andrewvanmarle said: I'm not looking for it to be broken mind you (no fair JTwod), but I have a feeling that playing foretell without any gem popping abilities or felf support destroy is just counter productive.It needs too much comboing to work.It would be lods better if you could make multiple gems for the same card. and I think the shield count is too high to play with anything but support poppers.I mean just try to destroy a supprt by matching. gems, it's almost impossible.....
Bil said: Another pretty easy solution would be to reduce the number of Shields.3 or 4 IS way too much, but 1 Shield for "weak" effects and 2 Shields for highest effects would be much more playable.
HomeRn said: Bil said: Another pretty easy solution would be to reduce the number of Shields.3 or 4 IS way too much, but 1 Shield for "weak" effects and 2 Shields for highest effects would be much more playable. Agreed - 3 to 4 shields right now almost necessitates secondary cards to assist with popping them. Which in regards to how it is supposed to work in paper format, doesn't make much sense!
andrewvanmarle said: HomeRn said: Bil said: Another pretty easy solution would be to reduce the number of Shields.3 or 4 IS way too much, but 1 Shield for "weak" effects and 2 Shields for highest effects would be much more playable. Agreed - 3 to 4 shields right now almost necessitates secondary cards to assist with popping them. Which in regards to how it is supposed to work in paper format, doesn't make much sense! Also why only one support per card?If playing aftermath (for instance) one can have as many aftermath gems as one could generate.
Avahad said: andrewvanmarle said: HomeRn said: Bil said: Another pretty easy solution would be to reduce the number of Shields.3 or 4 IS way too much, but 1 Shield for "weak" effects and 2 Shields for highest effects would be much more playable. Agreed - 3 to 4 shields right now almost necessitates secondary cards to assist with popping them. Which in regards to how it is supposed to work in paper format, doesn't make much sense! Also why only one support per card?If playing aftermath (for instance) one can have as many aftermath gems as one could generate. Aftermath took a bit of work to get the gems on the board.Foretell just needs the card to be in your hand.if there wasn’t an upper limit of sorts (I fully agree that 1 is too low) then you would just need 1 card to draw cards to hand (Song) and 9 Foretell cards and you would literally not have gain much (if any) mana for the match.
andrewvanmarle said: Avahad said: andrewvanmarle said: HomeRn said: Bil said: Another pretty easy solution would be to reduce the number of Shields.3 or 4 IS way too much, but 1 Shield for "weak" effects and 2 Shields for highest effects would be much more playable. Agreed - 3 to 4 shields right now almost necessitates secondary cards to assist with popping them. Which in regards to how it is supposed to work in paper format, doesn't make much sense! Also why only one support per card?If playing aftermath (for instance) one can have as many aftermath gems as one could generate. Aftermath took a bit of work to get the gems on the board.Foretell just needs the card to be in your hand.if there wasn’t an upper limit of sorts (I fully agree that 1 is too low) then you would just need 1 card to draw cards to hand (Song) and 9 Foretell cards and you would literally not have gain much (if any) mana for the match. Ah no, but that wouldnt work: you need to exile them from hand not discard.So any card you foretell is a card you cannot play from hand..... (and aftermath cards would work with discrads AND playing the card itself, which was quite good with the right deck in mind)Honestly if I try to imagine gameplay based on the foretell cards we have and the possibility to have ultiple foretell gems (even with lower shield count or more cards to pop them) I'd say it would still be balanced: you can only foretell as many cards as you have in hand after draw, and then you have to make the right matches to get the cards foretold. still slow going.....And the effects arent that super powerfull either. Good, but not winning.
Avahad said: Oops I see my choice of card draw card wasn’t a good one. I wasn’t referring to it discarding from hand.when you foretell (exile) from hand- it triggers songs card draw (the support counts as ‘cast’ (wrongly). So theoretically you draw then foretell until you fill the board. Then matches would be guaranteed during your opponents turn after the board resets. You end up with a hand full of cards ready to be cast next turn. (And yes Greg gets nice mana from popping your gems on his turn).The game would probably freeze before it got to this point anyway tho
Asylamb said: I thought Foretell would be something similar to Cycling+Adventure:1) Exile it from hand for X mana (similar to Cycling)2) Get the foretold card back to hand (like Creature side of Adventures) for a lower/half cost3) The foretold card is disabled until your next turn (because in paper you can't Foretell and play the foretold card during the same turn).Of course they wouldn't change the Foretold supports mechanic since it's already tightly connected with many cards, BUT I think replacing regular Foretold supports with countdown supports (like 2-turn Clues from Investigate mechanic) would make it more playable, especially if the Foretold support ends up in a bottom corner.So, you Foretell "Haunting Voyage", for example, you get a 4-turn Foretold support. If you have a way to destroy it or match it, good for you. If not, you are guaranteed to get the Foretold card in 4 turns.
jtwood said: Avahad said: Oops I see my choice of card draw card wasn’t a good one. I wasn’t referring to it discarding from hand.when you foretell (exile) from hand- it triggers songs card draw (the support counts as ‘cast’ (wrongly). So theoretically you draw then foretell until you fill the board. Then matches would be guaranteed during your opponents turn after the board resets. You end up with a hand full of cards ready to be cast next turn. (And yes Greg gets nice mana from popping your gems on his turn).The game would probably freeze before it got to this point anyway tho Man, this is a two-for-one: Not only is this an important bug, but it's probably only exploitable by humans, since the AI still hasn't shown any indication that it can foretell from its hand