From looking at all the comments, it does seem like my idea would be far too powerful. Would 2 Mana “add 2 silver hand recruits to your hand” be better? It might make the Hero Power less flexible.
No, that would be worse than the current one. You would be clogging your hand with cards you dont want to play, i guess you could argue instead of Hero Powering, you could just play the recruits you got from the previous HP. It would be incredibly anti-tempo, dont think paladin as a class is build for that. You would need to change the Basic/Classic set to include some hand-buff synergy and you would then force paladin into one-dimensional play, hand-buff/hand pally with Mountain Giants would be a must.
Basically adding the recruit to hand is a horrible idea no matter how you look at it :)
For some reason, i didnt realize Nagrand Slam can actually go face. Which makes it less consistent "clear", but it also turns it into a "potentially better pyroblast". Ok, that probably makes it a lot better than i gave it credit for, since you can use it as finisher.
I've had Nethrandamus a few times now and it's been an absolute game winner. Crazy good card, especially if you can get to 10, which isn't terrible difficult.
Thoughts on my submitted card? The idea is to give support to both quest where you could run more weapons in the old quest since Warrior has enough taunts to make it work or add more taunts in the new quest to give your quest support while protecting any unwanted damage.
For your first card here (or at least your first post), not bad, not bad.
That is actually a pretty cool card. I dont think iv seen such effect either and now looking at it, it has a great potential and can open up some untapped design space. So good job!
Thanks, just to share my thought process: whenever I design something I always try to come up with a game mechanism that enforces player agency and has tons of potential cases to consider by both the players.
I suppose you could compare the design space itself to the rune system from Elder Scrolls: Legends. I always thought it was a really well designed system and one of the things that the game did really well. Funnily enough, I realized it just now. When designing the card, I wasn't really trying to implement that kind of player interaction, seen in ESL, into Hearthstone (it would not be a bad thing though).
Im not sure if runes would fit into hearthstone, but yes, other card games can definitely give rise to new ideas and stuff that could be done in another game. I feel like the mechanic you introduced could very well end up keyworded and in some custom class that would be build around that, or a new mechanic in a custom expansion, tho i think that would be less interesting since it would just end up without not much of a flavor.
Btw, you should submit the card before its too late! Submissions are closing in 3 hours.
That is actually a pretty cool card. I dont think iv seen such effect either and now looking at it, it has a great potential and can open up some untapped design space. So good job!
Ok, so I'm an idiot and didn't realise the infinite value of Replicating Challenger. I'll make a 2/3 that only activates when surviving damage and post it.
@shaveyou: Crystal Giant - kinda awkward wording, there isnt much to go on, but maybe similar to Bulwark of Azzinoth? ... "If your Hero took 8 damage last turn, ...", that being said, dont really like the card, kinda boring, sorry :/ Drakkari Savage - i personally dont like Health buffs on damage, it makes it very awkward, minion could go to -1 Health, and survive with 1 Health for example. I think there is a reason you dont see such effect in the game.
@anchorm4n: Warchief Blackhand - i guess balance wise, the card is ok, tho on the strong side. What i dont like is the flavor, Taunt is fine, but Reborn seems weird on this character and splitting into 3 copies even more so. It does not work for a named character imho. Not this one anyway.
@MenacingBagel: Shield Swapper - The card is kinda awkward, i would probably expect it to have a more Attack, something like an iteration of Vol'jin probably. That being said, this card does not look like it would help Quest Warrior, which is the rule for this comp.
@thepowerofcheese: Protection Racket - hm, interesting card, while there arent any really oppresive ones, such a big "mana cheating" is still probably too strong. Wouldnt be always strong, but it would create some pretty polarizing games. I see this kinda as if you played a Dormant minion for example, you spend your turn playing it and then you get a swing turn in the future. While "just" getting a big board is less of a problem nowadays, this could essentially play out as Naga Sea Witch .. does your opponent have an AOE? then you (maybe) lose, does he not have it? Insta-win. I really like the idea of the card, i just dont know if it would be very fun if it existed.
@devizz: Varok Saurfang - minions that would get a Taunt this way would not count as "taunt minions" for the purpose of the quest, so your card does not fit the prompt.
@grayghost39: Chief Sapper Kablamm - "...swap the Attack and Health..." I almost want to say that the card is kinda weak, but i dont know. I guess it would play differently than Void Ripper even tho you would basically want to do the same thing - turn your taunts into finishers.
@Nirast: Replicating Challenger - not a fan of this "infinite" design. You are guaranteed to get at least one copy back whenever this dies. I guess instead of making it into a deathrattle, you actually gave it a (potential) weakness, if that was your intention or not, it can clog your hand, if you would get multiple copies and those would create even more. Still, not a fan. Also not sure i like that this card could literally complete the quest on its own. Tauren Dealer - this one seems ok, tho LOR player in me does not like the (re)use of that art, i know that is kinda stupid, since we reuse art from League, MTG and other games, dunno, just doesnt seem right in this case lol! Maybe because i actually play the card :D
Remove the class? Even if it was the failure of century, they certainly would not remove it a week after launch :)
I had never thought, that they would nerf it few days after introduction.
But it seems a Blizzard thing, that new stuff is always op, when introduced and nerved later on.
Thats fair, but it was to be expected and it is good they are not afraid to do so. But a complete removal, thats just too nuclear, even if the class was even more saturated than it was. Nerfs/adjustments were always the way to go regardless, thats all im saying.
Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to ask this. When we're choosing which expansion our card is part of, are there any considerations besides flavor? Specifically, do we need to worry about keywords on our card that didn't exist during the expansion we chose? E.g., Rush on a card from anything before The Witchwood.
Hi, this is the place to ask and others already said their piece. I agree with Demon, tho we might be in minority. And i will say that most voters probably dont look at the watermark, i would argue not cause they dont think about it in a first place, that too ofc, or that it isnt as important to them, but sometimes it really is just hidden behind the text and isnt noticable at first glance, so they dont notice it.
I was a big stickler for a Classic watermark especially, it always irked me when i saw a great card that had a cool ability and everything ... and then it had a Classic watermak. It was just a sign to me, that the person who made the card was lazy, plain and simple. Until Demon Hunter, stuff like Lifesteal or Rush was not seen on past sets, more so on Basic/Classic cards, so it was a big no-no for me. I guess nowadays i would be more lenient, if the card made sense.
With that said, i personally feel like you should not put a keyword on a set earlier than in which it was introduced, even tho DH did throw a wrench in it and Blizzard did some backtracking, it just doesnt feel right for a singleton card imho. It can be ok in a custom expansion/class where it is a design choice, not "just cause" to fit the prompt or anything.
I know this is just for fun and to have a giggle, but we are designing cards as close to real cards as possible and we should keep in mind every aspect of the card, even in which set it belongs to. And not only that, but also pick a set based on what it did.
This competition is a great example, you can make a card and put it in a set where it might look like it has a decent flavor ... but did you consider the rest of Warrior cards in that set? Does it make sense to have your card in the mix alongside them? Im not naive to think most ppl will think about these things in their designs, but it is nice to see those who do and the cards usually look better overall because they just make sense.
---
tl;dr - voters dont much care for watermarks, if you want to make good cards, you should.
No, that would be worse than the current one. You would be clogging your hand with cards you dont want to play, i guess you could argue instead of Hero Powering, you could just play the recruits you got from the previous HP. It would be incredibly anti-tempo, dont think paladin as a class is build for that. You would need to change the Basic/Classic set to include some hand-buff synergy and you would then force paladin into one-dimensional play, hand-buff/hand pally with Mountain Giants would be a must.
Basically adding the recruit to hand is a horrible idea no matter how you look at it :)
It would be totally broken imho.
Thats just off the top of my head. Yeah, i get what you were trying to do, but look at how much impact would such a small change have.
For some reason, i didnt realize Nagrand Slam can actually go face. Which makes it less consistent "clear", but it also turns it into a "potentially better pyroblast". Ok, that probably makes it a lot better than i gave it credit for, since you can use it as finisher.
That was my first thought as well :D
Do you keep it on mulligan?
I like this theory! :)
For your first card here (or at least your first post), not bad, not bad.
Im not sure if runes would fit into hearthstone, but yes, other card games can definitely give rise to new ideas and stuff that could be done in another game. I feel like the mechanic you introduced could very well end up keyworded and in some custom class that would be build around that, or a new mechanic in a custom expansion, tho i think that would be less interesting since it would just end up without not much of a flavor.
Btw, you should submit the card before its too late! Submissions are closing in 3 hours.
Ekko, is that you?
Kamouh's deck should have been called "Play 10 Divine Shield minions." :D We haven't played in a while, Frosty :)
That is actually a pretty cool card. I dont think iv seen such effect either and now looking at it, it has a great potential and can open up some untapped design space. So good job!
That seems much better.
I think Warsong Commander finally found her match.
@shaveyou: Crystal Giant - kinda awkward wording, there isnt much to go on, but maybe similar to Bulwark of Azzinoth? ... "If your Hero took 8 damage last turn, ...", that being said, dont really like the card, kinda boring, sorry :/ Drakkari Savage - i personally dont like Health buffs on damage, it makes it very awkward, minion could go to -1 Health, and survive with 1 Health for example. I think there is a reason you dont see such effect in the game.
@anchorm4n: Warchief Blackhand - i guess balance wise, the card is ok, tho on the strong side. What i dont like is the flavor, Taunt is fine, but Reborn seems weird on this character and splitting into 3 copies even more so. It does not work for a named character imho. Not this one anyway.
@MenacingBagel: Shield Swapper - The card is kinda awkward, i would probably expect it to have a more Attack, something like an iteration of Vol'jin probably. That being said, this card does not look like it would help Quest Warrior, which is the rule for this comp.
@thepowerofcheese: Protection Racket - hm, interesting card, while there arent any really oppresive ones, such a big "mana cheating" is still probably too strong. Wouldnt be always strong, but it would create some pretty polarizing games. I see this kinda as if you played a Dormant minion for example, you spend your turn playing it and then you get a swing turn in the future. While "just" getting a big board is less of a problem nowadays, this could essentially play out as Naga Sea Witch .. does your opponent have an AOE? then you (maybe) lose, does he not have it? Insta-win. I really like the idea of the card, i just dont know if it would be very fun if it existed.
@devizz: Varok Saurfang - minions that would get a Taunt this way would not count as "taunt minions" for the purpose of the quest, so your card does not fit the prompt.
@grayghost39: Chief Sapper Kablamm - "...swap the Attack and Health..." I almost want to say that the card is kinda weak, but i dont know. I guess it would play differently than Void Ripper even tho you would basically want to do the same thing - turn your taunts into finishers.
@Nirast: Replicating Challenger - not a fan of this "infinite" design. You are guaranteed to get at least one copy back whenever this dies. I guess instead of making it into a deathrattle, you actually gave it a (potential) weakness, if that was your intention or not, it can clog your hand, if you would get multiple copies and those would create even more. Still, not a fan. Also not sure i like that this card could literally complete the quest on its own. Tauren Dealer - this one seems ok, tho LOR player in me does not like the (re)use of that art, i know that is kinda stupid, since we reuse art from League, MTG and other games, dunno, just doesnt seem right in this case lol! Maybe because i actually play the card :D
Actually a decent Swain port from League, they implemented his abilities nicely.
Thats fair, but it was to be expected and it is good they are not afraid to do so. But a complete removal, thats just too nuclear, even if the class was even more saturated than it was. Nerfs/adjustments were always the way to go regardless, thats all im saying.
Teemo, duh! Don't you know he scouts ahead?:D
I was talking about lvled up Swain's ability, so he was right to correct me, it does say "enemy nexus" specifically.
Hi, this is the place to ask and others already said their piece. I agree with Demon, tho we might be in minority. And i will say that most voters probably dont look at the watermark, i would argue not cause they dont think about it in a first place, that too ofc, or that it isnt as important to them, but sometimes it really is just hidden behind the text and isnt noticable at first glance, so they dont notice it.
I was a big stickler for a Classic watermark especially, it always irked me when i saw a great card that had a cool ability and everything ... and then it had a Classic watermak. It was just a sign to me, that the person who made the card was lazy, plain and simple. Until Demon Hunter, stuff like Lifesteal or Rush was not seen on past sets, more so on Basic/Classic cards, so it was a big no-no for me. I guess nowadays i would be more lenient, if the card made sense.
With that said, i personally feel like you should not put a keyword on a set earlier than in which it was introduced, even tho DH did throw a wrench in it and Blizzard did some backtracking, it just doesnt feel right for a singleton card imho. It can be ok in a custom expansion/class where it is a design choice, not "just cause" to fit the prompt or anything.
I know this is just for fun and to have a giggle, but we are designing cards as close to real cards as possible and we should keep in mind every aspect of the card, even in which set it belongs to. And not only that, but also pick a set based on what it did.
This competition is a great example, you can make a card and put it in a set where it might look like it has a decent flavor ... but did you consider the rest of Warrior cards in that set? Does it make sense to have your card in the mix alongside them? Im not naive to think most ppl will think about these things in their designs, but it is nice to see those who do and the cards usually look better overall because they just make sense.
---
tl;dr - voters dont much care for watermarks, if you want to make good cards, you should.
You can mute in-browser on the tab, at least Firefox has that. Shouldnt be technically muted on Twitch, but i havent tested that.