecdotal (and something I was able to do with Ledros having Fearsome already, obviously). Point is, though, opening more options makes for a more involved decision.
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
you should always re-roll 50 gold quests imo
User Interface Wishlist
I just thought of another one that's been mentioned in a different thread a while ago: It's extremely fiddly to view revealed cards in your opponent's hand, especially if there are several. You can mouse over and view one of the cards, but moving your mouse left or right to switch over to the next card simply doesn't work in my experience. You have to remove the mouse cursor from the area, then approach the card you want to see by going upwards.
What is the story behind your username?
My name comes from my WoW main (called Zwanezang) (which is now being ignored since I do not play WoW anymore). Back in the days I wanted a name with two ZZs in it and being easy to find your name in lists (its almost always the bottom one) and finally this name is dutch but also understood by a lot of other european languages.
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
50gold? Re-roll. Every time.
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
Haha, haven't seen that one yet. Even 10 would be too much for me..
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
A quick calculation: it is 1 gold for each battlecry minion played. :)
Control Galakrond Warlock [Second Iteration]
What about Chaos Gazer over Albatross?
What is the story behind your username?
Our user story is that one place in Canada is Ontario that provides car related services.
We do heavy towing, flatbed towing, car lockout service, flat tire service, fuel delivery, battery boosting, radiator problem and jump start service.
does united stand negates spells?
I just created a thread on Shadowshift dealing with pretty much the same question. It's surprising to me that a targeted spell would still hit the swapped unit for Stand United, but not for Shadowshift. I think it's inconsistent, and I prefer Stand United in this regard as the units simply 'trade places,' which means the spell that was cast still has a valid target to hit.
Shadowshift Cancelling Targeted Spells
So, I'm curious how you guys feel about this. When you Shadowshift a unit that's currently in battle, the Living Shadow will battle the enemy unit instead. However, if you Shadowshift one of your units that's currently targeted by a spell, e.g. Mystic Shot, the spell fizzles out after Shadowshift resolves.
I feel this is inconsistent and the spell should hit the Living Shadow. The phrasing "in its place" suggests to me that, for all intents and purposes, the shadow should completely replace the recalled unit.
This is also (sort of) backed by a somewhat similar question asked about Stand United in this thread. Stand United uses the term "swap," which has the same gist, and apparently in its case, the spell hits the swapped-in unit instead of fizzling (I haven't tested it, myself, but this seems be true based in the thread replies).
Is Control Warrior viable?
That was exactly my point - it's an option. I doesn't need to be viable.
Attack power can go negative :-(
Very interesting. I could go either way on this: Either the Skitterer effect applies, reduces Braum's attack from 0 to 0, and then disappears (not affecting future buffs during the round), or the debuff lingers as OldManSanns suggests. But in the latter case, Riot should definitely work on communicating the debuff effect more clearly.
Doomed game
As YourPrivateNightmare pointed out, spells in this game - particularly removal spells - are crazy expensive compared to other CCGs. So I strongly disagree that spells in general are too strong. There may be some outliers, but on the whole, I think the balance between units and spells is very well done in Runeterra.
[Game] Card Treasure Hunt (The Resurrection Attempt)
I just dm'ed Iioo, asking him to come back to us and see if someone got it right. I suggest if he doesn't do so within the next 24 hours, anyone with a good idea can post the next riddle.
Play 50 Battlecry minions to get 50 gold?!?!
Look, I could probably build a deck to get this done a lot faster. But isn't this just a LITTLE bit insane?
With how they recently reworked daily quests to be a lot easier, for the most part, why in the world sneak this one in?
I'm not saying it's impossible, far for it, but for only 50g, this is a REALLY tedious quest, and something you really have to go out of your way to build a deck around. I really think we could cut the number down on this one to something a lot more reasonable, like... even 30, I could accept.
I present you, true sadness
please don't introduce more randomness into the game. If anything it just needs to be easier to remove or cost more.
I present you, true sadness
and that's why backline removal is important
Attack power can go negative :-(
Hearthstone has this too if you've ever played Curse of Weakness
negative numbers don't show up, but they do exist and I think that's good because it adds another layer of gameplay
Attack power can go negative :-(
To avoid miscalculation they should show if a stat goes negative directly on board, without the need to mouseover.
Maybe it was just a visual bug.
Attack power can go negative :-(
No, I imagine it was as expected. Like: if I had taken the time to mouse-over my Braum, I expect I would have seen a "-1/-0 until end of turn" listed under his buffs, so when I add "+1/+1 until end of turn" the net result was +0/+1. I made the mistake of thinking the numbers in the bottom corners of Braum's card were the totality of his stats, but in actuality buffs act like auras that are attached to the card and those stats are just the live result of base stats + buffs.
Cheese's custom revamp of the PRIEST core sets! (Updated 27/03/2020 with Blizz's new cards)
Nice work! Convincing Infiltrator in classic may make me quit the game though.
I present you, true sadness
Aww. Poor kitty. :-(
Rimetusk Shaman in generally is pretty gross right now. I kinda wish they either made its target random or dropped it to 4 mana but it instead targets "weakest" enemy. It's getting a TON of play right now, especially contrasting it to Minotaur Reckoner which has a better body and stuns which is strictly better than frostbite but because its effect is constrained to "smallest" it usually ends up getting chumped.
Attack power can go negative :-(
Probably a bug(or spider in this case)
The game is in beta, big bugs are expected.
When deck building defies logic
I know. Extreme loss aversion: I HATE opening 4th copies from vaults/rewards when I'm still missing so much, which makes me really anxious about crafting a third copy of anything. And it doesn't help that, as you said, this isn't the best meta for a knockoff/budget Jinx deck to begin with. :-P
I'll probably take a more serious look at my options after this week's vault. And probably something around Braum, since he's been performing a lot better for me lately--either buffing my Braum/Garen control deck or taking a leap and experimenting with Braum/Vlad.